Justice Committee on May 16th, 2006

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

You are here, really, so we can ask you about the estimates. Mr. Minister, in that regard, Bill C-9 and Bill C-10 will clearly result, in both cases, in substantially increased incarceration at both the provincial level, under Bill C-9, with the changes you're proposing to make on condition of sentences, and in Bill C-10 at the federal level because of mandatory minimums.

I know I'm going over what Mr. Ménard has raised, but when your department briefed us they indicated that we presently have about 15,500 conditional sentences in the country and that the conditional sentences provisions contained in Bill C-9 would reduce that by roughly a third, a little more than 4,500 to 5,000. Those people, in the vast majority of cases, at least two-thirds, if not three-quarters of them, will end up in provincial jails. My calculation is--and I've gotten this from two different ministers at the provincial level--that it's costing about $125 a day to keep somebody incarcerated in one of our provincial jails. If you do the mathematics, I think it works out to $51,000 or $52,000 a year. If you multiply that by the 4,000 to 5,000, just those changes will cost the provinces in the range of $200 million to $250 million. Has that been taken into account, either by yourself or by the Minister of Finance, in terms of assisting the provinces to respond to this increased demand for incarceration?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, and I do want to respond to your earlier comments about the crime rates. I will file these statistics because these are all Canadian stats.

The proportion of violent crimes involving firearms has increased about 10% in the last few years. It is particularly critical for handgun crimes. Handgun homicides have increased about 25% since the late 1990s. Increases in the use of handguns are also reported by the police in robberies, extortion, and miscellaneous violent crimes. In 1993, victims of gang-related homicides as a portion of all victims of homicides made up 2.1%. They now account for 15.3%. These are just some of the statistics. So handgun violence and gang-related violence are clearly on the rise.

I can repeat the statistics that I gave earlier with respect to sexual assault, for example. Here are some interesting statistics. Sexual assault rates increased significantly after the legislative changes in 1983. From 1983 to 1993, sexual assault rates increased 158%, averaging an increase of 10% per year. In 2004, 98% of all sexual assaults were classified as minor sexual assaults. I don't understand what a minor sexual assault is. I would consider a sexual assault to be a sexual assault. For the whole 35-year period--that is 1970 to 2004--rates of sexual assault increased 45%. That's 1.1% per year. So, again, statistics have not shown that these crimes are going down. The numbers of violent and serious offences keep on rising.

I just want to put that on record, and I'm willing to dispute those bold assertions that somehow crime is dropping. Ask people in downtown Winnipeg, north end Winnipeg, what they think about crime 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and today. Ask people in downtown Toronto whether the crime situation with respect to violence is getting better. It's in fact getting worse.

I was very pleased to see the NDP come on board during the federal election with mandatory minimum gun sentences of four years, and to hear your own comments stating that sentences between five and seven years were constitutionally acceptable for violent gun crimes. So I'm very pleased that I could bring forward legislation that corresponds to some of your comments. Certainly, by the third time someone is convicted of a youth gun crime, 10 years is not an inappropriate sentence. Imagine a person being caught with a firearm in a violent crime three times in a row and 10 years not being a sufficient penalty. I'm pleased to see that you're supportive of that direction, if not the specifics of the legislation.

With respect to the two bills, Bill C-9 and Bill C-10, I'm very pleased that in my conversations with provincial attorneys general, while we haven't had a discussion regarding any particular impact of those bills, they have generally been supportive. In fact, the NDP attorney general in Manitoba has been calling for exactly these measures for years in order to deal with the gang problem that is spiralling out of control in areas like Winnipeg and Toronto and moving into other cities.

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

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin and Mr. Minister.

Mr. Thompson of the Conservative Party.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you very much.

May I say to the minister, not only is it a pleasure to see you here, but I wish you well in your new appointment. I'm going to miss you sitting beside me, but I'm sure you won't miss me. You will be hearing from me. And you'll be glad to hear that I will be very gentle to the new minister in comparison to the past.

