Justice Committee on May 27th, 2010

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

No, no, there's not less. There's not less, Monsieur Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Come on! Do you say this is not true?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

In any case, that's fine. I'll let him make the point. That's fine.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

On the next page, it talks about grants to the Victims of Crime Initiative. I see that last year, you spent $7,958,000, in fact almost $8 million. This year, this amount is $5,250,000.

How do you explain this reduction of $2 million for the contributions to the Victims of Crime Initiative?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm pleased to say that we are supportive of victims in this country. Over the last three years we've committed $52 million. That money is in place. I appreciate that it is spread out among the various budgetary items in the main estimates, but I can assure you, Monsieur Ménard--and I know Canadians will believe me--that we are not only making victims a priority of this government, but we are also putting more money into supporting victims than has ever gone towards victims. All the money that's committed is there, and, in addition, there will be more money because the Speech from the Throne indicated another $6.6 million to support victims.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I can assure you that we are all in favour of helping victims.

You have yourself spoken about Bill C-16 which you have entitled “Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act”. I think you will agree with me when I say that if we released violent and dangerous offenders, that could put the security of our community at risk.

But section 742.1 of the Criminal Code states that these kinds of punishments may be served at home. It provides: “If ...the court...is satisfied that the service in the community would not endanger the safety of the community...” and adds a number of other conditions that must be met before the court may allow these people to serve their sentence in the community.

Would you admit that the title you gave to Bill C-16 presupposes that judges do not respect the first condition set by the Criminal Code that allows them to give sentences that must be served in the community?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You may not like the title of it, Monsieur Ménard, and that's certainly your privilege, but an act ending conditional sentences for property and other serious crimes--again, “and other serious crimes”--conveys the message that we want to convey. We actually weaken people's confidence in the criminal justice system if people who commit serious crimes are sent home to their homes afterwards. This has a very bad effect. It has a very bad effect on the community and on people's confidence in our criminal justice system.

That's not the bill that you have before you here today, but I'm very interested and pleased about your interest in it, because this is a step in the right direction. As I've said--and I'm borrowing the quote from my colleague Vic Toews--people lose confidence if somebody sets fire to your house and they get to go home to theirs afterwards. That's a problem for many people in this country.

We strike the right balance and hit the right notes on that one by restricting conditional sentencing. It doesn't eliminate it, if that's where you're going with your questioning; in appropriate circumstances, there is a role for conditional sentencing or, as it is usually referred to en anglais, “house arrest”, but for the most serious offences—and we've enumerated those very clearly in the legislation—conditional sentencing or house arrest is not available.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I fully understand the message you want to send and I think it is a propaganda message. I also think it is a message that tries to mislead the population and have it think that, even though there is a law, under those sections, judges release violent and dangerous offenders.

How do you expect the regular citizen that reads that kind of thing not to think that, if we have to pass a law that will put an end to house arrest for serious and violent offenders, it is because judges are actually releasing violent and dangerous offenders? If they do, they go against the law.

I find this particularly insulting for judges, much more so than all the nonsense you talk about the bilingualism of the most important judges in the country.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Well, Monsieur Ménard, I'm actually quite astounded that you said they're being led down the wrong path. We're very clear. What we're saying is...and if judges do this today, then it certainly isn't an issue, but we want to be as clear as possible: offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life will not be eligible for conditional sentencing; offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum of 10 years that result in bodily harm; people involved with the import, export, trafficking, and production of drugs; people involved in the use of weapons; serious property and violent crimes punishable by 10 years and prosecuted by indictment; things like criminal harassment, trafficking in persons—that's a subject your party knows well in terms of the legislation that was before Parliament that you did not support, but that's another story.

I'm just telling you, we're making it very clear—

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You don't listen to what I am saying, Minister. You know full well—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Ménard, a moment please.

Listen, we're making it very clear exactly what...and that's our responsibility as legislators. We're not in the business of the administration of justice on a daily basis. Of course we leave that to the judiciary. But we have an obligation--an obligation--to set the parameters here, whether they be maximum sentences, minimum sentences... And giving guidelines to the courts, that is our responsibility. I'm very proud of and pleased with the job that we are doing on this.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You avoid answering my question, but I would like to get an answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Comartin, for seven minutes.

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

I wasn't going to ask this, but since both the Liberals and the Bloc have, where in the figures is the $2.7 million for the victims of crime initiative? I'm looking at the blue book, and it says that in 2009-2010 it was $7.9 million and in 2010-11 it's $5.2 million.

You've said twice now, Mr. Minister, that it's there someplace. Could you just tell us where it is, the other $2.7 million?

[Myles Kirvan, Deputy Minister, Department of Justice]

Mr. Chairman, in the supplementary estimates (A), there is funding for the federal victims of crime initiative and continuation of the policy centre for victim issues. There is a vote 1 amount of $2,591,000, and then, in vote 5, the grants and contribution side of it, of $2 million. That's one part of this. There are also other funds in other estimates, but that is the supplementary estimates (A) additional funding.

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

I don't have those with me. When would we have received those in our offices? How long have they been out?

[Myles Kirvan]

They were just tabled this week, I believe on Tuesday.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's why I'm here.

But I'll tell you what I'll do, Monsieur Ménard...or rather, Mr. Comartin—

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

That's okay, I don't mind being confused with Mr. Ménard. I have a great deal of respect for him.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Really; well, I know you're very close. That's fair enough.

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

We are, in many ways.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Comartin, I am advised by the clerk that they were e-mailed to us this week, the supplementary estimates (A). That's what you were referring to, is that right?

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'll tell you what; I don't mind, because this is very important to me to refute, any suggestion that there is less money...because not only is there not less money, there's the money that's all in place plus the Speech from the Throne.

I'll send you a separate letter, via the clerk, and we'll set out exactly where in the estimates they are. I appreciate what you're saying; it can be a bit confusing with main estimates and three or four supplementary estimates.

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

I guess the obvious question, again challenging your credibility a bit on your victims of crime agenda, is why weren't they in the main estimates? Why wasn't the full amount in the main estimates?