Madam Speaker, when I posed my question last November, regarding the evidence to support mandatory minimum penalties, including whether the mandatory minimums were compatible with the charter, the parliamentary secretary replied also in an irrelevant fashion on the issue of costs. He concluded in a kind of customary, demagogic disclaimer that, “We support the victims, while they support the criminals”.
I trust that the answer this evening will address the question I raised and avoid demagoguery. I trust, also, that it will take into account what has changed since I put the question in November. Namely, that evidence-based testimony in different jurisdictions exists to the effect that mandatory minimums are excessive, unfair, ineffective, injurious constantly and do not have a deterrent effect. As well, I trust that it will take into account the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision earlier this week that struck down a mandatory minimum sentence for violating the charter. I assume that the member opposite is well aware of the case.
I look forward to hearing how the government continues to justify insisting on such penalties in Bill C-10 in light of this ruling and in light of the preponderance of Canadian and international evidence on this matter.
I might add that yesterday evening, former Supreme Court Justice John Major himself supported the judgment. He lamented the prejudicial impact on judicial discretion by these mandatory minimums.
The Conservatives have advanced the notion that if one opposes mandatory minimum sentences, one is soft on crime. Admittedly, on its face, opposing mandatory minimums may appear counterintuitive.
However, this is not about being soft on crime. It is about being smart and effective on crime. In particular, the evidence demonstrates that mandatory minimums are a failed policy. Stacking our Criminal Code with such mandatory minimums would do nothing to reduce crime or improve public safety. Indeed, it would lead only to an increase in crime and may violate the charter, as we saw earlier this week.
Moreover, mandatory minimums do not in fact advance the goal that they purport to reap; namely, that of crime prevention and of deterrence.
As I noted in this House in debate on this topic in 2006 and since:
Indeed, the vast preponderance of studies in every jurisdiction have concluded that mandatory minimums are neither a deterrent nor are they effective.
However, we need not look beyond our own borders for proof that mandatory minimums do not work. Indeed, our own Department of Justice published a study in December 1990 which states:
The evidence shows that long periods served in prison increase the chance that the offender will offend again. In the end, public safety is diminished rather than increased if we “throw away the key”.
Indeed, the U.S. Sentencing Commission released a comprehensive 645 page report in November concluding that federal mandatory minimum sentences are often “excessively severe”, are “not narrowly tailored” to apply only to those offenders who warrant such punishment, and are “not applied consistently”.
The truth is, as the Canadian Bar Association and others have shown, mandatory minimum sentences have a disproportionate impact on those minority groups that already suffer from poverty, deprivation and disadvantage.
We have a situation where, for example, 34% of aboriginal women are in prison. That is a shocking fact. Mandatory minimums would not alleviate or address this problem; rather, they would exacerbate them. They would unduly limit judicial and prosecutorial discretion, and if more offenders plead not guilty, given such mandatory minimums, we would be likely to further strain our scarce judicial resources, something from which no one would benefit.
Moreover, as we have seen, inequitable, inconsistent and excessive mandatory minimums invite a spectrum of constitutional challenges that would further clog the courts and further take us down from principles of justice and fairness, while fostering disrespect of and lack of confidence in the criminal justice system.
I close by saying that, at the end of the day--