House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-10.

Topics

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to conclude my remarks because this is a very important bill for Canadians, who have expressed their desire to have us pass this into law as soon as possible.

I want to address something that I heard recently with relation to complaints from some quarters, in fact the opposition primarily, that there has not been sufficient time to study Bill C-10 in its entirety. If we look at the history and examination of the charges as they relate to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, we will see how very wrong that is. As I briefly outlined a minute ago, the proposed reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that are contained in part 4 of Bill C-10, being made after consultations with a broad range of stakeholders and members of the public, are in response to key court decisions, such as the Nunn commission of inquiry, an extensive parliamentary study, and indeed, input from provincial and territorial partners.

First, most of us will know that the former Bill C-4 was extensively studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights prior to the dissolution of the previous Parliament. The committee actually held 16 meetings on that bill and heard from over 60 witnesses. I do not know how anyone in this place or elsewhere can say it was not properly consulted.

Second, prior to introducing former Bill C-4 in March 2010, the Minister of Justice undertook a comprehensive review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In February 2008, the Minister of Justice launched that review with a meeting he held with provincial and territorial attorneys general who, I would suggest, know much more than the opposition does in relation to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They discussed the scope of the review to encourage provincial and territorial ministers to identify the issues that they had, that they had heard from their Crown prosecutors and others relating to the youth justice system, and that they considered the most important. That is very important.

Finally, in May 2008, the Minister of Justice, as I said previously, undertook a series of cross-country round tables usually co-chaired by provincial and territorial ministers in order to hear from youth justice professionals, front line youth justice stakeholders and others around this country about areas of concern and possible improvements regarding the provisions and principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

To say it was not properly consulted and that we did not spend enough time is simply ludicrous. We have heard from Canadians and they have clearly outlined what they wanted us to do. We have consulted with stakeholders, including the provinces, members of the government and the public and, most importantly, victims. We are listening to victims.

The Nunn commission itself convened on June 29, 2005 and heard from 47 witnesses, with over 31 days of testimony. We are listening to Canadians, reflecting the society that they want, and moving forward on keeping all Canadians safe.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member said that victims groups support Bill C-10. But I have a letter from the West Island CALACS that says that “the Regroupement québécois des CALACS supports the preventive approach, rather than repressive measures that have not yet been proven to be effective.”

Could the member tell me whether it is because he has not listened enough to Canadians and groups, or is it because he does not listen to people who do not share his opinion?

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern with this and I agree that prevention is very important. That is why we are going to ensure that people who commit serious crimes actually do time, that they are kept in jail where they cannot be sexual predators of minors, where they will not be able to do the things they were doing because the parole system in this country was not working properly.

We are going to ensure that Canadians and victims are listened to, and indeed, that the people who commit crimes, especially violent sexual offences, actually do the time and stay in jail where they will have an opportunity to be rehabilitated but will not have a chance to reoffend.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have this question for the member. Will he not recognize and acknowledge that it is only the Conservative government here in Canada that seems to take this approach that the best way to prevent crime from happening is to build mega jails? It is something which has not worked in the United States.

In fact, what we see now in the United States is an attempt to get more people back into the communities. The best way to prevent crimes from happening is to put in place programs that will ensure that there are alternatives for youth to participate outside of gangs and things of that nature.

I wonder why the government does not recognize the value of crime prevention. Preventing crimes from taking place in the first place, I would ultimately argue, is indeed Canadians' greatest priority, more so than keeping people in jails for extended periods of time where it is not justified.

We understand and appreciate that at times there is a need to keep people in jail. However, quite often we would be better served by having more programs that would facilitate individuals becoming full participants in society in a positive way.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, I know that some people have actually expressed that, as the member says, it is not justified. However, that is a small minority of people. It is criminals and the Liberal Party of Canada.

I do not agree with that. I think, frankly, people who commit serious crimes should do serious time because they have taken away something from people. They have violated society as a whole and public policy.

There is no question in my mind that a small minority of criminals get caught, but when they are caught, most of the punishments are, frankly, quite laughable. I have had an opportunity to see it first-hand.

We are not going to take the laughable position of the Liberal Party of Canada, or the laughable position of criminals for that matter.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take great offence to the fact that the member opposite lumped us in with criminals and not worrying about the subject. We worry about it.

I am a former solicitor general. However, we look at facts when we are trying to rehabilitate people. Just throwing people in jail does not make them better. Just penalizing them does not make them better. They need programs to be rehabilitated.

