Evidence of meeting #58 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was judge.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
My response is this: the police became very political.
5:15 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
I don't know when, but police associations began to lobby and to criticize the judges and the system. The team approach, which we have to work with every day or we're not going to get through any cases, got replaced by a politicization of the police forces. The police forces started to appear and started to criticize the judges. My point earlier on was this: where is the embracing of our system by the police associations?
Last, I just want to say one other thing about this. Maybe the police are being wrongly used here. The Prime Minister says he wants judges who are going to follow the law and order agenda, and he's therefore going to put in the police officers, as an institution. Quite frankly, that may be unfair to the police, but the police politicized themselves in criticizing the criminal justice system, and that's why we got into this situation.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Prof. Edward Ratushny
I think your comments, like the comments of my colleague here, are fine in theory. He talked about how police are trained from the beginning to be objective and straightforward and right down the middle, and about how they're not going to be affected subjectively by these kinds of things. You talked about the team approach and the objective of justice being done and so on. Theoretically, that's great. Applied to the vast majority of police conduct, that is probably correct.
But there is a danger, because police have a unique role in society. They have the authority to use force, and they have great authority to affect criminal cases and the outcome in criminal cases, quite apart from the actual evidence that's presented.
The proof is in the pudding. If you read the Marshall inquiry report; if you read the recent report of the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer on three murder cases in Newfoundland; if you read the recent reports on Driskell in Manitoba and Morin in Ontario, there's chapter and verse of police misbehaving, of withholding evidence from the defence, of acting unfairly, and of giving testimony that was misleading. Although the vast majority of police live up to the principles that you enunciate, that is why there's a danger. It's because of their unique position that some won't, and the consequences can be wrongful convictions. That's why, in many cases, the judge is the one who stands between society and the danger of the police abusing their position.
5:20 p.m.
Retired Judge, As an Individual
The ultimate court, if it ever wants to be, is Parliament. There are members of Parliament who would do exactly the same thing as Mr. Ratushny has said, but the institution still functions, and it functions well.
With respect to the politicization of the police force by criticizing the justice system or individual decisions, there is an absolute right in the hands of every Canadian citizen to voice very serious and strenuous criticism of any decision rendered by a judge, or any series of decisions. That's an absolute right. That's part of our individual liberty. Police officers should not be muzzled.
A gentleman with the Metropolitan Police in London—his name escapes me—wrote a biography. He said that changes have come to the extent that chiefs of police must start speaking out on issues that relate to the criminal justice system.
I see no reason why we can't have more democratic legitimacy in the process by having a police officer or police officers on the board. As with any other, as Mr. Ménard said, it should be open. The more open that process is, the better.
As Mr. Ratushny said—and I believe one of our other members did too—ultimately the government of the day has the absolute duty—not a right, but an absolute duty—under the British North America Act's judicature section, to appoint the judges of the superior courts. That's an absolute right that remains in the hands of Parliament, and it must never be delegated to a committee, ever. The Prime Minister may well take on roles beyond what is intended originally by our parliamentary structure; nevertheless, the more legitimate it can become, the more democratic it can become—and I believe that includes police officers—the better.
So I wish you well.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it's absolutely important to underline that those remarks are not entirely correct, in that the Canadian Bar Association's code of conduct is very clear that there are limits on how far a lawyer can go in criticizing the courts.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all of you for being here, but I'd especially like to thank Mr. Craig for being here. Maybe after the meeting, we'll have to compare birth certificates, because I've been looking for a long time for an elder I could be respectful to. I can't find any anymore. I don't know what's happening.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Good, I'm 1936. Here's my chance. All during this session, I've been looking for an elder. I've finally found one.
