Justice Committee on May 6th, 2009

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I appreciate that. My sense is that when you have legislation like this, the government as a whole makes the assessment. If one department is going to incur expenditures for another department, the whole of government takes into account all of that, and I just wanted to make sure that has been done, and I'd like at some point to see whether or not that has been done, if you could produce some evidence showing that this kind of assessment was done.

The next question I have is with respect to provincial corrections. In terms of the additional inmates the provincial corrections are going to be housing, from remand facilities into actual corrections, I'd like to know whether or not that assessment has been done and what impact fiscally that is going to have. I know, and you remember perhaps, that about a year ago there was a report done on corrections that said our federal corrections are overcrowded, under-resourced, underprogrammed, and that there are very few skills and training programs for the inmates in the corrections facilities. That's a matter of public record.

In view of that, I'm wondering whether a whole-of-government assessment has been done for the impact this legislation may have.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I can tell you that provincial attorneys general tell me this is going to unclog provincial detention centres because most of the people there are on remand, waiting. They said they will have fewer people in provincial correctional institutes. They will be better able to deal with them. With respect to federal correctional institutions, I've been assured by my colleague the Minister of Public Safety that the capacity is there.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

It's the federal corrections I was actually more referring to, in terms of the report.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Okay. Fair enough.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

There is a report--and I forget the name of the corrections person, the head of corrections for this kind of investigation, who did the report. It was done, I believe, in the context or around the time of the death of Ashley Smith. I remember that vividly. I just forget the name of the individual. He was very clear that the federal corrections are underprogrammed and under-resourced. They have very few skills training programs, and the corrections facilities are in a dilapidated condition. They're overcrowded.

In view of that, I believe this legislation is going to mean we're going to send perhaps more people into federal corrections than before, and I want to know whether the federal system is prepared.

The name of the individual was Howard Sapers, and it was the Sapers report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have fifteen seconds to respond.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, Mr. Dosanjh, you might address that question to the Minister of Public Safety. He has assured me we are prepared and the capacity is there to deal with this. There are programs in place at federal correctional institutions. I'm not here as the Minister of Public Safety.

You know, many of them started under your present party's administration in this country. The programs didn't just start when the Conservatives took power in 2006; they have been ongoing. So again, we will continue to build on those, and I know I'm speaking on behalf of the Minister of Public Safety when I say we will continue to do that.

But the capacity is there. We've got to move on this. This is just what this country now needs, and this should have everyone's support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Moore, you have five minutes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here and for your testimony today on this bill.

I've got to tell you that this is really welcome, certainly in my province, in my constituency. I think you had mentioned bringing administration of justice into disrepute in your opening remarks. That is exactly how it is seen by, certainly, my constituents and indeed some of the people this committee has heard from--that this is a major impediment to the public's seeing that justice is being served.

I want to quote a couple of provincial attorneys general, just to get your comments.

Alison Redford in Alberta says Bill C-25 will allow them to “correctly move these cases more effectively through the courts”.

Then Cecil Clarke in Nova Scotia says Bill C-25 “will ensure that an individual serves the amount of time in a correctional institution appropriate to the crime that has been committed”.

We've heard some evidence on this at this committee, but could you comment on the disincentive for legal counsel or for an accused to move their case through our provincial court systems in as speedy a way as possible with the current system?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Moore, and thank you for all you do as one of my two parliamentary secretaries. You and Monsieur Petit have been very helpful with our justice agenda.

I'm pleased, as well, that you have quoted Cecil Clarke, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia. He has been very helpful and very supportive of our crime agenda. Allison Redford from Alberta, as well, has been very supportive. They're doing it for the right reasons. They want the system to work.

People want to have confidence in the criminal justice system. If you analyze and dissect the elements of a successful society, a successful country, people look to see if there are parliamentary institutions that work. Our parliamentary institutions work in this country. But they also want to make sure there is a justice system that works as well. There is no finer justice system than the one we have in Canada, but we must be vigilant all the time to maintain public confidence in that system. And certainly this is a component of that.

I was out in British Columbia about a month ago, and the attorney general was pointing out a case of a guy who didn't want to have a bail hearing because he wanted to be racking up two-for-one credit. I practised some criminal law in the early eighties, and I had never heard of such a thing. You went and saw your client, and the first thing they wanted to do was get back out onto the street after a bail hearing. But the attorney general was telling me that this individual said, “Skip that. I don't want any bail hearing. Just let me sit here.” So presumably, if and when he's sentenced, he gets this credit of at least two for one.

This is not what we need in this country. This doesn't make sense. We want people to get justice in a timely manner. We want this to be done in a fair way, and we don't want to have any incentive for anybody to have delays in the system.

