Debates of June 7th, 2006

Criminal Code

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this place this afternoon as the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka. I would say to the hon. member that of course we are working with our provincial and territorial counterparts on wait time reductions and wait time guarantees.

However, if the hon. member wants to reduce wait times in trauma units, pass Bill C-10. If he wants to reduce the amount of crime and violence that is hurting, maiming and killing our men, women and children, pass Bill C-10.

I stand here today, not as the Minister of Health, but as a father, as a husband, as a son of a mother and a father and as someone who represents my community of Parry Sound—Muskoka, to say, pass Bill C-10.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Health not somewhat naive in believing a law will solve the problem of gangs?

It is true that we had problems with gangs in Quebec. He mentioned it earlier. However, we solved them without enacting a law. Since we succeeded without the proposed legislation, what is the usefulness of this law?

He gives us examples of carnage in Toronto. Can he promise us today that there will be no more carnage in the streets because of his very effective law?

He speaks of weapons smuggled into Canada. It would be better to talk about establishing a police force to patrol the entire border rather than banning weapons and imposing longer sentences.

My question for the minister is as follows: does he believe that he can really reduce the crime rate simply by increasing sentences? Is this not 17th-century thinking?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that we are in the 21st century. At this time, in our country, it is important to first protect our citizens. It is imperative that we have laws to deal with the challenges of gangs and crime. We must have effective laws with minimum sentences.

That is what this bill is all about and our government supports this strategy. It is my belief, and my hope, that this bill will bring about improvements to counter crime, protect our citizens from gangs and crime, and provide better protection for our society.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I gave a speech in which I talked about the relevance of mental illness and alcohol related birth defects in the context that some 40% to 50% of the inmates in the prisons of Canada suffer from those symptoms, which require something different than rehabilitation as prescribed in our jails.

Is the Minister of Health aware of some initiatives within the judicial system that takes cognizance of the realities of alcohol related birth defects? Are persons, who are put into that environment, taken care of in an appropriate fashion given their condition and is this appropriately reflective in the kind of sentencing the judicial system is handing out?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some of the latest trends in rehabilitation dealing with FASD. In fact, it has been the federal government's position for some time that additional research should be funded through CIHR on the impacts and potential amelioration of FASD issues.

We, on this side of the House, believe the first obligation of any government is to protect society from criminal behaviour, from gang and gun related crimes. This bill is about getting that protection in place because it is not there now. After that protection is in place, there are many tools available to us, as a society, to deal with individuals who are taken away from society and incarcerated to protect society. Then we can deal with the other questions of how this individual came to be in a life of crime. There are probably as many reasons as there are criminals.

I heard the hon. member's speech and I listened to it very closely. I would encourage the hon. member to do the right thing and protect society first by supporting Bill C-10. That will enable us to do our job as parliamentarians. Then we can deal with some of the issues that he cares about when it comes to the perpetrators of crimes in our society.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the Minister of Health. I share his goal of having a peaceful society where our families, the public, our fellow Canadians live in safety. We agree on that point. However, I do not share his opinion on how to achieve that. As you know, if this bill were implemented, about 300 more people would be incarcerated in federal penitentiaries and about 4,000 more in provincial institutions.

Of course, with more people incarcerated, we would come closer to the American standard. Far more people are incarcerated in the United States than in Canada.

Does the minister believe that the United States is safer than Canada? Are cities like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago safer than our cities because more people are in prison?

As well, he is not taking into account the proven fact that prisons are crime schools. Very often, young offenders learn how to commit other crimes when they go to prison for the first time. They are better criminals when they are released from prison, so they naturally return to a life of crime. I would like the minister's opinion on that.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I repeat that it is important to have laws in place to protect Canadians. In my opinion, that is the main challenge facing this House. Of course, this bill may lead to more incarcerations, because we have to protect Canadians. If we need more resources for incarcerations, I am prepared to find funding to protect Canadians. I think this meets a social need.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on Bill C-10.

