Justice Committee on Oct. 20th, 2011

[Giuseppe Battista]

Yes. I have to say that is something we do support, and I think it's something that should be looked at and encouraged.

All procedures that would favour the individuals who are involved in substance abuse moving away from that, and the criminal justice system being able to adapt to those realities, will certainly contribute to a reduction in crime. We believe in that. That is something that is very important.

As Mr. Ouimet mentioned, on our committee we have crown attorneys, defence attorneys, and people who work with all levels of government. These concerns are very real, and anything in the system that allows for that, we support.

What we are a little--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

If you could simply--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Sorry, time is up.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Could the witness simply confirm that it includes an exemption, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Time is up, I'm sorry.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to extend a warm welcome to everyone, and more specifically to my colleagues from Quebec.

I have read the brief from the Barreau du Québec, a well-written brief founded on the core principles of criminal justice. I have also read the letter to the Minister of Justice, which you have cited.

So I will continue from where you left off. Could you comment on the youth justice system, on the importance of the specific nature, as you said, of youth criminal justice, an area in which Quebec has a great deal of expertise and experience?

[Dominique Trahan, Lawyer and President, Committee on Youth Law, Barreau du Québec]

We could sum this up by saying that youth justice, whether in child welfare, youth protection or delinquency under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, should allow us to work on a case-by-case basis. When I say “case by case”, I don't mean removing the penalties currently available under the law so that more young people are put in detention centres. I am talking about giving us the leeway we need to handle each case and try to rehabilitate the offenders. All resources have to be available so that we can choose the appropriate one for the court case at bar and for the offender.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Okay.

There are also other observations in the brief. If time permits, could you comment on the other amendments proposed under Bill C-10?

[Giuseppe Battista]

As Mr. Trahan was saying in terms of the importance of treating delinquents on an individual basis, we have some serious concerns with this bill. The number of people in prison is expected to go up. I have heard it said that people coming back through the system will eventually end up in prison. Those people go to prison now. The people who constantly come back through the system go to prison. The more they go through the system, the more that is true.

But this bill—and this is what worries us—is sure to send to prison people who should not be sent there, people who would not be sent to prison by a judge. People for whom a prosecutor would not ask for a prison sentence because those people can be rehabilitated and the circumstances of the offence are such that a prison sentence is not warranted. That is what is unfair and that is what should be corrected.

In our brief, we also pointed out that legislative proposals had been submitted under other bills. In addition, studies done by Commonwealth countries have set out situations where judges do not have to apply minimum penalties. Imposing minimum sentences is a choice legislators make. At the Bar, we don't feel it is a solution. We are opposed to minimum sentences. It is the legislator's choice, but we think that, if the legislator wants this option and the choice is made, people should remember that some individuals who appear in court do not deserve the punishment they will surely get.

When you impose a punishment on people who do not deserve it, you are likely to break their spirit. That is what we are afraid of. Instead of rehabilitating them and making their reintegration into society easier, you are likely to exclude them. We urge the members of the committee to think about that. In some cases, the people have to go to prison and the judges will give them a prison sentence. As Mr. Ouimet pointed out, if a prosecutor—in this instance, the one responsible for protecting the interests of society—thinks a sentence is not just, an appeal process ensues. Even the Supreme Court agrees to hear references on sentences. Of course, there are a lot of cases. Reoffenders are not the only ones who appear in court. Many people—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I'm sorry, you are out of time.

[Giuseppe Battista]

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

And my thanks to all of the witnesses who have come here today, particularly Mrs. Harvey, who has experienced a dreadful loss, a nightmare. I'm sorry to be part of your nightmare by having you with us today, but I do appreciate your willingness to do that.

I have a question for you, but before I get to it, I can't contain myself from commenting on Monsieur Battista's evidence a moment ago.

I am very glad that Monsieur Battista has looked at some of the statutes around the world that do give exemptions from mandatory minimum penalties. I strongly urge him to read Bill C-10 also because he will find a very similar provision in it.

To help him along, I want to refer him specifically to Bill C-10, proposed subsection 10(5), under subclause 43(2), which adds a paragraph to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which reads as follows: “If the offender successfully completes a program under subsection (4)”—that is, a drug treatment court program—“the court is not required to impose the minimum punishment for the offence for which the person was convicted.”

I know when you read that, sir, you will find it meets the requirements of what you were just saying.

Mr. Chair, I just have to emphasize to all of those people who are watching today and considering this matter, it is a very beneficial thing to read the bill and look at some of the things we have in it.

Mrs. Harvey, I have expressed to you my understanding of what you have gone through, and I do want to repeat my condolences.

I want to ask you a little bit about the intangible measures or damages or losses that you have experienced, but before I do, if you'll permit me, I'd like to inquire a little bit about the more mundane questions of expenses. I know that in a case such as yours there are travel expenses and funeral expenses and other expenses.

