Justice Committee on March 18th, 2013

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

For sure, because obviously we want to know how far it goes. If you put young offenders in jail for an additional period, again, what are the impacts for youth? You understand, and I think we all agree, that prevention is better, but when you put youth in jail....

That's it, Mr. Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Gill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much, Mr. Mai, and thank you, Mr. Gill.

Our next questioner is Mr. Albas from the Conservative Party.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Gill, for coming in today.

I've been hearing quite a number of concerns from the opposition benches today.

One of the things is mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentences have a long tradition in Canada. Since the turn of the 20th century we've had them. Usually it's in cases where there are particular crimes that the public at large finds both offensive and heinous. So for members to bring forward legitimate concerns and say that the other argument given on another bill...it doesn't apply in this case. We are finding that this particular aspect of the gang problem, where someone is recruiting youth and entering them into a life of crime, is particularly offensive to my constituents. For us to say that this is a heinous crime that needs to be stopped, we do need to put some mandatory minimum sentences to communicate that.

The previous bill did not even add clarity to the existing Criminal Code. This bill would. It would send a very broad message that gangs are a problem in our Canadian cities and we need to have a full range of tools available to law enforcement, particularly a mandatory minimum sentence.

Our government's support for this bill is consistent with a long-standing commitment to improving existing responses to crime, including organized crime, as reflected in many of our election platform commitments and speeches from the throne. For example, you have, from 2008, Bill C-2, which created mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun crimes involving organized crime; Bill C-14 in 2009, which deems murder committed on behalf of criminal organizations to be automatically first degree murder, and creates a new offence targeting drive-by shootings; the enactment of a serious offence regulation in 2010 for the purposes of organized crime provisions in the Criminal Code; and most recently, Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which proposes mandatory minimum penalties for drug crimes committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization.

Mr. Gill, your bill proposes to create a new indictable Criminal Code offence that would prohibit the recruitment, the solicitation, the encouragement, or the invitation of another person to join a criminal organization for the purpose of enhancing the ability of that criminal organization to facilitate or commit indictable offences.

I'll stop there, Mr. Chair, because that clarifies that this particular aspect of organized crime is unacceptable in our society. That's why this adds clarity, in my view, to the Criminal Code, specifically because it highlights this heinous activity. There are many activities that may go on in organized crime. I appreciate Mr. Mai's wording of his concerns, but by the same token, this is one of the parts where we have to say that no more is acceptable.

Anyway, though many in the opposition say that mandatory minimum penalties are ineffective, this offence would be punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment of six months if the individual who's recruited is under the age of 18.

Mr. Gill, getting back to your testimony, how do you think this mandatory minimum penalty would help get these gangs that prey on the most vulnerable in our society? What kind of message would that send to the broader criminal element? Again, as you said, Toronto City Council has said this is a recurring problem. They support your bill.

How will a mandatory minimum sentence send a signal to those who would perpetrate these crimes?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you for the question.

This bill would send a very strong message to would-be recruiters or existing recruiters who are committing these crimes that we take this very seriously, that we will hold those responsible accountable for their actions, and that there will be very serious consequences.

There are a lot of sophisticated ways nowadays, obviously.... We're living in the age of the Internet. Gangs use tons of sophisticated methods to recruit vulnerable individuals again and again, especially in targeting our youth in a big way.

On this minimum mandatory sentence, from my consultations and from everyone I have spoken to, all the victims and other organizations, for the most part everyone is on board. Everyone supports this idea. The question that is often asked is, why is it six months and why can't we make it longer than that?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Again, I think it goes back to minimums.

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

No, not really.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Well, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to comment that you're looking great. You're doing a great job as committee chair.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You still don't get more time, Mr. Albas. Thank you very much.

We have Mr. Marston from the New Democratic Party.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The issue of mandatory minimums is something that our two parties disagree on when it comes to a judge's discretion,

Prisons or reformatories are breeding grounds for crime. They're breeding grounds for recruitment. I know of a guy—I worked with him years ago—who was out on a joyride and who was involved in a couple of scrapes. He went to jail, to a reformatory environment, and in five days he was raped three times. You have to give some consideration to the impact on an individual's life.

I really appreciate the work you've done. When I listen to you talk about it, and about the people you've talked to, I can understand why you came up with some of the ideas. It's too bad you didn't see the report from the Boys and Girls Club, because they talked about providing kids with a genuinely safe place to stay, with access to programs that support education, employment, and life aspirations, that help repair the damage done to them when they've been part of a gang.

