Sean Casey

[Petitions, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition that was collected in Prince Edward Island, so it is signed largely by Prince Edward Islanders but also by visitors to our fair province. These are Canadians who are concerned about the cuts to Canada Post. They are concerned about the job losses associated with these cuts, the impact they will have on seniors and the disabled, and the lack of consultation that led to the cuts. They call on the government to reverse the cuts to services announced by Canada Post and look instead for ways to innovate in areas such as postal banking.

[Victims Bill of Rights, June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a couple of themes she raised, one with respect to poverty and the other with respect to the mixed jurisdictions in terms of jurisdiction over the Criminal Code and jurisdiction over the administration of justice.

With regard to her comments on poverty, while we also support this bill, we see some potential problems that we hope will be addressed in committee. One of them the member has referred to, and that is this problem that the government has with respect to the constitutionality of many of its pieces of criminal legislation and the action that is being taken by judges, particularly with respect to victim surcharges.

I would ask for any comments the member would care to make with respect to the potential constitutional challenges around the victim surcharge provisions contained in the bill.

The other point that she touched upon, and that I would invite her to elaborate further on, is that this bill would actually impose costs on the provinces to the extent that it would introduce a complaints mechanism and a right to information mechanism. Given that the administration and prosecution of Criminal Code offences in provinces, not in territories, is done and funded by the provinces, it is effectively a download or an additional expense that will be incurred by the provinces.

I would be quite interested in her thoughts on federal-provincial consultation and the potential download of costs that would be the result of the bill.

[Victims Bill of Rights, June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague on the justice committee for his speech. I realize the speech focused primarily on the provisions of the bill that deal with restitution and surcharges, but I want to ask him about clause 24 of the bill, which deals with aboriginal justice.

My colleague would know full well that aboriginal people are grossly overrepresented in the prisons of our country, and there is incorporated into the Criminal Code something called the Gladue principles, which require a judge to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment, with particular attention to the circumstances of the aboriginal offenders. This bill actually would alter those principles and now includes the phrase “consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community”, which would change the aboriginal sentencing provisions that were existent in the Criminal Code.

I would be most interested in the comments from my colleague as to the impact on aboriginal justice of clause 24 of this legislation.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we believe in evidence-based decision-making and not in decision-based evidence-making, as we see all too often. Therein lies the answer.

What has changed? The overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that mandatory minimums are not an effective tool in reducing the incidence of crime. Indeed, the very fact that we are standing here in this debate and talking about the increase in the incidence of child sexual offences against these stronger penalties is absolutely proof of that. The weight of evidence over the years, as more mandatory minimums have been introduced, has simply become undeniable and overwhelming.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague would simply wish for me to repeat part of what I said in my speech, which is that Liberals have supported mandatory minimum sentences in the past. It is no longer a Liberal Party policy. They have been shown to be ineffective. The evidence indicates that they are not effective. We believe that mandatory minimum sentences should be the exception and not the rule. However, they have become the rule and not the exception. I thought perhaps that was clear enough in my speech. That is certainly where we stand.

My colleague would know as well that the Liberal government of Paul Martin, in 2005, as their first piece of legislation, introduced Bill C-2 on Criminal Code amendments to protect the vulnerable, including strengthening child pornography laws, creating new offences against the sexual exploitation of youth, increasing penalties for child-specific offences, facilitating the testimony of child victims, and other measures.

There is no question that the Liberal Party has been consistent in its stand with respect to the measures necessary to protect the most vulnerable. With respect to mandatory minimums, it is well past time they became the exception and not the rule.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I felt quite confident that the House would certainly want to hear from the member for Ottawa South, and I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues for that.

Today it is my honour to stand to speak to Bill C-26, and I want to state from the outset that I am reluctant to support the bill. However, we will vote at second reading to send the bill to committee, and will do so in order to provide the government with an opportunity to present what evidence, if any, has emerged since 2012 that has prompted the introduction of even more mandatory minimum sentences.

