Debates of Nov. 29th, 2011

Motions in Amendment

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will quote again from the report about early childhood and education, ECE. It states:

Studies have repeatedly shown that high-quality ECE reduces the delinquency rate among disadvantaged children and increases their success rate in completing high school and obtaining employment. In fact, quality ECE benefits all children, regardless of social class and parental employment. One reason for this is that ECE provides the opportunity for early identification and intervention in cases of children with special needs.

Again, we need to talk about the root causes of crime, which does not seem to be on the government's agenda. We need to talk about that early intervention. We need to talk about providing those supports to children, whether with special needs, learning disabilities or those who do not have all the supports they need at home. We need that early intervention to help these children stay out of the criminal justice system.

As the article points out, this is for children from all social classes. This is not just with respect to poor children.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though the government did not think through some parts of this bill. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that. For example, the provinces will end up with overcrowded prisons and the justice system will no longer function because thousands of people will be put into the system unnecessarily and will turn into career criminals. That will force the provinces and local governments to find ways to try to control the situation.

Crown prosecutors will be tempted to drop charges for more serious crimes. We may see a lesser charge being prosecuted to avoid exposing the accused to penalties that are too harsh. The justice system itself may try to lessen the impact by not laying charges with too big a sentence. This simply may not work at all.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very complex question. Sadly, I probably have less than a minute to respond, so I will focus on one brief aspect of it.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that costs for prison construction and per cell will rise substantially over the coming years. With this legislation, it is anybody's guess as to how much it will actually cost.

I have heard members opposite say that they already provide money to the provinces through the Canada social transfer. Unless there will be a significant boost in that social transfer, provinces will have to make decisions about whether they pay for health care, education and some of those other social benefits in their provinces or whether they build prisons. Again, in the context of what I talked about with respect to prevention, that simply does not make any sense.

We need to rethink the impacts of this legislation and invest in those kinds of prevention strategies that I mentioned.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today in the debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act. I am going to limit my remarks to the changes this bill makes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. These changes were previously incorporated in Bill C-4, or what was known as Sebastian's law. Those proposals are now in part 4 of Bill C-10, clauses 167 to 204.

The former bill, Bill C-4, was first introduced on March 16, 2010, and was being reviewed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when the opposition caused Parliament to dissolve on March 26, 2011. Sixteen meetings had been held to study Bill C-4 and over 60 witnesses had already appeared before the committee.

The problems with our current youth criminal justice system were recently highlighted by the results of four months of observation by the Toronto Star of a typical Canadian youth court. I will briefly quote the conclusions reached, which state:

Changes to youth sentencing law in 2003 were supposed to fix an overreliance on custody. Instead, serious offenders are thumbing their noses at the courts because they know they will be treated lightly. Victims feel their voices are not heard. Kids who violently break the law, many from broken homes, are reoffending.

Our government invests significantly in crime prevention and rehabilitative measures and in restorative justice, but a balanced approach to criminal justice requires that we also pay due regard to protecting the public and victims of crime against violent youth offenders and repeat youth offenders. This is what Bill C-10 targets.

A number of amendments to the youth justice provisions of Bill C-10 were tabled by both NDP and Liberal members of the standing committee during clause-by-clause consideration and I will comment on some of the more significant of those.

One proposed amendment relates to protection of the public, specifically calling for the reinsertion of “long-term” ahead of the phrase “protection of the public” in the overarching principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In highlighting protection of the public in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the government has responded directly to recommendation 20 of the Nunn commission report.

The Nunn commission was a Nova Scotia public inquiry, which examined the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Theresa McEvoy, who was struck and killed by a youth driving a stolen vehicle. Justice Nunn concluded that highlighting public safety as one of the primary goals of the act was necessary to deal with this small group of repeat offenders that was spinning out of control.

We agree with the conclusion drawn by Justice Nunn that the current provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act are not sufficient to deal with this small group of dangerous and repeat offenders. It is simply wrong to suggest that by removing the adjective “long-term” from ahead of the phrase “protection of the public”, we are forbidding consideration of long-term factors. No, by removing a restrictive adjective, we are merely restoring the phrase “protection of the public” to its true meaning. In doing so, we are allowing judges to consider all factors relating to public protection, including short-term and long-term considerations.

