Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The government has a four-year mandate. I'm using the mandate now not in respect of the specific legislation or in the manner in which it has been used. But it has a four-year mandate. It's a majority government. At the end of the day, the government, because of that majority, can enact whatever legislation they want.
I was much encouraged by the words of the Prime Minister immediately after the government secured a majority. He said he intended to govern in a cooperative way with the opposition, to work together in the best interest of Canadians. I took those words seriously then, and I seek to take them just as seriously now.
I'm not saying that we should be debating this bill for the next four years. I'm not even saying we should be debating it for the next year. All I am saying is that the nine bills taken together, as well as each of them considered singly, deserve a fair hearing. All I am saying is that they deserve an informed consideration, including such contributions as may be made by the learned officials from the Department of Justice who stand ready to share with us their expertise on various provisions in this legislation. I happen to have had the benefit of working with these officials, so I know of their expertise and I know they can make a contribution to our deliberations if the time is given for that approach.
When I said that at the end of the day the government has a mandate and can do whatever it wants, I did not mean at the end of the present day. That would never have crossed my mind. I can understand that at the end of the day, to speak metaphorically, the government will be able to enact whatever they want. But I would assume that, given the Prime Minister's statement and the whole nature of precedent and principle and committee and the like, we would be entitled to an informed and responsive hearing.
Earlier, I gave some examples of the transformative nature of each of the bills. I have to say that I commend the government for having introduced transformative, historic legislation with regard to giving victims of terror a civil remedy. We did not take all that much time in proposing amendments to improve the legislation. We did not want to reject it, only to improve and refine it.
I'm using this as an example of why we have things here that warrant further consideration. Let me give you some other things that time did not permit. I would invite the members opposite to rethink the need for more time in the light of the transformative nature of this bill. Let me begin with something that I haven't yet mentioned. Before this legislation was tabled, we already had a serious problem of overcrowding in the prisons. The data is there. I don't want to overburden this discussion by referring to it. Some of it was referenced in the testimony. We know that some provincial prisons already are at a 200% capacity.
This raises serious constitutional and policy considerations. On the constitutional side, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that 137.5% capacity brings us to the point of cruel and unusual punishment. Before this legislation was tabled, we had a 200% capacity. We run the risk of having more crime within prisons, and having it by reason of this legislation. This would be the opposite of what the members for the government seek. And I take their objectives in good faith.
I'm only saying that this issue of overcrowding raises a constitutional question of cruel and unusual punishment. That's what I meant when I said earlier that there are Charter issues that have to be addressed, issues that cannot simply be whisked away by assurances of a time allocation and dismissals of previous considerations.
I might add that since we met on Tuesday.... And I'm using only one example. Yesterday in The Globe and Mail there was a whole issue on the question of overcrowding, on the specific phenomenon of segregated facilities and the kind of abuse that takes place, and certain recommendations in that regard.
This brings me to my second concern, Mr. Chairman. My colleague Mr. Harris has spoken to it. It's the whole question of the corrections process. I'll make one point. We heard a lot of testimony on why it is important to keep the principle of least restrictive alternatives involved in corrections management. This goes to a constitutional principle with respect to least restrictive means, proportionality, and the like. I don't want to belabour this point. All I'm saying is that this is a second consideration. It is the corrections consideration, which again brings up issues of constitutional consideration and policy consideration.
This leads me to a third. Mr. Harris has mentioned this, but I want to mention it in another connection, and that is the Quebec Youth Criminal Justice Act. There are specific provisions with respect to amendments that have been proposed, warranting consideration in the matter of certain procedures regarding repeal of publication bans and the like. I'm not going to go into it now. I just want to say that we are discussing that legislation against a far larger transformative concern. In other words, we are discussing the Quebec model, which is effectively, as the Minister of Justice himself said, a prevention model versus a punitive model, a rehabilitative model versus an incarcerative model. As he put it, in the words in which he used at the time, une solution durable, a permanent solution, as distinct from a temporary solution, which may appear to be a quick fix but may be harmful down the road.