There are some things I would like to mention. I think it's great that you are looking at the stats going back to 1970 and that you're looking at the bigger picture of where we're at in this country in terms of serious crime. I really hope we can look at that avenue as being very effective.

I want to mention how pleased I am to see the age of consent being mentioned in your talk. I think you know what that means to me personally, and only this last week, with 14- and 15-year-olds being taken out of the sex trade in Calgary. It's just really good news. We have to start doing something about these children who get caught up in these kinds of messes.

And I'm pleased to hear your comments and views on section 745. I appreciate that.

I'll make this comment. I believe that Bills C-9 and C-10 are a step in a direction that could create a great deal of deterrence, and when you deter crime, then of course you're going to have less crime. I think that's the object of any government: what we can do to have less crime.

The two points I would like you to comment on before any others are two that have bugged the devil out of me for a long time. Number one, having worked with Paul Gillespie and other police forces across the country with regard to child pornography, I am so pleased with their efforts. And I'm extremely pleased to hear that Bill Gates and software companies are coming aboard and formulating international ideas to deal with this evil multi-billion-dollar industry.

I would like your comments on where we're going with child pornography. And may I suggest mandatory minimums should be considered for offenders using child pornography.

Second, one of the things that has bugged me the most is the amount of money we spend on courts. For example--and this is one example of many I've had--about seven our eight years ago, a fellow by the name of Christopher Goodstoney had a head-on collision that killed four young people from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. At his initial trial he pled guilty. He was driving drunk. That was the start of it. Five years and eighteen court cases later, they finally came to the sentencing of Christopher Goodstoney. For the life of me, I cannot understand what causes these lengthy court trials, particularly in these most obvious cases. Yet there are many of them. Could you address that?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I can try to answer some of those questions, Mr. Thompson. I certainly appreciate your unflagging support in the protection of children and the work you have done in that regard over the years. I appreciate that very much. I know that if we fail to address those issues to your satisfaction, I'll be the first one to know directly from you. So I certainly appreciate it. And I appreciate the work that Paul Gillespie and the squad there in Toronto have been doing so diligently over the last number of years. This unit is a shining example of what dedicated police officers can do on behalf of the children of Canada, and indeed of our society. To see him working in such a difficult area.... I can only imagine seeing that day in and day out. Some of us who have been involved in prosecutions and the like only see glimpses of what these individuals see on a daily basis. It truly is horrendous.

I also wanted simply to mention the issue of raising the age of protection to age 16. We believe this is very important. As you know, our goal is not to criminalize consensual sex between youth. We would be proposing some kind of close-in-age exemption. Some of the child protection groups have lobbied for a five-year close-in-age exemption so there wouldn't be prosecutions where the age difference between them was less than five years. We would retain, however, the two-year close-in-age exemption for those under age 14.

The problem with the existing exploitation of youth section in the Criminal Code is that it essentially puts the burden on the child on the stand to say that, yes, I'm a 14-year-old child and I think there was consensual sex with this 40- or 50- or 60-year-old individual. The children should not be placed in a situation where they are grilled as to whether there was consent at that age. It is reprehensible that it continues in our courts today. We need to change that. That is why we want to raise the age of consent and the age of protection to age 16, so that where these adult predators are taking advantage of our children, our children aren't put on trial. It's the predator who is put on trial. So we are committed to working with respect to those kinds of issues.

The other issue you mentioned is the one of delay in terms of courts. It is a significant problem, and I think we have to work in partnership with the courts in order to resolve those issues. But there are things the government can do. As a result, for example, of Supreme Court of Canada decisions on R. v. Stinchcombe, there is a requirement to deliver, essentially, every shred of paper to the defence in order that a full and proper defence can be mounted on behalf of someone charged with a crime.

