Bill C-9 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment)

This enactment amends section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752 of that Act, a terrorism offence or a criminal organization offence prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more is not eligible for a conditional sentence.

Criminal Code

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I must ask my colleague to refrain from the ridiculous rhetoric he is increasingly prone to.

A case in point would be his reference to breaking and entering. What is the sentence for residential break and enter under the Criminal Code? In theory, it is life in prison. This is not the example to give when we are talking about conditional sentencing.

Conditional sentences are handed down in 5% of cases that end in conviction. In 95% of cases, justice is not meted out with a conditional sentence. Three times out of four, conditional sentencing is not used when an offence against people has been committed. Perhaps my colleague has not read the statistics we had at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

There is a limit to right-wing rhetoric that is meant to scare people and that is far from accurate. If there had been evidence that the judiciary had improperly used conditional sentencing, everyone in this House would have wanted to correct the situation. This is not the case, however. Bill C-9 is nothing but an ideological construct of the Conservative Party, and God willing, this government will never have a majority.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on a bill on dangerous offenders that seeks to create a different emphasis and direction from the approach we already have.

Before presenting the Bloc’s basic arguments and position on dangerous offenders, I would first like to emphasize just how seriously the Bloc takes community safety.

No member of Parliament would want to live in communities where there is a threat to public safety. Whether in Quebec or in any other province, no one would want older people, single parents, children, working people or our parents to find themselves in harm’s way as they go about their regular lives in the community.

I must say that I am a little tired of hearing the demagogic, simplistic rhetoric coming from the Conservatives. Their rhetoric implies that anyone who does not support their position is unscrupulous, lax and not very concerned about public safety. I hope this kind of talk will end. This subject is far too serious for them to indulge in such simple-mindedness.

The Bloc Québécois does not support this bill as worded. Does this mean that the Bloc feels that there is no need for the Criminal Code to contain provisions on dangerous offenders and long-term offenders? Of course not.

The Bloc is perfectly aware of the fact that there are some people who commit criminal acts and, unfortunately, have no self-control nor any control of their impulses and have certain personalities with a very high risk that they will re-offend. Is this genetic or acquired? Is it a question of the environment or their upbringing? Is it a matter of values? Is it a question of their families? I do not know. What I do know, though, is that it is the responsibility of parliamentarians to protect people against this kind of behaviour and these kinds of personalities.

The government’s rhetoric seems peculiar because it tends to imply that these provisions have not been used in the past and do not exist, or that crown attorneys are reluctant to use them.

I would have liked to see the Minister of Justice rise in this House and tell us that his government is introducing a bill on dangerous offenders because prosecutors and the justice system—under his administration—are not using these provisions.

We would then have asked ourselves what procedure must be followed to ensure that in cases where it has to be proved that a person presents a risk, that person must be found to be a dangerous offender, with everything that implies. A dangerous offender can be imprisoned for an indeterminate period.

Under sections 752 and 753 of the Criminal Code, certain individuals are considered dangerous offenders. We do not need the minister’s current bill; the courts and the prosecutors have done their jobs. There are, right now, people who are considered to be dangerous offenders and in some cases, they have been in prison for 20 years.

What is dangerous in the bill and in the approach taken by the Minister of Justice is the idea that we should do things automatically.

If an individual commits—in three instances—an offence on the list of primary offences, the burden of proof will automatically be reversed, and the person will have to prove that he or she is not a dangerous offender. Unfortunately, things cannot work this way in criminal law.

Perhaps this is something we need to complain about; perhaps there should be no Charter; perhaps there should be no trials; perhaps there should be no courts; perhaps we should send everyone to prison once they have committed a serious offence against a person.

Perhaps some people support that kind of justice system, but let them have the courage to say so clearly. Once again, the dividing line is not between people who care about the safety of victims and communities and the people who do not care about it. I am even tempted to say that it is not even the question of reverse onus that defines that line. Reversing the burden of proof is a benchmark, an important cornerstone of the justice system. It is an important principle, as is the presumption of innocence. The courts have offered guidance on what the presumption of innocence means, but that is not the gospel truth. We can agree that, in some circumstances, the burden of proof has to be reversed.

My former colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, a man who was respected by all parties in this House, once introduced a bill concerning property acquired through crime. It was directed particularly at organized crime. In 1997, I was in this House when we added sections 465, 466 and 467 to the Criminal Code to create what is called a criminal organization offence. New law had to be made. The Hell's Angels, the Rock Machine and the Bandidos presented a real danger to the community because they were engaging in open warfare within the community for control of the drug market. They plainly held the ordinary people in contempt.

