Justice Committee on Nov. 27th, 2006

[Tony Cannavino]

I liked your preamble. It's not a question of ethnic group. Otherwise, should I complain that more Italians were incarcerated last week?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Especially recently.

[Tony Cannavino]

Exactly. That's the exception to the rule. We're all good people, except the ones who were arrested last week.

It's not just a problem in Toronto; it's a problem in Montreal and Winnipeg. There's a problem in the cities and towns. They say the crime rate is going down. Then explain to me why citizens now feel less safe than 20 years ago.

Twenty years ago, when I walked in Old Montreal, on St. Catherine Street, I felt very comfortable, Today, I wouldn't do it at 11 o'clock, midnight or 1:00 a.m. I definitely wouldn't do it because now there's more violence.

You referred to an event that occurred not long ago, when an individual was offered the choice of serving one year in prison in the United States or three years in Canada. That's not the only person that's happened to. How many extradition applications have there been from people who want to come back to the country? Why do they want to come back to the country? First, because our prisons are a little more like hotels, and, second, because jail time in Canada is much shorter than in the United States.

The proof is the case of one individual who was arrested in the United States and sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was extradited to Canada. Since his crime wasn't considered a violent crime, he was released after serving one-sixth of his sentence. One month after he got out, he was killed in a hotel in downtown Toronto.

When I was on the Carcajou squad — we made a reputation for ourselves — and we were dealing with a trafficker, we hoped he'd go through the United States because we knew that, if he stayed in Canada, things would be easy for him and he wouldn't get a tough sentence. So we had them charged in the United States because we knew they'd be gone for 25 years. It would have been unthinkable for them to get long sentences in Canada.

You'll see what's going to happen next.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

What about Mom Boucher?

[Tony Cannavino]

We took care of Mom Boucher. We got him in Quebec. He had run the show for too long.

I'm glad Mr. Ménard referred to the case of Mom Boucher. With tougher laws on organized crime, that's what we've done and we've used them. The gentleman in question is there for a long time, ad vitam æternam!

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Cannavino and Mr. Petit.

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Hanger.

My first question is for Mr. Cannavino.

One thing that always sticks with me is a piece of advice from our chief of police in Barrie. He said the biggest concern he has with the justice system is that it's a revolving door.

The reason I'm in support of this proposed legislation is that I feel it would help reduce that revolving door.

What type of feedback are you getting from—

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

Mr. Brown, can you turn in front of the microphone?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

I appreciate your interest in Conservative opinions.

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

No. It's for the translation.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

And you, too.

Could you let me know the thoughts of your organization and the officers within it on how this might alleviate this revolving door?

[Tony Cannavino]

We think this addresses the violent criminals. When we talk about the revolving door, there's more than one bill the government has presented that I think will help us. This is one of them. For those committing a violent crime, you need to have a strong deterrent, and you need to have significant sentencing. This addresses your concern exactly.

If we really want to stop that revolving door, the other thing we also need to do is a review of Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board. Why? Their policies and legislation have so many flaws that no matter what, they're going to get out anyway.

I'll give you an example, Mr. Brown. Among the 32 people facing murder or manslaughter charges in 2006 in Toronto, 14 were on bail at the time of the offence, 13 were on probation, and 17 were subject to firearms prohibition orders. It's always the same damn people we keep arresting. Those people are killing citizens or threatening our communities. That's why we have to address that specific problem.

Thank God we have legislation that will help us do our job.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you.

I have a question for Mr. Stuesser.

You made reference to simplifying the code and enabling more discretion. I got from your comments that minimum penalties inhibit discretion. I'm a supporter of minimums and maximums. I realize that in some sense they inhibit discretion. Following your argument and logic of protecting discretion, using the opposite scenario, and to remain logically consistent, would it be fair to say you support getting rid of maximums as well?

[Prof. Lee Stuesser]

No. But to be blunt, maximums are meaningless, because maximums are never imposed. To be blunt, you can make it five life sentences for certain crimes and it wouldn't make any difference in terms of what a person is sentenced to.

Let's be clear about my discretion. Mine is a limited narrow discretion for people who, in my view, are unfairly punished in situations of an unintentional killing with the use of a firearm. What I was trying to show, if anything, was in terms of your minimums. Minimums can work, if there are other things going on.

