Justice Committee on Nov. 20th, 2006

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I've appreciated hearing your testimony.

I took note of the suggestion regarding community impact statements. I think all of us, as members of Parliament, do hear from our communities when a significant crime takes place; I know I do. When something happens, when perhaps a number of people are victimized by violent crime or property theft, there is a definite impact on the community. But the community, and in many cases even the victims, are sometimes left out of the equation, so I did take note of that.

As well, a lot of the discussion has been on prevention and resources. All of that, I think we all agree, is very important. I certainly agree with that. We're providing funding for 2,500 new municipal police officers and 1,000 new personnel with the RCMP. That's part of the story, and it is government's responsibility. We certainly have taken it on to provide, at the front-end level, the enforcement. But this bill deals with what happens after someone has committed the offence.

We could all sit around and agree that we have to work with youth at risk, that we have to provide more police resources. I agree with those things. But when the conversation goes down that road, I think we might lose focus when it comes to the bill we have in front of us. The bill has very specific penalties for specific offences. I would categorize these as very serious offences, many of them, including some of the use offences with firearms.

I'd like to hear from the RCMP on this. We're hearing this argument that maybe there is no such thing as deterrence, that it doesn't matter what the penalty is, you're never going to deter anyone. Personally, I would categorically reject that argument. I know just from common sense, from things we hear from offenders, and from other testimony we've heard that there is a deterrent effect if you know you're going to get a slap on the wrist versus a more serious penalty.

Can you comment a bit on the use of gangs of young people to commit offences--i.e., property offences, break-and-enter, theft of an automobile--for the very reason that they know that the young offender will not face as serious a consequence as an older person will? Does that happen? And if so, is it partly because there's less of a deterrence?

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

It does happen. Adults will use young offenders because young offenders will not be punished as severely as the adults.

The issue of deterrence is complex. The deterrent factor primarily is getting caught, not so much the sentence itself. Some research shows that the average person is afraid of being caught by the police, so in fact more police in the community will have a positive impact on the level of crime. Many people don't even know what the sentence is that's associated with a particular crime; it's just the getting caught part.

One positive thing to be said about mandatory minimum sentences is that you will be heightening the awareness of punishment in the community during this discussion. You'll be talking about more serious sentences, and that will filter out to the community in general.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I agree with you, I think that is a message that has to be sent. We saw this in Toronto specifically, where there was gang-related gun violence. That's what this bill primarily focuses on, the gangs who use guns and the individuals who use guns to commit offences. We saw that there were repeat offenders. We saw that people were continually victimizing in some communities. So that's where I think this community impact statement might be valuable.

At the time, all political parties--including the Liberals and NDP, but not the Bloc--were calling for tougher mandatory minimum penalties. That sometimes gets left out of their questioning, that in fact they were calling for penalties that were actually more severe than what's in this bill. But I'll leave it at that; I won't focus on it.

You mentioned the 3% who continue to reoffend. I want your thoughts on how this bill, with its escalating penalties, might address this. For the first offence, the mandatory minimum is lower than for a second and third and subsequent. There's an escalating penalty, unlike what has been proposed by others.

Can you comment a bit on that, on the escalation, and maybe even comment a bit on that 3%? What is it like to deal with them? What goes through their heads, so to speak?

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

The 3%, in particular the youth gangs, are extremely anti-social. For that reason, and for a number of reasons, they're not going to be positively impacted in their psyches by mandatory sentencing. As I said earlier, time in jail is a rite of passage. The media glorifies what they're doing.

The positive impact of mandatory sentencing comes from the incapacitation component.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I was speaking to a police officer in a major city who said their police force undertook a major initiative focused on one community that was having severe gang problems. They knew who the offenders were. In this sweep, when they locked those gang members up, the homicide rate in that area, which was measurable, went completely flat. They were having serious gang and gun violence there and it dropped.

So that's a part of what this bill does. If you offend, if you use a gun to assault someone, if you use a firearm in the commission of a gang-related offence, you're going to jail. If you do it again, you're going to jail for a longer time; and if you do it again, you're going to jail for an even longer time. If someone doesn't get that message the second, third, or fourth time--with respect to what Elizabeth Fry is doing and so on--they're just not getting the other messages, whether they're resource-based or so on.

