Evidence of meeting #16 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 sentences.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
You should go over to that side, they're looking for someone—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Mr. Lemay, I understand your question about stats and I have to agree with the police association. They are not in the business of necessarily collecting them, apart from on an individual basis, and they're sent to a central depository. That's my understanding. That central depository was asked to present those stats here, in one form or another, the other day, and we really didn't get a very clear picture from what it presented.
To sort of take the heat off Mr. Cannavino, I know it's very difficult for him to come up with some specifics there, but there are other ways of doing that--because I think it needs to be done.
Did one of the witnesses have some comments to make?
Mr. Petit.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you.
First of all, I want to thank you all for being here today. Mr. Cannavino, I see you have not changed and that you are quite able to defend your positions.
I will start with a brief introduction and then I will ask a question of Mr. Cusson and Mr. Altimas, who will undoubtedly be able to answer.
I am certain you saw as well as I did yesterday on TV that the Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau International Airport in Montreal is literally a funnel for drugs and that personnel there, police officers and civilians, are being bribed. They are afraid of drug pushers. You seem to have a positive view of conditional sentences. We know that airport staff are afraid of drug traffickers.
Could you explain to me why correctional services officers who on a daily basis are responsible for supervising people involved in the drug trade, hard drugs and otherwise, are being bribed? Perhaps they are afraid. You have no statistics on that.
The only thing we do know is that it costs approximately 20¢ an hour to monitor drug traffickers outside of jail. Drugs, on the face of it, are not dangerous, but let us not forget that in Columbia and Afghanistan, growers are gunned down with machine guns because we buy drugs. That is the “not in my backyard“ effect. We must put an end to it. It is not because the issue is not serious here that it is not elsewhere. Today, in Venezuela and in Afghanistan, people are getting killed because we are buying their drugs. That is just not right.
I learned one thing from my practice, which I would like to share with you. In Mr. Elliott's brief, which was read earlier on, we see that 40% more drugs are making their way into the jails. Imagine what it is like when you are not in jail! When you are not in jail, how many drugs are getting in? That is what I would like to know from you.
We are close to our constituents, we work for good honest people, people like you and me, and for the victims, because we all have family members who were victims. Is it normal to imagine that for serious crimes, when someone is behind bars... There is already a 40%t higher probability that drugs are going to get in, but it is not 100% more, because the people who are monitoring these offenders, that we have been referring to from the beginning, do $1,792 worth of monitoring per year, in other words 20¢ per hour. If you think that these people are not afraid of drug dealers and that there is no chance of their being bought, you are living in some alternate reality. At the Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau International Airport in Montreal, they make approximately $30,000 per year, they have a few duties to carry out, they are being bribed and they are afraid.
I would like to know your position on this. How can you try to convince me to accept your position rather than that which is set out in Bill C-9?
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec Inc.
Out of all of the cases of workers monitoring conditional sentences in the community, we see no indication of individuals similar to those who are frightening people at the Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau International Airport. If there were some, and there is no indication of that, we could consider the matter, but there is no evidence to show that these people are under conditional sentences.
We agree that dangerous individuals should not receive conditional sentences, but we do not agree on how to reach that objective. The Criminal Code is designed so that these individuals should not receive conditional sentences, because judges are responsible for assessing the level of dangerousness of individuals.
Jean-François would like to say a few words.
5:10 p.m.
Crime Analyst, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec Inc.
We must not forget that when judges grant conditional sentences, they have to assess not only an individual's dangerousness but also whether the sentence will allow for laying of information and constitute sufficient punishment. If these conditions are not met, conditional sentences should generally not be granted.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
But I believe Mr. Elliott wants to make a comment in reference to your question.
5:15 p.m.
Deputy Director, Policy Unit, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think your point is well taken, but it raises the question of whether or not mandating incarceration for people who are addicts to drugs and are therefore convicted of drug offences is somehow going to prevent the kind of global trafficking you are talking about.
