Justice Committee on March 25th, 2010

[Graeme Norton]

We've seen some bad experiences with lists in general. The listing of terrorist organizations seems to be a little more contained than the listing of criminal organizations might be. Some of the evidence this committee has heard from past witnesses talks about 900 criminal organizations in Canada. If you look at the definition of a criminal organization, I can certainly envision more than 900 groups ending up on that list.

We do generally take issue with lists. We don't think it's a great way to deal with things, to set out in advance who's on that list and who isn't. This is something that maybe should be made out in evidence when the issue of needing to have somebody on a list arises in the first place.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you all very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Murphy again. You have four minutes.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

I want to get back to this issue of youth, the Nunn commission, Theresa McEvoy, particular circumstances, all.... And maybe as the éminence grise, Mr. Trudell, you could reinforce for us why children, youths, are to be treated in a separate system. It seems to me that the first go at YCJA reform was to move basically the Youth Criminal Justice Act into the Criminal Code, or actually make it the same because they were putting in principles in section 718 that made it like grown-up....

In this new law, however, the crafting is so that I think there are a number of ways in which judicial discretion will determine, as it does now, whether certain crimes and certain individuals will be treated as adults, either at trial or after. So we need to hear evidence, I think, as it pertains to youth.

I haven't got to you, Mr. Henry, but you could perhaps relate to this too. Some individuals grow up quickly and get matured by circumstances, and they ought to be treated perhaps differently.

I'd like both of you to comment on that, because we're going to struggle with this.

[William Trudell]

I hope that when you are dealing with Bill C-4 and other proposed legislation that deals with youth justice, you take up a suggestion that I made some time ago that you hear from judges in camera who deal with these issues, because they're the best ones who can tell you about what they're dealing with, in front of you.

Generically, they can't vote for you until they're a certain age. They can't drive a motor vehicle until they're a certain age. There are rules built into society, and we make a decision, arbitrarily, that under a certain age is a child. They do not have the same level of development, maturity, or discipline. Some of them have more discipline than some people my age, I suppose. We have to recognize that these people are children, and there's nothing wrong with saying they're children, because do you know what? If you had a 20-year-old child and they were going off someplace and you didn't know where they were going, you'd want to know, because you don't think they're equipped yet to deal with...and make decisions.

We treat them differently because they are different. They have different rights. They don't have as many rights as adults do. The bottom line is that what they don't have is the life experience to make the proper decisions. Most kids are into immediate gratification. The Internet is beamed at them; there is Facebook, if they can afford it--all of the things we throw at them. If there's nobody there to say, “Wait a minute, what are you watching on television, do you understand this”....

Kids--and we've chosen the age of 18--don't have the discipline to stop and say, “I'm going to look at this two years from now.” We talked about this before. Kids who are in a motor vehicle getting ready to rev at a stop sign are not thinking about a mandatory minimum. That's not what they're thinking about. They're not thinking that far. They don't have the discipline. They're looking for immediate gratification, which is part of youth, and what we talked about once before is that sometimes you can see some of the measures that are proposed as immediate gratification, from a legislative point of view. They're making a statement.

The best people who can deal with and help you make a decision about youth are the judges who deal with them every day, and I really urge you to get some of these judges in camera to help you with what works and what doesn't. You're going to hear some judges say, “There are some bad kids who come in front of us”, but you're also going to hear judges tell you stories that are going to make your blood curdle at some of the situations these kids find themselves in that they have no power over.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Henry.

[Brian Henry]

I'll just use one of my own personal examples. You mentioned that some people grow up faster through circumstances. As a young person, I found myself engaged with the Young Offenders Act and the criminal justice system. Coming through high school I was always considered smart. I was captain of my football team, on the yearbook committee, and did all this kind of stuff, but I had a problem with beating folks up. It wasn't until I found myself incarcerated and in trouble that I was forced to take a look at my life and ask the pertinent question, “How the hell did I end up here?”

I went all the way back to Guyana, to where I was born, before I came to this country, and all acts of violence that I witnessed against women around me, against kids around me, with no protection from officers or any legal organization, domestic violence within my own home between my mother and my father while my father was there.

Then I came to Canada and it all kind of carried over. There was certainly a beating from my mom from time to time. It just seemed that, my entire life, I was raised by violence. Everything that ever happened to me was violent, and I carried all those scars, emotional and physical. I came to the realization that what I had was a learned behaviour and that my outcome could not have been different given the structures that raised me throughout my life.

I see that today with a lot of the kids we face in the community. On one hand, you want to say that some of them deserve adult charges, because it comes with a stiffer sentence. You get them out of the community for a longer period of time and you don't have to deal with it any more. But I think there needs to be an understanding that what these young people are facing today has been festering over many, many years, and their emotional and physical development has not been up to par with a kid who hasn't gone through this kind of stuff.

Age as a number is a very inadequate measuring stick to determine someone's emotional and mental maturity, and that was the case with me. A lot of this was learned, and at the end of the day, it needs to be addressed and unlearned with these young people. I think that's a smarter way to go, and it's more sustainable in the long term.

[William Trudell]

Mr. Murphy, can I just say very quickly one thing about--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Trudell, we're already two minutes over. You'll get another chance.

