Justice Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2006

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I'm going to ask my second question, monsieur le ministre.

Minister, do you think that there is a link between poverty and the potential to join a street gang? I was pleased to see that your government created a $95 million fund. I am not attempting to justify the existence of street gangs, but I would like to know if you think there is a connection between poverty, that is, groups that have historically been underprivileged, and the potential to engage in street gangs activity? What do you think about the balance that we have to maintain, as legislators, between repression and poverty alleviation? What are your thoughts on this?

[The Hon. Michael Bryant]

I agree. We have to have both prevention and the matters that we're discussing in this bill here. Yes. Absolutely. We have to look at everything. It's like the debate around our health care system. Is it just prevention or just treatment? It's everything. We need to prevent, but we also need to address, we need to denounce, and we need to incapacitate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bryant.

Mr. Comartin.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I would be a young offender.

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

You are not young, Réal, not at all.

Thank you, Mr. Bryant, for being here.

I'm concerned about not only this bill, but the whole pile that is coming from this government, creating new offences and putting additional burdens on the criminal justice system, both at the judicial level and at the level of prosecution and legal aid.

In particular, I'm concerned about what I see in Ontario getting very close to another Askov situation in terms of the length of delay we have and the backlog we have. Has your ministry done an assessment of how close we are to being challenged with the same kind of argument we faced in Askov?

[The Hon. Michael Bryant]

If you're asking me whether or not what happened under Attorney General Howard Hampton, where thousands and thousands of charges were thrown out at once, is going to happen again in Ontario in the foreseeable future, the answer is absolutely not. If the question is whether it's possible that of the 500,000 charges that are before the courts every year, there may be one that comes up that is subject to an Askov motion for delay, that may be the case.

If you look over the last three years and if you look at the case flow right now, you'll see that matters are moving through the courts. That isn't to say we don't need that assistance from the federal government on the legal aid front. That is not to say we don't need the assistance to deal with the additional pressures that will come from these bills, as I've said already. But I want people to have confidence in the system. We work very closely with the chief justice and we work very closely with all of our partners in the justice system to ensure that matters are moving through the courts at the appropriate time.

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

For the record, the backlog was created under the Peterson government and was faced by Mr. Hampton in his first few months of office after taking over.

[The Hon. Michael Bryant]

That was before our time.

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

I was just thinking you may have had the same thing left over in your lap from the previous Conservative administration.

[The Hon. Michael Bryant]

I'd agree with that.

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

With regard to an unintended consequence, I don't know if you've heard from the AG of Saskatchewan. He does have a concern about creating a mandatory minimum on B and E and the theft of a weapon. It's a fairly common crime in the northern part of his province, almost exclusively committed by members of the aboriginal community. The theft occurs oftentimes in cottages and camps, and the weapon is not being used for some other crime but simply for going out and hunting. At least, that's how he has recounted it to me.

It's a problem of recognizing the importance and significance of that new offence for Ontario, particularly for the big cities, and probably for big cities in other provinces. But you end up with this other consequence where that particular sector of our national community is going to end up perhaps more seriously affected—I'm not saying targeted—by it than the gang member here in downtown Toronto.

Do you have any suggestions as to how we might be able to take that into account?

[The Hon. Michael Bryant]

I'm not sure I can be helpful.

I know the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, and we've spoken about a number of issues. We haven't spoken about that one. I don't know enough about the specifics on that. Obviously, this committee has to consider what applies to all Canadians in all parts of Canada. Is there a minimum level of behaviour that, no matter where you live, no matter the circumstances, ought to be the subject of criminal sanctions and sentence? I would submit that breaking and entering for the purpose of stealing a firearm meets that threshold, but I'll let the Saskatchewan Attorney General speak for himself.

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

With regard to the bill, has your ministry engaged in an analysis of the risk of a charter challenge for the repeat offender mandatory minimum? Have you done an analysis of that, particularly around the whole issue of proportionality and the courts being pretty reluctant, at least historically, to allow for mandatory minimums at the top end?

[The Hon. Michael Bryant]

I'll be careful on this one.