I even recall having conversations with senior officials in the Department of Justice who said they wanted to break up organized crime using the conspiracy provisions. In the Bloc Québécois, we were convinced that we had to make new law and that what we needed was a new offence. When my colleague, the former member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, introduced that bill, we were convinced that this was what had to be done.

The difference with dangerous offenders is that the Crown has access to existing provisions. There are guidelines: a psychiatrist's report is required. Quebec, for example, has an arrangement with the Philippe Pinel Institute, which evaluates offender profiles. Why specify “after three times”? This is not about the number of times or the quantity. If an individual presents such a profile—if, after the first offence it is determined that the individual lacks self-control, is a risk to re-offend and a danger to society—nothing prevents the Crown from using sections 751, 752 and 753. The section is very clear, so clear that the courts have used it over 300 times.

Of course, there are exceptional circumstances. When an individual goes into a convenience store and commits robbery, that is unfortunate and deserves to be punished. It is reprehensible, and the justice system must act. Nobody has said otherwise. However, such a crime does not mean we are dealing with a dangerous offender who should spend 20 years in prison with no eligibility for parole and be jailed indeterminately. The government's approach is disappointing because it lacks nuance and perspective.

Earlier, I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. Apparently he is the youngest member of the House. The parliamentary secretary rose twice in this House to call the opposition member irresponsible. How did we suddenly become not responsible? Because in the committee, which included all of the opposition parties, we voted to amend Bill C-9. The opposition member said that we wanted to allow thieves to serve their sentences in the community.

He is a little young to be such a demagogue and to make such an argument, which is extremely simplistic.

The reality is the following: in 1996, we added something to the Criminal Code on the nearly unanimous recommendations of the justice ministers. I was in this House at the time and we realized that the prisons were populated, but that a third of the incarcerations had to do with unpaid fines. People were imprisoned for failing to pay a fine.

Of course, we are not encouraging people not to pay their fine, but should they be incarcerated for that? When Bill C-41 was passed, Canada had the third highest incarceration rate in the world. Only Russia and the United States had more prisoners than Canada.

I want to remind hon. members that the minister was unable to show a single scientific study to prove that there is a link between the harshness of the sentences and the rate of recidivism. We know full well that it is not by having stricter sentences or putting more people in prison that we will make our communities safer to live in.

Sometimes imprisonment cannot be avoided. But if the minister were right, the reality in the United States would certainly deserve a second look: they send seven times as many people to prison as Canada does. However, the homicide rate is four times lower in Canada—and I will mention just one type of offence. In a society that sends more people to prison, we would expect there to be less crime and recidivism, but that is not the case.

Could it be that it is not so much the harshness of the sentences but the real fear of the prospect of ending up behind bars that is the real deterrent preventing an individual from committing a crime?

We therefore agree on the need to include provisions concerning dangerous offenders in the Criminal Code. We agree on the crown prosecutor's responsibility, based on a psychiatrist's or psychologist's report. When an assessment shows that, after an initial offence, a person represents a threat to public safety, we agree that the Criminal Code provisions regarding sections 751, 752 and 753 must apply. We are not saying that the court has to wait for two to five offences, but we cannot support the idea of a list of 22 offences, even though we agree that they are serious. The proposed primary designated offences include sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, exploitation, incest, attempted murder, sexual assault, attempted rape and indecent assault on female. These are serious offences, but we cannot support a legal system that operates automatically.

This is the main difference between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives. We in the Bloc are concerned about public safety. It was the Bloc that first fought for a real anti-gang law. It was the Bloc that brought about the reversal of the burden of proof in cases of proceeds of crime, by introducing a bill that was passed unanimously.

We approve prison terms when necessary, because sometimes they are necessary. Sometimes prison can have a deterrent effect, but the main principle of the administration of justice is individualized sentencing. I repeat, this is the main difference between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives. Every situation should be dealt with in light of what led to the crime, the crime that was committed, and the offender's profile.

Sentencing can never be automatic, because when we go in that direction we do not appreciate the facts. That is what justice is all about. Who wants to live in a society where we are on automatic pilot?

