Evidence of meeting #23 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 prevention.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
For my part, I will ask the question of our research section, because it's not my area.
4:45 p.m.
Branch Sector Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
We're not aware of any.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Controlled Substances and Tobacco Directorate, Department of Health
It's not our expertise either.
4:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Drug Prevention Network of Canada
I'm sorry, I'm not aware of any study like that either.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
We'll move on to Mr. Norlock. You have five minutes.
Just before we do, I'll ask Mr. Yost if he could provide a response to that one specific question by, say, May 25?
4:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Okay, you'll have it before then, I'm sure.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
All right.
And just as a reminder to Mr. Lemay, most of us will actually be working during the break. I don't know about you.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
We'll not be on holidays. Just for clarity, most of us are not going to be on holidays.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Perhaps on Monday, you will be honouring the Queen, but we will rather be celebrating the Patriots.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much.
Thank you to the witnesses.
I know that being a police officer isn't quite like being a lawyer, but I have many years of law within me, albeit from a different perspective.
One of the things I noticed when Madam Schellenberg began is that she said the Bar Association “is seeking improvements in the law”. I checked with my confrere here, who has been the government representative on the justice committee, I believe, since 2007, and he said that your bar association has never come here to discuss any of our legislation on a positive note. Other than for some procedural issues, is there a philosophical reason for that, or do you just deal with the specific legislation at hand?
4:45 p.m.
Lawyer, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association
Well, it's untrue. We have supported several criminal law bills. I forget the exact number, but—
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Would they have been procedural or actual new legislation?
4:45 p.m.
Lawyer, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association
The one that was on child pornography, we expressed support for that bill. That's just one that comes to mind.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Lawyer, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association
I don't believe so.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you for that.
One of the things I do, and have a responsibility to do as a politician, is to go out and talk to my constituents with regard to the situation in politics, and in this particular situation, of course, the preponderance of drugs and the worry on the part of average Canadians. I think about my position here and what kind of legislation we can bring in, not just legislation but everything from treatment to...you name it.
And then I think about when I see the bar associations and representatives of the legal lobby come here, because that's what you're part of. The manufacturers' associations come to see me; they're part of a lobby group--I'm brought back to my beginnings as a police officer--and they explain how our law began. Our system is based on British common law, and in the most simplistic terms, the laws should be made and administered in such a way that the average person not only can understand them and live by them but can appreciate them. And I have to say that most of the people I come in contact with find it one of the worst offences ever when it comes to their children. In other words, peddling drugs in the school or peddling drugs to their children, at any age....
You can address this and tell me how wrong I am--but I don't think they want a court system and a system of laws that doesn't take that into account in what they perceive to be a serious way.
And I don't consider that to be judge-bashing. Is it judge-bashing when someone appeals a case? When a lawyer or the crown appeals a case, it's not judge-bashing. We just respectfully--and no one has more respect for the laws and judicial orders than I do.... Judges have no power except their orders. That's their power. So I respect that and will always respect it, to my dying day.
But after 30 years and two stints as a court officer observing our courts in action, I can tell you there has been a gradual reduction in the severity of sentencing. And a plethora of studies would indicate that. Perhaps it's a change in our society, and perhaps we're being more successful.
The latest Statistics Canada reports indicate.... Now, I know the counter-argument to that is that drug crimes are going up because the cops are charging more people. Maybe that's not wrong. Maybe we shouldn't.
So I will try to use the analogies. We had a whole phalanx of folks come in here the other day telling us that we should legalize every single drug--crack cocaine, you name it--because the system we have now just doesn't work. And one lady started talking about B.C., which was similar to Ontario, where we had liquor stores and you went in and the liquor was kept in cabinets and you'd mark down what kind of.... And I had this picture in my head of someone saying they were going to buy some cocaine. Did they want the extra heavy duty kind, the light...? The average person, listening to that, would fall over.
I understand we live in a society where we have differences of opinion, but I'm coming to the bar association and I'm very worried because--despite what some people think, I have the highest respect for the judiciary--if the judiciary and the law are becoming so complicated and the arguments become so--
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Mr. Norlock, you're already at six minutes, so you're over time. You will not get an answer to your question.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe you can answer it in the next question. We have to translate that to the folks out on the street; they're not understanding.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
We're going to move to Mr. Dosanjh for another question. Five minutes.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I have maybe more of a comment than a question. In my previous life I was a lawyer, an attorney general, and many other things. I actually do believe there's an element of judge-bashing. I'll tell you why.
It is one thing for the legislators to change laws to mandate certain sentences. It is one thing for prosecutors and attorneys general to order to appeal or appeal sentences. It is another when some elected politicians from time to time across the country stand up and say that judges are out of touch. That is judge-bashing. There is a line to be drawn, because judges do their best based on their wisdom and experience, and I in fact believe, as a former attorney general and as a lawyer, that more and more what's happening is that nobody is coming to the defence of the judges.
Judges will tell you, if you ask them, “Go and change the law; tell us what you want us to do.” But don't say judges are out of touch, because those people also do their best. I'm telling you, other than the lawyers and the Canadian Bar Association and the law societies across the country, very few people ever come to the aid of the judge. The kind of system we have in this country, which is evolved on the law, is that judges are not supposed to descend into the political arena. Therefore, we should actually cease and desist from saying phrases like “judges are out of touch”. Say “the sentences need to be reviewed”, or “the law needs to be changed”. There is a fine line between the two. That causes me concern, because if we want judges to descend into the arena, then we will end up having elected judges, and that's a whole different debate.
Thank you.