Justice Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you for your perception. Did you have something else you wanted to add?

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

I certainly did. I don't think public policy should be driven solely by campaign rhetoric. Referring back to rhetoric in a campaign, which two or three members have done, is not helpful. Our job here is to make good public policy, good legislation, and I think all the members around the table want to do that, not simply emulate rhetoric that occurred in the heat of a political campaign, driven by events that most of us didn't have much control over. So I'm firmly focused on that.

The one point I want to make is that this bill would increase the frequency and length of incarceration for people who are convicted. But you don't get a conviction and you don't get a sentence of any nature until you have an investigation and enforcement and a conviction. If this bill goes ahead, that's one thing. If this bill doesn't go ahead, I would challenge the government to take all of the money that it had budgeted for increased incarcerations and make it available to law enforcement, at least for gang-related or organized crime type of enforcement. The police have made that very clear, that they can't fight organized crime on the property tax base. Cities can't do it. I challenge the government to finance, underwrite, help to pay for the kind of police enforcement that Chief Blair from Toronto talked about, witnesses from Vancouver talked about, Montreal talked about, and look for public policy payoff in increased safety from increased enforcement by the professionals who know how to do it, not from politicians who know how to do the sentencing math and just increase the sentences. The people we're going to be sentencing are people who are already going to be sentenceable in front of the courts, because they will have been tried and convicted of an offence.

So I challenge the government to do that. And I regret that this bill and other legislation—I'll end with this—were introduced by the government. It came out of campaigns, a campaign rhetoric scenario; they were introduced by a justice minister who's no longer with us, probably because he was too much by half. You might wonder why we have a new justice minister now. The reason may be buried in what we're trying to accomplish here today. As one member, I'd be prepared to spend more time trying to salvage what's here, but if it can't be materially substantially changed, I'm going to find if awfully difficult to support it going ahead as a whole.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I am saddened by Mr. Brown's comments. I think he should be careful before saying such things. As I see it, the Bloc members have always made an exemplary contribution, both in the House and in committee.

First of all, we supported BillC-2. I don't see how Mr. Petit can say that we opposed this initiative when we supported it. We wanted to hear from as many witnesses as possible, given the importance of this legislative measure.

Secondly, I have nothing to be ashamed about in terms of my contribution as a member of this committee. Nor does my colleague Mr. Marceau. We backed 60% of the previous government's bills. We supported a number of bills and our goal has never been to prevent Parliament from doing its job. Quebeckers are taxpayers and they elected us to represent them in this forum. I trust this is the last time I have to listen to the kind of rubbish that Mr. Brown spouted, namely that we don't want Parliament to work. That is a baseless charge. This is not our philosophy and we are not negative individuals acting for no good reason.

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, contrary to what Mr. Petit said, Quebec is not the province with the highest number of murders. According to the statistics compiled by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, that dubious honour goes to Toronto.

I also think we need to be careful about ascribing motives to people. Let me repeat, to you as well as to the Parliamentary Secretary: we have been presented with some serious scientific studies. Admittedly, emotional variables are important to a researcher. We're not claiming that these mustn't be factored into the decision-making process. What I'm saying to the government is that this bill is illogical.

It's illogical because when Allan Rock tabled the bill to set up the gun registry, he included provisions for minimum mandatory penalties. If, as Mr. Petit, Mr. Brown and Mr. Thompson claim, minimum mandatory penalties were the key to protecting Canadians, we would not be revisiting the subject, since they have already been in place for a decade. This has nothing to do with it, as we well know. Minimum mandatory penalty provisions won't stop people from committing crimes.

Are we saying that people shouldn't be incarcerated? Of course not. At times, as a society, we have no choice but to lock people up. However, let's stop acting like demagogues and splitting people into two camps, with those who want to protect Canadians on one side, and those who do not on the other.

I want to protect Montrealers, the residents of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Quebeckers, Calgarians and the people of British Columbia. However, I want to see some probative, conclusive data. We heard from representatives of the Association of Chiefs of Police and while I have a tremendous amount of respect for them, besides which I have a brother who is a police officer, if they could suspend the Charter, I think in some instances they would do just that.

