Justice Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights meeting to order. Of course, on the orders of the day, the topic of discussion and debate here is Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment).

We have a good array of witnesses to testify before us today. Given the fact that there are three of you representing three different organizations, I would ask the witnesses, first, to be sure to put your points forward in short order so the members here will have an opportunity to question you. That's our regular process. The time is going to be broken down into seven or eight minutes for the first round, and then it diminishes thereafter.

I will go according to the order in which the witnesses are listed on my sheet. The Canadian Police Association, Mr. Tony Cannavino, president....

I understand, Mr. Cannavino, you're accompanied by David Griffin.

[Tony Cannavino, President, Canadian Police Association]

Yes, he is our executive officer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, gentlemen.

[Tony Cannavino]

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good afternoon.

The Canadian Police Association welcomes the opportunity to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment). The CPA is the national voice for 54,000 police personnel serving across Canada. Through our 175 member associations, CPA membership includes police personnel serving in police services in Canada's smallest towns and villages as well as those working in our largest municipal cities, provincial police services, members of the RCMP, railway police, and first nations police associations. Our goal is to work with elected officials from all parties to bring about meaningful reforms to enhance the safety and security of all Canadians, including those sworn to protect our communities.

For over a decade, police associations have been advocating reforms to our justice system in Canada. In particular, we have called for changes to bolster the sentencing, detention, and parole of violent offenders.

The Canadian Police Association has been urging governments to bring an end to Canada's revolving-door justice system. Chronic and violent offenders rotate in and out of the correctional and judicial systems, creating a sense of frustration among police personnel, fostering uncertainty and fear in our communities, and putting a significant strain on costs and resources for the correctional and judicial system. We believe that a positive first step to addressing these concerns is to eliminate access to conditional sentences for certain criminals.

Conditional sentencing was introduced in 1996 to bridge the gap between probation and incarceration for less serious, non-violent minor offences. The application of the law by the courts has in fact permitted offenders convicted of serious and violent crimes to avoid incarceration and serve their sentences in the community.

Bill C-9 amends section 742.1 of the Criminal Code. It provides that a person convicted of an offence prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more, is not eligible for a conditional sentence. Although we support the objectives set out in Bill C-9, we are concerned that the maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more would leave out certain offences that should not be eligible for conditional sentencing.

The current law is inadequate. Canadians are acutely aware that current sentencing and parole practices are inconsistent with public expectations, which undermines public confidence in law enforcement and, more particularly, our entire justice system. Canada's front line police officers interact with members of the public and victims of crime on a daily basis. They understand and share in their sense of frustration. People who are introduced to our justice system as witnesses or victims of crime are frequently at a loss to understand the principles and processes applied in sentencing convicted offenders, how the sentences are served, and the opportunities available for early release. We believe that offenders should be held accountable for the offences they commit.

Each victim is equally important. Unfortunately, the current sentencing and conditional release provisions do not recognize this principle. CPA members are very concerned that court decisions applying to current legislation have permitted offenders to receive conditional sentences of imprisonment for crimes of serious violence, including manslaughter, sexual assault offences, driving offences involving death or serious bodily harm, drug trafficking, major theft, and theft committed in the context of a breach of trust.

Canada's police officers are frustrated, and they have lost confidence in a system that sees violent offenders regularly returned to the streets. We need to restore meaningful consequences and deterrents in our justice system, which begins with stiffer sentences, real jail time, and tougher parole eligibility policies for repeat and violent offenders. We raised this issue with the Minister of Public Safety as recently as this month.

These are the recommendations that have been consistently advocated by CPA: first, Parliament should convene an independent public inquiry into Canada's sentencing, corrections, and parole systems for the purpose of identifying measures to provide meaningful consequences for offenders, reinforce public safety, and instill public confidence; second, in determining the level of security for serving sentences, an offender's criminal history in crimes for which he or she is sentenced should be the predominant factor; third, give victims greater input into decisions concerning sentencing, prison classifications, and parole and release; and fourth, tighten our laws and prison policies to protect Canadians from violent criminals.

