Evidence of meeting #48 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
When I first moved amendment 2, I mentioned the reasons that the current provisions in the Criminal Code provide for a one-year minimum mandatory. As colleagues from my party have pointed out, our amendment would raise it to two years, with no further escalation clause.
We feel it is in conformity with the expert testimony we received and would therefore call on the members of this committee to support this amendment.
February 13th, 2007 / 10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I would say the government cannot support this amendment because of the evidence we've heard that many of these crimes are committed by the same individuals over and over again. We all heard that from Chief Blair in Toronto. We feel sending a message that the minimum will be the same no matter how many times you commit a crime is the wrong message to send.
We've all expressed our commitment in the past to getting tougher on mandatory minimum sentences. This does not in fact do that for repeat offenders. It doesn't go where we feel we should be going when dealing with people who present a serious threat in our cities.
Of course, we support the government position that there would be a minimum of three years and then a minimum of five years on a second or subsequent offence.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Blair also said it is a very complex situation, and you have to deal with the root causes of crime. A lot of the witnesses explained that you have to deal with treatment, and there is nothing in here. These people are going to get out and reoffend. It is not an answer to have them do another year and get them more trained in being more serious, dangerous offenders.
My last point is that I can't possibly understand how we are still increasing a mandatory minimum, which is the scope of the bill, what the bill is all about. If we are making a minor adjustment to the number of years, I don't see how that could possibly be out of order, or you would never have any amendments in any committees on any bills.
Conservative
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I have one last point.
When the parliamentary secretary says that by simply increasing the minimum mandatory to a certain number of years, without including an escalator clause for subsequent offences, it means that if a particular individual, who was convicted for a first offence and received the minimum mandatory, is subsequently charged and convicted for the same offence, the individual will only receive the minimum mandatory.
This flies in the face of the testimony that was received and the studies on where there are minimum mandatories for first and subsequent offences without an escalator clause—what the actual sentences are, the median and average sentences on subsequent offences, convictions for the same offence. In fact, the judges, using their judicial discretion and taking into account both aggravating and attenuating circumstances where there is a mandatory minimum but no escalator for subsequent offences, will deem that that individual has already had a prior conviction for that offence, as in aggravating circumstances, and that will play a role in the penalty that will be laid. In fact, it shows that when you are convicted subsequently for the same offence, your sentence is a higher, more serious sentence than what you received on the first conviction.
I attempt to be very precise in what I say, and I would just urge all of us to try. I don't always make it; I don't always succeed. I hope that people would call me out when I don't and correct me. That's what I'm doing now.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I am unclear as to whether Mr. Bagnell and Ms. Jennings are speaking in favour of or against their amendment. On one hand, you are saying that we don't need tougher mandatory minimums, and on the other hand, your amendment suggests that we do.
What we are proposing focuses on recidivists, people who have committed a serious crime and then continue to commit serious crimes. That was the testimony we heard, that this is something that a small number of people do. If in fact the sentences that they were getting were always bang-on appropriate, there would be no need for us to bring forward any amendment.
We have brought forward these amendments to focus on recidivists. The amendments proposed by the Liberal Party do not do that. They do not take into account someone who has repeat offences.
I would like to be assured by Ms. Jennings saying, don't worry, if someone has a second or a third offence, they will be dealt with more severely. But I don't see the evidence. If she has it, she can table the evidence suggesting that in fact this is taking place.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you.
I'd just like to add one thing. When we travelled to the Toronto area, a provincial Liberal minister who had read Bill C-10 remarked that it was a good bill. He was a Liberal minister. I would imagine that he is a credible individual. That was the first point I wanted to make.
The second point is this: as our parliamentary secretary was saying, the aim is not to stick it to first offenders, but rather to target repeat offenders. Throughout the course of the testimony given, we heard that repeat offenders were the cause of the problems. One individual can create many problems and that's who we should be targeting. We need to rein that person in, to put an end to these problems.
The motion introduced by Ms. Jennings on behalf of the Liberal Party does not address this problem. We shouldn't be locking up people for the sheer pleasure of it. As you're always saying, we're not idiots either. However, we have to remember one thing: our courts are clogged with repeat offenders and they are the ones creating all of the problems for us. With all due respect, Ms. Jennings, your motion fails to address the problem.
That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Petit and Mr. Moore just said this doesn't affect repeat offenders and that their purpose is to reduce recidivism and repeat offenders, but it does. Exactly as Ms. Jennings said, when you have a stronger first sentence, the judge, in making second or third sentences, looks at that and makes them longer.
So this does affect repeat offenders and will keep them in longer. That's what the stats show, and that will be the effect of our amendment, which is just what Mr. Petit and Mr. Moore would like to happen.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.
Shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 7 negatived)
(On clause 8)
Those in favour of clause 8?
Mr. Moore.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Is there an amendment to clause 8 that we have to deal with first?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
It's a government amendment. It's an inadmissible amendment. It's simply a matter of voting against the clause to delete it. The amendment submitted by the government is inadmissible, because you can't amend to delete. It is simply gone.
We'll go to Mr. Comartin.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I believe the proper procedure is to call clause 8, and the vote should be whether we're voting in favour. And from what I read around the table, nobody is voting in favour. The call from the chair should be, “Are you in favour?”
Conservative
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Yes, I realize there was, but I'm pointing the finger a bit at you, Mr. Chair, for that confusion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Okay.
(Clause 8 negatived)
Clause 9 is stood down for a moment.
(On clause 10)
There's a Liberal amendment, I understand, for clause 10. I can proceed in the same fashion as I did previously, in reference to this particular amendment. It is inadmissible.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
It's inadmissible because it's against the principle of the bill, by removing escalating sentences and lowering minimum sentences.
Ms. Jennings.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
For exactly the same reasons that were expressed by my colleague Mr. Murphy, my colleague Mr. Lee, and my colleague Mr. Bagnell, and by me, I believe the chair has made a mistake in his ruling, and therefore I challenge the chair's ruling.
