Serge Ménard

[Public Safety, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it does not work, any more than the seven-year minimum sentence for importing marijuana did in the past.

The only logical choice for the government is to withdraw its Bill C-21, something being called for not only by victims' parents, but also by police, who still consider the registry to be an effective tool for prevention.

Will the Minister of Public Safety finally get out of his ideological bubble and withdraw the bill?

[Public Safety, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the general consensus in Quebec is that prevention is key to fighting crime. This government does not believe in prevention, however. It is proving this once again by trying to eliminate the firearms registry.

Instead of getting rid of the registry, why does the government not get rid of the amnesty, which has not reduced management costs in the least and has turned the registry into a real sieve?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we understand the commissioner's recommendation when we know that his mandate was limited to management of the RCMP pension and insurance fund. In fact, the commissioner acknowledges this himself on pages 37 and 48 of his report. The recommendation that a public inquiry not be held pertains only to the issue of fund administration. A more general inquiry should be held to examine the force's overall culture.

Would the Minister of Public Safety not prefer to hold a single public inquiry to restore the RCMP's transparency, instead of holding 10 partial inquiries as further RCMP mismanagement is discovered?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, commissioner Brown released his report, which describes the organizational and structural problems in the RCMP. In light of the report, the Minister of Public Safety is in favour of appointing a task force to restructure the RCMP.

After the pension plan frauds, the failed Air India investigation and the Maher Arar affair, does the minister not think that a full public inquiry is called for under the circumstances?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, about the RCMP again, but in connection with something completely different.

The government has recently made a number of unilingual appointments at the top of major agencies. We will recall, for instance, the appointment of a unilingual English-speaking ombudsman for victims of crime.

Will the minister give us the assurance that, this time, the new Commissioner of the RCMP will have equal mastery of both languages?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, based on information obtained through access to information, the Journal de Montréal reported this morning that wrongdoing and questionable behaviour on the part of RCMP officers had gone unpunished. Officers who abused prisoners or committed sexual assaults got off with a reprimand and a suspension with pay. Such acts were perpetrated at all levels of the RCMP, from the lower ranks to the senior ranks. This is in addition to many other disturbing facts.

Enough is enough. What is the minister waiting for to order a public inquiry?

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. That is what usually happened, especially with marijuana after about four or five years. It did not make sense. I remember people coming back from Acapulco with a small amount of marijuana because it was a lot better than what they could get here. Suddenly, they discovered they were facing a minimum sentence of seven years.

I think it perverts the legal system. The agreement was: “That is right, you will not be accused of possession even though it is for your own use. You will be accused of possession for the purpose of trafficking”. I remember it had become virtually automatic by a certain point. I evidently took the Crown by surprise when I said that someone had brought back a small amount of hashish from Morocco and had been accused of possession for the purpose of trafficking. I said I wanted to have a jury trial. I was told, “You cannot do that; we are not going to have a jury trial, because it is about possession for the purpose of trafficking”. I was convinced, though, that it was for this person’s own use.

Personally, I have never liked plea bargaining. I practised criminal law for over 30 years and I think it perverts the legal system. One of the things that plea bargaining leads to is not just the difficulty of introducing evidence but also situations like that one. Things like that will happen, inevitably.

Here is another example. When I started practising, there was a very strange charge in the Criminal Code of taking a motor vehicle without the owner’s permission. Fresh out of university, I innocently said to myself that taking a motor vehicle without the owner’s permission was theft and I wondered why this provision existed. It was because, for this offence, there was no minimum sentence of one year in jail. For automobile theft, a minimum sentence of one year in jail had been introduced. But then a problem had to be solved because it did not make sense to send too many people to jail. So another offence was created. It was exactly the same thing, except that in this case, there was no minimum. That is another harmful effect of provisions like these. They pervert the legal system.

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I can give the member an answer—and I think he knows what that answer might be—but I also can give him glaring examples.

Could the member repeat the last part of his question?

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon must be a good lawyer; he only asks questions to which he already knows the answer. The answer is yes. The money would obviously be better invested in crime prevention and in education.