We have to then look at the situation. If we are already providing this paper documentation, essentially by way of a preliminary hearing, why do we continue with the existing preliminary hearings? Why do we subject witnesses to two grillings by defence lawyers when in fact there should be one trial? There is no constitutional requirement for preliminary hearings. Indeed, in many serious crimes now, especially in those crimes where there are significant drug deals, or in gang-related situations where you don't want your witnesses intimidated in the interim, you can go by way of direct indictment and move the matter more quickly to trial--so there's a fully, constitutionally sanctioned trial on the merits--and have that one hearing.

Those are things that I think we should be looking at. You as a justice committee should be looking at ways of trying to improve it. So as the courts have moved our justice system along to ensure that constitutional rights are protected, other things that are not constitutionally required are now being essentially duplicated. And one has to wonder whether they are, in fact, otherwise required.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Ignatieff, please.

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

Thank you.

Minister, we need to be tough on crime, no question about that, but we also need to be smart about crime, and if we're going to propose new criminal justice measures they have to be evidence-based.

You're citing some Stats Canada stuff, but I'm looking at the Stats Canada report that says Canada's crime rate, based on data reported by police services, fell 1% last year. Violent crimes fell. Robberies with a firearm continue to decline. I don't want to get into a futile exchange of statistics, but let me just say that you can't come back to this committee with Bill C-9 and Bill C-10 unless you have an evidence-based case that justifies it. This side of the House is unconvinced by your numbers, with due respect. Also, we can't base public policy on the basis of perception. We have to have some evidence base to justify the measures you propose. The case, with respect, is simply not proven on the basis of the Statistics Canada stuff I've got.

The second issue I'd raise is that my constituents in Etobicoke--Lakeshore are as concerned about crime as your constituents in Winnipeg, but they want a balanced approach, Minister, and I'm questioning whether there is balance here. Is there enough real investment in crime prevention? Is there enough investment in youth justice programs that avoid incarceration wherever possible?

What I see in this basic strategy is an excessive emphasis on incarceration. So there are two questions. Number one, do you have, in discussion with the public safety minister, some clear numbers about what are the financial implications of the necessary expansion in correctional services that are going to be required? I don't think we've heard a clear answer to that question. What is this going to cost, Minister? Number two, can you assure that we've got balance here? You seem to be relying almost exclusively on incarceration.

If I could introduce one personal note, I spent three years in a maximum security prison every Tuesday night doing volunteer work. The conclusion I drew from being in a maximum security prison--and no one is less soft on crime than me--is that an exclusive reliance on incarceration makes almost everybody who goes through the system worse. You're going to have to convince the public that an exclusive reliance on increased incarceration is actually going to solve the problem you want to solve. And on the evidence that I've seen, the case is just not proven.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, in response, I can simply suggest to look at it in a generational context. Don't look at it simply in one year or two years. Quite frankly, a 100% increase in some areas of violent or dangerous crime is simply not acceptable, whether it's in a generation or 10 years.

What concerns us, and what specifically drives these bills, for example, is the percentage of handgun homicides that we are now seeing, the increase of about 25% since the late 1990s. And there are others.

I would invite you to ask the chiefs of police to come and talk about the gang activity that is going on in your city. I've received briefings about the sophistication of gangs and how gangs are now controlling the streets. And they're not simply isolated pockets of street gangs, but they work together now with the more mature gangs, if I can use that word, in order to advance criminal enterprises.

So what these bills do, and specifically the one on mandatory minimum penalties, is focus on gun crime and ensure that those gang- and gun-related issues are dealt with.

Mayor Giuliani has an impressive track record. He just recently spoke to an audience in Winnipeg, and I got reports back from that. Essentially, he would agree with you, I think, that you need to have all of these preventative programs in place. They're very important. But what he also made clear is that if you don't deal with the crime on the street, the money spent on social programs simply will not work. You need to deal in a very forceful way with crime on the streets. And his track record is one to be envied. The murder rate now in New York City is lower than it was in 1963. In the mid-1990s, 2,200 people a year were being murdered in New York City. Now the number is somewhere around 550. Now, 550 people is a lot of people, but when we look at the measures he took with respect to being firm with crime, 1,500 more people are living in a year than before.