It was just two years ago that many of these same provisions were contained in Bill C-10. In the two years since the coming into force of Bill C-10, child sex offences, as we heard from the minister, have risen by 6%. To repeat, in the two years since the coming into force of Bill C-10, child sex offences have risen by 6%.

The House will remember that when the Conservatives introduced Bill C-10, in 2011, they spoke at length about how these measures would combat child sex offences. I think we are still in agreement that reducing child sex offences is a priority that we all share. The government has made much of the fact that it imposed mandatory minimum sentences, stating that this would somehow reduce incidents against children.

Again, that legislation, Bill C-10, came into force in 2012. Since the coming into force of that bill, and despite the rhetoric from the Conservatives, it must be accepted, and indeed it was earlier in debate this evening, with obvious concern, that child sex offences have actually risen.

I want to make it clear that I do not for one minute believe that the Conservatives planned or hoped for this result, but I do believe that they need to accept the idea of being smart on crime.

At the justice committee this past March, I raised this issue with the minister. It was the same issue that I raised with him in the question and answer period following his speech this evening. I wanted to know why the government would introduce further flawed legislation for these offences when very clearly the evidence suggested that its previous approach had not worked.

The same question was posed at the justice committee when these statistics were introduced by the minister at committee, as they were again this evening. I asked him where the statistics came from, and at that point he did not know. He indicated he would get back to me, and I guess that happened tonight. We now know that these statistics came from Justice Canada.

I asked the minister at committee, on March 6 of this year, “Do you not agree that the stats that show that child sexual offences have increased in the last two years indicate that the increases that you put in C-10 haven't worked?”

The minister responded, and not exactly in the same fashion as he did this evening, but his response was:

I'd answer that two ways.First, I would say that C-10 would hardly have had effect in the time period we're looking at. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it indicates to me that we have more to do. It indicates very clearly that we have to take more steps toward prevention, deterrence, and denunciation.

That was, in part, the exchange that I had with the minister this past March at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, a part of which we heard repeated here this evening.

If it were the intent of the government when introducing Bill C-10 to reduce crime as it relates to child sex offences, then it must recognize and accept that its efforts have failed. Some members of the Conservative caucus, including the minister, would argue that not enough time has passed to properly measure the impact of Bill C-10. I assume they believe that with the passage of time, the data will indicate Bill C-10's effectiveness.

If that is the case, why are we here today discussing Bill C-26? Why are we here debating this bill, if, as the minister himself suggested, we need more time to properly assess the impact that Bill C-10 will have in reducing crimes against children? It does not make sense. It has caused many of us on this side of the House to wonder why the government is doing this.

Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”. No one in the House would accuse the Minister of Justice of being Einstein, but the government's behaviour on this issue gives rise to the suspicion that they are playing politics with a very serious issue.

I have said time and again that I find it very troubling that the government would seemingly use sensitive subjects as a potential wedge issue, or worse, to raise money from its base leading up to an election. We have seen this approach to cyberbullying in Bill C-13, presently before the justice committee, where the government is using real victims of cyberbullying to bring in measures that have absolutely nothing to do with cyberbullying. It is using victims to bring in a law that would allow for the widespread invasion of our privacy.

Suffice it to say, though, that on the matter of crimes committed against children, the House is very united. I want to reiterate that no one in this House is immune from heartache when we hear of any child who has suffered because of the actions of an adult. I know that members on all sides share this view.

The Liberal Party remains steadfastly committed to the protection of the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, our children, against the most predatory of practices: child pornography and sexual offences against children. We support concrete measures aimed at the prevention of sexual offences against children as well as appropriate punitive sanctions against those who commit such heinous acts.