It is also very important to note that, just as it was before Bill C-10, protection of the public will continue to be simply one principle of the act, alongside and equal to other principles, such as emphasis on rehabilitation in section 3(1)(b), fair and proportionate accountability in section 3(1)(c) and special consideration for young persons in section 3(1)(d) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Another motion to amend called for the removal of specific deterrents and denunciation from the sentencing principles in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. That is proposed by clause 172 of Bill C-10.

By allowing judges to consider specific deterrents and denunciation in sentencing, and I say only allowing, not requiring, we increase confidence in the youth justice system. We simply give judges the right to choose the tools they feel necessary to deal with the needs of the differing young persons who come before them.

In proposing this amendment, the government is not abandoning the current sentencing principles in the legislation. It is instead giving judges an additional tool to help deal with that small group of repeat and violent offenders where it is reasonable to consider specific deterrents, or even denunciation, for the benefit of the young person and in order to maintain the public's confidence in the administration of justice. Even this provision would be limited in its effect because the application of these provisions, specific deterrents and denunciation, would be subject to the principle that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the responsibility of the offender.

Another of our proposals that was discussed quite extensively at the justice committee was the test for publication in clause 185 of Bill C-10. The opposition proposed to amend this clause to basically make this test optional rather than mandatory.

The wider circumstances under which publication bans may be lifted, proposed by clause 185, fulfills our government's commitment to Canadians to ensure that young offenders will be named when the circumstances of their offence requires it. In our view, it would be inappropriate for this provision to be optional when the very purpose of the amendment is to protect the public, and that is not optional. The government is not calling for unlimited publication, but merely equipping judges with an additional tool for circumstances that require it.

In fact, it should be noted that this provision would only make it mandatory for judges to consider, to think about, publication. They are not be required to order publication in any particular case.

The threshold for this is also significant. The judge is required to consider the purpose and principles set out in sections 3 and 38 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the judge must decide that the young person poses a significant risk of committing not just any offence but a violent offence and that the lifting of the ban is necessary to protect the public against that risk. If there is no significant risk of violence or if any other solution makes publication unnecessary, then publication remains banned. Furthermore, the onus of convincing the court of these matters remains on the prosecutor.

Our government recognizes the importance of our youth criminal justice system and as such we propose changes in Bill C-10 to address the many concerns that Canadians have expressed about the shortcomings of the current system.

Our government responded to calls for change from several provinces asking for modifications to the former Bill C-4. Manitoba, Alberta and Nova Scotia officials appeared before the commons committee in June 2010 and subsequently provided suggested amendments in relation to pretrial detention, adult sentencing and deferred custody and supervision orders.

Our government considered these submissions and made changes to the applicable provisions found in clause 169 and subclauses 174(2) and 183(1) of Bill C-10. These changes have been well-received by the provinces that proposed them and would ultimately strengthen the youth justice system.

At clause-by-clause consideration, the government also proposed changing clause 168, by replacing the verb “encourager” with the verb “favoriser” in the French version of paragraph 3(1)(a)(ii) of the act. That is a change Minister Fournier from Quebec had requested.

This government is committed to the protection of our communities and to tackling crime committed by young persons. Our view is that this can be achieved without compromising the use of measures outside the judicial process, while still preserving non-custodial sentences for the vast majority of cases where such measures are appropriate.

Part 4 of Bill C-10 would provide judges and others working in the youth justice system with tools needed to deal appropriately with the differing needs of young people who come before them, including the needs of repeat and violent offenders who have not responded well under the current system. Such changes would restore public confidence to our youth criminal justice system.

I invite all the members opposite to join us in these efforts by supporting this bill. Let us join and together take arms against a sea of troubles and, by opposing, end them.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bar Association joined its voice to that of the NDP MPs in September when it issued a press release on its concerns about a number of aspects of the bill introduced by the government, including mandatory minimum sentences, overreliance on incarceration, and constraints on judges. Does the government have any intention of listening to the Canadian Bar Association?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what one would find if one examines this legislation is that mandatory minimum penalties are required only in cases which are particularly egregious. For example, there will be a mandatory minimum penalty for drug traffickers who engage people under the age of 18 in their business of trafficking drugs.

There will be a mandatory minimum penalty for drug producers who set up a grow op in a residential neighbourhood thereby causing a danger of fire or otherwise to communities.

There will be mandatory minimum penalties for drug traffickers who are engaged in organized crime.

