Yasmin Ratansi

[Criminal Code, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to minimum penalties for offences involving firearms. All Canadians should take an interest in this proposed legislation because a safe and secure quality of life is something we all desire.

As a member of Parliament from the greater Toronto area, acts of violence in our cities and communities must be addressed in a firm and direct manner. Two questions, therefore, immediately come to mind. What are the best ways of dealing with violent acts once they have been committed? What is the best way to prevent violent crimes from occurring in the first place?

Generally speaking, the primary objectives of Bill C-10 are to increase mandatory minimum prison sentences for people who commit serious or repeat firearm offences and to create a new offence for breaking and entering to steal firearms. In the past election, my opponent from the Conservative Party attempted to score cheap political points by exploiting the unfortunate victims of crime in our community.

With callous disregard for the feelings of the family and friends of victims, in many instances victims themselves, this person also made vague references that the Liberal Party was somehow soft on crime. I must admit that I was a bit shocked in the first instance by what was essentially a desperate attempt to score political points, but more so by the fact that this particular candidate serves as a Crown counsel and should have at least some grasp of legal history in this country.

The fact remains that it was the Liberal government in 1995 that initiated mandatory minimum sentences for gun related crimes in the first place. In fact, the very first mandatory minimum sentence legislation for firearm offences dates back to 1977, again by a Liberal government. It is also a fact that it was the Conservatives who essentially killed Bill C-82 last November when they triggered an election.

Bill C-82 proposed 12 amendments to the gun control provision and was part of a five point strategy to combat gang and gun related crimes that included: first, tougher laws and proportion penalties; second, more effective law enforcement; third, heightened recognition of the needs and concerns of victims; fourth, crime prevention; and fifth, engagement of local communities. Unfortunately, the piece of legislation that we now have before us has been assembled in a haste to satisfy the Prime Minister's narrow political agenda.

As an accountant by trade, I prefer to look at the facts rather than listen to empty slogans from the Conservatives. It is a fact that the justice system in Canada has always dealt with violent crimes based on the fundamental principle that a prison sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender.

In this country, we employ judges for the express purpose of passing sentences based on the particular circumstance of each individual case. Judges take mandatory minimum sentences into account, but they are given the discretion to vet longer prison terms depending on the severity of the case. If we were to continue to exaggerate minimum sentences as Bill C-10 intends to do, we would in fact be removing more powers from judges to use their own discretion.

Let us look at the facts. Over the past decade there was an average of 1,300 deaths involving firearms per year in Canada. Homicides accounted for only about 15% of all firearm deaths, suicide a remarkable 80%, and accidents about 5%. In 1996, 49% of all solved firearm homicides involved acquaintances, 18% involved a spouse, 22% involved other relatives, and 11% were killed by strangers.

Clearly, people are more likely to be killed by a firearm by someone they know rather than by random acts of violence. In fact, a Statistics Canada report found that from 1974 to 1992 a married woman was nine times more likely to be killed by her husband than by a stranger.

I find it even more disturbing that long guns are the most common type of firearm used in spousal homicide. Over the past decade 71% of spousal homicides involved rifles and shotguns, 24% involved handguns, 4% involved the use sawed off rifles and shotguns, and 1% involved other firearms.

I find it shocking that one of the first acts of the Minister of Justice is to remove long guns from the gun registry. Clearly, the government is attempting to approach justice reform in a very hasty way and hence I am pleased to speak against Bill C-10.

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her analysis of Bill C-9. She mentioned that conditional sentencing has conditions set before a judge who can lay down the sentence. It is a preventative tool and prevention is very important. The previous Liberal government had implemented a youth employment strategy for preventative purposes dealing with gang violence, which has been eliminated by the Conservative government. Could the member elaborate how the conditional sentencing tool has been used in the aboriginal communities and how effective has it been?

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, like the accountability bill, this bill will have a charter challenge and I thank the member for bringing it to the attention of the House. It will create more confusion in the system, more negotiations, et cetera, if it ever were to go through. If the bill is unconstitutional, I hope that the wisdom of the House will prevail.

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the bill looks at extreme cases such as sexual assault with a weapon and it also looks at mail theft and computer theft. It mixes and meshes many things. It is not a very thoughtful bill. It has been very hastily constructed. If the bill goes to committee, it is important that these things be removed. If hon. members on the government side do not understand the flaws in the bill, or do not even understand what it covers, then it is important that they first of all understand the bill in its totality, look at other legal opinions and not be so set on locking up everyone in jail.

They should understand the bill. They should understand the implications of the bill. It will give a person who has stolen some mail the same sentence as someone who committed a heinous crime. The bill could be saved if it is sent to committee and people put some thought into making appropriate changes.