Unfortunately, the Conservative government is going in the wrong direction. It did so on the issue of conditional sentencing. The Minister of Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board have been talking about conditional sentencing. I repeat, the Bloc Québécois agrees—of course— that the right of the individual to serve the sentence in the community is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege. However, the Supreme Court also stated in the Proulx decision that it remained a sanction. The conditional sentence is a type of imprisonment. Of course we agree that all types of offences do not have the same degree of seriousness.

An 18 year old who draws graffitis on a wall three times is guilty of public mischief. It is reprehensible, sad and unacceptable. However, in the list proposed by the minister, this youth, whose graffiti caused $5,000 in damages in total, would not have been eligible for conditional sentencing. We believe that there are cases where an automatic approach—which precludes a conditional sentence—is not indicated.

We can—of course— understand that it may be less appropriate for individuals who have committed sexual assaults, rape, abuse— especially in the case of sexual offences—to serve their sentences in the community. We want to denounce these acts; we want to send a message about these types of offences.

We should remember that conditional sentences represent 5% of sentences, but the minister was unable to make this fine distinction.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois believes that dangerous offenders must be dealt with in a particular way, that dangerous offenders should not be released if they represent a risk to the community. However, we do not accept the logic of automatic process, a logic by which we are unable to assess a situation according to the offender's profile, his record, or the circumstances that led him to commit the crime.

That is the price to be paid for living in a society where the symbol of justice is a balance among rights; but also a balance among responsibilities. Yes, crown prosecutors must evaluate the situation. Yes, a judge must evaluate the situation. Yes, there are constitutional freedoms that must be protected. Yes, there are situations that call for imprisonment and enforcement.

The danger arises when the response becomes automatic. Every time the Conservative government wants to propose simple solutions to complex problems, we cannot accept that. However, we will never be soft on crime. We will never unconditionally defend criminals. We will certainly be able to say that there are situations where people deserve to be locked up; that they cannot be rehabilitated and deserve a firm sentence of 20 or 25 years in prison. We are able to make distinctions between cases. Once again, we do not accept the logic of an automatic response and we do not accept the contempt in which this government holds the work of the judiciary.

When we see the way in which the courts have interpreted conditional sentencing; when we see the way in which provisions for dangerous offenders have been used, we have no reason not to have confidence in the justice system. Does that mean to say that there are no judges who have gone astray? Yes, indeed it is possible.

This is a Conservative tactic.

In 2003, out of 257,000 cases where there was a conviction, 13,000 cases resulted in a conditional sentence. In his appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice, the minister gave five examples of cases where, a priori, without having studied the file in greater detail, it would seem that there was little reason for a conditional sentence. Does that mean to say that the administration of justice has been brought into disrepute? Does that mean that we should be thinking in terms of automatic responses? Certainly not.

That is why we are very uneasy about this government in connection with justice. Not to mention the blackmail it employs. We began this session in September; tomorrow we will be into November. The Standing Committee on Justice adopted two bills, reviewed budgetary allocations and is beginning review of a third bill. Members have had a respectable workload. However, it is clear that when bills are being examined, witnesses must be heard. Our work of legislative review; our work as members of parliament, which consists in considering the consequences of a bill, must always be done with the greatest attention.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good opportunity to talk about the prior Bill C-9 as well because it fits right into this discussion, and I will explain why.

The Liberals, with the Bill C-9 amendments, have made it an incredibly complex sentencing hearing, which will discourage Crown attorneys from contesting whether there should be a conditional sentence or not. The process that they brought in is a bureaucratic process similar to the kind of situation that the court created as a result of the Johnson decision. It is very complex and very onerous.

Essentially the Liberals have gutted Bill C-9 by making a very complex process, which will discourage the Crown attorneys from seeking appropriate sentences, and that is my concern. I do not know why they would choose to add that kind of burden on the Crown, even after the Crown has proven a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am speaking as a former Crown attorney. I would look at that situation and say, “Why is Parliament doing this to us? We are just trying to get the job done”. If they have convicted an individual beyond a reasonable who, let us say, pointed a knife at someone and committed a robbery, the Crown now has to prove, beyond simply the regular proof, that a conditional sentence is not appropriate. It is totally unworkable, and I believe the Liberals know that. I believe that is why they are doing it, and it is unfortunate.

Justice

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the fact that they are willing to pass at least five of those bills, and they should do it immediately.

In respect of the sixth, what they did was gut the bill and allowed arsonists, break and enter artists and auto thieves to go back on house arrest. Canadians find that simply unacceptable. If they restore Bill C-9, we will pass all six.