These offences are all specifically targeted. Canadians would want us to impose jail sentences on these offences. The government is going to pursue those remedies.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government's agenda behind Bill C-10 is clear. The government is trying to give Canadians the impression that it is concerned about crime, and that this legislation would put a lot more people in jail and minimize the amount of crime on our streets.

Preventing crimes from taking place in the first place is, I believe, the priority of people living in Winnipeg North and anywhere in Canada for that matter. That should be the government's number one priority in terms of addressing the crime front.

Does the member believe the government should take some of the resources that it is going to allocate to super jails modelled after the United States and invest those resources in things such as community policing or after school programming for young individuals? Does he not think that would have more of an impact in terms of getting young people involved in more positive things in our communities thereby reducing the amount of crime on our local streets?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is for sure. The money that we are going to save on the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry that the member supports is going to be put into policing and into things which really will make our communities safer.

I happen to know from my own riding the amount of money that our government continues to devote to rehabilitation and prevention. For example, just to name one or two programs, our government has invested heavily in an anti-gang strategy. My own community received $3.5 million under that. It is in one community after another all across this country with a view to keeping vulnerable young people from being lured into gangs.

My community of Kitchener developed a curriculum called the high on life curriculum, which is being used in schools now, at least all across Ontario if not Canada, to help convince young people that they do not have to do drugs to get high on life.

Our government has promoted other measures and will continue to promote measures, but it is simply not enough that we only do that. We are the only government that has a balanced approach to crime, balancing prevention and rehabilitation with appropriate respect for law and order.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here to voice my opposition to the proposed omnibus bill in its current form. Just a few short years ago, these same measures were voted down, and in a moment of hubris and zeal, the Conservatives introduced this bill again, with the argument that Canadians gave them a strong majority—with 39% of the popular vote.

We have been hearing that everyone supports this bill for weeks now. I would like to take a few minutes of my time to read some comments that I have received from the people of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

A few days ago, I received an email that was very perplexing.

I am an ex-convict, and I am close to receiving a pardon. But a bill like this one would lower my chances of starting over. I have not committed a crime in over 10 years. Do you think that I deserve to be labelled my whole life? I earn a living and have a family. These mistakes of the past are far behind me. We cannot pass regressive legislation. We are a progressive country and that is how we should remain.

I would like to thank my constituents for participating in democracy in our country by sending emails to me and to other members of Parliament to tell them exactly what they think about these bills. Here is another email that I received:

I think that we should use an approach based on evidence and on practices that have been proven by our justice system. We should be committed to preventing crimes. We should support restorative justice that meets victims' needs and that contributes to the well-being of the community.

It goes on:

I believe that we should use an evidence-based approach to justice. We should be committed to preventing crimes, and to restorative justice that meets the victim’s needs and helps the community to heal. We need to focus on the causes of crime, instead of paying endlessly for the consequences.

Like my colleagues, I have received hundreds of emails like these, telling us why we should oppose this bill in its current form. Neither my party nor I have anything against punishing wrongdoing. In fact, I have great respect for our justice system and the individual judges who do such great work every day. I have worked in a prison; I taught French and math there. I firmly believe that our current justice system meets our needs. We are elected as members of Parliament to make our systems work more efficiently. We are not here to destroy a functioning and coherent justice system.

No fair-minded Canadian wants an ideological law that is not supported by the facts. We are not elected to ignore facts and to do as we please. It is extremely crucial that this important debate is not carried out behind ideological lines. I firmly believe that, because I want our society to be just, equal, and safe. I also believe that we can make this happen by building the laws of our society on truth and fairness.

This omnibus crime bill is a step backwards for our country, or if you will, a step towards the failed penal system of the United States. It should be noted that the crime rate in our country is at the lowest it has been in 40 years. Does this not show that our justice system is working? Why is this not something that we should be building upon?

If our approach is working and our crime rate is the lowest it has been in 40 years, we need to find a way to strengthen the system instead of changing everything. I simply cannot vote in favour of the ideas proposed in this bill, since they have proven ineffective in the fight against crime.

