House of Commons Hansard #21 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-10.
Julian Fantino Conservative Vaughan, ON
Mr. Speaker, the justification that all Canadians would very much appreciate is everybody getting their act together, quit all the back and forth, and pass this very important piece of legislation.
It is critically important to law enforcement officers if we want them to do the job that they are mandated to do. It is critical to the courts and it is critical to society, especially to vulnerable people.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. minister's speech today and congratulate him for many years of service in the OPP, the London police force and elsewhere, but I am surprised at the answer he gave to the previous question because it seems to me the point of the questions was that if there are parts of the bill which the opposition is prepared to support and expedite, why would the government not want to do that?
The minister said to get this moving, get it going, and get the measures that he is talking about today moving forward. That is what my hon. colleague who spoke a moment ago was talking about exactly.
I do not comprehend why the minister would not say yes, that is the right move. Why, when there are other issues in this bill that opposition members in both parties, enough that he is not concerned about, why not separate the bill? It is a huge, omnibus piece of legislation. Why not separate it and move forward quickly with so many of the measures on which there is agreement?
Julian Fantino Conservative Vaughan, ON
Mr. Speaker, we need to realize that many of these things have been debated, up, down and sideways, certainly in the previous Parliament, namely Bill C-54.
We feel very strongly that what we have put together is a response to the mandate that has been given to us by the Canadian people. We campaigned on these issues. We are fulfilling our responsibility, our mandate, and our accountability to the people who sent us here.
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Associate Minister of National Defence for his excellent contribution to the debate.
He mentioned his many years of law enforcement, for which he has been recognized.
I am quite certain he probably talks to some of his law enforcement friends from time to time and I am curious, through those informal consultations, what information he has been able to gather concerning the appropriateness and the effectiveness of this impending legislation?
Julian Fantino Conservative Vaughan, ON
Mr. Speaker, the impact will be significant in terms of our ability to fill gaps that now exist. Our ability to better protect, especially, as I indicated, children, but more so dealing with the current and emerging threats that we all have to deal with and about which we all have to be concerned, including terrorism.
At the end of the day, and I know there is a lot of talk about the impact on offenders, one of the best forms of crime prevention is to ensure that recidivist criminals are locked up, and that is what we intend to do.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the minister.
My understanding is that if we compare a child predator, who is trying to get a child to do something such as watch pornographic movies, to someone who gets caught growing six marijuana plants, there is a stricter penalty or consequence for the individual who is growing the marijuana. Is that not correct? If so, would he agree that something is wrong there?
Julian Fantino Conservative Vaughan, ON
Mr. Speaker, with respect to my friend's interpretation of what is intended here, first and foremost the growing of six plants is for the purpose of trafficking. It is vastly different from what the member is suggesting.
No one is looking at comparing crime in the context of the experience that I and my colleagues have had. We are talking about those who traffic in marijuana; six plants is the number that has been calculated, but I also know people who have trafficked one plant.
I do not see how one could ignore the fact that the criterion is that of trafficking, as opposed to just growing it for personal use, even though some people may frame it that way.
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: that the provisions of Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts respecting support for victims and consisting of clauses 52, 55, 96 through 98, and clause 130, do compose Bill C-10B; that the remaining provisions in Bill C-10 do compose Bill C-10A; that the clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; that Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B be reprinted; and that Bill C-10B be deemed to have been read the first time and be printed, deemed read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment and deemed read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, we are proposing this motion to move forward those sections of the omnibus bill that would provide support for victims, including broadening the definition of a victim, allowing the inclusion of victim impact statements at parole hearings and providing enhanced notification to victims regarding parole board hearings as well as other measures that support victims.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
I do not think that is a point of order.
Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this manner?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
There is no consent.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for York West
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have been able to squeeze my name in among many others so that I can speak to Bill C-10 and talk about what is good about it as well as all the concerns we have about it. I am glad that I was able to get in, given the fact that we have closure before us.
Just over a week ago the Minister of Justice introduced his highly politicized Bill C-10. Now, after only a couple of hours of debate, the government has moved to shut down democratic discussion on the bill, in the very House of democracy.
This bill is actually nine previous bills jumbled together in a way that must make U.S. Republicans green with envy. Let us imagine nine bills going through with no debate. Yes, we are supportive of parts of those nine bills, but to put them forward in one huge bill and expect us to pass them in less than the two weeks that we have been in this House is a real insult to democracy and an insult to all of us as parliamentarians here to do a job. With some of it we have no problem, but to turn around and have it proceeding in such a short period of time without full debate and input from all of us is a true disservice.
