Evidence of meeting #36 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 minimums.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I would gladly eliminate them.
In the case of such offences as murder, if I had my druthers, it would be subject to a presumptive minimum. That is, it would draw a life sentence, unless a court found a sufficiently compelling set of circumstances to rule otherwise.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you for that.
I think Mr. Champagne was the only witness who mentioned victims in his testimony. That is telling to me, because I know the concern, which came certainly from my perspective and that of others, was that we wanted to make sure that we have fewer victims in the future. I've heard compelling testimony from other witnesses suggesting that this bill would help do that.
No one has ever suggested that this bill is the whole package. There are other things that have to be done. We have to address other causes for crime and do what we can when it comes to prevention. We have to do what we can when it comes to resources, having police on the streets—and we've provided for that.
But I note that all around this table, with the exception of the Bloc, with the NDP and the Liberals in the last election, we all campaigned on a commitment for increasing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Your party did, Sue. Did you run as a Liberal? I think you did. All Liberals ran on a platform of increasing mandatory minimum sentences. Whether they want to distance themselves from that now, this was their platform, and I noted that.
We heard testimony from Chief Blair of the Toronto police force who said that when they focused on one community in particular, where there were high rates of gun crime, and got a small number of recidivist offenders—guys who were out there committing crimes with handguns—off the streets, the homicide rate went from an extremely high level to virtual elimination. They had one homicide a year in that community, compared to 24 before, I believe. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but it was a phenomenal drop.
That's part of what this bill does. It has increasing penalties for recidivists. We don't try to smash the person who has a first offence, and you mentioned the case of a police officer in the heat of the pursuit having an incident such as that.
What this bill clearly focuses on is gang crimes committed with handguns. This is the problem that's plaguing our streets. It says that if you do that once, you're going to be subject to a mandatory minimum. If you do it again, it's an increased sentence. So it's focused.
I'd also like to ask, what do you say to the evidence put forward by the chief of police that said when you take a small number of offenders—and I'm not talking right now about rehabilitation, which is very important and a goal we all have—they're off the streets and in jail? They're not on the streets of Toronto or other cities committing crimes. What I'm talking about is protecting society. What do you say to that?
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I'd say two things. First I would say that the impact of the police in Toronto was done with the existing laws that didn't require new mandatory minimums, and clearly by having a greater presence and tackling the problem head on. They were probably having some impact, both in terms of arresting people and sentencing them under the current laws, which are not trivial.
The second point was that the high murder rate in Toronto, which you mentioned, was a spike. It wasn't a trend. It was very clear that it grew out of a set of circumstances that were well known in Toronto, and it was absolutely predictable that when the murder rates spiked up, they would drop precipitously. So once again, everybody who does anything at that peak gets the credit. But the circumstances related to those communities were pretty predictable, and in fact we see that from time to time in different communities.
5:10 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Your comments glossed over something rather important when you talked about recidivism and what that would attract under Bill C-10. You somehow managed to exclude the police officer I was talking about from the sweep of Bill C-10. I'm suggesting to you that if that officer were convicted today--first offence, good record, committed while he's chasing a fleeing burglar--he would have to go away under Bill C-10 for at least five years.
I will have to put my question to you in the same way I put it to Mr. Kramp. Whether it's responded to here or in the next life, I don't know, but suffice it to ask you whether you would be pleased to see that officer mandatorily jailed for five years.
There's something else—
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I don't want to use up all my time; I have other questions I want to ask.
5:10 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I'm responding to something you said, and that's why I wondered if I could.
You and Mr. Kramp have made much of the fact that we haven't explicitly used the word “victims” in our presentation.
5:10 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I would suggest to you that the inference you draw from that is quite misconceived. If we did not explicitly use the word “victims” when we talked about the social science evidence that the mandatory minimums do not contribute to public safety, I would suggest to you that this necessarily implies victims. That's what public safety is about, and we of course addressed the issue of victims.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Derek Lee
We're at eight minutes. Those were interesting dialogues, Mr. Moore. Interesting questions get interesting answers. We do have four witnesses here today, and regrettably the five minutes goes quickly. We do have more time in the meeting, so if we move to other questioners, we're going to have time for more questions.
I'll go to Ms. Barnes. Mr. Moore, if you want to go back on the list, that's fine.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Thank you.
I noted in the spring and I asked the minister twice about the Levitt study, because that was the case he cited as evidence. Anybody who has read all summer long all of the criminology reports.... There's been more than one, and I'd suggest that members opposite in the government that cited that study should start taking a look at all the criticisms of the Levitt study. I will definitely ask our minister about that, because Doob and Cesaroni's study was very comprehensive. It canvassed the numerous pieces that came out, attacking the methodology, among other things. I'm not going to take all of my time, but I would have thought that the justice department would have given that to the government, and I'm sure they did. Whether they read it or not, I don't know.