In 2006, the justice department prepared reports on minimum sentences for the former justice minister. It indicated that minimum sentences did not have any special deterrence value, or even educational value, and that they were not any more effective than lesser sanctions. In fact, the justice department indicated that mandatory minimum sentences had no discernable advantage in terms of public safety. The former justice minister had previously stated that all the evidence clearly showed the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences even though that was false. A study conducted by the justice department showed that South Africa, Australia, England and the State of Michigan had all backed away from mandatory minimum sentences. Statistics for the Northern Territory of Australia show that its inmate population rose by 42% when mandatory minimum sentences were imposed and that the crime rate did not decline. This drain on the entire economy does not bode well for a society where too many people are in prison.

We are living in a very fragile economy, as our friends opposite keep repeating. Canada's performance is expected to deteriorate in the next few months. We are now losing jobs. We have to deal with these problems. We cannot rest on our laurels while people are being sent to jail, instead of looking at what is important for Canada's economy.

Does it really help the unemployed in our country to tell them not to worry because Canada is doing much better than the United States?

In recent weeks, the Minister of Finance has accused us of wanting to increase taxes in order to spend extravagantly, whereas it is his party that is continuing to bring in bills such as the one before us, implement its Conservative agenda and cost Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars.

We know very well that a number of provinces have already refused to pay the bill. We are not paid by Canadians to create diversions that will hide major problems. This omnibus bill will be nothing but a drain on our economy. The proof is that case studies show that these measures will not even improve our safety.

The government is repeating history and not disclosing the cost of this excessively expensive program. In an interview with a journalist, the Minister of Justice did not want to disclose the costs associated with passing this bill. The only thing he said to the public was that the cost would be sustainable. If the cost is sustainable, then why is he afraid to tell Canadians where their tax dollars will be going?

Conservative Senator Boisvenu has estimated the cost to be $2.7 billion over five years. That is a major expense for something that will not create more jobs and will not stimulate our economy, but will instead put more people behind bars. I sincerely hope this is not the government's plan for lowering the unemployment rate. I do not understand why we are heading toward an American-style justice system.

Why should the United States be taken as a successful model of crime prevention? If we look at the statistics compiled by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, in 2011, the number of people incarcerated in the United States was astronomical compared to the number in Canada.

In the United States, 760 out of every 100,000 people are in prison, while in Canada we are lucky, at least for now, that only 116 out of every 100,000 people are incarcerated.

I do not want the government to waste piles of money on a system that will not even reduce the crime rate. That has been proven. This money will come out of the taxpayers' pockets. Do we really want to live in a society that is harsh for no reason, spends money unnecessarily and does nothing to prevent crime? We are debating this bill in order to make communities safer. Every member of the House agrees that we want to make our communities safer, but we will not do so by always putting people in prison. There is nothing in this bill to prevent and reduce crime.

In the House, we are finding it difficult to properly fund our public broadcaster, the CBC, because the government says it has to make budget cuts. However, this same government introduces a bill that will cost millions of dollars for prisons. That is hard to understand.

I would like to come back to the minimum sentences I referred to earlier. Mandatory minimum sentences can result in an overrepresentation of aboriginal people and other minorities in the prison population, as is the case in other areas of the world, such as the United States, where minorities account for a high percentage of the prison population. People should not be put in prison for the fun of it. We have to devote our resources to helping people get out of poverty, helping single-parent families, the poor, minorities and those who are mentally ill. I do not see anything in this bill to help prevent crime.

Before I finish my speech, I would like to give several reasons as to why I cannot in good faith support this bill. According to a study conducted by the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, which many have read, the longer adolescents remain in prison, the higher the probability that they will reoffend. The expression is well known: prison is a school for crime.

There is a clause in this bill that stipulates that young offenders can be tried as adults. As I have already said, I worked in a prison for a long time and I can tell you that it is true. If someone is put in prison for a minor crime, he will come into contact with many people who have committed much more serious crimes and he may learn to commit those types of crimes.

We must take into account the amendments that were proposed by all the parties on this side of the House, focus more on prevention and help people in need before sending them to prison.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for her very compassionate speech focused on prevention.

As a former teacher, I can testify to the positive contribution made by social workers, community organizations, CLSCs, psychoeducators and psychologists who help those with difficulties. Often, it is the most underprivileged people in our society who have problems and they do not really know how to deal with them, so they end up committing certain minor crimes.

