Justice Committee on May 16th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Lee, your time is up.

Mr. Brown, from the Conservative Party.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, it's certainly refreshing to have someone as committed to getting tough on crime as you are as our new Minister of Justice.

Before I was elected a member of Parliament, I served as a city councillor. Certainly one thing I noticed each year in terms of the growth of crime is every year our police force would come back with a double-digit increase, and the rationale was because of an increase in incidents. Certainly this is one of the reasons municipalities are as cash strapped as they are--the growing rate of crime--and I saw that even in the small town of Barrie.

The growing rate of crime isn't just simply in the large communities in this country, but it's also becoming the domain of small towns and small cities. So your approach is certainly refreshing.

I had a town hall meeting last November before the election. I had our chief of police there, I had representatives from all aspects of the Barrie city police, and one of the criticisms raised about the status quo of the Criminal Code and of the policy of the then Minister of Justice was that it simply felt like a revolving door.

The question I have for you is, what initiatives have you taken to help curb that sense of despair from our hard-working police officers, who are doing their jobs and simply seeing people they've brought in back on the streets a few weeks later?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let me recount one incident that I think demonstrates and encapsulates many incidents, especially in respect of conditional sentencing or house arrest.

A sergeant in southern British Columbia, in the White Rock area, was telling me about a situation where they had arrested for the third time a person who was on conditional sentence. He already had two conditional sentences. He was still on conditional sentence. When he was brought back the third time in front of the court, the court said it was apparent that he was simply not listening to the conditions that had been imposed; therefore, it was removing all the conditions and sent the person back out on the street.

So here is an incident, perhaps a radical, extreme incident, of what one judicial reaction was, but the issue of multiple conditional sentences is not extreme. It happens continuously, and police can tell you exactly that. In fact, that contributes to the frustration of many of the police officers who apprehend especially youth involved in auto theft or breaking and entering...to simply release those individuals without even processing them. What we are doing when we release youth in that fashion is in fact creating better criminals. They understand that there is no accountability and their crimes increase. Unfortunately, what happens is that when they hit 18 years of age, eventually there is some accountability, but rather than having to throw them in jail or penitentiary at age 18, if we actually work with them in terms of taking their crime seriously, I believe we can reduce that revolving door.

Conditional sentences aren't doing anybody a favour. In simply apprehending youth and releasing them because of the frustration with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, we aren't doing the young people any favour. Ultimately it catches up with them. Whether it's the justice system that catches up with them, whether it's a serious addiction that catches up with them, or whether it's in terms of the misery that is caused in their families and their community, it catches up. So we need to address that.

This is one of the first steps in terms of saying in regard to conditional sentences, if you are subject to a penalty punishable by 10 years or more, conditional sentences simply should not apply. That was the original intent of the bill when it was brought in, but it was badly drafted, or perhaps deliberately drafted in that way, realizing that it would then extend to violent and serious crime. So we have manslaughter and sexual assaults all punishable now by house arrest.

Quite frankly, the idea that simply because you abolish conditional sentences for those kinds of crimes means you're sending people to jail is not correct. You still have the alternative of the suspended sentence with probation orders, which are much more effective, not as cumbersome, not as complex, and a much better mechanism for police to use in order to hold those individuals accountable. So you don't have to send them to prison, but you have to have a mechanism that holds people accountable when they breach those orders. I would suggest that in these kinds of situations, conditional sentences simply are not appropriate.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Ms. Barnes, the next round will be for three minutes, to provide opportunity for one question and an answer from the minister.

There are a number of questioners yet to go on record.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Minister, on November 10 we have to vote these estimates. Your plans and priorities come out in September, I believe. We also probably will have supplementary estimates, so we'll be able to get more detail from you as you have these conversations with your provincial colleagues, because they're important subjects.

I don't think we play politics with the Criminal Code of Canada. I think we do go from an evidence base. I think it's important to all of us. I would like to remind people that in the Criminal Code right now there are 20 mandatory minimum sentences in gun crimes alone. There are another number with respect to other offences, but the proportionality test of sentencing is clearly predominant; it's still there. You're not adjusting that. This is the area of discussion, and you are in a minority Parliament.

Some of us would like to deal with these issues very seriously. When we come to you and to your department, Minister, I would like your assurance that when we get briefings, we're going to get more than the bills and the material you put out as your press releases, that there will be a full and proper briefing so that we can understand the point of view you're trying to put forward--why you have and have not included certain sections of the code, certain offences, and the rationale, so this can be shared. You've said today that you're open to some amendments. I'm very much looking forward to working towards amending some of these provisions.

