Justice Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2011

[Sam Katz]

Well, the scenario is quite simple. It's obviously a two-pronged approach. Number one, I think Bill C-10 is definitely part of the solution. The other side of the equation is that we still need to address the root problems. There is no doubt we need to invest more in having programming and facilities for our children to participate in and stay away from gangs. There is no doubt about that. We need to work with poverty to try to address that—mental illness, etc. It's a two-pronged approach, and Bill C-10 addresses one very important side of it.

I can tell you the naysayers will always make their comments, but in the meantime innocent, hard-working people are being murdered. I think that has to be addressed. The rights of citizens should be every bit as important as the rights of people who commit crimes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Katz, I understand from your testimony today and from other sources that Winnipeg has been experiencing some problems with street gangs. Can you tell us how Bill C-10 would specifically help your city in that regard?

[Sam Katz]

Well, here's the scenario. I believe this probably happens in every major city in the country. We have gangs, as does every other major city, and the facts of life are that they know how to play the system. They recruit juveniles--youth--to commit the crimes and to do the dirty work, because they know they get a slap on the wrist. They are arrested on a Tuesday and they are back out on a Thursday.

That's the sad reality. Imagine how frustrating it is for the men and women of every police department in every city to arrest them knowing they'll be out right away. It's hard to do your job when you know that they're going to be out right away and that these people are going to be used by gangs over and over again. A strong message has to be sent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because of time, I'm going to limit my question to Mr. Sapers.

You mentioned that you would be restricting your remarks on the impact of Bill C-10 to the federal correction system, but you have spoken elsewhere with respect to crowding in the provincial correction system. We have a situation here where you can't artificially divide these situations, because Bill C-10 has impacts on both.

My question is on some of those considerations that you've related about prison crowding result in greater institutional violence or greater risk of infectious diseases. If you have a 200% capacity, as you now have in some provinces, would those same considerations that you addressed regarding the federal prisons also apply in regard to the provincial prisons and perhaps be even worse because of the greater crowding in the provincial system?

[Howard Sapers]

Well, my mandate and authority are for federal corrections, but I do have the experience of visiting some provincial institutions, and I'm familiar with the literature on prison crowding.

Collectively I think it's fairly well understood that crowding prevents the best correctional practice from happening. No matter what the environment, a crowded jail leads to delays in programming access, treatment interventions, and assessments, and to increases in violence, dangerous environments for staff to work in, and the risk of the spread of infectious disease.

Really, those findings would apply to provincial jails as equally as they would apply to federal penitentiaries.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I would like Ms. Roy to tell us about the consequences of mandatory minimum sentences.

[Joëlle Roy]

I'll give you an example. I don't have the text of the bill to hand, and I don't know it off by heart, but let's suppose that an 18-year-old youth gives someone an ecstasy pill at a rave one Saturday evening. Here I'm referring to the previous Bill C-15, which I believe has been included in full. You can agree or disagree with that. I'm not talking here about a youth who has previously committed crimes or who belongs to a street gang, but rather an ordinary youth. But giving is trafficking. I believe that, under the bill, ecstasy is now in another schedule. What is the minimum sentence imposed for that act? At the time, I believe it was two years for trafficking in a pill. Does that act deserve that sentence? No.

The point here isn't about being in favour of drug trafficking: I'm talking about the actual situation we're experiencing. Let the courts in which these individuals are prosecuted act; let them do so on a case-by-case basis. They usually impose the appropriate sentence. It also has to be said that there are already prison overpopulation problems and that all this will lead to judicial injustices. That's obvious. There will be no room to manoeuvre. A judge will have to impose the relevant minimum sentences, and that will lead to legal aberrations; that's obvious.

For acts that deserve a heavier sentence, a judge may impose a harsher penalty: his discretionary authority enables him to do so, just as a crown prosecutor may suggest a much stiffer sentence in a robbery case if it involves a multiple reoffender and not an individual who has committed his first offence and did so under influence. The minister of justice of New Brunswick mentioned tools, and I believe we definitely must have the necessary tools. However, Bill C-10 takes them all away from us, and that will result in clear and obvious injustices. If heavier sentences are required, it is a judge's duty to impose them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you. The time is up.

I appreciate the witnesses being with us today. I apologize for the bells.

I will just remind everybody that a week tomorrow is Remembrance Day. Please take a minute to remember those who sacrificed to give us this opportunity to be here today.

The meeting is adjourned.