- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $148,586.11
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on Bill C-325 today, and I am going to be brutally honest: It is disappointing to see the Conservatives bring forward a private member's bill that builds on their campaign to exploit public fears about crime and public safety by emphasizing tragic incidents and tragic impacts on victims and continuing to ignore the evidence about what actually works in criminal justice. Of course, members of the House will know that I spent 20 years working in the criminal justice field before I came here. We know what reduces crime and what improves public safety, but the Conservatives seem to have no interest in any of those measures.
They repeatedly refer to the opinions of victims. I will, of course, agree with them that some victims are looking for harsh punishment for the perpetrators of crimes, but it is not all victims. The one thing that all victims of crime are looking for is that what happened to them does not happen to anyone else. If we look at all the scientific studies and academic studies of victims, we see that this is the one thing that all victims share in common. This means that instead of harsher measures, we need more effective measures to make sure that we do not have additional victims of crime in the future.
The main impact of Bill C-325 is to undo the reforms that were made in Bill C-5. Those were aimed at squarely attacking the problem of high rates of incarceration among indigenous and racialized people, those living in poverty and those living with mental health and addiction issues in Canadian prisons. The overincarceration of marginalized Canadians is not only unjust but also ineffective at improving public safety. Even short periods of incarceration cause major disruptions in people's lives when it comes to loss of employment, loss of housing, loss of custody of children and stigma, all of which make involvement in anti-social and criminal behaviour more likely in the future, not less likely.
The New Democrats have always supported measures that will be effective in improving public safety. This was true when we were talking about bail reform, which, again, is not the subject of Bill C-325, even though people would be surprised to find that out when listening to some of the Conservative rhetoric around it. We supported adding a reverse onus for bail in crimes involving handguns. We supported making community-based bail supervision programs more widely available in all communities, including in rural, remote and northern communities.
Community-based bail supervision will require upfront expenditures, and we have been calling on the Liberals to fund those programs. The John Howard Society runs three of those programs now in Ontario, and they have a 90% success rate. What does that 90% success rate mean? It means 90% of people in community-based bail supervision programs showed up in court when they were supposed to, and 90% did not reoffend in the period before they appeared in court. Why is that the case? It is because they had support and supervision. This is in the bill the Conservatives voted for, and now the Liberals need to come forward with the funding.
Community-based bail supervision programs are not the subject of Bill C-325, but I have to address them because Conservatives continue to act like they are. They save money in the long run because they are far cheaper: Putting people into community-based bail supervision programs is one-tenth the cost of putting them in incarceration. The problem in our federal system is that the federal government would bear the costs upfront of starting these programs, while the provinces would benefit from the savings in provincial correction systems.
Again, Bill C-325 is trying to undo the reforms that were in Bill C-5. What Bill C-5 did was to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for all drug offences and for certain tobacco and firearms offences, none of which are classified as violent crimes in the Criminal Code. Also, Bill C-5 widened the sentencing options available to judges by allowing them to use diversion programs and house arrest as penalties for a wider number of crimes. Why is this important? It is because there are direct victims of crime, but there are also the families of the perpetrators of crime. What we are talking about there is often spouses and children. The importance of diversion programs and house arrest means that oftentimes families are not deprived of the sole income earner in the family, or they are not deprived of the person who can provide supervision for children.
By using diversion programs and house arrest in additional offences, we can help keep families together and prevent crime in the future by keeping people's ties to the community and the wider family active and alive. This is particularly important in rural, remote and northern communities, where the sentence to incarceration means not only serving time in an institution but serving it in an institution many hundreds of kilometres away from the family and supports people need to prevent them from falling back into the problems that caused them to end up as convicted criminals.
According to the Conservatives' press release, Bill C-325 would “put a stop to the alarming number of convicted violent criminals and sex offenders who are serving their sentences in their homes.” This assertion is false. Even with the reforms in Bill C-5, judges are not allowed to sentence those who present any kind of risk to the public to serve sentences in the community. The statement that the many people who are convicted of the long list of offences the Conservatives like to cite are getting house arrest is not true. Judges are not allowed to grant diversion programs and sentences served in the community to those who present a risk to the public. That is very clear in our systems.