First of all, I would never have dared to rise in this House and express my party’s position without having discussed it in advance with my colleagues, including the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who chairs our caucus and is a very learned man. He is so learned in fact that he has been given the important responsibility of sitting on the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, a kind of crossroads for information. I want to take this opportunity to thank him, and I am sure that my colleagues will want to join me in doing so.

Let us get down to the matter at hand. I have consulted, of course, with my colleagues and read the jurisprudence. I even went and found information beyond what was available in caucus. The conclusion that we must draw, unfortunately, is that this is a very bad bill in every way.

I am sure that, Insofar as crime is concerned, there is not a single member of this House who is not concerned about the safety of our communities. Not one member of this House wants to live in communities that fail to value safety, peace and civic-mindedness.

There are various levels in criminality. Earlier, I was sorry to see the health minister, himself a former member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, confusing certain levels. This causes misunderstandings, which I would like to clear up right away.

In 1995, the Bloc Québécois, this formidable instrument, was concerned about a new phenomenon: the fight against extremely well organized crime. The hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who is a very learned man, as I said, will remember well. Back then, there were 33 outlaw motorcycle gangs in Canada’s big cities. Some of them were in Montreal, including the Bandidos, the Rock Machine and Hells Angels.

There was an entirely new phenomenon: these biker gangs worked through delegation. It was not the gang leader, Maurice “Mom” Boucher, who would give the orders and do things for which he could be put on trial. There was a whole chain of delegation, with the result that it was impossible to dismantle these gangs.

At the time, Michel Bellehumeur of the Bloc Québécois worked with me and other members of our caucus. Since then, Mr. Bellehumeur has been elevated to the bench. The debate was non-partisan, since everyone shared the same concerns. At the time, the first bill was Bill C-95. It introduced a new offence, which was added to the Criminal Code, namely, membership in a criminal organization. This included all sorts of terms and conditions that need not be listed here. That is not what we are talking about today. We must not confuse the levels.

In 1995, Allan Rock was justice minister. I am not sure whether this conjures good or bad memories for my colleagues in this House.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I believe my colleague has good memories, but it depends on one's outlook. At the time, Allan Rock tabled Bill C-68, which, all of a sudden, added minimum sentences for offences committed with a firearm. For example, a four-year minimum sentence was imposed for each of the following: manslaughter, using firearm in commission of offence; attempted murder, using firearm in commission of offence; causing bodily harm with intent, using firearm in commission of offence; aggravated sexual assault, using firearm in commission of offence.

At present, there are approximately 15 offences in the Criminal Code which have existed for the past decade and for which mandatory minimum sentences already exist.

We do not dispute the fact that crimes committed with guns are something to worry about. The Bloc Québécois does not dispute the fact that we must curb, even eradicate, gun trafficking. What we have difficulty with is this.

When the Minister of Justice appeared before the committee that I am a member of to defend his interim supply, I asked him quite directly a very simple question. For a decade now, we have had mandatory minimum sentences for the use of firearms. I asked him whether he had any empirical or scientific studies that would show us the impact of implementing these mandatory minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. Amazingly, the minister, and I do not doubt his good faith, was unable to cite a single study. The same was true when I met with senior officials, who were all very nice. We are not trying to show bad faith or impugn motive. But why were they unable to cite any studies? Because the Department of Justice did not conduct any.

I do not mind being asked, as a legislator, to take what are considered the most effective means to address this phenomenon of committing any number of offences with guns. However, I would expect to be asked to do so on the basis of convincing and conclusive evidence.

That is the problem with this government. It is deeply ideological, but in an unhealthy way. We are all driven by ideologies. We all have convictions. There are some things in public life that are more important to us than others. However, we must show some scientific rationality or, at least, some rationality with a few scientific aspects.

I cannot support the addition of mandatory minimum sentences simply for the principle of it. I want Bill C-10 to be fully understood. It affects the following eight offences in the Criminal Code: attempted murder, discharging firearm with intent, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking, robbery and extortion. Minimum sentences already exist for these offences, whether for three years, five years or whatever. It is already in the Criminal Code. Anyone who reads the Criminal Code will see that minimum sentences exist for each of these offences.

