This bill is from the 41st Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2013.
Rob Nicholson Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
Part 1 of this enactment creates, in order to deter terrorism, a cause of action that allows victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators of terrorism and their supporters. It also amends the State Immunity Act to prevent a listed foreign state from claiming immunity from the jurisdiction of Canadian courts in respect of actions that relate to its support of terrorism.
Part 2 amends the Criminal Code to
(a) increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties, and increase maximum penalties, for certain sexual offences with respect to children;
(b) create offences of making sexually explicit material available to a child and of agreeing or arranging to commit a sexual offence against a child;
(c) expand the list of specified conditions that may be added to prohibition and recognizance orders to include prohibitions concerning contact with a person under the age of 16 and use of the Internet or any other digital network;
(d) expand the list of enumerated offences that may give rise to such orders and prohibitions; and
(e) eliminate the reference, in section 742.1, to serious personal injury offences and to restrict the availability of conditional sentences for all offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life and for specified offences, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.
It also amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for cannabis (marijuana) production and to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I.
Part 3 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to
(a) clarify that the protection of society is the paramount consideration for the Correctional Service of Canada in the corrections process and for the National Parole Board and the provincial parole boards in the determination of all cases;
(b) establish the right of a victim to make a statement at parole hearings and permit the disclosure to a victim of certain information about the offender;
(c) provide for the automatic suspension of the parole or statutory release of offenders who receive a new custodial sentence and require the National Parole Board to review their case within a prescribed period; and
(d) rename the National Parole Board as the Parole Board of Canada.
It also amends the Criminal Records Act to substitute the term “record suspension” for the term “pardon”. It extends the ineligibility periods for applications for a record suspension and makes certain offences ineligible for a record suspension. It also requires the National Parole Board to submit an annual report that includes the number of applications for record suspensions and the number of record suspensions ordered.
Lastly, it amends the International Transfer of Offenders Act to provide that one of the purposes of that Act is to enhance public safety and to modify the list of factors that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness may consider in deciding whether to consent to the transfer of a Canadian offender.
Part 4 amends the sentencing and general principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as well as its provisions relating to judicial interim release, adult and youth sentences, publication bans, and placement in youth custody facilities. It defines the terms “violent offence” and “serious offence”, amends the definition “serious violent offence” and repeals the definition “presumptive offence”. It also requires police forces to keep records of extrajudicial measures used to deal with young persons.
Part 5 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow officers to refuse to authorize foreign nationals to work in Canada in cases where to give authorization would be contrary to public policy considerations that are specified in instructions given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-10s:
Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
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.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the number of members now showing up to listen to my speech. I thank the members for the compliments on the speech. One hon. member said that he was suffering from insomnia. I guess it is better to suffer from insomnia than to fall asleep on the job. I thank him for his attention.
It is disturbing to know the enormous expense that comes with the bill. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister have from time to time said so what, that is the nature of the Constitution. They say that they have the responsibility for passing the criminal law and that the provinces have the responsibility for the administration of justice. If that is their constitutional responsibility, they say that they are prepared to let them take their responsibility and they will take theirs. However, that belies the nature of our Confederation. We have a country that depends on federal-provincial co-operation, or at least respect, at least consultation on matters like the cost.
The minister talked about how the government consulted. I do not deny that some provinces sought some of the measures that are in the bill but there is not unanimity among the provinces on the bill. Some are opposed and some are in favour. However, I think all are concerned that they would need to bear some of the additional costs that are associated with the bill.
The minister says that the government has increased its contributions to the provinces through transfer payments in the last year or so but they were not increased specifically to deal with this proposed legislation. There was no consultation on the cost of it. The Government of Canada did not say that it had some changes that would cost a considerable amount of money for some provinces in terms of additional incarceration costs. The provinces would need to build more prisons to keep more people housed in jails and that would cost some money. However, the federal government did not make the provinces aware of that. It did not give them an implementation schedule or say that it was prepared to consider ameliorating some of that cost. We did not hear that.
What we hear is that the government does not even know the costs. It is not even going to look at what the costs would be. It is not going to consult on the burden of the costs. It is just going to go ahead and say that it is the federal government's job to pass criminal law and that it is the provinces job to pay the costs of incarcerating people, the prosecutorial costs, the legal aid that is generated by the new provisions and the extra amount of trials that there would be to deal with the mandatory minimums. That would all fall on the heads of the provinces and the federal government would let them look after it because, after all, it is their constitutional responsibility.