If we're concerned about the fact that people are being killed in other countries because of the drug trade because we buy drugs here, it doesn't seem to me that it follows necessarily that mandating incarceration of people is going to solve that problem. We only have to look at the experience in the United States, where for many years now there have been mandatory sentences of incarceration for drugs, and yet obviously the drug problem in the U.S. continues. In fact, it has increased, notwithstanding those sentences, so that they now incarcerate more non-violent drug offenders than any other place in the world.
It doesn't seem to me that it makes sense to keep going down that road. If in fact we could use funds to not put people who have addictions in prison, where we know there are exaggerated health risks, but were actually to invest in things like better treatment programs, that to me seems an opportunity cost we can't avoid grappling with.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to begin by saying that I agree with Mr. Altimas, who stressed the importance of identifying where the problem lies. I have great respect for your testimony because, like police officers and Mr. Cannavino, you are working on the front line.
You will perhaps serve as an example for members on the other side and other witnesses. A very important statement is made on page 2, paragraph 5 of your brief. It states: “Public opinion approves the use of conditional [...]”
Could you provide us with figures or polls in support of the statement that the public supports the use of conditional sentencing?
5:20 p.m.
Crime Analyst, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec Inc.
It is important to mention that this information was provided by the Department of Justice, and is based, I believe, on an Angus-Reid poll. Such polls are few and far between, which is why we drew it to your attention. It is often said that the general public does not support the use of conditional sentences.
A few polls have shown that the public is in fact relatively supportive of conditional sentencing, provided it is not used for certain offences, especially serious violent crimes against children. Only a handful, including this one, reveal this attitude. There really are not any others. In general, people support conditional sentencing. This document refers to a study that shows that where people have been educated as to what conditional sentencing entails, they support its use even for violent crimes.
This is not insignificant, because we know that the general public struggles to grasp the ins and outs of sentencing. We can therefore assume that if these measures are misunderstood by the public, people will tend to underestimate how effective they are. If the public had a greater understanding, then I imagine that support levels for these measures would be even higher.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Rolling on, I'd like to take exception to the comments made by Mr. Moore. In fact, we share boundaries, and I care as much about the people who are broken into on one side of Whitepine Road as those on the other—and it is about the victims.
I would like to steer the discussion about the victims to Mr. Cannavino. What we are trying to suggest based on some of the actual evidence in the study we received the other day, the statistics suggesting that the chances of a criminal offending the same victim again, or another victim, are perhaps less if the conditional sentencing regime was kept, modified, or at least not completely thrown away?
Although that evidence might be flawed—and I invite you to take a look at it—in general it suggests that people who are given a sentence and incarcerated spend on average 47 days under supervision, because they are in the slammer, while people who get a conditional sentences have an average of 256 days of ordered supervision. I understand there is some dispute as to the level of that supervision and what you get for your money, but the claws of justice are over the offender for longer.
The other step is that I am going to try to encourage you to perhaps enlighten us more on what you see out there. The other statistic is that with respect to offenders who get conditional sentences, well over 50% are first offenders. Notwithstanding that there are some serious crimes, obviously a judge, given that discretion, has said, well, this person might not likely reoffend if I give these conditions.
Is there any merit to that? You're front line. I have tonnes of respect for police officials. I was the mayor of a city and a commissioner of a police board for six years. You are front line justice officials; you're there. But is there anything you can help us with to determine that some conditional sentences are worth keeping, because 50% are first offenders? Secondly, if there's a resource issue, if the $1,700 offends you—and I know police officials are often talking about resources: problem-oriented policing, getting into the schools, and having more police officers as a deterrent presence—if it's about resources, about the $2,400 per supervision, then tell us. This is another aspect that we can cut into the $13 billion we gave them last year to do the right thing.
Can you help us at all?
September 26th, 2006 / 5:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Police Association
Mr. Murphy, that's what we see here. We're not against conditional sentencing, even though it seems that we feel strongly about certain crimes that are included in there that we think should not receive conditional sentencing. That's why for certain crimes we also asked the government to come up with mandatory minimum sentencing. Why? It is because we have to go that way. There has to be a deterrent.