Just for clarification, this is a four-minute round, so there will be time for a question from Mr. Woodworth, from Mr. Dechert, and from Monsieur Petit.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'll begin by saying, Mr. Trudell, I do agree with your emphasis on collaboration, and I know our government also agrees with it, because our government recently gave $3.2 million in my riding of Kitchener Centre to our Waterloo Region community safety and crime prevention council to develop a youth gang prevention strategy. That organization is well known across Canada as a model for community collaboration.

Mr. Norton, because of the time constraints, I'm afraid I'm going to have to come right to the point with you. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that there should be a blanket rejection of mandatory minimum sentences, and I will tell you why. It's because deterrence is not all there is about sentencing, and Canadians and Canadian communities deserve a sentencing system that shows proportionality between the sentence and the gravity of the offence. For example, if we're talking about an offence such as human trafficking or child trafficking, Canadians need to know that the sentences are proportionate to the gravity of the offence, regardless of other considerations, and proportionate to the victims.

In what was formerly Bill C-15, we have a very focused, targeted, moderate use of mandatory minimum sentences for trafficking in drugs, where, for example, the drugs are sold to youth or take place near a school, or production of drugs where there's a hazard to children. It's very focused.

I happen to have with me a document entitled, What Makes a City Great? It sets out Mayor David Miller's vision of Toronto, saying, “In David Miller's vision of Toronto, there's no place for gangs or guns.”

He also talks about concrete achievements that he's obtained, and one of them is a more aggressive approach to gun and gang violence. And he says:

Thanks to the hard work of the Toronto Police in the last year, several major gangs have been shut down and their leaders jailed.

It says:

Mayor David Miller’s vision of Toronto in 2010 is to make our safe city even safer. To punish criminals and deter people from crime, Mayor Miller will: ... Advocate no bail for anyone who commits a crime while in possession of a gun, whether the gun is used in the crime or not. Mayor Miller will press the federal government to enact this strong approach to guns, so that these criminals—and their guns—are not back on the streets on bail days later....

I would like to know whether your organization agrees with these comments from David Miller. Is your organization in sync with Mayor David Miller's vision of Toronto?

[Graeme Norton]

To be honest, this is the first time I've heard that particular comment from our mayor.

I will respond to some of the things you said before getting to that comment, on the mandatory minimum issue. I don't disagree with much of what you've said. Sentences should be proportional to the crimes, and the community needs to see that people are receiving sentences that are just, under the circumstances. In our view, mandatory minimums aren't necessary for that to happen.

You made specific reference to Bill C-15 and some of the aggravating factors that were in that legislation. There are some examples of sentences in that bill that are probably very consistent with what they should be. There are probably some as well—specifically there was one example about growing for trafficking purposes as little as five plants of marijuana. There might be people doing that who we don't want to send to jail for six months—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Since I've just read them to you, do you agree with the things that Mayor David Miller said?

[Graeme Norton]

I certainly agree that there should not be guns on the streets of Toronto. I certainly agree with measures being taken to suppress that type of activity. The specific suggestion I think you're referring to is the idea.... Could you say it again, actually? It was no bail for people who have been—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

It was someone

...who commits a crime while in possession of a gun, whether the gun is used in the crime or not. Mayor Miller will press the federal government to enact this strong approach to guns, so that these criminals—and their guns—are not back on the streets on bail days later....

[Graeme Norton]

To be honest, it doesn't sound like a completely unreasonable suggestion. The objection I can see to that is the absolutism, again. An absolutism in legislation is always a problem for us. If an approach of that nature is taken, if there can be something created where there will be an opportunity for judges to perhaps diverge from that if the circumstances would demand it, that would be something we would see as being helpful, but—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Do I have another minute? I'm out of time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Dechert, you have four minutes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning.

I want to address my first question to Mr. Norton as well. I was interested to hear your comments.

I don't know if you recall, but a couple of years ago in the GTA, or within the last two years, a major international Mafia organization crime boss was arrested in the Toronto area. I believe he has been extradited to Italy or is under extradition proceedings to stand trial in Italy for organized crime activities. He said—and you can check the record—that at the time he ran his international criminal organization from Canada because Canada had one of the most lenient criminal justice systems in the world in terms of both penalties and prospects of conviction.

Given that comment from an international crime boss, how do you reconcile your direct statement that there is no deterrent effect to mandatory minimum sentences? Doesn't his statement completely contradict your point of view on that?

[Graeme Norton]

First, I'm not sure when we started relying on the statements of crime bosses as the word of gold—

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

But he chose Canada as a place to carry on his international operations, most of which were outside of Canada, on the basis of comparative law, if you can believe it or not, comparative laws between Canada, the United States, and Europe. Where would he carry on his international operations? He chose Canada. It was a good place to do business.

[Graeme Norton]

This may have been the perception of this particular crime figure. I'm not sure if that comports with the perception of academics and social scientists who have studied the issue. I don't think that—

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

This guy has direct experience. Don't you think that's pretty interesting?

[Graeme Norton]

Maybe he knew something the social scientists didn't, but—

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

He knew what the chances of getting convicted were.

[Graeme Norton]

But maybe he was wrong as well, because he was ultimately captured and he was ultimately extradited...it sounds—I'm not familiar with the exact case, but from what you've told me—