I earlier quoted the justice minister, who had indicated in a response to a question I posed that he believed that we need to do more to combat crimes against children. He indicated that we need to do more in the areas of prevention and deterrence and that prevention and deterrence are important elements in reducing crimes against children. This bill, however, includes no measures to prevent sexual offences against children or measures to ensure the treatment, rehabilitation, or reintegration of sex offenders. Again, why this glaring inconsistency?

By increasing mandatory minimums, the bill would reduce judicial discretion and could result in charter challenges.

We need to know that the laws we are passing will be effective in reducing the incidence of sexual violence against children and will not be merely symbolic expressions. That is why we will seek a detailed study and analysis with stakeholders at committee. Liberals will seek to ensure that the policies adopted in this area reflect the best evidence and the latest research available and will not be based on fear and ideology, or worse, on an effort to raise money from a political base using the Criminal Code and this sensitive issue as a way to exploit the fears of Canadians.

We also want an effective law that addresses these issues and not laws that will be met with endless charter challenges defended at taxpayers' expense.

We have some concerns about charter challenges to the sentencing provisions of the bill and about privacy suits that may arise from the offender database. Moreover, travel restrictions may raise concerns as to the mobility rights of Canadians, as guaranteed by the charter. I raise these issues knowing that the government's record on crime legislation is abysmal. Time and again, we see the courts tossing out its legislation, because it is found to be unconstitutional.

Sexual violence, like other forms of violence, is traumatic and devastating. The minister also suggested in committee that along with prevention and deterrence, we need denunciation of those charged and convicted of crimes against children. No one would disagree with that position, but denunciation does not equal deterrence. We must endeavour to find methods of prevention, as well as punishment, while not overlooking the importance of treatment and rehabilitation and the reintegration of offenders.

Evidence-based criminal law policy is a guiding principle of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is through this perspective that we review and critique all legislation.

While we have supported mandatory minimums in this area in the past, we no longer support them as a matter of policy, given that they are ineffective in achieving their stated objectives and may violate the charter. Indeed, mandatory minimums should be the exception, not the rule. Under the current government, they have become the rule, not the exception, despite the fact that mandatory minimums have no basis in evidence pointing to their effectiveness.

There would not be one member of the Conservative caucus who could rise today in his or her place and point to any independent study that would suggest that mandatory minimums work. Indeed, that challenge was advanced to the minister immediately after his speech.

This is not an issue that should divide the House, because we all want to protect children. We in the Liberal Party want to do it in a way that respects the charter, respects evidence and facts, and respects the overwhelming need to be smart on crime.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to split my time with the member for Ottawa South.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a couple of things.

The member for Gatineau referenced the roles between provincial and federal jurisdictions. Here we have a bill that would increase minimum sentences. To the extent that these sentences are less than two years, these inmates are serving their time in provincial institutions on the nickel of the provincial government that is involved. I would be interested in hearing the member's views with respect to what consultation, if any, has or should have been done, given the impact on the various provincial treasuries.

I would also invite her to comment on the constitutionality of the various provisions and whether she has any concerns with respect to that. The government has been on a terrible losing streak in the courts with respect to the constitutionality of various pieces of legislation, including crime legislation, and the bill certainly brings into play not just security to the person but also possibly mobility rights.

I would be interested in my colleague's view on those two points.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on that same theme.

The minister would know well that the Safe Streets and Communities Act increased sentences in several areas. In the bill before us, in no fewer than 20 sections, the sentences that were increased either by mandatory minimums or maximum sentences have been increased again.

We see an increase in the sentences from 2012, while at the same time the statistics indicate that the incidence of crime has gone up. Therefore, if the increases that were put into Bill C-10 have resulted in an increase in crime, have we not learned something?

If those increased sentences did not give the desired result of bringing crime down, why does the minister insist on adopting the exact same strategy?

[Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act, May 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, for the Conservatives, symbolism seems to be more important than substance, and spending millions on advertising is more important than actually helping veterans.

It is the same with these crime bills, many of which are targeted to raising money from a base of supporters who neither like the charter nor embrace any sense of proportional justice.