To me, when you talk about a balanced approach, what could be more balanced than saving 1,500 lives? To me, that is important.

When I talk to an aboriginal man or woman in the north end of Winnipeg, where the streets are ravaged by gangs and owned by gangs.... What is balanced about being frightened to come out, not just at night but in the evenings and during the day? What's balanced about that? The gunmen and the drug dealers need to be off the streets. And I can tell you, the social programs, the economic programs, and the community programs will work in that case.

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

Minister, we don't need to get into a competition here. One of my constituents lost their nephew to gun crime before Christmas, so I've looked into the eyes of people who've lost their children to gun crime. We don't need to get into a competition about this.

But balance needs to be proven in the estimates. What I'm saying to you is there is a focus on incarceration here that needs to be balanced with a lot of other things. You're going to have to prove to me that throwing a lot of kids into double-bunk penitentiaries is actually going to reduce the rates.

Everybody wants the same result, sir. We all want to get crime down. But you're going to have to come to us with a better evidence-based approach to prove that increasing incarceration rates is going to get you where we want to go. That's my point.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

What we know, sir, is that the strategy that has been adopted to this point has not worked. The crime statistics, the gang statistics--

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

What evidence do you have here? We have clear StatsCan evidence over the last 15 years that the chief determinant of crime rates has been rising prosperity, rising opportunity for youth, rising opportunity in youth employment. Those are crucial determinants of the crime rate, and I'm sure you'd agree.

So you can't come to the committee claiming that it's all been a disaster for the last 13 years. It's simply not factually correct.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, I can go back to the Canadian stats that say handgun homicides have increased about 25% since the late 1990s. To me, that is not evidence of success. That's evidence of failure. My constituents are concerned about these crime rates; your constituents are concerned.

And when we talk about balance, it's not simply saying, “Well, if we spend $250 million on prisons, then we have to spend $250 million on crime prevention”. That isn't balance. What is balanced is effective programming, and if you want to leave the gunmen and the drug dealers on the street, I don't care if you put a billion dollars into social programs in downtown Toronto, it's not going to work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Freeman.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Good day, Minister. Thank you for being here today.

My first question concerns the judicial appointment process. On February 27 last, you chaired the special committee that reviewed the appointment of Justice Rothstein to the Supreme Court. Despite the apprehensions of some observers, including the Chief Justice, the exercise turned out to be a very positive one and highly educational from a public standpoint. Did the department do an in-depth analysis of the review exercise after the fact? Would you be so kind as to share your thoughts on this exercise with us?

I also have a question for you concerning Supreme Court justices. As we all know, barring exceptional circumstances, there is a mandatory retirement age in place for judges. Our feeling is that this requirement gives the court a certain measure of stability. Given that fact, do you think it would be wise to use this stability to our advantage and continue to reflect on the judicial appointment process, or do you think last February's exercise should become a permanent one?

Furthermore, during the 38th Parliament, you were actively involved in the work of the justice committee's Subcommittee on the process for appointment to the Federal Judiciary. Do you still feel this subcommittee should pursue its work? Would you be willing to formally ask the committee to examine the appointment process?

Given the positive feedback from the review of Justice Rothstein's appointment by the special committee that you personally chaired, do you think it would be a good idea to put a similar structure in place for reviewing appointments to lower levels of the federal judiciary?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Those are very good questions, and I don't have all the answers to them.

Did I find the process with respect to the picking of the Supreme Court nominee and the eventual appointment of Justice Rothstein to be a good one? Absolutely. We worked very cooperatively with all parties, including your former colleague, Mr. Marceau, from the Bloc, who was on that committee. In fact, he chaired the committee looking at the issue of appointments to the lower courts, below the Supreme Court of Canada.

On the issue of the Supreme Court of Canada appointment and whether we should continue with that, certainly the Prime Minister has indicated that he is in favour of that. He would like to see that carried on. Certainly, at least at a minimum, what we did should be carried on. I can disclose to you that there has been a request that the committee reconvene in order to talk about the process, because we haven't had that opportunity yet to talk about what we learned from the process and perhaps what suggestions or recommendations we can give to the Prime Minister in terms of future hearings.