If I were to listen to the government, it would seem that crime is rampant and out of control in the cities, towns, villages and hamlets of Canada. The government, perched on its white horse, says it is prepared to ride to our rescue. What does that actually mean in real legislation?
Despite the rhetoric and the fearmongering from our friends across the way, which is something we are all guilty of in this House on various pieces of legislation, Statistics Canada seems to have a different take when it comes to crime rates.
In a report released earlier this year, Statistics Canada stated that police-reported crime reached its lowest levels since the early 1970s. It goes on to say that the police-reported crime rate, which measures the overall volume of crime, continued to decline right up until last year. In fact, last year it was down 5%, reaching its lowest level since 1973, which is something we are all thrilled about. We are pleased that it has gone down to that extent.
Would we like to wipe it out altogether? Of course we would, but we also have to be practical. There are various issues here that have to be addressed as we all try to reduce crime in this country. It is as low as it is as a result of the many crime prevention programs introduced through the Liberal years that we were here.
That same Statistics Canada report says that violent crime is at its lowest since 1999. Last year both the volume and severity of violent crime fell 3% from the previous year, while the decline in the violent crime severity index was more notably down 6%.
This is the fourth straight year when there has been a decline in the violent crime severity index, and it is the largest drop in more than a decade.
Overall, violent crimes accounted for just one in five offences. Among the violence crimes that saw a significant decline were attempted murder, down 14%; homicide, down 10%; robbery, down 7%; and serious assault, down 5%.
That is where we all want to see it, going down, which is what raises the question of why we have Bill C-10 bundled up with nine pieces of legislation and then rushed through this parliamentary session.
We know that Bill C-10 is not on the table because of actual evidence. There has been no evidence presented to tell us exactly why it is important for us to cram this through and why we cannot have full debate through the House and through committee stages. The Conservatives want to scare people by painting a picture of crime that is clearly, in their opinion, out of control, because it fits the ideology of the Republicans and of the Conservative government.
I am prepared, as are many of my colleagues, to support measures that actually tackle real crime with balance and focus. Bill C-10 is not that.
For example, as my colleague just mentioned, this legislation suggests minimum penalties for certain drug crimes that are harsher than those for certain sexually driven crimes involving children. We have to look at both of those and try to see where there is a balance. I would suspect that any crime involving children and sexual activity would have the harshest of penalties applied.
Instead there seems to be a difference in how that would be applied. We do not support the idea of someone growing marijuana plants either, but it certainly should not have a stricter penalty, or at least both of them should be at the appropriate level. If we are truly talking about protecting the vulnerable, we have to do far more than what is written in Bill C-10.
The real challenge ahead of us is that the bill proposes to spend billions of dollars on a crime and punishment agenda that will do little or nothing to tackle crime and punishment. Despite the billions of dollars being spent on Bill C-10, it fails the real issues of tackling poverty, homelessness, financial illiteracy, income security, and education. Almost 99% of what we see in the crime agenda is a result of those issues. No job, no education, homelessness, drugs and mental illness are usually the key issues that get people into those crime situations. Experts tell us that any real effort to prevent crime must start with an effort to stamp out hopelessness and fear.
It appears as though Bill C-10 is covered with the fingerprints of U.S. Republicans. The Americans have one of the highest rates of incarceration on the planet, and they are starting to see that a system based only on punishment is a failure. As much as it might make us feel good to lock people up, the reality is that it does not appear to work in all of the cases.
Let me quote from a recent U.S. editorial with regard to crime and prisons. It states:
California spends more money on prisons than on higher education. The governor is right--we've got it backwards and it's time to reverse course.
Only 68% of our high school students are graduating. Yet we pay prison guards substantially more than teachers.
Fear of crime led us to vote for long prison terms and the three strikes law. We didn't intend to spend $4 billion more on prisons than colleges....
The less educated our workforce...the more we feed the prisons.
It's time to admit our mistakes and make tough decisions. By pumping so much money into prisons, we're starving education. We cannot afford the consequences.
That was a quote from an editorial in a newspaper in the United States, and it spells out exactly the direction we are going.
We are pleading with the government not to go down that route. Let us look at this. Let us take some time to make sure that Bill C-10 goes in the right direction. Let it go to committee and let it have full hearings and a full debate. We all want to ensure safety on our streets and in our communities. No one thinks any differently, but we really have our heads in the sand if we think that bundling it all up and pretending it is going to solve all the problems is really going to make that happen.