The member should not lump Liberals in with criminals in his statement. It is wrong and he should apologize.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, I too take offence that the member would take the position of criminals instead of law-abiding citizens and the Conservative Party of Canada that wants to protect Canadians and society as a whole.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I will take a look at what was said. I did not hear what the exact wording was, but there have been rulings before about members implicating other members being supportive of criminals or criminal actions. I will take a look and come back to the House.

There is enough time for a very brief question and comment.

The hon. member for Saanich--Gulf Islands.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fort McMurray--Athabasca has made reference, as many Conservative members have, to the report of Justice Merlin Nunn of Nova Scotia. Is he not aware that Merlin Nunn spoke to the press in Nova Scotia and said he was troubled by the fact that this bill moves away from the principle that jails should be the place of last resort for young offenders? He was also troubled by provisions that would allow teenagers as young as 14 being tried as adults.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's intervention. The Nunn commission actually called on 47 witnesses over 31 days of testimony. I agree with the member, we do want to prevent crimes, and that is exactly what we are going to do with this legislation. We are going to ensure we send a clear message to people who would commit crimes to let them know that if they are going to commit crimes, they are going to do serious time.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today in opposition to Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill.

As I stated in a September speech in this House, I do not stand in opposition to every part of the bill. Indeed, some parts of Bill C-10 are worthwhile.

As a father, I have no objection to protecting children against pedophiles and sexual predators, of course not, even though the Conservative government would have people believe otherwise. That is the rub with Bill C-10 which throws so many pieces of legislation, nine bills, aboard the one bus, aboard the one omnibus bill.

I may agree with coming down hard on pedophiles, but I do not agree with filling prisons with people who probably should not be there, like the student who gets caught with six marijuana plants. What will throwing that student in jail do for him or her, or for society in general besides costing us a fortune in new human cages? My answer is nothing. It will do absolutely nothing.

Steve Sullivan, an advocate for victims of crime for almost two decades, wrote a piece earlier this month for the National Post. A particular quote stuck with me. He wrote:

Few of us lose sleep over child-sex offenders spending more time in prison. But some of the reforms will toughen the sentences for low-risk offenders, with low rates of recidivism. They won’t make children safer, but will cost five times more than what is being invested in Child Advocacy Centres that support abused children.

Bill C-10 is also known as the safe streets and communities act, but mandatory minimum sentences are not so much tough on crime as tough on Canadians suffering from mental illness, addictions and poverty. In fact, poverty will be punished even more than it is now. The bill targets youth for harsher punishments and will put more aboriginal people in prison.

One of the pillars of the omnibus crime bill is mandatory minimum sentences. The Conservative omnibus bill will dramatically expand mandatory minimum sentences, limiting judicial discretion to levels unseen before.

Experts say taking away discretion from judges clogs up the judicial system. That is not all that it will clog up. The provinces are particularly rebelling against this new crime bill. They charge it will clog up the prison system. The provinces say it will put increasing pressure on a prison system that is practically busting at the seams.

Experts say the omnibus crime bill will increase the country's prison population by untold thousands. As for the cost of housing that many more inmates, estimates range up to $5 billion a year. That is more than double the current expenditures for the corrections system alone. And that is a conservative estimate, not a Conservative government estimate. The Conservative government has not put a price on the omnibus crime bill, which makes no sense.

Yesterday, I stood in this House and debated the bill to kill the Canadian Wheat Board, which ended up passing even though the Conservative government failed to carry out a cost benefit analysis. How is that good governance, good fiscal governance, in these scary unpredictable times? I do not get it. Canadians do not get it.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has warned the Conservative government that provinces across the country will not pick up the tab for any new costs associated with the omnibus crime bill. Quebec has essentially said the same thing.

In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the main prison is Her Majesty's Penitentiary in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl. Her Majesty's Penitentiary dates back to Victorian times. The original stone building first opened in 1859. The pen is an aging fortress that has been called an appalling throwback to 19th century justice, which sounds like Bill C-10.

Felix Collins, the Progressive Conservative justice minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, has had this to say about the omnibus crime bill:

Most groups, most experts and most witnesses who have given presentations on this bill would advocate that the federal government is proceeding in the wrong direction, and that this procedure has been tried in other areas before and has proven to be a failure...Incarcerating more people is not the answer.

That quote pretty well sums it up. When Felix Collins, Newfoundland and Labrador's justice minister, speaks about the procedure being tried in other jurisdictions and failing in other jurisdictions, he is probably talking about Texas. Conservative Texas has warned us not to follow a failed fill-in-the-prison approach to justice.

