Irwin Cotler

[Darfur, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the genocide by attrition in Darfur is being accelerated. It is painful, almost incredulous, that such words even need to be said. But we are beyond words.

The following urgent action must be taken:

First, a UN mandated peacekeeping force must be deployed as quickly as possible.

Second, the international community must reinforce and fund an expanded African Union mission until the UN boots are on the ground.

Third, the no fly zone already established by the UN Security Council must be enforced once and for all, so that the indiscriminate bombing and burning of villages comes to an end.

Fourth, UN sanctions against Sudanese violators must be enforced.

Fifth, Sudanese officials responsible for international atrocities must be brought to justice.

Sixth, secured humanitarian access and aid is desperately required.

Finally, an urgent summit of world leaders from the UN, the African Union, the European Union and NATO needs to be convened to implement a save Darfur action plan.

Some 400,000 have already died and 3.5 million are on humanitarian life support. When will we act?

[Maher Arar, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the principal finding of the O'Connor commission determined that Maher Arar was an innocent person and indeed the innocent victim of American, Syrian and Canadian officials. This now warrants the following actions:

First, that the Canadian government apologize to Maher Arar and his family.

Second, that the government compensate Maher Arar for the ordeal of pain and suffering that he and his family endured.

Third, that the government object to the American government for its breach of domestic and international undertakings in the confinement and rendition of Maher Arar to Syria.

Fourth, that we protest to the Syrian government for its torture of Maher Arar.

Fifth, that Canadians officials who gave false and misleading information to U.S. authorities be held accountable.

Sixth, that the Canadian government implements all the recommendations of the O'Connor Commission.

Finally, that the lesson of this inquiry be factored into our anti-terrorism law and policy that we always comport with the rule of law while protecting our human security.

[Darfur, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Darfur which the United Nations called a humanitarian catastrophe even 18 months ago continues to worsen. Over one-quarter of a million people have been displaced in the last four months alone. Humanitarian workers are themselves the targets of assault and abduction. Government violations of international humanitarian law have actually escalated since the peace agreement was signed. We are on the verge of what UN humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland called an “imminent and ominous loss of life”.

Accordingly, I rise to commend the extraordinary contribution of one Canadian, Walter Arbib, who has donated $430,000 to send much needed medical supplies to Darfur, facilitated by the Canadian Jewish Congress.

This singular act of compassion, care and commitment dramatizes the need for a multinational civilian protection force under the AU to stop the killing, to protect humanitarian aid workers and humanitarian assistance, to implement the international Responsibility to Protect, and to redeem our international honour as Walter Arbib's personal exemplary contribution has done.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to three approaches to the whole question of mandatory minimums. The first is an evidence-based inquiry. Studies show that they are neither a deterrent nor are they effective. The second is a principled approach, and I have shown that it marginalizes, if not undermines, the proportionality principle which is at the core of the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code. The third is are they effective? I have shown that the evidence discloses the fact they may have adverse impacts.

As I have constantly stated, in the matter of gun related crimes, we enacted 20 mandatory minimums in 1995. In that particular instance we felt the evidence on the specificity of gun related crimes allowed for modest approaches to mandatory minimums, not exaggerated and excessive approaches to mandatory minimums.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 2006]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, both of the legislative proposals of the Conservatives will impact disproportionately and prejudicially on the aboriginal community. The aboriginal community has been uniform in its protests against these initiatives, because we already have an overrepresentation of aboriginal people in the prisons of this country, in particular a growing overrepresentation of aboriginal women, and the impacts of these two proposals will only result in more aboriginal men and women in prison. That is not the way to address these concerns.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question because it allows me to respond directly on point and to bring forward certain matters that I could not in my principal remarks.

His first question is, why should big government decide what is good for children? I might remind the hon. member that his government and Prime Minister spoke of an open federalism. The agreements that we have with respect to child care were agreements arrived at with the provinces in an open federalism, on behalf of the people and after consultation with the people. This is not big federal government imposing itself. This is the open federalism of which the hon. member's government spoke in terms of the conclusion of agreements with respect to the provinces and territories on behalf of the people.

I will be delighted to stand while the hon. member has left the House, not even wishing to listen to the answer, but when one speaks about the matter of child care spaces, the cancellation of the child care agreements actually took $3.6 billion away from Canadian communities. This funding was to expand early learning and child care options for over 100,000 families. It was to improve access, particularly for low income and rural families and for children with special needs. It was to enhance intervention services for children at risk. It was particularly disturbing of the government to single out aboriginal children for a $25 million cut.

In conclusion, I would say that the Liberal plan was very responsive to governments in an open federalism. It was very responsive to communities. It was very responsive to child care advocates who themselves appraised it. In particular, it was going to provide the combination of early learning and child care with the necessary spaces, with particular sensitivity to low income families and their special needs.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, June 6th, 2006]

Correct. The finance minister stated:

We are setting aside funds to expand Canada's correctional facilities to house the expected increase in inmates as a result of changes in sentencing rules.