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, statistics show that aboriginal people already make up an inappropriate amount of the population in prisons compared to that of the general public. Traditional justice and sentencing circles have been used in Saskatchewan. They have been more effective than putting them in jails.

The removal of conditional sentencing would disallow the aboriginal communities to use their alternative methodology to keep people out of jail and allow them to become contributing members of society.

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East, I am pleased to rise on the subject of criminal justice in Canada and Bill C-9, the conditional sentencing reform bill.

All Canadians value their safety and security. We want communities where we live, work and raise our children without fear and threat of violence. At the same time, we also desire something that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau called “a just society”; that is a society built upon the principle of justice, fairness and the rule of law.

Throughout the world Canada is envied by other nations because individuals enjoy rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When the rights and freedoms of an individual are compromised by a criminal act, Canadians expect our criminal justice system to respond accordingly. We are not a vengeful people, but we do want our system of criminal justice to mete out sentences that are proportional to the gravity of the offence. In other words, the more serious the offence, the more serious the consequences will ensure.

That has always been the case since we enacted the Criminal Code over a hundred years ago. As the House is well aware, laws are not static and they must change over time. Over the past century, we have amended the Criminal Code to keep it in pace with changes in technology, changes in society and to develop new ways to deal with criminal offences.

Probation and conditional sentences are relatively new tools in the criminal justice system to prevent people convicted of less serious and non-violent offences from winding up in jail. Certain conditions are set out in the Criminal Code that a convicted offender must live up to or face more serious consequences if those conditions are breached. These tools can be very effective in crime prevention. In fact, these tools provide valuable alternatives to incarceration and allow people who can be safely managed in the community to remain in the community.

Probation and conditional sentences permit non-violent minor offenders the opportunity to continue with their jobs and provide for their families. Contrary to the rhetoric that we often hear in the House, my colleagues and I in the Liberal Party do in fact want serious sentences for serious crimes. Yet, at the same time, we do not want a hastily crafted bill with serious flaws to be rushed through Parliament just to satisfy vague election promises.

I want to share with the House a few statistics that my fellow members may find of use in this debate. Aboriginal people already make up nearly one in five admissions to Canada's correctional services, while they represent only 3% of the population. In Saskatchewan, the province with the highest percentage of aboriginal people, the minister of justice in that province has commented that the use of penalties focused on native traditions rather than simple prison time has had some success.

This form of conditional sentences encourages native communities to find alternatives to jail by, for example, providing restitution to the victim of a crime, volunteering with a charity or attending counselling or addiction programs. By wiping out these alternatives in legislation contained in Bill C-9, many more aboriginal Canadians will find themselves behind bars.

Bill C-9 would adversely affect remote communities especially. In Nunavut, for example, territorial judges handed down 203 conditional sentences in 2005, compared with 189 jail terms.

As my colleague from London West has aptly commented on this legislation, the bill appears to use the equivalent of a legislative sledgehammer where the equivalent of a legislative scalpel is required.

It is widely acknowledged that Bill C-9 covers a wide range of offences, several of which involve non-violence. The bill covers very serious crimes such as hijacking, manslaughter, attempted murder and sexual assault with a weapon. These are all serious offences. I am sure we all agree that they must be dealt with in a serious manner.

However, at the same time the bill was drafted in such great haste that it also includes unauthorized use of computer, cattle theft, mail theft and bestiality. I am not certain that the Minister of Justice had theft of livestock in mind when he considered, for example, what would be an appropriate sentence for sexual assault with a weapon. If he did, then the bill is serious flawed and so too is the logic behind the legislation.

According to David Paciocco, a criminal law professor at the University of Ottawa, not only would Bill C-9 put people behind bars who did not belong there, but lawyers and judges would be forced to find ways to avoid the ban on conditional sentencing. In addition, judges would also be forced to demand higher levels of evidence to secure a conviction while prosecutors may lay lesser charges to ensure conditional sentences are still an option.

Moreover, if the judges are further restricted and unable to assign appropriate sentences for non-violent crimes, we will witness certain increases in the number of people pleading not guilty, thereby our courts will experience more overcrowding and an increased court cost to the taxpayers.

A further problem with Bill C-9 is that it would force judges to arrive at a bleak choice, either choose prison or nothing at all. While this may appeal to sloganeers who would lock everyone up and throw away the key, in reality the stark choice between jail or nothing would more likely benefit the criminal rather than prevent crime in the future.

Judges need alternatives other than simply jail time. Unfortunately, Bill C-9 is a hastily drafted piece of legislation that is deeply flawed and should be seriously reconsidered by the government.