On limiting access to conditional sentencing, the CPA contends that persons convicted of violent sexual offences or crimes committed where the potential for violence exists should not be given an opportunity to be considered for conditional sentencing. We maintain that sex offences, especially those offences involving children or violence, should be banned from conditional sentencing. For example, criminals convicted of the following offences would not be covered by Bill C-9 in the present form: luring a child via the Internet, removing a child from Canada, abduction of a person under the age of 16.

On public safety offences, the CPA is further concerned that offences committed against those sworn to protect our communities, such as the crime of assaulting a police officer, and offences that have serious police officer and public safety consequences, such as flight--failing to stop a motor vehicle while being pursued by a peace officer--are not covered by Bill C-9. This is because the maximum sentence for these offences falls short of the proposed 10-year minimum.

We acknowledge that the current sentencing regime contained in the Criminal Code is at times contradictory and illogical. This serves to further support our contention that the sentencing regime should be reviewed, along with the current corrections and parole systems. We further submit that Bill C-9 should be amended to prohibit conditional sentences for the offences of flight, assaulting a police officer, disarming a police officer, and participation in activities of a criminal organization. We contend that any person who chooses to assault peace officers in the lawful performance of their duties or to jeopardize their safety and the safety of others by engaging police in a motor vehicle pursuit should be barred from receiving a conditional sentence.

In addition, Bill C-9 does not capture offences involving weapons where the Crown chooses to proceed summarily, such as possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle, possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm with ammunition, and possession contrary to an order. We contend that a conditional sentence is not an appropriate disposition of a charge involving unlawful possession of a weapon or firearm.

Non-violent offences. The arguments against limiting the use of conditional sentencing for serious non-violent offences are misguided at best. As front-line professionals, police officers see firsthand the far-reaching impact of minimizing the seriousness of property crimes and other so-called non-violent crimes.

The penalties for serious property crimes have become so trivialized, with an absence of meaningful and proportionate consequences, that criminals have come to understand and work within the system, committing more criminal acts. Whether they steal a vehicle or commit a break-and-enter into a home, they know that should they get caught, they will be back out on the street in no time. The lack of meaningful consequences has become so obvious to organized crime that they use it as an effective recruiting tool. The impact on families victimized by such offences is marginalized as it is expected that insurance will cover the monetary costs. Too often, however, the deeper emotional trauma of having a home burglarized, an identity stolen, or a family heirloom taken, are overlooked. In fact, property crimes have become so trivial for criminals and the justice system that police departments have reduced and often cut resources for officers to investigate property crimes, and resources are transferred to the priorities.

A glaring example of this situation is auto theft. Young offenders and car thieves know that there are no meaningful consequences for car theft. They steal cars for cash with little fear of apprehension and even less fear of consequences from the courts.

What is certain, however, is that having someone violate your privacy and having your precious possessions stolen out of your own home is not something trivial for the victims of these crimes. Victims will never feel completely safe in their own homes or in their community from that point on.

Property crimes are often linked with other serious criminal behaviours and social issues, including drug trade, organized crime, and white-collar crime. These are interconnected and cross-cutting issues that cannot, and should not be neglected. Unfortunately, drug trafficking and production offences also fall within the category of “non-violent” offences, which totally ignores the tragic consequences of drug abuse in our communities, and the inextricable link between gang violence and the drug trade. Drug lords and grow operators avoid meaningful consequences through conditional sentences and accelerated parole provisions; provisions originally intended for non-violent crimes. We have seen examples of captured drug traffickers apprehended in the United States seeking extradition to Canada, to take advantage of these lenient sentencing and parole provisions.

Level of supervision. According to the Library of Parliament's legislative summary on Bill C-9, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reports that the annual cost of supervising an offender in the community is $1,792. We are concerned that these costs are woefully inadequate given the nature of offenders being released into the community. We would estimate that the current level amounts to less than one hour per week for supervising offenders serving conditional sentences in the community. We contend that the probation and parole officers serving in our communities are seriously understaffed and overworked, minimizing the effect of supervision.

In conclusion, the experience since conditional sentencing was introduced in 1996 demonstrates that the application has far exceeded the intent. Bill C-9 is a required measure to tighten these provisions and exclude application to more serious crimes.

We contend that limiting the use of conditional sentencing reduces the risk for communities that continue to be victimized by violent criminals, sexual offenders, and serious invasions of their privacy and intimacy through property crimes. We do, however, recommend that the bill be strengthened by addressing crimes of violence, sexual offences, and serious risks that are not presently contained in the proposed legislation.

