Evidence of meeting #41 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 sentencing.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Professor, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I was against the bill because the credit given for a day of pre-sentence custody under the current bill is presumptively less than the credit given for a person serving a sentence.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Right, and you think that the pretrial judge ought to have the discretion to remedy that mathematical imbalance.
Professor, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, As an Individual
No, my starting point on that was that the judge should be able to set the credit for pre-sentence custody, which, as a starting point, would be the same as if that person were serving that time as a sentence. Given that a 60-day sentence does not mean 60 days in prison, 60 days in pre-sentence custody should be given the same kind of credit a sentenced person would get.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I understand that.
Let's fast-forward to the bill in front of us here today. The language is deliberate in proposed subsection 745.51(1). The court “may”--not “must”, but “may”--“having regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission”, and it goes on, “order...that the periods without eligibility for parole for each murder conviction are to be served consecutively”.
Now, you're an educated man. I don't have to explain to you the difference between “may” and “shall” or “may” and “must”. I would think, sir, that since you are in favour of judicial discretion....
In fact, it goes on. It goes on to read: “If a judge decides not to make an order under subsection (1), the judge shall give, either orally or in writing, reasons for the decision.”
You told my friend Mr. Ménard that a court ought to give reasons when it varies from a minimum mandatory sentence in other proposed pieces of legislation. With all due respect, sir, how do you reconcile your opposition to this bill, which gives discretion to trial judges, with having advocated so eloquently in the past that judges ought to have that very discretion?
Professor, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, As an Individual
My starting point on the sentences for murder is that there's no discretion on the part of judges. The reason there's no discretion is that it's a sentence of murder, and murder means life in prison. The person is serving a sentence for the rest of his or her life.
The issue about this bill, it seems to me, is that it raises a set of questions. I think there are some legitimate questions about the way people serve life sentences in Canada and serve sentences in general, but I think this particular bill takes one part of it and just grafts it on without thinking about, for example, how this is going to play with the abolition of the faint hope clause, so if you're asking--
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I want to get to Professor Manson. I only have probably less than a minute.
Professor, Queen's University, Faculty of Law, As an Individual
Do you want to ask me about “may”?
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
No. I know that you also know the difference between “may” and “shall”. I want to ask you--
Professor, Queen's University, Faculty of Law, As an Individual
That wasn't going to be my answer, but--
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Well, we'll see if we have time.
You told us, in your opening comments, to talk to victims and victims' advocates and see what they have to say about this bill.
Professor, Queen's University, Faculty of Law, As an Individual
I said to “listen” to victims.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Well, I think you yourself should listen to victims. Are you aware that Susan O'Sullivan sat at this very table last Thursday and advocated passionately and strongly in favour of this bill?
Professor, Queen's University, Faculty of Law, As an Individual
I am, absolutely.
On victims, you are being disrespectful--
Professor, Queen's University, Faculty of Law, As an Individual
Let me finish--
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Did I hear her improperly? You told me to listen to her.
Professor, Queen's University, Faculty of Law, As an Individual
No. What I'm saying is that you're--
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chair, there is no respect for the interpretation process. Listen, Mr. Chair, I do not want to take you to task, but we should at least let the interpreters do their job. They cannot even keep up; they are on the second-last sentence. If I were to talk as fast as they do, they would not be able to follow. Please, Mr. Chair, do something. This is ridiculous!
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Monsieur Lemay, I've told you once, I've told you many times, and I've told everyone at this committee that every member of this committee has a right to conduct their examination of the witnesses as they see fit, provided they don't talk over each other.
I've seen you interrupt witnesses, I've seen virtually every member of this committee interrupt witnesses, and I allow it to go on unless it clearly becomes disrespectful and violates the decorum of this place.
I'm exercising my discretion. If it gets out of hand, believe me, I will intervene, but at the same time I want to preserve the independence of each one of you to examine the witnesses as you wish, as you would appreciate in a courtroom as well, Monsieur Lemay.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Point of order, Mr. Chair. I will ask that, from now on, you listen in French. You will see that you cannot follow what is being said for long, because that is exactly what I am trying to do. I am listening in English and in French, but the interpreters cannot keep up in French. I do not want to interrupt, but enough is enough. And that is three times now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Monsieur Lemay, I'm going to allow Mr. Rathgeber to continue.
Go ahead, please.
Professor, Queen's University, Faculty of Law, As an Individual
Can I answer the question now?
December 7th, 2010 / 4:30 p.m.
Professor, Queen's University, Faculty of Law, As an Individual
I said listen to victims, but don't do it selectively. It is disrespectful to victims to treat them as one homogenous group in which everyone thinks the same and everyone responds to grief, pain, and loss in the same way. A variety of people in Canada are victims and provide services to victims, and many of those people will recognize that the people who commit crimes come from the same communities as the victims.
Let me finish, please.
They will recognize that if you want to fight crime, you do it in the communities, not with harsher sentences.
I'm not being disrespectful to Ms. O'Sullivan. I have no doubt about what she said here. I'm saying that's an individual view; listen to the broad spectrum.