That is not what we want, and I am sure none of the other members in the House want it. Locking someone up forever does not eliminate crime. Locking someone up forever does not make us any safer. Locking someone up does not help those who have been victimized by criminals either. Locking someone up forever is an after-the-fact system that does little to address the root causes of crime.
I believe we can do better. We can tackle poverty, homelessness and joblessness. We can make our streets safer for our children and families. We can replace fear with hope, but Bill C-10 is not the way to do this.
The Conservatives cite their majority in the House as a justification for why the bill is worth passing. That is not a valid reason. On this side of the House we are willing to work with the government to pass a crime bill that strikes at the root causes of crime, helps victims get back on their feet and punishes offenders appropriately for their misdeeds.
Bill C-10 ignores evidence and does not produce any facts. It creates an illusion that crime is out of control and it fails to provide any information on the real costs of implementation. Bill C-10 does not reflect the values of Canadians as a smart, caring society, and it would do nothing to address crime in this country.
Bill C-10 is not an omnibus crime bill, it is an ominous crime bill, because it signals a shift toward an approach to crime that has failed in places like the United States. If we adopt Bill C-10 as it is, we are adopting a failed approach.
I, for one, have grave concerns with not only the financial impact, but the real agenda is to make our communities and our streets safer. Bill C-10 has some merit in some parts, and there are areas we would like to support, but clearly work has to be done.
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Madam Speaker, I certainly want to thank the hon. member for York West for her contribution in this debate.
I am always amazed when opponents of our safe streets and safe community agenda cherry-pick statistics to oppose our legislation. I say “cherry-pick” deliberately because if we pick 1970 as a reference point official crime statistics are down. However, if we pick 1960 as a reference point they are up and they are up considerably.
More relevantly, I wonder if the hon. member knows that in 2009 one in four Canadians reported being a victim of a crime and only 31% of those people reported those crimes to the police.
The real issue is not if crime is up or down. It is whether the level is tolerable. In 2010, even official police statistics showed two million crimes in Canada, 440,000 of which were violent.
Are those acceptable numbers?
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Madam Speaker, in my mind no crime is tolerable, period. Frankly, if I could wave a magic wand we would not have any crime. However, that does not work and we all know that. We live in a world where statistics matter and we need evidence to back up what we are moving forward.
I would rather see more money go into policing to provide support for the men and women who keep our streets and our country safe, crime prevention, and ensuring there is housing so that people are not living on the streets. A big important part is the whole issue of mental health. All of us who work daily in our communities know that a number of people who are out there causing part of this crime are seriously ill. That is an area the House has yet to tackle. We talk a lot about it but we have yet to put the investment into truly helping people who are suffering from mental health illness.
François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague.
In all of the research she has done, is there a single modern state, in North America or Europe, that has a tough on crime policy and that has seen crime rates decrease more quickly than in a neighbouring state? Or, on the contrary, are there not examples where the tough on crime policy slowed a decrease in the crime rate or even caused an increase?
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Madam Speaker, let me be very clear. We should be very tough on crime. We all want those who are violent offenders or sexual predators to be dealt with as severely as the system allows.
The issue is what about all of the people who for whatever reason find themselves in a situation where they have no money and commit a robbery? Without question there should be an appropriate penalty for every crime, not just lock people in prison for two or three years.
I visited Mimico, a reformatory system in Toronto. It was filled with young people. I wondered what they would be like when they came out. From everything I hear, once they go into those kinds of facilities they always come out tougher, hardened and more disillusioned with life.
We have to spend more time figuring out how we can stay ahead of that. That means ensuring that our local police services have all the support they need, that we have crime prevention programs and that we invest in our communities.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Madam Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague from York West to talk about the overall costs of this tough-on-crime approach which a previous member said a moment ago has been found elsewhere not to work. In fact, he found that crime had increased as a result of these policies. California is a good example of that.
I would like to hear her comments.
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Madam Speaker, I alluded to the California issue. We need to look at exactly what went on there and why it probably has the highest incarceration rate in the world. It is out of control. California does not have any money to balance its budgets or to put into education.
Clearly, if we use what was done in California as an example, that is exactly the direction in which Bill C-10 appears to be taking us.
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.
Bill C-10 is comprehensive legislation that addresses a number of serious issues that are in front of mind for this government and for all Canadians.
