Justice Committee on Sept. 19th, 2006

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

We'll take that up.

The second point is the cost. The numbers are the same. I was surprised, quite frankly. Figures I got from your department, again in that same briefing, would have led me to believe with all of those files—and I recognize that not all of them will end up with people being incarcerated, but if all of them did—the figure actually is a quarter of a billion dollars a year as the cost, for the number of additional people who would be incarcerated, to keep people in a provincial institution across this country. I know the figures vary somewhat from province to province, but on average when you do the mathematics, if that many additional people—if all 5,000 additional files—ended up being incarceration files, the figure actually is closer to a quarter of a billion dollars, not $21 million. So I'm wondering how you came to that calculation.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

As I say, it's—

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

That's just the operational cost. That's not any additional capital cost for what would be required for a number of provinces to build new institutions.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I don't know whether the department official has anything to say to that.

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

I can't remember whether Ms. Kane was at that briefing. I know Mr. Daubney was.

[Catherine Kane, Senior Counsel, Director, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Department of Justice]

I don't recall whether I was there either, but certainly the figure we have been operating with is that the cost of the Bill C-9 reforms to the provinces would be $21.7 million.

Our colleagues in research and statistics obviously looked at all the data and made a number of assumptions. Not all of those people would be in jail, and we wouldn't know exactly how long they would be in jail for, so they looked at average lengths of additional prison time and so on if no conditional sentence were possible. The result was a best estimate of $21.7 million nationally. In some provinces there would be a greater impact than in others, but across all jurisdictions that would be the increase. That's, as the minister said earlier, about 1.7% of the current provincial corrections costs.

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

Ms. Kane, that would mean that of those almost-5,000 cases, approximately one third...that only about 10% of them would be additional incarcerations. I don't know where your department could have drawn that assumption. Who did the assuming?

[Catherine Kane]

We can provide additional information to you through the minister's office about how those figures were reached.

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

Could we have that in terms of these two points: what the assumptions were about how many additional people would be incarcerated, and what assumption they made as to what the daily cost of that is going to be? If they have any estimate of whether it's going to require additional capital cost in the way of providing additional cells, I would like that as well.

[Catherine Kane]

These are estimates that we developed in the Department of Justice. But as the minister indicated, he's meeting with his colleagues in about three weeks, and we expect that they will indicate their costs from their own perspective, because certain information can only come from the provinces.

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

I would be really interested in the assumptions they made.

I'm just going to throw this at you. My discussions with Saskatchewan's attorney general indicated that 80% of the files involving first nations were conditional sentences. So it's hard to imagine that you're going to get only a 1.7% increase in incarcerations in that particular province. It boggles the mind.

Once we get those estimates—and I would like to forewarn the people who made the assumptions—we're going to want those people to appear before this committee.

[Catherine Kane]

As I indicated, those are national figures with a national average. It does vary by jurisdiction, and it has been noted that in provinces with high aboriginal populations, the impact will be different.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the minister for being here.

I have a few questions on the bill. Obviously at some point a line was drawn to indicate that offences with a ten-year maximum sentence were more serious than offences with a lower maximum. So some previous governments, when dealing with the Criminal Code, indicated that those were more serious offences.

The concern I have in my riding is that regarding car theft or another offence with a maximum ten-year sentence, but which wouldn't be categorized as violent—such as theft over $5,000, breaking and entering with the intent to commit an indictable offence, or being unlawfully in a dwelling house—these are in fact serious offences in my constituents' and my own view, and I think in Canada's view, since we all hear about them as members of Parliament.

Could you please comment a bit on what you and the department have heard in consultation with jurisdictions on the seriousness of what we call property offences? As members of Parliament, we hear complaints about a break and enter, and that someone with a serious problem with recidivism—with multiple offences and convictions—received a conditional sentence regarding this property offence, yet he or she is serving time, so to speak, in the very community where the offence was committed.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

This summer I've had occasion to travel across the country. I've been able to speak with most attorneys general about the legislation, not only Bill C-9 but Bill C-10 and some of our other initiatives. Generally speaking, I find good support for the legislation among the provincial attorneys general. The concern that has been expressed is the money concern that has been raised here. There's no question about that. But each attorney general is mindful of the fact that in order to stop this revolving door, especially in respect of multiple property offenders, we have to take steps and that there are costs that are involved.

Let me break up the comments perhaps into two parts. Number one is the concern about the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the multiple offenders in that kind of a context where young offenders literally are stealing dozens and dozens of cars in the course of months and there doesn't seem to be any way of holding them accountable under the present act. As you know, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled that denunciation or deterrence is no longer part of the sentencing process under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. That's quite a startling judgment, but I guess based on how the legislation was drafted, that was an appropriate decision. I'm not saying I agree with the result as a matter of practice, but based on their interpretation.

I've also heard from police and victims groups and others about issues of repeat vandalism, break and enters, auto thefts, those types of so-called property offences, and the impact that it's having on their ability to police, in the case of police forces, or in the case of businesses just simply their ability to operate a business in many of the downtown areas. So these individuals certainly do not see property crime as not a serious offence. In fact, it's driving businesses out of certain areas. It's sending their customers into the suburban areas, away from these downtown areas. So it is a serious social problem that these repeat offenders, those who break into homes, are causing.

