Justice Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Altimas, you have recommended two or three times that we do more research. Do you know who could do that kind of research? Would it take one year, two years or five years?

[Patrick Altimas]

I think it would primarily be the responsibility of the justice department. It would also depend on the tools at the government's disposal to undertake research on this issue. Despite all the research that we have done using government and other statistics, we have found that there is currently no information. I think that at some point there has to be a will to research the claims that have been made. I think that the best organization to do that research is the government.

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

How long would it take to get results, something that could give us an overall idea?

[Jean-François Cusson]

That depends on the availability of data. For example, in the area of paroles, there is a system that provides reliable statistics annually based on criteria that were established beforehand.

When you work in a community organization, the means at your disposal are scarce, and it is difficult to produce information quickly. I would think that with more means, we would be able to do this quite quickly.

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

Those are all my questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you to all the witnesses. I appreciate your testimony.

I note that oftentimes, as I've seen this committee, the opposition questioning does not focus on the victims. I'm interested in some comments made by the Canadian Police Association on how victims feel and also police officers, who, as you said, are on the front line, protecting society. I'd like to know what you hear from front-line police officers when they see someone who's committed.... Maybe use an example of one of these sentences that are punishable by 10 years, and I've noted that there are some sentences that are not included here that you would like to see included.

As parliamentarians, we do have to balance things. We have some people who say that too much is included; others say that not enough is included. I will note, for your information, that Ed Fast, one of our members, has introduced a private member's bill that would include luring in this bill, by raising to 10 years the maximum sentence for luring of a child. I support that initiative. That's a good move.

But can you comment a bit on that frustration and also on how victims you hear from feel when someone has committed an offence against them, and then that person, without serving any time, is back in the community where the offence was committed?

[Tony Cannavino]

I think our police officers experience that almost every day. We see more and more violent crimes. What we used to see on American TV shows about street gangs was happening only in the States. It's happening in Canada now. But why? Those are realities. Go to Winnipeg and Montreal and Vancouver and Toronto. And it's not only in those large cities. You see it more and more even in small cities.

When you go to a crime scene, you see the victim and understand what's going through her mind, what she's going through. You know that she's going to have to go to court, and you know by experience, with the way the courts handle those cases, that it's going to be a slap on the hand. He's going to be back on the street and he's going to be in the same neighbourhood, threatening and laughing at them. That's the other thing the victims are telling us, that they're being told, hey, I'm back here and I didn't get anything. They laugh at the victims.

Those are serious things. We need deterrents. When you commit a crime and you have a consequence, it's different. Look at what happened in Quebec. Everybody in Canada thought that Quebec had thrown in the towel with the bikers. What happened? They changed the legislation--stiffer sentencing, stiffer legislation--and created a special unit, Carcajou/Wolverine. What happened to them? They're all in jail. That was significant. It destabilized the organized crime, the bikers.

That's the way to do it, because there was a deterrent. Before that, how many young kids dreamed that one day they would become bikers because they thought that nothing could happen to them? Well, this is the message we have to send to the communities, to Canadian citizens--we're there to protect them. And you, as legislators, have to send that message. But if it's a message of a revolving door, that they'll never get anything.... Even though your intention was very good in 1996, it's not happening that way. Why? There's always the economic factor. How much is it going to cost us to put this person in jail? Well, do you know what's going to happen? The same person who thinks nothing can happen to them is going to commit and recommit again and again, so it's going to cost how much more to get police officers to arrest them so many times and get so many victims.

Our job is to protect and serve Canadian citizens. That's what we want to do. But we need help, and the only ones who can help us are you.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Your organization is the only one here that's representing front line police officers. I think there's a bit of a myth out there; we saw some statistics, and one thing they showed us was that since 1996, there's been a steady increase in the use of conditional sentences. You mentioned in your testimony that when this was introduced--and we as legislators know this, because all of us have looked back at the debates of the time--it was for non-serious, non-violent offences. It was seen as a reasonable thing, as just opening the door a crack. Now the door has been opened full swing, and we see conditional sentences being used for very serious crimes.

One of the myths out there, I think, is that somehow there's this strict monitoring when somebody's serving a conditional sentence or house arrest. People intuitively know that this is a joke, but I've heard that perpetuated here. You represent front line police officers. Presumably these would be some of the people doing the monitoring.

When someone is serving a conditional sentence, how much or how closely are they monitored? When someone says it's cheaper to monitor someone dangerous, or a repeat offender, than it is to have them in jail, it would be cheaper still not to monitor them at all. Let them out; you'd spend zero on monitoring.

When I hear the figure used for what it costs to monitor someone...and you've already recognized that this couldn't buy much monitoring.

[Tony Cannavino]

Absolutely none.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

What happens in the real world when it comes to monitoring someone--

[Tony Cannavino]

They're understaffed. At an average of $1,700 a year, how can you monitor, how can you supervise, how can you make sure that those persons will not be repeat offenders?

There's another thing about statistics. Years ago when I was a front line police officer, I remember reporting on the day's statistics--for instance, on accidents with injured people. Do you know what? They changed that maybe ten years ago. Now for it to be considered an accident with injured people, the person has to stay in hospital for three days.

So what happened? Are there fewer accidents with injured people? No. We consider it an accident with injured people now if they stay three days in the hospital. But who stays three days in the hospital?

[David Griffin, Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association]

Perhaps I could add something here.

The people responsible for the supervision, under the Correctional Service of Canada, are probation and parole officers, or they're provincial. In these cases, in 1995, when conditional sentencing was being introduced, the Auditor General said then that their caseload was too high. There hasn't been a great influx of new resources or new officers into the system to do the monitoring or do the supervision. The cost, as we mentioned earlier, is $1,700 a year. That's not a lot of treatment, and not a lot of monitoring.

