Justice Committee on Oct. 4th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for that dose of reality. I appreciate it.

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

I have a point of order.

I was going to inquire if Mr. Thompson has any expenses for witness fees for getting to the meeting here today.

That's all right. I'll withdraw the point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. André, I apologize for missing you on the rotation. Please, you have the floor.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin by welcoming our witnesses.

I would just like to quickly react to some of the things that have been said here today. I am a social worker by profession. This is the first time I have sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. My initial reaction is to say that we know full well that social conditions have a tremendous impact on crime rates, because a lot of people are disadvantaged and lack appropriate social supports. Often there will be higher crime rates in these groups. As a result, when social programs are severely cut back -- this is a message for the Conservatives -- crime rates go up.

My question is for Mr. Muise, and I would ask all of you to comment as well. As you and I both know, Bill C-9 adds to the list of offences for which a judge will no longer be able to hand down a conditional sentence, even when he determines, based on all the facts, that it would be the most appropriate sentence.

Mr. Muise, you seem to favour that direction. You basically agree with the idea of adding to the list of offences for which conditional sentences will no longer be available.

Do you have any statistics or other certain facts that have led you to take that position, basically saying that we should be criminalizing more people and putting people in jail as if prisons were places where there can be social rehabilitation?

In Quebec, we very much believe in prevention. We also believe in criminalization, because in some cases, that is the best solution. However, prisons are not places where there can be social rehabilitation. I don't believe that putting someone in prison for ten years and not giving him an occasional opportunity to reintegrate into society via various programs -- as Ms. Schurman was also saying -- is a better option. All the money that will be invested in these prisons, because of longer sentences could, in my opinion, be more effectively invested in measures aimed at social reintegration.

Are there any statistics that have led you to take this position? I would also be interested in hearing from Ms. Schurman on this, as well as from the others.

[Det Sgt John Muise]

Thank you, Mr. André. It's a good question

I just want to lead by saying that we're a poor charity, Mr. Lee, but we will pick up the tab for Mr. Thomson's--

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

I think we already have a deal here.

[Det Sgt John Muise]

Not everybody knows this about me, but over the course of my career as a police officer, I have spent a lot of time working with academics, social workers, and people who were on the front lines trying to help children. I actually was one of the founding members of the original street crime unit, which was the first of its kind in Canada. It was a community-based, education-enforcement hybrid. We worked very hard with local communities and schools to try to get kids before they ended up in prison. We put substantial effort into getting them on the straight and narrow. There was a lot of work involved. Sometimes we were successful, and other times we were not. It's something I'm very proud of. It seems like ancient history now, but certainly the legacy has taken root across the country and there are many police units much like that.

Having said that, there is also another bunch of folks who, for whatever reasons, have run off the rails. When they're sentenced to periods of incarceration, it's either because they already have very lengthy criminal records or they've done something pretty serious.

My experience in and out of court rooms over 30 years is not one of throwing the book away. I see that these judges really work hard not to throw the book at people. So I don't see this sort of sensible half measure for Bill C-9. Parliament has said it's ten years or more. I suspect when they created those maximums.... I know for instance that Mr. Lee and other members of the Liberal Party worked hard to introduce many bills to increase the maximum. So here we are. I guess they saw them as sufficiently serious crimes.

Citizens have lost faith in the criminal justice system. I see this as a natural first step, and like Mr. Thompson, I agree that it's just one piece of it. We have a lot of work to do in terms of our parole legislation and some of our other dangerous--

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Bill C-9...

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Very quickly, sir.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

You are involved at the community level. My question is: what statistics did you base yourself on? This bill contains a new criterion for maximum sentences of ten years and more, for theft of property exceeding $5,000, for example. Conditional sentences will no longer be available for this type of offence. What are you basing yourself on to say that if people are given the maximum sentence, as opposed to a conditional sentence, will mean that rehabilitation is more effective?

[Det Sgt John Muise]

Thank you.

