Justice Committee on Oct. 6th, 2011

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

It's good we're talking about resources here, since the estimates are not available to us. I've heard that as much as $20 billion is going to be downloaded in costs to provinces. Are you not worried about them challenging that as unconstitutional?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'd like to see that study. Could you table that one?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I would hope you would have studies that you could show us.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I don't have that one. That's for sure. We look at the costs, and as I say, when I was here in the spring we gave details, and I had one question with respect to the drug offences. Our estimate is that this will cost about $67.7 million over five years. Again, these costs are reasonable, but if you've heard of or seen studies indicating that these things are costing $20 billion or $100 billion or whatever you have, I'd be happy to see them.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I'd be happy to trade studies with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Time is up.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of the ministers. You're both very articulate in explaining the provisions of these acts, and I want to thank you for that.

I had the privilege of serving on this committee in the last Parliament. I stand to be corrected, but if memory serves me, I think our committee spent something in the range of 18 meetings simply studying what was then Bill C-4 regarding young offenders. We heard from quite a number of witnesses over a great many hours of testimony. I was sometimes amazed at the things that witnesses who came in believed about this bill. For example, they seemed to think that we were taking out of the Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions regarding rehabilitation and reintegration and addressing circumstances underlying behaviour. Yet if you look at what we were doing and are still doing, I think all of those things are retained.

My question is for Minister Nicholson. Some of the criticisms were that the bill was focused more on punishing all young offenders rather than rehabilitating them. But my understanding is that Bill C-4 was responding and targeting and focusing on the 5% or so of young offenders who were violent and repeat young offenders and who really posed a threat to public safety. It was those people, that very small number of young and violent offenders, who were being targeted and focused on by Bill C-4, and the balance, the rehabilitation and so on, remained.

Minister Nicholson, does the new Bill C-10 maintain this same approach with respect to young offenders?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Woodworth. You are very kind in saying that we were articulate, but I don't know that we could be any more articulate than you just were about the provisions of this bill. This was very impressive.

Again, you're very familiar with the sections we are proposing to change. You're quite correct. The bill focuses on a relatively small number of young people who are a danger to the public, but a danger to themselves as well. We have seen over the years reports that focus on individuals who need help, need some type of intervention. So the bill is very specific.

Again, we want to increase people's confidence in the youth criminal justice system. We want to make sure that those individuals who, as I say, are a danger to the public and a danger to themselves get the kind of treatment they need in order to protect themselves and the public. The bill is very targeted, very specific.

We have listened to what our provincial counterparts have said about clarifying certain areas. I hope that in your study of this over the next few days, you will have an opportunity to hear that.

We're not doing some of the things that people have accused us of in the past. We're making sure that there are provisions such as that young people are not detained in or sentenced to the same facilities as adults. This came up two elections ago, I think it was, from a party that is no longer here. That being said, we put in some clarification.

And these are very reasonable proposals. Thank you for the excellent job you did of articulating the principles behind them.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

I want to say that in fact that canard about jailing young people with adults is still out there. I still read it, and I don't know who is promoting it. But I'm very glad that you've made the point that—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You can be assured that the Minister of Public Safety and I are not doing that.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I understand.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

We're only saying what's in the bill.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Minister, I just want to say quickly that we had a witness last time, a young man who actually spent significant time in jail. He came to our committee and confirmed exactly what you said about the benefit to him of having that sentence: it really set his life on the right track. So thank you very much for that.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's my pleasure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

Ms. Borg.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

My first question is directed to Minister Toews. I have many examples of criminals who have committed three minor crimes in a row and have been sentenced to two years of time, but who have actually been able to reform themselves. One particular example is of a young gentleman who had been brought into a life of crime at the age of 11 by his mother. He has now reformed his life and is trying to become a carpenter. But he cannot, because he cannot get what used to be a pardon and what will be a record suspension.

I wonder whether the minister has considered the social and economic costs of the problem for these reformed criminals of not being able to get employment.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

This would be news to me: that someone who has been convicted of four indictable offences and who has received a penitentiary term—a penitentiary term—for each of those four indictable offences has somehow reformed himself and can't get a pardon. I think most Canadians would say that once an individual has been convicted of more than three indictable offences for which he or she has been sentenced to a penitentiary term, that the individual should then be provided with a record suspension.... There comes a point in time when society simply says “No, that's quite enough.”

Now, you might be mistaking what happens sometimes with a break and enter, for example. Even under this bill, let's say a young person—and this is probably the situation in the case you're referring to—has committed, let's say, 20 break and entries and has received three months consecutive on each, and then they do the rounding down or whatever they do for proportionality and the individual has received three years. None of those offences would count towards the disqualification, none of them.

I'd like to see the particular case you're referring to. I would find it surprising that those are “minor offences”, when a person has been convicted of four offences for which he has received a penitentiary term for each offence.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I will be happy to give them to you.

You said that it wasn't possible for a person to mend their ways after committing three successive offences. I'm thinking mainly about youths. Let's say that a 20-year-old serves three two-year penitentiary sentences. When that person is released, he will be 26 and will have an entire life to change his ways, to leave the world of crime.

Are you going to consider that we may be forcing them to live in a criminal life?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

As I say, I'd like to see the examples you're referring to, because when an individual has been convicted of more than three indictable offences for which he has received a penitentiary term in respect of each, that the individual should be deserving of a record suspension.... I simply believe that there comes a point in time when society must be protected against that kind of individual. I believe we've drawn a very clear line, and I think it's a fair one. Canadians would agree with the position we've taken.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

My next question is about the international transfer of prisoners. Does the minister know about a letter sent by the American president in January 2010? Has he seen it? Could the members of the committee get a copy of the letter?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

You want to know whether a letter has been sent, to who and where?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I'll just say it in English. Are you aware of a letter that has been sent from the American President to Canada criticizing the number of people who have been refused a transfer to Canada?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I haven't seen a letter from the President in that respect, but I can advise you that this was an issue I raised with Secretary Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security when I met with her and explained to her that in Canada people were receiving parole after one-sixth of the time. Organized crime criminals, drug traffickers, receive substantive sentences in the state of Florida in the federal penitentiary there, a 20-year sentence, and of course the lawyer wants them transferred here to Canada because they'd become eligible for parole after one-sixth of the time. In the United States they serve 85% of their time in that federal penitentiary.

In my opinion, if these individuals have shown no inclination to reform themselves, usually because they specifically refuse to cooperate with law enforcement authorities in indicating who their co-conspirators are in terms of these types of matters, we consider them a risk to public safety and we choose not to bring them back.

The Secretary of Homeland Security was actually quite surprised at how lenient our laws are in respect of parole, and in comparison offered that in the United States they don't get parole in the federal system. You serve 85%, and if you behave yourself, you get 15% off of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Rathgeber.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both ministers and your officials for your attendance here this morning.

Minister Toews, sticking with the issue of the International Transfer of Offenders Act, I recall in the last Parliament when this bill was before the committee there was some criticism regarding the discretion that you as minister would have in making decisions regarding the transfer of Canadians, repatriating Canadian prisoners back to Canada. Parenthetically, I find this ironic, because individuals have criticized other parts of this bill because allegedly judges are losing their discretion with respect to minimum mandatory sentences. But they seem critical of vesting more discretion in the minister with respect to applications for the international transfer of prisoners. I was hoping you could elucidate for this committee how that discretion will be used to protect Canadians.