Evidence of meeting #5 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 c-10.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Anthony Doob  Professor, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Susan O'Sullivan  Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime
Sharon Rosenfeldt  President, Victims of Violence
Eric Gottardi  Vice-Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
Michael Jackson  Member, Committee on Imprisonment and Release, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
Eugene Oscapella  Part-time Professor, Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Don Head  Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Catherine Latimer  Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada

9:35 a.m.

Member, Committee on Imprisonment and Release, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association

Michael Jackson

I'm aware of that.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Thank you. Those are my questions.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

You still have a minute and a half left.

Mr. Woodworth.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

I'll just kick in one, then, to Mr. Gottardi, who I assume has read the act and knows that in the criminal youth justice section the wording that is proposed on the question of denunciation and deterrence is “to deter the young person from committing offences”. Do you remember reading that, Mr. Gottardi?

9:35 a.m.

Vice-Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

All right. And would you agree with me that when we say “to deter the young person”, we are talking about specific deterrence, not general deterrence?

9:35 a.m.

Vice-Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association

Eric Gottardi

It could be read that way, yes.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Would you read it otherwise?

9:35 a.m.

Vice-Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association

Eric Gottardi

It will be interpreted by the judges imposing a sentence.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Well, I'm asking you. When we say “to deter the young person”, would you not take that to mean specific deterrence of that young person, not young persons generally.

9:35 a.m.

Vice-Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association

Eric Gottardi

Yes, it could be read that way.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

But how do you read it, sir?

9:35 a.m.

Vice-Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association

Eric Gottardi

Well, it doesn't matter which way you read it.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Well, it does, sir, because in your statement you've included a whole paragraph about general deterrence relating to that provision, and I suggest to you that it's very misleading to people who aren't lawyers. Lawyers know that if we're talking about general deterrence, we don't say “the young person”, we say “young persons”. Don't you think it's a little misleading to be talking in your proposal about general deterrence on that section?

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Time's up, Mr. Woodworth.

Mr. Jacob.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Good morning.

My question is for the members of the Canadian Bar.

My colleague, Ms. Boivin, asked you a question about pardons, but you did not get the chance to reply. I will now give you that opportunity.

9:40 a.m.

Member, Committee on Imprisonment and Release, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association

Michael Jackson

We have included a submission on the changes to the Criminal Records Act.

Perhaps what is most disturbing in terms of the provisions.... Many members of this committee have children and grandchildren, as do I. One effect of the amendments will be when someone is convicted of a summary offence. It could be that a person gets a little drunk on a stag night or at a university celebration and punches someone and is convicted of common assault. It could be that it's a conviction on a drug offence. There's an entire raft of things that young people may commit in the immaturity of young adulthood, which they live to regret and they live to overcome. They go to university. They seek employment.

At the moment, we have provisions for a pardon after three years. It's in fact more than three years, because the backlog actually takes about a year and a half. It's already close to five years before young people, who have in fact demonstrated the ability to put this behind them and are ready to take their rightful positions as responsible and accountable members of society, are back in the workplace without criminal records. I don't know why, but this act extends it from three years to five years.

There is no demonstration that the pardon process has in fact been flawed. Ninety-six percent of them have never been revoked. I again ask: Why as legislators would you want to put impediments on the reintegration of people who have in fact started out afresh and demonstrated that they are accountable for their actions?

There is no rational or legitimate correctional reintegration purpose. As in so many of the provisions of this bill, the only purpose is to increase the intensity of punishment and have more people in prison for longer periods of time under more repressive and harsher conditions. When they do get out or finish their sentences, it makes it even more difficult for them to reintegrate.

It seems to be the theme of this legislation. It is contrary to what is happening in many parts of the world, where we've learned the lessons of repression and harsh sentencing regimes. Texas, of all places, is rolling back what we're implementing.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Gottardi.

You said in your preamble that Bill C-10 would not strengthen public safety, that more people would end up in jail, and that there would be less rehabilitation and social reintegration. Can you tell us why?

9:40 a.m.

Vice-Chair, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association

Eric Gottardi

Very briefly, I think my colleague, Professor Jackson, talked about the changes to the CCRA that will have an impact and the changes to the pardon act that would create further roadblocks to reintegration into communities.

The simple answer is that many of the restrictive sentencing measures that are being put in place--such as the increased use of mandatory minimum sentences and the restrictions on conditional sentences, which assist offenders to continue doing positive things in life, continue working, and continue having interactions with friends and family while under strict conditions and monitored by the state--assist and enhance public safety. Restricting those sentencing measures has the opposite effect.

In terms of the resource issue, the increased use of mandatory minimum penalties is going to put enormous pressure on the criminal justice system. Crown prosecutors are going to have many more cases to deal with. They'll have greater discretion in the sense that they'll have to do acrobatics and gymnastics to potentially come up with other charges that could be laid that don't have the mandatory minimum sentence in order to avoid unjust results.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

The time is up for this round.

We're back to the government side. Mr. Jean.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for attending today.

Mr. Gottardi, I belive you have been in front of me before. As I mentioned, I was a member of the CBA for many years. I practised criminal law in Fort McMurray, which obviously has been a very busy place for over a decade, so I have some ability to know.... I've done literally hundreds and hundreds of trials, and frankly, I don't agree with your analysis, with respect. I have seen many success stories after people have been incarcerated, and I believe that re-education, retraining, and pride in one's life could certainly turn those people about.

I have to say that as a defence attorney I always envied British Columbia, because of the size of penalties that were received by, for instance, drug dealers, where many times I saw cases that had 30 days or 60 days for cocaine trafficking. In Alberta, you would receive 18 months or two years for the same quantity and the same circumstances. I looked at B.C. as quite an anomaly in Canada.

But I would have to say that there are startling statistics in relation to the number of people who reoffend and continue to reoffend. I have seen many people with three or four pages of records, which would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 or 50 prior offences.

So I frankly don't agree that people who go to jail for minimum mandatory times cannot have a success story, and certainly I believe they keep people safe.

On that note, I also noticed the Supreme Court of Canada suggested in R. v. Morrisey that it can't be disputed that the need for general deterrence is necessary, and indeed that a mandatory minimum sentence to shape behaviour is and can be utilized successfully. I would suggest that lawyers are somewhat.... If there are 10 lawyers in this room, you're going to receive 30 opinions. I think it's no different in this particular case.

Just to clear the record in relation to that, Mr. Doob, I wanted to talk a little bit to you. I noticed that you have a PhD from Stanford and an AB from Harvard. I apologize for my ignorance, but what is an AB?

October 18th, 2011 / 9:45 a.m.

Professor, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, As an Individual

Dr. Anthony Doob

It's the Latin version of a bachelor's degree, I believe.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

A bachelor's degree of what, sir?

9:45 a.m.

Professor, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, As an Individual

Dr. Anthony Doob

It is a bachelor of arts.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Okay. So you have a bachelor of arts and a PhD, one from Harvard and one from Stanford.

I noticed that your expertise is in relation to the youth justice system process and operation of the criminal courts. That's the majority of your research and expertise.