I just want to tell you how much I appreciate your testimony. I agree with you fully, and I want to take some responsibility. My generation, your generation, has failed dismally. I agree with you in that regard.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I immigrated to this country in the sixties. During the sixties and seventies, I served as a high school principal for a number of years in junior high, and I was mayor of a small town in Alberta. I've paid a lot of attention to what's going on with law and order. In the sixties and seventies, as Mr. Trudell said, I really embraced the judicial system. It was pretty darn good. Compared to where I came from, I was really pleased with what I saw going on. Then slowly, through the eighties and the nineties, all of a sudden, what happened? I'll give you two examples.
When I was mayor, the police officers did a good job of catching two young adults who attacked a small businessman who liked to take his proceeds from his business home every day in this small town. He didn't trust leaving them in the store. On his way home, he was mugged, was beaten severely, and was robbed. Very shortly, the police did a good job of apprehending these two individuals. They delivered them to the remand centre in Calgary, because we didn't have a remand centre in the small town where I lived. This was in the eighties, when I was mayor.
I went in and was congratulating the sergeant of the RCMP on the work the police in that small town had done in apprehending these two fellows. The officers were on their way to deliver them to the Calgary Remand Centre. Before they came back from Calgary, they had to stop at the headquarters in Calgary about something, and they stopped and had lunch. Those two fellows were on the street corner giving the officers the finger when the officers came back into town. They had beat them back to town. I wondered what in the world was going on and how that could possibly be.
Not too long after that, one of my school teachers whom I had hired three years earlier—she was an excellent teacher, but she was young, with only three years in the profession—came into my office on a Monday morning, crying like you wouldn't believe. A terrible thing had happened on the weekend. She got picked up for drunk driving and was charged with drunk driving and injuring persons in another vehicle, an accident causing injury. She was devastated, “What have I done?” Oh, the tears. I wanted to help her all I could, in the sense of “Relax, you've done a bad thing here”—she agreed—“but let me help you through this.”
We progressed, and as time went on, I talked the board into allowing her to stay in the school. They wanted to get rid of her immediately, but I talked them into allowing her to stay because she was an excellent teacher.
About a month after this charge, she came into my office, she had her defence lawyer with her, and they were asking me for a letter of reference in order to support them in their hearing. I said, “I can only give a letter of reference in regard to your abilities as a teacher. Sure, I'll do that much, but don't expect me to condone what happened in any way, fashion, or form.” It was then that I asked, “When will the trial be?” I was concerned about her being gone from school, and I wanted to make sure we had that covered. They said it wouldn't be for a couple of months, so I asked why it would be so long. Well, Judge A was on the bench that quarter, and they were waiting until Judge B came in later in the year. It was pure and simple judge shopping. I couldn't believe that happened, but then I was told that it happens quite frequently.
We can go on with cases in regard to taxes and decisions made regarding mothers and fathers fighting over children and all this.
And then there's the big cruncher: four officers killed in Mayerthorpe by an individual who should have never seen the light of day after about his seventieth arrest.
Mr. Trudell, you ask me to continue to embrace this judicial system? Not on your life! And 90% of the taxpaying people in my riding are saying the same thing. No. We need some sweeping changes. We have to fix it. It even means readjusting the committees we use for selection of judges. Right from there, anywhere you want to go, we need sweeping changes. That's what people are saying. We can no longer embrace the judicial system with the things that are happening all around us.
Why do you think we have great numbers of organizations for victims of crime? Why are they joining together?
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, this is the third time at the committee you have allowed excess time. We're on the second round.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I'm sorry if I've offended Mr. Comartin and the committee about the time, but I'm really getting fed up with being asked to totally embrace a justice system that's failing.
Mr. Trudell, I totally object to your comments in that regard. You cannot continue to convince me that we should embrace a system that's failing.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
If you want to embrace the system, be my guest. Love it up, love it up big.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Order, please.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their appearance and their comments. They will certainly be part of our deliberations and our final report. We appreciate it.
I know Mr. Ménard has a point of order that he wants to bring forward.
I will remind colleagues that we are in public meeting right now, so let's behave ourselves.
You have a copy of the budget before you, a travel request to RCMP headquarters.
Yes.
