Evidence of meeting #30 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.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
You have a different perspective of how the courts work than I do, Mr. Minister.
You won't agree with this assumption, but I'm going to make it. My assumption is that there in fact will be a greater number of trials on this for the second and third offence because the penalties are substantially more severe, potentially, than they would be under the present--
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
If I can just interrupt for a second, given your own point that these would be so rare, they would hardly ever occur....
NDP
Conservative
NDP
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
—it dealt with the existing offences, Mr. Minister. Perhaps you should be—
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I was trying not to heat up the room again, Mr. Minister, so I wasn't going to say that.
But with the new offences and the number of additional years, potentially, that they're looking at, I'm making the assumption that the pretrial incarceration rate--while people are waiting for their trials--will go up, and in my home province of Ontario, at least, it's quite severe right now.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Corresponding with that, I'm also concerned about the backlog of cases and the potential for this to increase as a result of this particular bill. Even if you don't assume my assumptions are right, has there in fact been an analysis of the impact on pretrial incarceration--the numbers--and the potential for a further backlog and the risk of being faced with another Askov situation?
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
What's driving the pretrial detention numbers is not mandatory minimum prison sentences but practices that lawyers have adopted and the practice of the courts granting double-time or triple-time credit for pretrial custody. That is a significant issue that needs to be addressed. In my opinion, this will not drive that any higher.
As you indicate, a person being up for a second and third time within ten years is a pretty rare kind of situation. The impact will not be as significant as you suggest, but what it will do is keep those very dangerous individuals in prison for a longer period of time.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for being here. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned by any of my colleagues, but this is at least the fifth time you've been to this committee, and I want to commend you for that. You were here yesterday, and we appreciate your making time available to the committee.
I'd like your comments on a couple of things. One is from the Liberal platform, and I want to read it to you, if you don't mind:
A Liberal government will re-introduce legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence,
--which is exactly what you're proposing here--
and to double the mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun-related crimes.
My read on doubling the sentence for a serious crime would be from a four-year minimum to an eight-year minimum on the first offence.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I'm going to read from the NDP platform:
Increase the mandatory minimum penalty for possession, sale and importation of illegal arms such as hand guns, assault rifles and automatic weapons. Place each of these minimum penalties at four years, up from current one-year penalty. Add mandatory minimum sentences to other weapons offences. Place a four-year minimum sentence on all weapon offences, such as “possession of a concealed weapon”.
My read is that this goes even further in some cases than the government bill.
I appreciate that you and your department have tabled evidence to support Bill C-10. I think it's a well thought out bill. I commend you on the efforts made to make it proportional to the offence and the recidivist nature of some of the crimes.
I also want to give the opportunity to the Liberals and the NDP on this committee to table the evidence they studied to bring this forward in their platform. I'd like to give them the same opportunity you have taken to table the studies they must have undertaken to come up with their proposals and platforms that go beyond what our government bill does. I look forward to your tabling that evidence.
Mr. Bagnell quoted former Justice Minister Cotler who said, "Minimum sentences are sometimes required to send a message of 'denunciation' to potential offenders." I would agree with him on that.
Could you comment on the proportionality and incremental nature of this bill and how it's not as strict as the Liberals' platform, which proposed an eight-year first-time mandatory minimum?
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
Exactly.
I examined the Liberal proposal of imposing a mandatory eight-year prison sentence for a first offence. In my opinion, that was disproportionate. We tried to take the suggestion the NDP made during their election platform, where they said that every firearms offence would be at least a four-year mandatory minimum sentence. We tried to sort out the non-use and use and then do it proportionately.
Instead of the mandatory eight years that the Liberals wanted, we said, all right, raise it on the first offence to five years, on the second offence it will be seven years--again a full year lower than the Liberals--and then only on the third offence will it be a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Rather than use this bull in the china shop approach that the Liberals used--which, in my opinion, ignores some constitutional issues--we wanted to do it on a proportionate basis that would denounce and deter the conduct but not jeopardize the legislation in the manner the Liberals wanted to.
Similarly, with the NDP, I looked at their four-year mandatory minimum for first offences. Again, they didn't discriminate between non-youth and youth. We said, well, on some of these offences that would be too harsh. So we looked at three years on the smuggling and trafficking, as opposed to the four years the NDP wanted. Again, it was a one-year, a three-year, and a five-year sentence, as opposed to this flat four years the NDP wanted to propose.
If you actually look at the proposed legislation we brought here today, not only isn't it indiscriminate in terms of its application, it's very specific to the problem that was identified, which is gangs using firearms in the context of drug-related and other situations.
We've heard about many serious situations. There was a situation where an officer was shot recently, in very unfortunate circumstances, in Windsor. If you look at the facts that were reported in the newspaper, you'll see that our bill targets exactly that kind of activity--that is if those facts that were provided are true.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Minister.
I think some people would find this confusing. If you had asked a couple of months ago, the Liberals and the NDP would have said this bill doesn't go far enough. From what I'm hearing now, they're all saying it goes too far, which is a little surprising. It is just the right balance. It's proportional, and it's targeting a very specific type of offence.
I live in a rural riding, in some parts. Can you comment a bit on a concern in my riding about the two new offences this bill brings in: robbery where a firearm is stolen, and breaking and entering and stealing, or intending to steal, a firearm? We consider these to be very serious. Why are those specific offences targeted by this bill?
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
That's a very good question.
Obviously, firearms come from somewhere. Most of the firearms--95% of the handguns used in these homicides and drug-related crimes--are stolen or otherwise illegally obtained. We don't want to make it easier on the individual who is actually stealing the firearms by breaking into homes. I know that in Bill C-9, the NDP, the Liberals, and the Bloc said that breaking and entering is not that serious an offence because it's a property offence. The point is that many of these handguns and firearms are stolen from people's houses. We want to specifically deter that kind of conduct by increasing the mandatory minimum penalty to three years for a first offence...as well as the trafficking.
We want to dry up the supply of guns. It's not enough that we are strengthening our border patrols, as our government has done, to prevent the flow of guns into Canada. That's very important. We know that many of these guns are coming from the United States. These guns are illegal, and it's important to stop that trafficking.
But we also want to take care of our own house. I don't want to simply blame Americans for our problems if we're not making the effort to stop the breaking and entering into homes where these guns are being stolen. Again, a very key element to drying up the supply of guns is actually taking steps inside of Canada to do that.
To clarify, for break and enter--I might be mistaken--on the first offence, it is a year for firearms, and with a robbery it's three years.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you.
I'll start by asking the minister if he has any data for the 2006 year from Toronto in terms of firearms incidents or firearms homicides. I take it that he doesn't, but--
November 7th, 2006 / 4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Conservative
Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB
I think it was widely reported recently in the newspaper that through very aggressive policing actions we have seen a decrease in gun crime. The point that is made--
Liberal