With respect to the member's speech, and while he may very well have good intentions, I repeat that this legislation is a solution in search of a problem.

The Conservatives should know that time and time again, the courts at all levels have been striking down their legislation. Why are the courts doing this? Is this part of some pan-Canadian conspiracy to thwart the efforts of the Conservative Party? No doubt some across the aisle would embrace that view.

I believe that there are a number of reasons the courts are striking down Conservative legislation, and one relates to due diligence. Many of these so-called tough on crime bills are not properly vetted to ensure that they comply with the charter. The member, in his remarks, indicated that this piece of legislation was charter compliant. I would be most interested to see the evidence and opinion that support that assertion.

It would appear that when Conservative members construct these bills, the last thing they do is assess whether they comply in principle or in spirit with the law of the land: the charter. On that point, I should note that just two nights ago, in this very chamber, on debate on the Citizenship Act, we had the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration heckling an NDP member and saying that the charter was not a law.

It is not only a law, it is the supreme law of the land.

With respect to this bill, I would invite the hon. member to produce any piece of evidence or documentation that would suggest that the bill would survive a charter challenge. I do not believe he is in possession of any such evidence.

What really matters is showing people that the Conservatives are tough on crime, which is much less effective than being smart on crime. The lack of respect for the charter and for the constitution is very troubling.

I have read Bill C-587, and I have been on the hunt for any evidence to support this effort. The bill seeks to increase ineligibility for parole for a conviction that includes a sentence for kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder.

In the last 20 years, according to the Library of Parliament, there have been three cases in Canada that would meet the bill's three elements of kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder. I repeat, in the last 20 years, just three cases would have triggered the provisions of Bill C-587 had it been in place 20 years ago. In each of those cases, there is absolutely no indication that the judges acted with leniency or that the existing suite of laws are somehow ineffective.

Did the member know that one of these three cases relates to Paul Bernardo, who, because of his designated dangerous offender status, would still have been eligible for parole seven years after conviction? This is just one glaring inconsistency in this bill with respect to the dangerous offender designation.

The hon. member's proposal is flawed for other reasons. First, the act would eliminate one of the only incentives for a certain class of violent offender to behave while in prison, thereby making prisons more dangerous for other inmates, and more importantly, more dangerous for correctional officials.

Just last week the union representing Canada's prison guards went public, urging its 7,500 members to vote ABC, anyone but Conservative. This is what the vice-president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers had to say: “These guys have to get out”. He went on to say, “They've done more damage in three years than any government has done in our entire history”. I suppose it is only a matter of time before the Conservatives attack the correctional guards.

The second flaw in the bill is this: The five people convicted of kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and murdering the same victim are already dealt with harshly under Canadian law. Such persons already received mandatory life sentences and are already ineligible for parole for a period of 25 years, since murder in such circumstances is first degree murder. Under the current law, they may also be designated dangerous offenders.

The third flaw is that this legislation would produce a somewhat absurd result when the code's other provisions relating to parole are considered. Specifically, by increasing a somewhat arbitrary class of murderers' parole ineligibility to a maximum of 40 years, the act would allow these convicts to remain incarcerated without the possibility of parole for up to 15 years longer than notorious serial killers. This anomaly would also extend to those who have committed genocide and crimes against humanity.

Canadian law already deals harshly with the few persons convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder. This legislation would defy common sense by punishing a specific class of murderers more harshly than serial killers and persons who have committed genocide and crimes against humanity.

The overwhelming lack of an evidentiary basis for the bill is troubling. Again, just three cases over the past 20 years would have been affected by the bill, and in all of those cases, the courts have provided an appropriate and tough sentence.

Should the member appear before a committee to discuss the bill, I would hope that he would consider providing some evidence of facts pointing to the need for this legislation to become law. The member is perhaps in possession of some evidence unavailable to others, and should that be the case, I would most certainly like to see it.