Why the testimony of the Quebec Minister of Justice, who has since proffered other amendments, is important, and why the other testimony we heard from Quebec is important is because of the evidence. The evidence is that Quebec has the lowest recidivism rate in the country. The evidence is that youth justice crime in the Quebec model has been going down, while youth justice crime elsewhere has been going up. That warrants consideration with regard to Canada as a whole, Mr. Chairman.
I'll close on this point by saying, as the Quebec Minister of Justice said, that just the issue of publication of a youth offender's name can lead to the important concern re: stigmatization and the problems that involves.
This leads me to the fourth consideration. Mr. Chairman, we've not had a chance...I've not even heard this mentioned. Frankly, the only reason I have it is that a letter was sent to you that was copied to me and all the members of this committee. I'm referring to a letter from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada that was dated November 10 and recently received by me and other members. She writes that she wants to provide the members of this committee with her views on some of the privacy implications. Again, I'm talking about transformative themes and transformative issues, privacy implications stemming from BillC-10. And then she says--and this is an important point--
While clearly acknowledging the valid objectives of the amendments proposed....
Here's a person who is saying she acknowledges this legislation has valid objectives.
Then she goes on to say:
...I wish to highlight the cumulative effect that some of the legal changes....
— i.e. in the bill as a whole—
could have on privacy rights for many Canadians.
Then she says:
We offer below for your consideration what we view as some of the more significant privacy issues raised in three parts of Bill C-10, and provide some suggestions as to how these issues might be addressed.
Mr. Chairman, I've read this letter. I suspect all of us have had a chance certainly to see it, and I hope maybe to look at it. I have to say that I reread it last night. It's a very serious letter. It runs to six pages. It gives three case studies of the privacy implications involving all Canadians. This alone, Mr. Chair, would take more than five minutes to read, let alone have an informed discussion about it from someone who shares the objectives of BillC-10 as a whole.
I'm going to do this very quickly. She talks about several privacy concerns in three parts of Bill C-10. I'll mention two of them quickly and close on this point.
She says, “Part 4 of Bill C-10”—and I'm referring to that because I have just been talking about that legislation—“raises two main potential privacy issues: (i) changes to procedures on publication bans and (ii) additional record-keeping requirements set out in the Youth Criminal Justice Act....” Then she goes on to document and detail these. I won't go into that, Mr. Chairman.
Then she goes to part 3; I'm now on page 4 of her letter. Very quickly, she says, part 3 of Bill C-10, Corrections and Conditional Release Act amendments:
...raises three particular privacy issues: (i) the release of expanded offender information to victims; (ii) new provisions for the electronic monitoring of offenders; and (iii) new powers to search vehicles on penitentiary property.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going into the merits of it. I'm not going to detail it. I'm only saying that this document as a whole raises some very serious privacy concerns with respect to Canadians.
We, as parliamentarians, I think have a responsibility to address this in a responsible and responsive way such that it can have a fair hearing. I'm not saying it must be an unending hearing; I'm saying “a fair hearing”, so we can address the concerns that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has brought to our attention.
This, as I said, is yet another thematic consideration: the transformative impact of Bill C-10 on privacy concerns. At the end of the day it may be that we say we don't believe the privacy concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner have merit; at the end of our discussion, people may say that. But I'm saying they at least deserve to have that hearing, and we at least deserve to discuss it.
This brings me now to a fifth thematic concern, and it relates to something that went on in the House. Mr. Chairman, we had a full-day debate on a national suicide prevention strategy, and at the end of the day all parties in the House concurred with the need to have a national suicide prevention strategy. You may say, why are you bringing that up with respect to the bill? I'm bringing that up, Mr. Chairman, because at the time we debated it in the House that day it became clear that 90% of the people who commit suicide have some sort of mental illness or disability.
What we saw from the testimony we got from Monsieur Trudell and others is that the issues of mental health considerations are underrepresented in the bill. In other words, since so many offenders in prison have mental health concerns or considerations, we, as parliamentarians—and we heard the testimony of Monsieur Trudell and others—have a responsibility to address whether this bill could be improved by including more consideration for those who have mental health concerns.
