Evidence of meeting #39 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sentence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
It's semantics, what you're saying...you're saying that the person is incarcerated so they can't commit a crime. You call it incarceration and I call it deterrence, but it's the same thing. They're not going to be out in the general public reoffending for that term.
12:30 p.m.
Lawyer, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
It's not semantics. They're not being deterred from reoffending; they're being prevented from reoffending. There's a very big difference between the two.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Lawyer, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I usually say “tomahto”, actually.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
I have some questions in regard to the whole issue of deterrence. It's very clear that you do not believe that mandatory minimum sentences actually deter offenders from committing the crime, so—
12:30 p.m.
Lawyer, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I'm open to being convinced, though. I just haven't seen anything. I haven't been presented with that yet—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
—I'm just going to ask you a very simple question. Do you believe that lighter sentences would deter an offender from committing a crime?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Okay. So would any sentence that you impose upon a convicted criminal...? Would any sentence deter someone from committing a crime?
12:35 p.m.
Lawyer, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
The studies aren't so broad as to look at any sentence deterring a crime. I think there certainly is some deterrence to be found in sentences, but the proponents of the research that I've seen...and I would really suggest that this committee hear from Anthony Doob and others who have done the research themselves.
But the research I have seen has shown that it's not the severity of punishment that deters; it's likelihood of apprehension. So it doesn't matter whether you get a day or five days. What deters more is, will you be caught?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
So just going along the lines of the same question, you actually stated that in most cases of kidnapping a child—or I guess kidnapping for any matter—the sentences that are handed down are vastly “appropriate”. So let me ask you about the sentences that are not appropriate.
How do we as a government protect society? How do we as a government protect the children on our Canadian soil? How do we protect them if we as parliamentarians cannot dictate what minimum and mandatory sentences should be?
I have a real problem: without setting mandatory minimums or maximum minimums in our Criminal Code and our judicial system, what we're saying is that it is up to the judges to determine what the sentence should be, regardless of whether it's murder or someone lifting a chocolate bar off a shelf. So we're leaving the discretion completely to someone who is a single person sitting in our courts making that decision, and I think the Canadian public, on hearing that, would have a real problem with that.
So let me ask you this question—
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Yes.
If it's not the government that can set mandatory minimums and mandatory sentences and minimum sentences and it's left to the judges, how do we protect society from judges who decide that the same offence should be applied to someone who lifts a chocolate bar and to someone who commits murder? Let me ask that question.
12:35 p.m.
Lawyer, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Well, I won't address the logical fallacy in that comparison, but what I will say is that the government does give direction. There are principles of sentencing. There are aggravating and mitigating features. There's a right of appeal.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
But there's a defined set and you can give a conviction. Obviously, somewhere along the line there has to be someone who sets the minimum and the maximum of what that sentence can be.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I had initially set this to end at 12:30 because we have some committee business. We will end at this point. I want to thank Mr. Spratt for being here today.
We will stand down for a couple of minutes and then we will deal with our committee business.
Thank you.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
We will call the meeting back to order for just a few minutes to deal with the budget. A budget has been distributed by the clerk, and I need a motion to accept the budget. I think we have one bill that's very close.
It is moved by Mr. Goguen. All those in favour?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will suspend for 30 seconds or less to switch over to in camera for our agenda.
[Proceedings continue in camera]