The difference between parliamentarians and those who do not serve in this forum is a belief in the principle of balance. This principle is not on the table and it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ask questions.

Mr. Chairman, of all the witnesses who appeared before us, with the exception of law enforcement officials and representatives of conservative research institutes from Western Canada—and these people are not card-carrying members of the Parti québécois, the Liberal Party or the NDP—, none was a criminologist. There are people who have the specific job of doing research. Their work is publicly funded. Not one single researcher, and that includes individuals under contract to the Justice Department, told us that minimum mandatory penalties would help us achieve the objective sought.

I'm not saying that researchers are always right. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility. We're saying that the Criminal Code makes provision for minimum mandatory penalties—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Wrap it up, Mr. Ménard, please.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I'm not finished. There are no time limits during clause-by-clause proceedings. When I'm done, I'll let you know, Mr. Chairman.

Not one of the researchers who testified was able to convince us that minimum mandatory penalties had any beneficial effects. When you ask us to vote on a bill, it's our responsibility as parliamentarians to have a good grasp of the issue. It makes no difference to me to know the Conservatives campaigned on this issue. If that's their only argument, then I would vote against the bill. Yours is a minority government, which means the majority of Canadians did not entrust you with a mandate to govern the country.

Political parties propose sound measures, and some that are less so. You were elected and we were elected, and we need to respect that. Again, Mr. Chairman, we need to put an end to this demagogy, to this contention that some parliamentarians are less concerned than others about public safety.

What's important to me—and I'm speaking more directly to my friend Mr. Petit—is that police officers be given more substantial means with which to conduct investigations. Mr. Petit rightly pointed out to us that there are 38 biker gangs in Canada, not to mention 300 gangs with 11,000 members.

Officials from the Organized Crime Prevention Bureau gave testimony before our committee and announced that they had successfully shut down the Hells Angels. Half of the Hells Angels in Quebec are behind bars, but not because of the minimum penalty provisions in the Criminal Code. They are behind bars because of extended electronic surveillance warrants and because more probing investigations were conducted. These are areas on which I want to focus. If the government wants to bring in draft legislation which would help police officers improve their investigative methods, then we will move quickly to pass these bills.

I asked that we look into the reasons why Bill C-53, with its reverse onus of proof provisions with respect to proceeds of crime, has not yet been applied. Instead of voting on minimum penalties that we know will not have a deterrent effect, in my estimation, it's far more important for the committee to understand the rationale for the reverse onus of proof provisions with respect to proceeds of crime involving some of the most hardened offenders. Yet the RCMP has not yet been able to present a test case.

Mr. Chairman, we need to be courteous and respectful of one another. We are all concerned about people's safety. No one here has cornered the market on wisdom.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Mr. Thompson that our job here is to make Canadians safer, victims safer, citizens safer. After listening to witnesses, that's exactly what the Bloc and the LIberal positions are trying to do. I think the Conservatives, if they're very serious about being tough on crime, should listen to the witnesses and act accordingly. The witnesses made it clear that the things that prevent crime are, first of all, the crime prevention projects. Therefore, the Conservative members should tell the Minister of Justice not to leave the crime prevention projects on hold. For the better part of a year they've been on hold and projects have not been approved. They've been proven to reduce crime in the past, and now they're just holding off on all those projects and won't approve them.

On the aboriginal justice strategy, they should tell their minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs to re-approve that. It's winding down nine projects in my riding alone, and that is one of 308 constituencies. It's done a great job in reducing crime. They should tell their ministers to move on those fronts that witnesses say work. They should spend some energy on the root causes of crime, which witness after witness, including the chief of the Toronto Police, said is a very important determinant in reducing crime. And they should work, as Mr. Lee said, on increasing the police with the money, as opposed to incarceration. The police said that as well. The scientific witnesses explained that it's the deterrence of the police that reduces crime.

I think if the Conservatives seriously want to be hard on crime then they should, as Mr. Petit said, be non-partisan, and should, as Mr. Brown said, not play politics and should listen to what witnesses said: If you pass this bill you're going to be soft on crime. The witnesses made it quite clear that everyone who goes to prison is coming out, and they come out more likely to be a criminal with the longer sentences that would be forced on judges by this if do not have the discretion in certain circumstances to allow people to be safer with better treatment, longer treatment, different types of treatment. If you remove that discretion there will be more of a chance for victims to be reoffended against, and you're making society more dangerous. The vast majority of witnesses made it quite clear that if you pass this bill you'll be softer on crime, you're going to make society more dangerous, more dangerous for citizens, and more dangerous for victims to be reoffended against.