In order to provide consistency and balance to this legislation, we would urge Parliament to bring changes to Bill C-9 that would reflect the seriousness of certain violent and sexual offences that do not have a maximum term of 10 years or more, while keeping the option of conditional sentencing for less serious crimes for which an alternative sentencing mechanism is appropriate.

Bill C-9 is a positive first step to address the revolving-door justice system and instill meaningful and proportionate consequences for serious and violent crimes. The Canadian Police Association supports the bill in principle and urges Parliament to amend and pass this legislation without delay.

I thank you for your attention. I welcome, also, all your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Cannavino.

The next on my list is Jean-François Cusson. Mr. Altimas will make the presentation.

Sir, would you please go ahead.

[Patrick Altimas, Director General, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec Inc.]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this invitation and the opportunity to share our thoughts with you.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss Bill C-9 with you. Thank you again for the invitation.

The Association des services de rehabilitation sociale du Québec represents over 50 community organizations actively involved in crime prevention and working with adult offenders in most regions of Quebec.

We want to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the needs of victims in our communities and those of offenders. The association has been in existence for over 40 years, as have some of our organizations. Over fifteen organizations are currently involved in monitoring conditional sentences in the community. We therefore have direct experience with this particular clientele.

The ASRSQ is working with the Elizabeth Fry Society of Québec and Canada as well as defence counsel associations in Montreal and Quebec City to consider the issues raised by Bill C-9. We are pleased to share with you the fruit of our considerations. You have them before you. I will not read the brief in full, but I would like to draw your attention to a few points.

Our brief focuses on the fact that Bill C-9 wants to limit eligibility to conditional sentences despite the fact that there is no evidence today to show that that is needed. Conditional sentences seem to work. Judges seem to respect the provisions of the Criminal Code and the limits imposed therein.

Second, access to conditional sentences is being limited based on one sole criteria, in other words maximum sentences provided by the Criminal Code. Very different type of crimes would be treated in the same way. For instance, the possession of counterfeit currency and incest would be treated identically. This would involve one sole criteria, and the use of only one criteria goes against the very principles of sentencing within our justice system.

Third, we believe that conditional sentences are severe. Fourth, they are safe. Fifth, we consider them to be consistent and preventative, and so does the Canadian public in general.

No evidence has been put forward to suggest that the problem the bill aims to correct is widespread. There are no serious studies to show that conditional sentences are a problem today nor that there has been an increase in crime and recidivism.

Sentencing judges must consider the relative seriousness of an offence. They must also consider the dangerousness of the individual. Even though some offences may seem violent, judges must consider both the offence and the offender.

Bill C-9 strays from fundamental Canadian sentencing principles such as the use of incarceration as a last resort, proportionality of sentencing based on the seriousness of the offence, the degree of responsibility and the need to tailor sentences to individuals.

The bill could reduce the period of time during which offenders are being monitored. Some studies show that, in some cases, conditional sentences lead to longer prison terms than if the judge had decided to impose a custodial sentence.

Take, for instance, a person who is in prison for one year. Under the law they are released without being monitored after having served two thirds of their sentences.

Conditional sentencees, however, must complete the entire year of their sentence and the monitoring period lasts twelve months.

By providing identical treatment for offences like the possession of counterfeit currency and incest, as I stated it earlier, the bill contributes to a growing sense of confusion about the notions of seriousness and dangerousness. We do not believe that reducing access to conditional sentences will make our communities safer. On the contrary, over the medium and longer term, the safety of our communities could be jeopardized.

Allow me to explain. Some people today could be entitled to a conditional sentence, but would not be under Bill C-9. The economic and social impact of that would be significant. Jobs could be lost, families could be shattered, etc.

We therefore believe that this bill is unnecessary. We do however believe more studies should be undertaken on conditional sentences since their inception. This will allow for better understanding of the issue and an accurate assessment of the effect of conditional sentences over the last few years.

According to the experience of workers within our community network, the conditional sentencees they work with are not necessarily violent people. They successfully complete their conditional sentences and, when they do not, it is because of breach of conditions rather than recidivism.

