Mar 12th
- MP
conMar 12, 2012 4:20 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'AppelleI declare the motion carried.
- MPconMar 12, 2012 4:15 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
All those opposed will please say nay.
- MPconMar 12, 2012 4:10 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Mar 9th
- MP
conMar 09, 2012 10:15 am | Ontario, Simcoe NorthAll those opposed will please say nay.
- MP
conMar 09, 2012 9:55 am | Alberta, Edmonton—St. AlbertMr. Speaker, there are two aspects to the hon. member's very good question.
As I indicated in my comments, the part of the bill that deals with serious drugs is part of a national anti-drug strategy that has three distinct prongs: preventing illicit drug use, treating those with illicit drug dependencies, and combatting the production and distribution of illicit drugs.
I concur with the hon. member that individuals who are incarcerated because of their addictions need access to rehabilitative programs. The public safety committee in the last Parliament, as she might know, wrote a comprehensive report on drug dependency and rehabilitation programs that are available in the federal penitentiary system.
The second part of her question is actually more challenging, and that is the whole notion that crime is somehow on the decline. I have to concede that officially reported crime statistics as reported by Statistics Canada based on how it measures crime in fact show decreases. However, Statistics Canada also surveys Canadians on whether or not they have been victims, and victimization is way up. In any given year, over 25% of Canadians state that they have been a victim of crime. Happily, most of that is property crime, and is not as serious, but nonetheless, victimization surveys show that crime is up.
With respect to the notion that crime is somehow diminishing, that is only officially reported crime statistics. The reason is that the police have changed how they measure crime. For example, if an individual breaks into three houses on one night, that used to be counted as three crimes, but now it is counted as one. The bigger problem is that Canadians are so fed up with the justice system they are not reporting crime. Officially reported crime might be down, but crime is not down.
- MP
conMar 09, 2012 9:50 am | Ontario, OshawaMr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert made an excellent speech. He has done a lot of good work on this. I think I will use his speech when explaining this issue to my constituents. What we have heard from the NDP is the shameful rhetoric that the opposition parties are putting out on this very important bill.
I am a chiropractor, and I had many patients who were addicted to different forms of drugs. They told me over and over again to do what I can because it is a slippery slope, that people start taking drugs and once they are addicted it is extremely difficult to get off them. That is why we as a government are focusing on stopping people in the first place.
I was wondering if the member could take a few minutes to clear up some of the misinformation. I know that in my constituency of Oshawa people are listening to the rhetoric and saying that we are going to be putting in jail kids who are found in their basement with a couple of joints or a couple of marijuana plants.
Could he reiterate the facts so that other members of the House are able to communicate with their own constituents about this important issue?
- MPconMar 09, 2012 9:50 am | Alberta, Edmonton—St. Albert
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health for his good work on the health files and for his interest with respect to addictions.
As I indicated, with respect to the production of scheduled drugs, such as cannabis and marijuana, which is what I think the member for Western Arctic was most concerned about, aggravating factors have to be present.
Those aggravating factors, as I indicated, would be that the person used real property that belonged to a third party to commit the offence; the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area; the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area where the person placed or set a trap.
With respect to trafficking, often rental properties are converted into grow operations. When those grow operations are dismantled by law enforcement, or simply because of the amount of electricity and humidity that are required to grow cannabis--I have read about this; I do not have any direct experience--often there is serious damage to the drywall and often to the structural foundation. When there is damage to real property, that is an aggravating factor that causes the aggravating sentence provisions to kick in.
Just to clarify, possession is not punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence; it is possession for the purposes of trafficking.
- MP
ndpMar 09, 2012 9:45 am | Territories (yk, nt, nu), Western ArcticMr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for actually taking the time to go through each one of the statutes in the bill and reminding us again how very horrendous some of these penalties would be for people who may or may not fit within his definition of criminality.
It has been estimated that up to 300,000 Canadians utilize marijuana for medical purposes. The present marijuana licensing procedures have properly licensed perhaps 5,000 Canadians. In Canada many people are using marijuana for medical purposes, but they are not legally licensed to do so. Those people who are using it to take care of their health issues are either accessing it on the open market, growing plants themselves or finding other ways to supply themselves with a product they have identified as useful for their health issues.
Now we have a situation where if people who are taking care of their own health are found in possession of more than five plants, they will be given a mandatory minimum sentence for that. The judge will not have the ability to look at the mitigating circumstances.
Would my colleague explain to me how this would serve us well in the future?
- MPconMar 09, 2012 9:45 am | Alberta, Edmonton—St. Albert
Mr. Speaker, there are so many fallacies in that question I do not know where to start.
The medicinal use permit for marijuana still exists under Health Canada. As the hon. member knows, Health Canada grants permits in the appropriate circumstances to individuals who are suffering from glaucoma or some other pain-related illnesses where marijuana has been medically proven to ease their discomfort. Nothing has changed.
With respect to the suggestion that people who grow in excess of five plants for their own personal use would be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence, if the hon. member had been listening to me he would know that is not true. There has to be aggravating factors, the most likely one being for the purpose of trafficking. However, if they have a permit, they are not operating illegally, and if they are not trafficking, they are not operating illegally.
Nothing is changing with respect to the permits that are issued for legitimate medicinal use. Under the appropriate circumstances, those individuals will continue to have access, provided that they buy from a grower or distributor who is licensed by the Ministry of Health for that purpose.
- MPconMar 09, 2012 9:30 am | Alberta, Edmonton—St. Albert
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in the debate on the Senate's message to this House of Commons on Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.
Bill C-10 is a comprehensive crime bill that addresses a number of issues: supporting the victims of terrorism; strengthening sentences for child sexual offences, serious drug offences and violent and serious offences vis-à-vis the use of conditional sentences; enhancing post-sentencing measures to enhance offender accountability and management; strengthening the youth criminal justice system's ability to deal with serious repeat and violent offenders; and enhancing the ability of the immigration system to protect vulnerable foreign workers against abuse and exploitation, including through the use of human trafficking.
While I will focus my remarks on the provisions of Bill C-10 that deal with serious drug offences, I want to clearly state to all members of this House my unequivocal support for Bill C-10 in its entirety and also for the amendments as proposed by our colleagues in the upper chamber, the Senate.
This part of the bill has been before us or before the Senate on several distinct occasions. I would remind all members of the House that the portion of Bill C-10, which proposes various mandatory minimum sentences, falls within the ambit of Canada's national anti-drug strategy. That strategy proposes a two-track approach: one that would be tough on drug crime and the other that would focus on the victims of drug crime.
The national anti-drug strategy includes three action plans: first, preventing illicit drug use; second, treating those with illicit drug dependencies; and finally, combatting the production and distribution of illicit drugs.
The action plan to combat the production and distribution of illicit drugs contains a number of elements, including ensuring that strong and adequate penalties are in place for serious drug crimes. It is within this context that the bill must be viewed if one is to view it fairly.
Moreover, the bill follows through on one of the key elements of the priority of the government to tackle crime, which this government has repeatedly identified as one of its key commitments.