I would like the hon. member to explain how prevention initiatives for these people could help to reduce the number of crimes and victims and the number of prison sentences.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. Part of the bill deals with drugs. I am astonished to see the government put forward a bill that would imprison those who abuse drugs or marijuana. In my classes, approximately one out of five students had access to an addiction specialist who could tell them how to reduce their use, what help was available and who could help. This is just one of many examples.

I am appalled that there are no prevention specialists and that the focus is only on healing. And we know healing is not always complete. We have to invest in prevention so that experts can help people in need rather than sending them to prison and forcing Canadian taxpayers to pick up the bill.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was very representative of reality, especially in her riding, and also across Quebec.

Members know that Quebec has a somewhat different approach to the justice system. Last week, Quebec's justice minister came to see his federal counterpart to propose amendments to Bill C-10. Unfortunately, those amendments were not taken into consideration.

Since Quebec's justice system is working well at this time and the crime rate is going down, what does the member think about the scientific data that Minister Fournier brought forward to support his points of view, and, on the other hand, what does she think about the government, which is using personal experience as its basis? What does she think about this with respect to Bill C-10?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Indeed, Minister Fournier came last week to present the amendments proposed by Quebec, which refuses to pay for this bill. Over 50 amendments show that this bill must be based on facts. I did not attend all the meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but I did attend two meetings, and I know that witnesses came to present facts and to say that increasing minimum penalties will not prevent crime and will not make society safer. A large number of experts came to share their opinions, which were backed up by scientific data. The government continues to say that this is what it believes it must do, based on its experience.

To answer my colleague's question, I think it is time for the government to look at the real facts and to accept the proposed amendments to this bill.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to continue debate on Bill C-10.

It was my pleasure to be a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and extensively review this legislation in committee. I am pleased that it is now coming back to the House.

I want to point out that while the bill's provisions dealing with amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act were amended only once in committee, there were a considerable number of motions by Liberal and NDP members that attempted to weaken sentences that we had targeted at organized crime.

I am pleased to say that members of our caucus in the committee worked very hard. I have to say that in the waning hours of the committee's discussions, government members treated us to some of the most cogent, informative and at times passionate debate that has been seen in our committee. In this regard, I want to congratulate all of my colleagues on the committee for their passionate debate.

The bill proposes a number of amendments to strengthen the provisions in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act regarding penalties for serious drug offences by ensuring that these types of offences are punished by an imposition of mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment.

With these amendments we are demonstrating the government's commitment to improving the safety and security of our communities across Canada.

During the review of the bill, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard from the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety, government officials and a range of stakeholders, including many representatives of law enforcement who repeated over and over again to the committee how long they have been calling for these types of measures.

As I have mentioned before, our government recognizes that not all drug offenders and drug trades pose the same risk and danger of violence. That is why Bill C-10 provides a focused and targeted approach. Accordingly, the new proposed penalties would not apply to possession offences, nor would they apply to offences involving all types of drugs. That is contrary to what we hear from the members opposite.

What the bill does is focus on the most serious drug offences involving the most serious drugs.

Overall, the proposals represent a tailored approach to the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences such as trafficking, importation, exportation and production.

It would operate as follows: for Schedule I drugs, such as heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine, the bill proposes a one-year minimum sentence for the offence of trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking in the presence of certain aggravating factors.

These aggravating factors would include the following: if the offence was committed for the benefit of or at the direction of or in association with organized crime; if the offence involved violence or the threat of violence, or weapons or the threat of the use of weapons; if the offence was committed by someone who was convicted in the previous 10 years of a designated drug offence or if youth were present. If the offence occurred in a prison, the minimum sentence would be increased to two years; in the case of importing, exporting and possession for the purpose of exporting, the minimum penalty would be one year if these offences were committed for the purposes of trafficking; moreover, the penalty would be be raised to two years if these offences involved more than one kilogram of a Schedule I drug. A minimum of two years would be provided for a production offence involving a Schedule I drug.

Again, we are talking about drugs such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine.

The minimum sentence for the production of Schedule I drugs would increase to three years if aggravating factors relating to health and safety were present.

These factors would be as follows: if the person used real property that belonged to a third party to commit the offence; if the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed, or in the immediate area; if the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; or if the person placed or set a trap.

For Schedule II drugs such as marijuana, cannabis resin, et cetera, the proposed mandatory minimum penalty for trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking would be one year if certain aggravating factors were present, such as violence, recidivism or organized crime.

