Justice Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2009

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Fair enough. I can tell you generally what the attorneys general tell me, but I don't speak for them. But I will say this on their behalf: It's probably very difficult to quantify these things, because as Monsieur LeBlanc was pointing out, some of these people may now be eligible for probation under appropriate circumstances.

Again, going back to Monsieur Ménard's comments, some of these offences are ineligible for conditional sentencing when they're prosecuted by indictment. It may be the decision of the crown; it may be the decision of the court to prosecute them on summary conviction, in which case they may still be eligible.

That goes to what Monsieur Ménard was saying, about some of the lesser infractions of some, in my opinion, very serious offences. I'm guessing that is why it would be very difficult for provincial attorneys general to give you exact figures as to how many more people that would be. Again, I think this has been well received at the provincial level.

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

You made a point in your opening statement about consistency, but there are sections in the code that the researchers have pointed out—and I want to acknowledge the work they have done on this. Section 57, for instance, is about using a forged passport and section 450 is about possessing counterfeit money. In both cases--not for an individual who would actually have produced those documents, those pieces of paper--those have a 14-year maximum, so they'll be precluded. You can see any number of factual situations, I would suggest, Mr. Minister, where in fact house arrests or conditional sentencing would be the appropriate remedy. I think any objective judge would do that.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, in terms of those sentences for which Parliament has issued a 14-year maximum—that's the maximum under our system other than life imprisonment—a determination has been made by Parliament, not specific to this particular bill, that those are very serious offences and it wants to make very clear the seriousness of them. I'm agreeing, quite frankly, with decisions that have been made by previous governments and other parliaments. Yes, those are serious offences, and as such, they should be ineligible for conditional sentencing.

Are there any other routes open? Again, there is discretion within. The crown can lay different charges. But if the most serious charges in the Criminal Code are laid against individuals, we'll be sending out the message to them that if they're eligible for life imprisonment, if they're eligible for 14 years, they won't be going home on conditional sentencing or house arrest.

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

But in cases like that, you're taking away a sentencing tool from our judiciary. You may in fact be restricting their hands in terms of judges looking at this and saying, “I'm not sending this person to any extensive incarceration at all, but I do want them to have a greater penalty than just probation.” The conditional sentence is that tool to let them do that.

It puts greater restrictions on their liberty.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think the tool is still there. You pointed out some of the remarks I made in opening. In those remarks, yes, on some of the less serious offences, conditional sentencing is an appropriate tool. This is something we want to have. But it's our job, as you know, as parliamentarians to give guidance to the courts. That's why we put maximum sentences.

I remember one time somebody said, “Why bother having these maximums? We could just let the judge figure it out. The judges are in the best position.” Well, we have a responsibility. That is why every time we bring in a piece of legislation—not this particular one because this deals with a specific sentencing tool—we put those maximum sentences in and we give guidance to the courts. That's our job. We'll have a look at it; we want to make sure it works well. We have changes of priority, changes of criminal activity. We have to respond to that, and that's what we've been doing, quite apart from this one, right across the board.

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

I don't have any further questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Monsieur Petit for seven minutes.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Minister, I often reiterate that two or three months ago when you and the Prime Minister were here, we met people who had been scammed, robbed or bilked by what are known as white-collar criminals. They subsequently came to give evidence. They spoke to us and you greeted them. They then told us that they were almost insulted that those people had the charge stayed at some point, as is currently the case with one of them. They were genuinely shocked, and the retiree who spoke to us, Mr. Kube, said that he had lost his faith in the justice system. We have to restore people's trust in the justice system.

I think this is an important element. This is my first comment, and I am a bit disappointed, because Bill C-9, which I worked on with my colleagues, was completely gutted the last time. I could not believe it, and I remember that in Montreal around the same time, there were seven or eight home invasions for which people were given suspended sentences because it was their first offence and they did not hit anyone. Yet they entered someone's home at night. The people were afraid.

I would like to know if, in your opinion, Bill C-42 can restore the faith of those who in reality are good people but are literally being assaulted by there criminals, both economically and in their private home.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You've touched on a very important point, Mr. Petit. That is the role of victims. People want to have confidence in our criminal justice system. If they believe that people who do terrible things to them...if they are the victims of kidnapping, forceable confinement, trafficking in people, sexual assault, criminal harassment, luring a child, and they hear that these people are eligible for house arrest, it hurts the criminal justice system. It hurts people's confidence in the criminal justice system. It's a bad idea to continue this.

