Tyrone Benskin

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the irresponsible closures of Immigration Canada offices throughout the world, including those in Buffalo and Tokyo, are resulting in much longer wait times.

The closure of the office in Dhaka, Bangladesh, has added an average of six months to the wait time. Six months is a long time. By closing offices, the Conservatives have cut services, period.

When will they admit that their cuts are reducing the services offered to Canadians?

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my experience, though limited with restorative justice, is in the juvenile area.

We have a situation here where young people will commit a crime for the silliest of reasons and be subject to laws that are unduly harsh for the situation they are in, unduly harsh because they are spending time in an environment, prison, where they themselves will become victims, where they themselves will learn the tools of a trade that we do not want them to learn.

What we need to do in terms of restorative justice is to ensure they not only understand what they have done, they understand the consequences and feel the consequences, but that they can take that education back out into the world and become a better citizen.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-37. New Democrats support the bill in principle, which I am sure comes as a welcome relief for my colleagues across the way. We support the bill, first and foremost, because we support victims of crime, their families and communities.

We take note of the recommendations made by the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, whose office wrote four years ago that it recommended repealing subsections 737(5) and (6) of the Criminal Code to remove all discretion of judges to weigh the surcharge and make it automatic in all cases. The removal of the discretion of judges has been the subject of some debate in the House.

The report went on to say that judges' discretion had been widely and improperly applied. As well, the judges themselves wrote the Minister of Justice asking him to push for the doubling of these fines. As far as the doubling of fines, New Democrats support the bill and its recommendations, but I would like to offer some food for thought.

While we support Bill C-37, there are some concerns that persist as to the administration of these funds and what they are intended to accomplish. In administering these funds, are we truly providing victims with justice? That is a question I will look at a little later.

I want to make it very clear that providing services to crime victims has always been and will continue to be our priority. Using these funds in a transparent way to meet the needs of crime victims is a step in the right direction.

We must not lose sight of the larger goal of preventing such criminality in the first place. Too often criminal action is the direct outcome of social and economic precariousness. Too often crime is the terrible yet predictable consequence of poverty and a seemingly hopeless future. Too often we try to address the needs of victims while ensnaring those who have already been disenfranchised in a cycle of marginalization.

The question is this. Can we address the needs of victims without ensnaring those who have already been disenfranchised and caught in a cycle of marginalization? We have to focus our energies on preventing that disenfranchisement, that marginalization, as well as those criminal acts, thereby reducing the number of victims.

It is not always easy, of course. When confronted with the aftermath of crime, we react with disgust, revulsion, anger or a desire for vengeance. Less than a week ago, the members of the House rose to observe a minute of silence. We remembered the 14 women who died as a result of a horrific crime committed in my hometown of Montreal.

This is a time when we are all conscious of the horror of violence and, in particular, gender-based violence. Just as we will never forget what happened that day, we cannot permit ourselves to do simply the minimum of only addressing the issue of crime with punitive measures. As my grandmother would say, “It's kind of like closing the barn door after the horse has left”.

We must acknowledge that punishment and fines only hold so much sway. In all honesty, our citizens demand more from us. They know that crimes are committed for complicated reasons and while supporting victims is our clear and primary objective, preventing future victims and future victimization by preventing future criminality is, by far, the best use of our resources, our talents and our time.

I would like to give my esteemed colleagues an example of the complexity of this issue and the need for a more comprehensive approach to criminality. It is a point that was brought up by one of my colleagues earlier in her question. We know that 82% of incarcerated women were previously victims of physical or sexual aggression. I would like to add to that the fact that 91% of incarcerated women are of first nations origin, a vast overrepresentation. One has to ask where was the victim support that they needed, whether financial, psychological or sociological?

These statistics illustrate the need for victim support, for better financing of victims services but also for a more restorative and holistic justice system. These women who were abused, for what ever reason, self-esteem, a need to survive, resorted to criminal acts: a bounced cheque, prostitution, petty theft. If there were services that helped them regain their self-esteem, to help them through that process, frankly, if we as a society knew a little more and spent more energy educating ourselves on the long-term effects of sexual aggression and gender violence, would this 82% of women be incarcerated? That is a question we need to ask ourselves.