Criminal Code

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-22. I am also very aware that all the justice critics need to be in committee for clause by clause of another justice bill right after this, so I am going to truncate my remarks to help get all the right people in the room who need to be there shortly after question period.

I will say at the outset that our party will support the bill. In doing so, we are following up on work that has gone on over a number of years. The Speech from the Throne of October 5, 2004 committed the government to cracking down on child pornography. Similarly, in the previous Speech from the Throne, the former Liberal government committed to reinstating former Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act.

The bill was reinstated on February 12, 2004 as Bill C-12. It was awaiting second reading in the Senate at the time of that Parliament's dissolution for a federal election. In June 2004 the then prime minister reiterated support for reintroduction of the package as the first legislative item in the new Parliament. I know that the former minister of justice, the hon. member for Mount Royal, introduced in the former Parliament Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act. It received third reading on June 9, 2005, royal assent on July 20, 2005, and came into force in its entirety less than a year ago, on January 2, 2006. Bill C-2, then, is built on reforms previously proposed in the former Bill C-12 and proposed reforms in five key areas.

I might reiterate, too, that former Bill C-12, by a procedural motion, a hoist motion, from the then opposition Conservative Party, was prevented from going forward a couple of years earlier.

Be that as it may, when I hear the Minister of Justice incorrectly saying that nothing was done, I have to put on the record that we did strengthen prohibitions against child pornography.

We broadened the definition of child pornography to include audio formats as well as written material “that has, as its predominant characteristic, the description of prohibited sexual activity” with children “where that description is provided for a sexual purpose“. We prohibited advertising child pornography, increasing the maximum sentences and making a number of offences have more bite.

We wanted to protect young persons against sexual exploitation. One of the things that I like in Bill C-22 is that the government has not disposed of that section that was so important, the section that talked about the exploitation of children. It had prohibited sexual activity with young persons between 14 and 18. Under Bill C-2, a court would be directed to “infer that a relationship is exploitative of the young person based on its nature and circumstances, including the age of the young person, any difference of age, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person”.

Consistent with the existing criminal law treatment of sexual assault, that bill focused on the offending conduct of the accused rather than just on the young person's consent to that conduct. That was always the concern, that it was not just an age number, because the age of 14 has been in the Criminal Code and utilized since the late 1800s. It was the “exploitative” nature, and I am pleased that the bill keeps this, because that helps in our being able to come forward with our consent today.

We did increase the penalties for offences against children.

We facilitated testimony not only for child victims and witnesses under 18 years but for other vulnerable victims and witnesses. This is procedural, to help stop re-victimization in the court process.

We created a new voyeurism offence. Today we have those cameras that take pictures; that is why we needed this.

In 2002 we also created the offence of Internet luring under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. That prohibited the use of a computer system, including the Internet, to communicate with a young person for the purpose of committing a sexual assault against that person. It can and is being successfully charged, irrespective of whether a sexual assault actually took place. The fact of the offending conduct of trying to lure a child via a computer system is what we were getting at and it is there.

Also, just a few weeks back, a private member's bill on increasing sentences passed in the House.

Today's Bill C-22 is an improvement over former private members' bills, no matter how good the intention was. The fact is that now this bill has the five year close in age exception and that will go a long way, I think, in helping us to accept this bill and give our consent to it.

In fact, in our Liberal justice plan announced last week, this was one of the bills that we said would be put forward and given consent by our party, along with the other bills of conditional sentencing and imprisonment, as amended in committee, such as: Bill C-9; Bill C-18, an act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification; Bill C-19, an act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; Bill C-23, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments); and Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate), which was debated in the House last week under the topic of payday loans.

We on this side will add Bill C-22 to that list of bills. There are about 11 government justice bills. This one makes six that the Liberals are prepared to move forward in the Liberal justice plan, although we do not think that these bills are universally perfect. But we could find flaws with all pieces of legislation in the House. There are sections in this bill to do with unconstitutional areas of the Criminal Code, which we could have fixed. The justice minister has chosen not to do that, but at this stage I think the protection of children should be our utmost priority.

Listening in the chamber today was one of the good police officers who has to work in this area. He was kind enough to give some Liberal members a briefing. Unfortunately, his colleague from the federal police services was not allowed to do that, for reasons unknown.