What we have to do in the Criminal Code is respond to that. We have to respond to what we believe is our own good common sense as to what is serious and what is the appropriate measure to be taken with that, and it has to be reflected in the Criminal Code. You asked if people want to have confidence in the criminal justice system. Of course they do. They want to have that. And our job is to do that. Is this bill going to restore people's confidence? I say it's part of what it will.

I was actually careful in my opening comments. I said this will “help” on these things. We have about a dozen bills before this Parliament right now. All of them are moving in the same direction, to help restore people's confidence in the criminal justice system or help them to continue to have confidence in the criminal justice system. These are what we have to do. We know that criminals are becoming more sophisticated, and this particular one is not always directed at people who are into sophisticated crimes--some of it is. When people are into arson for fraudulent purposes, yes, you could get some sophisticated operations in there. But people want this to strike that balance. They want these individuals to get the help they need, but they want to send out the message that we take these matters very seriously in Canadian society and that there have to be meaningful consequences that these individuals are eligible for when they commit some of these terrible crimes.

Again, in an objective look at this bill that you have before you, I think people say that this is a reasonable compromise between less serious and more serious offences, and that yes, these are serious offences. When you start talking about a sexual assault prosecuted by indictment, we're talking about a very serious business, and people, I think right across this country--I'm completely confident--do not want to see these people eligible for house arrest under any circumstances.

So that is the job we have before us, striking that appropriate balance. I think this bill, among all the bills that this committee has had a look at and introduced before Parliament, strikes that appropriate balance.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

My question is a bit more specific, Mr. Minister.

You were asked how the provinces might react to jails versus federal penitentiaries. In my riding, there is a provincial jail, Orsainville. Prisoners are held in that jail in preventive custody while they await trial. In addition, the Act has been amended. For example, people who do not pay traffic tickets are held in jail if they have four or five tickets. They have also started seizing property. Imagine if in my riding people were sent to jail for a simple traffic violation because it's a provincial offence. On the other hand, people are given suspended sentences for serious crimes.

Can you tell me if you actually checked whether this would create a burden for the provincial system or whether you are going to stay with what already exists at the federal level, that is, two years or longer?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Well again, there are implications, of course, at the provincial level. I can tell you that I was recently in Fredericton co-chairing, with the Attorney General of New Brunswick, a federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers of justice. It was interesting for me to hear that the Attorney General of New Brunswick would be in town Monday. He and I heard from our provincial colleagues about a number of areas of concern. And I can tell you that the mood at those meetings I had in Fredericton was very good in terms of what we are trying to do as a government.

I have to say it again. They were particularly pleased that we were moving to get rid of the double credit for time served. In terms of provincial resources—I was talking to Monsieur Ménard about provincial resources—they told me that a lot of their resources, their expenditures, are used for detaining individuals who don't want to be sentenced, because they can reduce their sentences because of double or triple credit for time served. I had a lot of sympathy for them. I understood when they were talking to me that the provincial courts are clogged up, their remand centres are clogged up, and their facilities are clogged up with people who want the double- or triple-credit bonus. I shouldn't say double credit. In some cases, you get three-for-one credit.

I told them that I had complete empathy for what they were trying to say. I understood what they were trying to say, and I told them I would continue to do my very best to get that bill and other bills through that are of concern to them. I was pleased to do that, because we're in this together, of course. The Criminal Code is administered by our provincial colleagues through their crown attorneys and police and so on.

Yes, we're doing our part. And I was very pleased with the mood and the cooperative atmosphere I found in Fredericton at that meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right. Thank you.

We'll have one more round of four minutes apiece. We will get through three questioners.

We have Mr. Murphy for a question or two.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I agree with you that the attorneys general have never really been held back in speaking for themselves with respect to cost. Maybe when they get talking in a room about these issues--social justice versus incarceration--for denunciation purposes, there's a rah-rah attitude. But there's also financial responsibility, particularly in provinces like mine. Yesterday we introduced a budget with a fairly large deficit.

My general comment is this. At the federal level, with every justice bill that deals with eventual incarceration, should we not have a rough costing? Often you come here with very good intentions and very good legislation, and we work on it; we work together. But quite often, because of the bifurcation of public safety and justice, you don't have the figures, really, to tell us how much these bills will cost. Shouldn't we, as a committee, get together and say that it would be a really desirable result to have those costing figures for each bill brought in?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I guess they would only be the roughest of estimates; that's all I could tell you, Mr. Murphy. As Mr. Comartin said, he was unable to get from provincial attorneys general what their estimates are of the cost. He said he didn't get any estimates from them. They're aware that this has implications for the provinces. They are prepared to have a look at those, investigate those costs, and generally agree with the legislative effort.

