Evidence of meeting #18 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 sentencing.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
My question is for Ms. Lorraine Berzins and Ms. Jane Griffiths, representing the Church Council on Justice and Corrections. First of all, I am surprised by the fact that the Roman Catholic denomination, which is a member of your council, has changed certain things. Like Myron, I am somewhat troubled. So I am going to ask you some questions.
My question is for both of you, so you can decide who answers. Currently, in the Montreal area, street gangs use young men to recruit young women. The young women are attracted by drugs, and using drugs is a non-violent crime, on the face of it. They then attract young men, who begin committing robbery at age 12 or 13. They put weapons into their hands and they continue. Subsequently, they infiltrate a certain social setting and resort to domestic violence. Gang rape occurs within these groups. Because of all of that, the justice system cannot provide us with the picture of safety that it should.
I am not even talking about sexual assault. I mentioned robbery and armed robbery, for example. Stealing $1,000 from a poor person is equivalent to stealing a million dollars from a rich person. It is also terrifying when someone breaks into the home of people over 65 who are alone. They just open the door, and the senior is frightened. Imagine! I do not understand your apparent desire to maintain conditional sentencing. I understand your position, but conditional sentencing has been around for a long time and those are the results.
I am going to tell you a quick story. An individual was under house arrest for one year. The first third of the sentence was 24 hours a day, with permission to go shopping, etc. The second third was from a certain time to another time, and in the last third, there was no curfew. This individual was a drug trafficker, but with no previous record. This individual was living in a $500,000 house. The sentence was house arrest, in a $500,000 house with T.V., pool, servants, meals, etc.
Do you think that this kind of sentence is a deterrent? Do not think that it does not happen. It happens more often than you think. It is not just poor people who get house arrest, there are a lot of rich people too. Do you think that this kind of sentence deters people or inspires confidence in the justice system?
5:25 p.m.
Community Chair of Justice, Church Council on Justice and Corrections
Maybe not in a situation like the one you describe. We want it to still be an option, but that does not mean we recommend that it always be done. Currently, each situation can be assessed individually. To us, that is a very important value. I think that the Catholic Church of Quebec is particularly sensitive to this phenomenon. There is a highly developed social conscience among our Christian communities in Quebec.
The importance people place on the primacy of the human being is something we value highly. We hope the decisions the government makes are made humanely by human beings equipped with all of the information about the situation. Community values and the ability to judge what is truly the right option and the right result, taking into account in particular the situation of the individual accused and of the victims, are very important. What is going to make sense? To us, the community has to deal with a number of these problems. People have to solve the problems among themselves. What the government does can greatly assist us in having tools for the job. We are opposed to having a general law that prevents us from acting according to our human conscience in certain situations, because the law requires it. We do not find that to be humane. Just because we want the option always to be there does not mean that in every situation you describe, a conditional sentence would be recommended.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thanks very much.
Would the committee be willing to stay for an additional eight minutes? I know there are two or three questions. And I would ask the witnesses if you would you be willing to stay for another eight minutes. I really appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Petit.
Mr. Moore has not had a chance to speak yet, but I know Ms. Barnes has one question that she wants to put to the witnesses.
Go ahead, Mr. Moore. Ms. Barnes is going to wait.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Well, I just have the one question, but I can wait until he's finished.
October 2nd, 2006 / 5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
All right, then. Mine's simple.
In the previous Bill C-70, the drug sections of the controlled drugs and hazardous products were not included. I won't go over the reasons, but I just want to get your input. I know, Ms. Prober, that you're only concerned about the sexual thing, so maybe I'll leave you out of this for the sake of time. But I'd just like to go across.
Would you think that we should be removing this from any of the schedules respecting drug use? Should we take away conditional sentencing from any of them, from the least serious to the most, right across the board?
5:30 p.m.
Professor, Ottawa University, As an Individual
Well, you know my position is that we shouldn't take away conditional sentencing, absolutely, for any sentences, bearing in mind that when a judge imposes a conditional sentence, the judge has to decide that an appropriate punishment is less than two years in prison. If it's a case that requires more than two years in prison, the judge does not have the option of a conditional sentence under the current legislation. That allows the judge to evaluate the significance of the particular offence.