The budget is unclear as to the funds that are required and indeed it is unusual that one would make a prediction in a budget that one is going to increase the number of prisoners and prisons.

Leaving that aside, the changes in sentencing rules are neither warranted by the facts, falling crime rates, or the evidence, which demonstrates that the proposed and excessive mandatory minimum penalties would neither be effective nor a deterrent.

Indeed, the most comprehensive and recent study that was cited by the justice minister to justify expanded and enhanced mandatory minimums, by the respected authors Thomas Marvell and Carlisle Moody, actually rebuts the government's position. After examining the effects of mandatory minimums and other tough sentence enhancements on gun crimes across the U.S., they concluded that the gun related mandatory minimums do little to reduce crime or gun use. This is a study that has been cited by the minister in support of an evidence based approach with respect to enhanced mandatory minimums.

It is not surprising given the fact of falling crime rates; given the evidence that mandatory minimums are neither a deterrent nor effective; given the fact that they impact disproportionately the most vulnerable of people; and given the enormous cost of housing an inmate, some $90,000 a year. This is an enormous cost which does not even factor in the building of the new correctional facilities that may be required. It is not surprising that Professor Marie-Andrée Bertrand, a distinguished criminologist at the Université de Montréal characterized the sentencing changes as a catastrophe.

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

This commitment to enormous expenditures for more prisons and more inmates as a result of sentencing changes is devoid of any evidentary basis. It is a disturbing value choice as a high priority in a budget. It contrasts dramatically with declining investments in university research and equitable access to higher education which prejudices our competitive role in a knowledge based economy.

This is yet another disturbing value choice. This time it is with education as a low priority as compared to enhanced mandatory minimums and non-evidentary based approach as a high priority, even though that education is not only inextricably bound up with the imperatives of a knowledge based economy, but the defining signature of a society's values.

Yet this budget allocates only $250 million over five years to research and development, one-tenth of what the Liberal budget would have allocated, though it is crucial that Canada maintain its momentum of investing in innovation and research.

Indeed, over the last decade Canada has established a package of programs that have allowed universities, hospitals and research institutions, and society as a whole, to attract a large number of the most promising innovators in the world, including Canadians who have come back, repatriated to their homes here because of the attraction of this kind of support for research and education.

As well, when one speaks of investments in higher education and equitable access to post-secondary education, the Liberal budget had included a grant of $6,000 to students over their four years at university, while the Conservative budget is giving students a tax break on textbooks of $80 a year. Again, this is a disturbing value choice with respect to priorities and principles.

This budget does not provide the necessary leadership for the building of an egalitarian, caring and a compassionate society.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I did to refer to him as the finance minister.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, June 6th, 2006]

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

The budget is not just a financial statement; it is at its core a statement about values, principles and priorities. It is not just an accounting exercise but an expression of our identity of who we are and what we aspire to be.

In that context, this budget, while containing a number of commendable features, is disappointing overall in the values it reflects and represents, and in the principles and priorities it espouses. It would not speak, for example, to my constituency which is a kind of rainbow constituency in that regard.

For example, in the matter of tax policy, the income tax for the poor and the vulnerable will go up while the GST, of which we just spoke, which disproportionately benefits the wealthy will go down. This is a tax policy that has not only been uniformly critiqued by most economists in this country but which constitutes an inverse value choice for an equitable tax policy.

In the matter of aboriginal people, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, the government has not only substantially reduced the $5 billion necessary for their needs but has scrapped the framework agreements including the historic Kelowna accord which is at the core of having an aboriginal justice agenda.

In the matter of women's rights and gender equity which should be a priority for our agenda, a budget should reflect that as a matter of principle of policy. The government appears to have done away with the principle of mainstreaming gender-based analysis throughout the budget. Otherwise the lowest income mothers of young children would not be getting much less the $1,200 because the supplement is clawed back, let alone the other fallout with respect to issues of concern to women such as a central social services assistance, legal aid, anti-violence measures and the plight of aboriginal women.

In the matter of environmental protection which is inextricably bound up with our economy, our health, and indeed our planetary survival, the budget tends to marginalize and minimize the protection of the environment as a matter of principle and priority.

However, I want to focus on two priorities, two value choices in the budget which are wrong-headed as a matter of policy and disturbing as a matter of principle. The first wrong-headed policy choice, which is even suspect as a matter of law, is the commitment to more prisons and more prisoners at a time when crime rates are declining and have been falling for some time.

Indeed, the first expression of this commitment came in the budget speech of finance minister James Flaherty, when he announced that: “We are setting aside funds--