Bill C-10 proposes that three year sentences be increased to five, five year sentences to seven, and seven year ones to ten. Thus, mandatory minimum sentences are being made stiffer for no reason other than wanting to crack down on criminals. That is what is unhealthy. Naturally, we want offenders to be prosecuted and we do not want them to use firearms to commit crimes.

I would like to begin with three comments. Such an ideology suggests that we are living in a more violent society. When the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie appointed me as justice critic, after thanking him and vowing to do my best to be equal to the task, the first thing I did was to look up the crime statistics. I was listening to the speeches of ministers and other members of the Conservative Party, and I had even read their electoral platform. To listen to the Conservatives, one would think that society is more violent than ever, that crime has never been so widespread and that crime rates are on the rise.

When we make the effort to look up the statistics, however, we can see that overall, from 1991 to 2000, the crime rate dropped by 26%. And these are not statistics compiled by researchers for the Bloc, the PQ or some lobby group. These are statistics from Statistics Canada or Juristat.

Moving to what is termed violent crime, for the sake of clarity, for Statistics Canada, violent crimes include murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault, kidnapping and robbery, all of which are intrinsically worrisome. Hon. members will agree that these are no small crimes. The fact of the matter is that, from 1992 to 2004, the number of violent crimes diminished from year to year. It was simple enough; I made a table. So, from 1992 to 2004, violent crime diminished, 2003 being the exception, since nationally, three provinces which shall remain unnamed saw their crime rates increase. Nevertheless, from 1992 to 2004, violent crime overall diminished.

When the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I asked him to table his statistics. I told him that we are all intellectuals, well-educated, open and pretty nice, so surely we could compare our statistics. I told him that perhaps I was mistaken and had interpreted them incorrectly. The minister did not table them. Yesterday I rose on a point of order and asked the minister to table them. When he appeared, he had the statistics with him and could have tabled them there and then. Three weeks after he appeared, members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are still waiting for those statistics. The Minister of Justice had the clerk tell us that it was a big job and would take a lot of time. But the minister had them in hand.

I am going to use the conditional. I have some doubts. I would suspect that the minister does not wish to table his statistics because they do not support his point of view, which is purely ideological. I can assure you that the Bloc Québécois will not allow the Minister of Justice to masquerade as George Bush just to please his constituents. We will be a little more demanding than that.

That said, we do not support Bill C-10. I would remind the House that in 1995, a certain number of minimum sentences were already added in the case of offences for which the minister would like to see increased sentences. More fundamentally, this leads us to consider carefully and decide whether, in our justice system, the use of mandatory minimum sentences has a deterrent effect. We must ask ourselves what a minimum sentence is.

A minimum sentence means that, during a trial by jury, nothing is left to the judge's discretion. In fact, the jury decides whether the defendant is guilty, but who decides on the sentence? Unlike the French system, it is not the jury but the trial judge. The judge has heard and seen the evidence and heard the witnesses. A criminal trial can last up to four weeks. It is very meticulous. The rules regarding evidence are very strict. This bill sends a message to trial judges that, although they are responsible for administering the sentence, we, as legislators, want to force them, with their hands tied, in one direction or another.

In the past, with some notable exceptions, we have not supported minimum sentences. My predecessor, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, was well-liked in this House.

He was our justice critic. I hope one day to be his equal in terms of his knowledge and dedication. Everyone liked the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. He was the one to suggest to our caucus that minimum sentences be imposed for cases of child pornography, for example. However, the Bloc Québécois is generally not in favour of the idea of establishing minimum sentences. We are not convinced that they are effective.

In the mid-1980s, the government established a commission of inquiry, the Archambault commission, mandated to review the principles of sentencing. It is quite significant that this commission did not recommend minimum sentences, except in the case of murder which carries a sentence of life imprisonment. The Archambault sentencing commission did not recommend mandatory minimum sentences for any other crime.