There is a volume of evidence, most of it from south of the 49th parallel, the United States, that makes it very clear--and it's very convincing--that where you identify the recidivist, the serious offenders, the people who keep committing crimes, and you lock those people up for as long as possible, the concurrent precipitous drop in the crime rate is clear and convincing. That's not currently the way our sentencing parole regimen works. We can't quite get there yet.

I guess what I'm telling you is there is a volume of academic research that says when you put those offenders in jail for extended periods of time, the crime rate generally goes down.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Monsieur André, your time is up. Thank you.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I would just like Ms. Schurman and Mr. Thomson to comment. This chart suggests that violent crime in Canada is higher than in the United States. Without commenting on this chart, from your professional background and knowledge, do you believe in general that violent crime is higher in Canada than in the United States?

[Adrian Brooks]

I do not believe that the rate of violent crime is higher in Canada than in the United States.

[Isabel Schurman]

Not at all. If the explanation is that the category is defined differently, maybe that explains the anomaly, but not at all--on the contrary.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have questions about that testimony, then.

My next question for both of you is that several times today a conditional sentence has been described as just staying at home and watching TV. Can you tell me whether that is all there is involved and how a conditional sentence might be different from being in jail, or different from probation, or whether there's any penalty to it?

[Isabel Schurman]

A number of years back, when, in the province of Saskatchewan, the idea of house arrest was going to be used for bail, there was a very skeptical judge at the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. His name is Bill Vancise. Bill Vancise was skeptical enough to run the experiment on himself and to find out whether this was really incarceration. He wanted to know whether it felt like imprisonment or was just being at home. He wrote a paper, which I would suggest to all of you, called “Home Alone-But Not Forgotten”. The result of his experiment on himself was that there was a very real sense of confinement.

Confinement can be physical. It can also be psychological. Restraint on liberty is a kind of confinement. That's why our Supreme Court of Canada has stated that arrest and detention can also be a psychological state. It's a very real phenomenon. In fact, in a lot of these cases it's not quite as simple as sitting at home and having a drink and that's that. No. In a lot of these cases there are very severe conditions about what you can and cannot drink or do, but there are also very serious reasons why you've been given that conditional sentence of imprisonment: because you have a full-time job and children depending on that income; because there's no purpose in sending the whole family into a poverty cycle; because it makes more sense to keep you being a contributing member of society.

There was some testimony before this committee a number of days ago about what happens if the offender lives next door to the victim. Conditions prohibit that from happening, but there are some places, some small communities in Canada, where counsel have reported that in fact there's a huge effect on the offender who can't just leave the community. He can't just commit a crime and leave. He has to face those people who he's known his whole life, on a day-to-day basis, and that has its own effect as well. So no, it's not a picnic at home.

[Adrian Brooks]

There are two aspects that I'd like you to consider. First of all, a conditional sentence order can contain particular conditions of treatment telling an offender he has to take this treatment; he has to go to these places; he has to complete these particular treatment programs. Some of those treatment options you can't order under probation. You can get them only under conditional sentence orders. So that individual is not going to be sitting at home watching TV; he's going to have to go out to that treatment. If he were in jail, he could sit around and watch TV, but he can't under a conditional sentence order.

The second aspect I'd ask you to consider is conditional sentence order versus jail. A person who gets a sentence of two years less a day in jail is probably going to do somewhere around 12 months and then get out on parole on conditions that are going to be nowhere near as onerous as a conditional sentence order. So, for nearly two years you're going to have harsh conditions under a conditional sentence order or sit around and watch TV for a year and then go out with very few conditions. Offenders are going to take the latter and are going to be perfectly happy with the latter. Society is going to meet its objectives with the conditional sentence order.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

For both of you, could an unintended consequence be that without the option of conditional sentences, all these same people will still be out on the streets on probation, but be getting less treatment?

[Adrian Brooks]

That's a very real probability.