It proposes legislative reforms to strengthen our existing responses to: child sexual abuse and exploitation as well as serious drug, violent and property crimes found in part 2, clauses 10 to 51; terrorism, found in part 1, clauses 2 to 9; violent young offenders, part 4, clauses 167 to 204; offender accountability and management, part 3, clauses 52 to 166; and the protection of vulnerable foreign workers against abuse and exploitation, part 5, clauses 205 to 207.
There can be no question that this is an important package of reforms. That is why we must take our task as lawmakers seriously, and study and pass these proposals to ensure the safety of all Canadians.
Bill C-10 compiles the reforms that were included in nine bills that were before the previous Parliament which died on the order paper with the dissolution of that Parliament for the general election. Former Bill C-4, Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders) is now in part 4 of Bill C-10. Former Bill C-5, Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act is now in part 3. Former Bill C-16, Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act is now in part 2. Former Bill C-23B, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act is now in part 3. Former Bill C-39, Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act is now in part 3. Former Bill C-54, Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act is now in part 2. Bill C-56, Preventing the Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation of Vulnerable Immigrants Act is now in part 5. Former Bill C-59, Abolition of Early Parole Act is now in part 3. Former Bill S-7, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act is now in part 1. Former Bill S-10, Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act is now in part 2.
Many of these former bills were previously debated, studied and some were even passed by the House of Commons. Therefore, they should easily be supported again in this Parliament.
I would like to focus the balance of my remarks on the proposals in Bill C-10 to better protect children against sexual exploitation, that being those reforms now in part 2 of this legislation that were previously in Bill C-54 in the last session of Parliament.
The reforms build on the government's well-established commitment and track record in delivering concrete measures tackling violent crime, and in particular to safeguard children against violent sexual offenders. For example, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, 2008 raised the age of consent of sexual activity from 14 to 16 years to better protect Canadian youth against adult sexual predators. It also better protected all Canadians against dangerous offenders by providing police, crown prosecutors and the courts with much needed tools to more effectively manage the threat posed by individuals who were at high risk of reoffending sexually and violently.
While it is true that our existing criminal laws addressing child sexual abuse and exploitation are already comprehensive and robust, there is always room for improvement. We should never be complacent in ensuring that we are doing all we can to safeguard such a vulnerable segment of the Canadian population.
This point is underscored by Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Juristat article “Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2010”, released on July 21, 2011, which reported increases in the rates of child pornography offences as up 36% and sexual assault as up 5%.
The proposed reforms in Bill C-10 are both timely and welcome. They address clear gaps in our existing laws. The address the gap created by inconsistent penalties for sexual assault offences where the victim is a child and the gap that now exists because some of the preparatory conduct engaged in by child sex offenders is not criminalized. They fill a gap in our existing measures to help prevent known or suspected child sex offenders from engaging in conduct that could facilitate their sexual offences.
The proposals in Bill C-10 seek to ensure that all sexual offences involving a child are treated equally, seriously and consistently. They do so by: proposing to impose new mandatory minimum penalties for offences involving child victims that currently do not carry minimum penalties; increasing the mandatory minimum penalties for some child sex offences that are already imposed; and, by increasing the maximum penalties on some other offences. Once these reforms are enacted, there would be a consistent approach to sentencing in all sexual assault cases involving child victims.
Child sexual assault could be charged under any of the child-specific sexual offences or under the general sexual assault offences that also apply to adult victims. Currently, 12 but not all child-specific sexual offences impose mandatory minimum penalties and none of the general sexual assault offences impose mandatory minimum penalties.
In practice, this means that the overwhelming majority of child sexual assault cases do not carry mandatory minimum sentences. This is because the majority of child sexual offences are charged under the general sexual assault offence in section 271, which does not currently impose a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment. That is 80% of all child sex offences charged in 2008. The source of this information is Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, UCR2. It is very current data.
If we take as our starting point the universally shared view that all child sexual abuse must be strongly condemned and that mandatory minimum penalties are exceptional in the Criminal Code and are reserved for those crimes that Parliament determines must be strongly denounced and deterred, it should be obvious to all that the current use of mandatory minimum sentences for some but not all sexual offences involving child victims is just wrong. That sends a message to some victims that their experience of sexual assault is less serious than that of other child victims. It also sends a message to child sex offenders that they should try to plea bargain for charges under offences that do not impose mandatory minimum penalties.
Bill C-10 contains fundamental legislative safeguards for all Canadians. I call upon the opposition members to put an end to their attempts to obstruct the bill and to support our efforts to keep Canadians safe.
