Thank you.
We'll move on to Monsieur Ménard for five minutes.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was need.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was need.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to continue the discussion with Marco on the Stinchcombe decision.
I began my law studies rather late, in the year 2000. When I was studying criminal evidence, that decision was very important in terms of disclosure of evidence.
I feel very uncomfortable. It seems to me that many other tools could be provided to the prosecutor and to the police rather than limiting the disclosure of evidence. I'm very fearful that this will greatly compromise the fairness of a trial if we go down that path.
It seems to me that the Supreme Court was able to set out guidelines by stating whether it believed that this was a reasonable limit or not. I am afraid that it will not be possible to agree upon a definition of relevance, depending on whether the crown attorney or the defence lawyer is doing the defining.
To your knowledge, have crown attorneys begun to think about this? Parliament could pass an amendment to the disclosure of evidence laws and codify that tomorrow morning. Have prosecutors begun to reflect on a definition of relevance? How will all of this be implemented? This is my fear.
3:45 p.m.
Acting President, Association of Justice Counsel
I'm sorry, but I need some assistance as far as the translation is concerned.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Take your time...
You can use it as you want. It's for you. Don't be shy.
3:45 p.m.
Acting President, Association of Justice Counsel
I know. I've tried to put it on a couple of times, but it seems that whenever I do--
3:45 p.m.
Acting President, Association of Justice Counsel
My grandparents would be very ashamed. I actually don't speak Italian. I can't communicate in my ancestor's mother tongue. My grandfather is rolling over in his grave right now, sadly.
Let me see if I can get the channel right.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
That is good.
I was talking about disclosure of evidence and placing restrictions on it. I studied law much later on in life and I am well aware of the significance of the Stinchcombe decision on a fair trial.
How can the relevance of evidence be defined? Will a defence lawyer and a crown prosecutor be able to agree on that notion? Crown prosecutors from your organization would perhaps...
Is there no translation?
3:45 p.m.
Board Member, Chair, Drug Policy Committee, BC Civil Liberties Association
I guess not. They changed the channel.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Marco, how will the notion of relevance be defined? Is there not a risk that the fairness of trials will be compromised?
3:45 p.m.
Acting President, Association of Justice Counsel
Yes, I think there is a risk. That's something your colleague Mr. Comartin asked me about. There is a tension between defining a practical threshold for relevance and arriving at a fair trial. That's something we continue to struggle with. If you start to restrict or narrow the threshold for relevance, you may lose certain aspects of information that an accused might otherwise wish to use to demonstrate innocence. That can be done in a variety of ways.
I think Ms. Murray asked what my silver bullet would be, and I suggested it would be disclosure. I don't mean to suggest for one moment that there's a quick or easy solution to this. But I think the learned members of the committee should really take a moment to pause and reflect about whether or not the current thresholds for disclosure are actually working in the new era of the major, complex trial. That applies particularly in light of the guns, gangs, and drugs, the way we marry these charges, and all of the evidentiary issues that flow from that.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank you all for coming here today and sharing your very passionate stories with us.
My question is for Mr. Helary. You are a self-confessed criminal. You committed crimes both outside and inside of prison, it sounds like. You recruited people to do criminal activity as well. Yet you come before us today and you seem to be rehabilitated and remorseful. What made you change your ways?
3:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I guess I just got tired of it. I was sick and tired of being sick and tired of being sick and tired. I'd been through every program you can think of and they taught me to be a better manipulator in the system and everything. Inevitably, I could survive better in there than I could on the street.
About three years ago, I guess, I was living on the street, and I met this guy named Andrew Stanley in a park. They were having a barbecue and he gave me this little hamper with some food in it and his card. I got back to my little squat, for about another month and a half, and then one day I just thought I've got to change. I might as well be in prison or dead. This card fell out and I saw that it was a church. I went down there and this guy, on cue, came right out to meet me, and it was just like an awakening of a sort, and ever since then, it's not about me any more.
In a criminal lifestyle it's always about self, and in addictions it's always about self. What's in it for me? What's in it for me? Today I don't live for what's in it for me. Today I live for how I can do things to help people, to help the community. Like I say, I have four guys living upstairs in the house, and it's a chore, especially with one guy. This guy's name is Gordon. He was living in a cardboard box. I don't know if you heard about the guy that got killed. I was going around all winter with hot chocolate and that to different squats in that certain area. Pepsi was the guy who died under the bridge on South Fraser. Anyway, two bridges up was Gordon, and Gordon lived there and he had his route. You know how homeless people have their route. They can be timed within 10 minutes of where they're going to be every day. Anyway I met this guy and my heart just went out to him.
People just need that little help. For one reason or another, God touched me, and since then my life has been totally changed. I do what I can, one day at a time. People want to meet me now. People want to see me. Instead of hiding when I'm coming, they open the door. It's been just a ride that I never thought could happen. What I attribute it to is just that one little helping hand, that somebody really cared.
In addiction and in prison and everything, they have their programs and everything, but they're all in the system. They have alpha programs, which are not. They have man to man; that's a program. They're real people. They're in there because they want to be. They're not there because they had to be. This guy I met was there because he wanted to be, and now I'm where I'm at today because I want to be.
Does that answer your question?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Thank you.
Can you tell me what programs you encountered in the system that did help you and that you think should be expanded?
3:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I think the biggest is the education program. The education level, getting it instead of just playing around. There's a lot of illiteracy, especially in the prairie provinces, in eastern Canada. I don't know how many guys I write letters for just because they can't read and write.
I think education programs should be expanded. There's the OSAP substance abuse program.
Those are about the two biggest programs that I see that really need more put into them. Obviously more outreach programs with the community, like man to man, person to person, are needed. And we need spiritual-based programs, where people are going there because they want to, not because they have to. That's a big thing, you know? When a guy's sitting in his cell 24/7, he's got nobody; he's got nothing out there. Then some guy and his wife come and visit you out of nowhere and you develop a relationship, a healthy relationship.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
April 30th, 2009 / 3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for your attendance this afternoon.
I must say, Mr. Tousaw, that I was troubled by some of your comments, specifically when you referred to drug prohibition as “a failed policy”. You said it several times, and you said it rather emphatically, so I'm assuming that what you mean is that since drug prohibition has not managed to eradicate drug use or trafficking and use, it is therefore a failed policy. Do I understand you correctly?
3:55 p.m.
Board Member, Chair, Drug Policy Committee, BC Civil Liberties Association
Partially. Not only has it failed to eradicate, but it has failed to make substantial decreases in either demand or supply over the course of the last 30 years. Worse, the unintended consequences of prohibition have spawned lucrative organized criminal groups, both in Canada and across the world, have contributed to social decay in cities and towns across the country, and have contributed to death, disease, and the destruction of our social fabric.
So yes, it's a failed policy, not just because it's ineffective at reaching its goals, but because of the negative unintended consequences that it inevitably has.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
So I did understand you correctly. But could one not make the same argument concerning, I don't know, homicide? Prohibition--
3:55 p.m.
Board Member, Chair, Drug Policy Committee, BC Civil Liberties Association
No.