Justice Committee on April 30th, 2009

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentations and for your obvious passion for the issue and the courage to come and speak with the committee today.

I'm an MP from Vancouver. On the west side of Vancouver there are a lot of people who have come here from other countries. It's an area where real estate is expensive. Some of my constituents tell me that it's distressing to make a life and invest in Vancouver and then not feel safe leaving their homes. It's a big concern in Vancouver Quadra.

I understand that it's a very complex issue to reduce the impact of guns and gangs on society and on Vancouver, so I don't want to oversimplify. However, I would like to hear from the witnesses: if you were writing the committee report's recommendations, what is one thing you would recommend? If you've already made it really clear, like legalizing drugs, I would like to hear your second-in-line recommendation, if you were holding the pen on this committee report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Well, let's do it this way, because we only have half a minute. Each one of you do it very quickly. What's the number one priority for you?

John.

[John Shavluk]

I would simply say to all of you to ask yourselves one question: is alcohol safer legal or illegal?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Tousaw.

[Kirk Tousaw]

I think my recommendation is pretty clear, so I'll move on to one that's perhaps more realistic in the short term. This country needs to undertake a significant and comprehensive audit of the successes and/or failures of drug prohibition and their contribution to organized crime. We've had a number of studies. I have pages and pages of studies on the drug issue. They all come to the same conclusion, but we need to look at what we're doing to find out why it isn't working.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Amar.

[Mani Amar]

I have to say that the number one priority I would pen is the legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana. It is by far the number one incentive for gangs to get involved in the criminal underworld right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Helary.

[Tony Helary]

I think the number one thing, if I had the pen, would be to integrate offenders in a more productive manner, so they're not part of the problem and are not recruited by gangs, because of housing, their need for affordable housing. The churches and communities need to get involved in more in-depth programs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Mendicino.

[Marco Mendicino]

Speaking on behalf of myself, the number one priority would be to ensure a fair trial. The way to do that is to revisit disclosure protocols. That would be my recommendation to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Which protocols?

[Marco Mendicino]

Disclosure protocols.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Disclosure. Got it. Thank you.

Moving on to Monsieur Ménard, you have seven minutes.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I will begin with Marco. I will begin by saying that this is the first time I have heard that provincial prosecutors are better paid than their federal counterparts. I know of many who would like to move to the federal level. I have been told that the salaries are 30% higher than those in the provinces. So much the better if this requires me to change my information.

I particularly wanted to have a discussion with you on the issue of mandatory minimum sentences. Since its inception, the Bloc Québécois, with a few exceptions that Mr. Comartin never misses an opportunity to point out to me, has voted against mandatory minimum sentences. The Bloc has mainly relied on criminologists, like Julian Roberts as well as other people, who have pointed out three negative effects of mandatory minimum sentences.

First of all, these sentences have nothing to do with deterrence. The countries that have greatly increased the number of mandatory minimum sentences are not the places where one finds the lowest crime rates.

Then, crown prosecutors like yourself will choose to lay charges that do not involve mandatory minimum sentences in order to respect judicial discretion, rather than see a judge impose a sentence which he or she does not believe in. At that point, the judge will not wish to impose a sentence.

I have rarely heard crown prosecutors speak favourably of mandatory minimum sentences. Listening to your presentation, I have the impression that you are biased in favour of them.

I would like to hear your thoughts on that and then I will ask a question of Tony and of John.

[Marco Mendicino]

I am sorry, I am not bilingual but I believe I understood the gist of your question.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You may speak in English if you want to.

[Marco Mendicino]

Thank you very much.

What I understood to be the essence of your question was that you got a sense, at least from my mouth, that I was favourable towards mandatory minimum sentences.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I'm sorry, but I don't have English translation.

She cut off the microphone, but I'm not going to stay quiet here.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You never have.

[Marco Mendicino]

I will start again.

Again, I apologize. I wish I could answer you in French.

But I think I understood the import of your question, which is that you sensed from my presentation that I was favourable to or not predisposed against ruling out mandatory minimums. As we all know, a bill has been tabled by the government of the day, and all I would say to you is that there are many views about whether or not mandatory minimum sentences will be effective in the long run.

At the core of the doctrine that underlies mandatory minimum sentences, there has to be general deterrence. The message is that if we create a grid or a tariff that is well known and well publicized to the rest of the public, it will act as a bulwark between conduct that is acceptable and conduct that is not acceptable. That's the rationale.

I don't think I can go any further than to identify what is the primary rationale for mandatory minimums. In my remarks I think I said it was too premature to rule that out as one of the tools within the kit that a federal prosecutor would like to reach into and use at the conclusion of a trial process.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You are aware that there are several studies that do not support what you are saying. I understand that you are asking questions rather than making a statement, and I respect your opinion.

Mr. Helary, what form does corruption take with regard to corrections officials? Give me an example of corruption.

[Tony Helary]

As in most corruption, money is the underlying thing. That's what's wanted.

As for how I would do it, I would get information on staff through whichever way, especially on those who are divorced and paying alimony. It's staff like that who are in a crunch and are vulnerable. Then I'd use manipulation tactics. That's one form of it.

There's another. I'm a gifted woodworker, and I'd done a few nice pieces, and one day I had this girl come up and visit me. I knew what car this one staff member was driving and I had the piece put in his car and he went on home with it. A few weeks later, I said, “Look, can you do me a favour?” The next thing you know, I had him bringing drugs in, and the next thing you know, he was toast. It may sound so easy. It is in a sense, but it's not, you know; it takes a lot of information and being able to talk to staff in there. In Quebec, it's a lot easier, too.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Do I have time to ask another question of John?

I did not understand the beginning of your story very well. You said that you were incarcerated because drugs were found in your tenants' apartments.

I would like you to explain the cause of your problems.