In fact, as I said earlier, the U.S. homicide rate is four times higher than that of Quebec, and three times higher than that of Canada as a whole. In Quebec, we have taken the Young Offenders Act very seriously. Our attitude was that the young offenders should be reformed rather than punished. We had already achieved quite spectacular results, with a crime rate 50% lower, or rather with Canada's crime rate being 50% higher than that of Quebec. I am talking about youth crime. This rate is then reflected in the various cohorts as offenders grow older.

My colleague raised two important points in his question. First, prison is crime school. I know very few people who received a harsh sentence and who managed to take control of their life—I know a few of them. Generally, the risk is very high that those who are incarcerated will be worse criminals when they get out than they were when they were sent to prison. Moreover, imprisonment is very expensive compared to other measures. According to the latest statistics, I believe that the present cost of keeping someone in prison in Canada in $88,000 a year. Imagine how much we could invest. That is what the Supreme Court indicated, very intelligently, when commenting on sentences to be served in the community.

However, provincial governments must invest in monitoring. I understand that this may be difficult. Nevertheless, I tried to do it in Quebec when I was public safety minister. It is true that many of our colleagues are opposed to that idea. When making budget cuts, we always cut funding for monitoring, but I always said that we must invest in monitoring. Many convicted criminals could serve their sentence in the community, with proper monitoring to ensure that they do not reoffend, at a much lower cost than $88,000 a year.

So, prison is less effective, more dangerous and a lot more expensive. With that money, we could do a lot more in the area of prevention and be successful, as we were in the case of impaired driving.

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the start, rather like my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, that I believe the majority of members in this House want to work effectively against crime, particularly the most violent kinds of crime. Where we do not agree is on the way to achieve that. As representatives of a democracy, are we going to give the people of this country what they expect or are we going to give them the benefit of what we learn, given our role, from the consultation that we have to carry out, from deeper examination of the references to the science of criminology, which is not an exact science like mathematics, physics or chemistry, but which is certainly a science on the same level as psychology or sociology, in deciding what are the most effective methods? On the government side, they are trying to give the impression to the people that they are doing something to address those crimes that we all want to deal with.

The reason that we object to the bills that are now before us is that they will do absolutely nothing to reduce the number of violent crimes in Canada. While that number is to be deplored, it is still lower than in most other parts of the world. It is also true that it is lower than in those countries that we consider to be civilized countries, without giving too many examples. It is also much lower than the model from which the Conservatives have taken their inspiration, that is to say, our neighbours to the south. We know that our southern neighbours have a homicide rate that is three times higher than in Canada, and four times higher than in Quebec. Yet, that country puts six times as many people in jail as we do in Canada. On a per capita basis, there are six times as many people in prison in the United States as in Canada. However, in sociological terms our two countries are similar. The difference, which I am only too willing to point out, is that we are less accepting of extremes of poverty and the gap between the rich and poor. That definitely has sociological consequences. In that respect, if you ask any educated American, and I have done so many times, why there are so many homicides in the United States compared to Canada, the inevitable answer is the lack of gun control and the wider circulation of firearms.

The solution we know—I believe it has been confirmed— is to first deal with weapons and not to try to correct the situation after the crimes have been committed. That is also what is paradoxical, and there is the same paradox in the United States. People want tougher sentences, but wider access to firearms whereas, if we did the opposite, we would get the opposite result: that is a reduction that would probably be comparable to other civilized countries, when we think of western countries, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries. Including those in central Europe.

We are absolutely convinced—and it is science that tells us, namely criminology— that minimums do nothing. Why do they do nothing? First, because the criminals do not know them. Not only do they not know them, even we, we do not know them. If journalists asked members, after we had voted on this issue, to explain what minimum related to what law they had voted for, I am convinced that less than half the members, and perhaps a great deal less than half, would be able to answer that question.