The impact on an individual who has had their home broken into is quite significant, especially among the older people, who are at best frightened to go out on the street at night, and once their house has been broken into they are frightened to stay in their own home. It changes the lives of these individuals forever.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you. I'm glad you mentioned it, because that's certainly what I hear, that these are in fact serious offences.

I want to look also at the work that MADD Canada has been doing. I know there's been consultation with victims groups and with other interest groups. I received this press release from MADD Canada's national president. She says: “We strongly believe that a sentence should reflect the severity of the crime. In the case of violent crimes where a person has been killed or seriously injured, conditional sentences such as house arrest and community service are totally inadequate. When a person drinks, drives, and kills or seriously injures another person, that person should have to do jail time.” It goes on to say, “Our courts have to catch up with the public's sense of justice in what is both fair and effective sentencing”, and the national president calls on parliamentarians to pass the legislation. “We would like to see Bill C-9 out of committee and back into the House as expeditiously as possible.”

Can you comment, Minister, in the time you have remaining a bit on the concerns that MADD Canada has and on their support for this piece of legislation and what that means?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, I had the chance to see that same news release, which I understand came out today, and MADD Canada is very supportive of Bill C-9, and in particular, legislation to eliminate conditional sentences for violent crimes. Now, their definition of violent crimes may not be the same as for other members of the committee, but I happen to agree with them in respect of the fact that the people involved in impaired driving causing death or injury or criminal negligence causing death or injury are violent crimes.

Under the bill that was before the House in the last Parliament, there was still an ability for judges to hand out conditional sentences or house arrest under that legislation. This legislation that we're bringing forward does not allow for that escape hatch; conditional sentences or house arrest are not appropriate in those kinds of crimes. I'm glad to see that MADD Canada supports our approach to this very serious problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Mr. Ignatieff, you have five minutes.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Minister, you make reference in your speech to restorative justice. I wanted to note that the justice minister of Saskatchewan has expressed concern about the impact of Bill C-9 on the unique justice programs that have emerged to bridge the gap between aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginal peoples. A specific example of this is the Hollow Water First Nation project in Manitoba. There communities are dealing with extremely serious issues, such as the sexual abuse of children, through court-supervised restorative justice programs. It is very important work that seems to me to have proven its worth.

These are not soft options; these are very determined actions by communities to deal with a horrendous social problem, and they have proven successful, but they depend on that conditional-sentencing capacity of the judge. Have you done any thinking about whether Bill C-9 will negatively affect the capacity of the justice system to work with aboriginal communities to produce these kinds of restorative justice programs that seem to address very serious offences in ways that seem to me--and seem to everybody--to be superior to simple incarceration? Is there some risk that Bill C-9 will simply throw people into jail when there are community solutions that can better deal with the problem?

I have some concern, to widen the frame slightly, that in your concern about judicial discretion you may be doing much more harm than good. This might be an example in which good programs are going to be harmed by your concern, in some cases righteous, about the use of conditional sentencing that is not appropriate; here might be a case in which it really is appropriate, and you might be doing some danger.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'm glad, Mr. Ignatieff, that you raised that issue, because I'm very familiar with the Hollow Water situation, given that I was responsible for it when I was the attorney general of Manitoba. That project was put into place long before conditional sentencing came into effect, so conditional sentencing did not allow that opportunity to arise, as far as I know.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

But would it be harmed, sir, by this legislation? Have you anticipated the potential negative impact of this on a project that you value?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I don't think so. I want to say that I am very much in favour of restorative justice. They have to be dealt with very carefully, but I don't see anything in the former law, which is still in effect with respect to suspended sentences and probation orders, that would prevent the principles of the Hollow Water program from being implemented under that existing law. Conditional sentencing, as far as I know, adds nothing to that.

I could be mistaken as to exactly when the Hollow Water project came into force, but I thought it was in the early 1990s--around 1990 or sometime around then. Conditional sentences only came in in 1995, so I don't see it impacting.

The system was flexible enough to accommodate all of those kinds of programs. If there was really a problem with allowing more conditions or allowing for the imposition of additional conditions, then I think the simplest thing would have been simply to amend the suspended sentences regime instead of bringing in this whole new regime, which caused tremendous problems in terms of enforcement and in terms of understanding it, but we're stuck with that program right now, and I'm trying to make the best of it that I can.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Sir, given the concerns I've heard from the Minister of Justice in Saskatchewan and in consulting last night, in preparation for your appearance here, with judges in Saskatchewan on the front line of this, would you undertake to ensure that Bill C-9 has no negative impact on these positive and useful restorative justice programs?

Your answer is saying you see no reason in principle why it shouldn't, and I take that answer as an answer in good faith, but are you prepared to listen to those people in the trenches in Saskatchewan and Manitoba who have legitimate concerns about this and who have voiced their concerns to me?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Absolutely, and I will also take into account those from these isolated communities who feel victimized by conditional sentences because the perpetrators are back into the community, and they don't feel protected. So it is a difficult balance.

Are there legitimate alternative justice measures that we can maintain and continue on this? Yes, there are. Will I work toward ensuring that appropriate alternative justice programs are available? Absolutely. I don't believe that we have a single-track system, but there are certain offences that are simply not appropriate for this context.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Ignatieff.

Mr. Lemay, go ahead, please.