Justice Committee on March 30th, 2009

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think you've made a very good point, and I think for too long they weren't a priority, quite frankly. I think one of the things we have done that I was very proud and pleased to be part of was establishing the first federal ombudsman for victims of crime, thereby having an individual whose focus is on victims, innocent people, in this country. I think this is again an idea whose time has come. If you came to Ottawa three years ago and you asked folks who is here championing victims' rights, you might have been hard-pressed to find out exactly who was doing that. But now you have a government in place for whom victims are a priority, law-abiding Canadians and their rights is a priority, and indeed this particular office, because we all have a stake in this.

This particular bill talks about reckless shooting, somebody taking a gun and firing it into a crowd. You think of the potential, the harm, the tragedy that can occur as a result of that. So we're one component of it. And I appreciate that the administration of justice for the most part is in provincial hands and law enforcement has a huge provincial component, but we have a responsibility with respect to the Criminal Code and issues that we can take at the federal level to bring in either changes to the legislation or programs that assist victims and law-abiding Canadians. This is one of the great responsibilities that we have. And I'm proud and pleased with what we have done and the moves that we have made, because who are we protecting when we have specific laws with respect to reckless shooting? For the most part, it's those innocent people on a street corner who find themselves caught up in this activity. They want to know that the laws are being changed to protect them; they want to be heard in our justice system, and appropriately so.

You'll be dealing with a bill that took a pass on drugs. Who do you think these people are who are bringing drugs into this country? These are people involved with gangs and organized crime. They are in the business of trying to destroy Canadian society. So I say we have to send out the right message. People say, yes, but you're sending them to jail. I said of course we're sending them to jail; that's exactly where you should be if you get the idea that somehow you should be bringing drugs into this country.

We are committed. We're taking them one step at a time. I'm working very closely and cooperatively with members like you, and I see my parliamentary secretaries here, the both of them, and the justice committee chairman and your colleagues. I very much appreciate the encouragement that you've given us and the support you've given us and we'll continue to move forward.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Minister. I look forward to a speedy passage of Bill C-14.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Next we're going to move Mr. LeBlanc. You've got five minutes now.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, and your colleagues of the Department of Justice, for being here.

As you know, Minister, we're supporting Bill C-14 and we'll work with colleagues on this committee to make sure it's passed expeditiously.

I have two specific questions with respect to the bill. In regard to the provisions that create the automatic first degree murder charge, some opponents have said that what this will lead to is a desire on the part of some accused persons to perhaps plead guilty to a lesser offence. Are you worried, or do you have any reason to think, that in fact there will be a pressure on the system for an accused person to try to plea bargain to a less serious offence and in fact the convictions you're seeking for these organized criminals will be pushed down to a lesser offence--for example, manslaughter?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I don't think they plea bargain murderers, quite frankly, Mr. LeBlanc.

Again, these things are at the call of the crown attorney, of course. They have a look at what they can prove and what they can't prove and all this. I believe this is one more tool for them. If you keep some of these individuals--now, we're talking about people who are murderers--people who are involved with gangs and criminal behaviour, in jail for 25 years, as I think I indicated in my opening comments, they'll have about 10 to 15 years of fewer victims in this country if they aren't on parole.

So I'm not concerned about that. I think crown attorneys will welcome these provisions and I can't conceive of the fact that they would be interested as groups or even individually of trying to plea bargain down murders into something else, like criminal negligence or manslaughter, something like that. I don't see it. But again, I don't direct crown attorneys; the provincial attorneys general do that, of course, and it will be there call and their discretion on each of these cases.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chairman, one of the things we've seen in some commentary from those who oppose this bill is that there's no objective evidence or research-based evidence that says mandatory minimum prison sentences are deterrents. I'm wondering what evidence you have to the contrary.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I was asked that question. They asked, how about the individual who's part of a gang and decides he's going to murder somebody? Is he not going to commit that murder now because he'll be subject to the provisions under this bill of first degree murder? I responded that he may or may not decide to. I wish he wouldn't commit the murder, but I do know that he'll spend a lot longer in prison because of this. So there will be better protection, going back to what my colleagues were saying about victims. Victims and law-abiding Canadians will feel a lot better having this dangerous individual off the streets for another 10 to 15 years, depending upon the circumstances. We have to take them into consideration as well.

My understanding about a lot of these organizations is that they know what's up. They know what they could be looking at. I want them to have some serious consequences. I remember I was asked this on the subject of firearms. One of our colleagues in the House of Commons said they didn't understand how some of these people just don't appreciate the consequences of their actions. I told him that I actually do want to help. Give them five years in a federal penitentiary, and that should be able to focus their attention as to just how serious some of this stuff is.

I'm afraid the other way, Mr. LeBlanc. If we give somebody a slap on the wrist after they commit a serious crime and send them home to play video games, I'm worried about the message that sends out to that individual and to society as a whole. So when we bring in these mandatory jail terms, we're articulating society's disgust with what some of these individuals have done, and we're sending out the right message. On some of these bills, including this one, I like the idea that if you don't get the message the first time--and it's possible that you might serve your mandatory prison term and get out and still not have figured out that you shouldn't be a part of that--the penalty will be in increased the next time around in the hope that those individuals will figure out that this isn't what they should be doing, this isn't how they should be spending their lives.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chairman, do I have time for another brief question?

