rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Perspectives on crime bill C-10 in Quebec

Please chip in to support rabble's election 2019 coverage. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

Planned construction costs for new prisons (nominal value) for the federal gover

On this past December 5, we learnt on the front page of the daily Devoir that college-level instruction provided to inmates was now in jeopardy because of the federal cuts in Flaherty's last budget. At Collège Marie-Victorin in Montréal, these cuts could bring an end to 40 years of inmate instruction for reintegration purposes. Incidentally, provincial cuts put into place to reach budgetary balance must be added to the federal cuts.

This bad news for proponents of rehabilitation is the logical follow-up to the allegedly "tough on crime" Conservative initiatives in corrections policies.

At the beginning of 2012, omnibus Bill C-10 was voted into law by the Canadian Parliament. The Safe Streets and Communities Act, as it is officially called, has been denounced across Canada and notably in Quebec. Indeed, the Minister of Justice at the time, Jean-Marc Fournier, repeatedly travelled to Ottawa to defend the province's point of view. The National Assembly granted its unanimous support to the initiative. Each time he came back empty-handed.

Quebec (like at least seven other provinces) condemned at the time the costs induced by the bill's multiple clauses, a set of measures aimed mostly at forcing an increase in the length of prison sentences. Many of these measures had long been part of Conservatives' plans but, being short of a majority in Parliament, they had not been able to vote them into law.

A year ago, IRIS published an evaluation of the costs that Bill C-10 might induce.

But Quebec was not only condemning the costs of the federal bill, the province was critiquing the destabilizing effect it could have on its rehabilitation practices, in particular those regarding youth. In October, the youth centres' directors were worried for instance about the consequences of putting an end to the confidentiality of certain juvenile delinquents. The Commission des droits de la personne et de la jeunesse also came out last February against Bill C-10 for the same reasons.

There is no need here for us to plunge back into the repression vs. rehabilitation debate. It's now over and we all know who has won. Everyone, except Stephen Harper's Conservatives and senator Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu.

Let us note that the Conservatives' recipe in this respect sadly resembles the tough-on-crime approach applied in the United States in the last decades, which appears to have been a resounding failure. In one of the most covered cases, Arizona has voted into effect a controversial law, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Even the name bears a striking resemblance to the new Canadian law.

One of the anticipated effects of this law in Arizona is to allow police officers to resort from now on to racial profiling and to impose prolonged incarcerations for illegal immigrants.

These detentions will increase the number of inmates and therefore the business opportunities for U.S. private prisons. The stakes in this issue are so high that they were not content with celebrating the adoption of the law: they downright wrote the law, as revealed an unsettling NPR report.

Apparently, that's what they call over there a "public-private partnership": the private sector writes the laws, then the elected representatives vote them in…

Since Bill C-10 will increase prison population, the question which follows naturally is where will we put all those prisoners? Is the Canadian government thinking of calling on the private sector as in the U.S.?

Signs of a privatization of detention are accumulating in Canada and, as in Arizona, migrants are already paying the price. For the moment, there are no private prisons, but detention firms are going into the asylum seekers' incarceration "market."

According to The Guardian, the Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney visited private prisons in Australia and private incarceration businesses are lobbying the government.

Whilst the Quebec Bar rarely takes a political stand, it asked for the courts' opinion on Bill C-10 in November. The lawyers' professional corporation hopes to invalidate the clauses which reduce justice's power by limiting judges' leeway, a measure which they find to be unconstitutional.

It's not the first attempt to oppose the bill now passed into law. As early as 2011, the Quebec government was searching for ways of bypassing its problematic clauses. Many tactics were considered: to retain within a package only the charges which are not subject to minimum sentencing, to resort to plea bargaining, to withhold from the evidence certain details (not mentioning the number of pot plants to avoid reaching the six-plant minimum which leads to a minimum sentence), etc.

The new PQ Minister of Justice Bertrand St-Arnaud quickly and openly threw himself into Bill C-10 bypassing by instituting a Quebec court-supervised drug treatment program. The government's press release is clear on the aim of this announcement:

"By acting in this way, it thus gives judges the possibility not to impose the new minimum sentences when the offender is successfully engaged in the drug treatment program, in conformance with article 10(5) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act."

This is Quebec's response to a federal Ministry of Justice study which foresees that imprisonments related to marijuana grow operations will increase fivefold. The Canadian Association of Crown Counsel itself anticipated that Bill C-10 would overload the justice system.

This article was written by Guillaume Hébert, a researcher with IRIS, a Montreal-based progressive think tank.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.