Justice Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'll just get the questions out, and then the minister's passion can overfloweth the cup.

Levitt and Kessler is one you mentioned. But as you know, we have Loftin and McDowell and all these other competing studies that on the whole suggest that the deterrent effect of increased mandatory minimums is not there. The empirical studies don't support your allegations that this will work, and we've seen lukewarm responses on these studies in general.

On the aboriginal aspect, I don't think you fairly answered Mr. Bagnell's question. You make it sound in your answer—and I'll wait until you get your advice before I ask this pertinent question—

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I have to try to remember all your questions.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I know, and I'm going quickly to give you more time to answer, Mr. Minister. We all like to hear you, especially when you say Liberals are tougher on crime than Conservatives. Those are magic words.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

During an election.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

That's what I said. I didn't take you out of context.

On aboriginal crimes involving the disproportionate aspect of aboriginal “incarcerees”—if that's a word—how will paragraph 718.2(e), “Other sentencing principles”, be further honoured by further imposition of mandatory minimums? And more important than what you will say or what I say, do the associations that represent aboriginals—some of which we read today, like that of Chief Brazeau, who is friendly to your government—support your position on mandatory minimums?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let's deal with this issue of the born-again Department of Justice. When I came to the Department of Justice, a very interesting dialogue occurred. We had a wonderful dialogue about the most effective way of carrying out the election promises our government made.

For example, you'll note in our election promise that it was ten years for firearms offences. So we looked at that particular issue and said, is that a proportionate response? That's something the department says. What can be justified is---and they developed the program for us, so that only on a third offence would it be a mandatory minimum ten-year sentence.

I also heard what the Liberals were saying during the election. So I thought, a Liberal saying eight years, let's see where we can work with that. We heard Mr. Comartin during the election, or his party, at least, say a mandatory four years. So we took all those and said, what's a proportionate response? So I had a very good dialogue with the department.

I can tell you I didn't write the bill you have here. It took a lot of dialogue with the department, with interest groups across the country.

Now the suggestion that we should go to the aboriginals and ask what they think about this particular bill.... This is not targeted at aboriginals. The Canadian Police Association, for example, includes many aboriginal organizations as well--police organizations. The CPA has been very supportive of this type of legislation, and I'm sure they've canvassed the police officers in that context.

What we also want to point out is that the bill itself doesn't target the kinds of concerns Mr. Bagnell raised about an individual with a hunting rifle who injures somebody with that hunting rifle. For example, if you had a duck hunter who was down on his luck, who walked into a store, held it up with a shotgun, that wouldn't attract these mandatory minimum prison sentences, other than the existing ones that were put in place, I believe, by your government--the four-year mandatory minimum.

So the issue here is, we are not targeting, nor does the legislation in any way affect, those types of sentencing principles. What we are doing is targeting gang activity and the use of firearms in the context of gang activity, and therefore we believe it's proportionate. It's a proportionate response to a very serious problem.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

So you would just....

Just twenty seconds?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Make it twenty. Your time is actually up.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

So you would say under section 239, attempted murder, if someone tried that three times, the duck hunter down on his luck--and I'm a duck hunter, but I'm not always down on my luck. If you go into a store, or whatever, it's attempted murder. The third time it's a minimum of four years under the 1995 amendments. The third time, if I'm a member of a gang or a criminal organization, it's ten years minimum, and there's a difference because it's a different type of gun.

I'm a duck hunter. I have a shotgun in the first case. In the second case I have a restricted--

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Is this a gang walking into the store--

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

With a restricted weapon.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Even a shotgun, for example.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I was trying to make it very simple, yes.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Five years, first-time gang activity, whereas if it were the duck hunter down on his luck, it would be four.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

But for the duck hunter, the third time it's four years still, minimum. He'll get more, I know that, but it's four years minimum. For the gang member with the shotgun, let's say, for the third time it's ten years.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's right.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Same weapon, different activity, more than double the--

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's right, different context. That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Breitkreuz.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

As you know, I've dealt with this particular issue for quite some time. I find it very interesting that during the election campaign the Liberals took a Conservative approach to this and after it was all over they took a typical Liberal approach, and I think you've already made that observation--being soft on crime.

The other thing I'd like to observe is the demand on the other side for evidence. I find that very interesting in light of the fact that they introduced a firearms registry with absolutely no evidence--and there still isn't--that it was working. Also, I would like to observe that when I listen to their speeches in the House on this particular issue they argue that this won't be effective, and by extension, they would be saying that penalties are not a deterrent. In other words, shut down the prisons and use conditional sentences and all that kind of thing. I find that whole approach absurd. Very often people don't make that observation.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

What they fail to distinguish is a deterrence on the one side and separation and incapacitation on the other. We know there is a direct effect on the crime rate by keeping a dangerous person in jail for a year, for example. We have a very clear impact on the crime rate.

It's the general deterrent effect that is more questionable, and you'll have various studies. I think the point was made by Mr. Murphy that there's probably a need for more studies actually on the deterrent aspect. I don't doubt that for a moment. On the incapacitation, the separation, and the benefit, on the impact on the crime rate, there's no question about that.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

In one of the studies I read on that particular item, and I'm wandering from my original question, they found that by communicating clearly to the criminal element—especially in those regions of the city that were having a problem with gangs—that there were increased penalties, it actually brought gun crime down. Not only do we have to implement this, but we also have to clearly communicate that there is now a much more serious thing.

I throw that out as one of the studies I read about that was very effective in bringing down gun crime.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The same thing can be said on impaired driving, for example. There is a clear correlation between the public education program hand in hand with the stiffer penalties.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I want to pick up on something else that was brought up on the other side--the cost of incarceration. One of the studies I read points out—and I believe this is from Simon Fraser University, but I could be corrected on this—that the cost of not incarcerating could be up to twelve times more than the cost of incarceration. The cost to the victims, the cost to society, is many times greater than the cost of incarceration.

I wonder if you could comment on that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes. For example, and this is something the Surrey Chamber of Commerce pointed out to me, the average cocaine addict steals $1,000 worth of product a day--admittedly, this isn't a gun crime--so the direct economic cost to businesses is $365,000 a year, because cocaine addicts don't take a day off. They need to do their work every single day. So if you actually look at the direct economic cost to a business, the cost is much more expensive than incarcerating that individual.

Now, I'm not talking about the indirect costs of victimization and the deterioration of neighbourhoods, the deterioration of property values. If you do that, the cost is much, much more staggering. Again, when you deal with the issue of incapacitation and separation, apart from deterrents, I think it's a modest thing to say that for every individual you're putting away for one year, twelve other serious offences are not committed. So what is the benefit there?

An interesting argument I heard the other day in question period with respect to the gun registry was that even if the gun registry saved one life, the money was well spent. Quite frankly, there is a much better way to spend that billion dollars, other than on a gun registry, that would save much more than one life. I think while any loss of life is regrettable—any loss of life is regrettable—because we don't have unlimited funds, what's the most effective way in terms of considering all the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, including rehabilitation, all those? What's the most effective way with a person who's been convicted, for example, in the rare situation of three of these serious offences, where he's now facing ten years? I would submit, in that case, from a purely cost-effective point of view, that is the most cost-effective part.