I repeat: it is somewhat pathetic and somewhat sad. I have friends on the government side. In fact, I have only friends and no enemies in this House, and I am proud of that. However, I must remark that the Conservatives find themselves on the slippery slope of ideology. Once again, this bill is the direct result of the government's desire to please its electoral base—western Canada—which finds security in the idea that the longer the sentence, the safer our society. Unfortunately, it is an intellectual trap.

I use the example of the United States which resorts to incarceration quite a bit. In Canada, according to the latest statistics I consulted, 116 individuals per 100,000 inhabitants are jailed. Do you know what the rate of incarceration is for the United States? Over 700 per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 116 per 100,000 in Canada. Yet, when we look at the rates of homicide and violent offences we realize that the number of prison sentences is higher.

I would like the cabinet to think about that. I am asking the President of the Treasury Board to reflect on this issue. I know that the latter, in his own way, is a humanist. He is conservative, very conservative, overly conservative, excessively conservative. However, he is my friend. I am asking him to think about it. Is there a relation between incarceration and the safety that our communities wish to achieve? All criminologists and academics have reflected on this question.

As recently as last week, I had an initial meeting with representatives of the defence attorneys association. This is not a group that could be accused of being partisan. It is made up of lawyers who study the law and sentence administration as objectively as possible. Did you know that the association strongly opposes bills C-9 and C-10? I must say that if we listed all the people who oppose these bills, we would see, as I have seen, that it is much longer than the list of people who support the bills.

Everyone in this House knows what I am like and that I am a cooperative sort of person. But I will not be able to push this bill through quickly in committee. The Bloc Québécois will have to do its work. Unfortunately, we will ask to travel, to hear witnesses and to investigate. Amending the Criminal Code is no small matter. It must always be balanced. We cannot take it lightly.

I was told that in the government back rooms, they wanted the bill passed before St. Jean Baptiste Day. That is certainly foolhardy. It presents a problem, because I do not think that the committee can work under pressure, as that would be totally incompatible with the seriousness expected of parliamentarians.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore be unable to work so that the bill is at the report stage by St. Jean Baptiste Day. We know that this year, June 24 will reflect Quebeckers' hopes and aspirations. It is not only an opportunity to hold a cabinet meeting, but it is also an opportunity to remember how Quebec is a nation and how Quebec will one day be a sovereign country, on an equal footing with English Canada. That is the meaning of our national holiday. And that is what all Bloc Québécois members will have in mind as they celebrate on June 23 and 24. Of course, we will remain very open to any wishes anyone might want to extend to us on that occasion. But let us not digress from the meaning of the bill. Let us stick to the basics.

In addition to the eight offences that the government proposes to create with Bill C-10—and for which there are already minimum sentences that the government wants to increase from three to five years, from five to seven years and from seven to ten years—it is creating two new offences.

Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if it is not something—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but it is time for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Wild Rose.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will make this short, as I see that other questions need to come from our group. I found one comment in the member's speech really interesting. He talked about “those guys from the west” who are really weird thinkers in terms of dealing so harshly with criminals. I thought that was a really interesting comment.

The other thing I keep hearing all the time is that we are seeking a balance. I would like his definition of a balance. I will give him mine. It would about 5% for the criminal who attacks our innocent people, which would include all the basic rights that he is entitled to under the Constitution, and about 95% to protect our society from people like that, who continually make dangerous situations.

That is my definition of balance. Would the member agree with my definition or is that just another western version of being off balance?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the only certainty I have in this House is that the hon. member is not unbalanced. Everyone who has rubbed shoulders with him knows that he is not unbalanced. He is an engaging fellow with a biting sense of humour. He has obviously found some people to applaud the fact that he was not the justice minister, but unbalanced he is not.

This being said, it is not westerners who are being called into question but the electoral base that the Conservative Party wants to win over by creating the impression, with no scientific evidence, that there is a connection between sentencing and recidivism rates. There is no such connection. I look forward to seeing the studies that will show this when the minister appears to defend bills C-9 and C-10.