Ms. Kane indicated to you that any costs of this would be negligible to the federal penitentiary system. But at the provincial level, again, according to Mr. Comartin, they were unable to provide you with any. Again, I think our job on this is to be as cooperative as possible.

You mentioned my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety. Well, I don't have to tell you about the hundreds of millions of dollars that, through his ministry, he is putting into more policing in this country.

So yes, we'll do our part, and it's appropriate that we do our part. But again, we try to be as supportive as possible.

One of the things they really emphasized about reducing their costs was getting rid of that double credit for time served. So we're on the right track by bringing that one in, I know for sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Monsieur Lemay for four minutes.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

You see, I, too, was a litigator for a long time. I argued for a suspended sentence many times, and I was often successful , because there is one fundamental thing, Mr. Minister: the judicial discretion of judges. It seems to me that what you are trying to do with this bill is take away judges' discretion. I heard you say, Mr. Minister, that it is not normal for a person who has committed sexual assault or sexual touching to be sent home. Obviously. No judge has ordered that; I am not aware of any. If you are aware of such a case, I would like to know. That is clearly unacceptable. It is clear that judges have much better judgment than that.

I am worried, and the figures we have been given cannot lie. Each year, between 13,000 and 15,000 criminals are given a suspended sentence. According to staff in your department, a third of those criminals, which, if I know how to count, is between 3,000 and 5,000, would no longer qualify. And because it is a provincial matter, it will be up to the provinces to take an additional 3,000 to 5,000 offenders. Speaking proportionally, Quebec alone would expect to have an extra 1,000 to 1,200 offenders. I would like you to tell me that the Solicitor General of Quebec told you that he agrees with Bill C-42, but I have not read that anywhere. I don't know if you have a document on that subject somewhere. If you do, I would like to have it, because I do not have it. I have nothing from Quebec which tells me that anyone agrees that Bill C-42 should be passed. Yes, there have to be restrictions, but on December 16, 2005, Statistics Canada released figures showing that judges were clamping down on people who violated the conditions of their suspended sentence.

I am asking myself this question. Mr. Minister, is it not too soon to review legislation that provides for suspended sentences and has been in force since 1996? Could we not give it 15 or 20 years at least to see if the courts have adjusted to sentencing before we go back and amend these sections of the Criminal Code yet again?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Monsieur Lemay, I'm always happy any time you and I can agree on something. You made a very interesting point. You said that for individuals who are charged with sexual assault who have been prosecuted by way of indictment, there is no judge who will give them a conditional sentence. Well then, that's great; then there won't be any problem with this one. That's good, and this is good news because that's what we have here.

We're just stating something that you believe is obvious, and I think you're quite correct. I think it's obvious to many people that these more serious.... And that's what we have done. With the most serious offences, we have made them ineligible for conditional sentencing or house arrest. That's what we've done. If no judge will give somebody house arrest, then we have nothing to worry about in any case, do we? So in a sense we're changing the Criminal Code just to reflect the reality of what's taking place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Lemay, we're out of time.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will talk about it again in the next round. I am going to ask questions about Bill C-42.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We're focusing then on supplementary estimates.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

For the estimates, I'll keep my notes for Bill C-42. Did you want me to make the speech again on Bill C-42?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, I think we'll stick to the supplementary estimates.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Fair enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll, move on to Mr. Rathgeber, for four minutes.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your attendance here today. Again, let me thank you for your hard work on this and all the other bills that form part of your very aggressive safe street and safe community agenda.

With respect to this bill, we've had some interesting discussion today on how it affects offenders. Mr. Ménard referred to prison as a crime school, and we've heard some interesting questions regarding provincial attorneys general and solicitors general and their positions. But as you know, I take a different position. I'm always interested in victims and victims groups and their position. I think our criminal justice system needs to be more victim focused. I know you meet from time to time with victims groups and victims advocates, as do I. Recently this committee heard from the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation. I'm curious to know if you've met with them or other victims groups, and how they feel about Bill C-42 and how this important piece of legislation will protect them and their interests and rights.