On this side of the House, we as the official opposition are prepared to support this bill. I am prepared now to move on and give my time so that critics from the other parties can all be present in the justice committee for voting measures later this afternoon on another piece of legislation. There is unequivocal support here for Bill C-22.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in light of what the government House leader said just a few moments ago, I wonder if you could see if there is unanimous consent in the House at this moment for the following motion: That Bill C-9 be deemed to have been concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed; that Bills C-18, C-19 and C-23 be deemed to have been reported from committee, without amendments, concurred in at the report stage, read a third time and passed; and that Bills,C-22 and C-26 be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported from committee without amendments, concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed.

Justice

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we will pass any government bill, of course, in one day. We need the accord of all the opposition parties. We will not pass Bill C-9 today with the Liberal amendments which gutted that bill.

He says we have no legislative agenda. We have a bill to amend conditional sentencing, for a DNA data bank, to criminalize street racing, and to raise the age of protection. We have a payday loans bill, a bill to increase minimum sentencing, a bill to cut judicial compensation increases, and a bill to deal with dangerous offenders. Unlike the Liberals who talked about crime during the election, we are actually acting to fight crime.

Government Policies

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the environment committee, for instance, the government was trying to proceed with the important review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the opposition, instead, wanted to move the focus to an opposition private member's bill. That is all about politics, not about results. That is why Canadian voters decided to change government on January 23.

I want to know when the Liberals are going to bring back Bill C-9 to restore all of the offences they removed from that bill. Why is it that the Liberals, on eight criminal justice bills before this House, are so uncooperative in producing results to give us the tools to fight the--

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just a quick follow up to my colleague's question in regard to getting tough on crime.

I have heard the member speak several times on this issue about problems that he has had in his own riding. He knows very well what I am talking about. I agree that the talk was out there during the election campaign. I heard it. I was on the platform with NDPers and Liberals, and even the Green Party was talking tough on crime.

What amazes me is what happens when we get here. We get to a committee and we have a bill before the committee, Bill C-9, which would get rid of house arrest, quit mollycoddling criminals and would get criminals to pay the penalties for the crimes they commit, which is called getting tough on crime, and yet the member and his party would not support that. They gutted that bill.

Those members listened to every soft on crime witness that came before the committee but they did not listen to the victims of crime or to the police forces. They did not listen to a number of witnesses who testified why we need to stop things like house arrest. What they call petty crimes, it is not a petty crime when someone breaks into a home. It is not a petty crime when there is a home invasion. These kinds of things need to be dealt with right on the ground. This government had a bill to do just what Canadians asked us all to do and something on which we all campaigned.

Could the member tell me why his party is not supporting getting rid of house arrest for certain crimes that should never be even considered?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech by putting this budget we are debating today into context.

Much to everyone's astonishment, in the throne speech this year it contained only five items. It seemed like the Governor General had only begun to read it and before we knew it she rose and left. Everyone asked where the throne speech was. A quarter of a million employees work in the federal government and yet the Conservatives could only come up with five new things it felt needed to be done. We have over 40 federal agencies and departments. Did the government think 35 of them had no problems or no priorities? I am sure each of those organizations had a strategic plan. I am sure they did not say that nothing needed to be done. It was shocking. I was a bit disappointed by the fact that the Conservatives were not taken to task at the time. The previous Liberal plan had 77 priorities, and the Conservatives only had 5. Ninety-five per cent of Canada was left out of the budget.

Let me discuss wait times, which are now getting worse. A journalist caught the Prime Minister in a speech trying to put another priority in rather than his priority of wait times. He did not get away with it. The Prime Minister tried to say that it was not one of his government's five priorities because he realized he could not accomplish his goals with respect to wait times.

He said that Canada's place in the world would be his fifth priority but in the recent budget cuts he cut Canada's place in the world. He cut money to foreign embassies and he cut the student exchange program. Even the fifth priority that he added has now been downgraded.

I cannot remember exactly what the five priorities were. One might have been the GST cut. That was roundly criticized by all the major economists and analysts in Canada. They felt it would be more beneficial, more productive and more effective to give an income tax cut to Canadians.

One of the other priorities might have been defence. How many Canadians feel safer today than they did at the time that statement came out? A promise was made to provide three icebreakers for the north. Whether or not they believe in icebreakers, they should not have convinced northerners to vote for them and then break their promise and not go ahead with it. If we had increased our defence abilities, then we would be continuing Canada's place in the world in our traditional peacekeeping duties.