I am convinced that, in this House, not even 5% of members know how many minimum sentences there are in the Criminal Code. If we do not know that number, how can we think that offenders will know what offences are punishable by a minimum sentence? To start with, they do not know that. Then, when they are about to commit a crime, they do not think about the sentence which they could be given. They are too busy preparing to commit their crime, and most of the time, we do not know about their intention.

Some crimes are essentially impulsive actions, such as crimes inspired by jealousy or, in some cases, by anger, but they are the exception. Nevertheless, do Conservatives think that criminals make a cold-blooded calculation under those circumstances and, if the risk is too great, decide not to commit the offence whereas if the risk is less great, they decide to act? This is not the way criminals think when they commit a crime. This is not even the way ordinary people think. Therefore, this approach is useless.

Science simply confirms how useless it is. The Canadian experience on minimum sentences is quite interesting. Let us take a look at the harshest minimum sentence which ever existed, except for major crimes such as first or second degree murder, where the minimum is not 20 or 25 years, but life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years in the case of first degree murder and for 10 to 20 years in the case of second degree murder, as recommended by the jury.

In Canada there was a seven-year minimum prison sentence for importing marijuana. When I was in university, I had never heard of marijuana. I was called to the bar in 1966 and I was immediately hired at the Montreal crown prosecutors' office. I worked there for 11 months and then I was hired at the federal crown prosecutors' office where I started handling cases involving hashish and marijuana. That is when I became informed on marijuana and hashish. At the time it was referred to as Indian hemp—the common name for the plant according to Flore laurentienne by Brother Marie-Victorin—but the plant had no hallucinogenic effects. This is no longer the case today. It has been imported and today's crops are much stronger.

At the time, there was no marijuana in Canada. I had never heard of it when I was a student. I completed my education a long time ago: in 1966. That is when the trend began. There were seven-year minimum prison sentences and, contrary to what the Conservatives might say sometimes, that these minimum sentences were never imposed, I am here to say that they were at first. Not only were seven-year minimum sentences or more imposed for importing marijuana, but I saw a case where a two-year prison sentence was imposed for simple possession.

It finally became apparent that marijuana was one of the least dangerous drugs. Nonetheless, all this realization and change came about when the seven-year minimum sentence already existed in law. The effectiveness of such a severe sentence—as a deterrent—can be measured. In Canada we have had the opposite experience and enjoyed some success. Obviously, this will never be absolute and we will never get rid of certain types of crimes. However, we have made remarkable progress when it comes to drinking and driving, so much so that it is no longer the number one cause of accidents in Canada.

Unlike the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, I remember when there were minimum sentences for repeat impaired driving offences: 15 days for a second offence and 3 months for a third offence.

Nothing has changed in the law when it comes to degree of incarceration, but a lot of progress has been made.

How have we done that? We did it through greater awareness and through education. We also did it when we finally made it easier to prove the offence by introducing breathalyzers and enabling police officers to set up roadblocks. At the beginning, during holidays, the first roadblocks found that approximately 10% of drivers were drunk, while today it is less than 1%. This is objective and compelling proof. We have not increased the severity of the laws and crime has decreased. In the other case, there was a considerable increase in marijuana trafficking, although the sentence is severe.

Bank robberies is the third example. When I started practising, if a person was killed during a bank robbery, it was called constructive murder. This was the case as soon as a person was killed. Some people were found guilty of murdering their accomplice even though they had been killed by a security officer. If that was how the robbery ended, it was the death sentence. My colleagues no doubt know that since the death penalty was abolished in Canada, the homicide rate has steadily decreased, to the point where it is no longer an argument for those who want to reinstate the death penalty. No one is talking about it. It is obvious that the severity of the penalty is not what stops people.

A few years ago, a very good, successful film was made in Quebec called Monica la Mitraille. Monica la Mitraille was a remarkable woman—and I am not being complimentary—who led a group of bank robbers. She was remarkable in the literal sense of the word. At the time, if a person committed murder, they were sentenced to the death penalty. She was not the only one.