There is wide and vast support for the bill from a great number of ordinary Canadians, Canadians who are concerned about drug abuse, Canadians who are concerned that marijuana grow operations and methamphetamine production and trafficking are out of control, and Canadians who are very concerned that these activities pose a serious threat to their own safety and the safety of the communities in which they live.
The legislation also has the wide support of police officer organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Police Boards.
We have responsibilities as legislators to ensure that our criminal law stays on top of serious developments in our society. Over the last decade, domestic operations related to the production and distribution of marijuana and synthetic drugs have dramatically increased, resulting in very serious problems in several regions of Canada.
I live in and represent Edmonton and Edmonton is certainly one of the regions in Canada that has seen an epidemic growth in organized crime and the violence that is associated with it. In fact, anecdotally, last year there were 44 homicides in Canada and, sadly, Edmonton led Canada in that statistic.
In some cases, these problems have overwhelmed the capacity of law enforcement agencies to deal with these phenomena. These legal operations pose serious health and public safety hazards to those in or around the grow operations. They produce environmental hazards, post-cleanup problems and endanger the lives and health of the communities at large.
Moreover, organized crime groups and criminal gangs are resorting to increased violence to establish their dominance over the drug trade in various metropolitan regions of the country. Sadly, but unavoidably, innocent persons are being hurt.
Now that is not to say that all drug offenders are necessarily dangerous or that all forms of drug trades are violent. Bill C-10 recognizes this and that is why what is being proposed in the bill is a focused and targeted approach, a surgical approach so to speak.
As has been stated before, the new penalties would not apply to possession offences nor will they apply to offences involving certain types of drugs. The bill focuses on the more serious drug offences involving the most serious drugs. Overall, the proposals represent a tailored approach to mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences.
I would remind all members of the House how this part of the proposed Bill C-10 would operate. For schedule I drugs, such as heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine, the bill proposes a one year minimum for the majority of the serious drug offences in the presence of certain aggravating factors. Some of those aggravating factors are as follows: the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with organized crime; the offence involved violence or the threat of violence, or weapons or the threat of the use of weapons; or, the offence is committed by someone who was convicted in the previous 10 years of a designated drug offence.
I think we would all agree that in the presence of those aggravating factors a minimum mandatory sentence ought to apply. Moreover, if youth are present or the offence occurs in a prison, the minimum is increased to two years.
In the case of importing, exporting and possession for the purposes of exporting, the minimum penalty will be one year if certain aggravating factors, such as the offence was committed for the purposes of trafficking, and for two years if the offence involves more than one kilogram of a schedule I drug.
A minimum of two years is provided for the production offence involving a schedule I drug. The minimum sentence for the production of a schedule I drug increases to three years where aggravating factors relating to health and safety are present. These factors are the following: the person used real property that belonged to a third party to commit the offence; the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area; the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; the person placed or set a trap.
We hear all too often of rental properties that are turned into grow operations with significant damage having been done to the real property of the landlords. It is that type of aggravating factor with respect to damage to real property belonging to a third person that this portion of Bill C-10 captures and, I would suggest to members of the House, appropriately so.
For schedule II drugs, such as marijuana, cannabis resin and others, the proposed mandatory minimum penalty for trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking is one year where certain aggravating factors such as violence, recidivism or organized crime are present. The minimum penalty is increased to two years if other aggravating factors, such as trafficking to youth, are involved.
In the case of importing, exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, the minimum penalty is one year imprisonment when certain aggravating factors are present such as the offence was committed for the purpose of trafficking.
A lot has been said in the media and by the opposition about the offence of marijuana production. Some of it has been factual but a lot of it has been misconstrued hyperbole. Therefore, it is important for members to know what is actually in the bill. The bill proposes mandatory penalties based on the number of plants involved: for the production of 6 to 200 plants and if the plants are cultivated for the purposes of trafficking, the minimum mandatory sentence is six months; for the production of between 201 and 500 plants, the minimum mandatory is one year; for the production of more than 500 plants, the mandatory minimum is two years; and for the production of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking, the mandatory minimum is one year.
The minimum sentences for the production of schedule II drugs increases by 50% where any of the aggravating factors relating to health and safety, which I just enumerated, such as using the real property of a third person to facilitate the grow op, are present.
I would like to remind members of the House that this part of Bill C-10 is not just about minimum penalties. The maximum penalty for producing marijuana would be doubled from 7 to 14 years' imprisonment. The amphetamine class of drugs, as well as the date rape drugs, GHB and Rohypnol, would be transferred from schedule III to schedule I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, thereby allowing the courts to impose higher maximum penalties for offences involving those drugs. We know from media reports that the so-called date rape drugs are becoming a scourge and epidemic among young people, often with catastrophic and fatal consequences.
It is important that I remind members of the House that the proposed legislation would allow a trial judge the discretion of imposing a penalty other than the mandatory minimum on an offender who is referred to a drug treatment court where the offender successfully completes the court-ordered program. Moreover, we know that drug treatment courts are not in all centres in Canada and if there is no drug treatment court, the court sentencing the offender can still refer the offender for treatment for his or her drug addiction. Also, if the offender successfully completes the program, the court would not be required to impose the mandatory minimum penalty for the drug offence.
I have had the pleasure to visit the Edmonton drug treatment court on three or four occasions. It does absolutely remarkable work. It attempts to help individuals break the cycle of getting involved in criminal activity to feed their drug addiction. It is a carrot and stick program, in that the person will not be sentenced to prison and could be discharged for the offence if he or she successfully completes a rehabilitation program and complies with all the terms and conditions of release, including abstaining from all drugs and alcohol, and attending Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous or whatever program the person is directed to attend.
The drug treatment court has been very successful in helping people break the cycle of committing crimes to feed their addiction and starting all over again. I cannot emphasize enough to members of the House the importance of that piece of the puzzle. The courts would have the ability not to impose a mandatory minimum sentence when the individual successfully completes a program as directed by the drug treatment court.
The proposed reforms in Bill C-10 have been carefully studied in both chambers and committees of both houses. I sit on the justice committee. I sat on the justice committee in the last Parliament. This bill is comprised of nine separate but related pieces of legislation, all of which have been studied significantly not only in this Parliament but in the last Parliament as well. This is the type of legislation Canadians have been demanding. Canadians are demanding safety and security in their homes and communities.
Bill C-10 has been carefully studied in both chambers. Witnesses who have appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs have welcomed these proposals. They have welcomed them because they send drug traffickers and organized crime a clear message that if they commit serious crimes and cause harm to our society, they will be spending time in jail.
There are provisions that deal with serious drug crimes, as well as provisions that deal with amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, ending House arrest for property and other serious crimes and changes to our pardon system. All of these separate but combined pieces of legislation have been demanded not only by police and chiefs of police but also by our constituents, such as the citizens I represent in northwest Edmonton who, sadly, have witnessed a record number of murders, 44 in 2011, and all of the other crimes that are tied into organized crime in the city.
This type of legislation is desperately needed. It was promised and it is being delivered. I encourage all members to vote in favour of Bill C-10, as amended.
