Justice Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

[Richard Elliott]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for two questions.

I think we agree on the statistics of zero tolerance. That is the stated policy. It's pretty much the stated policy of every prison system in the world and has been for decades. It's not achievable, and the stats show that as well. So I think we have to accept that and be pragmatic about it. We can continue to maintain interdiction efforts. We know the drugs will get into prison; therefore, we can't close our eyes to the health consequences.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I'd like to point out that I did visit at least three penitentiaries where there is zero tolerance. They do exist.

[Richard Elliott]

In the Canadian context, that's been the stated policy for decades. There's never been any way of actually achieving complete prohibition of drugs in prisons.

The second point is about the use of taxpayers' funds. If we have evidence that mandatory minimum sentencing approaches do not work in the case of drug offences, and we are going to spend money on pursuing an approach that does not work when we know there are adverse health consequences that we will pay for down the road, then it seems to me that's not a good use of taxpayers' money and that we ought to be putting that money into more effective responses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Elliott.

Our time is running short. I know you want to make a quick comment, Mr. Cannavino.

[Tony Cannavino]

Very briefly, it's exactly the message we get every day in the streets. That's exactly what our front line police officers tell us. People are tired. They want us to be able to put those people in jail.

Let's put a little bit of energy into defending victims. I know that criminals have rights, but honest people do too. They have the right to live in a country they feel safe in. So for that we have to put those criminals in jail. It's sad, but that's the way it is. What can we say?

That's the way we see it. We represent 54,000 police personnel across Canada, and they all say the same thing. So there must be something. This message must be what they hear from Canadian citizens, whom you represent.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I've enjoyed the presentations today. They add depth to the statistical information we got in our last couple of meetings.

Mr. Cannavino, the anecdotes you used were, from my point of view, a little unhelpful, but I understand that they come from the street, where the police officer has a job to do. Their goal is to put the bad guy away so the street will be a safer place. I understand that.

Mr. Moore took a shot at what he referred to as the opposition when he spoke of their not paying much attention to victims. But in fairness, Mr. Moore, this committee, on a non-partisan basis in the mid-nineties, wrote the book on victims and victims' rights, in large measure with help from the Canadian Police Association, which has for many years funded an office for victims' rights.

So this isn't a partisan thing. One could argue that the amendments being proposed to the conditional sentencing provisions will reduce the amenities available to victims in sentencing. Conditional sentencing, the way it's framed, allows components of restitution and reconciliation involving victims. If we're just going to put them away in the slammer, there'll be less recognition of this.

Mr. Cannavino says that guys are showing up on the street before the police have done the paperwork. In fairness, Mr. Cannavino, wouldn't you agree that an offender can end up on the street during judicial interim release on bail before conviction? After conviction, pending sentencing or an appeal, the judge can put him back on the street.

So there are lots of reasons why a victim can see a perpetrator, an offender, or a convicted person back on the street. It may be distasteful, but it's not always because of some failure of the conditional sentencing regime. Wouldn't you agree with that?

[Tony Cannavino]

Yes, but that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the trial. Once the trial is over, by the time the police officer goes back to his headquarters and does his paperwork, the person he arrested can be back on the street. There are so many ways for them to go back--

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

But it's not because of conditional sentencing. The trial may be over. The conviction may have even been entered, but the person may not have been sentenced yet and may be on release pending the sentencing hearing.

[Tony Cannavino]

I was talking about the ones after they received sentences.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

If a sharp lawyer decides there are grounds for an appeal and they do an appeal, the guy's out--often, not always, and for serious offences not likely, but the guy's out.

[Tony Cannavino]

Mr. Lee, you are experienced, but I'll be very practical on things that you've probably witnessed, or comments you've received from people you've represented, saying, “He's back on the street. He didn't get a sentence and now he's at the corner where I live and he laughs at me.”

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

But that could happen if the judge gave probation instead of an incarceration.

[Tony Cannavino]

I was talking about conditional sentences, because if you talk about other things on probation and the ones that get out after one-sixth of their sentence because it is qualified as a non-violent crime, we saw it so many times--

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

But that's not conditional sentencing.

[Tony Cannavino]

That's why I'm saying I was talking about de-conditional. Well, we talk about

conditional sentences.

Those are the ones I'm mentioning.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay. The way conditional sentencing is structured right now, the judge is only supposed to use it when the sentence is less than two years.

[Tony Cannavino]

Yes?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

So if conditional sentencing is a viable form of sentencing--and you've acknowledged that it is for much of its use, but not all of it--doesn't the problem lie with the judge's decision to use a sentence of less than two years? Isn't that the core of the problem here, the judge's decision that the offence involved warrants a sentence of less than two years and we're therefore into a conditional sentencing possibility?