So, what is the problem? That is the question we have been asking ourselves. We believe that further study, or even larger studies than those we currently have access to, should be carried out before any changes are made to the system.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for having given me this opportunity to speak to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Altimas.

Mr. Elliott is next.

[Richard Elliott, Deputy Director, Policy Unit, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I want to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to comment on Bill C-9.

I'm here speaking today on behalf of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. You may be wondering at first glance why it is that an AIDS organization is concerned about this legislation. I hope that by the end of our time today you may have some sense of why we think this is a dimension of this legislation that the committee needs to grapple with as you go forward in your deliberations.

First, briefly let me tell you about our organization, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. We are a national non-governmental organization, one of approximately 10 in this country that work in partnership with the federal government and other orders of government to respond to the AIDS epidemic in Canada. Over 14 years we've become one of the world's leading organizations working on legal and policy issues related to HIV.

We have over 200 members across the country and some internationally, many of them AIDS service organizations that are based in the community and are working on the front lines of the response to the AIDS epidemic. It's because of that particular expertise and those particular concerns that we're here today.

In brief, we're concerned that there may be some unintended consequences—or we would hope they are unintended consequences—of this legislation that need to be considered as it moves forward. We are concerned in particular that Bill C-9 may in fact be counterproductive and may undermine some of the efforts to respond to the HIV epidemic among some of those Canadians who are most vulnerable to HIV—who are most vulnerable in the sense of being socially and economically marginalized and who will, we fear, because of that, as I will explain in a moment, bear the brunt in particular of this kind of legislative approach.

For many years now, Canada has recognized in its stated policy that the issue of problematic substance use is a health issue first and foremost rather than an issue to be dealt with via the criminal law and law enforcement.

Unfortunately the rhetorical commitment to dealing with this as a health issue, which has also been accompanied by a rhetorical commitment to dealing with HIV through measures that are shown by the evidence to be effective and in ways that actually respect and protect human rights, has not always been reflected in the actual practice, certainly at the federal government level, in the response to drugs in Canada.

It's particularly the application of Bill C-9 to drug offences that we are speaking about today; we're not offering any comment on any other aspects of this legislation.

When I say that this stated commitment to dealing with substance use as a health issue rather than a criminal law issue has not been reflected in the practice of the government's response, I want to recall to you that a few years ago, in 2001, the Auditor General issued a report on the spending at the level of the federal government in response to drugs, which was around $500 million. She reported at that time that almost 95% of that money was spent on law enforcement and criminal justice expenditures, notwithstanding the fact that Canada has repeatedly said we have a so-called “balanced” approach to responding to problematic drug use in Canada that includes not only law enforcement as one of the four pillars, but the three other pillars of measures to prevent drug misuse, to provide treatment for those with addiction and other problematic substance use, and to adopt proven and well-studied harm reduction measures, including things such as needle exchange programs.

Unfortunately now, in our view, with this legislation we are not moving in the right direction. We are in fact risking exaggerating the existing imbalance within the federal government's response to drugs. I want to urge upon this committee that you take some time after the comments you hear today to think about how this legislation may play out in the context of drug offences, and about what ultimately that means in terms of impact upon the health of some of Canada's most vulnerable and marginalized people and the public health more broadly.

Before this legislation was introduced, when it was something being contemplated, we put out a briefing paper that speaks in general terms of the notion of mandatory minimum sentences being applied to drug offences. We have tried to highlight why this is not necessarily good justice policy or good public health policy, particularly with a focus on an effective response to the HIV epidemic among people who use drugs. That briefing paper, I believe, has been shared with committee members. If it has not yet, we will make sure that it is. But since the bill was tabled and we've seen the actual provisions in the bill, we've prepared the additional brief that you have before you today, which looks specifically at how Bill C-9 will apply to offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

In our view, Bill C-9 is a form—it's a variant—of mandatory minimum sentences; that is, Bill C-9 does not specify that if you commit x offence, you must spend a minimum y number of years or you must be subject to such and such a minimum sentence. It does, however, say in its removal of the availability of conditional sentences for some of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences that if you commit those offences, a conditional sentence will no longer be an option if the sentence imposed is a term of imprisonment; that is, it mandates that a sentence of imprisonment be served in a correctional facility rather than a conditional sentence. So it mandates a certain minimum level of harshness of penalty, if you will.

