Justice Committee on Oct. 16th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Those stats on the breaches sound like a good set of stats that we could use, Mr. Lemay.

[Catherine Hutchison]

In terms of your question about the breaches and the results, I have heard reference here to the idea that you go to jail and serve your sentence. In Ontario, that's not the case. About half the breaches that we have laid have not resulted in any jail time at all. As Don was just mentioning, in the last two years, approximately 25% to 32% resulted in the conditional sentence being terminated—which means serving the balance of the sentence in its entirety in jail—with the remainder, which is about one-quarter or so, getting some custody.

So the fact is that in half the cases in Ontario they don't get any jail time at all as a result of their breach. That's significant compared to what is being said here, that you go to jail if you breach. That's certainly the message the offenders may get at the outset in terms of a deterrent, but the reality in Ontario is not that.

[Andy Rady]

I might be out of order, but I don't believe that was his question. I believe his question was, of all conditional sentences, how many are breached? It wasn't what happens after the breach, but how many are breached.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

And we could get that information, I'm sure.

[Donald Larman]

We answered that. We don't have it; the ministry does.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes, if we could get that information from the ministry, it would be good.

[Donald Larman]

We will work on that.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes, Ms. Joncas.

[Lucie Joncas]

I simply want to draw your attention to what constitutes a breach. Even if an individual has met all conditions for one year, and one day shows up 20 minutes late, this action would be considered a breach. We are well aware that this does not constitute another offence. One really has to take circumstances into account when determining whether or not a breach has occurred, as each breach can lead to charges.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I agree with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lemay. You had the good fortune of being in the second round, so your time isn't quite as long.

Mr. Thompson.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you very much for being here, to all of you. I'll try to be quick. I know time is running out.

To the Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, Mr. Bloos, you started off your presentation by a list of people you've conferred with--I believe you had judges, lawyers, prosecutors, farmers, teachers, school administrators, people who work at 7-11, McDonald's--but I didn't hear about victims. Why didn't you consult with victims and other people who are not in the classification of judges and lawyers and prosecutors?

[Marvin Bloos]

I have a lot of victims as clients. These are the families of my clients, the wives and the children. So when their husband or their father goes to jail and they are cast onto welfare or cast out of their house, they are victims too. We don't hear much about them, but I deal with them day in and day out. Their children are also ostracized at school because of media reports, their families are thrown into turmoil, not because they've done anything wrong but because somebody in their family, with whom they really had no involvement with in the sense of the wrongdoing, has done something wrong. But in law there is a test. It's called the reasonable person test, and we use that. It means that a person fully informed of all the circumstances--

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you. You answered my question.

However, the victims of the family of the perpetrator are one group. There are tons of victims out there who aren't related to that perpetrator, and I didn't hear about any of those conversations. In other words, the victims of crime are really supporting this legislation. The public at large is supporting this kind of legislation. Taxpayers, the regular people out there who pay the bill, will tell you—as a politician who talks to everybody—we'll pay the bills to build more prisons, if we need them; we want this taken care of. We applaud the probation....

I've been here 13 years and I've been working hard on crimes against children. I am pleased to hear the emphasis that's put on that by this group, by the police officers, and by the enforcers of these laws. I think the public is sick and tired of reading about these types of individuals getting house arrest. I find it amazing that there's such a difference in the expression of conditional sentence, of confinement and harshness, from you fellows. Yet I heard they have access to TVs, they have nice showers, they get a warm bed, and they come and go basically as they please. I see a big difference in the opinion on house arrest, which is basically what a conditional sentence is. I don't know why that is, but you may want to answer or comment.

I would like to throw one more question out. Ms. Saulis, you made a good point on root causes. Nobody could disagree with that. I can assure you that all of us here believe in conditional sentencing, that there's a better way than jail in a lot of cases. There's no doubt about that. We believe that.

But in my years, when I went across the country for the leader of our party at the time, I spent time with grassroots natives from coast to coast and visited with the coalition of accountability, basically run by aboriginal women. The thing I heard more and more in regard to sections like 718, I believe it was, was, why is the justice system treating us like second-class citizens? Why aren't harsher penalties given to those who offend us who are usually of native race? Why are they given special attention?

You see, there are so many questions out there from people we don't hear from—from the guys and gals and women and men who are the victims of these crimes.

Mr. Bloos, I understand the family problem. That's a sad situation, there's no doubt about it.

But we're hearing these things over and over again. They're saying, okay, we want the root causes addressed, we want the possibility of rehabilitation—we want all that. But you people on the justice committee, you're coming up with a law that isn't going to deal with root causes, and so on. But what do you do with those who cross that line? I would strongly suggest that in the public eye, Bill C-9 is a very good direction to go.

[Jolene Saulis]

I'm from Tobique First Nation in New Brunswick, and I worked in the correctional system for three years. I worked with the policy adviser group there, and then I worked in the institution with these aboriginal men and women we're talking about today.

The root causes are the reasons why these people are going to jail. There are reasons of unemployment, lack of education, and lack of resources in the communities. Many of these communities are isolated, and many of these aboriginal people coming from these communities are lacking access to families and their culture.

So when they go to these institutions and they're sitting in jail, it puts a damper...again in showing the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in these institutions. Root causes are the reason why aboriginal people are in prison.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I might add that I've been told on a number of occasions that the main root cause is alcohol and drugs for all of these things.

[Jolene Saulis]

No, that's not true. The main root cause is—

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

That's what I've been told by Correctional Service a number of times.

[Jolene Saulis]

I worked in the aboriginal issues branch at the Correctional Service of Canada, and I come from a community.

The root cause is not simply alcohol and drug addiction. It's residential schools and the “60's scoop”--these have intergenerational effects. The child welfare system is another thing. Lack of opportunities for programming, such as proper education and proper substance abuse programs....

Nothing in the Correctional Service of Canada or within the justice system is culturally relevant. And if it is, it's serving less than a quarter of the population. Programming needs to be instilled.

At least conditional sentencing offers these people the opportunity to go back to their roots, go back to their communities, and it address them in a culturally traditional manner. And that's—

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I understand why you don't agree with that, but that's what I've been told by pretty high officials who have been in the Correctional Service for a long time.

[Jolene Saulis]

Yes, and I'm just letting you know that I'm somebody who has worked in those institutions and with these people.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

That's who I'm talking to, the workers in the institutions, the same kind of people, who would disagree with you.

[Jolene Saulis]

I'm an aboriginal. I come from a community where these issues have arisen, and yes, alcohol and drugs are factors, but they're always just one factor. We have to look at things like residential schools, fetal alcohol syndrome, mental health issues. These are root causes for aboriginal people going to jail. You can turn today to the correctional investigative report that was just released. Howard Sapers, who is the correctional investigator, just released a whole document, a whole section, on discrimination against aboriginal people in the justice system, and if you turn there, all your questions will be answered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Saulis.

Mr. Bloos, did you want to respond to Mr. Thompson?

And I might point out that I have a note referencing several witnesses who may want to leave at six. Can you still continue for a bit here?

[Dr. Julian Roberts]

We can't tear ourselves away.