Bill C-9 in effect would affect approximately one-third of more than 15,000 conditional sentences set by courts each year. This number represents about 5% of all the sentences handed down each year. It is therefore estimated that Bill C-9 would result in an additional 3,000 to 5,000 being admitted to provincial jails. In many circumstances these are jail facilities that are already overcrowded, presenting a threat not only to the safety of the offenders, but also safety of the prison guards who we rely on to run these facilities.

In conclusion, Bill C-9 contains a series of unintended consequences that we can already identify. We need to take a careful and more considerate examination of the legislation before it ever becomes law.

[Government Policies, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with the government's record in the first 100 days.

Number 71, coining a new term in Canadian politics, “harpocracy”.

Number 72, keeping the public in the dark by muzzling the media.

Number 73, Americanizing Canada.

Number 74, banning government departments from communicating with MPs' offices.

Number 75, abandoning the homeless, with funding for jails but no funding for homelessness.

Number 76, abandoning research and development.

Number 77, no vision for competitiveness to move Canada forward in the global economy.

Number 78, neglecting official language minorities by leaving official languages out of the throne speech and the budget.

Number 79, insulting Canadian judges and the justice system.

Number 80, pigeonholing the diverse needs of Canadians into five oversimplified priorities.

A hundred days of “harpocracy”, a hundred days of shame.

[May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the parliamentary secretary, like the minister, does not know math and they are cutting back $3 billion from Ontario. The government has been irresponsible by increasing taxes to hard-working parents and Canadians.

I would like to share a letter I received from one of my constituents, addressed to the hon. Minister of the Environment with a copy sent to me, concerning the cancellation of the popular EnerGuide program and other ecological issues. The letter reads:

Several months ago the One Tonne Challenge was abruptly cancelled. And last week in the House of Commons you announced that Canada would be abandoning the Kyoto Accord. This disturbs me greatly. You are cancelling successful programs--yet saying that we cannot meet our Kyoto commitments. This shows a lack of intent.

As my constituent succinctly indicates, the government lacks intent and moreover the Conservative government lacks a true vision for Canada.

[May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I must convey the disappointment expressed by many of my constituents of Don Valley East, following the release of the first Conservative budget. It is unfair to Ontario because there is not one mention in the budget about honouring the $6.9 billion Canada-Ontario agreement signed last year between the province and the federal government.

Although the Prime Minister promised to fix the fiscal imbalance in the last election, there is absolutely no substance or evidence in terms of the proper financing for the province of Ontario to be found in the budget.

I know we can expect that the member opposite will rise in her seat and mention that the Prime Minister is in Manitoba this week to meet with the premiers in order to reach a deal, but the fact remains that the deal was already signed last year. All we can expect is to see the federal government doing everything it can to make it sound as though Ontario is getting its fair share. Where will the federal government find the money to make it appear as though it has honoured the agreement? As we can guess, it will come directly out of the pockets of taxpayers.

According to the budget of the Conservatives, they will hit low income Canadians the hardest. Effective June 1, those earning the least in the country will face a tax increase from 15% to 15.5%. This will effectively put hundreds of thousands of low income Canadians, many of them seniors and single parents, back on the payrolls that the Liberals removed in the previous budgets.

The Conservatives will also decrease the basic personal amount that Canadians can earn tax free by $400, effective July 1. Again, this tax measure will hit low income Canadians the hardest and even more low income earners will find themselves back on the tax rolls.

Canadians and my constituents are asking, why Conservatives are so meanspirited? Why are targeting the hard-working immigrants, the marginalized and people who are trying to make ends meet? Why have they turned their backs on the first nations? Why have they cancelled the Kelowna accord, an accord that would have started to close the gap between the native peoples and the rest of Canadians?

Why have the Conservatives cancelled the early learning and child care plan that created 14,000 child care spaces in Ontario alone in the first year? Why did the Conservatives insult hard-working parents by promising to give parents $1,200 for children under six and yet tax it back? Why are they so set on this new Conservative ideology to fend for oneself, an ideology that has totally failed in previous experiences?

Why has the government cancelled Canada's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases through the Kyoto agreement? In fact, I would be interested to know just how many vital programs and international agreements of which the federal government plans to back out. Why is the government deliberately going out of its way to embarrass Canada on the world stage?

[Equalization Payments, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the light of truth has totally dimmed on the government side. It does not know what it is. The government simply is not taking the concerns of the Premier of Ontario seriously.

Why is it that other premiers get several meetings with the Prime Minister while the Premier of Ontario cannot seem to get anyone in the PMO to return his call?

The Prime Minister made a commitment to the people of Ontario yet the recent federal budget makes no mention of fulfilling those commitments. When will Ontario see the $3 billion that seems to have gone missing between the election and now?