That is part of an overall prevention strategy that may lead to less crime, less cost, less incarceration, and better rehabilitation, and at the end of the day, everyone, particularly the Canadian public on whose behalf we are here, will be better off.
Let me go into a related thing, a sixth consideration. We had a professor, Irvin Waller, who came before us. He proposed that there be a crime reduction board. He said even if you pass this legislation and even if you pass it in the present form, may I recommend that you establish this instrumentality for a national crime reduction board. The whole series of objectives and indicators, which I won't go into, were placed before us.
Mr. Chairman, one of my amendments is to in fact propose that, but I'm saying it deserves more than five minutes of consideration. It deserves to have a responsive hearing because it would be a significant and important initiative that will in my view reduce crime because it's proven itself.
The objective of this legislation is to bring about safe streets and communities. I believe this crime reduction board proposal by Professor Waller will help to bring about safe streets and communities, but we need to give it a fair hearing in this House. We will not be able to do so in this manner of the time allocation.
Then we have the whole question of mandatory minimums. I've spoken elsewhere on this issue. My own position on this is well known. I think the evidence is clear on this—not only in the Canadian jurisdiction but in other jurisdictions, which I and others have examined, in the United States, in South Africa, etc.—that mandatory minimums do not serve as a deterrent. I'm not going to go into that now other than to make one other point.
The real problem with mandatory minimums is that they have a disproportionate and prejudicial impact on the most vulnerable in our society, and in particular on aboriginal people. We have a situation now where, for example, 34% of women in prison are aboriginal, a shocking datum. I'm not talking about the statistics, but in human terms, about the human costs, the social cost, and the like.
Why am I saying that, Mr. Chair? After we met on Tuesday, the United States Sentencing Commission released its report. We never had a chance to consider it here because it wasn't even released. The New York Times, whatever you think of the New York Times, wrote an editorial on it as well. In other words, it's one of the most significant evidentiary releases and reports that we've had in years. It's an enormous amount of evidence of relevance to our deliberations. What concerns me, Mr. Chairman, is that we will never even address it. We will go and look at a bill with proposals for mandatory minimums and we will not be able to incorporate by reference and in our discussions one of the most important reports that has come out from any jurisdiction in years from the U.S. Sentencing Commission on the issue of mandatory minimums, let alone our own evidence, which we have yet to properly address in the context of the amendments.
What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that this is another transformative impact. I'm not talking about five or six plants of marijuana. I'm not going there. I'm talking about the overall transformative impact of both introducing new mandatory minimums and enhancing existing mandatory minimums. What impact does this have with respect to the principles of sentencing, criminal justice reform, impacts on vulnerable people, the disproportionate impact on aboriginal people? And how can the U.S. Sentencing Commission report help us in this regard to achieve the objectives of what the government is seeking?
This brings me now to the last point to which I wish to make reference, and that is the question of the victim's voice. I respect the government in its ongoing concern for the rights of victims. I think it's to be commended with respect to the need to protect the rights of victims. I believe the witness testimony we heard from governmental witnesses shows the importance also of listening to victims' voices.
But I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that when I go through this legislation, I do not see what I would like to see with respect to the protection of the victims. I do not see what I would like to see with regard to victims' voices. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I found, in the hundreds of pages of this legislation, only a few provisions that in fact would enhance the rights of victims in the corrections and parole system.
Maybe they caught my eye, Mr. Chairman, because frankly these provisions, which are important provisions, which I support, are provisions that I introduced as Minister of Justice in 2005. I'd like to think I would support the same provisions I introduced in 2005. When I was defeated, they never came to pass.
There are important provisions here in the area of corrections and parole with regard to the rights of victims. But that's almost the only voice being given to victims. There is now the other historical voice that now will be given to victims with regard to those who will now have for the first time, as I mentioned, a civil remedy as victims of terror against their terrorist perpetrators. But for the most part, we don't have enough protections with regard to victims in this legislation.