The Canadian Bar Association, representing 37,000 Canadian legal professionals, has said the bill would, ”move Canada along a road that has failed in other countries, at a great expense”.

The Vancouver Sun ran a story yesterday with the headline, “Conservative crime bill is a costly mistake for Canada”. The story reads:

When Canada has some of the safest streets and communities in the world and a declining crime rate, why is [the] Prime Minister...pushing his omnibus crime bill through in such a machiavellian way? Many jurisdictions, including Texas and California, have warned this crime agenda not only doesn't work, but it doesn't make economic sense. Costing roughly $100,000 per year to incarcerate a person, mandatory sentences will raise taxes, increase debt, or force us to cut spending on essential programs like health and education. Bill C-10 arrogantly ignores proven facts from decades of research and experience.

Again, that about sums it up.

This is a quote I received from a constituent:

Who is helped by having a student, a future doctor or engineer, thrown in jail for a year and a half because they decided to make some hash for their own personal use? In what universe does that make sense? Stop wasting money on cages and start spending it on hospital beds and textbooks.

The line that sticks is, “Stop wasting money on cages and start spending it on hospital beds and textbooks”.

If the omnibus crime bill goes through, provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador will have less money to spend on health and education, let alone rehabilitation and preventative programs.

I will quote from an editorial in the St. John's edition of The Telegram, the daily newspaper where I come from. It states:

The provinces have been raising two kinds of concerns: one is that tough-on-crime laws don’t actually achieve their stated ends, because rehabilitation actually decreases crime rates in a way that longer incarceration does not. The second concern is far more pragmatic: while the federal government is making laws that extend prison terms, it doesn’t seem to be in any rush to help with the additional anticipated provincial costs connected to longer jail sentences and increased court time (increased court time, because it will be less attractive for criminals to plead guilty at early stages in a prosecution).

Who will say they are guilty if they know that “mandatory minimum” means they will definitely be going to prison?

Bill C-10 will not make Canada a better place to live. It will change Canada. It will change how we see ourselves as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Canadians and how we are seen on the world stage.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and I am not certain whether he is ill-informed or needs to do some more research.

Earlier we heard the member for Oxford talk about his committee travelling to different institutions across the country and how there was a robust offering of different programs for those inmates who were willing to reform and to be contributing citizens.

I mentioned earlier a number of programs that are outside of the bill through HRSDC's skill links program through the National Crime Prevention Centre. These programs keep youth away from crime. They help them stay away from gangs, et cetera. Yet all of this seems to be outside the purview of the opposition when it addresses these issues in the bill.

The real thing I want to question the member on is this. He talked about minimum sentences. Is he aware that a prisoner only has to serve one-third of his or her sentence before being eligible for parole and after two-thirds, the individual has to be released unless the National Parole Board says he or she has to be confined? Is he aware that the five year minimum could be quite possibly only twenty months when applying for parole?

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, the member's question was in two parts. I will not have time to answer both parts so I will answer the first part.

The member mentioned the committee that travelled to Oxford. My recommendation is that a Conservative committee should travel to Newfoundland and Labrador. I quoted from the Newfoundland and Labrador justice minister and I repeated it a second time. I am not sure if the hon. member actually listened, so I will read it a third time and maybe a bit slower. He said:

Most groups, most experts and most witnesses who have given presentations on this bill would advocate that the federal government is proceeding in the wrong direction, and that this procedure has been tried in other areas before and has proven to be a failure...Incarcerating more people is not the answer.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, would the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl like to comment on the fact that one of the aspects of the bill is to remove the possibility of a pardon from everybody? It does that by getting rid of the word “pardon” and calls it a “record suspension”. It seems to me that would remove the possibility of redemption or the interest that someone might have in clearing his or her name with a pardon and take away from the rehabilitative effects.

Does my colleague have any comments on that?

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

I do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker. Removing pardon is the wrong way to go.

I believe in judicial discretion. This omnibus crime bill would take away judicial discretion. That is the wrong way to go. What this omnibus crime bill is missing is common sense. There is no common sense.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member relates to his comments with respect to the impact on provincial treasuries.

What will invariably happen is more people will be in provincial institutions and that will result in charter challenges based on the overcrowding of jails or a dramatic strain on provincial budgets. The charter challenge will result in guilty parties going free. Therefore, what we are faced with in terms of the downloading is the exact opposite of what the Conservatives' intend, or tough choices within provincial governments.