Minister, I think in answer to a question from Mr. Comartin you referenced one of the problems that your colleagues the provincial attorneys general have spoken about with respect to adequate resources. One of the reasons there's often a delay in prosecutions...and this comes into the other bill we're going to be looking at soon, Bill C-25. My sense is that depending on the jurisdiction, there are increasing delays. One of the sources of the delays has been identified as the requirements around the Stinchcombe case and disclosure. Do you have a view on whether there's a way to streamline the disclosure requirements?

The assistant commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Cabana, who was here last week, said they too believe there's a way to define what might be relevant, and there are some other ways to simplify it around electronic disclosure, obviously without taking away the rights of the accused to know the case against him or her--nobody would advocate that. Do you think there's a way to help speed up the process of these prosecutions and take some of the pressure off the resources required?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

We're always looking at ways to assist and speed up the process, at the same time respecting the rights of the individual, whether it's disclosure or any other aspect of this.

In terms of expediting the process, I think I can speak for every provincial attorney general. They have assured me that moving ahead on credit for time served in that particular piece of legislation will help unclog the system, that the system will expedite the cases that are before the courts. I think that's one of the reasons so many of them were out on Friday with us, to make sure that message was delivered.

With respect to other areas we can go into, I'm always open to suggestions; we're always looking at other ways. I can assure you that when we get these pieces of legislation passed we'll be bringing in other pieces.

But I thank you for your input on that particular issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Ménard, five minutes.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Minister, I'd just like to clarify something.

A colleague asked a question that was thought- provoking. Following a decision handed down by a Quebec court, street gangs are currently deemed to be criminal organizations. Are we in agreement in saying that organized crime includes criminal motorcycle gangs and other such groups, but also street gangs? Consequently, the provisions concerning organized crime apply to the various phenomena related to street gangs. Are you in agreement with that statement?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's correct.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Earlier, someone implied that this was not the case. However, we raised that question a year ago.

According to the information at your disposal as Minister of Justice, would you say that this current situation in British Columbia and the reason why the committee has mobilized is different from that prevailing in Quebec between 1994 and 1997? What is the difference between the two for you? Are there still gangs? In Quebec, it wasn't about street gangs.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's hard to compare any set of criminal activity, Monsieur Ménard, and we have to deal with what we have.

I can tell you that everywhere I go in the country--I could be in Halifax or in Montreal--the whole question of gang-related activity is always raised with me. If I'm talking with law enforcement agencies, they raise this with me. While there has been quite a bit of attention paid, and justifiably so, to what is taking place in British Columbia, challenges with gangland activity are not isolated to British Columbia. We remember a few years ago that an innocent person was killed on the streets of Toronto in terms of a reckless shooting.

So it's not confined to British Columbia, it's across the country, and the law really has a general application to everyone.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Minister, based on what we know about organized crime, I would tell you that nuances need to be made. When I was elected, in the early 1990s, no one talked about street gangs but rather about the Hells Angels. Measures were taken in that regard. I am told that, with regard to street gangs, one of the problems for police is that the shadowing system is different. Gangs are less predictable and there is less hierarchy. The Hells Angels have a structure, a whole criminal organization, but that is not true for street gangs. As legislators, we need to make these nuances, in looking at criminal organizations.

Clearly, for individuals subject to intimidation and fear in their communities, it is important for those responsible to be arrested and locked up for 25 years. We are in agreement there. As parliamentarians, I think that we need to make the distinction nonetheless, and this one is quite important. Let me give you an example. A police officer told me that shadowing street gangs related to the Haitian community was extremely difficult. In fact, the officers could not understand Creole, so even if they were to go before a justice of the peace and get a wiretap warrant—and you know that these warrants can be extended up to a year under the second anti-gang law—the information gathered is not easily usable. Such distinctions are what lead us as legislators to modulate or vary our response. As Minister of Justice, you feel that there is no distinction between what has been happening in British Columbia for the past few months and what happened in Quebec in the mid 1990s. Of course, you are concerned with the effectiveness of the measures that you will put forward.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I find, Monsieur Ménard, on the whole question of trying to deal with crime in this country, you're right, it's an evolving process. I was in Montreal when we introduced the bill on identity crime, and I remember one reporter said, “Is this your attempt to get ahead of the bad guys?” I said, “Look, I'd just like to catch up to the bad guys, never mind get ahead of them.” These things are changing so quickly.

I can tell you that when I was at the G8 justice ministers' meetings in Japan last year, that's one of the points I made. I said that we were finding problems with identity crime and some of these other issues and that they were going to get them. They were telling me that in certain countries the criminal enterprise wasn't as developed as it is in Canada and the United States and in a couple of other countries. But I told them that they were going to get these things.

So that's the challenge we have. As these organizations evolve, as you point out, it's not quite the same thing, obviously, as it was 15 to 20 years ago in this country, but we have to make sure the tools are there.