Our hon. colleague asks us to be balanced. In my view, the best balance is when people who deserve to be put on trial are put on trial; when people who deserve a chance to be rehabilitated have that chance; and when people who cannot be rehabilitated are sanctioned appropriately. This has always been the position of the Bloc Québécois, and we think that it is balanced.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member said he was going to vote to send the bill to committee. Could I just make sure that the Bloc Québécois will be voting for this at second reading? Is that what he said? I just am not clear. Could he clarify whether the Bloc will be voting for or against this?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will not vote to refer this bill to a committee at second reading.

Without the amendments we want, we will not vote in favour at report stage.

We will also not work in this hasty way, which reminds us of the German proverb to the effect that speed is the enemy of wit.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments by the member. I heard him speak about statistics and say that the statistics actually indicate that crime is going down in the country. Would the member elaborate on that and perhaps let us know why he thinks this is in fact the case? Maybe we should be doing more of that as opposed to what is being proposed here.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right. In general, crime is going down, violent crime too, and there are two reasons for that.

The first is demography. There are more and more older people in our society, and they are not much inclined to violent crime.

The second is the reason that should most give us pause to think things over, and it is that the economy is doing rather well. In general, there is a correlation between economic downturns and crime: when the economy is doing well, there is less crime.

I think that these factors should be taken into account.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. He made me think of something which I would like him to comment on.

Systematically increasing sentences will result in additional costs to the penitentiary system. In turn, this will mean less money available for rehabilitation. So, this will strengthen the vicious circle of crime school.

Would it not be better to stick to the existing rules, which have brought about the reduction in crime clearly described by the hon. member?

Is it not important to stress that imprisoning offenders year after year is a very expensive proposition? In addition, rehabilitation will be less effective inside than if a judge had found them eligible for conditional sentences, which have been discussed as part of another bill. Today, we are at it again.

Does this proposal not have a very negative effect on the funding allocated to prevention?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, as we have become used to from the hon. member. He is totally right. Keeping someone in detention costs a minimum of $100,000, as compared to between $12,000 and $13,000 for those allowed to serve their time in the community. This is something we have to think about. My colleague from the Quebec City area will probably want to give it some thought.

It is very important to point out that many people view prison as a great school for crime. I am not saying that it is necessarily so, but that is certainly a very wise statement. The greatest contradiction in the Conservatives' position is that they want to combat crime, but they want to do so by ensuring that there is a maximum of weapons in circulation.

One of the best ways to combat organized crime is probably with a functional, controlled gun registry. That is what my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and the leader of the Bloc Québécois have called for repeatedly.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious. I have practised as a criminal lawyer in the past and several times today I have asked questions in the House when I just could not help it. I practised as a criminal lawyer for 10 years and I must tell members that many times I saw criminals, and I say criminals, laughing as they walked out of the courtroom. They were laughing at the inability of the court to give them a sentence. It was shameful. I was embarrassed with the results that I saw many times.

I have two questions for the member. I think the member's attitude and the attitude of all the members of the House who are opposed to Bill C-10 would change if it were their daughter, mother, father or son who was killed as a result of walking down a street and being the subject of gunfire that they had nothing to do with.

First, what better suggestions does the member have on how to curb the increase in gun violence? Second, how many more innocent victims must die until there is enough evidence to convince him?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while I have a great deal of respect for the member, surely you will agree that his question smacks of demagoguery. Unfortunately, that kind of talk will get us nowhere.

If somebody tried to kill one of my loved ones, or hurt them in any way—obviously I would never want that to happen, but it has nothing to do with the bill before us. What we are saying is that the Criminal Code already contains provisions for incarcerating people who commit crimes with firearms. Mandatory minimum sentencing does not stop people from committing these crimes. When a person commits a crime, they are not deterred by minimum sentences, but by the real possibility of ending up in court. This is not about innocent victims.

Is my colleague holding American society up as an example? Does he think we should resort to incarceration as much as they do? In the past two years, Americans have jailed 717 people and 723 people per 100,000, yet there are three times more murders in the United States than in Quebec. Does the member agree that his logic breaks down completely here? Mandatory minimum sentences and more people in jail do not make for a less violent society.

