Justice Committee on April 27th, 2009

[Dr. Darryl Plecas]

I think you can, and you absolutely have to, and I would remind everyone here to look very closely at who it is we're actually talking about. We keep hearing that young people are being drawn in, but young people are not involved in crime anywhere near where they used to be in Canada. That's not our problem. It's certainly not people who have ever done a federal sentence either. It's a small collection of highly recidivistic people whose primary source of income is the production of and trafficking in narcotics.

We're basing our analysis on misinformation. I say to go back to the front end of the business, ask who is it who's getting caught by police, and then look at that population of people. I assure you that it will be a very different picture that emerges from the one most people are thinking of at the moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Jones, very quickly.

[Craig Jones]

Yes, there is a role, but it has to be driven by evidence, not ideology. I would further say that you cannot make prohibition work better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We have one more opportunity to ask questions.

Mr. Storseth, you have five minutes.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Plecas, I'd like to go back and talk about the situation we have, for example, in the Lower Mainland, in Vancouver. Can you talk to me about that, and maybe elaborate a little bit on how the organized crime situation in Vancouver demonstrates the need for mandatory minimum sentencing and how it can help disrupt organized crime?

[Dr. Darryl Plecas]

To begin with, if we back up here, again, why do we have a problem in British Columbia with organized crime? It's very clear. I think everyone understands now that it's not just about marijuana; it's about cocaine and other drugs. But it is all rooted in drug production, and that drug production has ultimately enhanced capacity to traffic, to export, and that kind of thing.

By the way, in terms of the argument on prohibition, it's largely an export market, so prohibition is going to do nothing on that front here. But those people need to get the message that they cannot, as they commonly do--and we all know this--wiggle their way out of sentencing through making deals, through plea bargains. We have to send a strong message, especially to high-repeat offenders, which the bulk of them are, that this will not be tolerated, and that if you get caught you're going to get a certain sentence--count on it.

Once you see that, as we have--there are a lot of recent examples in British Columbia and in the United States--and once people get this awareness that, hey, they're going to go to jail for a substantial period of time, watch how fast they change their tune. Almost to a person, they're very quick to start making a deal and turning in all of the other people involved.

Of course, that's the situation, and it's a basic matter of human nature and an understanding of the facing of consequences. We absolutely need that. I wish that weren't the case. I'm not arguing generally for tougher sentencing. All I would be asking for is, for God's sake, let's have effective sentencing.

Let's have a system whereby we can give people treatment when they need it and let's provide for the capacity to have deterrence. If we can't do that, then why are we pretending we're doing it? This is crazy. No drug dealer is going to be deterred by a month-long sentence, if, by the way, by some stretch of the imagination, they go to jail. Because you want to remember this: in B.C. recently, only one in ten people involved in a grow operation is going to end up in jail. That is not deterrence by any stretch of the imagination.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Some of this that I've heard today absolutely blows my mind. Your statistics of seven prior convictions and a 13-year criminal history for the average is what you're talking about.

[Dr. Darryl Plecas]

Yes. I've also studied that in the province of Alberta for every single grow-op that came to the attention of police over a period of nine years, and it's the same kind of situation.

It doesn't matter what crime you're talking about. By and large, on average, the population of people committing offences in Canadian society are recidivists. That's for starters. And they're over 30.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I agree with you. I'm from rural Alberta. I talk to our RCMP staff sergeants all the time. They tell us that one of the largest problems they have is the fact that they catch these guys who spend no time in jail and then are right back out on the streets doing the same thing, because they know there's no real punishment for what they're doing.

I'd like to switch the subject a little bit here. Your statistics that you were talking about earlier show that more jail time equals a higher success rate in stopping drug use. What is it that occurs during this jail time that helps in those statistics when they get outside of jail?

[Dr. Darryl Plecas]

Thank you for that question.

I think one of the things you get with a longer jail sentence is, for starters, more sophisticated diagnostics in terms of why somebody is there in the first place and what their needs are. We all know it's a multiplicity of things. It isn't just that they're drug-soaked, or whether they are. It's a lot of different things that need a lot of different people helping them out along the way.

The kinds of problems people face take time and take multiple assessments to give the offender and society the assurance that they're making progress. What you have within the prison walls in the federal system is sophisticated diagnostics, sophisticated and multifaceted programs, diagnosis for post-release, conditional release, and then wraparound services while on conditional release to ensure that what happens in prison carries over its effect to the community.

Again I would remind people to look at the track record of the National Parole Board for the last decade. The fact of the matter is that it is a record of improvement over the last decade. Most people who are given day parole succeed on that; likewise, so do most people who are given full parole. It works down towards the other end, in that the people who go to warrant expiry have the highest recidivism rates.

We should take a lesson from that. We have things that work. They work extremely well. Why don't we continue to build on those things and make them better? If we do that, we don't need to be talking about getting tougher; we are getting more effective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

I want to thank all of you for taking the time to present to us. We're certainly going to weigh the evidence we've received, and hopefully we'll come up with some resolution on this bill.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I didn't get an opportunity to ask a second question because of the way the rounds go, but I would like to point out that I didn't say it was a radical approach to put drug dealers in prison. That's the status quo. I said it was a radical approach to bring in mandatory minimum sentences.

I'd just like to have you respect the words that were actually used.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. I'm not sure that was a point of order.

Thank you to all five of you for appearing today. We'll move forward.

We also have some business to take care of, so you're free to leave, and we'll just continue on with committee business.

Members of the committee, you have before you an operational budget request for the witnesses we're hearing on Bill C-15. Obviously we'll need approval for that.

Go ahead, Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'd like to ask a question about this.

We had witnesses today, and I know the committee is travelling to Vancouver this week and hearing witnesses on Bill C-14. Maybe--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No. Actually, it's--

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Oh, I'm sorry; you're doing a study on organized crime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

It's the organized crime study. That's correct.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes. Excuse me.

In terms of what happens when the committee comes back and what you have down here for witnesses, could you tell us what is contemplated in terms of the number of days we will have for witnesses when the committee returns from its travels?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Actually, Ms. Davies, we don't know how many days it will take. Originally the motion from Monsieur Ménard was to conduct a four-meeting study, and we're already well beyond that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Do you mean for the study of organized crime?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay.

I'm just trying to get a sense of the timeline of what's going to happen with the witnesses for Bill C-15 when you come back. Do we have certain days slotted in? I haven't seen that arrangement.

This is a pretty major bill. Obviously I am aware that quite a few people want to be heard, as you and I discussed. My concern is to ensure that people who want to be witnesses are not cut off. So in terms of hearing further witnesses on this bill, do we have the timeline of what we'll be doing when the committee comes back?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, we don't have a timeline set yet. We'll be having a steering committee meeting in the week following this one, after we come back from Vancouver. I believe we've accommodated the witnesses you provided after our discussions. All of those we had agreed to hear will be heard. I believe quite a number have already been scheduled to be heard. We'll just move forward with as much time as is required.

I've also asked the other members of the committee for their witness lists. I expect we'll have a few more added along the way. There's no fixed time set right now, although I believe initially we were talking about three or four days. However, we don't know if we'll be able to accommodate all the witnesses.

You have before you the budget request. What's your will?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Could I just ask a further question, then?

If we approve this today, are we saying that in terms of Bill C-12 witnesses, that's it? What are we actually approving here?

I see there are seven in Vancouver and Victoria, four in Toronto, and one in New York. Are we saying that's the end of the list, or do we mean it's only at this time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, it's just that we need to have some kind of budget for the known witnesses we have right now. If there are additional witnesses added, presumably we can amend the budget going forward.

We have a motion by Mr. Murphy to adopt the budget.