Yes.
Evidence of meeting #6 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #6 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University, As an Individual
I'm glad you asked, because that was something I didn't get a chance to say anything about, and I think it's so complex that this particular offence is going to have this mandatory minimum and this one is going to have this mandatory minimum. It's just not realistic to think that the kinds of crimes committed by people with firearms is going to stop because it's going to be one year more or one year less—number one.
Number two, I think there's a real issue just for me as a citizen and as someone sensitive to families of victims of crime and as a mother and all the rest; there's a real issue about saying that sexual assault with a firearm, for example, is so much further than sexual assault with a machete. Frankly, I see that both are horrible crimes. So I'm just a little concerned about the fact that the mandatory minimums are going in on certain things, not on other things that might be equally horrendous, and that we're presuming that people on the streets, who are out there with illegal weapons, are going to say they'd better not touch this one, they're going to get a year extra. That's my concern there.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
What about the aspect of sending a clear message to criminals, the violent offenders? Do you think that's going to take place?
November 14th, 2007 / 5:10 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University, As an Individual
You put the resources in too. You're going to send your message: if you do it, you're going to be caught. That's what the evidence has told us from before our Law Reform Commission in the seventies. We're doing study after study after study saying the certainty of apprehension and conviction is what's going to really work in terms of lowering crime in the country.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have two questions, and I'd just like a short answer to the first question, which is this. We were talking about discretion, that the discretion still exists for the prosecutor, that even after three offences he does not have to ask for a hearing; he just has to decide whether or not he wants a hearing. So there's still discretion there?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Okay.
Now this is the question I want you to spend the rest of the four minutes on. A couple of the opposition members have, I think mistakenly, suggested, because they want the public to hear in this hearing that this will, and let me just quote, “catch only the worst violators of humanity, the worst of the worst, for the most hideous crimes”. I want you to explain how, in connection with the mandatory minimums, there are going to be people caught who are not the most hideous in society, not the worst of the worst offenders.
5:10 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University, As an Individual
We already see it now with the operation of pre-existing mandatory minimums. For instance, you see a relatively young offender, and you have a fabulous pre-sentence report. Everybody in the community has said there's no history of violence, but the judge has no option but to sentence to the mandatory minimum because the crime was committed with a firearm. We see this regularly, and if you were able to have judges here before you who would be able to talk about this, they would talk about how the quality of justice suffers from their not being able to make those distinctions. You're taking someone who potentially could be a very constructive member of society, putting them into a prison, which is going to be a school for crime, and making them feel that there's no hope and no way out of it. I think that is the sort of situation that makes people a bit anxious.
The problem is that with the 25 designated offences and the 12 primary designated offences, you have a pretty vast blackboard there of offences that will be caught in this.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Sorry, I meant government members were saying that.
I think Mr. Jones wanted to say something.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
Yes, I was just going to ask, Mr. Bagnell. Mr. Jones would like to respond, if that's all right.
5:15 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I guess my question is if mandatory minimum sentences can be seen to work in this situation, why don't we use them for everything? Why do we need judges? Why don't we have politicians passing sentence by remote control? If mandatory minimum sentences work, why aren't they more widespread? Why are jurisdictions backing away from them, rather than running to embrace them?
I think the onus is on defenders of mandatory minimums to show that they in fact deter, because the evidence doesn't.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I would just follow up with Ms. Schurman on the idea that the people who could be put away indeterminately, for the rest of their lives, are not the most hideous, not the worst of the worst. Is that possible under this legislation?
5:15 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University, As an Individual
I think it's absolutely possible under the legislation because of the combination of the burdens, the number of offences, and the taking away of certain discretion on the part of judges. Yes, the prosecutor still has discretion as to whether to make their application or not. But once it's made, in certain circumstances, the judicial discretion has been severely limited.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
I understand, Ms. Schurman, that you have to go because your taxi won't wait.
5:15 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University, As an Individual
I'm very sorry, but thank you again for the invitation.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
Thank you for appearing today.
That concludes our rounds with the witnesses.
I'd like to suspend for about 30 seconds. We do have a vote this evening. The bells will start at 5:30. If we can suspend for 30 seconds to a minute and then come back, we will deal with Mr. Ménard's motion.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
I'd like to get our meeting back to order so we can all make sure we don't miss the confidence vote this evening. I'm sure none of us wants to miss that. I have all the confidence in the world in Mr. Ménard that we will not miss the confidence vote in the House this evening.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
The government must not fall now. Let us look to the future.
Do you want me to explain my motion, Mr. Chair?
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I am prepared to withdraw the first part of the motion if both you and the clerk can confirm that the department officials will be here tomorrow morning from 10:00 to 11:00 o'clock to tell us about the safeguards, namely, if they can prove to us that this bill is reasonably constitutional. Obviously, we must keep in mind that anyone can challenge bills.
Under the circumstances, I think that we could remove the first part of the motion and vote on the second. The second part is very important. Indeed, as part of our duties as parliamentarians, we must be guided by vigilance and information. It is up to the government and the department to show us what has been drafted to date. When Mr. Harris waxed lyrical, in a very unusual moment for him, he told us that there were very competent people in the department, and I agree with him. I cannot conceive of a government that would not be equipped with studies, expert opinions or legal briefs.
I believe that Ms. Jennings or Mr. Lee will present an amendment that we will be supporting. Concerns have been expressed about the right to remain silent, arbitrary detention and section 7. I am prepared to respect the confidential nature of anything that might be suggested to us, but I do not believe that we can vote without having obtained this information. This is just one way of being responsible as parliamentarians.
I therefore withdraw the first part.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
I want to confirm with you, Monsieur Ménard, that in fact the ministry officials have confirmed with us that they will be able to. We have one witness tomorrow morning. We'll have witness time from 9 to 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, and from 10 to 11 o'clock we'll have ministry officials here to respond to your questions, and obviously to questions from all members of the committee, for the duration. In fact, we'll limit the time. They have indicated that they will be here to answer questions more than they will be here to make any presentations, so we'll get a maximum amount of time to be able to ask them questions.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Would it be possible to ask our researchers to draw up a short brief concerning the major precedential principles and the decisions that have been handed down concerning reverse onus? Two decisions have already been quoted. I am aware of two of them, and I am going to reread them. I know this means a great deal of work for the researchers and that consequently, this information will not be available tomorrow. However if it could be distributed to our offices Monday before clause-by-clause consideration, it would be greatly appreciated.