There was mention of the fact that people would like to be incarcerated in Canada. We should be proud of that. We shouldn't be embarrassed by it; we should be proud of it. That means we are treating people humanely in our prisons. There are a lot of problems in our prisons, but when you compare them to other countries, we should actually be proud.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Following up on—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Brown, I'm going to have to cut you short here. Sorry.

This basically brings our afternoon to a conclusion.

I have a question for Mr. Lee, on a personal level. The matter has been brought up several times, in reference to the collection of data. Sometimes, it's pooh-poohed because it's American data. You pointed out that the collection of this data by experts there is empirical. When you're looking at crime and criminals, what's the difference between a collection of American data and its application and that which would be compared to Canadian data? A criminal is a criminal, I assume. They operate in very much the same way. I'm curious. There seems to be a fear sometimes when we talk about American data.

[Prof. Ian Lee]

I agree completely with you. I teach on five continents around the world, and 48 hours from now I'm flying to Iran. Iran is a very different place from Canada. I've also taught in the United States. I also teach in China.

The point of this is that the differences between Canada and the United States, although some Canadians think they are very great, are I think very small. I look at the data between the States and Canada—demographic data, the interest rate, the unemployment rate, you name it. We track them; they track us. There's a very strong similarity between the two countries, because with the honourable exception of Quebec, they're an English-speaking country and we're an English-speaking country. With the exception of Quebec, we're a common-law country in both countries. So there are great similarities.

I lived in the States. I didn't disclose this, but I lived in the States twice. I taught in California for three years. The differences were so small they thought I was an American; whereas they don't think in Iran, when I go there, that I'm an Iranian, and they don't think I'm Chinese when I go to China. There are significant differences between those other countries, and very small differences. So I find the data compelling; I agree with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Stuesser, I'm an old robbery detective; I've been a major crimes investigator. Among all the cases you have alluded to, when it comes to loopholes and the way matters are handled in court, the definition of things such as “membership in a criminal organization” has created a real problem for the courts. Nobody's been able to define it in logical terms, such that the police can go and collect the evidence and say, “Here it is.” I know that some of this can be rectified. But to prove that a particular individual is a member of a criminal organization, you're having to go into maybe revealing police sources about what kind of evidence is there, which may not be to the best interests of the public, because it's intelligence.

If this is so difficult to do with Bill C-10—matters like this, or the description of a firearm—when you're looking at a victim who's been traumatized.... If this is so difficult to do, what would your suggestion be? I detect that you're not wanting to really say, “We don't want this legislation, period.” You see some very practical issues here that need to be addressed.

[Prof. Lee Stuesser]

Hopefully my message was, to assist you in making a law; if you're going to pass a law, let's make it usable. I think you've identified, Mr. Chairman, a real problem that you're going to have with the way the triggering provision is. To try to connect things to membership in a criminal organization is exceptionally difficult. All you have to do is look at how police forces have used the existing legislation. Quite frankly, they really haven't been able to use it that effectively. It's much easier simply to get an identification and connect it to a firearm, which is the existing law.

So I urge the committee to simplify it, to make it usable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, members.

I'm going to conclude the formal part of the meeting here. We have a brief business issue to deal with, and we're going to deal with it ASAP.

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing. I think this has been a very significant contribution. I'd like to see some more debate myself, but maybe that's for another day.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Colleagues, I'd like to call the meeting back to order to deal with this business issue.

Before you is a motion by Monsieur Réal Ménard.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a motion I'd like to us debate, and I'd also like to file a notice of motion.

The first motion, which I want us to debate, was sent to you 48 hours ago. Ultimately, it's an invitation to the minister to appear.

The minister has made a number of statements that have caused some controversy, as all committee members have realized. We think that the exchange must be continued. We want to have a discussion with the minister concerning judicial appointments that is productive, respectful and conducted in an atmosphere of camaraderie.

I have another motion concerning routine business. I don't know whether I should read it or whether you first want to dispose of my first motion.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Diane Diotte]

He wants to give notice of the second one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Oh, you're giving notice of the second one. Okay.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I can give notice immediately, quickly.