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
Madam Speaker, the member opposite invites us to take our job as lawmakers and parliamentarians seriously, which is why the limitation on debate of this huge omnibus bill is so egregious.
The member opposite listed all the reasons that the House should unanimously support the component around child exploitation and sexual assault. Perhaps the hon. member was not in the House when my hon. colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh rose to say that we indeed do support that part of the legislation. In fact, it should be expedited. We could have that part of the bill passed in 48 hours if the government would stop stalling.
Could the member opposite explain why the government is stalling on that part of the legislation?
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, the elements in the bill and the laws in the bill were already debated in this House. Now we want to put them through so Canadians can be safe.
When we stand in this Parliament and look around at what Canadians expect us to do as lawmakers, we do need to take our jobs very seriously. In the past election, Canadians overwhelmingly gave us a mandate to push these bills forward, bills that we could not get through in the last Parliament.
Now, to enable that to happen, they have gone into one bill. They have been debated and some have even been passed in the House. Now it is time to get on with the job and get this done.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Madam Speaker, I do not claim, by any means, to be an expert in matters related to crime. I studied a little bit at law school and have not done much in relation to it since.
However, I respect the view of Mr. Peter Blaikie, who is a distinguished Canadian lawyer and a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party. Earlier this year, he said:
Why is the tough-on-crime policy so appallingly bad?
Perhaps most bizarrely, it runs counter to all the statistical evidence of significantly falling crime rates over the past 25 years. It rejects not only the expert evidence of those involved in the criminal-justice system directly, including the Correctional Service of Canada, but also that of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and others.
What expertise does my hon. colleague have that she knows better than those folks?
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Madam Speaker, in my humble opinion, I am a parliamentarian and do not profess to know better than anybody else. What I do know is that for the better part of 10 years I have worked with victims of crime. As recently as two weeks ago in Toronto, I was talking to a young girl who was sexually assaulted. She was trafficked. She is hidden now. She said quite clearly that she would not report the crime because they will just get off anyway.
Nobody talks about that on the opposite side in this Parliament.
My experience, working with victims of crime for 10 years, touches my heart and it causes me to move forward. Apart from that, I worked very closely with ICE units and other police officers. My own son was in the ICE unit. He is part of the RCMP.
I do not expect that I could profess to be an expert or a lawyer. I do have nine years of university and I know a lot about mathematics and science because that is where my expertise is. However, as a human being, I do know that when a child is afraid to report a crime something is very wrong with the laws. We need to take our jobs seriously as lawmakers and move forward to get this job done.
Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON
Madam Speaker, I stand today in the House in opposition to the proposed Bill C-10, cleverly titled the safe streets and communities act. I say “cleverly titled” because there is certainly no consensus that the proposed changes to the Criminal Code would make Canada's streets and communities any safer than they already are. This is because this bill relies on the false pretense that increased incarceration rates necessarily lead to lower crime rates.
Sadly, when drafting this crime bill, the Conservatives have ignored the evidence. Crime rates in Canada are at a 20-year low and, despite the claim by Conservative colleagues that there has been a sharp rise in unreported crime, the reality does not reflect their over the top rhetoric.
The international examples of countries that employ a similar crime model demonstrate why such an approach is not one that Canada should be adopting. We can take, for instance, the United States. Since undertaking similar crime policies during Ronald Reagan's tenure as president, federal incarceration rates have skyrocketed with the prison population, nearly doubling over a 15-year period. Yet, in spite of the doubling of the prison population, the overall crime rate in the United Sates has remained relatively stagnant. This underscores the idea that deterrence through wide-scale incarceration is not an effective crime prevention strategy. If anything, it only exacerbates the problem.
In the California penal system, inmates are being double and sometimes even triple bunked, often in recreational areas of the prison, such as cafeterias and gyms. They also lack adequate access to rehabilitation and mental health treatment, something that h has a great effect on the rates of recidivism. Even notable Republican, Newt Gingrich, has recently reversed course and publicly criticized the U.S.'s tough on crime approach as being counterproductive to the real goal of reducing overall crime rates.
Why then are the Conservatives leading us down the path that other governments are beginning to abandon? Has the abject failure of this approach in the U.S. taught the government nothing?
Another aspect of Bill C-10 that worries me is who would be caught in the wide-ranging dragnet of this bill. Of particular concern is the effect this legislation would have on persons with mental health issues and serious drug abuse problems. Under the current system of drug sentencing, judges have discretion when issuing sentences. This means that judges can weigh all factors when determining the appropriate sentence, particularly whether the accused has a mental health issue or substance abuse problem. By removing this judicial discretion from the sentencing process, we would be stacking the deck against persons suffering from mental illness and substance abuse. Instead of giving these groups the treatment they need, we would be locking them up in an environment that often fosters and worsens their illness.