There are two things I want to say specifically about how the legislation will apply to drug offences.

The first is a positive feature of the legislation, although I think it's really more a happy happenstance of the legislation in the way it's drafted. Simple possession offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act would not be covered by Bill C-9, and therefore, conditional sentencing would still be an option available to the court, assuming of course that the other criteria set out in the Criminal Code have been satisfied. This, in our view, is the silver lining in legislation that is, on balance, problematic.

Let me give you another example of how this legislation will apply to drug offences and why we think it's particularly problematic, and that is specifically the question of the offences of trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking. Why is it that we say that it would be problematic to apply Bill C-9, that is, to withdraw conditional sentences in the event of someone charged with a trafficking offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act? There are a number of reasons for this.

The first is that, although it might be tempting to pretend that we can fairly simplistically target just so-called drug dealers and somehow not bring to bear the full weight of the criminal law against people who are simply drug users and who are dealing with addictions, and to think that therefore this is consistent with the notion that we deal with drug offences and drug misuse as principally a health issue rather than a criminal issue, it's not that simple to actually differentiate. In fact, the way the legislation is drafted right now, it would mean that someone convicted of trafficking any quantity of, for example, heroin, even someone who is in possession of a fairly small amount and is perhaps sharing that with someone else in their drug-using network, would not be able, if a sentence of imprisonment is ordered by the court, to serve that sentence in the community.

We're mandating sending people to prison for offences that are not necessarily a violent offence and that involve perhaps trafficking even very small quantities. In fact, there is evidence, including Canadian evidence from the largest cohort of injection drug users who have been studied over many years in Vancouver, to show that a significant number of people who are users by injection of certain controlled substances have also in fact engaged in small-scale, street-level dealing, often to support their habit. It's those people in particular who are going to be most easily targeted for law enforcement efforts and most likely to be caught up and charged with trafficking offences. They would also be the people who would therefore be most likely to be sentenced to spend time in prison if a conditional sentence were not available for someone convicted of trafficking. It would be rare that in fact it is the real profiteers, those who are engaged in very large-scale trafficking of drugs--criminal organizations and so on--who would actually be caught by the trafficking offences.

What we've seen amongst drug users in the Vancouver cohort, for example, is that a significant number of them have engaged in direct selling of small quantities of drugs, again to support a habit, or they've engaged in what's called “middling”, that is, carrying small quantities, or what is called “steering”, that is, directing someone to a dealer where they can purchase the drugs they're needing. Those kinds of things could all fall within the definition of trafficking of a controlled substance under the CDSA, and as a result, given that the penalties for trafficking set out in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act would be caught by this 10-year threshold in Bill C-9, we would lose the opportunity for conditional sentencing of those cases.

I think it's also very important to understand that of those people who use drugs, who have also engaged in these “trafficking activities”, it's predominantly those who have the highest levels of addiction who have been involved in these things.

The study that will be published fairly shortly from Vancouver finds that the involvement in this small-scale, low-level street dealing of drugs has been associated with the frequency of heroin or cocaine injection, binge drug use, borrowing and lending of syringes, accidental overdose, and recent incarceration. All of those are markers of a higher intensity of addiction, so in effect we're talking about targeting people who are users, many of them with addictions, with this kind of legislation.

I'm not suggesting that's necessarily the purpose behind this legislation, but it is a consequence of this legislation of which the committee should be mindful.

I mentioned that incarceration was one of the factors associated with those who had engaged in small-scale street-level trafficking, and that leads me to a point about why it's bad public health policy to actually be incarcerating people who are drug users. No one, including Correctional Service Canada, disputes that drugs are in prisons. This is a reality in every country in the world, and there's no dispute that prisoners are injecting drugs in prison.

Over a decade ago, Correctional Service Canada reported that 40% of federal inmates admitted using drugs in prison, 11% of them by injection. What we also know, of course, is that there is little or no access to sterile injection equipment in prison, so we're sentencing people with addictions to drugs, many of them who use their drugs by injection, to a setting in which they're engaged in drug use in one of the riskiest ways possible because they can't actually get sterile injection equipment, even though we've had very successful needle exchange programs operating across Canada for over 20 years now. Time and time again, in Canada and around the world, every single study that has looked at needle exchange programs has concluded that this is one of the most important interventions in responding to HIV and the spread of other blood-borne diseases among people who inject drugs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I will ask you to move your presentation to a conclusion, please.