Increased fines are increased fines; they help to a certain extent. The projected use for these fines, as I understand it, is to go to victims services, but in what way? We are seeing a weakening of the services available to victims. It is a step in the right direction, but the fines, increased or not, do not and will not interrupt the cycle of crime.

The judicial system in Quebec, my home province, favours reforms and reintegration to ensure justice. The proof of this approach can be found in a tour of the neighbourhoods of Petite-Bourgogne, Saint-Henri and Pointe Saint-Charles in my riding.

I am very proud to represent these communities. Anyone who tours these neighbourhoods will see how areas once riddled with crime can be transformed with the proper guidance.

We unequivocally support increased funding of services for crime victims. Providing better funding and an open, transparent system that gives victims access to the services they need is an important measure.

Support for victims services has to be more than just charging more money to criminals. It has to be more for the simple reason that I would think a considerable majority of these petty criminals would have very little to give to these organizations. Our energy needs to be put into creating financial support for victims of crime through organizations and support that is about restoration, not only of what was taken from them but what they feel they have lost.

I was robbed once. Someone broke into my condo in a very timely manner when the all the alarm systems were being redone. Yes, it was suspicious. However, one comes home to the feeling of someone being in one's apartment, going through one's things and not only taking things that are of value financially but things that are of value because they were given from a child or they were the last thing given by a grandparent. Although my mother raised fairly strong children, it took a long time for me to get through that sense of violation, and that was only from having my home burglarized.

As I have mentioned, there is a need for victims services. However, for those people who find themselves in marginalized, disenfranchised and isolated situations, it is of the utmost importance. Having those services could very well prevent a large number of these types of crimes, where some women find themselves on the wrong side of the law. These are crimes of survival and of need.

We have to look at justice as a three dimensional thing. It is not simply that because one did something wrong that one needs to go to jail. We need to understand why people do the things they do.

Criminals are criminals. They are going to do things, be bad people and they will pay for it as the justice system allows. However, not every criminal has a criminal mind. There is a reason for their criminality. Therefore, there is a need to have more resources put into making sure that victims of crime, victims of sexual abuse and gender violence, are not placed in a position where they have to commit a crime because the criminal acts put upon them dehumanized them so much that they could not function in society.

There are very important interventions that we need and can make, financial interventions, support for these organizations and support for people who have lost loved ones or who have lost fortunes. They are important among the many things that we can undertake as we seek to improve our justice system.

Our aim needs to be to make our justice more logical, more balanced and, indeed, more helpful to our citizens. This is what we hope the government will take away from these debates we have been having on a bill that we do support, but there is something that is missing from that bill. It is that restorative outlook in what we can do to prevent the creation of more victims as opposed to overly punishing criminals.

There is something that keeps sort of popping into this discussion whenever we discuss any of these bill, which is that the opposition supports crimes or that it is soft on crime.

We need to remember that the laws we have in place, even those laws that are abused by those who commit crimes, those laws are actually in place to protect the innocent. They are there to ensure that governments and police law enforcement agencies do not run roughshod over people's constitutional rights. They are not there to protect criminals. They are there to protect those people from getting caught in a situation not of their making and having every recourse of the law to ensure they can prove their innocence.

Unfortunately, like anything else, somebody who wants to abuse that will abuse it, but we cannot change those protections because we are afraid of those who abuse it. If we do, we law-abiding citizens, Canadians, will lose those protections ourselves.

I will just reiterate the last part of my speech by saying that the interventions, such as support for victim groups, is incredibly important and we must make every effort to make our justice system more logical, more balance and more helpful to all our citizens.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first, I have a brief comment. A lot of hay has made about why we are debating this. First, it is our job, and second, the vast majority of us are not on the justice committee. This an opportunity for us to voice our opinions on a bill. It is a shame that the government needs to go to the extreme and say that because we disagree with a certain point, we disagree with everything. My colleague has made it quite clear that there are elements we would like looked at in good faith, which the government has not done.