The provisions to toughen sentencing for sex offenders will be welcomed by most. But some of the reforms in this bill will toughen the sentences for low-risk offenders with low rates of recidivism. They won't make children safer. They'll cost five times more than what is being invested, for example, in the Child Advocacy Centres that support abused children.
I refer to a recent op-ed piece in theNational Post by one of the witnesses, Steve Sullivan, who talked about how omnibus crime bills ignore the true victims. He may not have had an opportunity to fully share his testimony. I know he sent it in to one of the other honourable members. I'm talking here only in terms of the rights of victims.
Mr. Chairman, when I look at this bill, taken as a whole, and when I look at the procedure being recommended today with respect to how we should address it, I want to invite the government, the members opposite, to reconsider and revisit their proposal. Let us go back, and, as we were going to do, let us do it in a responsible way and engage in a clause-by-clause approach.
We almost finished, Mr. Chairman, with that historic piece of legislation for giving civil remedies to victims of terror. Whether or not they adopted the amendments to the legislation I proposed, it still is worthy of being enacted for the transformative and historical principle it establishes. We needed to amend the sovereign immunity act. We needed to remove the immunity of foreign states and terrorist perpetrators. All that is important. I think the amendments would have improved it, but I think the importance of the legislation also speaks for itself. And we got close, in one sitting, to considering all of the amendments.
I do not see why we could not give the same responsive hearing to the other pieces of legislation. That's all I'm asking for, and I think that's all we, here on this side, are asking for. Just let us have a responsible, responsive, fair hearing so that, through us, those constituents we represent, and the Canadian people as a whole, on whose behalf we seek to speak, can have their voices find expression here.
That's what being a parliamentarian is all about, Mr. Chairman. We are, in effect, ombudsmen for the constituencies we represent. We are ombudspeople for the Canadian public as a whole. This has nothing to do with parties. This has everything to do with our mandate, our constitutional responsibilities as trustees of the public: our responsibility for oversight of the legislation; our responsibility with respect to the exercise of spending power; our responsibility to give expression to some of the witness and expert testimony we've heard; our responsibility to hear the expertise Department of Justice officials who are sitting with us today can share with us; and our responsibility to give those constituents, from all sides, who we invited to come here as witnesses to give their recommendations, a voice in the consideration of this legislation.
I say all this, Mr. Chairman, because, really, if we go ahead and engage not only in the time allocation we did in the House and consider all of this in two days.... That has passed. If we go ahead now and short-circuit this legislative process, that, regrettably, in its effect—I don't want to impute it to intent—will be an abuse of the parliamentary process, and an abuse of what we now have, which is a constitutional democracy. And it will, regrettably, be a dark day for parliamentary democracy and a dark day for our constitutional democracy.
I'll close by saying that as a Quebecker, and after listening to Minister Fournier, not only two days ago but before that, if you take this projet de loi, taken as a whole, I believe.... What I want to share now is why I think it deserves the utmost consideration.
It's because this bill will result in an increase in crime, a weakening of justice, an increase in costs, a reduction in the chances of rehabilitation for offenders and less protection for victims.
That which is so important is running through this legislation.
At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, regrettably, with all the good faith involved, with all the well-intentioned approach of the members opposite, if we pass the bill in its present form, if we pass all nine bills in this present form, the concerns that can be alleviated by way of amendment....
I've just brought in the Privacy Commissioner for her expertise regarding the privacy concerns as one case study and the U.S. Sentencing Commission as another case study of things we need to address. If we do not correct this legislation, we will have the exact opposite of what we see. We will have more crime and less justice, at greater cost, with less rehabilitation of the offender and less protection of the victim. I don't think that is what any of us seek.
I would hope that we would give this legislation, the nine pieces of legislation, the hearing it warrants so that we can offer the necessary amendments that we believe deserve the discussion warranted to improve the bill, Mr. Chairman, for all Canadians, whom we represent here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
