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.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Today, Statistics Canada released Trends in police-reported drug offences in Canada.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
It was drug offences. Okay. That's all I needed. Thank you very much.
Mr. Doucette, you are with the Drug Prevention Network of Canada. How many organizations are members of your network?
Vice-President, Drug Prevention Network of Canada
I'm sorry, I don't have that number at my fingertips, so I can't tell you that.
Vice-President, Drug Prevention Network of Canada
The Alcohol-Drug Education Service of British Columbia, the.... No.
NDP
Vice-President, Drug Prevention Network of Canada
I know that the board has approximately 12 people on it. I don't know other members, other than that.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you.
This question is to the CBA. It relates to the drug offences numbers that we were given. In your submission you quoted the Canada Safety Council, which found that: “There's little demonstrable correlation between the severity of sentences imposed and the volume of offences recorded...the greatest impact on patterns of offending is publicizing apprehension rates, or increasing the prospect of being caught.”
Would you agree with me that the increase in drug offences, as recorded by StatsCan, could easily be because of a lack of prevention, treatment, or apprehension, versus punishment?
In whatever little time we have left, could you elaborate on your ideas of the disproportionate impact on minority groups that this bill would have?
Branch Sector Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
Paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code identifies particularly specialized sentencing considerations with respect to aboriginal offenders. Often aboriginal offenders are removed from communities and main centres and are living on reserves in rural areas, far from particular places where drug treatment courts are available. Judges are required to take into account the particular background and circumstances that we're aware of with respect to, for example, aboriginal offenders. According to this bill and the application for mandatory minimum sentences, those who are most disadvantaged--addicts and those types of offenders--would receive disproportionate sentences, whereas according to the sentencing regime in place right now, judges could take into account and balance all those factors.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
We'll go over to the government side. I'll take the liberty of asking a question, if I might.
I'm still intrigued by the judicial discretion discussion that's happening here. Mr. Dosanjh, of course, suggested that he has been asked by judges who tell him--and I think I'm quoting it correctly--“Tell us what you want us to do.” Well, when we tell judges what we want them to do, that's removing an element of discretion from them, so I have some difficulty using that as an excuse for not enacting mandatory minimum sentences.
On judicial discretion, Ms. Inness, you mentioned--and I hope I'm not misquoting you--judicial discretion is working very well. Do you have studies to show that? How did you come to that conclusion? I think that would be helpful for the committee to know.
Branch Sector Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
Yes. When one examines the case law and the sentences that are imposed for particular types of offences, particularly large amounts of cocaine, trafficking in the more serious drugs, offences where criminal organizations are involved, courts are mandated and directed by Parliament to consider denunciation and deterrence as significant factors. That's the guidance I'm speaking about when I talk about judicial discretion and the guidance that Parliament gives to judges, to take into account those sentencing principles and harshly punish those offenders who are committing those types of offences.
There was a reference earlier about a slap on the wrist to those who are operating grow operations or setting up methamphetamine labs. Offenders who are operating criminal organizations or committing offences at those types of serious levels are being sentenced to lengthy periods of incarceration.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Actually, what I was asking was this: is there a more objective review you've done of sentencing practices that would lead you to believe judges are exercising their discretion the way they should be?
Branch Sector Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
I can't point you to a particular study per se. I can only indicate that based upon our experience and the experience that we bring to bear with the representatives across the country, who comprise our organization, and as Ms. Schellenberg indicated, the input that goes into the submission that we made, that is our submission.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
There's a remarkable disjunct between your position and the position of the legal profession and what's happening out in the public. I believe the most recent survey in British Columbia showed 74% of British Columbians were dissatisfied with the sentences being handed out by the courts. I would never suggest we use that as the ultimate standard, but it does show that there is some kind of disconnect between the position that you would be taking on behalf of the bar, of which I have been a member for 24 years, going back.
The other question is on your categorical opposition to mandatory minimum penalties. It surprised me, because I had understood the CBA had a more nuanced approach to it. It's the first time I've heard the CBA actually say, “We oppose mandatory minimum sentences”. We have them in the Criminal Code now for murder offences, etc. Is that something you can confirm again for the record here, or is it something you may want to take back to the CBA to find out if in fact that is the formal position of the CBA?
Branch Sector Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
I would say we have opposed the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences in the past, and we are opposed to the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences as set out in this particular bill. I wouldn't want to say categorically.... I'm not in a position to say categorically, in every single case, we have always taken that position, but in terms of the particular mandatory minimum sentences that are proposed in this bill, for the concerns that we've identified, we're in opposition.
Leaving an example of some disproportionality that can result when mandatory minimum sentences--for instance, those that are already in place in the law, particularly with respect to the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences in driving impaired cases--the analogy between the impact of that sometimes is disproportionate on disadvantaged groups, as is what could happen with respect to this legislation. For individuals who are in remote communities and may not have the same benefit of access to intermittent sentences, where they can still maintain jobs and things of that nature, there is some disproportionality that can result from the already existing mandatory minimum sentences.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
It would be helpful to get some kind of follow-up response to this. It has been raised numerous times today, and it does concern me. So perhaps you could do that.
Branch Sector Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
I can.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Certainly you could direct a response to the clerk.
This has been very helpful. To all of you, I say thank you.
Mr. Yost, thank you for appearing. We had really asked you to simply address one small aspect of the bill, and you were asked questions beyond that. So I appreciate your doing that. You certainly handled yourself well.
We're adjourned.