Justice Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2006

[Prof. Peter Rosenthal]

Thank you.

I should like to take up something that Mr. Ménard has indicated. He pointed out that in Toronto and Vancouver there were increases in gun crimes and in the other areas there were decreases. That alone should prove that the mandatory minimums had nothing to do with it. There are other factors at play here, and if you deal with mandatory minimums as if that's the solution, then you don't look for the true solutions, which involve looking at what's really going on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Rosenthal.

Mr. Comartin.

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

I'll pass, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay.

Mr. Thompson.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I thank you both for being here today.

Mr. Muise, there is occasionally some reference in terms of the victims from some of the witnesses who come forward. I hear so many witnesses come before the committee...you'd swear that when it comes to crime, there's only one person involved and that's the criminal. I really get sick and tired of this nonsense about, “Well, we have to make sure there's not cruel and unusual punishment when it comes to the criminal. We have to be careful how we treat these birds because that could be, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, cruel and unusual.”

Yet, Mr. Muise, I remember an 18-year-old boy who was in grade 12 attacking a 15-year-old girl in the school I was in. He sexually assaulted her--seriously. The courts, in their wisdom, decided it would be better if this 18-year-old continued his schooling and got his education, and they gave him a conditional sentence. I think it was extremely cruel and unusual punishment for that 15-year-old girl to allow that 18-year-old boy back into that school.

An apple dumpling gang, as we called them in the rural area, robbed the Bank of Montreal. A 17-year-old and two 19-year-olds decided it would be a good idea to get their hands on some guns. They got some handguns somewhere. In my hometown of 2,500 people, they held up the Bank of Montreal. It was very well planned, by the way. They had two girlfriends who set a big fire on the edges of town to get our small police force to attend to this, along with the fire department.

There were four tellers and a couple of people who dealt with credit and so on--six to seven people, including the manager--who were absolutely terrorized for at least 15 minutes before these young people, who were shaking like a leaf because it was the first time they had ever done such a thing, managed to get out of there with quite a bit of money. They had stockings over their heads; they were really playing the role.

Can you imagine, Mr. Muise, what the view of the public in that small town was when about six weeks later these three guys were walking around the streets of that community? There was no thought about the cruel and unusual punishment for the victims of these kinds of people. There was no thought at all.

I would gather from some of the witnesses I've heard that it would be wise to let the 18-year-old finish his school and that we shouldn't punish these young people too hard when it's the first time. I really get tired of that.

So, thank you, Mr. Muise, for referring to the victims of crime as often as you do.

I was surprised to hear even a mention of consecutive sentences. I've been trying to look for consecutive sentencing in this country for a long time. It seems to me if you murder 11 people, maybe you ought to get 11 life sentences to be served consecutively, not concurrently.

One day I went into court, and do you know what? I saw two people get a consecutive sentence and it almost shocked me. Twice they had smuggled grain across the border to the United States and twice they were sentenced, and it was consecutive: “We'll teach those farmers to sell their own products twice. Serve it consecutively.”

You see, the whole attitude out there on these kinds of events.... I know they are small in number, but it has brought on a huge public outcry. More and more, when these events take place, like on Boxing Day in Toronto, there is an increase, there's a public outcry. And there's not one of us here who didn't get elected with the intent to come here to try to fix it. It's every one of us. It doesn't matter.

[An hon. member]

That's right.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

In reference to the campaigning during the election, you only need to look at Bill C-9 to see if there has been any change in attitude, and I think you will concur that there certainly has been.

I appreciate you. I just want to say how much I appreciate people who speak out strongly for victims. That is no reflection on what the witness of the other party.... I'm not reflecting on it in that sense. I know the gentleman is probably close to my age and has been around this country for a long time and has a lot of heartfelt thoughts for victims of crime. I'm sure he does, especially if he has grandchildren, etc. We all want to protect them.

I want to thank Mr. Muise for addressing this thing from the point of view that there's a public outcry to start protecting victims in this country, and I applaud you. And, yes, I'll charge expenses for that speech.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both for coming. It's fascinating.

Mr. Muise, my colleague would like to know how your organization is funded.

[John Muise]

As I indicated in the introduction, generous individuals and corporations kick in. Much of our time is spent raising money, and that's how we're funded. It's as simple as that.

The only time we've ever accepted government funding is for a project, a one-off project, but no, we do not accept government funding.

If all you folks said you would pitch in and give us money to keep our operation up and running, we'd respectfully turn it down. We'd be grateful for the offer and we'd appreciate it, but we would turn it down.