If he were to ask me what we can do, I would tell him that I would be most interested to hear about the Conservative government's strategy for fighting poverty.

Next week, I will table an anti-poverty bill, which I hope will receive the support of all of my colleagues in this House. Canada is the only jurisdiction that does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of social condition. Eight provincial governments have it, but the federal government does not—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brant.

Safe streets and safe communities are the shared aspiration of all Canadians and the common objective of all parliamentarians and parties. No political party can claim that it alone speaks or cares for the safety of all Canadians or that it alone is legislating for that purpose.

Indeed, in the matter of combating gun and gang related crime, the Liberal government tabled legislation in November 2005, then known as Bill C-82, that proposed 12 amendments to the gun control provisions of the Criminal Code and which was part of a five point strategy to combat gang and gun related crime, including: first, tougher laws and proportionate penalties; second, more effective law enforcement; third, heightened recognition of the needs and concerns of victims; fourth, the prevention of crime through a hope and opportunity package; and fifth, civic engagement.

The government's crime control policy contains some of these features, but it mentions nothing about civic engagement and it understates the case with respect to a hope and opportunity package and crime prevention. I intend to focus my remarks on the legislative remedy the government proposes, Bill C-10, and the exaggerated and excessive mandatory minimums around which it is organized.

It is important to note that there are already 20 gun related mandatory minimums in the Criminal Code. Those who argue that mandatory minimums were an electoral deathbed conversion of the Liberal government ignore the fact that it was a Liberal government which in 1995 initiated these very 20 gun related mandatory minimums, and that in November 2005, on behalf of the government and pursuant to the recommendations of the provincial and territorial attorneys general--what I might say was an exercise in open federalism--we then recommended modest increases to mandatory minimums in matters relating to trafficking and smuggling of firearms and the like.

The question, then, is this. What legislative remedy constitutes an evidentiary based, principled and effective approach to combating gun related crime and helping to secure safe streets and safe communities and, in that context, is distinct from what might otherwise be regarded as an ideologically based, politically motivated and ultimately ineffective approach to crime control?

Let us begin by looking at the evidence, indeed, looking at the particulars of the alleged evidence that was invoked by the justice minister himself with respect to justifying this legislation. I am now citing from the justice minister's remarks on May 7:

Gun crimes have been reduced dramatically in those jurisdictions that targeted those gun crimes through mandatory minimum prison sentences. The experience of a number of states, a number of studies, demonstrate that--Boston, [Massachusetts] Virginia, Florida, New York and other jurisdictions consistently demonstrate that.

Let us now look at the facts, because the facts have evidence to the contrary. With respect to Massachusetts, in his 2003 testimony concerning sentencing reform proposals, William J. Leahy, Chief Counsel for the Committee for Public Counsel Services for Massachusetts, said that mandatory minimum sentencing “has proven to be a public policy nightmare: ineffective at preserving the public safety, and recklessly wasteful as fiscal policy”. A 2004 report from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor's Commission on Corrections Reform, in a section on minimum mandatory sentences, states, “Quite simply, based on what we now know about reducing re-offense, this is a recipe for recidivism rather than a recipe for effective risk reduction”.

With regard to Florida, the minister appears to have based his conclusion on a 2005 press release from the Florida Department of Corrections claiming that the state's 10-20-life program has had impressive results. The facts, however, are otherwise. A 2005 study by the University of Florida attributes any decrease in crime to the national decrease in crime that began before the law took effect, noting also that there was a greater drop in crime before the law went into effect.

We find the same thing with respect to Virginia and with respect to New York state. Time does not permit me to go ahead and cite in both those matters, but the principle remains the same. There is no evidentiary based justification for the kind of excessive and exaggerated mandatory minimums as are set forth in this bill.

This brings me to look at the situation in terms of other evidentiary approaches. It is not only that the evidence from the very American jurisdictions that the justice minister relies upon demonstrate the exact opposite, but even the academic studies that he relies upon, such as the highly regarded work by Thomas Marvelle and Carlisle Moody, also conclude otherwise than that of the justice minister, who sought to rely on this study for his evidentiary based approach.