The Conservatives also claim that Bill C-325 would go after offenders who repeatedly violate conditional release orders. It is important to note that the provisions in Bill C-325 are about parole violations, not conditional release orders. There is nothing about bail conditions in this bill despite the Conservatives continually mixing the rhetoric about catch-and-release bail provisions with the provisions of Bill C-325. What Bill C-325 would do is make all parole violations a new criminal offence and require parole officers to report all parole violations, no matter how minor, to the police and the Parole Board. This would only result in the early termination of parole.
What does that mean? People say it is a good idea because people broke the rules and their parole should be revoked. With the revocation of parole, people end up back in institutions, and at the end of their sentences, they go into the community unsupervised. Therefore, by ending parole early, we end the period during which we supervise people's behaviour, which is to make sure they present less of a threat to the public, and let them out at the end of a sentence with no incentive to complete any of the rehabilitation programs, any of the mental health and addiction programs or any of the things that would keep them from being further involved in criminal activity.
Let me conclude my remarks today by reminding people that what we need to do is support measures that are effective at reducing crime and reducing the number of victims in the future. Bill C-325 would do nothing to advance those goals and instead would further contribute to the overincarceration of racialized and indigenous people and those living in poverty in this country. The New Democrats were proud to support Bill C-5 to try to make sure that we do what is effective when fighting crime and reducing the number of victims in this country.
1337 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/22 12:55:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona for her question, because it is a serious concern. Unfortunately, what happens in our systems is that the funnel starts removing diversity very early.
If a person is ever going to be a judge, they have to go to law school. The ability of various communities to get their kids into law school is highly differentiated. Certainly we are talking about Black Canadians and indigenous Canadians. The number of people who are represented at the law school level is far below what it should be. We start narrowing the funnel at law school.
Then someone has to practise law for 10 years. We have a time factor. Even if we improve the diversity in law schools, which we are doing, it is going to be a 10-year time lag before someone is eligible for an appointment to the federal judiciary. That funnel is narrow, and it takes time.
I do not know the details of Alberta. Being a British Columbia MP, I have not looked at the appointments in Alberta, but I am hopeful that the initiatives of both law societies and law schools to get more women and people of colour into law school and into the profession will eventually produce a more diverse judiciary.
217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/22 12:40:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the bill.
I know that for many people in the public, an act to amend the Judges Act is not the most exciting thing they can imagine for a Friday afternoon, but the bill deals with things that are fundamental to our system, even if they are not exciting. Things like the rule of law and an independent judiciary make sure that our democracy can continue to function. We have to have a citizenry that has confidence in our institutions and confidence in the judges, and the bill is about making that confidence more apparent.
I have to say that I am troubled by exchanges like the one that just took place between the Liberal and Bloc members. It is true that we have to be able to question our institutions, but the kind of exchange that takes place where someone asks for someone to name a judge who is political is not helpful when it comes to keeping confidence in our judiciary. A blanket charge that the appointments that are taking place are political is not helpful either, so if we want to talk about the system, let us talk about the system and how it functions, but the wild charges do not contribute to confidence in our system, and I say “a pox on both your houses” for that, frankly.
One of the things I will give credit to the Liberal government for, on which it has done better than any previous government that I have seen, and as a former criminal justice instructor I have been watching this system for more than 30 years, is the diversity of appointments to the bench. Diversity is an important thing, because if Canadians do not see themselves reflected in the legal system, it is hard to have confidence in that system.
I will point to two things that I think were quite historic this year in and of themselves, but that also contribute to confidence.
The first, of course, was the appointment of Judge O'Bonsawin to the Supreme Court of Canada. I was very pleased to see her take her seat this fall. It really broadens the perspective of the court to have the first indigenous woman sitting there, and I think the court will make better decisions because of that diversity.
The second, which is sometimes overlooked, also took place this fall, and that was the appointment of Justice Shannon Smallwood as the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, so an indigenous woman as a Supreme Court chief justice for the first time.
What does this mean for the public? I do not think it means very much, but in the judicial system it means a whole lot, because as a chief justice she takes her seat on the Canadian Judicial Council, which is the body that is in charge of the discipline of judges. Therefore, for the very first time we are going to have a racialized woman sitting in the group that makes decisions about whether judges have acted fairly or discriminatorily. I think these two appointments are extremely important.
I will also say that the current government has done a good job of increasing the number of women appointed to the bench. Again, my belief is that the more diverse the group that is making decisions, the better those decisions will be and the more confidence the public will have in those decisions.