On the main estimates, we talked about some of the challenges in having access to justice and in making sure the court system works. Well, this is an important step in the right direction for making sure there is no incentive for slowing down the criminal justice system. And it gets slowed down under this particular system, so we have to move forward.

Again, I thank you, and I appreciate your support and comments on this.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

That's one of the things. There's the truth in sentencing aspect, but I know from what I hear from constituents and from Canadians that they are frustrated about the two for one and the three for one. But there is also the frustration about the length of time it takes for a successful resolution. So I'm glad to see that at least provincial attorneys general seem to think this will, in a way, kill two birds with one stone.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

It will get the system moving faster, but also there will be more favourable outcomes.

I thank you for your work on this. You've certainly been keeping our committee busy with these bills. But they're needed, and we appreciate it.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you for your comments.

Everybody wants to have a resolution of these matters. They want to expedite approaches. They want to move forward. It shouldn't be in anybody's interest to have a delay or a slowdown. We want people to get justice. We want their cases to be heard. The people who apply for bail should want to apply for bail, because that's appropriate. And where it's appropriate not to give them bail, we want to have that very clear.

People want to have their trials. They want to have their matters heard, and we have to do what we can to make sure that they obtain that justice that all individuals deserve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll have Monsieur Petit, and then we're going to go to Mr. Ménard and then Mr. Comartin.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have five minutes.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much.

Minister, I want to begin by thanking you and the officials who are with you today for coming to discuss Bill C-25 with the Committee.

I will make a couple of preliminary comments, just to be certain that I am understood. I also have a specific question for you.

Imagine an individual is kept in preventive detention prior to his trial. Two types of individuals are subject to remand in custody. There are those who are being charged for the first time, and those who already have a criminal record, but committed another criminal offence while not in custody. Many people, when a trial is mentioned in the newspapers, see an individual coming to court for the first time. Under the old system, the time spent in preventive detention counted double, as they say. Also, people see a criminal they heard about in the newspapers and then, when he is arrested and remanded in custody, he is given the same thing—a credit of two-for-one. Naturally, the penalty is different when the sentence is handed down, but the period in preventive custody counts double.

When you introduced this bill on behalf of the department, did you consider the question of equality? Everyone has to be equal before the law. Is that one of your goals? I read the bill and it is excellent, but were you seeking equality? It is important to consider the fact that one individual has never been convicted, but the other one has. In this case, everyone ends up on an equal footing.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm not so sure it's so much an equality issue, Monsieur Petit, as it is a fairness issue. You're quite correct that for people who have a record of violating bail, or who, because of their criminal record, are not achieving bail, we are treating them slightly differently. We're saying that the discretion that is allowed and provided for in this bill is not open to them. I think most people can understand that. You shouldn't get any benefit for being detained if there are legitimate reasons for you not to make bail.

That being said, we give guidelines. We still provide some discretion, as you can see. In my deliberations with provincial attorneys general and in hearing from Canadians, there were some who asked why we didn't just make the rules standard one and a half to one. There were some who said to just make it one to one. You have a bit of a combination of both. The general rule is one to one, but where a judge wants to make a finding and wants to give reasons, that discretion is open to them. That too, I think, is appropriate.

There's a number of things that could happen to an individual. You could have somebody, for instance, who has language problems, who doesn't speak either of the two official languages, so that is a reason for a delay in getting them before the court. You could see in a case like that where an individual may ask to avail themselves of the discretion the judge has in terms of a one and a half credit, because it's through no fault of their own that the matter has been delayed or that it's been problematic to bring it before the courts. We do give that discretion. I think that's appropriate and I think that's been well received as well.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

One minute.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

That will complete my questions, Minister.

Also, I want to thank you for introducing Bill C-23 in the last session of the 39th Parliament; that bill dealt with the language of the accused and was passed. I have spoken to prosecutors in the Quebec City region, where I am from, and I can tell you that this legislation has made it possible to introduce new procedures which are having a very positive effect in terms of official languages, as well as for individuals who speak a language other than the language of the judge. I am Francophone and I know that there can be cases…

On behalf of my constituents, I want to express my sincere thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Monsieur Petit.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's a very good point, Monsieur Petit. I'll just take one second to answer. That was very difficult. That was the bill I referred to. It took a decade to get it through.

I'm very pleased that you would say that and point out that it is really a step in the right direction. I hope that any other bills that address efficiencies, that help expedite the process, and that make the system fairer can get that kind of attention so that they won't take 10 years to get through the system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Monsieur Ménard, five minutes.