If factors such as trafficking to youth were present, the minimum would be increased to two years.

For offences of importing or exporting and for possession for the purpose of exporting marijuana, the minimum penalty would be one year of imprisonment if the offence was committed for the purpose of trafficking.

For the offence of marijuana production, the bill proposes mandatory penalties based on the number of plants involved. Production of six to 200 plants, again if the plants were cultivated for the purpose of trafficking, would carry a penalty of six months. For the production of 201 to 500 plants, it would be one year. For the production of more than 500 plants, it would be two years. For the production of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking, the sentence would be one year.

I should mention that the government amended clause 41, which deals with a nine-month mandatory minimum penalty for the offence of producing one to 200 plants inclusively if the production was for the purpose of trafficking and certain aggravating factors were present. The adoption of this motion narrowed the offence such that the mandatory minimum penalty would now apply to instances in which more than five plants but fewer than 200 plants were produced, the production was for the purposes of trafficking, and certain aggravating factors were present. The minimum penalty would no longer apply to the production of five or fewer plants.

If there were aggravating factors relating to the health and safety of the production of schedule II drugs, the mandatory minimum sentences would increase by 50%. The maximum penalty for producing marijuana would be doubled from 7 to 14 years of imprisonment.

Amphetamines, as well as the date-rape drugs GHB and Rohypnol, would be transferred from schedule III to schedule I, thereby allowing the courts to impose higher maximum penalties for offences involving these drugs.

I am pleased that Bill C-10 has been thoroughly examined by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and that we are rapidly approaching our goal of seeing this legislation passed into law.

Our government's message is clear: drug lords should pay with jail time. Canadians can count on us to continue to stand up for law-abiding citizens.

Finally, there are provisions in the legislation for it to be reviewed. I know that members opposite have been voting against this bill consistently. I would invite them to reconsider that position, based on the fact that there are review provisions in the legislation. I hope we have their support when we vote on this later.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member across the floor.

Can he show us at least two expert studies that prove that this bill will significantly reduce crime—which is already at the lowest rate Canada has seen in 40 years—more effectively than a nation-wide prevention program?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the question actually presents the opportunity to explain and contrast clearly the differences between the members opposite and the members on this side of the House.

I sat through every piece of testimony from every witness in committee. The people who are on side and support the bill, who say that it is necessary, are people like chiefs of police, victims organizations and victims themselves. Those are the people who think the legislation would make a difference and those are the people we are proud to stand with in presenting the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to minimum penalties. I was interested in an article that made reference to minimum penalties and will quote from it. It said:

A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.

I would ask the member to provide comment on that.

Also, would the member acknowledge that while many states in the Deep South felt at one point that the best way was to build more prisons and keep people in jail longer, most of the advocates of that system and that style of fighting crime are now on the other side, saying that they made a mistake?

It seems to me that the Conservative government in Canada is the only one in North America that has put all of its marbles in the area of getting tough on crime into putting people in jail and keeping them there.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to educate my friend on a couple of points that he has raised today.

First, I will deal with mandatory minimum sentences with respect to drug trafficking. My friend does not talk about that. The section is trafficking. It is the production of marijuana plants for the purpose of trafficking.

Police chiefs came and spoke at our committee. They were begging us to get this legislation passed because they need to get these people off the street, and off the streets longer, so that they are not poisoning our children with their drugs.

The other fallacy that we have heard today is that we are somehow following the U.S. model. My friend opposite knows that the incarceration rates, even as they are reducing sentencing in the U.S., are nowhere near what they are in Canada. They are far higher because the American sentences are still far longer, for every single offence, than they are here in Canada. There is no comparison.

People on that side of the House who continue to stand up here and say that know that they are not telling the truth, and they should be ashamed.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke primarily about the part of the bill that deals with drugs. He spoke at length about marijuana and the fight against drug lords. There are many drug lords in Canada. First of all, these drug lords come from other countries. Also, this omnibus crime bill, which has absolutely nothing to do with drugs, is all over the board. The Conservatives want to criminalize anyone who has at least six marijuana plants for the purpose of sale. Those are minor offenders, not drug lords. Drug lords traffic in cocaine and drugs that are a lot harder than marijuana. The members opposite should not get carried away.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again I am happy to provide some information for the members opposite who do not seem to have a clear understanding of this legislation.