Could the member comment on that?

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister of my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador has said that if the omnibus crime bill passes, our prison capability within Her Majesty's penitentiary in St. John's South—Mount Pearl cannot handle the increase in prisoners. The system cannot handle an influx of more prisoners.

On the one hand, we have been after the Conservative government for years for a new prison for Newfoundland and Labrador. The answer has been no. On the other hand, the government is pushing through an omnibus crime bill that is going to increase the number of prisoners in Newfoundland and Labrador's prison system. That makes no sense.

Is my province going to find it hard to pay for this? Of course. My province does not know where the money is going to come from. That is the question the Conservative government has yet to answer.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-10 at report stage, a bill that I have become quite familiar with as a member of the justice committee. As the House knows, the justice committee vetted the bill for many hours in the last few weeks.

I am pleased to speak specifically with respect to the supporting the victims of terrorism aspects of Bill C-10.

However, before I talk about a couple of amendments at the committee stage, I would like to review the essential thrust of the bill as it relates to victims of terrorism.

Reducing domestic crime is important and is part of the strong mandate that Canadians gave to our government. However, in our desire to keep our streets and communities safe from criminals, we must not overlook the need to protect Canadians from the dangers of terrorism. Those dangers are very real.

A few months ago, Canadians observed the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, when 24 Canadians lost their lives on that terrible day that will live on infamy. Suddenly, terrorism had struck close to home. It was no longer a distant threat that could be ignored. Yet the reality is that terrorism has never been far away. Let us not forget that the plot that took the lives of 329 passengers on Air India Flight 182 was planned and executed in Canada. Therefore, we are not immune from terrorists, nor have we ever been.

We must always stay vigilant of the threats lapping at our shores. That is why our government carefully studied the commission of inquiry's final report into the Air India bombing. In response to that report, the government released the Air India inquiry action plan last December. This plan will help us address the outstanding security issues highlighted by the commission.

Certainly, the commission of inquiry illustrated that time did not diminish the demand for justice. The victims of terror and their families need to see that justice is served. They need to know that terrorists cannot pursue their radical goals with impugnity.

The notion of accountability lies at the very heart of Bill C-10. To put the proposed amendments in context, let me highlight the provisions that relate specifically to the fight against terrorism.

First, the proposed legislation will give victims of terror a greater voice. By their very nature, acts of terrorism often have victims feeling powerless. All too often, they are effectively silenced. Our government is determined to give victims back their voice.

Bill C-10 would empower victims to take the perpetrators of terrorism and their supporters to court. In practical terms, this would mean victims could file a civil suit against those who committed terrorism. This would include individuals, terrorist entities listed under the Criminal Code, or listed states that supported a terrorist act.

If the act of terrorism has taken place outside Canada, victims would either need to be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident or would need to demonstrate a real and substantial connection between the incident and Canada.

In support of this provision, the bill would amend the State Immunity Act to create a list of states that support terrorism. Lifting the immunity of a state is a serious matter. The bill proposes a robust process, whereby the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Public Safety will have to satisfy the Governor-in-Council that the state should be listed as a supporter of terrorism. Furthermore, the state's alleged support for terrorism must be in relation to a listed entity pursuant to our Criminal Code. The evidence must be weighed carefully and set against the diplomatic consequences that may come from lifting an immunity.

At the same time, the list should always be a work in progress. Every two years, the two aforementioned ministers would examine the list to carefully determine if new states ought to be listed.

By the same token, if listed states can show that they have ended their support for terrorism, then we should remove them from that list. However, if a state is removed from the list while litigation is ongoing, the state would not benefit from the immunity in such case.

It is not enough to give victims their day in court. Nor is it enough to enable victims to become successful plaintiffs. If the court's judgment is against a foreign state, then the plaintiffs need additional support to ensure that justice is served. For that reason, Bill C-10 would empower the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to help identify and locate the property of that foreign state.

To sum up, Bill C-10 would give the victims of terrorists back their voice. It would support legal redress against terrorist entities. It would offer support to successful plaintiffs. At the same time, it would weigh the consequences of these actions carefully to protect Canada's relations in the global community.

I would now like to direct members' attention to the two amendments made at committee which I referenced at the beginning of my remarks. I would suggest to the House that the amendments made at committee will make this bill even stronger. Members will know that our government has already passed these amendments related to the justice for victims of terrorism act.