Our approach has to be the same with respect to drugs, in my respectful submission, as it is for other offences. Leave them on the table and let the circumstances determine it, and if you do feel the need to put a presumption against a conditional sentence for some types of offences, then do that, as opposed to simply removing it completely.
But I would just note, in passing, that we're seeing drug courts developed in places like Ottawa now, and Toronto, that attempt to deal with these types of crimes committed by individuals who are seriously addicted by getting at the roots of the addiction. I know we want to have denunciation. But do you want to do it at the cost of removing that option where it's appropriate?
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
We're supposed to go across to Ms. Griffiths and Ms. Berzins. Ms. Prober didn't need to because she's not concerned about those sections. Can they answer just very quickly, please? I just want it for the record so we can refer to it.
5:30 p.m.
President, Board of Directors, Church Council on Justice and Corrections
Yes, I was just thinking that we've actually had a lot of cases in the Ottawa courthouse involving drug addiction and thefts, and that kind of thing, and using restorative justice principles in trying to get at the roots of problems. And in cases where people are willing to take responsibility, we have had a lot of success around drug problems with both offenders and victims. Putting someone in prison would not have resolved any of those issues.
5:30 p.m.
Community Chair of Justice, Church Council on Justice and Corrections
I don't think the possibility of conditional sentencing should be removed for any offence.
5:30 p.m.
Coordinate, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
I would second that and add the fact that it's conditional only to those two years or less. I would say we need to allow more room to broaden the use of and even remove that restriction, because it's artificial in many ways, just as other restrictions have been. Let's let judges and communities make these decisions, because we can't decide for an offender what's what; we have to let them decide.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you to all the witnesses for your input.
I have a couple of points. We've heard other testimony that when conditional sentencing was introduced--I've heard from some of the witnesses, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, that the option of conditional sentences should never be taken away. Not too long ago there were no conditional sentences for anything. When they were introduced, the public was told in the debates at the time that conditional sentences would only be used for the least serious offences. This bill still leaves conditional sentences in place for the least serious offences.
I wouldn't want people to be misled. What we've introduced here, even for offences that have a ten-year maximum, where there is the option of proceeding by way of summary conviction or by indictment--what's called a hybrid offence--conditional sentences are still available. On the lower end of the scale, at the discretion of the crown prosecutor, they say, “We'll proceed by summary conviction. A conditional sentence is still available.” That has led people to believe this bill wipes out conditional sentences altogether.
I was interested that the Church Council on Justice and Corrections mentioned deterrence shouldn't even be a factor. Deterrence is one of the principles we use in sentencing, and you're entitled to believe it shouldn't be a factor, but that comment struck a chord with me.
Ms. Prober, since you were left out of the last one, I'll let you comment on this one. In my view, when you see, for example, sexual offenders or someone who is a repeat offender get back out on the street--or if we don't want to use the example of sexual offences, then use property crimes. I've heard a lot of people say this is too broad and includes too many offences. Look at the ones where you can proceed by summary conviction and the conditional sentence is still available. Which of these would a person pull out? We've all had a few laughs about cattle theft, but I would submit that someone who's been a victim of cattle theft or any one of these offences, including property offences, to them that was serious, and they want a message sent. They want their piece of justice and to feel justice was served.
Ms. Prober—and anyone else can comment—on deterrence, are we to believe the possibility of serving time in a penitentiary versus being out on house arrest is of no use whatsoever? Further, what about the benefit to society when someone who hasn't learned a lesson from past run-ins with the law is in jail and is not out on the streets committing either property offences or offences against children, or any other type of offence?
Does anyone have any comment on that?
5:35 p.m.
Professor, Ottawa University, As an Individual
I don't take the view that deterrence should never be considered, because our courts have told us that for some offences it is a primary goal of sentencing and it is a reality of our criminal justice system.
