Justice Committee on May 16th, 2006

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I haven't had the three-legged stool conversation with the minister. I spoke to him shortly after we released the bills, Bill C-9 and Bill C-10, at the Winnipeg Police Association annual charity ball. He was very enthusiastic about both bills—very enthusiastic—and as Mayor Giuliani said in his recent speech, that is part of the solution. Obviously the laws are part of it. More police officers play a crucial part, and I would suggest appropriate programming is also part of it, whether it's in the communities or even in prison.

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

In that regard, in terms of the appropriate programming--

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mrs. Smith, please.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have one comment. When we were talking about the perhaps new kinds of crimes that are coming up right now--and when I say “new”, they haven't been really at the forefront--I have to congratulate you, Minister, for talking about the unauthorized use of computers. I heard and saw a few snickers around the table. Perhaps that's because members don't understand that the unauthorized use of computers is when child pornographers go online and get onto chat lines to lure young children. This unauthorized use of computers is widely, widely watched by schools and by parents. In Manitoba, as you know, with the ICE Unit, the Integrated Child Exploitation Unit, two big offenders, Larsen and Hardy, were brought down. So the unauthorized use of computers is something we need very badly, and I congratulate the minister.

Could you expand a little bit on why you felt this was very necessary to address? I mean, to the public, and to people who are not aware, perhaps they might smile and snicker a little bit, but it's a very serious thing.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I compliment the member on her knowledge of this and on her deeper understanding of why it simply isn't appropriate for those types of offenders to receive house arrest or conditional sentences. Essentially what we're doing is telling these individuals to go back to their houses and get onto their computers to start surfing again. Some members don't understand the significance of those types of crimes. I appreciate that you'll have a bit of a challenge here in educating other members.

This is one example, I would suggest, of how the law needs to develop and we need to respond to new and growing threats. There are a number of initiatives. Cybertip, for example, has been so helpful in identifying these people who prey on our children.

Indeed, that is why we need to take these crimes very seriously.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mrs. Smith.

Mr. Ignatieff, perhaps you could make a quick point, for a reply just as quick.

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

Yes.

Minister, this is a question about the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner has called for the creation of a security-cleared special advocate to challenge arguments that information should not be disclosed to an affected party under Canada's anti-terrorism legislation.

I'm just wondering whether it's the government's intention to create a special advocate position to review refusals to disclose information under Canada's anti-terrorist legislation. This is obviously a very important issue in relation to Canadian civil liberties. I'm just wondering what the government's position is on that issue.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I must say, Mr. Ignatieff, I've read some of your books on exactly that issue, and I find them informative. I don't always agree, but there seems to be a balance in those books in terms of some of the security concerns that you identify and how to approach them.

We are in fact waiting for the review of the anti-terrorism legislation and waiting for comments from the Arar commission in respect of that particular issue. As well, as I understand it, there is a Supreme Court of Canada hearing this June in respect of the security certificates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Ignatieff.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I find it interesting that the traditional positions of the different parties are being shared. It's interesting how members of the Liberal Party get tough on crime prior to an election but are now sharing their typical positions on being soft on crime.

Mr. Chair, I have a question for the minister regarding the granting of extra credit for pre-trial custody for persons denied--

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order here. I really do have a point of order.

I don't want to overstate this, but this committee is really not going to get too far down the road if the kind of politics being thrown out here continues to be on this committee.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Is that a point of order, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I'm just asking members to control some of the politics here. I have a very gentle disposition. This committee has functioned well for a long time, and I'm going to do my very best to make this committee work, but it isn't going to work if this continues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Fine, Mr. Lee. You've made your point.

Mr. Warawa, continue please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I have a question to the minister regarding the credit for pre-trial custody. Mr. Minister, my understanding is that if a person is deemed to be very dangerous and likely to reoffend, or if there's a likelihood of their fleeing, then they are required to be incarcerated. So people who are high-risk individuals are required to be kept in custody if they're likely to reoffend or to flee.

Mr. Minister, why would we then give these high-risk individuals a credit of two to three times...? Somebody who was convicted with a five-year sentence--a serious offence, five years--would then get a three-year credit for time that they've served. So that one year is now given a three-year credit, and they could then be serving provincial time and out within months.

What's the logic of providing this three to one credit?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It is a serious concern. I don't have personal experience in this, because this seems to be a more recent phenomenon since the time when I was practising law, but in speaking to some of the crown attorneys and others, I am told that the defence lawyers are telling their clients simply to plead not guilty, don't apply for bail, do your time in remand because you're going to get, for example, in the Don Jail, three days to one. So if you know you're guilty, just do your time in remand. Essentially, you'll only get sentenced to about one-third of the time because you're getting three days of credit.

Now, I can't comment on whether that is true or not. That's what I'm being told. I know that was a controversy in Manitoba as well. The Attorney General of Manitoba raised that particular point. It is something the federal-provincial working group is looking at. It's something that has developed as a result of judicial discretion.

So whether we have to respond to that legislatively or whether it's an appropriate exercise of judicial discussion, I'm not in a position to say. I think it's something this committee should be looking at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Minister.

I have one question before we adjourn. The question certainly has been a concern of mine, even in the previous discussions in the justice committee. It deals with the future of the DNA registry.

What is its future, and what changes do you see on the horizon that will make this registry more effective?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you very much, and indeed, I am aware of your abiding interest in that particular issue.

As you will recall, there was a bill that was rushed forward through the House just prior to the last election. I believe it was Bill C-13. There are certain technical problems with it. The bill itself, if passed, will expand the amount of DNA that we can take, retroactively as well. I would encourage this committee to pass that as quickly as possible. It was held up, I believe, by the prior government because of the concerns they identified, and indeed we've identified those. I've been working with the department in getting a bill forward to get that through.

The other point I'd like to make is that there is to be a mandatory DNA review, so even though Bill C-13, or whatever new name this bill will have, should be passed, there will be a more general review of DNA legislation in this country. Now, that will take much longer to get through. I might say I'm very encouraged by the Supreme Court of Canada decision in respect of Rodgers, where it indicated very strong support for the direction this country has been taking in respect of DNA and the right to take DNA legislation...especially from convicted criminals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Minister.

I would like to thank you on behalf of the committee for appearing. This has created a substantial discussion on our future business. I look forward to having you here again at the committee some time in the near future.

The meeting is adjourned.