[Isabel Schurman]

I agree with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you. My question is addressed to Mr. John Muise, but I would also be interested in hearing the opinion of the other two witnesses who are with us today.

First of all, I have been practising law in Quebec for 30 years. I have a firm of lawyers that deal with criminal matters. I can tell you based on my experience -- I'm confirming this -- that when the Crown offers us a conditional sentence, the client accepts it right away. No one can tell me that it is not the case. I have enough experience in that area, even though it's not police related experience.

Now I am also a parliamentarian. And I can tell you this: we say that our society is not violent -- this goes back to what Mr. Muise was saying -- but in some schools in the Province of Quebec, police officers have to be on site on a full-time basis, because there is violence.

Second, as regards series of violent crimes, some of these crimes may not seem violent at first sight, such as taking drugs. People always say that the poor little guy who smokes a joint every day is not doing anything bad, because he is not involved in trafficking. However, if one or two million people in Canada start smoking a joint every day, that means that the underworld is making money. That immediately brings in organized crime. So, people shouldn't think that because I smoke my joint, I'm not encouraging organized crime.

Another perspective was presented. Mr. Muise, you talked a lot about violent crime, and naturally, I agree with you. Mention has been made of mail theft, because we know this is one of the offences. People have been making a big fuss because there will no longer be conditional sentences available for mail theft.

In my province, when a person aged 58 is receiving disability benefits through social assistance, that person's cheque is $892 a month. Very often these people don't live in the city and it's the letter carrier that delivers their cheque. Imagine if a thief takes their cheque by stealing their mail. I can assure you that's pretty devastating for the 58-year old lady who finds herself in that predicament. She has to go back to see her social worker to have another cheque issued quickly. And that creates problems for her, because she isn't well. That theft of less than $1,000 becomes a horrible experience for her, and yet we're only talking about mail theft.

Around this table, we have been trying from the outset to do something for the accused, who become the convicted when their trial occurs, but we aren't talking about the victims. The victims are important to me, and I'd be interested in hearing your comments, Mr. Muise.

Since conditional sentences became available in 1996, can you tell me whether there has been much violence using firearms in Canada? What is the effect of conditional sentences on armed violence?

[Det Sgt John Muise]

Thank you for the question, and thank you for making it clear that these offenders aren't desperately trying to stop their defence lawyers from getting them conditional sentences of imprisonment in their homes. It doesn't happen. I don't want to be disrespectful, but it's almost humorous--in comparison to prison.

Notwithstanding the fact that nobody is watching them, and if they're having a drink nobody sees whether they're drinking or not, and if they're violating, if they're coming and going, the cops aren't watching, the probation office isn't visiting.... Having said all that, do I have specific research--and we're not a research organization--about the impact, whether gun crime has gone up because of conditional sentencing per se? I don't have that. But what I and my organization and the 150 people who informed the Martin's Hope report believe generally is that the whole sentencing and parole regimen is a big part of why offenders end up back in communities, with little or no impact on rehabilitation, little or no impact on their being healthy and whole.

And until they realize.... Somebody actually read the study. I'll give you an example. In terms of recidivism rates in the way that we conduct ourselves in terms of offenders today, fully 43% of people who had served time in jail, in a penitentiary, had already reoffended and were back before the courts within two years—which means getting out and committing some crimes, getting arrested for those crimes and being brought before the courts, pleading guilty or being found guilty. That's over two years.

I'm not a professor, but I suspect that if you extrapolated that out over eight or ten years, you'd find the true recidivism rate is probably north of 80%.

That tells me, as a former practitioner on the front line of all this, that there's something wrong with the system and it needs to be fixed. What people on the front line, crime victims and survivors, have told us is that the sentencing and parole regimens in this country are big contributors to that. From my own experiences, I believe that.

That's a very general answer to your question, I suspect, Mr. Petit, but that's the best I can do for you today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Of the original members—there are a number of substitutes here—Mr. Brown has not had an opportunity to question.

The floor is yours.