Bill S-206

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (disclosure of information by jurors)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that the prohibition against the disclosure of information relating to jury proceedings does not apply, in certain circumstances, in respect of disclosure by jurors to health care professionals.

Bill C-5—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, actually, the evidence goes in the opposite direction. We are talking in this instance about people who are going to be incarcerated for less than two years. We are talking about individuals who are a low risk to the community. Most often, they are dealing with addiction issues, which are in fact mental health issues. We know that when dealing with mental health issues, keeping families together and having access to community services is the best chance at rehabilitation and getting people on a positive path.

It is not just that we do not want them to reoffend, because the objective in every instance in which there is intersectionality with our criminal justice system is rehabilitation. It is also fundamentally an issue of cost, if we want to look at it that way. Not only is it going to reduce crime, but conditional sentencing costs the system much less, which means we can put more dollars into preventing crimes from happening in the first place. Focusing on extending sentences, what it did in places like California and the U.K.—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt, but there are other questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Development.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about David Daubney, who was a predecessor of mine in my riding. He was a Conservative MP in the Mulroney years. He was actually chair of the justice committee during that time. He said that during the Harper years, the “departmental distaste for research and recommendations is the opposite of the situation under administrations such as those of Conservative justice minister Kim Campbell.” He also said that “mandatory minimum sentences have been widely condemned in corrections circles” and added that the previous Harper government “misrepresented conditional sentences as permissive even though lawyers, judges and the public know they can be made suitably restrictive.”

What does my colleague think about my Conservative predecessor in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say that is a reasonable position, and one that is rooted in science and evidence. One of the reasons why I reference other jurisdictions is because there was a movement, many decades ago, toward mandatory minimums and higher rates of incarceration. That resulted not only in much greater costs, much larger numbers of people in prison and much larger numbers of vulnerable people in prison, particularly from the mentally ill and vulnerable populations, but it resulted in higher crime.

When one thinks about it, it is actually logical. When one expands a population and somebody has a first intersection with the law, and they made a mistake and have begun to head down a dark path, and one puts them into prison and keeps them there for a long period of time, instead of being rehabilitated, they are in a hardened environment where things get worse and they come out not as healthy. They are more likely to reoffend. That is why, and I will come to it in my next question, I think the example of California is very prescient.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, there has been some discussion about why it is urgent to pass this bill and there is the idea that we can somehow just let this drift on. If we do not pass this bill soon, it means that additional people will be sent to detention or prison under the mandatory minimums.

Those people, through no fault of their own, will end up losing their housing, losing their jobs and having their kids apprehended. There is an urgency here that we correct this mistake. It does not matter to me who made it in the past. It is urgent to eliminate these 20 mandatory minimums so that people can get sentences that are appropriate to their crimes and get things that will help reintegrate them back into the community instead of forcing them into worse situations.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that this is precisely right. The reality is that not only is this bill exceptionally important for what it is going to do in the circumstances that the member has just referenced, but we have a lot of other important legislation that we have to get done in the next 10 days. Therefore, it is important that we move forward.

On the point that the member raised specifically, it is important to note that judicial discretion means that one can look at a case and if it is in fact very serious, one can go much higher than the mandatory minimum. If it is a circumstance where there were mitigating circumstances, community safety was not at risk, or an individual had an underlying mental health or other issue, there could be other means and other options available to make sure that this person was rehabilitated, healthy and back in the community. That means that this individual is less likely to reoffend and less likely to have violence in the community. It means that the costs are radically lower. It is proved in evidence. It is all there.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I find it fascinating that the member opposite talks about being in prison as a dark place for people's entire lives: the rest of their lives. We are talking about how hidden in this bill is human trafficking with material benefit. What does that mean? In the words of two women who live in my riding, Linda MacDonald and Jeanne Sarson, who wrote a book called Women Unsilenced, they talk about torture. They talk about the sale of women and girls.

If that is not something that we need more time to talk about and make the House aware of, so that we can protect those who are vulnerable in our society, I do not know what is. For the government to talk about time allocation for such an important topic is absolutely untenable. It is unfathomable. It is absolutely ridiculous and, quite honestly, this is virtue signalling at its worst.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that when a judge hears the matter of a serious crime of the nature the member is talking about, there will be serious sentences. In fact, they can go far beyond the mandatory minimums. That is not what we are talking about here.

I will go quickly to the example in California. In California, people, for political reasons, decided that it was really worthwhile to play up the worst offences—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There is no debate going back and forth. Again, I want to remind the hon. members from the official opposition that if they have further questions and comments, they should wait until the appropriate time to be able to do that. I am sure that they would want to listen to what the government House leader has to say, so that they can really understand what he is saying and be able to respond accordingly in future questions.

The hon. government House leader.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, the reason we care about what happens in other jurisdictions is because when they try something and make a mistake, we avoid doing the same thing. It is the same reason why we look at what happened in California: It went to the approach that the Conservatives are talking about, and it led to an overburdened criminal justice system and a recidivism rate that was over 25% for violent recidivism. Ours is below 1%. The Conservatives' example cost more money, led to more crime and was a complete, abject failure, and that is the policy they are suggesting we pursue.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals had an opportunity, with this bill, to provide full decriminalization for simple drug possession. In fact, this hon. member voted against the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni's private member's bill, Bill C-216, which would have been an opportunity to provide justice to people.

How does the hon. member reconcile blocking the decriminalization of simple drug possession, while understanding all the impacts this has on our community when it comes to extended sentencing?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, we worked with the NDP on every amendment its members put forward. This was not one of them, but I will say that, with respect to this item, we have to respect that every province has its individual jurisdiction.

[An hon member]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, we did do it in B.C. because we had co-operation working with the British Columbia government. What we need to be able to do is work with every province. We cannot just impose this upon provinces without the opportunity for provinces to prepare a plan and prepare for what they are going to do. That would be irresponsible. Frankly, that would be completely disrespecting our obligations under division of powers.