With respect to the lower courts--and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but the courts that are all answerable to the Supreme Court of Canada, if I can say it that way--I'm not sure whether the same process is appropriate, given the numbers of judgeships that become vacant. We do have a process we examined, and the report did identify certain concerns about the way judges have been appointed.

There are a number of provincial bodies that consider provincial appointments, for example, and I think there's a lot to be learned from some of those provincial committees that recommend appointments to the provincial bench. Certainly I'm more familiar with the Manitoba situation, but I believe Ontario's situation is very similar to that.

The important point that I think we want to make in the appointment of judges, especially to the Supreme Court of Canada, is to introduce these individuals to the Canadian population. That's what I kept hearing after that hearing process, that people understood that these individuals--and particularly Justice Rothstein, who's the only one we've had that kind of process with--are flesh and blood. They are human beings, very much so. People really appreciated it. They felt that they had a significant understanding of who the individual was. I think knowing the judges in that way will also result in a better acceptance of their decisions. When you know the decision-maker, it is easier to accept the decision. So in terms of the credibility of the courts, it's an important step to take, but I'm willing to work with the committee on those kinds of recommendations.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you.

My other question has to do with access to justice in both official languages.

Judge Rothstein is a unilingual anglophone. In 2003, the Justice Department established the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund, a component of the previous government's Action Plan for Official Languages.

Under departmental transfer payments, or more specifically, under the heading of Grants under the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund, we see that funding has been slashed by 75 per cent compared to the previous year. Therefore, for the current year, the amount allocated to the Fund is being cut from $200,000 to $50,000. However, under departmental contributions to the fund, I note an increase equivalent to the grant reduction.

In what way do these changes affect the department's performance and do they represent a change for the better? I'd simply like you to clarify for me the department's strategy and aims, as far as the Fund is concerned.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'm going to have one of my departmental experts come here, introduce himself, and talk a little bit about that particular issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Would you mind identifying yourself?

[Michel Bouchard, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Justice]

My name is Michel Bouchard and I am the Associate Deputy Minister at the Department of Justice and the person responsible for official languages within the department.

Your question is highly relevant. Official Languages Commissioner Adam made some rather favourable comments on the subject in her last report, Taking on the New Challenge which focussed among other things on access to justice in both official languages.

The figures that you quoted do not necessarily mean that funding to stakeholders responsible for promoting the country's two official languages has been cut.

In her last report, Ms. Adam had some positive things to say about the way in which Justice Canada proceeded to consult with minority communities across Canada. The department is even held out as an example to be followed. Therefore, in terms of access to justice, rather extraordinary work is being done within both anglophone and francophone minority communities to promote access to justice in minority languages in all parts of Canada. We have no intention of scaling back the efforts made in recent months. In fact, we plan to work even harder to ensure that minority communities in Canada not only feel welcomed within our Canadian justice system, but are also better informed and better equipped to manage. Promoting access to justice across Canada in the language of the minority community is an important goal of this government.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I was under the impression that there had been a 75 per cent reduction in one area, and an increase in another. I simply wanted an explanation of the budget situation.

[Michel Bouchard]

I'll rectify matters this afternoon if I'm mistaken, but I don't believe there have been any budget cuts. There may have been...

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

It's set out in your strategy, which I'd like to understand. On the one hand, funding is being cut by 75 per cent, whereas elsewhere, you're increasing the department's contribution to the Fund. I'd like to understand the strategy that you're employing.

[Michel Bouchard]

Madam, I'm confused about your reference to a funding reduction. I don't see where... You have some figures that I have not had a chance to look at yet, but I don't believe funding has been slashed by 75 per cent.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Funding is being reduced from $200,000 to $50,000. At the same time, the department will be contributing more to the Fund. That's what I'm trying to understand.