Justice Committee on Sept. 19th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard....

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

No, I asked the question; that's my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Please allow the minister to complete.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I find it unacceptable that you do not have an answer with respect to violent crimes. That is the crux of this debate. I was expecting you to be able to answer. It is your responsibility to do so. We are here specifically to consider this bill.

What will this mean for incarcerated individuals? I'd like to remind you, as to the two-year provision, that you are about to download the responsibility for incarceration to the provinces. In Quebec, Manitoba and the maritime provinces, how many people will end up in provincial jails? What kind of costs will that amount to for each of these provinces? We are entitled to expect figures from you that are more specific than the rough estimates you have provided for us. It is your responsibility as an elected representative and the Minister of Justice to do this, not the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. So, we want to deal with you.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you. I'll just continue with my answer.

Our position was not that the legal system is inappropriate, but that this law is inappropriate. The courts are entitled to interpret the law, and the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision, in respect of the conditional sentences, that went completely contrary to the undertaking that was given to the Canadian people by the government at the time. Therefore, I was simply bringing forward examples of cases where this had not in fact been followed, and which demonstrates that the assurances made were not being carried out in reality. Obviously, there was a disconnect between the intended application of the law and the actual application of the law.

I've indicated that the most appropriate body will be bringing forward those statistics. I would rather not guess; I'd rather not give this committee the statistics second-hand. But I can tell you that a conditional sentence is only imposed in approximately 5% of all cases. The most frequently imposed sentence in Canadian courts is a probation order, which is approximately 47%. In 2003--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I'm sorry, Minister, but you are not answering my question.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'm going to continue with that answer anyway.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Your officials provided us with these statistics. You are not answering my question. I expect you to answer my questions.

You have to acknowledge that your bill is ideological in nature and has nothing to do with criminality as it plays out in communities.

When you appeared with Stockwell Day at a press conference, you had no rigorous arguments to make, no statistics to support your bill. You can't possibly expect to get opposition party support on the strength of the weak arguments you have put forth.

So, if we're talking about putting people who commit violent crimes behind bars, we Bloc members agree.

I was the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve when there was a car bombing in 1995. That is when I tabled the first anti-gang bill. I know full well that there are circumstances where incarceration is called for. What I'm worried about, is that you have been unable to distinguish violent offences from non-violent ones.

So, I have a very specific question to put to you and I do not want to hear political philosophy as an answer. Why did you not amend section 718 of the Criminal Code to make sure that under sentencing principles, the judiciary was asked not to hand down conditional sentences for violent crimes?

Let's add another objective to section 718. I'm prepared to vote in favour of that and I'm convinced my colleagues will do the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard, will you put your question?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

However, don't try and push through a Richard Nixon or George Bush-type bill simply because you look to the United States for inspiration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Put your question. Your time is up.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

My question is the following. Why not amend section 718 to distinguish between violent and non-violent crimes?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

In 2003 and 2004, there were 15,493 conditional sentences imposed in the country. I anticipate that after Bill C-9 is passed, some offenders who have committed offences and who are no longer eligible for house arrest will receive probation while others will receive a custodial sentence. And based on that year's statistics, about one-third of conditional sentences, or 5,784 of the 15,493, will be ineligible for conditional sentence.

If Bill C-9 is narrowed by eliminating property offences, 2,634 of the 15,493 offenders who received a conditional sentence in 2003-2004 would be ineligible for a conditional sentence. So what I'm saying, Mr. Chair, is that we can narrow this, but the issue isn't violent sentences or sentences for violent crimes alone. The issue is for serious property offences. It may be all right in some members' communities that houses are broken into at a regular rate and that's considered simply a property offence, but I can assure you that the people in my community--and I dare say across Canada--don't consider that simply a property offence. In my opinion, you are violating the personal security of individuals when you break into their homes in that fashion.

I've indicated I'm open to this discussion. I don't understand the hostility of the member. I am open to looking at some of these issues. I'm willing to look at those issues. The organization--

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Time is up.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. The organization with the best statistics will be here, will provide. So rather than trying to do it in a heated political fashion, we will try to do it in a rational, informed way. I will do whatever I can, but I can assure you that the most appropriate body will bring those statistics forward.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You must know these statistics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Mr. Comartin, you have seven minutes.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me go back to the cost. Those figures I was just looking at, Mr. Minister, from the briefing that your department gave us back in May of this year, the same figures that you just quoted of roughly 15,500 conditional sentences in Canada.... I think that was in 2003. I didn't note the year. It was 2003?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It was for 2003-2004.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

So that was the last year we had statistics for. Under Bill C-9, roughly a third of them would no longer be available. You make the point--let me address that first--that some of these may end up with probationary sentences. Mr. Minister, my sense is that a probationary sentence is more restrictive and gives the community more control of the convicted person than a conditional sentence would. Do you agree with that?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, I've raised that personally with a number of judges. They didn't seem to think so.

I guess it depends on the jurisdiction you're in. In some jurisdictions the types of conditions that can be imposed under a suspended sentence and the probation order are quite broad. Some have indicated to me they are virtually identical to the conditional sentence.

My own problem with conditional sentences is not in theory but with why we have them at all. Why don't we simply amend probation orders, if there is an issue with respect to them? The probation orders are much easier to enforce than conditional sentences. During a two-year suspended sentence, for example, you can bring back the person at any time in the course of that sentence and resentence the individual and really hold the person accountable for the full two years. You can't do that with a conditional sentence, and that's one of the serious concerns about a conditional sentence.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Obviously, I have to throw back at you, Mr. Minister, that you're the minister now; this is the bill you presented to us. I have had similar thoughts, wondering why we have conditional sentences. Why did we create this new methodology for dealing with convicted persons? But you're the minister, so let me—

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, let me answer that. Politically the former government tried to leave the impression that what we are doing is putting people in prison in the community. That's what the cases say; they are serving a sentence of imprisonment in the community. Everybody knows that is a charade, and I think it's that kind of language that brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Why aren't we simply more straightforward with Canadians?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

But then, with Bill C-9 you're perpetuating this.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

What we're trying to do is at least limit the disastrous impact of this kind of bill.

If you're saying to me, “Let's eliminate conditional sentences entirely and just increase the availability of probationary orders”, you might want to talk about that.