I have heard from many of my constituents in the riding of Sudbury who have singled out the effects that this bill would have on these vulnerable groups and they have asked me to oppose this bill for that very reason.
Furthermore, although my Conservative colleagues claim that this bill would target serious organized crime groups in Canada, I fear that, as is often the case in the United States, it will be the low hanging fruit that will be caught in the crosshairs. All indications suggest that the vast majority of the people who would be affected by the proposed changes are not the Hell's Angels, not groups like the Rizzutos and, ultimately, not the people who would generally be defined as “organized crime”. Instead, the vast majority are small-time, low threat, non-violent offenders. Should we really be expending finite budgetary resources to incarcerate people who represent very little threat to public safety in Canada? I and millions of Canadians believe not.
For instance, the inclusion of a mandatory minimum sentencing provision for persons caught cultivating more than five marijuana plants highlights the failure of this legislation to strike an appropriate balance between public safety and a rational model of crime prevention.
I agree that large scale, clandestine grow-op operations are a problem in Canada. It is unfair for homeowners who have unwittingly bought homes that were once used as grow-ops. They need to be protected. However, to create a regime where a teenager growing six plants in his or her parents' basement would face the same mandatory minimum jail sentence as organized crime groups involved with large scale operations, fails to properly differentiate between real and perceived threats to public safety.
Speaking of real versus perceived threats to public safety, the bill would see tougher sentences for persons caught cultivating marijuana than persons convicted of certain sexual offences against children.
I will quote Serj Tankian, who said:
All research and successful drug policy shows
That treatment should be increased,
And law enforcement decreased,
While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences,
I also take particular issue with the approach of packaging such a large volume of legislative changes to the Criminal Code into one massive omnibus bill. There are aspects of the bill that I believe are legitimate and useful, but because of the way it has been presented, I am obliged to vote against it. It seems that the Minister of Justice has taken an all or nothing, take it or leave it approach with this legislation. Either Canadians take the bad with the good or we get nothing at all.
This is not the approach that Canadians expect their elected representatives to take. Canadians expect members of Parliament to have nuanced debates to deal with specific legislative issues. The packaging of nine pieces of legislation into one bill shortchanges Canadian democracy and makes it impossible for me to support specific changes to the Criminal Code, which I would support were they introduced individually.
A 10-minute speech barely allows me to scratch the surface of this legislation. That speaks to the fact that bundling so many unrelated changes into the Criminal Code shortchanges Canadians.
Something that deeply disturbs me is the fact that the minister responsible has failed to provide Canadians with adequate cost estimates relating to the implementation of the bill. Canadians are living in a time of great economic uncertainty and yet the minister is unable to answer even the most basic questions about how much this would cost to implement. It begs the question about how the Conservatives can be trusted to preside over Canada's overall economic prosperity when they cannot provide an accurate cost estimate of legislation that they have had in their back pocket for close to six years.
As an administrator in my past life, I understand the need for financial and budgetary transparency, so this leaves me asking a few very important questions. How many new prisons would be required to house the thousands of Canadians that would be criminalized by this legislation? What are the administrative costs associated with prosecuting thousands of additional criminal proceedings? How much of this burden would be borne on the backs of provinces already struggling with budgetary restrictions and tight fiscal situations? Those questions remain unanswered.
The fact that the minister cannot provide these basic details creates a broader credibility issue for the government. How are Canadians supposed to trust a government that cannot provide cost estimates for its own legislation? Does the minister really know the cost or is the government purposely withholding this information because it knows Canadians will overwhelmingly reject its approach if the real figures were made public? Canadians have a right to know the real costs of this legislation.
What I see in Bill C-10 is an accumulation of ineffective policies to solve a diminishing problem, all at an unknown cost to the taxpayer. What I do not see is how the bill would actually lower crime and recidivism rates and ultimately make Canada's streets and communities any safer.
Kerry-Lynne Findlay ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
Madam Speaker, is the member opposite aware that the proposed legislation would allow the courts, including drug treatment courts, to exempt an offender from the mandatory minimum sentence that would otherwise be imposed where the offence involved no other aggravating factors other than a previous conviction for a serious drug offence and the offender's successfully completes a treatment program? This seems contrary to what the member has suggested.