Would my colleague elaborate on the issue of our serving men and women who find themselves in the military justice system and end up with criminal records for very minor incidents when they leave the military. How does that affect the lives of the men and women who leave the armed forces?

[Canadian Heritage, November 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Conference Board of Canada calculated that the cultural sector represented 7.4% of GDP. Artists who contribute to the economy are penalized by the current tax system in years when they earn a decent income.

Will the Conservatives support tax flexibility for Canadian artists by voting for Bill C-427?

[Reflecting the Realities of Canadian Artists Act, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, would that I had more time to address the time-shifting, trans-dimensional contributions of my colleagues from across the way. I will bring this back to this dimension and this reality.

The bill would respond to the needs of artists. It has very little to do with support for the arts and institutions. The institutions that get the get tax credits and support that the Conservatives have talked about are fine. This is about the artists. A lot of the contributions to these organizations do not necessarily trickle down to the artists. The bill looks at the work that artists do, the remuneration they get and looks at a way of helping in spike years to ease some of the massive tax burdens that artists have because of it.

I will address one issue in particular. The fact of how we would pay for this is a question that kept coming from the other side. We would pay for this by the same means as are all tax easements contained in the tax code. It would be done through choices, through making a good choice for artists. This bill would offer an investment into the economy. It would allow artists to put more money into their pockets so they could contribute to the economy and to themselves as small businesses and as people. This is not about whether a film can be made. It is about what happens after that film is made.

The other thing I will touch upon is the question of what we say to other sectors that look at this bill and ask, “What about us?” What we say to them is that this is the beginning. It is the beginning of a conversation we need to have in how we collect taxes. We can no longer look at the tax regime as being how much money people make and how much they should be taxed. We have to look at it in addition to how that money is made.

Farmers have particular needs, as do insurance workers, car salesmen and artists. This is not be about selecting a few individuals and special treatment toward those individuals. It looks at the realities of this group of individuals and this a portal, if I may continue the same analogy, to looking at how we tax our citizens.

When the Income Tax Act came into being in the 1940s as a means of funding the war effort, the labour force looked different. There were labourers, factory workers or office workers. It was very simple. Now it is as diverse as the medical industry, as I have said before. We go to the GP now not to get fixed as much as to get a little slip to go to see a specialist in one area or another. The workforce is that same way. We need to start to look at ways to derive income tax from our citizens in ways that reflect how they make their money and not simply how much money they make.

To again address a comment that was made on the other side, this bill has been costed. It has been costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office. The income tax averaging aspect of this bill would come in at around $7 million, rounded up to $10 million. That money goes back into the pockets of our citizens, which eventually goes back into the coffers through economic and consumer activity and through investment activity. I cannot think of a better way to help artists in our country by giving them that power to be full and active members of the economic and cultural community that is Canada.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is the crux of the problem. Does it speed up the economic reasons for a company or organization wanting to build over an unprotected lake by not having this Navigable Waters Protection Act in place?

It would create a situation where business has the opportunity to weigh its own interests on whether to circumvent prevention and protection laws or needs.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think it goes to what I was saying about the fear of dissenting opinion. Science, for the most part, is not always very supportive of the business and commercial end of an idea.

I think this withdrawal of support goes to the image, for lack of a better way of putting it, of the government taking the side of business and profit making over sound science. However, Canadians benefit both from the economy as well as science and learning.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my concern is that the bill's format does not allow for true democratic discussion. Hiding little jewels in a monster bill that guts acts and laws that have nothing to do with the budget is sneaky to say the least.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are wondering where all those jobs are. My constituents are asking why it is that the government has decided it is going to beat up on them. It is a shame that the government again shows such lack of faith in Canadians. It is a shame that the government feels it is a waste of time to engage Canadians in the discussion as to what is good for them and what they feel they need. It is a shame the government is so afraid of dissenting opinion, dissenting voices that say they might have a different way of doing things or maybe even a better way.

