Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss Bill C-10, mandatory minimum sentences and their effectiveness.
Every MP in the House wants to make Canada a safer place to live. I am sure no one would debate this point.
It is good that we are having this debate on mandatory minimums now because they could have a major effect on making our society more or less dangerous. This debate gives all MPs a chance to review what the experts have had to say, what experience has shown and what the facts are. I had no opinion coming into this debate so this review is important to me.
From some of the research, it has quickly become evident that mandatory minimums do not work. Our prison system is over-burdened. Individuals are being let off when they should not be. Long incarceration is not helping our prison system. Those who vote for the bill will be making Canada a more dangerous place to live and will be putting our law-abiding citizens at risk. I will go into more details on how this will happen later on in my speech.
Criminologists, judges and prison wardens have told us that mandatory minimums do not work. Let us look at some of that evidence, some of which we have heard from previous speakers, particularly the former minister of justice.
Let me quote from the Conservative justice minister a few weeks ago on CTVs Canada AM. He said ,“The evidence in Canada is not particularly persuasive one way or another”. Doob and Cesaroni said in 2001, in the Osgoode law journal that “All Canadian commissions since 1952 have suggested abolishing mandatory minimums”.
What about around the world? “The story of the failure of mandatory penalties is at least three centuries old” said Michael Tonry in “Crime & Justice: A Review of Research”, University of Chicago Press 1992.
Let us look at the United States, which is often referenced with respect to mandatory minimums. When it brought in the three strike law for mandatory minimums, in some states it was applied stringently, in others it was hardly used at all. The sentence did not affect deterrence. It was no more a deterrent when it was applied as compared to when it was not. Doob and Cesaroni said that the three strike legislation was a spectacular failure.
The American Sentencing Commission, the Canadian Sentencing Commission, the Canadian Bar Association and the American Bar Association have all concluded that mandatory minimums do not work.
Perhaps the Prime Minister and justice minister should have paid more attention to the Australian delegation. Let me quote some Australian facts. The Australian governments responsible for those mandatory minimums “have effectively conceded that mandatory sentences have no deterrent effect, and that there is a need for judicial discretion and the more vigorous use of diversionary schemes and alternative strategies”. Those are the tools that Canada has used to reduce crime so much in recent years. This quote came from Doob and Cesaroni, “Mandatory Minimums, U of T, March 16, 2001.
Even the five studies referred to by the justice minister himself have indicated that the minister is flat wrong.
I would like to quote a summary on mandatory minimums. “Reams of studies show that the Tory approach is expensive and futile”. That was Dan Gardner in the Ottawa Citizen on May 11. I could include the leader of the NDP in that.
It is not just judges, experts, the facts, the research, the criminologist and the wardens who believe mandatory minimums do not work. Canadians believe this also. “When given the ability to make a more thoughtful response, the public is clear. If a person has to choose between building more prisons or investing in alternatives to imprisonment or in crime prevention, prisons lose the vote”. This was by David Garland in “The Culture of High Crime in Society”, British Journal of Criminology 2000.
Now that the facts are clear, Parliament should do the right thing. I will assume it was an honest mistake when the justice minister said on CTV's Canada AM that that is not the experience in many other jurisdictions where targeted mandatory minimums have had a huge deterrent effect. Study after study, some of which I quoted, say no, that is not the case. In trying to find a few that supported his case in spite of the overwhelming majority against it, the minister and the department dug up only five studies. When those studies were analyzed by Dan Gardner, it was found that none demonstrated the huge deterrent that the minister claimed. In fact, one of them, the most recent high quality review, proved outright that the minister was wrong.
It would be a very serious offence to mislead Canadians and Parliament. It is a great honour and responsibility to be a minister. I therefore call on the minister to do the right thing and apologize for the error.
The facts are quite clear. Mandatory minimums do not work. To vote for this bill would ultimately put more dangerous criminals on the streets and would make the streets less safe for Canadians. I will outline 10 reasons.
One, the millions of dollars that would be spent on incarceration which does not work could be spent on hiring more police officers.
Two, the millions of dollars could be spent on stopping illegal guns at the border.
Three, judges would lose the flexibility to sign the optimum rehabilitation sentence which would most likely protect citizens in the long run. This has a particularly prejudicial effect on aboriginal people, as a much higher proportion of the population in prisons is aboriginal.
People have to remember that virtually all inmates are released from prison. We have to look at what their status will be and what ability they will have not to reoffend when they come out of prison.
Four, mandatory minimum sentences would add to the overburdening of the prisons and would stress already insufficient rehabilitation budgets.
Five, it would dilute the addiction treatment which is available in prisons.
Six, it would reduce the anger management therapy which is so badly needed in prisons.
Seven, overburdend prisons would reduce the academic and technology training and apprenticeship training to help people fit back into society.
The millions of dollars that would be saved by not incarcerating people because it would not be effective could be invested in the treatments I mentioned in reasons four to seven. The money could be invested in many crime prevention programs which have proven to be effective in reducing crime in Canada.
Eight, it has been proven that people who stay in prison are less likely to reintegrate into society and are more likely to reoffend. In fact, the studies done in Canada by the solicitor general showed a 3% increase in recidivism. Often we are hardening criminals by leaving them in prison longer. This is particularly true for northerners. In the remote communities because people are sent such a far distance to jail, they lose the support from their families. They are therefore more likely to have a worse outcome as opposed to fitting into society and being healed and cured.
Nine, judges and prosecutors would recommend probation or lesser sentences when the person should receive a harsher sentence than that, but the mandatory minimum sentence might be too harsh for the crime.
Ten, judges and juries would accept more plea bargaining or not convict at all instead of forcing an unreasonable sentence on a person, thus making the streets less safe, according to a Department of Justice firearms task force report.
A Conservative member made a very cogent comment on the bill last week. To paraphrase what he said, he asked what if it was the wife or daughter of a Conservative member, or an NDP member, I would add, who was injured or attacked by a criminal on a street that had been made more dangerous for one of the 10 reasons that I mentioned if we vote in favour of this bill? For parliamentarians who carefully and professionally study the facts, the answer will be easy and they will vote against the bill, but there will be some soul searching--