We have to send a message at some point that we value human lives that could be caught in the crossfire, we value people's property, and we value a safe society. If someone is going to repeatedly use a firearm to commit a criminal offence, at some point the protection of society comes into play. That's why this bill is incremental. It doesn't come down hard the first time; it's the second time, and the third time is worse.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Moore. Your time is well over.

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've read the briefs from Elizabeth Fry and agree with much of what is there, so I might not have as many questions for them as for the representative of the RCMP.

Do you still have the title of superintendent?

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

Chief Superintendent.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I know Chief Superintendent Woods from a prior life. I don't know if I have a conflict, in that I was on the hiring committee when we engaged him at the Codiac RCMP detachment. But I do know that he has extensive experience in a community, and being the chief police officer for the RCMP--

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

There is a conflict of interest.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Do you think so? I think it's confluence of interest, because he's a great fellow and I think we made a great decision--so there.

I know you have experience in aspects involving communities. I heard some of what you said--it was very reasoned, and I've read your one-page summary--on whether the general deterrents will get out in the community. I think in Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe they might get out there.

However, I also understood you to say that the deterrent is not so much Mr. Lee's point about the garden variety criminal's knowledge of the permutations of the Criminal Code and what the penalty might be, but just the general idea of getting caught, which goes to resources. I understand that.

Mr. Moore rightly points out that the code has had mandatory minimums for some time. I know you don't speak for the whole force, but do you think the mandatory minimums proposed here, escalated as they are, will reduce crime in general? That's the first question.

The second point I put out as a bit of a red herring. It has been raised by opposing members often enough to bring it out and ask a person who's used to dealing with communities. If anybody says statistics show that crime rates are on the decrease, there's this red herring thrown out that it's because people aren't reporting crime. In the old days, certain council members might have said it was because they had fewer members of the police going on surveillance and deterrent or detection services, and therefore they didn't catch criminals as often. You know that criticism.

So on those two questions, given your experience in a community policing situation with problem-oriented policing and all that sort of thing, what would you say?

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

The proposed legislation will have a positive impact on crime rates in terms of incapacitation. You're putting more people in jail, and if you're lucky enough to hit the prolific offenders, then the people committing the most crime will be behind bars and not committing crimes while they're there.

There are two problems. I'm thoroughly convinced that it doesn't deter them from committing the offence. More importantly, what happens to the community when they come back out?

The honourable member from New Brunswick--Kennebecasis Valley, I think--did some policing there.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes.

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

It's progressively more serious sentencing, but each time the cycle of sentencing ends, they have to come out and re-victimize someone before they hit the next cycle, the next sentence.

So, yes, there will be a positive impact on crime because of the incapacitation, but if you're not dealing with the root causes of that behaviour, then you're going to have that person cycle through and continue to victimize the community when they're not in jail.

In terms of the crime rates, generally they are going down for a variety of reasons. Partly it's the fact that most crimes are committed by young men. The baby boomer years have seen those young men—the big spike and the parabola—move on into their 40s, 50s, and 60s. There's not the same number of young men available to commit crimes, so you're going to see a reduction.

As well, police across Canada—and you should be proud that we have a tremendously high calibre of police forces across the country—have been working with crime prevention programs and models for a number of years, and they are having some impact. There is a reduction in crime because of this.

I don't think it's a valid statement that people are fed up and just aren't reporting crimes. Crimes are being reported based on what is happening.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

As a final follow-up, you mentioned the problem is whether or not you have the more repetitive offender--you used a fancier word--and whether the non-repetitive offender, so to speak, can be rehabilitated.

What I'm getting at is that in some cases judicial discretion might lead to a probation order with conditions. Do you think this bill and increasing mandatory minimums take away some judicial discretion? How important should judicial discretion be to the community?

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

Obviously this takes some discretion away from the judge. Experience with judges over my career has been varied. Like any other group of people in the community, you have some you agree with very strongly and others you don't agree with so much, in terms of their judgments.