There is a nice intellectual argument that, yes, we can divide sections 92(a) and 92(b) in the Constitution, but the reality is that the Confederation of Canada involves a partnership and that partnership needs to be respected. The dignity and role of the provinces must be acknowledged and respected in terms of that imposition. I used the term “downloading” once and someone suggested that was wrong because the provinces had those responsibilities in the first place. However, if it is not downloading, it is creating new costs for the provinces that are not there now. The federal government is creating these costs because it would increase the number of people who end up in jail.
Someone opposite said that all the government was trying to do was put criminals in jail. If that is all it is trying to do, I could still argue on how long offenders will be put in jail. We could argue about whether jail was the best place for some of them or whether a rehabilitation program would make our communities safer. The assumption from members opposite seems to be just to put criminals in jail.
If the members on that side just want to put criminals in jail and want us to agree with them, that would not be much of a debate because that is not our responsibility as members of Parliament. Our responsibility is to examine the laws to see whether they will actually work and whether this is a bill to make streets safer or a bill that will result in more crimes, more criminals and more victims. That is our concern about the other side.
The House resumed from March 6 consideration of the motion in relation to 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.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
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.
Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders
An hon. member
Nunavut.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
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.”
Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Etobicoke North.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
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?
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, the member for Etobicoke North has raised a very important question. Because of her own education and knowledge of the system, I know she is very aware of some of the difficulties that not only people with FASD but others face in our system.
The member mentioned the cost of $21,000 per year for assisting an individual with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The cost of incarceration is in excess of $100,000 a year. It is very disappointing that the government does not recognize that if we doubled the amount of support for people with FASD instead of spending five times as much incarcerating them, we may go a lot further in ensuring that the lives of people with FASD can be made more positive and that they can be better contributing members of society. There are organizations and communities that are very supportive, particularly in the north, which we would like to see funded rather than treating these people as criminals and incarcerating them.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to a program called Wapikoni Mobile, which has been around for a number of years. It is a mobile studio that goes from one first nations community to another and works with aboriginal youth to help them develop basic skills and teach them things like how to work together and follow a schedule. This helps them to integrate into society. Unfortunately, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada recently reduced its subsidies by about half a million dollars, and the program's survival is now threatened.
Does the hon. member agree with me that it is better to invest in such a program than it is to spend all that money on a bill like Bill C-10, which will simply serve to send more people, many of them aboriginal people, to prison?
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
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.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, earlier in his speech, the member for St. John's East made reference to the international effort for the legalization of cannabis. I want to emphasize that four of the last five mayors of Vancouver and former premier Mike Harcourt have made the same plea, that in an effort to stop wasting the resources of law enforcement, we ought to take the advice of experts and move in the direction of legalization as opposed to increased incarceration.
My question for the hon. member relates to what I regard as the fundamental matter before the House at this moment. As members of Parliament we have taken an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Each of us has taken an oath to uphold the Canadian Constitution. In the case of Regina v. Smickle, the Ontario Superior Court has ruled that these mandatory minimums offend the charter and are likely unconstitutional. It seems to be beyond our ability to grasp that we are passing a law that is in itself illegal.
Does the member have any comments on that problem, for each of us as individual members?
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has raised a novel question as to whether or not there is some question of an oath.
I am saying this as someone who is a lawyer, as is the hon. member. I have read most of the case of Mr. Smickle. It is a rather unfortunate set of circumstances. It is also potentially a unique law where if the Crown prosecuted by summary conviction, the maximum sentence was one year, and if the Crown prosecuted by indictment, which it did, the minimum sentence was three years. There was no possibility of any sentence between one and three years. The Crown was the one that made the decision, not the court, not the judge.
I am not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences, although we did support that in the case of sexual offences because of the national consensus on that. We may have to look again at the aboriginal solutions within communities for that, but we supported that.
I do not think the court said that all mandatory minimum sentences were unconstitutional. That court is a court of first instance.
I do not think, despite what debate we might have about it, that we are somehow bound by our oath not to vote against it. I will certainly be voting against any aspect of Bill C-10. I do not know if we can say the members opposite are voting against something that is definitely constitutional. The member for Mount Royal has said that much of it is constitutionally suspect, but that is really for the courts to decide.
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very interesting speech.
I took particular note of his comments on the criminalization of aboriginal youth. This is one of the concerns of the Algonquin people in my riding, whether they are from Barriere Lake or Kitigan Zibi. They have spoken to me of their concerns about Bill C-10. They are particularly concerned about the fact that one of their traditions involves judging their own people. They would like to work to rehabilitate their own young people and find their own solutions. Does the hon. member have any idea how Bill C-10 would prevent them from doing so?