The key message is you cannot expect to affect crime rates by making changes in the sentences for offences that are already carrying serious penalties. In other words, people don't commit offences because they think they might get a conditional sentence. I am just submitting to you that it would be unrealistic for you to think that if Bill C-9 passes, you're going to have a safer society, because you are not--not based on deterrence thinking.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I would take issue with that somewhat. My feeling is that if people are in jail rather than in their homes--maybe they were arrested for selling drugs out of their homes. If they're in jail instead of in their homes--maybe they were arrested and convicted for an offence against children or for a sexual offence. Instead of being back in the neighbourhood where they committed the offence, if they're in prison, I would say we have a safer society.
But I will take issue with the statement that it is evident that the ambition behind Bill C-9 is to increase the use of actual incarceration. I think the goal for all of us here is to try to find a way where we don't put more people in jail. I don't think it's anyone's goal to throw everyone in jail.
The goal is to create a safer society and to restore balance to our justice system. The overwhelming message we've been getting is that victims feel they're left out in the cold and that people are tired of a revolving door to the justice system.
I want to put those two points on the record. Certainly, our goal is not to cram the jails full of people. It's to restore a sense of balance to the system.
You're all welcome to comment.
5:35 p.m.
President, Board of Directors, Church Council on Justice and Corrections
I have a personal comment. When you're talking about theft, in our own household we've had nine thefts of our car. On one occasion, the two young men who had stolen the car were actually apprehended and charged. We were never even notified that it had in fact happened and they had come to court.
What would have satisfied me as the victim in that case was not that these people would go to jail, but that somehow they would be called to account for their crimes and we would have had some kind of opportunity to speak with them.
Often what we're saying is there are ways of addressing these issues other than prison.
5:40 p.m.
Community Chair of Justice, Church Council on Justice and Corrections
I'd like to clarify what I meant when I said deterrence should not be a consideration.
Of course, the desire to deter crime is a desire that we all share, and I share it too, but we have a very big body of evidence and research that shows a jail sentence is not what does it. It's such a solid body of research that it's really hard not to pay attention to it.
Deterrence is still a legal fiction. It's still in the Criminal Code, but it's a legal fiction. For people in the community who have to live with the consequences, we want solutions that will truly reduce crime.
Even when you say that when an offender is in jail, at least it prevents something from happening during that time, in fact, the statistics don't show that. The crime rate continues outside in the community because of all the other factors and conditions. Increasing incarceration does not reduce the crime rate out there in the community.
This is not theory I'm giving you; it is factual research evidence.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I would certainly take issue with the statement that deterrence is a legal fiction. Deterrence is one of the fundamental principles that we use in sentencing.
Even through anecdotes, oftentimes with young offenders, someone will say to go ahead and do it because nothing will happen if you get caught. Implicit in the message of “nothing will happen if you get caught” is that if something were to happen if you got caught, you might be less likely to do it. There's a reason why an older person grooming someone to commit a crime says not to worry because nothing will happen if you get caught.
5:40 p.m.
Community Chair of Justice, Church Council on Justice and Corrections
In fact, the research shows that greater certainty of getting caught acts as a deterrent, not the sentence that comes afterwards.
What also acts as a strong deterrent is the compelling moral influence of people who mean something to the offender. Disapproval and denunciation, coming in a personally meaningful way from the community, the family, and the victim, make sense.
But all the research says the arbitrary use of a jail sentence to send a message out there does not make any difference. It makes it worse.
5:40 p.m.
President, Beyond Borders Inc.
There doesn't seem to be any solid evidence about how we stop people from having sex with children, whether in Canada, or whether they take off for...wherever. I don't want to say Thailand, because everyone says Thailand, and Thailand has done a good job of trying to protect their children. It's a nice place to go, and journalists go there, have a nice holiday, and always write about Thailand. But Thailand is a country that, although they've ignored adult issues, has done a good job of protecting children from sexual abusers.
Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be any way, in this hyper-sexualized society we live in, where.... Even I myself, going to a movie last night.... I'm very sorry I went to see the movie I went to, because the children in it were sexualized.
Somehow we have to denounce this crime. We have to stop people.... In an era where the technology allows them to be aroused by pornography and child pornography just at the touch of a mouse, we have to somehow send the message to people that we are not going to absolutely in any way do anything but denounce this crime. It has to end, it has to be denounced, and I think we shouldn't be hesitant in allowing the justice system to do that in any way. Otherwise, a lot of children are being failed in society.
