Justice Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I would like to hear your input on that, but I think the problem, both for the current government and past governments, to be fair, is how to devise something that captures a person you would not want to see take advantage of this, yet that isn't so wide or such an artificial guideline. And there are problems with the way this one is set up, and there are probably problems with the way the last one was set up too.

I'd like you to comment on that. I hear you on the serious ones. What I'd like to hear you on is some of these others and some of what I've just said to you.

[Pierre-Paul Pichette]

I'm going to give you the same explanation I gave earlier. In terms of organized crime, in our opinion, this can be defended because of the actual definition of organized crime. Where we agree is that it does depend on the amount of violence used in the commission of the crime. At the same time, we don't really have a definition of violent crime. But I do agree that in terms of the list of crimes you have identified, there are indeed some that probably would not be included under that definition.

As far as we are concerned, the idea of the violence involved is extremely important, whether it is between individuals or in terms of the effect it has on society--in other words, when the crime is perceived by the public as being violent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Barnes.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Pecknold wanted to answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'm sorry. Please go ahead.

[Clayton Pecknold]

I'll be brief, Mr. Chair.

The point is that we have difficulty with the idea of what would be viewed as being less serious offences and other offences being captured by the ten-year level. It perhaps underscores our overall point that it's pretty difficult with this Criminal Code. It's full of inconsistencies and contradictions. It's very difficult to continue to build on that without running into these inconsistencies, complexities, and confusions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Barnes.

Mr. Serge Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to go back to what Mr. Pichette was saying.

Mr. Pichette, you often talk about the importance of perceptions, but most people's perception of our criminal law system is gleaned through the newspapers, television and radio. The fact is that very few people have time to go and sit in a courtroom to see how the system actually operates. They would probably fall off their chairs with boredom after a couple of hours. So in actual fact, people's perceptions depend far more on the newspapers than they do on reality. Do you not agree?

[Pierre-Paul Pichette]

The fact is that the media are one of the pillars of our democracy. They are there to provide information to the public. And I believe they have an obligation to do that in a variety of areas.

As regards criminal activity, talking for a moment just about Montreal--and I'm convinced it's the same thing in every city in Canada--some reporters only cover legal cases and are in the courthouse on a daily basis to report on cases the public should be informed about. On the other hand, they obviously cannot report on every case that is heard by the courts.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Yes, but from day to day, those reporters only report on the exceptional cases. And you certainly cannot get a very accurate idea of what goes on in most cases by hearing only about the exceptional cases. Journalists report on sentences that capture people's imagination.

I believe a study was conducted in Toronto that showed that, as a general rule, judges give between 12 and 15 reasons to justify a sentence. The newspapers, however, refer to about one and a quarter. And obviously, the ones they do talk about are the ones that are most likely to capture people's imagination or shock them. Isn't that right?

In other words, whatever we do, it may be best to forget about the public's perception and simply focus on the reality, when attempting to determine whether sentences are unfair or not.

You talked about drug trafficking. You find it somewhat scandalous that only 20 per cent of cases involving drug trafficking result in sentences. You do know the definition of the word “trafficking”. It includes the idea of “giving” and “offering”. An example would be a young man who offers his girlfriend a joint of marijuana to watch a psychedelic film or engage in other drug trafficking activities.

As a general rule, whatever the type of offence involved, there are fewer less serious cases than there are serious cases. Of course, the public considers drug trafficking to be serious in terms of its consequences for society; you said so yourself. But the serious cases are in the minority, and yet you would like them to be subject to sentences that would be perceived as tough.

Why do you want to prevent judges from having the flexibility they need as regards sanctions, when they are the ones most aware of individual cases--those boring and repetitive cases--and who, most of the time, are really dealing with maladjusted individuals? That is one of the major characteristics of delinquency; delinquents are maladjusted. Do you think that judges are abusing their powers in this regard or that they are not applying this provision properly?

[Clayton Pecknold]

I have two points on that. The first is a point of clarification on our opening comments about the public's perception of the justice system. We suggest it isn't simply the result of the perception of sentencing, and I would agree with you, sir, that some extraordinary cases are sometimes sensationalized in the media, which could impact that perception. But our concern with the perception of the justice system also comes from the length of trials, the complexity of trials, the likelihood of a plea bargain.

There is study by Dr. Plecas of the University College of Fraser Valley, a 20-year study commissioned by the RCMP, which talks about how long it takes to investigate a criminal offence now compared with 20 years ago because of the complexity of the law. So I would make the point that our concern about the perception is broader than simply sentencing.

The second point I would make, sir, with respect, is that I couldn't imagine getting a trafficking offence for a simple giving of a joint or something like that. We would never get it past our federal crowns; they wouldn't proceed with it. I would suggest that most of these trafficking offences, by the time they end up in a conviction, are significant trafficking offences.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Is my time up?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Right, unless you have a very short question.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Yes. Could you explain why you prefer suspended sentences to conditional sentences, since suspended sentences will still be available? What are your reasons for thinking that suspended sentences are better than conditional sentences?

[Graham Stewart]

Sorry, was that directed to me?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

No, because I know your answer.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

It's for those people who apparently don't realize that we keep suspended sentences. Personally, I'd prefer a suspended sentence if I were judge, because if a guy does not respect the conditions, I'm going to give him a sentence that I think is appropriate.

But with conditional sentences,

this means that for 18 months, he can spend 12 months with no problem, and in 16 months he gets a condition and then there are only two months left to do.

So where's the logic? Again, the logic is that you take away from judges the means to individualize the sentences, because to render a sentence in a particular case is always a balance of many factors: the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the circumstances of the accused and the chances he has to be rehabilitated, and also, of course, the gravity, the exemplary....

I started speaking English! Let's hope I won't start speaking Spanish.

Anyway, Mr. Stewart, I know everything you're going to say, and I agree.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

But I'm curious about the other ones, the people representing the victims. What advantage do you see? I'm sure if you take away sursis you're going to have more suspended sentences.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We all speak a lot. I'm not alone, as you know.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You two have something in common there, and it's more than just the last name.

Thank you for your questions, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Petit.