I was a school board trustee on the public board in Hamilton for two terms. I saw the outcomes of some of the gangs, and it was horrific. I don't think anybody here would disagree with that side of it.

It strikes me that, really, for one MP to undertake this work, it must have been one heck of a challenge.

To my mind, this required a comprehensive response from a government dealing with the pre-emptive, dealing with stopping these guys before they get to the roots in the community and other aspects of it.

In clause 14 you're reintroducing a new offence into the reverse onus, which will create a bit of a problem. There's a variety of things here.

I really commend the effort you're making to try to address this, and I don't disagree with anybody who says that this is a scourge, but as you can tell, I'm a little flabbergasted. There's so much more to this problem, and there is so much more that needed to be done by the government on this.

I'm almost beside myself as I try to go through some notes. I have about six or seven pages of stuff I've scribbled down here. I won't even try to get into it because I'm not here to pick apart your bill. I'm here to say that yes, you're working on a significant problem, but go back to your government and get them onside with the remainder of the problem, the advance work that needs to be done to prevent people being put into this position.

Let's look at homelessness, for instance. Let's look at the thousands of young people who live in homes, where they've been taken out of their own homes and have been parked, and the abuses that happen there. There are so many avenues that can be worked on, and I think still more can be done. How do you not support it?

The only true issue of a real problem with this is the mandatory minimums and taking away the judge's discretion. Mike Harris in Ontario put in a last resort.... I forget what they called it—Mike, you may recall—but if a kid showed up at school with any kind of a weapon, he was automatically expelled. There used to be the discretion of the trustee: you could go before the trustee; you could talk to them; the group could rule, and maybe you'd get a pass.

We had a 12-year-old who had a penknife this big. He was across the street from the school. He showed the penknife to a girl and said, “I should cut you.” He didn't mean anything by it. He was carving something. He said it was his idea of a joke. He was a grade A student. He was suspended for a year. He had to go from Hamilton to Waterloo to a special place for a year. We had to pay his transportation.

That's what happens when you take the discretion out and the mandatory minimum is removed. That was a case in which we could have prevented that misery.

Now, as far as I know, the kid.... He sat before us with his dad, crying his eyes out. He had made a mistake, and the discretion should have fixed it.

That's the problem with mandatory minimums. The judges have a lifetime of experience in dealing with individual cases, and you're taking that away from them.

Again, I know it sounds ironic to say this, but I commend you for the work you've done on this. I just don't think it goes anywhere near the problem it needs to go.

I'm not going to ask any questions. Obviously, Mr. Chair, I'm too cranked up right now to figure one out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Marston, thank you for your intervention.

Our next questioner is Mr. Seeback from the Conservative Party.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sometimes I sit here and listen to comments that are made.

You know, I feel the same way you do, Mr. Marston, but perhaps on the opposite side. I shake my head a little bit at comments like “prisons are just breeding grounds for new criminals”. Well, to some extent maybe they are, but if that were the case, then there should be a 100% recidivism rate, and quite frankly there isn't. It's not always the case that incarceration turns a person toward a life of crime.

You made a comment on reverse onus and how that's terrible.

Mr. Gill, one of the things in your bill is that with respect to release pending trial, the person would now have a reverse onus; they would have to prove that they should be allowed out in the community. To me that seems like a good thing, because somebody who is recruiting someone into a gang maybe should have to prove why they should be back in society, where they'll likely try to recruit more people.

Perhaps you could comment on why you think that might be a good aspect of this bill.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I could kind of hear you, but I think I lost my earpiece. I don't know whether it's a problem just with me or with everyone else.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I was talking about the provision for release pending trial. When a person has been charged but is pending trial, normally the crown has to prove why that person should stay in jail. With respect to your legislation, the accused would now have to prove why they should be let out. In the circumstance when they're recruiting young people into gangs, it seems to me to be a good idea.

Could you comment on that?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Absolutely.

When you speak to the victims and their families, they feel the same sort of frustration. Why is it that the accused or the criminal or a convicted individual has all of the rights? Why is it that the victims and their families have absolutely no rights? Why is it, as you mentioned, that it's the crown or the victim's side who have to prove why the criminal needs to be sentenced or put behind bars when this terrible thing has happened? Common sense should tell you that it should be the other way around.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

That's right.

Sometimes what I think members on the other side forget is that in the justice system, not only should justice be done but you also have to have the appearance of justice being done. The public at large has to believe that justice is being done. That's why I think something like you're talking about, with a mandatory minimum penalty for someone who is.... We have to remember that this is for recruiting someone under the age of 18. They're recruiting young people into a gang.