- MP
libMar 09, 2012 9:25 am | Ontario, Etobicoke NorthMr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is recognized internationally for his expertise. I would like to thank him for his excellent speech, his interventions at committee and his well-founded amendments.
The member has said the bill is constitutionally suspect. Should the government be required to demonstrate due diligence and table evidence showing constitutionality in this House?
- MPconMar 09, 2012 7:55 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I hate to stop the hon. member there, but it is just about time for statements by members. He will have ten and a half minutes to conclude his remarks at the end of question period.
At this point we will move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.
- MP
Mar 09, 2012 7:45 am | Newfoundland, St. John's EastMr. Speaker, my colleague is from the riding of Pontiac. I could reflect on the name of his riding, the name of a great aboriginal person. It is reflected in the name of the member's riding and in our country.
I hear what the member is saying about how the Algonquins deal with accountability within their community. That is a tradition that ought to be respected, not only because it is a tradition and a solution that comes from the aboriginal community itself, but also because it is one that is more likely to work.
Let us assume that an aboriginal young person has committed a crime and the Criminal Code says that the crime deserves a certain amount of time in jail. The young person would be taken out of his or her community, would not have a conditional sentence, would not have a healing circle which might work for the young person, and would not be accountable to his or her own community in that the young person would be put in a jail somewhere else. I think that is wrong.
I do not think it will work. It is wrong for the reasons I have stated, but it is also wrong because I do not think it is effective and I do not think it will work.
- MPMar 09, 2012 7:40 am | Newfoundland, St. John's East
Mr. Speaker, again this is an example of the kinds of programs that are going to be crowded out in terms of funding. More money is going to be spent by the governments of Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and every government in the country to incarcerate people at a cost that seems to be north of $100,000 a year. We are talking about a half a million dollar program. That program will be cancelled. That would cover the cost of five aboriginal people being locked up for a year.
Is that good management of public funds? Is that decent? Is that humane? Is that a proper kind of government that we aspire to in this country? No, it is not.
- MPlibMar 09, 2012 7:35 am | Ontario, Etobicoke North
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a passionate speech and raised the issues FASD and mental health.
Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD, is caused by prenatal exposure to alcohol and the cost per individual per year is estimated at $21,000, and in Canada $5 billion per year. The children have trouble in school. As they become adults, FASD does not disappear but translates into ongoing problems with respect to family relationships, employment, mental health and justice conflicts. The person may not understand the arrest and court process and may not be able to comprehend the severity of the situation. The ability to follow through may be compromised because of memory deficits.
Could the hon. member outline what other challenges people with FASD may have with the justice system?
- MPconMar 09, 2012 7:35 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Etobicoke North.
- MPMar 09, 2012 7:25 am | Newfoundland, St. John's East
Yes, in Nunavut and in Newfoundland and Labrador. We should try to replicate that model so we are not just seeing one province lead the way. We should all have an opportunity to lead the way.
I know I have taken up a lot of time in the House and I appreciate the encouragement to continue. I see the government House leader encouraging me with his nods and smiles. I could continue because there is a lot to talk about this legislation, but I know there are other members in the House who may wish to participate in this debate. I did have unlimited time and I was not threatening to use it all, but now that we have time allocation I see that the more time I speak it will actually be taking away from other members. I know some of my colleagues wish to speak and perhaps we will have some questions and comments from the other side.
I know we have another couple of hours today under the time allocation, which is a shame because this seems to be a real opportunity. We know it has gone through the Senate, through the House and the politics of the matter. We had a little dust up about that Wednesday afternoon when the government's plans for the public relations tour on Wednesday was sidetracked. The minister went out with Sheldon Kennedy, who is a fine man, a great hockey player and a great role model for young people. In fact, I think he is a hero to people who are victims of child sexual abuse.
I know very much about that. I spent seven or eight years in the 1990s working with the victims of the Mount Cashel Orphanage sexual abuse scandal. I represented them on the civil side trying to get redress and compensation for what happened to them. In that process, I was very much involved in trying to assess the damage to their lives as a result of being sexually abused as a child. They went through the criminal process and I was there with them. I was an observer and even that process was excruciating because they were testifying. They had to not only testify but be cross-examined by people who were denying that they actually did it. It was very traumatic.
During that period, I came to know what post-traumatic stress disorder was. We all kind of know now because of what we have been hearing about soldiers, so it is now a known quantity, but in the 1990s it was hardly known. It just barely made it into the last edition of what is called the DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders put out by the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM-III contained this information and the DSM-IV expanded on PTSD.
Mr. Kennedy had not come out publicly then. The young men who had been at Mount Cashel were at the Hughes Inquiry in late 1989. The people I represented there very bravely talked about what happened to them. I am very familiar with what these victims went through. I met Mr. Kennedy when he testified before our committee. We, along with others, wanted to ensure that victims of child sexual abuse were respected and that perpetrators of these type of crimes were dealt with severely by the courts, and indeed they were. In the case of the perpetrators of the Mount Cashel sexual abuse incidents and crimes, they were treated extremely seriously by the court. In fact, far more seriously than the mandatory minimums that are contained in this legislation.
I want to say again for the record if it needs to be said, which it should not but apparently for the minister it does, the Minister of Justice repeated on Wednesday that somehow or other the members on this side did not want the perpetrators of sexual assault to be treated seriously by our courts. That is the kind of mythology the minister likes to perpetrate, which is why this debate is important. People get a chance to hear where we are coming from on this issue. It allows us to repeat what we did in the House last year.
Let us take the part that deals with child sexual offences, with the new offences of Internet luring, with the new offence that could be called grooming of potential victims out of the bill. Let us deal with the more controversial stuff in committee and see if we can improve it, but let us take that out of the bill, give it a fast track and put it in place.
I say to Mr. Sheldon Kennedy and anybody out there who is sympathetic to Mr. Kennedy and victims of sexual assault, as I am, that we had an opportunity to do that last fall. The government not only failed to take up the offer but it took the position that we were wasting time by even bringing it up, that this was a delaying tactic. It is very amusing when one seeks to fast-track something through a motion in the House, government members say it is a delaying tactic. Did they listen to what I was saying, or are they on a message track of some sort because they think all we do over here is try to delay things?
Instead, we were trying to fast-track that legislation because we believe that as soon as the legislation passed, there would be an opportunity to prevent more serious crimes from taking place. Internet luring was being made easier to prosecute, as well as the so-called grooming of or showing children sexually explicit materials, which is a step we are told takes place as a way to soften a potential victim before a meeting is arranged. We would actually be preventing sexual assaults by passing that. We were anxious to see that happen, but the government saw that as a delaying tactic.
I will leave you, Mr. Speaker, and those watching to judge whether something like that would be considered a delaying tactic or a responsible attempt to try to do what we could to prevent further victimization of potential victims of sexual assault. I know how devastating it can be to a young person and a young person's life. I will not go into all of the consequences, but they are legion, and are hard to fathom and difficult to overcome.
I know there will be an opportunity for some questions and comments, but I would like to end my remarks with an amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that the House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts because relying on the government to list states which support or engage in terrorism risks unnecessarily politicizing the process of obtaining justice for victims of terrorism.”