Indeed, the vast preponderance of studies in every jurisdiction have concluded that mandatory minimums are neither a deterrent nor are they effective. That includes the American Sentencing Commission and the Canadian Sentencing Commission, the American Bar Association and the Canadian Bar Association, the early comprehensive study by the Royal Commission for the Revision of the Criminal Code in 1952 and the more recent studies by the Law Commission of Canada; and includes comprehensive studies by the international expert, Professor Julian Roberts of Oxford University, the exhaustive comparative study by Professor Thomas Gabor, University of Ottawa and Nicole Crutcher, Carleton University, as well as the 1999 research report to the then Solicitor General of Canada, which after surveying 50 studies involving 300,000 offenders, concluded that longer incarcerations were not associated with reduced recidivism. In fact, the opposite was found. Longer sentences were associated with a 3% increase in recidivism.

Bill C-10 is not only not evidenced based legislation, but it also marginalizes the principled approach to sentencing policy introduced by the enactment of section 718 of the Criminal Code, the most comprehensive sentencing reform ever enacted, which includes a composite set of sentencing objectives, and is organized around the proportionality principle, namely, that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and to the responsibility of the offender; and which incorporates, by reference, the individualization principle, the appreciation that every crime has a different set of circumstances and every criminal is different. The judiciary must be allowed the necessary discretion, which Parliament intended, to invoke and apply this principled and just approach to sentencing, including also the principle of restorative justice in that regard.

This leads me to the third consideration, and that is whether mandatory minimums are in fact effective. When we look at it, what we now know, as a result of all the evidence based inquiry, is that mandatory minimums also have adverse and prejudicial fall-out for the criminal justice system. One might call it the law of unintended consequences, which includes that they increase the prison population, resulting in increased prison costs to the taxpayer, and opportunity costs, as less funds are available for law enforcement, community programs and crime prevention while not bringing about the desired objective of safe streets and safe communities.

The prosecutors may stay or withdraw a charge or negotiate for a lesser charge because the MMs are too harsh. The decisions may move from the judiciary to the prosecution and result in fact in lower conviction rates. Where a mandatory minimum charge is maintained and the accused has less incentive to plead guilty could lead to increased trials and more costly trials. Arrest rates, charges, plea bargains and convictions have actually declined with mandatory minimums while the trial costs have increased.

Mandatory minimums have an adverse impact on minority defendants, in particular on aboriginal defendants who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and on aboriginal women who have been increasingly overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Mandatory minimums become the sentencing ceiling for the offence rather than the minimum, achieving the exact opposite of what sound public policy would wish.

As the Canadian Bar Association summarized in 2005 in that regard after a survey of all the evidence:

Mandatory minimum penalties do not advance the goal of deterrence...do not target the most egregious or dangerous offenders...have a disproportionate impact on minority groups...and subvert important aspects of Canada's sentencing regime.

It is not surprising that Professor Anthony Doob asked plaintively in 2001, “Why are we still discussing whether Canada should have mandatory minimums?” He repeated that again recently. Professor Marie-Andrée Bertrand, referring to Bill C-10, after examining it, said:

This is a catastrophe. She said, and I quote, “No fewer than 24 new offences will be subject to four years of imprisonment. This is a catastrophe”.

In conclusion, this legislation is an ideologically inspired, politically motivated and ineffective approach to combating crime. What is needed is an evidence based, principles based and effective approach that would realize our shared objective of safe streets and safe communities.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit to the House that I am a bit confused. I do not know whether it is flip or flop with that member.

I sat in opposition for the longest time and heard the member say that he was against mandatory minimum sentences. However, just before the election and before his then government was toppled, all of a sudden he turned on a dime and his party was for minimum sentences, as were members of the NDP.

First, once and for all, could the member tell us, now that we are not about to go to the polls, if he is for or against mandatory minimum penalties today.

Second, if we read the offences that are contemplated to be covered by the bill, they include attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent. Could the member tell us why he is siding on the side of the people perpetrating these offences and not on the side of protecting victims, victims like Jane--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Mount Royal.