The next point I want to make is to Mr. Stewart. You had talked in response to a question from my Bloc colleague about proportionality and sentencing. You were talking about disproportionate incarceration in the Australian study, and I did want to point out and make it for the record that it was disproportionate not to the individual sentences, but disproportionate in that it found that it affected aboriginal peoples in that country. That wasn't made clearly enough on the record.
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Yes, you're quite right. That's what it was about.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Thank you very much.
The idea that only one party--I think for partisan reasons--aligns itself to public safety and victims is just not accurate. The point I'd like to make is that when you send the message about public safety being just sentencing, really what you are doing is making it less safe in the end. The reason is that only the aspect of having somebody locked up for that incapacitation element on sentencing accomplishes that, but everything else, all the evidence that I have come across--and I have spent months researching this--says that you are actually being deceptive, because there will be less public safety in the end. If I am absolutely wrong on this, I'd like to hear it, because I will tell you quite frankly that personally I would be in favour of a lot of mandatory minimum sentences if I could find some empirical data that they worked for public safety. The opposite is not occurring, and that is why I will take my personal position and my party position.
Whoever would like to comment, please go ahead. I will probably only have a real five minutes, so please contain your answer in that time.
5:15 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
There's just one point I'd like to make. Serious crime—violent crime—produces two reactions. One is fear and the other's anger. Mandatory minimums address anger very well, and to the degree to which people want the justice system to address the frustration and anger they feel, arbitrary and harsh penalties work well. But if we're looking beyond that and want to do something that actually reduces the risks to the community, we have to be more dispassionate about it.
We're all concerned about reducing crime. The question is, what is the best way to use the resources we have as a country to minimize the potential for people to be victimized? To do that, I think we have to be analytical; we have to look at the research. Subjective experience isn't really worth very much, because you just can't put it into perspective.
In that sense, that's our view. We don't want to see more crime. We don't want to see offenders commit more crime, partly because we don't want to see victims, and secondly, because we don't want to see offenders ruin their lives. There are no winners with crime. It's in everybody's interest that the measures we take be effective.
November 29th, 2006 / 5:15 p.m.
Director, Program Safety Project, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I know we're short on time, so I will be brief.
Like you, I would like to see some evidence that these measures were actually effective. It would be nice to know that in all the states that have passed these laws they were actually doing something positive. But the evidence just isn't there. Like you, I have spent most of this summer researching, and my team under me has been researching, trying to go through the information provided.
The first thing we did was go to the states that were mentioned by the Minister of Justice. As I said before, despite contact with his office.... We wrote to him and we said, “Can you tell us what studies you're talking about, because we can't find them. If you have studies that show the other way, sir, I would love to see them.”
I've spent months trying to find them and wrote to the Minister of Justice asking him to show me these studies. The ones we have been able to find clearly support what you are saying: that mandatory minimums do not, in and of themselves, actually reduce crime.
They seem as if they would be a nice answer. They seem easy in a way, but they're not actually doing anything to reduce crime.
When I hear the reasons of people who are saying, “This is why we want to introduce mandatory minimums: we want to have mandatory minimums to prevent crime, to protect victims, to stop gun violence”, they are great objectives, absolutely. I don't think anyone would stand here and say they are bad objectives.
I spend a lot of time in high schools teaching as part of my job, and I have three questions that I tell the kids to use whenever they're looking into any rule, whether it's a school rule or a national law. The first question is, why? Okay, we have our why. The second question is, does it work? And here, I'm afraid, no, the evidence I've seen is it doesn't work. And the third question is, what else does it do? And here, as my colleague has said, there are so many other things of what else it does. We'd have that officer locked up for five years, which I'm sure nobody would support.
In addition, it seems almost that it would be an excuse: “We've passed these mandatory minimums; we've done what we need to do.” No. The mandatory minimums are not going to reduce crimes. The evidence just simply isn't there that they're going to be reducing crimes.
In addition, my final point, if we look at the whys you have presented; if we look at why you want to pass these bills, I can find absolutely no reason why our suggestion of a presumptive mandatory minimum doesn't achieve your objective. If your objective is to do all of the things you've said, then I can't understand why a presumptive mandatory minimum suggestion wouldn't fly, because it would achieve what you've been saying, and then it would also alleviate some of the bad effects that have happened, such as the Latimer case, such as this case that we have found with this one officer. Yes, they may be few and far between, but they exist.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Well, Mr. Kramp had seven extra minutes to my real five minutes, so I think he should be a little sharing here.
I just wanted to address this “presumptive” recommendation, because we also got recommendations from the Criminal Lawyers' Association about ways to narrow this. I want to put on the record that it is very difficult, when a bill comes to us after second reading and there's not an element of discretion in it, to introduce another element in any recommendation.
Essentially, even if the government were prone to accept it, they would have to go back to their cabinet and their process, get their cabinet to agree, and then bring it in as a government amendment. I doubt that this is going to happen, and for us as an opposition party to be able to amend it.... It's going to be ruled out of order.
I just want to lay that on the record so that people don't take away any false sense, because that's the black and white situation.
5:20 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
It's okay with us if they go back to the drawing board.