We have to work seriously in a concerted effort to do the best for Canadians. That's not something that's owned by any one party in this House. It is something that has worked out very well. Before we start any serious study on the pieces of legislation, I think this committee will have to get the relevant Statistics Canada Juristat people in here and start working from something we can all agree on as the baselines. It's not somebody picking a certain time and place, a certain period, or a certain venue, but we work from proper and accepted statistical data we can all agree on. That's not asking too much when we do serious studies of this bill, and we have done serious studies of bills in the past; I was on this committee when we put in some of those mandatory minimums.

Personally, I'm not particularly such a great fan of mandatory minimums, but just because I might have a personal preference doesn't mean there isn't a use. I'm open to that discussion. I think these discussions will be had with the appropriate impact of the testimony from people who maybe know better than you or I do personally, people who have made lifelong studies of these issues, and the stakeholders, whether there are police associations--you know, the police associations in this country tell us they use the gun registry as a tool, for example.

We have to look at all the stakeholders and all the information, and not just be selective. I think that's the most important thing we have to understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Barnes.

That would give the minister thirty seconds to reply.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you for your comments. I certainly did receive some briefings from the prior government when I was in opposition, and I don't see why the department shouldn't be any less generous than what was afforded to me.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Minister.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I look forward to my next one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Minister, does your department have a documentation centre where studies and data are compiled and could committee members possibly visit this facility?

My concern is that we're embarking on an ideological quest, one that is not supported by statistics or scientific data. Everyone is entitled to their own convictions. I'm not arguing that point, but I really would like to see your data.

When Bill C-68 was adopted under Allan Rock, 19 minimum mandatory sentences were added all at once for weapons-related offences. I've been told that since then, no studies have been carried out on benefits of minimum sentences as a deterrent.

If scientific experts come before the committee and prove that mandatory minimum sentences definitely act as a deterrent, I will be willing to change my position. My concern is that you are locked in an ideological battle to please your constituency, a battle that is not based on statistics or studies.

Has your department studied the impact of minimum sentences? Since you're known for being a generous and hospitable person, would you be willing to allow committee members to visit your documentation centre, if such a centre does in fact exist?

Have any studies been done on the impact of minimum mandatory sentences? Yes, or no.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you very much for your comments. Not only do I want to appeal to my base, but I also want to appeal to your base. That's why we're bringing forward very solid legislation. But I certainly will be tabling information. I would again suggest that the committee invite the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, which deals with this.

I've seen various statistics and studies, some out of American jurisdictions, dealing with the impact of incarceration on homicide. There seems to be an impact. When you incarcerate people, they're not committing homicides, and your homicide rate goes down, to that extent.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Have any studies been done in Canada? Does your department have a documentation centre?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The problem with Canada is—this was the information we received in the last justice committee, before the last election—that we really don't have many studies; the evidence in Canada is inconclusive on that point. But there are other jurisdictions where I think the evidence is much more significant.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

So then, you're waging an ideological battle. You don't have any scientific studies to go on. You have your convictions, which, as a public figure, you're entitled to have, but as for scientific proof, there is none of that.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

When you voted for Bill C-68 and the long gun registry, you had no statistics, and time has proven you were absolutely wrong.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We have some statistics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard, that's fine. Thank you.

Minister, thank you.

Mr. Comartin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Not wanting to engage in duelling statistics again, Mr. Minister, can we go back to the question? You were cut off before you actually answered whether you have talked to the provinces about assisting them if Bill C-9 goes through and $200 million to $250 million is going to be visited on their budgets. Have you been discussing with them this being subsidized, by way of transfer payments or some other mechanism, so that they don't bear the brunt of the thrust of this legislation?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

One of the comments I made was that as a result of the budget there were unallocated equalization payments, for example, given to many of the provinces, which gave them money they didn't know was coming, and certainly more than they had been told was coming under equalization as of November 2005.

So there is that additional amount of money that they now can spend on issues such as policing and prisons, or other types of programs, as they choose.

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

How much was that figure?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I didn't give a figure, but, for example, for Manitoba there's an unallocated equalization of $18 million more for this coming budget year, and for a province like Manitoba, $18 million is a significant amount of money, and I suggest for many provinces it would be a significant amount of money.

All I can say at this point is that in my conversations with attorneys general they have been supportive of these initiatives, generally speaking. I can mention specifically the Manitoba Attorney General, because he's made no—

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

But you're not doing it fairly, Mr. Minister, unless you also talk, as he does all the time, about the three legs to that stool. You have to put the money into police enforcement and you have to put it into the programs as well as.... As he sees it, Mr. Minister, and these are his words, the denunciatory factor is the smallest of those three supports to that stool. The other two are much more important, and that's accurately quoted.