- MPMar 09, 2012 7:05 am | Newfoundland, St. John's East
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to continue my remarks on Bill C-10, as returned from the Senate by way of amendment.
I had an opportunity on Tuesday to address a number of important points and concerns that had been raised about the consequences of Bill C-10. Today I want talk about some of the issues raised by experts who came to our committee. I will speak specifically to the concerns in relation to the consequences of this legislation on aboriginal people. We are increasingly aware of Canada's failure in that regard.
We recently passed a resolution in the House to grant equality of funding for aboriginal education. One would wonder why in the 21st century a country like Canada would have to do that. The New Democrats brought forth a motion which thankfully was unanimously accepted. However, the concerns that were raised there have also been raised in relation to the state of justice for aboriginal people in Canada.
Mr. Howard Sapers, the correctional investigator, gave a presentation to the committee on the consequences of Bill C-10.
He stated:
Some of the amendments will almost certainly have disproportionate impacts on Canada’s more marginalized populations, including aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, those struggling with addictions and substance abuse problems, and the mentally ill. Indeed, nearly all of the growth in the correctional population over the past decade can be accounted for by these groups.
That is a very strong statement. As we know, in Canada the crime rate is going down. We have the lowest crime rate since 1973, in almost 40 years. At the same time, we have an increase in the prison population, most of which Mr. Sapers said is accounted for by our more marginalized populations, including aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, those with addictions and substance abuse problems, and the mentally ill. That is a very strong indictment of the failure of the Canadian system when it comes to aboriginal people.
We have astonishing statistics on the number of aboriginal people who inhabit our prison system. Canada has a population of aboriginal people somewhere around 3.75% or 4%, yet 21% of our prison population is made up of aboriginal people. If we look at the federally incarcerated population alone, 2.8% of the Canadian population accounts for 18% of the federally incarcerated population. Therefore, we have six times as many aboriginals serving federal time, when compared to the population.
Some would say that must be because they commit more crimes and they should go to jail. That is a simplistic response. The first nations groups and people who work in the north say it is a failure of the system that puts them there. The proven way to deter crime is to resolve child poverty issues, provide treatment for mental health and addictions, deal with particular disabilities such as fetal alcohol syndrome disorder, and provide preventive programs in our communities. That is the way to decrease the number of people who are subject to incarceration.
As the Canadian Bar Association, Yukon branch, said in a release in February, these programs are the ones that help. The effect of Bill C-10 would be to put more aboriginal people in jail. Instead of having the opportunity to take advantage of conditional sentences, they will be away from their communities where rehabilitation, reintegration and all of the services that Correctional Services can provide take place.
There is a big consensus, for example, in the north and the Yukon among the RCMP, the court services, crown prosecutors, defence counsel, judges and wellness court, to try to deal with the healing of people who have serious problems, to try to divert them from a prison system that cannot help them very much.
We have a disconnect between what the government says when it calls it the safe streets and communities act and what the Canadian Bar Association of the Yukon says, which is that we have some of the safest streets in the Yukon, in Canada and in the world. It is not an issue of safe streets. It is an issue of whether or not our policies would achieve the goal that was proposed.
I had a meeting yesterday with representatives of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, who are very closely associated with policing in Canada. They raised their concerns about what Bill C-10 would do to youth justice, and to young people at risk, aboriginal people who are overrepresented in our prison population and those who are mentally ill.
We have a significant problem. The research, according to a brief presented by the Canadian Association of Police Boards to the Senate quoting the correctional investigator, says that the federally incarcerated population in Canada actually declined from 1996 to 2004 by 12.5%. We would see that go up again and we know that. We would be building prisons with provisions for double bunking. This has been condemned by the Correctional Services of Canada Union, experts, international standards and the correctional investigator himself.
We have had a decline from 1996 to 2004, but at the same time, the number of first nations people in federal institutions actually increased by 21%. The number of incarcerated first nations women during that period increased by 75%.
That is how we are dealing with the problems of our aboriginal population. They have problems for very significant reasons. It is not because they are more criminal than the rest of the population, but because they are marginalized and disadvantaged in our country.
Aboriginal youth are overrepresented among criminalized young people. According to the Canadian Association of Police Boards, aboriginal young people are criminalized and jailed at earlier ages and for longer periods of time than non-aboriginal young people.
The correctional investigator made a number of recommendations which have been supported by the Canadian Association of Police Boards. The correctional investigator considers that, “in light of Bill C-10, the aspect of new and increased mandatory minimum sentences and removing the discretion of judges will make aboriginal people's overrepresentation in the criminal justice system much worse”.
As an example, and members opposite who represent this area would be startled to know, aboriginal people already represent approximately 80% of inmates in institutions in the Prairies. This is from a population of less than 3% of the population of Canada. The Canadian Association of Police Boards says that Bill C-10 will further increase aboriginal representation in jail. It is astonishing.
Aboriginal youth comprise the majority of the population in jails and are overrepresented. However, Bill C-10 would have more aboriginal youth in custodial centres before trial. Our youth at risk require intervention support services to prevent ongoing criminal behaviour rather than detention.
I do not think the Canadian Association of Police Boards can be accused of somehow being in league with the criminals. The Conservatives can say what they want about us. We have broad shoulders and do not take them too seriously. I hope that the Canadian population is sensible enough to realize that is just the mouthing off of people who do not look at the evidence, do not listen to the experts and do not really seem to want to understand the effects of what they are doing.
That is what the Canadian Association of Police Boards representatives have said. They are from all over the country. Yesterday, in my office, there were representatives from Calgary, Vancouver and Cape Breton. It is a very broad body that is in touch with communities. In British Columbia, for example, all city mayors are represented through the police boards in their communities. It is not a research body. It is a group that is active and in touch with policing in our communities, cities and provinces. It is astonishing that when a group like that has something important to say about the consequences of what the government is doing, the government does not listen.
The Canadian Association of Police Boards is very worried about mental health in this country and the fact that police are being used as the front line instead of treatment. The first encounter with the system is through a police officer and not a mental health worker or some form of help. It is not that the police are there to hurt people, but for a person who needs help because of a mental health problem, the first encounter with the system ought not to be with a police officer who has a different role in society than that of a mental health worker.
The Canadian Association of Police Boards is very concerned. It quotes an article on the criminalization of mental illness that was published by the Canadian Mental Health Association. There was also a report on mental illness in Canada that talked about the prevalence of mental illness. However, the criminalization of mental illness was identified by the Canadian Mental Health Association in a report in March 2005. It said that research revealed that a person with mental illness was more likely to be arrested for a criminal offence than a non-ill person. It also talked about the factors related to that. It is estimated that the number of people with untreated mental illness in the criminal justice system ranges from 40% to 50% of those incarcerated.
Therefore, when we are talking about being tough on crime, we are talking about being tough on people who are aboriginal youth or have a mental illness. They are overwhelmingly the new population in our prisons. When I talk about mental illness, I am also talking about people with addictions who are suffering as a result.
We need a very different approach than what is being presented by the government. It has nothing to do with an attitude towards criminals. I think all of us would agree that those who commit serious crimes ought to be responsible and accountable for their behaviour. We do not want to see criminals go free, but we want a country where we respond to what needs to be done to ensure that these criminals do not reoffend.