What have we done with this increased defence given the emerging situations in the world? Have we done anything in the Congo, in Zimbabwe, in Darfur or in Somalia? There is certainly nothing to show for that priority.

The government wants to get hard on crime. As was mentioned today in question period, we announced a smart crime proposal and plan. The government would not even expedite certain crime bills that we offered today.

However, the government's first major bill, Bill C-9, would not have made Canada much safer as witnesses stated before committee. Those witnesses convinced all parliamentarians except Conservative members that Canadians would be less safe. Major modifications had to be made to the bill to make Canada safer. For example, a committee member was told by a witness at the committee that prisoners had 47 days on average for treatment and rehabilitation in order to make them safe for society. Instead, with home arrest and the programs that go with that, they would have received 700 days of treatment. The 47 days would not make society safer because these offenders would have less chance of being rehabilitated or they would get a summary conviction or probation. That was a failure.

What is more important than its failure on the five priorities is that the government missed 95% of Canada in both the budget and throne speech. There was nothing for the most vulnerable, women, the poor and the elderly.

If governments have problems with their budgets it is usually that they cannot or do not implement them and they do not set aside money for all the things in the throne speech. However, I cannot say that the present government had that problem because if there is nothing in a throne speech it is pretty easy to fund it.

Let us look at the budget that we are talking about today. I am a positive person by nature but the government has made it very hard for me to be true to myself during the past year but I will mention some good things in the part of the budget addressed by Bill C-28.

In particular, there are two items in the budget that were former Liberal proposals. We are very happy to see the tax reduction on dividends and the $500,000 in capital gains being transferred to fishers.

Another thing that was good for my riding and something on which I lobbied for a long time was the excise tax reduction for brewers. We have a great micro brewery in Yukon that makes Yukon Gold and Arctic Red and it will certainly appreciate that particular cut.

I do not have any objections to other tax cuts for Canadians and businesses other than the fact that they were not applied equally. When the government has lots of money and it is in the best fiscal position in the history of surpluses with room to manoeuvre, why would it not extend the tax cuts equally to the most vulnerable?

The one example of that is the new textbook tax credit, which works out to $77. I talked to our college bookstore and I was told that a student could barely buy one book with that money. The Liberals were offering $3,000 toward the first year and $3,000 toward the last year of tuition, and for poor students that amount was for every year. What is the alternative choice? It is $77. The government really cannot be serious.

I will not go into the transit pass deduction except to say, as the member from the Bloc just pointed out, that all the experts in the government, the environment officials and the public servants, had respectfully recommended to the government that there were far more effective ways. They said that this deduction would primarily be a subsidy to people who were already using transit. There could have been all sorts of ways to get far more reductions in greenhouse gases and pollution than offering the credit.

Let us talk about the doubling of the pension income credit. It is great. I do not have an objection with that but when I asked the government the question earlier today about the seniors who do not get that income tax credit and who do not have the pension income to get the credit, there was no answer. In fact, for those seniors the government has increased income taxes. Why would it pick on seniors and increase their taxes from 12% to 12.5% unless they are very wealthy? Why would it reduce the basic exemption for everyone which means an increase in taxes for all Canadians?

I would not have a problem with the tax decreases had they been applied equally for everyone. Wealthy Canadians, by and large, are very generous. They donate to many social causes and do a lot of good work. They are not the type of people who would have asked for tax cuts and then said that we should not give it to the poorest in society, not give it to the single mother trying to feed her family and not increase her tax from 12% to 12.5% or reduce her basic exemption.

There would have been no problem in just giving everyone a tax cut. There is enough room in the budget to do that. The government has heard about it incessantly, especially because there were no items in the budget for those vulnerable groups as I outlined at the beginning of my speech.

If the member wants to put this in the context of the previous government, in the Liberal government's throne speeches and budgets there were all sorts of programs for aboriginal people, the disabled and students, and programs in regard to homelessness, which we were talking about today.

I will take the President of the Treasury Board at his word when he says the government will not cut the SCPI program. SCPI is a tremendous program that is very well used in my riding. There have been all sorts of successful projects. My party will fight to the end to make sure the program is maintained. I am delighted that the President of the Treasury Board said he would maintain that very important program. It is one of the many initiatives of the former government.