Is it not the function of this place to offer that dissenting opinion, to offer an objective opinion that differs, maybe, from the government's? My opinion, which I think I share with the rest of my colleagues in this House, is it is not a situation of “it is my ball so you play by my rules”. In this House, the government, the official opposition and the other opposition parties are elected to represent Canadians, to represent their voices, not to rubber-stamp what the government members feel is the ideal way to do things.

As far as Bill C-45 is concerned, this budget implementation bill, the Conservatives seem to want to make Canadians believe that everything they are talking about in this bill was in the budget, while it was not. The budget is a series of numbers and calculations. However, what the government is missing is that it is not only what one achieves but how one achieves it. This is what I will focus on today.

I remember, upon first entering this House, one of the first questions asked after the throne speech was how the Conservatives were going to achieve these goals that they had set for themselves; how they were going to balance the budget by 2014; how they were going to make these cuts; who was going to be affected by these cuts. The response we got was silence.

We kept asking those questions and kept getting silence, until we came across Bill C-38, the Trojan horse bill that, under the guise of a budget bill, included over 200 changes that gutted the Environmental Protection Act. How is that a budget? It went on to horrify Canadians with the sweeping changes that the Conservatives made in Bill C-38, with nary a word of consultation, at least not with the other side. Maybe there was consultation with friends, consultation about how this bill would help friends of the Conservatives, but again, not with the people of my riding.

We saw changes to the EI Act, which hurt more than they helped. We saw changes to health care. We saw changes, as I said, to the Environmental Protection Act. I would venture a guess that not a whole lot of people sat there and said it would be a good idea to just destroy the Environmental Protection Act.

So now we have Bill C-38's evil little brother, Bill C-45, which continues the work that the government proudly stands up and says is a good thing.

As I said earlier, there are some good things in this bill, and members have heard many of my colleagues stand to request unanimous consent on motions to separate out some of these good things in the bill, which have all been refused. Why?

If they are good things, why not set those aside and move them forward? Instead, we get the party line, that “If you fight me, you fight my gang”, as they say in Montreal.

We are here to do a job for Canadians and it is important that we listen to Canadians. On this side of the House we are also the voice of Canadians. Yet we have another time allocation motion limiting the discussion of the bill and all the very intricate aspects of this monster bill to just a few days.

We have been told that the Conservatives have graciously agreed to allow some of these things to go off to committee, but we all know what happens in committee. Not a lot gets through as far as amendments are concerned. To us, it seems to be more of a publicity stunt when the Conservatives say they will let things go to committee, because Canadians want to know that their interests are being held to a high standard. That is not happening with the bill.

How we do things is extremely important to Canadians. There is a lack of transparency, a lack of letting Canadians know what is going on before it happens. What is the point of saying what is going on after the fact? Why are we voting on a bill that has serious problems rather than addressing those problems through consultation before it becomes a bill and by tweaking it in committee in an open and transparent way?

It does seem that the government is afraid of dissenting opinions, dissenting opinions that help balance out what we are giving to Canadians. Is it not our obligation to make sure that when a bill gets to the point of ascension, it is done knowing that it has been vetted in a proper way and the best way for Canadians?

We NDP members have been accused of using tactics to slow down the process. We have been told that we do not vote for good things for Canadians. I would like to clear that up. We do vote for good things for Canadians when we are given the opportunity, but when we are thrown an omnibus bill that has serious issues, wrapping up those little jewels, for lack of a better way of putting it, is problematic.

It is a shame that the government decides that it wants to play politics with Canadians' lives rather than putting forward legislation that helps Canadians, and putting forward legislation in a positive way, in a way that is fitting for this House, and not using tactics like time allocation and overpowering our committees, but letting the voice of all Canadians and this whole House, which represents the voice of all Canadians, have an opportunity to be heard and to put forth an idea that might make this bill a little more palatable.

We have heard many times about the Prime Minister, who spoke out against omnibus bills, but when asked he has no answer for us as to why he has used these multiple times.

I ask this House, the government, to think about the how this is being done--