I was telling someone the other day that I would feel safer if the person who broke into my house had something better to do than break into my house. I would feel safer knowing that if the person went to jail he or she would be out again in some period of time. I would feel less safe if that individual was not a better citizen once he or she got out of jail. I would be a lot safer if rehabilitation programs and preventive programs were in place. I would be a lot safer if there were a true response to the needs of our society so that people were not in those circumstances. It is unfortunate that no one listens to that.
I talked about the percentage of aboriginal people in our jails. I have a chart that shows that 3% of the people 18 years and older are aboriginal and 22% of the provincial and territorial sentence to custody adults are aboriginals, which is seven times as many. Twenty-five per cent of the population of Yukon is aboriginal and 75% of the inmates in provincial institutions in Yukon are aboriginal. That is deplorable. It speaks to the fact that prevention is not helping enough. We have taken a punitive approach instead, which will get worse.
Judges need to ensure that people who come in contact with the law are focused on accountability, that they recognize that they deserve to be penalized for what they have done and that the system wants to see them become productive members of society.
In some parts of the country we have a strong culture of restorative and Yukon is one part. Other provinces have developed an active working of restorative justice where the individual who commits a crime is expected to, if possible with the victim, acknowledge and be aware of the effect of the crime on the victim. The individual needs to recognize the fact that the victim lost something as a result of the crime. The individual needs to recognize that he or she has a role to play in ensuring that the damage done is ameliorated. Members on the other side talk about victims all the time but they do not talk about that. I think victims respond to that. They want justice.
There are extreme cases but we cannot make one law for everything based on extreme cases. There are extreme cases where there obviously is no possibility of any restorative justice or reconciliation. The most we can hope for is acceptance and peace when someone has lost a loved one through an egregious murder or something as senseless as a drive-by killing. These crimes make no sense at all and are very hard to understand. We sympathize with victims in those circumstances.
We want to ensure that those who commit crimes that involve the loss of life, the loss of someone's loved one, a deliberate, premeditated murder pay a severe penalty. We have had horrendous examples of serial killers in Canada but that, thankfully, is not the norm. We can see by the crime statistics that it certainly is not the norm. In fact, it is likely that more violent crimes were committed in the past than are committed today. We need to ensure that proper justice is done for individuals in those cases.
We also need to recognize that our system is moving toward incarcerating people who are stuck with addictions, who are suffering from mental health issues, aboriginals who may be suffering from a disability related to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder or youth at risk who need better education.
If we look at one issue alone, the aboriginal population in Canada is seriously undereducated. We can make up all kinds of reasons for that but one of them is consistent, persistent underfunding of aboriginal education in Canada by the Government of Canada.
There were a lot of people, young people in particular, getting involved in the Shannen's dream movement. What did she want? She wanted a safe and comfy school. This was a 14 year-old asking if she was not entitled to that because she was aboriginal. Unfortunately, that has been the reality for far too many aboriginal students in Canada.
Where does that leave them when do not have a proper school to go to? They drop out of school and, therefore, do not get an education. They have no opportunities. They end up being what the justice system calls youth at risk and they end up in jail. We just went through some of the statistics. They are then in jail with other young people, which may be far away from their community. They have gone down the wrong road. What are we doing? Are we recognizing that we have a serious problem that needs a different solution?
The Government of Quebec came to Ottawa and showed what it had done over the last 40 years. It has emphasized rehabilitation. The justice minister, Jean-Marc Fournier, spoke with great passion when he looked around the room and said that when he was talking about the Youth Criminal Justice Act he was not dealing with people who had the same opportunities as our sons and daughters. He said that he was dealing with people who were dealing with situations.
He did not talk about aboriginal Canadians very much, but about people who had a very different situation than the children of the people in that room. The room contained members of Parliament, staff of the House of Commons and reporters who were looking on, all of whom were in a better position to provide for their children in terms of a safe, warm home, proper education, extracurricular activities, opportunities for parents to keep an eye on them and to help them if they go astray, and to provide guidance to them. Those were not the people he was dealing with in the youth criminal justice system. He was dealing with people who did not have those opportunities or advantages.
He said that the Quebec justice system tries to save them from a life of crime and that it does that by taking an approach that it has taken for 40 years. He said that Quebec has consistently shown over the last number of decades to have the lowest rate of recidivism in all of Canada for its youth criminal justice system. No one questioned that, not even government members on the committee.
The minister talked about ending the revolving door of going in and out. That is what recidivism is. Recidivism is when people get out of prison and then go back in. The minister's idea is to close the door when they are inside so there will not be any revolving door. What will that do? It will lengthen the incarceration for young people and, when they get out, because they will get out, they will not be rehabilitated. They will not have the opportunity to be better citizens.
If we look at what has happened in Quebec, there is a model that could have been ceased upon by the government and tried. We will not guarantee success but let us try to replicate that in Alberta, in Yukon, in British Columbia, in Manitoba and in the Northwest Territories.
Mar 7th
- MPconMar 07, 2012 3:25 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Qu'Appelle
I declare the motion carried.
- MP
conMar 07, 2012 2:40 pm | Ontario, Niagara FallsMr. Speaker, the bill and its components have been before Parliament. It has been debated and it has been thoroughly analyzed. The hon. member says that she wants meaningful debate. How are we supposed to feel when we wanted to debate the bill and the government House leader then tells me that the NDP members want to adjourn the House. I am not making this up. This is what they did this afternoon. The asked to adjourn the House, to go home and to not discuss these issues.
What am I supposed to think? I am here for the victims of crime and I am telling them that we are moving forward on this. What am I supposed to tell them, that we are taking the day off because the NDP is in a snit about something and wants to adjourn the House? That is the question I have to ask the NDP members. Would they explain that, please? If they are so interested in debating these issues, why would they want to adjourn the House?
- MPconMar 07, 2012 2:40 pm | Ontario, Simcoe North
I thank the hon. member for Saanich--Gulf Islands for her intervention but I do not hear anything in there that is really a point of order. I think it is a matter of debate concerning the issue at hand.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
- MP
ndpMar 07, 2012 2:40 pm | British Columbia, Burnaby—New WestminsterFrom Panama.
- MPconMar 07, 2012 2:35 pm | Ontario, Niagara Falls
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton West for all the support that he has given us on our crime legislation. I and everyone in the government are very appreciative. Contrary to what some of our critics would like to say about the bill, which is completely incorrect, the bill goes after drug traffickers.
- MP
libMar 07, 2012 2:35 pm | Quebec, Westmount—Ville-MarieMr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and people on that side of the House like to talk a lot about victims. In fact, they like to portray themselves as the only ones who do actually care about victims. We on this side of the House also actually care about victims.
Members of the government made a big deal of the fact that they created an ombudsman for victims. Would the minister very briefly tell us what recommendations from the ombudsman for victims they have implemented to show that they really do care about victims.