When we are talking about dealing with people who are growing six plants, it is for the purpose of trafficking. Somebody who is producing six marijuana plants in their basement will produce hundreds of marijuana joints. These are not some poor individuals who are growing plants in their basement for personal use.

This legislation is targeted for people who are trafficking in drugs. I hope that with these explanations our friends on the opposite side of the floor can rise and support this legislation when it comes back to this House.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to the rising opposition to Bill C-10, which is perhaps best characterized as the Conservatives' most recent piece of dumb on crime legislation.

Our understanding of crime and the appropriate way to handle those who transgress the rules of our society has evolved over the past 400 years. We have moved from a time when criminality was commonly associated with witchcraft to a society that far better understands the root causes of crime and better ways to handle criminals.

I am truly dismayed to see the government completely ignore the work being done on these important topics. It seems to be taking us back to the middle ages. That is not just empty rhetoric. Why do I say that they are taking us back to the middle ages?

First, it is obvious that the government cares not a whit about policies to fight the ultimate cause of crime. Second, it does not care about deterrence. If it did, it would have paid attention to a recent study by its own Department of Justice that was released a week or so ago, which provided evidence that longer sentences are not an effective deterrent to crime. Indeed, the results from that study are consistent with international evidence on the topic.

If the government does not care about fighting the ultimate cause of crime, if it does not care about deterrence, what is left? The only thing the government cares about is the principle of retribution or vengeance, and that is why I make the statement that it is taking us back to the middle ages.

The notion of fighting the underlying causes of crime is not at all important to the Conservatives. At the same time, for the reasons I just explained, the principle of deterrence also appears irrelevant to the Conservatives. All that matters to them is the principle of retribution or revenge. In that sense, this bill takes us back to the Middle Ages.

Nobody in the House would deny that protecting the citizens of Canada from harm is the most important objective of government. In fact, the government is granted a monopoly on the use of force for just that purpose, but with that power comes the responsibility to act in an appropriate manner that benefits society.

Our country was founded on the principles of peace, order and good government, and good government means examining all the facts and opinions. It means talking to experts and making public policy decisions that are based on evidence, not knee-jerk ideological desires. Good government also means respecting Parliament's role in public policy debates.

My opposition to this bill stems from its ineffective and ideological nature, and from the government's inability or unwillingness to work with Parliament on this major issue of public policy. I can already hear that familiar refrain from the other side, soft on crime, soft on victims' rights.

Victims' rights and crime are very important and I find the constant use of victims as a shield for this ideologically-driven agenda to be offensive. I believe nobody in the House is opposed to supporting victims of crime. To suggest otherwise is simply insulting to the intelligence of Canadians.

Indeed, I might mention the case earlier today regarding my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, when he presented amendments that would strengthen the provisions in this bill to support victims of terrorism and add to the remedies against those who commit terrorist acts. It seems the government is not going to accept that amendment, but that is a concrete example of Liberals supporting remedies for those who are victims of crime or terrorism.

What does it mean to support victims of crime? It must certainly mean doing our best to ensure that crime does not happen in the first place or that those who break our laws should be treated in a way that will minimize recidivism. That is how we stand up for victims, by working to ensure that we reduce crime as much as possible and also through measures such as proposed by my colleague from Mount Royal.

I have spoken about the Conservatives' crime agenda in general, but I also want to spend some time on this bill in particular. My primary concern with this bill is that it is fundamentally ineffective. According to Statistics Canada, crime is going down both in volume and severity. This should be trumpeted as a success. Crime is going down. Is that not our objective? When the government should be saying the evidence is saying its policies work, it instead says it does not believe the statistics. It claims the numbers do not matter, but they do matter. For the benefit of my colleagues on the other side of this place, I will go over a few of the facts that they choose to ignore.

As I said before, crime is down. Locking people up for longer does not necessarily make them less likely to reoffend, as I said just a few minutes ago. That is confirmed by a very recent study by the Department of Justice that was acquired through access to information. When we are dealing with young offenders, the negative effects of prison are only multiplied.

What the government needs to understand is that this is not just Liberal nonsense or lefty soft on crime rhetoric. Look at our neighbours to the south. The U.S. incarceration rate is 700% higher than ours. It has very nearly reached a point where fully 1% of the U.S. population is in prison. What does that mean for the U.S.? It means it continues to have higher crime rates than we do. It continues to spend billions more on prisons that we do. Some states, such as California, actually spend more on prisons than they spend on schools. Prisons are not the perfect solution to crime. That is simply outdated 18th century thought and nothing more.

