Justice Committee on Nov. 20th, 2006

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

In terms of the determination that there were these 400 gangs and 7,000 participants, how was that information collected?

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

I'm not sure. It's--

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Let me interrupt you then. What is the source of those two figures? How did you come to those two figures?

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

They come from Statistics Canada and intelligence gathering through our own processes and systems, our liaison with other police departments, an amalgamation of the information we gathered through the various departments, and an analysis of that information.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That information, though, is again coming from a disparity of analyses.

[C/Supt Michael Woods]

That's correct.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Ms. Pate, I think I'm going to the paper maybe more than to some of the comments you made, although I think you made reference to it. I want to challenge you a bit on this.

I think in the last Parliament...I can't remember if it was your organization or one of the other ones that came forward, but it was indicated that there was a retreat from the use of mandatory minimums in other jurisdictions. Because Michigan is right beside us, I looked at Michigan. They in fact have backed off the use of mandatory minimums. But my research led me to the conclusion that they did that only with regard to drug crimes; they did not do it with regard to violent crimes. I'm wondering if that's the same pattern we're seeing in Australia and in some of the other states in the United States, or are they also backing off the use of mandatory minimums in violent crimes?

[Debra Parkes]

I can say a couple of things. You're absolutely correct. In most cases the retreat from the use of mandatory minimums has been in respect of drug offences. Certainly in the U.S. I think that's been the case. There's a study by the Vera Institute from 2003 that looks at this across different jurisdictions, and it's primarily with respect to drug offences. In Australia, in the northern territory, I think it's largely in respect of drug offences as well. But that's the area in which mandatory minimums had been primarily imposed. Nevertheless, the issue of deterrence doesn't change for drug offences versus violent offences or firearms offences as far as the evidence goes. But yes, it is the case that it has primarily been in relation to drug offences, as far as I'm aware.

[Kim Pate]

That's correct, but it's also true that most other jurisdictions have shorter sentences, particularly in the context we were talking about before. We were talking about mandatory minimum sentences also for very serious violent offences, and most of them also have mechanisms for what are often referred to as escape clauses. So if the judges see exceptional circumstances, they do not have to necessarily apply the mandatory minimum. Those kinds of exceptions are permitted, and that is something we don't have currently in our legislation for mandatory minimum sentences.

To go back to when you asked about the other areas that impact women, I didn't repeat it because when I was here for Bill C-9, I talked about it. But the other example of where we see situations is where women are attempting to flee violence and where the men who are victimizing them may have a cache of weapons themselves and they use one of those weapons. Under current legislation as well as the proposed, they could end up with sentences exceeding that which a judge may have given them, or exceeding what many of us may believe they should get if they are in fact defending themselves and their children, as they often are.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I want to stay with the retreat from the use of mandatory minimums. The additional research I did seemed to indicate that there were several reasons for doing it. Cost was a significant factor. As Ms. Parkes suggests, really questioning the deterrent factor as not working was another factor. Some of it I think motivated governments.... Australia, in the sense of seeing it from a humanitarian standpoint, saw that it wasn't the way to go. As they have retreated, have you seen an analysis of why, in the sense that there were multiple reasons for doing it?

[Kim Pate]

There's been a bit in the northern territory, and it is in more recent material coming out of Australia. There they looked at the number of aboriginal people, in particular, being imprisoned. Again, the human and social cost, as well as the fiscal cost of that in terms of impacting generations of individuals, was part of it.

I think the whole issue of not first dealing with what Mr. Woods has referred to in terms of early intervention strategies.... The more resources you put back into the system, the more resources you suck out of preventative strategies that in fact benefit the community far more.

From the statistics we have in Canada, in terms of what it costs to keep people in prison, if you look at women alone, the minimum amount we see in terms of the cost to keep a woman in prison in a provincial jail is around $50,000. It goes up to over $300,000 when you look at the various forms of imprisonment applied to women serving federal sentences, all of whom would be serving federal sentences under this new bill. If you're looking at that cost per community, we have yet to find a community--when we do our public events, when we do information sessions--that doesn't want to see those resources invested in their community for anything from child care, to education, to health care, to early intervention strategies for kids who may be getting into difficulty, to mentoring approaches. The list goes on and on as to what they first want to spend their money on before they would want to spend it on longer sentences.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Thompson.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thanks, folks, for being here today.

I certainly agree that when it comes to intervention there should be a continuum of action, including prevention. Prevention is something that, as a principal of a high school and a junior high school, we had going on all the time. We had all kinds of programs--kids at risk, you name it. We could identify them at a pretty early age. You could almost tell in grades 1 and 2 if there were going to be some problems escalating from this child, whatever the situation was. I think a lot of these programs are worth putting a lot of resources into, to work hard at catching them at an early age, because I think that's when you have to do it. Those kinds of activities I've never objected to.

Also, what we have going on today is a public outcry. Guns are killing people. Gangs are killing people. Do something about it. They want them off the street. Unfortunately for the Elizabeth Fry Societies, jail is the alternative. That's how you get them off the street. People are willing to build more prisons if we have to. The public is saying to address that problem, to put more resources into the courts, to put more resources into whatever, but to get this thing taken care of. It's a serious problem, and they want guns, gangs, and drugs dealt with. After all, the public are the ones that pay the bill, and they're willing to foot that kind of bill if they get a lot more protection on the streets of their cities and communities. It's not too much to ask for.