- MP
ndpMar 07, 2012 2:35 pm | Alberta, Edmonton—StrathconaMr. Speaker, I was very concerned when I heard the Minister of Justice make a comment earlier that he is tired of hearing from this side of the House when we have concerns with procedure in the House and that that side of the House prefers to deal with substance.
He seems to speaking at odds to his own leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, who only a month ago sat down with the first nations of Canada and agreed to move forward in a new partnership, nation to nation, a new way of procedure, and undertook that,from here on in, in all bills, all procedures and all initiatives by the Government of Canada, the Conservatives would not move forward unless they consulted in advance and accommodated the rights and interests of first nation peoples.
We have heard from the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations and we have heard from many first nations complaining that this bill would simply incarcerate more first nations people who are already being prejudicially treated. What does the minister have to say in response to that?
- MPconMar 07, 2012 2:30 pm | Ontario, Niagara Falls
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. This will have an impact on criminals. There is no question about that. This will have a great effect on those individuals who think it is a good idea to bring drugs into Canada and people who like to get into the child porn business, because if they get charged under this piece of legislation, they are looking at jail time.
The hon. member asked what impact it would have on criminals. I hope it has a great impact. I hope it encourages people to stay away from that business and not get involved in those kinds of activities, because there are serious consequences for getting involved in those kinds of activities.
- MP
libMar 07, 2012 2:30 pm | Ontario, Ottawa SouthMr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could comment on the comments that were made by David Daubney, a former member of Parliament who sat in caucus with the minister in Mr. Mulroney's government. Mr. Daubney is a former director of the criminal law policy section at Justice Canada. Several days after terminating his career, Mr. Daubney said to the minister that he did not agree with this bill, that fear was at the basis of much of these measures, and he did not agree that it was constitutional.
For the third time, would the minister respond to the direct question: Will he table the evidence in the House of Commons today to substantiate that he has proof that this bill is constitutional?
- MPconMar 07, 2012 2:25 pm | Ontario, Niagara Falls
Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House that this legislation received the due diligence of the Department of Justice to make sure it complies with all aspects of the Constitution, including the Canadian Bill of Rights, going right back to the British North America Act to make sure that this is within federal jurisdiction.
I would say to the hon. member that I appreciate the individuals he referred to. I listen to a lot of people. I listen to scholars and lawyers. I listen to law enforcement agents and victims as well.
I was with Sheldon Kennedy in Toronto today. He was urging the passage of the bill because he himself has been a victim. I have heard from so many victims. They want to make sure that their thoughts and concerns are heard and are reflected in the legislation of this country. I have been only too happy to assure them that this is exactly what the bill does.
- MP
conMar 07, 2012 2:25 pm | Alberta, Fort McMurray—AthabascaMr. Speaker, most of the members who are asking questions today did not hear any of that evidence. I did hear the evidence. I heard overwhelmingly from victims who stand up for this legislation.
What is interesting is that the only time this bill was time limited in committee was on a motion moved by the NDP critic. Clearly those members must have a different idea today than they did before.
I ask the minister, who stood up for victims during committee? What did the victims of crime overwhelmingly say about Bill C-10?
- MPconMar 07, 2012 2:20 pm | Ontario, Niagara Falls
Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect.
This bill has been before this Parliament for quite some time. I would suggest that the NDP always wants to talk about procedure. We want to talk about substance. We want to talk about what is in the bill.
The bill is very clear. It better protects victims of terrorism. It goes after people who are in the child pornography business. It goes after drug dealers. That is the substance of the bill. That is what I would hope hon. members of this House would concentrate on rather than filibustering, trying to adjourn the House, or using some other procedural tactic.
- MPMar 07, 2012 2:15 pm | Newfoundland, St. John's East
Mr. Speaker, the minister is anxious to pass the bill because the government has a deadline to pass it within 100 days. There are at least 10 days to go so closure does not have to be invoked on the bill.
The government invoked closure at second reading. The government said that the House did not need to debate the bill further because it would get full debate in committee. Even the Mulroney governments of 1984 and 1993 with their huge majorities accepted amendments. However, not a single amendment proposed by the opposition to try and improve this legislation was accepted. This is the last opportunity to bring the amendments to the Canadian people.
Why is the government not prepared to allow this debate to take place?
- MP
libMar 07, 2012 2:15 pm | Ontario, Toronto CentreMr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a rather extraordinary moment here. The reason why we are having this debate and why it came back from the Senate was because the government did not listen to the advice of the member for Mount Royal and take the amendments in the House. It realized that it had made a mistake and when the bill went to the Senate, it then proceeded to adopt the amendments that came from the member for Mount Royal with respect to the issue of counterterrorism and state sovereignty.
The least the government could do would be to allow the member for Mount Royal an opportunity to speak to those issues, since he is the one who is responsible for the only amendments that have been accepted by the government with respect to the question of counterterrorism.
Would the minister agree to have the member be heard right now?
- MP
ndpMar 07, 2012 2:10 pm | Ontario, Windsor—TecumsehMr. Speaker, I am not surprised by this motion. There should not be any reason why we should be surprised. It has happened 16 times since Parliament started. Since the May 2 election, this will be the 17th time.
It is a total abdication of the democratic responsibilities that the government should have, and every Government of Canada should have and has up until this point, to allow for meaningful democratic discussion and debate in the House. We are here for that. That is why it is called Parliament.
The government has never understood this. Since the Conservatives received a majority, they have run roughshod over that moral, democratic responsibility they have to the opposition parties and to Canadian citizens as a whole.
I understand the member will move another motion of this kind on Bill C-31. When will we see that one?
- MPconMar 07, 2012 2:10 pm | Ontario, Simcoe North
Before we continue with questions and comments, in light of the fact that there are many more members who wish to ask questions than the 30 minutes will allow, we will default to the normal 1 minute question and 1 minute response, as we have customarily done.
The hon. member for Toronto Centre.
Mar 6th
- MP
ndpMar 06, 2012 1:35 pm | British Columbia, VictoriaBefore resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, Border Crossings; the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Industry.
- MPMar 06, 2012 10:50 am | Newfoundland, St. John's East
It is out of touch with the consequences of what it is doing, whether it is fiscally, or—
- MPconMar 06, 2012 10:50 am | Ontario, Simcoe North
Order. I would ask again that hon. members recognize the hon. member for—
Order, order. The hon. member for Oak Ridges—Markham will come to order.
The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.
- MP
conMar 06, 2012 10:50 am | Ontario, Oak Ridges—MarkhamIt is so arrogant to put criminals in jail—
- MPMar 06, 2012 10:45 am | Newfoundland, St. John's East
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for raising that point of order. As the Speaker has ruled, in the absence of unanimous consent it cannot be tabled. I note that the refusal to give unanimous consent came from the other side. This is a report of an officer of the House, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose job it is to assist parliamentarians find out the costs of government programs.
To table a report of that nature in the House would add to the debate, as the member said, but it has been refused. I do not really understand why. Is it that the Conservatives do not like the figures, that they do not like the truth, that they do not like the evidence? Do they not want to hear what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has to say?
