Evidence of meeting #4 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was community.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Graeme Norton  Director, Public Safety Project, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
William Trudell  Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
Brian Henry  Executive Director, Hoodlinc Youth Organization

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Have you looked at it?

11:15 a.m.

Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers

William Trudell

Not in detail.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Because there seem to be an awful lot of judicial discretionary protections. I feel like they're in the fourth year of a university degree; they're learning to leave judicial discretion alone. Generally, if judicial discretion is involved, you're a little more comfortable. Is that correct?

11:15 a.m.

Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers

William Trudell

Much more comfortable.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Good. Thanks.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

Madame Guay.

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Thank you. I suggest that you put your earphones on.

I am not going to speak to you as a lawyer, because I think there are enough of them around the table. I am going to speak to you as an MP who has worked with organizations in my riding for years, for 16 years now.

In particular, I work with the neighbourhood police. I live outside the urban areas, and in my opinion this police service does an extraordinary job. They manage to get close to young people and they even know them by their first names and trust them. That trust becomes mutual. The neighbourhood police are then able to do preventive work with the young people.

In my opinion, we cannot neglect prevention. We absolutely have to work on prevention with young people, otherwise we won't succeed. When young people get older and join street gangs or criminal groups, it is often because they are left to their own devices, they no longer have families and they admire the people who make a lot of money and commit crimes. These young people are not necessarily responsible. Of course I am not talking about the older ones and repeat offenders.

I would like to ask you a few questions. Are there organizations in Toronto that do prevention and that work with that objective? There are in Quebec. Do you hear much about home invasions here? Where I live, that crime is fairly widespread and there is a lot of talk about it. Seniors are wary of young people and think they too are a criminal group, a group organized against seniors.

How does it work, exactly? What more could be done? Do you think that Bill C-4 is a solution? If not, can something else be done to help our community move forward in this regard?

I will give you the floor. Mr. Henry, I'll let you speak first.

11:15 a.m.

Executive Director, Hoodlinc Youth Organization

Brian Henry

Thank you.

I wish I was familiar with Bill C-4, but I'm not. That being said, I completely agree that there are concrete steps that can be taken with young people to ensure prevention, to ensure that they don't get to the next stage, which is organized crime. If you don't intervene when they're a young person, that's eventually where they'll evolve to.

I'm happy to say that there are a number of concrete steps we can take within the community that would lead to prevention. One of the things we've been able to do very successfully within the Malvern and Scarborough communities is to empower the neighbourhoods themselves. That old cliché, “it takes a village to raise a child”, is very, very true, especially within the context of the communities. As I mentioned before, there are so many fathers missing and so many single parents who are not able to cope.

Another thing you touched on was the organizations that are doing critical work. There's Tropicana, Hoodlinc Youth Organization, of course, and there's Operation Springboard. There are a number of organizations within the GTA that are doing critical work in terms of prevention.

The Safe Schools Act in Ontario has been referred to on a number of occasions as the gang recruitment act. We see young people coming through the system who are different from what teachers and school administrative staff are used to dealing with. They need different learning strategies. As these learning strategies are not available to school administration staff and to schools, these young people end up in the community disengaged from school.

We need to create alternative school models that specifically address the needs of young people coming out of at-risk, high-risk, communities. In terms of successes, we currently have a ROSE program—real opportunity for success in education—which is an alternative school model that's done in collaboration with the Toronto Catholic District School Board. We see major successes from this model. I'd say 9 out of every 10 kids who come through there are able to graduate from high school. As a matter of fact, the only time we lose young people in this school is to prison or death.

From my standpoint, there are a number of things that an individual or organization can do, on a daily basis, that can lead to the betterment of a young person's life and the prevention of them getting mixed up in the criminal justice system. These are simple things. You need to act like a parent, play a parental role, where you ensure that young people get a meal in the morning. I've seen young people in my neighbourhood who have gone entire school days without having a meal to eat. That's the simple act of providing a meal for them in the morning.

Providing structure has helped a lot of young people within my community who don't feel they can accomplish anything. The history of failure that they've gone through in their lives persists today. The can-do attitude is simply not there. They don't believe they can do anything positive.