Wouldn't it be appropriate to look back at the judge's determination that two years is the appropriate sentence? If we can get the judge up over two years, then he or she can't use conditional sentencing.

[Tony Cannavino]

Bill C-10 is one thing, and that's why we've been asking for a review of Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board and sentencing, because that is important.

As we've said, it's good to talk about it to try to find some ways and exceptions to this and that, but we also have to address that huge problem of the policies of Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board and the way they deal with the sentencing. That's another issue also.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

There are lots of issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

One more questioner, Mr. Brown, and that will be the end of our meeting.

I would ask members to stay, because we do have some witness issues to talk about afterwards.

Go ahead, Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've touched on a lot of these topics. I'll be brief because I know we're pushing our time.

In your presentation, Mr. Cannavino, you mentioned two issues that I was intrigued about. One was about wiretaps and extraditions into Canada. Certainly that would speak to a problem with our current laws, that we'd be a tourist destination for criminals. Could you maybe speak to that point and let us know what evidence you have of that?

Secondly, we've heard some mention of $1,700 and that maybe it's more money than is adequate. What are your sentiments in terms of whether it would make any significant difference if you increased it by $700 or $800, or is it a larger problem of deterrence and a larger problem of not being able to simply supervise every neighbourhood and every convenience store?

[Tony Cannavino]

When we're talking about the way criminals exploit the system and the flaws in the system, it's unbelievable. They're experts in that. Plus they have the defence attorneys. They pay big money just to make sure that.... I'm sorry Mr. Lemay isn't here, because he was one of those strong defence lawyers. You too? I'm sorry. But the thing is, that's their job, to find some flaws in the legislation or in the Criminal Code and exploit it. They're entitled to a defence, and that's their job.

I'll give you an example of a case we had here in Canada, the Erez case. That person was convicted of trafficking drugs in the United States and got 15 years. Here, the maximum was 10 years. So he asked to come and serve his sentence in Canada. When he came here, because it's considered non-violent here and the time he spent in the United States was considered, he stayed here two months. Two months, and then he was released because it was considered a non-violent crime. One month after he was released, he got shot in a hotel in Toronto, during a drug deal at the Harbour Castle.

That's one case. There are a lot of those cases. That's the example. Bill C-9 for us is one good step in the right direction. We're not here advocating that there should never be any conditional sentencing. The only thing we want to make sure of is that.... The ones included in Bill C-9 we think are very good, and we suggest legislators also add some more, considering what kind of crimes they are. That is the way we see Bill C-9, as the first good step in the right direction, even though in 1996 the intentions were good from the House of Commons.

The other point about how much it costs for monitoring or supervising those people, which I think is $1,700, is that it's a multi-pronged approach we need to have there. It's not only adding or doubling the amount; they have to have more resources. As I said, when you call one of them, you don't have a clue where they are, because of the transfers of calls. They could be anywhere in Canada or in the United States. Why? Because you transfer your house phone to your cell number, and they'll never know that it was a transfer of a call. So you would think he's at home and he'll probably say yes, he's at home, he's in his living room, because he knows you're not going to knock at the door. It never happens, or it happens once in so many times that he's going to take the risk.

The other thing is that they have to go every Friday and sign in at the police station. It takes about 30 seconds. He goes there. He's still in the area, so he signs in, as it was indicated in the sentence that he has to go to the police station.

So those are things that I think we have to review. That's why we're asking. I talked to the public safety minister maybe two weeks ago, saying we're hoping that this review will be announced very soon, because it is serious. And I think it goes in the way that we see with Bill C-9 and other bills, talking about mandatory minimum sentencing. So as I said, it's multi-pronged, but it's step by step. We need many tools.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I would like to thank the witnesses. I know the committee members here really appreciated your input. I think we had a good discussion going, and it certainly revealed some areas that we can look at, concentrate on, and maybe fix. I appreciate your attending here. Undoubtedly we'll see some of you when we're into Bill C-10. Thank you for appearing.

I'm going to suspend this session for a moment and then were going to get into the--

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the other people who have had to leave also, there's been some talk around the room. I understand--and I believe it's been agreed, as per my discussion with you--that we should have William Trudell's organization, which is the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers; and also, at the request of Mr. Bagnell, Charles Stuart of the northern justice and criminology program, arts and science division, Yukon College, because we lacked somebody from the north. Those were the only two we discussed, and at this point in time, that's all.