We are happy to support the bill. There is no doubt that the current system for dealing with complaints against judges is long, complicated, costly and non-transparent. The bill before us would be a significant improvement in how we deal with complaints against judges.
The main way I see an improvement here is not just with respect to the cost and the complicated process, but by providing for some intermediate, I guess I would call it, sanctions. We are stuck with a system right now in which, if someone misbehaves on the bench in what I would call a minor manner, or if it is a correctable problem, there is no choice but to recommend that they either stay on the bench or be removed from the bench. The bill is a significant step forward in allowing the Canadian Judicial Council, other judges, to say that a judge may need some remedial training. They may need a time out, just like with kids, a suspension for a while, or other things that do not result in removal of the judge from the bench.
Now, in committee there were a few amendments, two of which I put forward, to address transparency, and I just want to point out one of the odd things in our current system. There are two points at which complaints currently can be dismissed, and they are at the initial screening level and then after a decision by a review panel. The current system, before being amended by Bill C-9, maintained this curious practice of saying, “We're going to give you a summary of our reasons for our decision, but we're not going to give you the reasons. If you want the reasons, you have to file an appeal.” What is the first thing that happens when someone files an appeal? They are given the reasons. Anybody who looks at that with a basic sense of logic and fairness would ask, “Why do we not release those reasons?”
Two amendments were adopted by the committee that reversed that presumption. The presumption now, going forward, will be that unless there is a public interest or a privacy concern, complainants will get the reasons for complaints against judges being dismissed. That is very important for the individual complainants and their confidence, but it is also important for confidence in the system as a whole.
The two other amendments I put forward were rejected, and I will take a minute to talk about both of those.
One of those was brought forward by the National Council of Canadian Muslims. I think it raises a very important concern, but unfortunately other parties on the committee did not share my view of the council's suggestions. It said that at the initial stage, the reasons listed for dismissing a complaint would be that it does not amount to discrimination. The council's concern was that in law, discrimination has a very narrow definition, so cases could get dismissed without being investigated.
Therefore, the council put forward the proposal that we add in that section, “discrimination or actions substantially similar to discrimination”. Because it is the gatekeeping function at that first step, it was suggested that we broaden that a bit more. I was disappointed that the other parties did not agree to that suggestion. With respect to that one, I was moving the amendment on behalf of complainants who wanted there to be a broader look at those complaints before they are dismissed.
With respect to the other amendment, I was on the side of judges. There is still a significant flaw in this bill, although we will support it because it is an improvement. I put forward an amendment saying that the appeal for a judge on the decision of the Canadian Judicial Council should not be to the Supreme Court of Canada, but rather to the Federal Court of Appeal. Let me explain that very obscure difference. What we are dealing with here is judges judging judges when it comes to complaints. The Canadian Judicial Council is composed of judges. If the appeal is made to the Supreme Court, there is no right of appeal. The Supreme Court accepts only applications for leave to appeal, meaning it will decide if someone's case is important enough, and it has a very high bar for hearing cases. The Supreme Court has said it will hear only cases that are of substantial national importance or that raise important constitutional issues. It hears only about 8% of the requests to hear cases, so in fact, we are leaving judges to be judged by their peers, with nobody from outside getting a look at that decision. I find that disappointing.
Some of my colleagues have said to me that the Court of Appeal is also judges. However, there is a different function. When the Canadian Judicial Council makes a decision on complaints, it is defending not just the complaint, but the whole confidence in the judiciary and the whole integrity of the judicial system. It has a bit of a different function. If a complaint is referred to the Court of Appeal, its appeal court judges look only at that case and the procedural fairness for that judge. Fortunately, there are very few of these cases. I am prepared to support the bill, but I am concerned that we have not left an effective appeal mechanism against what I will call at this moment the closed club of the Canadian Judicial Council.
Having said that, I would like to have seen those two amendments added. They were not. It is still a good bill. It is still something we should proceed with.
I have to say, and cannot let it pass, that this could have been done before the last election. It could have been done in the last Parliament. Sometimes I just do not get why my colleagues on the Liberal side are so slow to get things done that have broad support within the House of Commons. However, I am glad to see it here. I am glad to see it moving forward. I am glad to see we are going to get this done. It will contribute significantly to confidence in the complaint process by being more transparent and by being quicker, but it will also contribute to the overall confidence in our judiciary while still protecting the independence of judges.
1664 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