I'd ask the Conservatives to do some soul-searching, do what's right, be hard on crime, and defeat this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been listening with interest to everything that has been happening. To address what Mr. Bagnell said, I look at that as being a bit distinct. We're providing funding for policing, preventative measures, youth at risk, and so on. But dealing specifically with Bill C-10, Mr. Lee mentioned campaign rhetoric; some people would call it campaign rhetoric and some people would say campaign commitments—whatever.

Mr. Ménard has been very clear about his position on the bill. I've certainly expressed that the government is willing to entertain the Liberals' suggestions on how we can make the bill better. If they are open to doing that, we have a couple more days set aside for clause-by-clause. The minister's office is willing to work with opposition members to see exactly what we can do to make the bill workable in their view and find some common ground, so at the end of the day we have a bill in place that the majority here on committee can support.

If this is appropriate, are the opposition members willing to take some time this week to work with department officials and the minister to hear from each other where they would like to see some changes made to the bill to make it more acceptable to their party?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

What is the desire of the opposition?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Chair, may I speak?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You have the floor.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Given that Mr. Moore is making this offer, the committee might want to adjourn for ten minutes to allow opposition members to discuss this and come back with a response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Moore, is ten minutes long enough?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I call the meeting to order.

Committee members, I understand there's been some discussion, and I believe there are a couple of statements to be made. We will start with Monsieur Ménard, who will be followed by Ms. Jennings.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to speak.

As you know, all parliamentarians are keen on having as much information as possible when it comes to making laws. All opposition parties would prefer the following option. Minimum mandatory penalties have been applied for the past ten years in the case of criminal offences committed with firearms, but we have not seen any probative or conclusive studies on the consequences of applying these penalties.

We would like the government to agree to defer the adoption of this bill anywhere from several months to one year. I think we could form a better opinion of this issue if a nation-wide longitudinal study were done to determine who has been convicted and if minimum penalties really had any deterrent effect. We would then have probative, conclusive facts on which to base our position. We have a responsibility to do this and it would be our preferred option. I will now turn the floor over to Ms. Jennings, who can suggest other options, in the event the government decides against this course of action.

We remain hopeful, however, and I believe this would be the wisest solution, from a parliamentary as well as from a procedural standpoint.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

I would ask the committee to keep in mind that we have only a few minutes remaining in our time here, so perhaps you could put your comments directly.

Go ahead, Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Liberals on this committee wholeheartedly support the proposal Mr. Ménard has made. We too would like to see this kind of information. It would certainly be helpful going forward in the determination of whether the minimum mandatory sentences or penalties that already exist and that have existed for the past ten years are working, and if they are, where they are working, and if they're not, why they are not working. That is our preferred option—the suspension with the study that Mr. Ménard has mentioned.

However, should the government in its wisdom decide that it does not wish to take up that option, the second preferred option would be to suspend for a very short time. It would allow the three opposition critics who sit on this committee to sit down with Mr. Moore and the government's legal experts and House procedural experts and go through Bill C-10 to determine if in fact amendments could be brought that would satisfy the need to ensure safe communities with effective sentencing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Moore, do you have comments?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, and I thank the opposition parties for those submissions.

What I move, Mr. Chair, is that we suspend this sitting. I know we're almost at the end of our time anyway.

I've undertaken to bring those two suggestions forward and to get back to opposition members as soon as possible. I've already indicated my own and the government's willingness to sit down with opposition critics and opposition members to come to some more common ground on this bill and see if we can come forward with a bill at the end of the day that's going to serve Canadians better than the status quo. My commitment, then, is to get back to opposition members about which, if either, of those two options we would like to go with.

I move also, Mr. Chair, that we end our business for today on this bill. We could pick it up at the next scheduled time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The next sitting would be on Thursday. Is the committee in agreement with that?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

There's something else scheduled for that meeting.