You, as an individual or an organization, can get out there, help them get their driver's licence, get enrolled in school, help them if they have a case before the criminal justice system, help them get a lawyer to negotiate that legal process. It's the simple things. Ensure that there's a homework club and that they go to the homework club; ensure that there are recreational and social activities after school. Keep them off the streets, and keep them engaged in a positive way.

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

That is part of prevention, you are quite right.

I would like to hear from Mr. Trudell and Mr. Norton.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Actually, you are well over the five minutes. We're at six and a half minutes. Sorry.

We'll move on to Mr. Rathgeber.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair

Thank you to all the witnesses for your thoughts and insights.

Mr. Norton, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, if I heard you correctly—and I want to make sure I did—you indicated that your organization is against minimum mandatory sentences regardless of the offence. Did I hear that correctly?

11:20 a.m.

Director, Public Safety Project, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

So am I to assume from this that you're opposed to a mandatory life sentence for first-degree murder?

11:20 a.m.

Director, Public Safety Project, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Graeme Norton

Perhaps I can clarify this. Some of the sentiments I would express are similar to those that Mr. Trudell suggested earlier. We don't take issue, necessarily, with Parliament setting guidelines for things. What we do take issue with is absolutism and Parliament doing that. And we do take issue with any situation where there is mandatory minimum sentencing, including 25 years to life for first-degree murder. It's the mandatory, absolutist nature. That may be a very appropriate sentence in 99.9% of possible, imaginable cases, but we do take issue with the notion of absolutism.

We would prefer a system where there's always an opportunity for a judge to diverge from a recommended sentence and, in an unexpected set of circumstances, give a sentence that may be less than the mandatory minimum.

I realize that it's a bit of a technical point, and it's made a lot better in the context of drug crimes and murder and that type of thing, but that is our position across the board.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Okay.

I listened with some curiosity to your comments regarding lawful access. I think we'll be hearing from police officers this afternoon, and we certainly will when we go to my city of Edmonton on Monday. Of course, they've been lobbying for the types of things that you're concerned about.

You made a very salient point on your concern about changing the threshold from “reasonable grounds to believe” to “reasonable grounds to suspect”. Without getting into a metaphysical argument, I'm not sure I understand the practical distinction.

I understand that “believe” is a higher standard of perceived knowledge than “suspect”, but I'd like to hear your views, either of you. You're a lawyer, Mr. Norton, and Mr. Trudell, you're a practising criminal lawyer of some experience.

In practical, everyday consideration, what is the difference, when search warrants are applied for, between “grounds to believe” and grounds to suspect”?

11:25 a.m.

Director, Public Safety Project, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Graeme Norton

From the cases I've looked at, there's not a tremendous amount of jurisprudence on the issue, so you might not be the only one who's still trying to figure it out.

You're correct that suspicion is certainly a lower standard than belief. As for how that standard differs, it's not a perfect scientific exercise. There was a comment in a recent Supreme Court of Canada case, I think, from Justice Binnie, in one of the drug dog cases--I think it was Kang-Brown--where he fleshes it out a bit, and suspicion is something less than a belief.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Sorry, what's the name of the case?

11:25 a.m.

Director, Public Safety Project, Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Graeme Norton

I think it's Kang-Brown. There were two companion cases that dealt with drug dog sniff searches. One was A.M. and one was Kang-Brown.

It's in one of those cases; there is a brief paragraph on the distinction between the two. Belief is a higher standard. It requires more in terms of evidence and understanding of what has happened. Suspicion is less. It's somewhat as articulated, as suspicion versus a belief, but it's not a scientifically different standard.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Trudell, I'm assuming that you've argued against the inadmissibility of warrants. Maybe you could help me out with my metaphysical search between belief and suspicion.

11:25 a.m.

Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers

William Trudell

It's reliability of the information. If you tell me something, then I can go and say that I believe because you told me, as I have first-hand knowledge. If you're telling me something as a result of a meeting that occurred with you and some other people, that is a little less reliable, because it may be based on third-party information, etc. If I am an affiant and I have personal involvement in the events that I'm swearing to, I have information and belief. If I don't and I am relying on an informant, for instance, it may be different.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Would hearsay--relying on an informant--constitute suspicion?

11:25 a.m.

Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers

William Trudell

It may in certain circumstances.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Okay.

How am I doing for time?

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

You have half a minute.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Very quickly, on your opposition to listing of criminal organizations, does the Civil Liberties Association maintain the same objection to listing terrorist organizations?