Evidence of meeting #17 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 offences.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Réal Ménard
Because eight minutes have already been used, I would ask that your answer be brief. There are two speakers, and I know that people have to go back to their ridings. Who would like to give a brief answer?
5:20 p.m.
Deputy Chief, Central Saanich Police Service, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
We can take notice of the fact that criminal investigations are expensive, the trial process is expensive, policing is an expensive activity, and the time they spend dealing with people who violate conditional sentence orders or convicting them of further crimes could be spent doing other types of work.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Réal Ménard
Thank you.
We have two more speakers, namely Ms. Gallant and Ms. Barnes.
Ms. Gallant, you have the floor.
September 28th, 2006 / 5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you.
My first question goes to Mrs. Gray-Donald. Do victims of sexual assault choose not to press charges knowing that the potential sentence, if there is even a conviction, is merely a conditional sentence?
5:25 p.m.
Director of Research, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime
That is one of the reasons victims of sexual assaults do not choose to press charges or seek charges. There are a myriad of reasons why victims of sexual assault won't, and they're far too lengthy to be covered by this committee's scope. They know that a slap on the wrist is all that's going to result, so why put themselves through that painful process of reporting the assault, having the examination, and testifying. It is very intrusive, especially for victims of sexual assault. So that is a concern.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Stewart, in your written submission you state that research over many years has demonstrated that the deterrent effect of higher penalties is very unlikely to have a significant impact on crime rates. Would you please provide this committee with three studies that would support that statement?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you.
Second, you state that public perception of the justice system would be distorted by taking discretion away from the judges. Judges would still be able to determine the length of the sentences, would they not? There is some discretion on the part of the judges.
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
The bill would remove the option of a conditional sentence for indictable offences with potential sentences of ten years or more.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
And the other statement, “The impact will be disproportionally felt by vulnerable people based on their income, class, ethnicity, race and other....” Those are your words.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Removing conditional sentencing means conditional sentences are removed from certain crimes. Are you saying the more vulnerable are more likely to commit the crimes for which the conditional sentencing is removed?
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
What I'm saying is we're always seeing more vulnerable people over-represented throughout the criminal justice system. But if you look at the ten-year maximum, it's quite clear that, for instance, white-collar property crime is often included, as it's under ten years, while those longer than ten years are excluded. You've got all sorts of property offences that are typically middle-class, white, upper-class crimes. You don't see lower-class people involved in property fraud, or fraudulent instruments, and so on. Things like break and enter, possession of break-and-enter instruments, theft over, and so on are all precluded.
This is a bias that gets reflected in sentencing. It doesn't get reflected in sentencing where there's discretion, but when we go to this rather arbitrary ten-year limit, then those longstanding biases within the Criminal Code start playing out in a very real way.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
And for the people who don't have a home to go to for “house arrest”, where do they go?
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
In deciding what to do, a judge always considers the strengths and supports for that person. But the case that would go to the judge that the defence counsel would generate would include how this sentence was going to be administered. And if there wasn't that capacity, the chances are greater the person would not receive that particular sentence.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
So regardless of conditional sentencing, lower-income people, who possibly don't even have a home, would automatically go to jail, in the absence of support.
Does the John Howard Society provide any housing for people in this predicament, without a home to go to, to carry out their conditional sentence?
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Not for conditional sentencing. We do provide residences, largely for people under supervision from prison. But there's no funding I'm aware of to provide assistance for people under these circumstances. And you're right; it is a problem.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
So you have no affiliate organizations that provide a--
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Thank you very much.
Studies have said that people will alter their behaviours if they perceive something to be unfair. So if sometimes the charges will be charged at a lower and included offence with the penalties.... If you take away the judge's discretion on a conditional sentencing, we could end up with an anomaly here that you may have some movement going in exactly the opposite way. And I'll just throw out an example: You may get more suspended sentences with probations, or other types of combinations, or very short incarcerations, that type of situation.
First of all, Mr. Stewart, you would be aware of the studies, I'm sure, that have shown those anomalies. People shop a lot of things around. Do you think this could be one of the unintended consequences of this type of situation?
5:30 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
It creates a fraud of sorts. If they feel a person should get a conditional sentence but is technically ineligible and therefore they proceed differently, with let's say a summary offence, or they reduce the charge, whether it's done in court or it's done by the crown, you end up with the same people rationalizing that the defence was different from what it really was. Instead of being able to take the case as it stands, have it presented in court with the harm that was done and responsibility, everything begins to be shaded to predict the outcome that's been decided. The less the legal process is in the open--and courts are in the open--and is put into the backrooms of prosecutors and offices of the judges and so on, the less the public will ever understand sentencing.
It is very complex. I agree with the other witnesses that it's very complicated, and also I agree that what the public hears is a very slim slice of it. But in the end, I cannot believe that confidence in criminal justice will be enhanced by a system that's not transparent.
5:30 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Réal Ménard
Ms. Barnes, we are going to stop now because you've already had three minutes and you had 10 minutes on the first round. It is already 5:45 p.m.