Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to my colleague's bill, which would have the effect of reversing changes the government made in 1996, which my party opposed because they created non-equality before the law.
A basic premise of our law is that all citizens are equal before the law. What the amendment did was create a two tier system of justice, one for aboriginal Canadians and one for all other Canadians.
What those nine words in section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code did was suddenly discriminate against Canadian citizens and native people by creating a system of differential sentences. This goes against every principle that most Canadians hold dear.
The government would argue, of course, that this levelled the playing field because of the high rates of incarceration for our native peoples. That is a symptom of a whole different set of circumstances. We are not saying anything about community sentencing not being appropriate. We think it is highly appropriate.
What we are opposed to are the changes to the differential provisions under the Criminal Code. These have led to exactly where we thought they would lead. It has now put an onus onto judges to make decisions that fly in the face of common sense.
One of the implications of the current situation with our aboriginal population, in many situations, is that crimes perpetuated by aboriginals are perpetuated on aboriginals. Therefore they are the perpetrator and the victim. The aboriginal victims are being victimized all over again by this provision of the Criminal Code because it means they do not receive justice either.
Once more we have another symptom of the government promoting not criminal justice but justice for criminals. This is most inappropriate.
I have been very aware of community efforts to divert people from the sentencing procedures under the Criminal Code to a community sentencing option that judges can make reference to for all Canadians, not just aboriginals but some of them are specific for aboriginals. This can happen under the old law where all Canadians are treated equally.
Some of the alternative sentencing programs are most appropriate and have had very good results in terms of rehabilitating people. As we know, straight incarceration is often not the best alternative.
A judge on a case with which I am familiar said that the perpetrator had a cycle, a cycle of freedom, drunkenness and jail, and that cycle perpetuates itself and has perpetuated itself for a long time.
The individual in that case, after seven very serious violent assaults over a short period of time, has suddenly been given a conditional sentence. This means he will not be incarcerated but he will be expected to stay at home. This is most inappropriate since all the testimony and all the evidence has indicated that the person is not capable of meeting those requirements and will once more be a danger to his aboriginal community. The cycle of violence and abuse will begin all over again. This is most inappropriate.
That is why this amendment to the Criminal Code, proposed by my colleague from Manitoba, is endorsed by the First Nations Coalition for Accountability and others. We have had many well-intentioned moves by government that have been very counterproductive in this whole area.
I can provide another example of a problem. The federal government attempted to move female federal offenders closer to their communities so that rather than all of them being housed at Kingston, they would be dispersed across the country. The net result of all that, according to the Elizabeth Fry Society, and despite the monstrosity of the Kingston Penitentiary, is that these women are now worse off than they were before because there was no more money spent on them. When they were all in one place, programming was affordable for them, but now it is not given the resources that have been allocated.
This is a typical, ill-conceived methodology that the government is operating in its corrections system. It is changing the Criminal Code to suit its objective of incarcerating less people without putting the resources in place that will ensure that individuals who are sentenced in some other way are indeed rehabilitated and will not pose a further risk to their communities.
There are some very obvious examples of areas where I think the public would readily see why this amendment would be appropriate. For example, we all remember the sad story in December 2001 when RCMP constable, Dennis Strongquill, was murdered in the line of duty by Robert Sand. Mr. Sand's lawyer argued that he should receive a more lenient sentence because he was aboriginal. Mr. Strongquill was also an aboriginal who left six children fatherless.
A system of discounted sentencing based strictly on race divides our society and creates further victims. It does not assist or abet the development of the fabric of our society in the way that we should be using the Criminal Code. Once again we find the government promoting policies that divide Canadians rather than unite Canadians.
I want to conclude by saying that justice must be blind. Justice must not be peeking out from behind a blindfold, which is what this change to the Criminal Code has created within our system.
I urge all members to support this most enlightened bill coming from the member for Portage—Lisgar.