[Richard Elliott]

I will. Thank you.

Finally, let me offer a couple of thoughts as to why--beyond those health considerations--implementing this variant of mandatory and minimum sentences for drug offences would not be particularly effective. A study done for Justice Canada in 2002 looked at the available evidence at that time and concluded that mandatory minimum sentencing approaches do not work for drug offences. As has been noted before, because of the way it is drafted right now, Bill C-9 would go beyond instances of violence and other serious offences, and as has been pointed out by our colleagues from Quebec, this goes in the face of fundamental sentencing principles. We note that the government's concern with Bill C-9, as stated, has been principally with crimes of violence or potential for violence.

Our basic conclusion is that the evidence shows us that mandatory minimum sentencing approaches for drugs don't work. They do have potentially adverse consequences. From a health perspective, they will not permit us to easily distinguish between those who are so-called dealers and users--especially if any quantity of trafficking in a drug is criminalized and is not available for conditional sentencing--and they lead to bad public health outcomes.

In light of all of that, we ask ourselves why we would proceed with legislation that would have this potentially unintended consequence. This is a position that's been adopted not just by those who work in the field of HIV or addictions, but in fact a former Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, has himself said that mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences are a good example of the law of unintended consequences.

I urge the committee to think about that particular dimension of this legislation in your deliberations. I thank you for the chance to bring that to your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Elliott.

We will begin the round of questions. The Liberals will have seven minutes.

Larry Bagnell will begin, please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all. It was very interesting.

I'd like to start with the police association. I'll put my bias on the table: I've been a big supporter of the police in a number of committee meetings over the years.

I'd like to comment on a couple of things. One of your comments was, “People who are introduced to our justice system as witnesses to or victims of crime are frequently at a loss to understand principles and processes...” I think that might be part of a problem. I think you're saying you believe that police officers are probably frustrated because they think that when they've gone to all the work of catching someone, the person will probably be given a sentence that would provide less safety to the public than is otherwise possible or could be legislated.

Is that the sense I am to get from your presentation?

[Tony Cannavino]

That is one problem. The other problem is repeat offenders. Our police officers haven't even finished their paperwork and the person they arrested is back on the street doing exactly the same things.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Let me just go on further with that point, because I wanted to ask you about that. I would assume in most of the offences--and the jeopardy for victims, we're all trying to save victims--they are repeat offenders, because most of the criminals--

[Tony Cannavino]

One of the biggest problems is when victims see the person who committed the crime back on the street without even spending a couple of weeks in jail. It is significant. They are wondering. They start to doubt the system. For them, they think, what's the use? They have to go through the judicial system.

We're confronted with the criminal. We have to testify. We get all the pressure. We were victimized, and the criminal is laughing at us because he knows he's going to get out.

We're not the only ones to call it the revolving door.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Okay, let me carry on here.

As I said, this could be a misunderstanding if they're actually safer with what's happening in the courts now compared to an alternative. First of all, everyone we're dealing with in this bill is going to get out again. At some time they're going to be on the streets. Everyone agrees with that. What the public wants is safety. So what is most likely to prevent them from being victimized again, or victimized the first time?

In our last meeting we were presented with a chart—and maybe Patrick could confirm this—that basically suggested that a significant number of people, 34%, who had been through incarceration were likely to reoffend...but only 16% had done a conditional sentence. In conditional sentencing you could have various types of treatment. I'm sure you would probably agree that for half a millennium the traditional system hasn't worked by locking people up, because they just come back and reoffend and reoffend. There has been, as Patrick was saying, some successes with conditional sentencing. Particularly the statistics we had last week suggested that the people on the street who are worried about their safety are safer when a person has been through conditional sentences, by a margin of 16% to 34%.

[Tony Cannavino]

I won't be talking about statistics. If you want to talk about statistics, there's one thing I can do. Our front line police officers deal with victims and deal with citizens in their communities, and when they say they're not safe, they're not safe. When you talk about 30% being repeat offenders, statistics include everything, all kinds of crimes.