For many criminals, prisons have not proven the palaces of reform that the Conservatives promise they will be. For many, it is simply a school for crime. Our prison system is already at its limit. This plan to dump thousands of new offenders into the system will simply break it. Low level offenders will enter the system after convictions for petty crimes and will leave having made new criminal connections and having learned the skills of the trade. That should never be the outcome of our justice system.

Despite all of this tough talk, one of the things we will not hear the Conservatives talking about during this debate is the mental health of our prisoners. It is widely understood by those who study crime that mental health issues are one of the biggest driving factors of criminal behaviour. Taking care of the mentally ill among us has been a failure of all levels of government for decades now.

As of 2007, 12% of the federal male prison population had a diagnosed mental illness. That is a 71% increase over 1997 and those figures are even worse for female inmates. Our prisons are not supposed to be substitute mental hospitals. In fact, I struggle to find a worse place for a mentally ill person.

Currently, aboriginals are incarcerated at a rate nine times that of non-aboriginal people. I believe that is simply unacceptable. Like most prisoners, they are in prison for non-violent property or drug offences. Time and time again we have seen that the solution to this vicious cycle is not more prisons.

I have covered some of the negative social costs of this dumb on crime agenda, but it is also important to talk about the fiscal costs.

The opposition has been asking the government for detailed cost estimates for its crime agenda. We have received nothing from the government except empty rhetoric. This is unacceptable. Parliamentarians are both policy-makers and the ultimate keepers of the public purse. We have a right to know the costs of the legislation that we are asked to support.

There is another consideration, and I will borrow a term from American politics: unfunded mandate. Yes, there will be significant federal costs, but we cannot ignore the impact these changes will have on provincial governments. These legislative changes, taken in concert with previous changes, will lead to many new provincial inmates at costs borne solely by the provinces.

The government has shown little respect for Parliament and its role, and it is also showing very little respect for provincial governments and their budgets.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing his thoughts on the bill that the Conservative government has introduced to amend the Criminal Code.

A little earlier, my colleague opposite said, with respect to the legislation concerning marijuana plants, that somebody who is producing six marijuana plants in their basement will produce hundreds of marijuana joints, whereas it is our understanding that when people sell to others, it usually consists of enormous quantities.

I would like to know what he thinks about this provision of the bill. Does he feel that it is logical to consider six plants as contraband?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and I would raise two points.

First, we are opposed in principle to mandatory minimum sentences. Therefore, we are opposed to all the mandatory minimum sentences in this bill because we believe that judges should have discretion when making their decisions. As other members have said, mandatory minimum sentences can have the opposite effect because of negotiations between lawyers in the courts. Therefore we are opposed to this principle in the case she has mentioned as well as in general.

Second, in my opinion, six plants is not a huge number.

In more general terms, we are opposed to the principle of mandatory minimum sentences.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend across the way intently. I am a member of the justice committee and I want him to know that I am interested in what he has to say, but for the most part he is talking about costs to implement the bill.

I am wondering if he has had an opportunity to speak to victims and to ascertain the cost if the bill is not imposed, if we continue to have high amounts of violent crimes in this country, if we continue to have loss of property through damage committed by youth, if we continue to have psychological damage to individuals needing treatment, and the cost to society as a whole when some crime gets out of control.

Has he looked at those costs, the real costs that victims are concerned with? They are not concerned with the cost of implementing the bill. The only time it is concerned with that cost is when it is not actually affected by any crime.

We have heard from Canadians. They are impacted by crime. They want it to stop, and they want the bill and these laws to go forward.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept this principle that the Conservatives have a monopoly on caring about victims. Our view is that this bill would create more victims because when we send young people into jail they learn to become criminals and when they get out they are more likely to reoffend. The Department of Justice has said that longer sentences do not deter crime. The best way to help victims is to reduce crime and the essential point of my remarks is that this law would not reduce crime. It would more likely increase crime and that cannot be good for victims.

My colleague from Mount Royal has proposed amendments to this legislation which would strengthen the provisions that would help victims of terrorism. If the government cares about victims, I hope it will accept the amendments proposed by the member for Mount Royal.