In terms of the types of offences, on page 11 of our brief you'll see that we have provided statistics from Statistics Canada on where conditional sentences were used--five manslaughter offences, 258 robberies, 307 sexual assaults, and 2,405 drug trafficking offences.

With due respect to Mr. Elliott's presentation--I certainly share some of his concerns in terms of drug use in prison--we would be laughed out of the courtroom if we walked in for people sharing needles, or dealing with small amounts of any drug, and suggesting that this was a drug trafficking offence that should be prosecuted.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I think this is an important line of questioning. There appears to be some concern on the part of the other witnesses that they would like to make some reply to Mr. Moore's question, and I'm going to allow that to happen.

Mr. Elliott, I know you had something, and Mr. Altimas, I think you might want to add to the discussion as well.

Mr. Elliott, go ahead.

[Richard Elliott]

Thank you. I have just two brief points.

First, to follow up on the comment that Mr. Griffin just made, if it's in fact the case that it would not usually be the kind of situation for which you would send someone to prison--for, say, a minor trafficking offence--then it seems to me there's little harm in accepting our recommendation that you might exempt those kinds of offences from this legislation, to remove the option of conditional sentencing. Why create an incentive in a system that is driving toward sending people to prison? Even if they're just trafficking small quantities, many of those people would be doing it to support an addiction. If, as my colleague here is saying, that's not necessarily how the courts want to see it anyway, why resist the notion of exempting drug offences, or at least some of them, from this legislation?

The second point is on cost. We must think responsibly about the cost of incarcerating people with addictions, given the very little return, especially from the perspective of health, that comes from that. That any money is actually spent on incarcerating people who might otherwise actually be able to serve time in the community and benefit from treatment programs were they better funded is, I think, a misuse of funds. We would actually get more return for the individual, and for the community order as a whole, if we were to actually take those funds and spend them not on more prisons for people who have addictions but actually on treatment, which is inaccessible for many people with addictions in this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Griffin, did you have something you wanted to comment on in reference to his statement?

[Tony Cannavino]

I can't agree, although I understand what he wants to do. That's what has happened since 1996; the exception became the rule. That is not what we want to see--starting in 2006.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Mr. Altimas.

[Patrick Altimas]

Yes. I'd like to make a comment concerning supervision. I take exception to the fact that it's considered a joke. In preparation for this appearance today, yesterday we met with two front line workers who work with conditional releasees to verify, at least empirically, some of the things we thought we saw in reality.

One of the things we found is that these two front line workers, who have been doing this for over six years and have seen dozens and dozens of conditional releasees, do not consider that the clients are violent. They feel that the judges and prosecutors have done their jobs in terms of eliminating people who are really violent offenders.

Secondly, when it comes to supervision, in a lot of cases, when a person comes out on conditional release, there is what we call in French assignation à résidence, or house arrest as you say in English. In that case, in Quebec in any case, the system is such that the supervisor is not alone in the verification process. There is also what we call an agent du Service correctionnel, better known as a guard, who is working in the community. They are verifying, either by telephone or with visits to the home--five, six, seven times a week at all hours of the day--to make sure the person is respecting his or her conditions. Believe me, the meetings with the supervisor are more than just once a month.

What we also heard yesterday from our front line workers is that in certain cases conditional release was considered harder than a sentence of incarceration--for example, wives were complaining that they were sick and tired of getting phone calls and visits at all hours of the day. It is a very serious process.

I take exception to the fact that supervision is not important and that there's an image that violent offenders are being released on conditional release. The fact that a person commits a crime that is considered violent does not make that person a violent offender, unless there is an evaluation of that person in addition to the offence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Altimas.

I took the liberty of extending that debate by the witnesses. I trust the rest of the committee members got something out of the discussion.

Ms. Barnes, it's your opportunity.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you very much for giving your input on this important matter.

I'll start with Mr. Elliott. I looked at the sections that this bill as it's presently set up would capture, and I note that possession for purposes of trafficking, schedule III; importing/exporting, schedule III or VI; possession for the purpose of exporting, schedule III or VI; and producing, schedule III, are all currently hybrids.

I want to confirm that you're reading this the same way as I'm reading it. The way the current bill is worded, when there are small quantities, they can elect to switch to a summary offence and those would be out of the purview of concern that you have. I just want to make sure I've done my homework the right way and that you're in agreement with that.

[Richard Elliott]

Yes. The way we read the legislation, the drugs listed in schedule III of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which are things like amphetamines, LSD, and psilocybin, are hybrid offences. The offences you mentioned are hybrid and they could be prosecuted by way of summary conviction. If they were to be prosecuted by way of indictment, then the maximum sentence would be ten years, and conditional sentences would not be available.

What I should also point out is that for those substances listed in schedule I--heroin, cocaine, methadone--trafficking of any quantity of that substance is an indictable offence. Therefore, if there was a conviction and a term of imprisonment, a person who is convicted of trafficking in any quantity, however small, say of heroin or cocaine, would have to spend time in prison. So you're talking about sending people to prison, many of whom will be addicts, in places where they will continue to use drugs--because we know that happens--without access to sterile injection equipment. This doesn't make sense from a public health perspective.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Altimas, I understand from your brief that you noted that there had been another approach by the Liberal government in Bill C-70 that did a listing of things that they should want to narrow in on, which included things like organized crime, terrorism, and sexual offences, and then another sort of catch-all category where denunciation was the most important thing. In your brief you said you preferred that. The minister has come to this committee earlier and said he is open to other ways of looking at this. We are trying here, I think, to narrow this or put it into a perspective that people can feel comfortable with, both in the community and around this table.

But you must have had reasons for saying that, and I'd like to hear them.

[Patrick Altimas]

I'll let Mr. Cusson answer.