One of the outcomes of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's exercise was to discover that the government did not have any figures. The only figures produced by the government when it was asked about the costs of the bill was that there was no federal cost and that it did not know what the provincial costs would be. Therefore, the Parliamentary Budget Officer asked recently if the government had any figures now. It said it did not.
We are imposing measures that will have consequences for provincial governments and the Government of Canada. They are measurable. The increased cost as a result of the bill, only for conditional sentences, would come from the larger number of hearings the parole board would have to hold. The government knew the number of hearings and the average cost per hearing. If we multiply one by the other we come up with $8 million. It is not rocket science, but based on actual projections of the number of cases for each of these different offences.
It was a bit tedious, but for the last year in which reports were available, that is, 2008, Statistics Canada could find the exact number of people convicted of these particular offences during that year. The numbers were there, and the number of people who would actually be convicted and go to jail was extrapolated from that. All of these figures came out. However, we had someone on the other side saying that the Parliamentary Budget Officer had not been right yet. I guess there is a big difference between the $750 million the Parliamentary Budget Officer came up with as the five-year cost of this provision and the government's figure, which is, “We do not know”. The government's figure was, “We do not know” and the Parliamentary Budget Officer's figure was $750 million over five years. That is the nature of this debate about the costs to Canadians of just one measure in the entire Bill C-10.
The government members do not want the Parliamentary Budget Officer's information and report to be tabled before the House, I guess because it is a bit of an embarrassment. It is not as if the amount of money over five years, the $750 million, is going to break Canada. I am not suggesting that. However, if it is a difference between $750 million and “We do not know”, then that tells us something about what goes on over there when they are deciding to bring forward legislation.
They do not even bother to figure it out themselves, and they are the ones who seem to be interested in talking about parties' fitness to govern. Is that something we should be wondering about in terms of their fitness to govern here? Are these the fiscal managers, the people who tout themselves as the great fiscal managers of Canada, the ones whom Canadians should have faith in to run the country because they are so good at fiscal management?
We have a contrast here. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was appointed by the Prime Minister to advise parliamentarians on these issues, did a report at the request of a member of Parliament and said it was going to cost $750 million over five years. That is just one measure in this huge bill.
The government says “We do not know.” It has never bothered to try to find out, although it did claim it was going to cost the federal government nothing. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says it is going to cost the federal government $40 million over five years in additional expenses and it is going to cost the provinces another $710 million, or something in that range. The government is saying that it is going to cost it nothing, and it does not know what it is going to cost the provinces. It did not even try to figure it out.
This is what we are faced with in dealing with a government that is arrogant and out of touch with the realities of Canadian life.
- MPconMar 06, 2012 10:45 am | Ontario, Simcoe North
There is no consent in that respect and, of course, members are not obliged to do that, as ministers would be.
The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.
- MP
ndpMar 06, 2012 10:40 am | Manitoba, Winnipeg CentreMr. Speaker, I am having a very difficult time trying to follow the speech of my colleague from St. John's East. I am trying my best to follow his reasoning, but he is making reference to research papers and documents with some very complicated facts and figures, and even making reference to legal text et cetera. I am having a difficult time following the tone and content of his remarks and the conclusion he is coming to.
I would ask if it were possible for him to please table the documents, specifically the document he just made reference to where there is a cost factor with a ratio of 16:1. I would ask if he could expand on that, and also in the interests of elevating the political discourse on this particular bill and the amendments thereof, if he could table those documents so that we might all benefit from the same legal training and experience and reading of the authorities he enjoys. I find it is useful, if one is going to make reference to a document, to bring copies into the House of Commons and offer, in the context of one's speech, to table those papers so that we all might start this debate with the same base level of authorities and documentation, which we could all discuss later.
In the absence of that, we could have more hecklers from the other side, which would also elevate the standard of debate in the House of Commons.
- MPconMar 06, 2012 10:40 am | Ontario, Simcoe North
I see the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is rising on a point of order.
- MPMar 06, 2012 10:10 am | Newfoundland, St. John's East
When we asked them whether they liked the bill, they really were not there for that purpose. They were there to say that they had been victims of crimes, that they thought people should be punished for the crimes they committed and that they believed the punishment should fit the crime. However, as far as the bill, they liked some parts of it and others they did not.
I am having a little trouble as I am being distracted, Mr. Speaker.
- MPconMar 06, 2012 10:10 am | Ontario, Simcoe North
Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor. I am sure others would like to hear what the hon. member has to say, so we will have some order.
- MPconMar 06, 2012 10:10 am | Ontario, Oak Ridges—Markham
No more victims under the NDP because then no one would go to jail.
- MPMar 06, 2012 10:05 am | Newfoundland, St. John's East
We can reduce the number of criminals and we can reduce the number of victims. We can reduce the cost of crime and we can make our streets safer.
- MPconMar 06, 2012 10:05 am | Ontario, Oak Ridges—Markham
Nobody does anything, just let them out on the street.
- MPMar 06, 2012 10:00 am | Newfoundland, St. John's East
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising that point, even though it has been ruled not a point of order. We have had in this debate, from time to time, the suggestion that some provinces like certain aspects of this bill. I do not doubt that. We like certain aspects of the bill. In fact, we asked for a whole section of it to be fast-tracked and passed because we believed in certain aspects of it, particularly the provisions dealing with sexual predators, Internet luring and most of that part.
I apologize if I let the member come to the conclusion, by not being specific and clear, that I was speaking on behalf of the people of Manitoba without any particular reference. The document I referred to was a document from the province of Quebec. Maybe I was speaking on behalf of the people of Alberta. I know a lot of people in Alberta. I spent three years there. I went to law school there. I have a great many friends in Alberta. I have really enjoyed spending time with them. I like their company. I have found the people of Alberta to be great Canadians.
In fact, it is such a great province that lots of Newfoundlanders go out there to work. Fort McMurray is a wonderful spot for many people from Newfoundland and Labrador to work and live. Some of them like it enough to live there year round and others go out for two weeks, come back for two weeks and then go out again and then return.
We see them on the planes all the time. In fact, an airplane goes from St. John's to Ottawa to Edmonton every day, and it is full. Some of us get off at Ottawa to go to work, others get off at Edmonton to get another plane to Fort McMurray. I have a great affinity for the province of Alberta and its people.
I said, and I think it applies to Manitobans as well, that I was sure if Albertans knew, and hopefully many of them are watching today, that the province of Quebec, by adopting a particular approach to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, had succeeded in having the lowest rate of recidivism in all of Canada, that they would ask why their government and their administration of justice, which is a provincial responsibility, could not achieve the same result.
I am sure the people of Manitoba would likely feel the same way. I do not have a document that says that. I am not as familiar with Manitoba as I am with Alberta. I have had the pleasure and honour of associating with the people of Alberta. There is a wonderful law school at the University of Alberta. A lot of students from our province go there for graduate degrees.
However, I think Manitobans would also ask themselves the same question if they knew Quebec had figured out an approach that lead to the lowest recidivism rate in all of Canada. They might ask if they could match it, emulate it, or learn something from it, so they would not have young people committing repeat crimes. They would not have the revolving door and the lock it while they were inside. They might want to know that there are ways of improving our criminal justice system. I am sure Manitobans would like that.