However, particularly in small communities they know, judges have very good opportunities to respond to crimes through judgments in ways that would best help the communities.

Certain minimum sentencing does work, particularly for certain offences. In fact, firearms offences belong to the type of offence impacted by minimum sentencing, but you have to look at the degree of impact and the alternatives.

As I mentioned earlier, there are significant alternatives being worked with presently.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Hanger.

My first question will be to Mr. Woods, and then I'll have a follow-up question for Ms. Pate and Ms. Parkes.

The first question is, what role do you believe minimum sentences play with victims? Is there a positive aspect? When we're looking at trying to view the justice system through the window of the victim, is there adequate protection for their concerns about sentences that meet the crime?

Further, in terms of deterrence, which we've paid some attention to, do you believe there is an understanding of the sentencing amongst the criminal population? Are they cognizant of sentences that have stiffer penalties, and does this actually come into play when they're contemplating an activity that is not in sync with the community?

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

When I was reviewing some material for my presentation today, I came across one article on interviews with armed robbers in Australia. The robbers told the interviewer they had indeed been aware of the varying penalties associated with carrying a firearm. Interestingly enough, it hadn't had an impact on their behaviour, and they said it wouldn't have an impact on their behaviour in the future. So the robber who had carried a gun to commit an armed robbery, and who went to jail fully aware of the increased penalty because of the fact that he carried a gun, intended to carry a gun the next time he committed a robbery.

Again, we're talking about the prolific offender, the 2% or 3% who are anti-social, and who have a variety of reasons for why they are anti-social, versus the other 98% or 97%. Now, some of those people in the 97th percentile may commit crimes and the deterrent impact of the sentencing that you're proposing would probably have an impact on them, because they're not at the same level of anti-social behaviour as the 2% or 3%. So there would be some deterrence in the rest of the crowd—not so much in the 2% or 3%. As I said earlier, the incapacitation component speaks for itself.

As far as the victim's feelings, voice, and preferences are concerned, I think that shortly after being victimized there would be a sense of revenge, a sense of wanting to see this person punished. My thought, though, is that over a longer period of time, particularly if there were a positive intervention for the victim, as our crime reduction strategy would have, you would see a greater understanding and perhaps less of a desire to see that punishment or revenge.

I'm speaking on my own behalf now. This is not an RCMP position; this is my position.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

The second question is for Ms. Parkes and Ms. Pate. From the perspective of your organization, are there any circumstances where you believe the current minimum sentences are useful? Do you support the existing minimum sentences in the Criminal Code?

[Kim Pate]

No, we're on record taking a position against mandatory minimum sentences generally, because of some of the issues we've already raised.

To pull back to some of the discussion around the table a little while ago and to some of the examples we talked about in our brief, at this time when we're seeing crime rates and rates of imprisonment generally in other areas going down, we're actually seeing the rates of imprisonment of women going up. It's not because there's a crime wave. It's not because there are increased numbers of women committing offences per se, but we are seeing it linked very much to the cuts to social services, the cuts to health care, the cuts to other support services that have been taking place across this country.

When we look at the system's statistics in terms of who's coming back and the related issue of repeat offences, less than 5% of the individuals in prison are coming back for new offences. The stats from the National Parole Board on those who have been released and have come back for committing violent offences show they are less than half of 1%.

Even though the rates of imprisonment of women are greater, when we're talking about the issue of whether or not mandatory sentences would have any impact, I think it just falls away completely when you realize that the majority of women are not there because of anything more than.... I mean, they're there and they take responsibility; many of them plead guilty to the offences they're there for, but the judges take into account the circumstances now of why they're there, unless it's—

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

How about minimum sentences for firearms? Do you support the existing minimum sentences?

[Kim Pate]

No, we did not when they were brought in.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Are there custodial dispositions in the code that you're in support of?

[Kim Pate]

Certainly. We support the use of community-based sanctions. We support the use of added supervision in the community. We support the use of more appropriate supervised and structured interventions.