Justice Committee on Feb. 7th, 2011

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here this afternoon.

It is never easy to broach subjects like the one we are dealing with as part of our study of Bill C-54. Quite often, we are forced to draw comparisons between cases of incest and of violence against women. I am from Quebec. A number of extensive awareness campaigns have been launched to encourage women to report spousal abuse. It is my professional experience that the victim often withdraws her complaints before the case goes to trial because the husband is her and her children's sole support. The wife is then beaten by her husband the following week.

The Government of Quebec formally decided that once a complaint had been filed, it could not be withdrawn, regardless of the positions taken. When a woman files a complaint, she cannot withdraw it. The situation is much the same for children because they are afraid. It is very hard for them. It is not easy for someone to admit that she was abused by her father for 10 or 15 years. Understandably, it is a truly terrifying prospect for them.

A lawyer who knows the system a little and who represents the accused will go and see the Crown prosecutor. He finds out that there will not be a trial and the client pleads guilty. The judge then asks the two lawyers if they can suggest anything. They may suggest a minimum sentence of three years in prison, even if the offender is liable to 15 years in prison. A man abuses his daughter for nearly 15 years, but no one wants a trial. They argue that the victim will be spared from having to testify, that a costly trial will be avoided. However, no one is thinking about this terrified child who is denied justice.

A lawyer may be called upon to defend a 72-year-old man who abused his daughters for 15 years. This person arrives at the courthouse, pleads guilty and leaves immediately in a wheelchair. He does not receive any penalty whatsoever. Incredibly, these things happen. Lawyers refers to these as “sweet deals”.

I don't know if you have any children, but if you do, look them straight in the eye. It is incredible to see what is happening. Young girls are being abused for 15 years and being treated no better than dogs, and people are trying to convince us that minimum penalties should not be imposed. I'm sorry, but minimum penalties are necessary because this is the only way to get the message across. The members of the legal profession are beginning to understand. When a person commits a serious offence, we will send a clear message to the public. That is what I wanted to say. I practised law long enough to know that something is wrong with the system.

Mention was also made of mandatory minimum penalties. DUI offenders have long been subject to such penalties. Interestingly, the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec supports tougher minimum penalties because they mean fewer accidents and fatalities. This was a government decision. So then, minimum penalties are good. Minimum penalties are imposed in murder and firearms possession cases and interestingly, this approach works well. Why should the approach be any different in this case? This is the point I wanted to make.

You have to understand that this bill is intended not only for Conservatives. We are working for all children, whether they are the children of Bloc members, of Liberals, of New Democrats or of Conservatives like ourselves. We are not acting solely out of partisan concerns. We are also parliamentarians. In my opinion, it's ludicrous to waste our time on this. We should be banding together and unanimously endorsing this bill aimed at protecting our children.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We've essentially come to the end of our time. Before we close, I have just one question.

As you know, the representatives from the Criminal Lawyers' Association made it very clear that they oppose mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offences against children, and they've made it very clear that they're confident that the discretion of the trial courts is sufficient to deal with sentencing. My colleague Mr. Woodworth earlier referred to the case of Regina v. Arcand, which was a case of the Court of Appeal in Alberta, in which the chief justice, no less, articulated serious concerns about the inconsistency in sentencing at the trial court level.

I just wanted to quote her comment. It was a long obiter dictum, but here's one part of it. She says that Parliament may then conclude in light of public concerns that it must further curtail the court's discretion in sentencing. It may impose minimum sentences or restrict sentencing options.

I put this question to our witnesses from the Criminal Lawyers' Association. The Court of Appeal of Alberta obviously disagrees with your position on mandatory minimum sentencing. I'm just wondering how you would respond.

[Leonardo Russomanno]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me the opportunity to respond.

I haven't had a chance to review the full decision. I believe I've read the same obiter dictum that Mr. Chair just read with respect to the Alberta Court of Appeal. I haven't read the original decision, and I would refrain from making a complete comment without actually reviewing the decision, as I'm sure all the members of this committee would do.

But I would say this. The court concluded, from what I could tell, that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was unfit. It was outside of the range of appropriate sentences, and it was on that basis that the sentence was overturned. That is a process that takes place in our appellate courts every single week when these decisions are heard. It's not whether or not the sentencing judges agree but whether or not an error is committed, and that's whether something falls outside of the range.

Making that finding, which is open to the appeal court, I think is the appropriate way to go about it. These sentences have a particular range. As with the sexual exploitation provisions, I would encourage members to actually point me to a trend where individuals are getting probation for sexual exploitation. I think it paints a picture that is frankly not the case. We're furthering this view that our judges are somehow part of this revolving-door system of justice, coddling criminals, and it sends the wrong message. It sends the wrong message about what our justice system is about, and I would discourage that. I think it's completely unfounded.

If there are inappropriate decisions that are overturned on appellate review, that's the appropriate course of action. The Alberta Court of Appeal felt that sentence was demonstrably unfit. I don't quibble with that finding that it was outside of the range of the sentence. The sentence should have been harsher. That's simply that. I think that we fall on different sides of the spectrum as to whether or not sentences should be more cookie-cutter or consistent, or whether sentences should be more individualized.

But that our judges are somehow systematically not respecting appropriate sentencing principles I think is unfounded.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Ms. McDonald, you're probably familiar with that case. It appears that the chief justice did speak approvingly of mandatory minimum sentences because of the inconsistency in the lower court's sentencing process. Perhaps you'd like to respond.

[Lianna McDonald]

Certainly we look to the separation between retribution and rehabilitation. I think our agency certainly supports mandatory minimums. We appreciate that there have been some inconsistencies. Again, without the data in front of me, I would point to when the child pornography offences first came out post-Sharpe, and conditional sentences were more often given at that point in time.

Since then, we have moved towards mandatory minimums there, and there has been a change. And it's been a good change. I think it's also done a lot in terms of changing the perception that this really isn't a serious crime, the viewing of images of child sexual abuse.

We certainly support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Comartin?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

On the article, the Maclean's interview, since you keep referring, Mr. Chair, your party, to the Court of Appeal of Alberta, perhaps we should get the article by Justice McLachlin, because it certainly shows a contrary view of mandatory minimums.

I'd ask that that be given to the clerk so that it can be circulated.

[Leonardo Russomanno]

I have a copy here. I can provide that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That would be great.

Thank you to all of our witnesses. I think we've had a fair exchange of ideas on this bill. We thank you for appearing.

We're adjourned.