Unfortunately the government has failed to recognize that there are better ways of doing things than what it has proposed through this legislation. There are ways that are cheaper. As we know, the cost of incarceration is extremely high. The cost of programs for people who are affected by youth criminal justice are, by comparison, cheaper.
The government brings out statistics on the cost of crime, which are probably a little exaggerated. If the cost of crime is a concern, then one way to reduce it is to prevent crimes. Rehabilitation prevents crimes. Crime prevention programs that provide opportunities for young people in communities across the country prevent crimes.
I do not know how many members were approached by the members of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities over the last month or so. One of the issues it brought up to me was Bill C-10. It said that it was interested in infrastructure, but the infrastructure it was looking for had to do with the ability for smaller communities across the country to deliver programs for young people, recreational programs, opportunities for young people to have something to do, recreation centres, whether it be arenas, basketball courts or programs that would allow young people to do something positive that would make a difference in their lives and keep them away from other activities that could get them in trouble with the law.
That is prevention. That reduces the cost of crime because there will be fewer criminals, fewer crimes, fewer victims and fewer costs. I think we agree on that. I think we agree that the cost of crime is too high and it should be reduced.
The evidence shows that we can reduce the cost of crime and the number of criminals and keep our streets safer by an investment in prevention, rehabilitation and finding out whether we can change our drug laws so we do not encourage organized crime, criminals, violence and everything that goes with it. Can we do that? Can we increase support for people with addictions? Can we steer people away from a life of crime? Can we avoid the recidivism that leads to further crime and greater criminality? Or do we, as the government says, throw up our hands and say that we cannot do anything about that, but that we will get people who commit crimes and lock them up for longer at great public cost? That is the choice.
Conservatives have one solution—
- MPndpMar 06, 2012 10:00 am | Manitoba, Winnipeg Centre
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First, for my hon. colleague from St. John's I mean no offence by this interruption or interference in what I find has been a very useful speech to date.
However, as a member of Parliament from the province of Manitoba, I have noticed that a number of times during the context of my colleague's remarks, he has cited Manitoba, in an argumentative way, to help flesh out a point that he was making regarding the way that certain provinces deal with their criminal justice system and their approach to recidivism. I have to argue that it is not fair, accurate or even allowable under the rules of order to put forward an argument on behalf of the province of Manitoba without any documentation or at least verification.
I do not mind my colleague using the province of Manitoba in the context of his remarks, but I did not hear him cite a chapter, or verse, or comment, or recommendation or submission that may have been made about the amendments by the province of Manitoba. Therefore, I have to ask him to be considerate and allow Manitobans to advocate on behalf of Manitoba in the context of the amendments to the bill.
- MPMar 06, 2012 9:45 am | Newfoundland, St. John's East
Someone just called it con college. Do they come out better criminals? Are they more angry citizens, less willing to rehabilitate themselves or conform themselves to society's norms? Are they less able to participate in a meaningful role in society by getting a job? All of these things will be consequences of locking that door when they happen to be on the inside. That is what the bill would do, and at great cost.
We need to get rid of the notion that this is for the long-term protection of society, claiming that the streets would be safer. I think there is a little germ of an idea there that at least while offenders are inside they will not be able to commit crimes. That is the simplistic notion that the government throws out. I guess it does not really believe in rehabilitation.
The Conservatives say that while offenders are in jail the streets will be safer. The trouble is that is a false notion. The evidence as to how we make our streets safer when it comes to youth criminal justice comes from decades of experience in the province of Quebec. A minister from the province of Quebec came to see us and told us Quebec's approach to this. He spoke with great passion about how Quebec wanted to ensure that young people who were running afoul of the law would get a chance to rehabilitate themselves.
For decades, Quebec has posted the lowest rates of recidivism in Canada. Does the government want to learn from that? Does the government want to say that there is something happening there, we should study it and try to emulate it? If Quebec has the lowest recidivism rates in the country, we have a laboratory in which this approach has been tried par excellence, followed rigidly with the understanding of what it was doing. It was not just willy-nilly. It was not an accident. It happened as a result of Quebec's policies, its approach, its understanding of what works with young people and putting it into practice over decades.
If one has had the lowest rate of recidivism in Canada for 10, 20 or 30 years, would one not want to emulate that in Manitoba, in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Ontario and in British Columbia? We cannot forget about B.C. Do the people of Alberta not want to find out how Quebec has the lowest rate of recidivism in the country? Are they somehow or other less with it than the rest of the country? I do not think so. We should ask the people of Alberta if they would like to have young people, who are brought into contact with the traditional system, to come out, after being treated, and not commit crimes. Is that not what we would rather have or would we rather have them as they are now, part of a revolving door? Even if we lock them up longer, they will get out. We do not lock people up until they die. Even if they get a two year, three year, four year or five year sentence, they will get out.
When they do come out, what do we have? Do we have a person who is remodelled somehow, rehabilitated? Is that what we have the longer we put them in? That is not what any of the literature and the experts will say. It does not work. That is why we have this approach to rehabilitation, which is built into the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It was not designed primarily as a punishment, although there is some punishment.
Some offenders will be removed from society to what they call closed custody because some of these people are a danger. I have no illusions about that. Just because they are young people, it does not mean they cannot be a danger. Young people of the ages of 14, 15 and 16 can do terrible things, and they do. The question is what do we do with them. We will not put them in jail until they die. We will put them in jail, in custody or subject them to a system of criminal justice. However, what do we want to achieve? We want to achieve a safer society. We want to have a young person who is capable of being rehabilitated. We want to have a young person who may have to be given some program and some assistance to make up for the fact that he or she is where he or she is.
I am not saying that every person who commits a crime is somehow a victim of society. I have been around too long to think that. We have people from all walks of life who get into difficulty with the criminal justice system. However, many who do run afoul of the law have societal problems or poor backgrounds. Some may have difficult family lives or may have no proper home in which to live. They may be living in poverty and do not have the essentials of life. They may be in a home that is forced to go to a food bank. We know that by the number of food banks. We know by the demographics of this country that many people live in poverty, especially families headed by a single parent where the children do not have the opportunities that some of our kids have. They do not get the music lessons. They do not get to play hockey, join a soccer team or participate in extracurricular activities. They may have difficulty even having the right clothes to go to school and be accepted by their classmates and friends. They may grow up in an aboriginal community with a poor school. They may not have the things that make their life and their prospects something positive to look forward to and they may run afoul of the law one way or another and come into contact with the youth criminal justice system.
What attitude and approach do we want to take? The youth criminal justice system as it is written right now is telling us that the object of this act is rehabilitation, that based on that and based on the Quebec system and approach totally having the means, through its approach, for decades, and resulting in it, that this must be significant.
I do not know if this has been discussed in the House before but when we hear the Minister of Justice and the attorney general of Quebec saying that this approach has been used in Quebec for nearly 40 years and that for decades it has had the lowest rate of recidivism for young people in the entire country, I feel like yelling hallelujah. I am pleased that somebody has proven that rehabilitation works so let us get on the bandwagon and find out how we can replicate this from Newfoundland and Labrador to Yukon.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