That's how we're funded. And I'd be happy to speak to you afterwards if you want more information, if you know anybody who would like to give us a donation. Staying above water is always an issue for us.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Is there a list of your funders? Is it public?

[John Muise]

I don't have a list. but certainly I could provide that information, I suspect. I don't know. It's something I would have to speak to the executive director about, but we certainly talk about our funders all the time publicly, so I could probably name several of them right now, if you'd like.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

No, that's good. I have a main question I'd like to get to, actually.

In our work over here, we're really trying to speak for the victims and people who are not yet victims, to make sure the perpetrators haven't reoffended again. The vast majority of evidence is that there's not a deterrent function, but the one element that I think Mr. Muise brought up, and certainly the chief of police and the Attorney General, that might be a rationale—not necessarily data, but it might be a rationale—is incapacitation. I'd like to talk to Mr. Rosenthal about this.

The evidence also shows that people who are incarcerated as opposed to the various other options--a longer incarceration quite often makes them less safe when they come out of prison. In that all of these people will be coming out, this is going to be short-term gain for long-term pain, and society will actually be less safe because of this type of extra incarceration and lack of other more productive alternatives for judges. Could you comment on that?

[Prof. Peter Rosenthal]

Yes, the question of incapacitation is raised, as it was a while ago here, that if someone is in custody, he's not going to be committing crimes, at least outside the prison. He might do it in prison, but he won't be committing crimes outside. Well, how much effect is this bill going to have on that?

Mr. Muise talked about the worst offenders. Aren't the worst ones already getting much more than the minimum sentences anyway? So how much effect will there be? Yes, there may be one or two people who will spend a couple more months in custody than they otherwise would, who are among the worst offenders and are therefore going to be incapacitated when maybe they would have done something, but that will be an infinitesimal fraction of the effect of this bill.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I agree with you on that, but over and above that, the person who will be at large in society for a lot longer than they'll be in prison for those extra years will be more dangerous to society in total.

[Prof. Peter Rosenthal]

Absolutely. I want to agree with you on that aspect, too, but I wanted to make the other point about incapacitation. Even per se is a very, very minuscule matter and shouldn't really be considered. Certainly, the evidence is that the longer you spend in prison, the more you learn about how to be a criminal, to some large extent, and the people who are kept in longer come out worse, unfortunately.

Now, if you want to talk about solving crime, why don't you talk about those issues? There are some real problems there that could be tackled by Parliament, if you didn't do window-dressing kinds of things like this that don't really solve the problems. That would be my submission to you.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

So even if we have significant incarceration and stop a lot of crime for a couple of years, they'll be coming out into the public and be far more dangerous. For instance, the stats we got on discretionary sentences say that it could be 47 days in jail for an average offence, where it would be 700 days in treatment through the others. So you'd have all that time to work on the person, to rehabilitate. Obviously, jails haven't worked for centuries. We know that. People are going to reoffend. So for a longer portion of their life, they will be more dangerous to society.

[Prof. Peter Rosenthal]

Absolutely. I completely agree with you and would urge that you look at those kinds of questions as to how you can really rehabilitate people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two questions I'll be seeking your feedback on--first Mr. Muise and then the professor.

There was a report that this committee looked at, which was circulated by the clerk, in terms of the effects of gun changes. It specifically made reference to Pennsylvania and Detroit.

In Detroit, where minimum sentences were imposed, there were 10 fewer homicides per month. Additionally, in Pennsylvania, there were 6.8 fewer per month. So when I look at things logically, that obviously weighs pretty heavily. It would be interesting if that trend would continue after these were imposed. We want to get your feedback on whether you anticipate similar results, Mr. Muise.

Another comment I'd like to get some feedback and some thoughts on is a suggestion that was made that there's no evidence that judges have made any bad decisions. I think that's what the professor mentioned. I'd just note that the Attorney General, when he was here, made reference to a case where the Crown asked for 10 years when someone had 23 handguns and the judge gave a decision of two years. Is that something you've heard as well, Mr. Muise? Is what the Liberal Attorney General was speaking about in his passionate support for Bill C-10 an aberration?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Excuse me, Mr. Brown—

[Prof. Peter Rosenthal]

As I informed the committee, I have to leave at 12:45 for another matter downtown. I wonder if perhaps I could try to answer your question for me first, before he does, if you want, or else I'll just have to say goodbye now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I would encourage Mr. Brown to accept that, because I know the professor does have to leave.

[Prof. Peter Rosenthal]

Actually, I would like to comment on what you asked him, if that's okay with you.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Could I have limited answers, so that you can both answer? I want to hear both answers.