We were talking about extending the peace bond provisions to 24 months. If you go back 30 years ago, 12 months was probably fine and it was never an issue. Well, now it is an issue. We want to be able to modify that or control some of this behaviour. So put the provision in for 24 months, and a judge will make up his or her mind as to what's appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll move on to Mr. Norlock, for five minutes.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Minister, and to your officials, for being here this afternoon.

When you were making your preliminary remarks, it brought to mind a witness we had before our committee who represented the Vancouver Board of Trade. I believe his name was Mr. Rezac. When the issue of mandatory minimums came up, he said that has been a widely held misconception, that there is no evidence that they work. He made reference to the United States and the fact that actually it was. So we have a person, who is independent of the political realm, whose organization has done some investigation into this.

My question has more to do with the worst of the worst. Minister, you also made reference to that. You said that at least near the end of their term there are 10 more years, I think you said, when they're not out on the streets. By the way, Mr. Rezac used the same terms, that there are people who aren't going to be victimized either in their stores or on the streets, and whose daughters are not going to be worried about walking on the streets at night. When speaking about hardened criminals, the fact is that these people are not average Canadians.

We want to make sure that the rights of average Canadians are upheld and that the rights of all Canadians are upheld. But we want to see those who are recidivists and those who commit crimes of violence related to organized crimes and street gangs behind bars. Those are the people Bill C-14 is dealing with, to ensure the worst offenders are unable to endanger the lives of Canadians.

I wonder if you could make a comment on some of those issues.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

There is no question, Mr. Norlock, that we live in a wonderful country. The vast majority of people are law-abiding, outstanding citizens, and they've helped make this the greatest country in the world in which to live.

We do, unfortunately, have a few individuals who have a completely different view of how we should live our lives. I pointed out examples, the people involved with reckless or drive-by shootings, or people bringing drugs into the country. Who is bringing drugs into this country? This isn't somebody who has unfortunately become an addict or who is experimenting with drugs. These are people who are out to destroy Canadian society. That's who they are.

I've had law enforcement agencies across this country tell me that these people bringing drugs into this country are part of organized crime and gangs. They have a mission, and that mission is completely at odds with the vast majority of people in this country.

So when they ask whether this legislation is the whole solution, the answer is no, it's not the whole solution; it's part of the solution. There are so many aspects to this: the work of police, crown attorneys, provincial governments, non-governmental organizations. Of course it needs a complete approach.

You are aware, I know, as your colleagues are, of what we are doing on national crime prevention projects, projects under the national anti-drug strategy, and working with other levels of government and organizations that want to assist individuals. We want that.

The drug courts are a good example. The drug courts do great things in this country. They try to get people out of the system and get them the assistance, the rehabilitation they need. This is in everybody's interest. But at the same time, we can't close our eyes. We have to be aware that there are people who do not share the vision of what this country is all about. We have to do something about that.

So each of these pieces of legislation, this bill you have before you... Shortly thereafter, we put the bill in on drugs. We want to reinstitute the Anti-terrorism Act provisions. That bill has been tabled before Parliament. You saw another piece of legislation this past Friday dealing with the whole subject of credit for time served. These are all steps along the road to overhauling the criminal justice system in this country, bringing it up to date, and responding to the challenges we have.

As Monsieur Ménard said, it's not the same business you were dealing with 15 years ago. These groups evolve; they don't stand still. We have to continually be looking at the legislation to try, as I said, to catch up to the bad guys, to make sure there are no gaps, and that to the extent possible, we reduce the possibility that these groups or individuals take advantage of law-abiding Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Minister.

Do you have time for one more question from Mr. Murphy?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes, by all means.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Murphy.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Go ahead.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Minister.

My question has to do with your response with respect to the definition of criminal organization. I'm not privy to meetings with the provincial attorneys general, but I believe it has been raised that the definition is not as flexible as prosecutors would like. They talk about the difficulty in seeing material benefit, for instance, in some of the acts that are done.

These crimes can be premeditated. Quite often they're done for vengeance or retribution. Unless there's a broadening of the definition, it's difficult to see that a drive-by shooting, which intends to kill or seek retribution against a particular target, is a material benefit. This traps the section in question. This could easily be remedied, and it may be being worked on right now, probably in the bowels of the justice department. Maybe I didn't read it right, but it looked as if the first-degree murder offence for a drive-by shooting still requires the perpetrator to belong to a criminal organization. And I believe there has to be some proof that there's a material benefit.

Am I reading this too finely?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think you have most of it, Mr. Murphy. To go back to the first part of your question, the number of issues that can be and are raised are limitless. In respect of what was at the top of the list for provincial attorneys general, it is credit for time served. As to the definition, extending the prohibitions on certain types of activity and upping the penalties are steps in the right direction.

As I always say, we're not done looking at these things. In the next half hour you have the Department of Justice officials with you, and I'm sure they will be able to expand on that. I'm always pleased to get input on these matters, whether it be from the committee, provincial attorneys general, my colleagues, or law enforcement agencies. We're listening all the time. We want to get it right.