In 1996 the intention was good for minor offences; for exceptions, you would have the conditional sentencing. It's not what happened. It became the norm. It did not become the exception; that's what the courts gave. The exception was the one who would go to jail. Listen, that wasn't the intent of this legislation in 1996. What we see more and more is the fact that young kids.... We're always asking, why do they get lured and join gangs? It is because the first thing the leaders tell them is that there will be no consequences if they do a break and entry, or if they steal a car; not to worry, they will not go to jail for that. So they trivialize all those crimes. That's why we always see them back on the street.

What happens then? You have communities wondering what's going on, and you see more and more kids getting together and joining street gangs.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

As I was saying, once again, here's the misunderstanding. The public think they are less safe and they think that when the person is let out again, they're just on a holiday. Conditional sentencing is a lot more than that.

I want to pursue another line. I only have so much time, but later maybe I'll get Patrick to comment on some of the things that happen during conditional sentencing.

I'm sure that people are worried about being victims, and a lot of police officers would want to make sure that someone who has these problems and is likely to reoffend is worked with for the longest time possible.

I and a number of committee members were shocked when the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics told us that the person who is incarcerated, on average, is only worked with by the justice system to try to improve him and stop him from reoffending for an average of 47 days. Where it's a conditional sentence probation, the person is worked with on the cures and so on under the justice system for 700 days. I would much rather, to be safe, have someone being watched for 700 days than 47 days.

[Tony Cannavino]

We saw how much it cost for supervision. It's $1,700 a year. So that's not a huge supervision to get, and they know that system there. As I said, I think when we're looking at what kind of message we want to send, where's the deterrence and where's the consequence? If you commit a crime you don't get anything, just a little slap on the hands saying, don't do that, because it could cost too much if we were to send you to jail. That's how it became in the courts. So we have to see two things.

We're going to consider the economy when we think we should take care of victims. We should make sure those kids on the street--and older people--don't repeat an offence. So what we've said to the public safety minister is that we need a review of Correctional Services Canada and the National Parole Board regarding where we could get those people treatment. But when they commit a crime, they should be responsible for that and there should be a consequence. It shouldn't be that they get inside and the next day they're outside and we see our police officers for the next three weeks completing their reports. There's something there that doesn't work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell. Your time is up.

But I would encourage any other individuals who have come here accompanying the witnesses, like Mr. Griffin and Mr. Cusson, that if you have something to offer, you should make your statement. I would encourage that, please.

I don't know if you have anything you wanted to offer, Mr. Griffin.

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I am going to ask several questions and I would like you to provide brief answers to them.

The real question, as far as we are concerned, is how many conditional sentencees reoffend. I have not found an answer to that in the brief provided by the police officers. Yet I think that is the most important piece of information. Aside from that, everything else is ideological in nature, bordering on demagogy, and based on no data whatsoever.

One of the witnesses called for a commission of inquiry. We should not forget that sentencing reform, as set out in Bill C-41, was the result of the work of a royal commission, the Archambault Commission.

The police and the government have the same figures. In other words, out of 13,000 people who received conditional sentences, 5 to 6% of them served their conditional sentences in the community, depending on the year. You have the same figures.

I would like the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec Inc. to tell us how many conditional sentencees reoffended or committed other offences.

I am certain Tony Cannavino will also have information to share with us on that matter.

[Jean-François Cusson, Crime Analyst, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec Inc.]

We don't have data with respect to recidivism. Our workers tell us it is rare. When there are problems with conditional sentences, they often related to the conditions.

This is an important issue because last week, someone mentioned that when you incarcerate an individual for one year, you are precluding the commission of 10 to 15 offences. You must understand that when people are supervised in the community through a conditional sentence, there is not a great deal of recidivism either. So, we are avoiding approximately the same number of offences.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Very well.

Could you give us a precise figure, with respect to this question?

[Tony Cannavino]

That is why I was saying earlier on that there is a lack of available statistics and that some statistics cover all types of crime.

However, and you just have to look at what happens daily in courthouses — there are a great many people who receive conditional sentences, or sentences to be served in the community. There is a high rate of recidivism.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

But you don't have any statistics to back that up.