One thing members keep talking about is why you aren't addressing issues with a more restorative approach. I would remind my colleagues that this is a private member's bill. This is your legislation. This is not government legislation. He's decided to tackle a particular issue.

My colleagues raised some issues about the Boys and Girls Club. I noticed that they say:

Boys and Girls Clubs were pleased to hear the Government announce the next phase of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund to support proven and promising crime prevention initiatives in communities that are impacted by gang activity.

This is not just a stick approach; we do have a carrot approach to the justice system.

Could you comment on that as well, and how important those two things are together?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Seeback, I am in favour of prevention. I wish this problem had never started. I wish it never existed. I wish it weren't there.

We do have the carrot part. There are tons of programs available at all different levels of government. There is funding that's put out by different levels of government, and organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, which are doing a tremendous job. I am in support of all of that.

At the same time, you have to understand that this is a very, very serious issue, especially when you're dealing with youth, protecting our youth, protecting our communities, and protecting our neighbourhoods. Ultimately, it's about protecting our future. Our youth are our future. Unless we take serious steps to protect them, this is going to get out of hand.

This may not be everything to solve the problem. All I'm saying is that my bill would do a little bit. Even if that little bit at the end of the day saved one life, I would be very happy. I would have achieved the success that I've set out to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Mr. Gill.

Thank you, Mr. Seeback, for those questions.

Our next questioner is Mr. Mai.

Before you start, you did ask a question earlier that Mr. Gill wasn't sure about. I'm going to ask the analyst to respond to whether this affects youth or just adult court.

[Dominique Valiquet, Committee Researcher]

As far as minimum sentences and consecutive sentences are concerned, I'd like to clarify that they do not apply to young offenders, pursuant to section 50 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The same goes for bail hearings, bail and parole, all of which are governed by specific rules for young offenders.

The bill is in line with what is done in relation to the three criminal organization offences. It's very well done and is totally in line with what is already in place for the three current offences.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

The five minutes are still yours. Thank you.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

It answers the question.

I want to reiterate, in case it's not clear, that we know it's an issue. We think it is important to actually tackle gangs, and it is a tool that moves us in the right direction. Obviously, we mentioned prevention. You chose to use this line, and I agree it's a private member's bill; you're entitled to do that. Maybe you could tell us why the government's not doing enough on that side, but I'm not sure you'll do that.

Coming back to some of the things we raised with respect to mandatory minimum sentences, in terms of the charter, because obviously, we're going towards taking away a certain right that is protected by the charter, I was wondering if—and I think Mr. Jacob has asked this—you have looked at that aspect of it. Has anyone, for instance, any expert or someone you would have met or a stakeholder, said that they have looked at it from the charter's perspective? We know that normally when it comes from the government, there is an obligation to look at it on that front, although we're not sure it's always being met. In your case, could you tell us if you looked at that aspect of it and who you consulted?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Yes. During the initial stages when we put the idea together, we did seek some help from the legal team that is available to members. We discussed this idea with them. We went back and forth. There was more stuff that I would have liked to see in there, but we couldn't exactly, from the charter point of view, the legal point of view.... My understanding, from all the advice I got from the legal experts available to us, is that this bill meets the charter, and there is no issue with it.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

If we go back to mandatory minimum sentences, who are the people asking for those, who are actually in favour of them? You mentioned a couple of names, but could you expand on the people who support that position and the stakeholders you've met who are supporting that position?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Honestly, for the most part the organizations, the stakeholders, the victims groups, and the citizens I've met.... I even conducted a survey in my riding. I conducted two separate very detailed surveys in my riding before I compiled this piece of legislation giving my constituents different options and asking them to provide me with their input. Even on that, very close to 100% of people were in favour.

If anything, honestly, one thing people asked was why, at the end of the day, it was only six months. Why wouldn't the mandatory minimum sentence apply to everyone? Why was it only for individuals who recruited somebody under the age of 18? Could we not go further and make it mandatory for recruitment, period, and eliminate the age limit we've set out in this bill?

Obviously, I feel that somebody who targets youth—those under the age of 18, especially as I mentioned, those as young as eight, or between the ages of eight and 12—is committing a bigger offence than is somebody who is targeting adults, those over the age of 18 who have maybe a little more understanding or sense of what they're getting into and what they may be doing. That's a problem.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I just want to reiterate the fact that we're not always against mandatory minimum sentences. In certain cases for particular reasons, sometimes we will think they are the right tool. In this case, since we're here to actually understand and to ask questions and to go further, can you explain to us why you chose six months?