The Department of Justice has to make an assessment, and the Attorney General of Canada, as you know very well, in essence has to put his stamp of approval that a bill before the House is consistent with the charter. For reasons of solicitor-client privilege, we don't talk about what our constitutional assessment of the bill is. I'll just say that at this stage it really has to stay within the rubric of the federal attorney, and it's something that I understand the committee will speak to and no doubt hear about as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Bryant, thank you for coming. You have made yourself readily available but I know that your position is very demanding. You are the attorney general of Ontario. Naturally, we also have an attorney general in Quebec. Earlier on, you referred to two or three items you would like to see amended in Bill C-10.

First, could you send a hand written copy to the clerk of the committee of what you explained to us?

You stated that there should be an amendment on mandatory minimum sentences. I am trying to quote you according to the translation of your remarks. You are saying that there should be minimum sentences, not maximum sentences. I hope that I understood the translation correctly. Could you expand on this? You are the first person to point us in that direction. I would like to better understand what you mean by that.

[The Hon. Michael Bryant]

On the submission of written materials, I have, as I'm sure may of you do, the dreadful habit of walking into a room with written materials and then departing from them from time to time. I will try to provide some written materials on the issue you spoke to me about.

On the matter of mandatory minimums being floors but not ceilings, I gave the committee an example—one I'm not going to repeat here—of a very serious circumstance involving 23 illegal handguns that could kill a lot of people. The Crown sought ten years on that matter. The sentence that was provided was two years. Under the current bill, depending on which charge is applied, assuming that all the circumstances apply, the minimum moves up from two years to three years. But we would submit, if we were before the court, that three years would not be sufficient. Rather, a three-year mandatory minimum is an expression by Parliament that in fact this is a significant sentence that requires at least three years, and that in serious circumstances such as these, the mandatory minimum and the increase of the mandatory minimum ought to have an inflationary effect upon the sentence. That is pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada decision by Justice Arbour in Morrisey.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

You mentioned earlier—and I am also referring to what was stated by Mr. Blair, the Chief of Police from the City of Toronto—that we need to send a signal, that Bill C-10 would send a good signal in terms of reducing—that is what everybody wants—crime, because the signal would be clear. One can't just talk about statistics. When I speak to my neighbours and they tell me they are afraid, they are not talking about statistics, they are talking about their fear. Fear cannot be measured.

I would like to hear your opinion on this. Based on what you have read and what you have understood from Bill C-10—and you stated earlier that you support it—do you think that the Bill would send a clear signal to the public because young people would see the types of prison sentences being handed down and, rather than choose crime, would decide to do something other than hang out with crooks?

Can you tell us, based on your experience, in your capacity as a lawyer and an attorney general, if you think Bill C-10 could have a deterrent effect on crime, in your own province as well as in Quebec, given that the Criminal Code applies to both?

[The Hon. Michael Bryant]

Yes, it will send a signal. It would send a stronger signal if we amended it to include some offences that dealt with, as I say, possession of a firearm in an unauthorized place and possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle. Further, it would be an error, in my respectable submission—take it for what it's worth—to look only at one purpose and only to look at deterrence. Denunciation and incapacitation would be primary reasons for justifying this bill, but I agree with Chief Blair. Not in all cases, but in some cases, it will act as a deterrent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here. What has been really wonderful about your testimony and the police chief's is that you've mentioned a whole array of things that need to be done. Sadly, and unfortunately, as parliamentarians, we're not doing anything new in almost all those areas. On the few things that we have proposed, the evidence that we've had in many weeks of committee meetings indicates that they won't necessarily work.

I need a quick answer to this one. Do you have a rough estimate of what the attorneys general estimate these new provisions will cost the provinces?

[The Hon. Michael Bryant]

No, I don't have it in front of me, which is not to say the ministry could not put estimates together.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Could you endeavour to get us something?

[The Hon. Michael Bryant]

I will look into it. I don't want to commit to getting something to the committee, but I will certainly look into it.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Although, as the police chief and people mentioned, there are perceptions, we have to make our decisions, as Mr. Ménard said, on facts based on evidence. A lot of the evidence the committee has received is that these things just won't work. George Pataki from New York has backed away from minimum sentences as too expensive and as not working.

As you said, we have minimum sentences already. But we haven't been able to get a witness who can give us any details on how, if at all, they work—not the stats people—and I don't think you've yet given us one evidence-based reason why they would work. One case gone wrong out of 500,000 charges is not enough. I wonder whether your researchers could provide to us or table a document on how these might have been effective.