In foreign trade, we have seen the emerging economies of China, India and Brazil and an increased foreign presence in the world for Canada. In fact, in regard to the “responsibility to protect”, a year ago September I was very proud of the United Nations when Canada got that through. Yet now we have a government that recently cut the foreign presence in Canada.

Earlier in the House members talked about climate change and the initiatives the Liberals put in place. I will grant one thing to everyone: we were terrible about explaining what we had done. It was disastrous, because Canadians did not know about all the initiatives taken by the former government, although there is always more to be done.

Canadians did not know about our initiatives related to renewable energies, reducing fossil fuels, wind and solar energy, clean coal, carbon sequestration, ethanol and, as the Bloc member mentioned, of course there was our tremendous EnerGuide program. Thousands of Canadians across this country were using the EnerGuide program to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. The Conservative government has allowed the program to expire.

And what did we get from the government? We got a plan that could reduce the legal authority of Canada to prevent pollution. The plan asks for four more years of talk, but all that talking has been done for the last four years. The plan was put in place. This is a real insult to the excellent public servants of Canada, who did that talking for the last four years and came up with plans. Some of those experts in the biocap areas that we were supporting are world renowned. I do not think the government should be challenging them and telling them to go back and talk for another four years while our children continue to breathe smog.

In the north, where we find the most devastating impact of greenhouse gas, where the species are changing and the infrastructure is crumbling, where traditional lives are affected so dramatically, are we just going to talk for another four years? In fact, the government will put in targets that will be accomplished when I am 100 years old. I am not really worried about that, but what about our children today?

The programs initiated by the Liberal government were not perfect and may not have been enough, but certainly there were some kicking in that would have been tremendous. The deal the Liberal government had with the auto companies is one of the best in the world, unlike the government's plan. We cannot agree with the Conservatives. Because our deal was voluntary and because the auto industry complied with all the other voluntary initiatives, of course there would be a lot more buy-in and a lot more enthusiasm. That is a lot more effective than trying to force it, as the opposition parties are suggesting.

Of course in the Liberal budgets there were items for the north. For the north, what is in these budgets that the Liberal government has not already announced? As for the northern strategy money for the north, there is nothing new and nothing at all for my area of the country and, as northern critic, I would say there is nothing new for the other parts of the country, except of course the promise on the icebreakers that was reneged on.

The forestry industry is suffering from the softwood lumber deal, on which it is going to lose a billion dollars . We had a plan to help the communities, a plan worth close to a billion dollars, I believe, or at least over half a billion. We had a plan to help the communities and the workers. None of that was in this particular budget.

Of course all the infrastructure programs from the past government were new additions and were constantly increased in size.

There was also the new horizons program for seniors, which was well used in my area. And what about the pension increases?

In spite of all this, the Liberal government still had the largest tax break in Canadian history to that time, and we had two tremendous national deals. One was a deal on equalization, with tremendous increases for the provinces and territories of this country. Another was on health care, with huge increases for that by the last two prime ministers.

To get all the provinces and territories to sign on to those agreements and the early childhood agreement is an historic accomplishment. Everyone knows what it is like to try to get the federal government and 11 provinces and territories to agree. These deals were a tremendous accomplishment in those times.

How does that compare to the five items in the last throne speech that were funded in a budget? Even they were not successful.

Let us look at the historic Kelowna agreement. Since Confederation, trying to increase the quality of life of one segment of the Canadian population so it is at least equal to that of the rest of Canadians has been a sore spot in Canada. It can only be done with them, thinking of the solutions, being part of the solutions and in agreement with the solutions, and with the provinces.

It was a historic agreement. It is unimaginable that it even happened. The premiers, the first nations leaders and the federal government got together and came up with a plan,and with the largest amount of money in history for aboriginal people, but more important was the buy-in, which was almost impossible. Where are all these funds in the budget we are debating? Gone. Gone for something else and I am not sure what.

As I said, I was a bit disappointed that these points did not get wider condemnation earlier on as these two things came out, but perhaps people were giving the new government the benefit of the doubt. However, I think the government showed its true colours a couple of weeks ago with the cuts, the cuts that have resounded across the country and have groups up in arms.

We have had two emergency debates on the cuts. In each debate I did not have time to finish reading the input just from my riding, 1/1000th of Canada, and the farthest away from Ottawa, where people would not hear about their complaints. People were surprised, shocked and disappointed that on the day a $13 billion surplus was announced, $1 billion for the most vulnerable in society was be cut.

