Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) Committee on Oct. 30th, 2007

[Douglas Hoover, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

As the minister has already stated, the broad scope of the reform to the dangerous offender legislation is to respond to the case of R. v. Johnson. In fact, R. v. Johnson laid out a bit of a different landscape from what was there previously. It suggested that even though an individual meets the dangerous offender criteria, they still will not be designated dangerous offender nor receive the dangerous offender indeterminate sentence if in fact there's a finding by the court that a lesser sentence can manage the risk posed to the general public.

These provisions respond directly to the Johnson case. First, they separate a sentence from designation, and second, basically the court first will determine that if they meet the criteria, they're designated as a dangerous offender, and they're a dangerous offender for life. Once that occurs, then the court turns to the issue of the appropriate sentence. The test is now emphatically laid out, in accordance with the Johnson decision, whereby unless the court is satisfied that the lesser sentence will manage the risk the offender poses of future offending, then they have to receive the indeterminate sentence.

So with regard to what those two provisions do, proposed subsection 753(4) now lays out the three sentence choices for the court. Proposed subsection 753(4.1) sets out the Johnson test, the actual criteria they are to apply in terms of whether or not to make the indeterminate sentence or the lesser sentence.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you for those explanations.

There are 12 primary designated offences in the bill. I would like the minister to tell us why he did not add other offences such as terrorism, impaired driving causing death, child pornography. Why did you limit yourself to these 12 offences?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's always a judgment call, Madam Freeman.

For instance, maybe it was you who asked, why not manslaughter? Again, we're trying to get those individuals who have the necessary mens rea, the necessary guilty mind to go out and deliberately commit a number of serious offences. That doesn't mean that other offences aren't serious. Nonetheless, we've gathered together to make a reasonable package that would address those individuals who we would categorize as career criminals, the individuals who are prepared to do it over and over again, inflict violence or sexual assaults on others. Those are the individuals we've zeroed in on, and not for terrorism, treason, or something else, unless it comes within that definition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Is there anything you want to add, Mr. Hoover?

[Douglas Hoover]

Just that one of the issues raised was how this compared to U.S.-style legislation. Again, in the U.S. there are three offences that automatically trigger a life sentence. This does not do that. This is designed very deliberately to narrow the scope towards the target individuals who typically are going to be subject to a dangerous offender application, and in many cases a successful one.

This allows for a viable procedure whereby the Crown can in fact avoid a protracted and expensive hearing and basically go to the same result they were going to anyway, which then leads to the real issue at the heart of these hearings since Johnson, which is, what is the appropriate sentence to give an individual who has in fact met the criteria of section 753.1?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Some of those individuals, to be fair, Madam Freeman, would get a life sentence in any case if they committed a premeditated murder. That's not who we're targeting here particularly. They've already got the life sentence.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I have one last question for you. In the case of a supervision order...

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Unfortunately, we're over five minutes, so we'll have to wait for the next round.

Mr. Keddy, five minutes.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Nicholson, for appearing before the committee today.

I think this is a timely piece of legislation. Just listening to the discussion around the table and whether or not this infringes on the right to remain silent, the existence of the presumption of guilt, and a lot of legalese, if you will, my understanding is that there have been some flaws in the Criminal Code and this is an attempt to address those flaws. Canadians have been asking this government, and they asked the previous government, to address the inequities and the failures that are in the Criminal Code and to bring in substantive changes.

I don't see this as any attempt in any way, shape, or form to subvert the charter. We do have this incidence out there of...you used the words “career criminals”, or recidivism amongst criminals who reoffend and repeat offend. That's only one portion of this particular piece of legislation, but I think that's the portion that Canadians are extremely concerned about.

I would like some of your further thoughts on that subject.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm always prepared to give them, Mr. Keddy.

Thank you very much for your comments, and thank you for being a member of this committee. I appreciate your commitment to the issue of fighting crime in this country.

I think what we're doing is a commendable exercise in our responsibility as legislators. I have sat where you have sat on many occasions with various pieces of legislation, and for the most part throughout the eighties and the nineties we gave guidelines to judges as to the seriousness with which we took the crime. We usually did it in terms of maximum sentences.

I remember on a number of occasions when we revisited certain sections of the Criminal Code and said that the maximum sentence doesn't reflect the seriousness with which society views this type of behaviour. That was a legitimate exercise of our legislative responsibilities. And putting minimum sentences, in my opinion, is also a responsible exercise of our legislative responsibilities.

What we're trying to do is to give some guidance as to the seriousness with which Parliament views some of this activity. You know and I know some of the serious problems that have arisen and can arise in this country with respect to firearms offences and crimes that are committed with firearms. You, as a representative of your constituents from Nova Scotia, know how seriously people take that and how upsetting people find that.

I think it's incumbent upon us to try to draft legislation to take into consideration these legitimate concerns of law-abiding people while at the same recognizing the charter and the rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights of individuals who are accused of a crime. What we are trying to do is strike that reasonable balance. I'm convinced that we are doing that. Again, it's a legitimate exercise and it's why we are sent here and what we are supposed to do.

I think all parliamentarians--and I hope I can say that--when this bill gets passed, can take a lot of pride in getting these pieces of legislation. It's a substantial piece of legislation. As you know, this is the first bill introduced into this session. It's not just a coincidence that it's Bill C-2 and that it's put all together. These are steps in the right direction.

I appreciate your support, and indeed the support of all committee members. Again, I wish you well in your deliberations. I hope this bill gets passed as expeditiously as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We are now coming up to a vote. We started about an hour ago, so we're probably a minute and a half short of an hour.

What I would like to ask, Mr. Lee, is one point of clarification. We are going to have staff back tomorrow for an hour. Your issue with respect to some of the technical questions you may want to reiterate at that time, to get that out. Whether that requires anything in writing, I'm not sure, but at least I'll offer you the opportunity to do that.

Secondly, if we could suspend for at least the period of the vote and then come back about fifteen minutes after the vote, one of the issues we need--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Some of us have obligations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

You do? Okay.

Before we leave, I would just ask if we could at least have a list of priority witnesses, the top four or five that you would like to see. The reason I make the request is that we are having some difficulties in arranging for witnesses for the next two days. If there are priority witnesses that you would like to see here and you believe would be able to attend, we would appreciate getting that from each of the parties. It would allow us the opportunity to pursue them from here. Please get them to the clerk.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.