The first amendment our government passed will help to lighten the burden of victims of terrorism. Defendants would be presumed to be liable if they supported a listed entity that caused or contributed to the loss or damage subject to a cause of action. The defendant could always refute the claim.

The second amendment passed at committee will make it possible for a court to hear a matter based solely on the plaintiff's Canadian citizenship or permanent residency. This would hold true even in cases where there is not a real and substantial connection between the action and Canada.

It is the government's hope that this bill will be passed at report stage, that the amendments made at committee can be approved by the House and, in so doing, all parts of Bill C-10, including the justice for victims of terrorism act, the offences with respect to organized crime, sexual predators and drug offences can be passed. My constituents, police officers and all Canadians have asked for this type of legislation to be part of the toolbox in the ongoing fight against crime.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made reference at the beginning of his comments to such terrorist acts as the Air India disaster. If this law had been in place then, what would have been different for the victims of the Air India disaster?

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, the Air India disaster was a black mark not only in Canadian history but also in global history. In many ways, as I indicated in my opening comments, the resulting inquiry into the Air India incident formed the impetus for the part of Bill C-10 with respect to victims of terrorism. As the hon. member will know from his review of the legislation, this bill gives victims of terrorism a cause of action against terrorists that they can prove caused the damage and losses to their family. This type of legislation would have been of great value to victims of terrorism such as those who suffered severe losses in the Air India incident.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member would recognize that there would be a substantial cost to the implementation of Bill C-10, if it passes. We do not know what those costs would be. The Liberal Party has attempted to obtain the actual costs from the government, but we are beginning to believe that the government has no idea of the costs. We do know there are provinces that have great concerns in regard to the implementation costs and the ongoing costs of Bill C-10.

What would the member suggest to provinces that are having a difficult time trying to provide programs and services to prevent crimes from taking place? The programs and services are being imposed by Ottawa initiatives. They would cost them a great deal of money to implement. The Conservatives' proposals include such things as building prisons and large jails.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North will be happy to know that with respect to the provisions of Bill C-10 that deal with amendments to victims of terrorism and state immunity, there would be no costs to the government.

With respect to his broader question, members of the opposition are fond of talking about the costs of implementing our safe streets and safe communities agenda. They fail to realize the cost of crime which is borne by victims. Victims bear the majority, I think it is 80% of the estimated $100 billion, of the cost of crime to Canadians annually. Those costs are in terms of increased insurance premiums, lost wages, lost property, and of course the immeasurable damages when an individual loses his or her life. The costs of crime are much broader than simply the cost to the justice system. The portions of the cost of crime that are borne by the victims are often lost on the opposition.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, if my insurance goes up because someone steals the member's car, that is part of the cost of crime in his calculations. That is interesting.

The member talked about the anti-terrorism legislation. The biggest criticism is with regard to the state list. We know, for example, that the Americans took Libya off the state list when they were rebuilding their relationship with Libya.

Is that not a problem with our bill, too, that the state list depends on the politics of the government of the day?

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the hon. member on the justice committee.

As the hon. member knows, the issue of listing the states is complicated. There has to be a balance between the evidence of terrorism and what it will do to international relations with respect to those countries.

The remedy is that the list will be reviewed every two years by two ministers, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This will ensure that the list is updated periodically, to make sure that it adequately reflects the risk of certain states in their promotion of terrorism.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-10, which is described as the safe streets and communities bill. I am rising today in my role as the critic for aboriginal affairs and northern development.

A number of members speaking to this bill have raised concerns that this approach does not fully respond to the concerns that have been raised over the decades by the courts, corrections officers, legal experts, corrections experts, and by the aboriginal community itself.

The aboriginal community in Canada is less than 3% to 4% of the total population, yet tenfold more aboriginal Canadians are incarcerated. As National Chief Shawn Atleo has pointed out, aboriginal youth are more likely to be incarcerated than to graduate from high school.

The number of aboriginal women prisoners is growing and is more than the number of other Canadian women prisoners. Of the women in maximum security, 46% are aboriginal. There has been a 20% increase in the incarceration of aboriginal women just in the last five years.

I will give examples at the provincial level. In Saskatchewan provincial jails, 87% are aboriginal. In Manitoba, 83% are aboriginal. In Alberta, 54% are aboriginal. This is absolutely reprehensible. Surely this should have raised a red flag with the government. In coming forward with these proposals to address crime, to reduce crime and consider victims, surely the government should have considered this. However, that is not apparent on the face of the bill or in the debate.