They were surprised that the court challenges program was cut. It has been used many times to ensure the integrity of our laws so they match our Constitution. As we are a constitutional government, what parliamentarian would not want that integrity for our country?

There was also the cut to the Law Commission, which has done excellent work, also in the area of the law. Parliamentarians are law makers. What parliamentarian would not want outside expertise in doing projects such as the one that was done on historical aboriginal law?I believe first nations people in my riding were part of that.

What about tourism? Maybe I have to speak louder than everyone else because I have the one riding in a province or territory where tourism is the biggest private sector employer. Tourism helps Canadians all across the country. How could the government cut marketing money from the Canadian Tourism Commission, especially when a province like Queensland in Australia probably already spends more than the entire country of Canada spends? Why would marketing money be cut when we need to sell Canada to the world in an ever more difficult time for tourism because of high gas prices and terrorism, et cetera? Not only did the government cut marketing, it cut the GST rebate, which makes it about 6% more difficult for tour operators to entice conventions to come to Canada.

Why would the government cut summer students? The tourism industry and museums use summer students. The museums in this country, which are so poorly funded, were apoplectic with all the cuts, including the summer students they lost, the heritage building program they lost, and the huge cut to MAP, the museum assistance program, one of their few programs.

I am almost out of time so in one minute I will briefly mention the other cuts. I was going to talk about the cuts to the Status of Women budget, cuts to volunteers, for goodness' sake, and cuts to youth employment and youth strategy. Why would funds be cut for youth? Why would there be cuts to CMHC? Why would there be cuts for aboriginal people on the aboriginal smoking strategy?

The very worst of all, which caused an outcry all across the country, is the cut to literacy. One constituent wrote to me and said he probably would be dead without literacy money. I read the letter for the House of Commons last time I spoke.

This is not a direction that we can go in. This is not the direction that Canadians believe in. This is not the kind of Canada that we want to support.

Government Legislation

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we would be delighted to pass all of those bills in this place forthwith and in the Liberal controlled Senate tonight. However, we doubt that the Liberals are serious about this because Bill C-9, regarding conditional sentencing, was before the justice committee and the Liberals cooperated with the other soft on crime opposition parties to gut that bill.

I do not know what it is they do not understand about the desire of Canadians to get tough on violent crime. Conservatives want to act. We will cooperate with any party to do it right here, right now.

Responses to Oral Questions

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ensure the record is corrected. I am sure the Minister of Justice did not intend to mislead the House when, in answer to a question in question period, he said that he believed his party had promised to get rid of house arrest.

I will let him answer to this, but Bill C-9 did not get rid of house arrest as presented by the other government. It did try to put a wide net around house arrest but, in the wisdom of all the opposition parties listening to evidence, we narrowed that down to appropriate areas.

Justice

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our party promised to eliminate house arrest for people who commit serious crime.

Last night in the justice committee, opposition members, led by the Liberals, unanimously passed amendments that would virtually gut Bill C-9. The Liberals want house arrest to still apply to arson, to robbery, to auto theft, and to break and enter into homes. Victims of these crimes will tell us that house arrest is not a suitable punishment; it is a joke.

Why will the Liberals not help us restore Canadians' confidence in the justice system?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians elected this new government, they elected a government to get tough on crime. They elected a government to stop the revolving door of the justice system.

One of the ways this government has started restoring Canada's confidence in the justice system is with Bill C-9, which implements our platform commitments to end house arrest for serious crimes.

Could the justice minister try to explain why the opposition has watered down this important bill?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over my time as the member of Parliament for the tri-cities, no issue has been more frequently raised by my constituents than the frustration over the seeming injustice in our justice system.

I and this Conservative government have heard those concerns and we are taking action to make our streets safer.

For example, we have introduced tough new legislation. Bill C-9 will limit or eliminate house arrest for dangerous violent criminals. Bill C-10 will establish a mandatory minimum amount of jail time for gun violence. Bill C-19 will create a new Criminal Code offence for street racing. Bill C-22 will raise the age of protection to 16 and protect tens of thousands of children from sexual abuse.

In our budget we committed millions toward tougher border security and millions more toward hiring new police officers from coast to coast.

The first responsibility of the state, before all else, is to protect law-abiding citizens from those who would do them harm. For 13 years the Liberals did nothing and for 13 years the NDP encouraged the Liberals to soften our already soft laws on crime.

This Conservative government is getting tough on crime and protecting Canadian families.