I began practising in the late 1960s and practised until 1993, when my political career began. I recall that, early on, in Montreal, there were a great deal of bank robberies, enough to fill the newspapers. There was at least one a day to draw the attention of the Journal de Montréal, as well as the trials and so on. There are hardly any bank robberies any more today. Is that because of more severe penalties? Not at all. Banks are now built better. Prevention has made it more difficult to commit bank robberies and the potential proceeds are limited compared to the risk of getting caught.

Thus, if we want to lower crime rates, we have to think more about the “before” and less about the “after”. But, when we think about the “after” and we still go on the assumption that criminals plan based on sentencing, we think about the worst possible way the crime might be committed and then declare that it warrants a particular sentence. That is how minimum sentences are set. Minimums of five years or seven years are not negligible minimums. That is because we thought about the most serious cases. However, we are forgetting something. The sentences set out for the most serious cases are the same sentences that judges must impose on less serious cases. This is where the injustice lies and what I find most appalling.

I always thought our system of criminal law was exceptional, figuring that it is better to run the risk of releasing a guilty party, rather than convicting an innocent person. Much the same applies to sentencing. Why would we risk imposing the minimum sentences intended for the most serious cases on less serious cases? This type of injustice is just as serious as convicting an innocent person.

There is one more thing that could be convincing. I remember already having this debate here in the House. People have given me examples of circumstances in which the minimum would clearly be appropriate and in which a judge did not impose such a sentence. For one thing, I have heard very few details to explain such exceptional sentences.

Moreover, we are never told about the outcome at the appeal level. Considering the number of rulings made each day under the criminal justice system of a country of 30 million people, it is inevitable that judges, who have a great deal of discretion—and it is important that they have such discretion to be able to properly review each specific case before deciding to deprive an individual of his freedom—impose thousands of sentences. It is also inevitable that, in such a subjective area—this is not an exact science—mistakes are sometimes made. Is the solution to turn this Parliament into a court of appeal? Under our system, there is a way to correct these exceptional sentences, and that is through the appeal process. Some may give me more examples. If I am asked whether I think that a sentence imposed in a specific case—about which I am only informed of a couple of facts—is justified or not, my answer will be the same, namely: was the decision appealed and what did the court of appeal decide? We, as a Parliament, should only get involved if the court of appeal were to make a number of rulings that we would deem unjustified. It is important that sentences be fair and appropriate, and that they be perceived as such. This is a fundamental rule in the fight against crime. When a judge imposes a sentence, he must take into consideration who the offender is, and he must determine why he committed these crimes, whether they are part of a continuing process, whether the offender can be rehabilitated, and what role he played in the crime that took place. Those are the questions that the judge must ask himself. This is not an automatic process, where the judge concludes that he must impose this or that sentence, because he is bound to do so under a minimum penalty provision in the legislation.

I am convinced, and so is the government itself, that the only reason why it wants to impose these minimum penalties is not because this will help reduce the number of such crimes. In fact, I would be curious—and I do not think that the government ever mentioned it—to know what the goal is here. On the basis of what criteria would we be able to determine, five years from now, whether this legislation has been successful or not? Personally, I believe that, regardless of the legislation, things will go in a certain direction because of circumstances that have nothing to do with whether or not minimum penalties are imposed.

What is remarkable is that this government has decided not to get involved beforehand, or to get involved beforehand, but by imposing criteria. I find it strange. It wants to increase penalties, but at the same time it wants to make it easier to have access to firearms. This is the American way, and we know what the results are.

With respect to prevention, it has cut all grants for crime prevention projects while criteria are being defined. For one thing, that is killing a number of these projects, which are not receiving grants in a timely manner. Among other criteria, the government wants to provide grants only for short term projects that show demonstrable results in the short term. I would like the government to apply the same criteria to their bills. This means no more grants for the Société québécoise de criminologie and in-depth studies on crime. That is typical of this government. It pretends. It sees a problem and pretends to act on it. Its reaction is the most basic: if crimes are committed, it is because the punishments are not severe enough. So, it increases the punishments instead of doing as we have so often done in Quebec, through prevention for example, with remarkable success.