The other thing is that of course we would like to invest...we think that education and prevention are very important. That's why we have asked the former government and this government to come out as soon as possible with a national drug strategy. It is because we see the link between a lot of crimes and the drug problem. That has to be pivotal. It is the cornerstone of the other approach of education, prevention and treatment; it is to help the people.
I know you're all willing to help people who are struggling with that problem. What we would like to see added to Bill C-9 is certain crimes that we believe should not receive conditional sentencing. We don't have a problem with the rest. It's all the other ones. What happens in court is that they get conditional sentencing and then we struggle with it. It's not only us. It's our job to arrest criminals. We see a lot of victims and we want to help Canadian citizens, we want to protect them. That's our job. That's why we need your support.
We come here maybe not with all the statistics you would like--it's not our job to bring the statistics--we're here because we're the national voice of front line police officers. We're here to tell you what they are telling us is happening in the streets and in their communities. That's why we're here with a brief that gives you an indication of where we would like you to support us, and by supporting us you will support Canadian citizens.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Thanks for coming, everyone.
There's one statistic that I'm pretty well aware of. We talk a lot about statistics here, wanting information. I've been here 13 years, and some of my other colleagues have been here as long as I have. We'll remember some stats.
I remember in early 1994, somewhere around then--I know Mr. Lee would be well aware of this--there was a woman by the name of Priscilla de Villiers, who was the president of victims of crime. We tabled over two million signatures--2,400,000, if I'm not mistaken--in this Parliament to clamp down on criminals and get tough on crime. Ever since that petition was tabled there have been hundreds and hundreds, thousands and thousands more signatures all indicating the same thing.
Those are stats that we have records of, petitions that have come to this place. Those people who are petitioning this government to do something about it are the taxpayers out there paying for a system that they're very disappointed in. That's a stat that nobody can argue with.
Not only that, these victim organizations are gaining numbers in membership every day that we prolong it. It isn't decreasing, because the people who are paying for the system are not being satisfied.
Bill C-41 was an attempt to answer that, and I think everybody pretty well liked the idea of making this kind of bill happen. Of course, as you said, Mr. Cannavino, it turned into the rule instead of the exception.
Mr. Altimas, I'm really surprised to hear the statement from you that just because a person did a violent crime, it doesn't mean he is violent. I'm sure glad I didn't take that attitude when I was principal of a school, because when a child committed a violent act against another child, it immediately told me that if this person is capable of committing such an event, he obviously would be capable of doing it again some time in the future. So you have to take action.
I agree with Mr. Elliott. There's another stat. Go to any penitentiary and ask the warden what their policy on drugs is. Zero tolerance; that's the policy. Isn't that what you always hear when you go to a penitentiary?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I've had to laugh at that since 1993.
I'm wondering if Mr. Elliott would agree that if we did indeed have zero tolerance, maybe we could put people who have drug problems into an institution where they could get some genuine help. But putting a drug addict into a penitentiary today is like sentencing my Uncle Henry, who is an alcoholic, to the wine cellar for the next 20 years. It makes no sense. I think we really have to start buckling down and asking if it makes sense.
I had a personal case of a break and enter, a theft. All I was told to do was report to the insurance company. I'll bet you that happens thousands and thousands of times. That's not what law enforcement is all about.
What we're getting down to with Bill C-9 is that we're trying to create something that addresses the big problem that people see out there, as victims. I really personally get tired of constantly saying, “What about the offenders?”
As for sexual assaults and other sexual offences, I'd like to have a stat some day about what I think is a humongous number of people getting conditional sentencing for those crimes, and I'll bet you a lot of those are against children. We don't know that. But people see it. They see a crime against a child, and they see the guy walk with a conditional sentence for sexual assault. Then on the same day they see a guy who shoots an elk out of season go to jail for five years. That's what's not making sense. I think what Bill C-9 is trying to do is make sense of the purpose of conditional sentencing, recognizing that the punishment must fit the crime.
If you want to comment on what I said about what your statements were, please do, and I'll be quiet.