Evidence of meeting #35 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was violent.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I have another question for you later if I don't run out of time.
Tony, I probably don't have to ask you these because I think you already answered them, but most of the offenders are reoffenders in the world at large, people who have already committed. You would agree?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Secondly, I think you said later, after I'd written the question down, that you want the recidivism to go down. You want people to be cured or fixed. You want them to be the safest when they come out. That's how I'll be voting on this bill. It's to achieve that end. Safety is the ultimate end for everyone, and for victims.
Mr. Stuesser, you talked of your principle of fairness, and you gave a couple of examples. Can you tell me what would happen in the cases in which a prosecutor or crown attorney sees that, with limited discretion now, there's no option for a fair result in a trial? What options might they take instead? For instance, there's going to be probation or not, pressing charges or whatever.
4:50 p.m.
Professor of Law, Robson, Hall, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Let's deal with the scenario I gave you with the woman who shot her husband. The prosecution started with the murder charge. There's a dead person here, a victim, and we're all very concerned about that. Prosecutors will not end up saying, let's just do alternative measures here in such a serious crime. It's not going to happen. They're going to have to charge when there's been a death involved. And you start going down: what are the parameters? Manslaughter is probably the most logical one, and, if you like, the beauty of manslaughter was that it had no minimum sentence. When you look at the past use of manslaughter, that's where prosecutors would use their discretion, and that's where actually in sentencing you could hear prosecutors say they quite agree that this lady should not go to jail, and they would do that.
Unfortunately, now, because a firearm was used, there is no option. What's it going to be, manslaughter or criminal negligence caused death? Are you going to fudge the data or fudge the charge and say there wasn't really a death, let's charge you with something else? You can't.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Okay, that's good.
The ultimate outcome would be an unfair outcome, in that case.
4:50 p.m.
Professor of Law, Robson, Hall, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Yes, and she would have to challenge the legislation.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
On another side, on some of these offences, could there be a situation in which if the mandatory minimum was too high to be fair, therefore a prosecutor would proceed by another process, like probation or something, thus having a person not in jail at all when they should have been in jail, but for a shorter time, to be fair?
4:50 p.m.
Professor of Law, Robson, Hall, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
It's hard to imagine, but there could well be. For example, in the attempted murder, you might try to reduce down to an assault causing bodily harm of some kind. For sexual offences, you may well, rather than charge with aggravated, have what we might call just a simple sexual assault. So there is some basis there for, shall we say, more creativity on behalf of both the defence and the Crown.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Lee, your chart on page 6 shows violent crimes going down dramatically in the United States. At the same time, prison has stayed relatively the same. What has changed dramatically is probation, people not being in jail. Basically these stats suggest that what's caused violent crimes to go down the most is not having people in jail.
4:50 p.m.
Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
That's not how I interpret the data and that's not how Levitt interpreted the data. There was a dramatic increase in incarceration during the late eighties and into the nineties. In fact, this was the reason he identified as the single most important for the decline in violent crime in the 1990s. This was based on his work in a series of articles he has published.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Good afternoon.
Mr. Cannavino, I've read and reread your brief. On page 13, more precisely in Recommendation 5, second paragraph, you say, and I quote:
Section 745 should be repealed, removing the so-called “faint hope clause” that has allowed 80 percent of applicant killers to obtain early release.
Here I have the Criminal Code. When you mention section 745, exactly what section of the Criminal Code are you talking about? I know the Code fairly well, but I haven't found the section you're referring to. There are sections 745, 745.01 and 745.1 up to 745.61. Can you find it for me and give me the answer?
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I didn't see that in section 745, but perhaps I misread it. I'd like you to find it for me.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
If you could send me section 745, I'd appreciate it.
Now we're going to get down to business. We know each other well. I've previously heard you testify on Bill C-9, and, well before that, on other matters. When I listen to you, it seems to me there's a problem at release. Revolving doors work in both directions. We can probably control the entrance; we're saying we should control it, but also leave the judge some discretion. It seems to me the problem is at the exit.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I'd like you to file that statistic with the clerk so that it's forwarded to everyone.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chartrand, I won't ask you any questions because I entirely share your convictions, having myself worked with Aboriginal people during my last years in criminal law. I think we're on the same wavelength. Pardon me if I don't ask you any questions.
However, I'd like to put two questions to Mr. Lee and Mr. Stuesser.
Mr. Lee, you say that minimum prison sentences are important because the longer the sentences, the more we'll be able to rehabilitate a person. Is that in fact what you're telling us? Did I understand correctly? I'm going to listen to you in English to make sure I understand.
4:55 p.m.
Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
What I'm arguing is that rehabilitation takes time, and the more violent the person, the more damaged the person; the more damaged the person, the greater amount of time needed to intervene in the transformation of this person. There is a great deal of psychological research on this.