Why is there a higher rate of aboriginals incarcerated? The reasons I mentioned have been reiterated in countless studies, court decisions, determinations by coroners, and so forth. The Auditor General has raised concerns about this and about the discriminatory treatment of aboriginals in more than 30 reports over a decade.

The coroner's report on the sad rate of suicide at Pikangikum raised the broader issues of concern as to why there are suicides and why there is a high rate of crime within the aboriginal communities.

The reasons have been stated decade after decade as discrimination against aboriginals in education, housing, sanitation, poverty, opportunities to engage in the economy. This has resulted in despair, gang membership, domestic disputes and intoxication-related crimes.

The cost of Bill C-10 for Canadian aboriginal communities will be far greater than just the price of expanding jails. The price to the aboriginal community will be an increasing loss of opportunity for aboriginal youth to have community supports, to continue their education, to participate in the economy, and to have the support of their families to become contributing members of society.

A good number of the witnesses on this bill raised the particular concern of the blanket policy of minimum sentences. Many legal experts testified on the government bill in the last Parliament and the current bill. They stated that the threat of minimum sentences will have a negligible deterrent effect for the majority of aboriginal offenders. Why? Because the majority of offences are related to: addictions; violence associated with intoxication; interpersonal violence; a sense of hopelessness; the legacy and impacts of residential schools; and adoptions away from their community. They also have been the unwitting victims of committing the crime or victims of the crime related to street life.

The experts are telling us that minimum sentences will do nothing to address the root causes of aboriginal offences. If the very purpose of the bill, as the government professes, is to deter further crime and to avoid further victimization, then clearly if the majority of people in our prisons are aboriginals, there is a problem. Where is the analysis of whether or not these measures will genuinely deter aboriginal criminals and reduce their crime rate?

The only predictable result of these measures would be the increased percentage of aboriginals in our jails, the increased probability of denied pardons, as they are currently called, and the increased number of aboriginals outside the economy. The government speaks all the time of the need to get our aboriginals engaged in the economy; this would have the opposite effect.

The Supreme Court of Canada has made very strong observations through its decades of experience in hearing cases involving aboriginal offenders. It raised very serious concerns about the overrepresentation of aboriginals in Canadian courts and the inability of the current court system to address the question of aboriginal offenders.

As legal and correctional experts have testified, aboriginal overrepresentation speaks to the failure of the Canadian criminal justice system to address the root causes of aboriginal offending. The point they make is not that no aboriginal should ever be jailed, but rather that due consideration should be made to any evidence of an inequitable effect of any laws or policies on aboriginal Canadians, and that when such an effect is found, those policies should be adjusted.

A year ago, the government finally signed on to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and thereby committed to removing any discriminatory policies and practices and laws that would discriminate against aboriginal Canadians. There is no evidence of that kind of due consideration in the bill that the government has brought forward. There is no evidence that it has given consideration to experts' testimony and submissions made on this aspect of their bill. Study after study, including royal commission reports, judicial inquiries, reports by Correctional Services, coroners' reports, Auditor General reports and recommendations in decisions at all levels of court have urged action on overrepresentation of aboriginals in Canadian prisons.

More aboriginals would be removed from the influence and support of their families and communities. We only need to look at the effect of these measures on the community of Nunavut. Those who are automatically incarcerated under the minimum sentence would be moved a long distance from their community. There has been evidence brought forward that the prisons are already overcrowded, but they would be moved to communities far from their community, thus removing any potential for family or community support or rehabilitation.

In the last Parliament and in this Parliament, we have heard about the cuts over time to community support programs. There have been cuts to the healing centres and to rehabilitation, and closure of the prison farms.

Nowhere is this mistaken path more evident than in the case of the Samson band in Alberta. The Samson band had come to the federal government begging for support to build a centre for its youth so that the youth would be diverted away from increasing engagement in gang violence. There have been sad cases over the last several years of children and community members being killed. The band undertook the effort to do a major review with the RCMP, community leaders and leaders outside the community. The top recommendation was to build a centre and put the programs in place to get the kids off the street and divert them from crime. Instead, very close to them is a prison; that is simply where the youth will continue to be diverted, and crime will continue in their community.

We even had the United Church of Canada calling for greater attention to the discriminatory effect of this law on aboriginal Canadians.

Therefore I call upon the government to rethink and to give consideration. The federal government has unilateral responsibility for first nations Canadians, and I believe it is incumbent upon the government to give closer consideration the discriminatory effect its measures will have on aboriginal Canadians.