When I sit here on this committee and I sit in the House of Commons, we come up with legislation that tries to do just that: provide a safer society. Give the police the tools they need to do it. Provide the things we have. Over and over again, I keep hearing Elizabeth Fry coming in and saying that jail should never be anything but the last alternative. Well, the public outcry now is that it's the first alternative for gangs and guns. That's the outcry. There's no doubt about that.

I would really be interested in knowing what kind of proposal the Elizabeth Fry committee would bring forward to this committee to consider in terms of what to do about it. I haven't heard anything other than that this won't deter it and that won't deter it, but I haven't heard of anything that will--not a thing.

I've been here 13 years, and I've listened to you folks a lot of times, but show me the kind of legislation that will take care of this problem. Don't give me any nonsense about the gun registry. You know that gangs don't run to the registry and register their handguns. They just don't do that.

I'm really confused when you say not to go here because that should be the last resort, and don't do this because that won't deter that. Please, tell me, what does?

[Kim Pate]

I'm sorry that we haven't been clearer than in our presentations, because I think we have presented, as I mentioned earlier, that the early intervention approaches do work--

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I've already admitted that. Please understand that. Now we're at the point at which it didn't work. Now what do you do?

[Kim Pate]

We work particularly with those who are seen as the most difficult to manage in the system, because we consider it our responsibility to work with those individuals because of the work we've chosen to do. Particularly when we talk about the women with whom we work, what we see when we do take different approaches--not just longer sentences and more brutalizing environments--is that when women who have been in jail for long periods of time are coming out, if we've been able to assist them on appeal when they come out, they don't come back into the system. I was talking to a woman this morning who's been out three years; everybody predicted she would be back in, but as a result of intensive support and supervision when she came out of prison, she hasn't gone back in.

I think there are lots of examples that we do provide. They're on the continuum; they're not a lot different from what you see at the beginning, but as we're seeing more of those resources cut, I would suggest that if you now went back into the high schools you worked in, you wouldn't see all the support services you may have seen there. So it's not a big surprise that we're seeing more and more of those kids who are most marginalized, not feeling like they fit in. Unfortunately, the places they are fitting in tend to be the places we don't want to see them and that aren't advantageous.

I'd also challenge you...when I talk to the public and I ask the simple question, “If someone commits an offence, should they go to jail?”, most people may say yes, but if you ask them how they think that will assist in their not going back there, or how they think that will assist in keeping us safer, you don't have to scratch very far to have people give much different responses. Very few people, I would suggest, are willing to spend a lot of money on more jails, particularly when they look at the results, when we're seeing the resources sucked out of other places in order to fund those systems.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I guess I have to look at it like this. When I was a principal I had the strap and a paddle. It was right there on the wall. They knew I would take it down and use it if necessary, but you know, I never had to. It was a deterrent. It really was.

[Kim Pate]

I don't know if it was a deterrent or if some of the other people providing supports in your school may have been assisting those individuals to have other options available too. Whether it's sports.... We don't see the same sports activities available in most schools; we don't see the same after school activities, the same tutoring activities.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

My point is there is such a thing as a deterrent. There really is.

[Kim Pate]

Well, if a deterrent worked, then the United States should be the safest place in the world to live right now--if that argument worked.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

No. The point is this. People are saying they don't want that individual, who is going to hurt others, in their midst. So what do you do with him? If not jail, what do you do with him?

[Debra Parkes]

The incapacitation point has come up a few times, and I've made the submissions about deterrence. Obviously protection of society through incapacitation is another of the goals of the sentencing process, but we always have to keep in mind that it's only selective incapacitation for a particular period of time, right? Unless we're prepared to go to the ultimate position, which would be to keep people in jail indefinitely for every offence because we think there's some risk that they might potentially reoffend, then we simply cannot rely on incapacitation beyond that very narrow promise it offers for that period of time. The concerns we have are around the allocation of resources and the great cost of allocating these resources without allocating, at least somewhere, a proportionate amount of resources to community reintegration for people leaving prison.

The Auditor General's report--I believe it was in 2003 or 2004--mentioned specifically the proportion of resources spent on imprisonment versus community release. It's not surprising that we see prison not working in the way we suggest it should work when there aren't the resources for supervision and support in the community when people leave a three-year sentence, a four-year sentence, or whatever.

I agree with you that there is a role for selective incapacitation in particular cases, but ultimately it doesn't deliver on the promise that the public is being given for it, and we need to always keep that in mind. Again, just to reiterate the point, when the public has more information about sentencing.... There have been numerous studies in Britain and in Canada to the effect that if you give them the one-liner that someone committed a particular offence involving a firearm and they got a one-year sentence or whatever, there's usually going to be a primary response that it's too lenient. When they have more information, even just a paragraph of facts, about that particular person and the nature of the offence, the public generally supports the range of proportionate sentences, from very low sentences in some cases, in which there are many mitigating factors and not many aggravating factors, up to more serious offences.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Are you telling me that the system works fine as it is? Is that what you're saying?

[Debra Parkes]

Not at all. That's not--

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Then would you provide me some legislation? I'd like to look at it and maybe we'll put it through.