Evidence of meeting #13 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was serious.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
--and the courts then say, “Oh, I'm sorry, we can't enforce that restitution order for you; you have to get a civil order and go against the gang member personally.”
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Minister, a lot has been spoken of today about the discretion and this somehow taking away discretion. But my understanding of the bill is that where a prosecutor in his or her discretion determines that an offence perhaps is on the less serious side, when they look at all the possible offences or situations in which that offence could have taken place and they determine it's on the less serious side, if they proceed by way of summary conviction instead of indictment, there is still the possibility of having a conditional sentence. I would say that is still keeping a good deal of discretion at the level of the crown prosecutor. Do you have any comments on that?
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
No, I think that's a correct observation where the offence is less serious. This is done on a regular basis in the courts. Where an offence is described as a hybrid offence, the crown can proceed by either indictment or summary conviction. The crown does this every day, thousands of times, and makes that kind of distinction.
So in those cases of a summary conviction offence or where the offence proceeded by way of summary conviction, it wouldn't then fall under the prohibition against conditional sentences being imposed. So in regard to the concerns that some of the opposite members have indicated about whether in those minor cases, shouldn't there still be the discretion, that discretion exists not only in that context but also in the context of suspended sentences and probation orders.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I've heard a lot of talk about whether some of these offences are serious or less serious. Even though Parliament has already determined that these are in the range of more serious offences in our Criminal Code, you hear talk that somehow some are serious and some aren't serious. But I haven't heard people enumerate which ones then should be pulled out and I haven't seen a clear--
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
What might be a serious crime? We know that in B.C. there's been serious crime with car theft. That might not be as big an issue in my riding, but maybe in someone else's riding it's cattle theft. The victims--and I think it's important that we don't lose sight of the victims--don't want to see someone who has just stolen their car, stolen their cattle, stolen their property, or in the case of a serious break and enter, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, right back in the community. That would be what I think many of us are hearing, that these are the more serious cases and therefore this person should not be serving the sentence back in the community.
How can we look at this from the victim's perspective? When someone in their dwelling house--you talked about that--has experienced a break and enter, is that not a case where a person needs to feel that justice has been served? I think that sometimes this gets lost in our discussion if we move too quickly to looking at the perpetrator, that sense of whether justice has been served in someone's individual case.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
I think that's very important, and of course you're bringing up another issue where our government has set aside $26 million to enhance victims services across Canada. We think this is very important. It's not only important to give victims a voice, which we believe this funding will help, but to give them an effective voice. Part of it needs to be, of course, an appropriate sentence.
The issue of break and enters, of course, affects people on a regular basis. My son told me two days ago that his apartment was broken into, and not only was his property stolen, but some of my property was stolen. Was that reported to the police? No. People don't report those kinds of things to the police any more because they know that there are no consequences. Do I report that to the police? Does my son report it to the police? No, because it's simply felt that whatever happens, there will be no consequences.
In contrast, I can tell you that in some of the American states, like Florida.... A person was telling me that his car was broken into, along with ten other cars, and they had a forensic unit down there immediately. They took DNA samples from some blood immediately. People were arrested; they were brought to justice. You don't see repeat offenders in that jurisdiction, especially in terms of property crime, because they take property crime very seriously.
Unfortunately, I think because of what our laws have done over a period of time, people say, “You know, I kind of like that article, but what's to be done?” I think that this unfortunate attitude needs to be changed, and we can change it by giving victims an effective voice, not only by allowing them to have a more meaningful say in the court process, but also with effective sentences that speak of deterrence and denunciation and of your property being worth something--the fact that you go out, you get a job, you work for these things--and nobody is entitled simply to steal.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you.
With respect to your last response, I wouldn't refer to the American system. It's one of the worst in the world and it has one of the highest incarceration levels, and most of those people have reoffended because the incarceration didn't work.
My question will be related to the victims. We're very concerned--the three opposition parties--about the victims, and we want to protect them, the ones you have talked about who are revictimized, like the aboriginal people, and those people who have not yet been victims. I would propose that this law could make society less safe and create more victims, as opposed to fewer, in three ways.
First of all, for those items where you can only proceed by indictment, some prosecutors who are very reasonable people will not prosecute, because they know that it doesn't make sense for society or for the person for him to go to jail.