Have you ever bothered to come to a conclusion about how much money you have lost? I know that's an awful question in relation to your daughter's death, but for people out there who want something concrete to fasten onto, have you reached a conclusion about that?

[Yvonne Harvey]

Intangible losses?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Tangible losses.

[Yvonne Harvey]

We encountered...actually it's almost up to $60,000 now for the legal bill to ensure the safety of my granddaughter. She is residing with my brother and his wife. They had temporary custody after my daughter's body was found; the father was not deemed suitable, nor were his parents.

In the midst of that we had a judge in the family court decide that he was going to take a group of files pertaining to children who were “in the system”, as they call it, and get them into permanent residences or permanent accommodations. For whatever reason, he took my granddaughter's file, a child who was in the middle of a murder investigation, and this resulted, as I said, in over $60,000 in legal expenses. The result was the same; it was our family.

In addition to that, we've incurred legal expenses. When I arrived in St. John's I was not able to take possession of my daughter's body because she was 10 days away from her divorce; therefore she was not legally divorced and the accused had the right to take possession of her body. Before I could do anything, I had to pay $3,000 to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland to object to that.

It went on and on from there. In fact, one of the things that I think is deplorable is that my daughter's family lawyer was in receipt of a document that my daughter had given her three days before her murder outlining what might happen to her. This family lawyer decided she needed to give that document to the authorities. In order to do that, she consulted with a criminal lawyer, and he billed her. The Newfoundland law association would not reimburse her for that charge, so she decided she would pass that bill on to the victim's mother, and naively, I paid it.

There were travel expenses and lodging expenses, and I contribute to my granddaughter's well-being, which is $600 a month. Her education will be something that I will have to undertake. There's a lot of miscellaneous expenses--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I'm sorry, but we've used up our time.

Ms. Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Harvey, you have no idea how I feel after hearing your testimony. It is hard to remain indifferent when we hear things like that. That's obvious. Unfortunately, there are a number of examples like that. But one is too many.

As the opposition critic for the status of women, I have been in contact with a broad range of women's groups, representing aboriginal women who are victims of violence or murdered women. It is not easy.

I am a new member; I have been here since May 2. We are studying Bill C-10, which is very broad and includes many pieces of legislation. It must be clear—and I agree with you—that the goal of the committee members is not to come up with a dollar sign. We are trying to find the right balance. As always, the ultimate goal is to find the best system in order to have as few victims as possible, to make sure that the victims are treated appropriately and that the offenders are dealt with. To the greatest extent possible, offenders must receive just sentences to match their offences. Otherwise, we would build prisons and put them all inside, one by one. We would then throw the key in the Ottawa River, hoping they would never get out. But that's not the case. So we must also look at rehabilitation to make sure that those people will be able to become good citizens when they return to society, as we all hope they do.

Various experts have told us that 96% of people who are released after serving a prison sentence become good citizens. So we are trying to reach a small percentage and to find the best solutions.

I am sorry we have to talk numbers. No price can be set. Mr. Woodworth asked you the question, you listed your expenses, but that will never add up to what you have experienced. There is no price for that. It cannot be quantified.

That said, my colleagues from the Québec Bar are not the first to tell us about minimum sentences. Could you tell us more about minimum penalties? I have discussed this with a number of my Conservative colleagues in order to find out why they were so keen on having those minimum penalties. What came out of those discussions is a general lack of trust in members of the judiciary. That's all. After the discussion, it became clear that we had reached the conclusion, whether right or wrong, that judges were not passing the right sentences.

I am afraid that, by imposing minimum penalties, we would be transferring the responsibility of judges to crown prosecutors. Am I right? Crown prosecutors will have to deal with some of the cases Mr. Battista talked about. Crown prosecutors and defence lawyers will continue to talk to each other prior to going before the judge. That is how the system works; there are pre-hearing conferences, and so on. Those people are going to talk among themselves. Charges are going to be laid. Is there no danger of changing the charge in order to find one that corresponds to the penalty we think is appropriate under the circumstances? Do we not run the risk of doing this exercise for nothing? There is no point in talking about costs. That is what we are saying. We are not weighing the costs to the victims against the costs to the system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Just before you begin, the bells are ringing for a vote, so I will need unanimous consent to go to 10:45, according to the rules of the House.

Okay.

We're down to about 40 seconds.

[Giuseppe Battista]

Prosecutors are actually under a lot of pressure to find alternatives when they are faced with impossible situations, which does happen. With the increase in minimum penalties, this bill is going to make the situation more and more difficult. Under this system, we will be less and less or not at all able to avoid what we used to be able to avoid in the past.

I'd like to make a comment also about the question that Mr. Woodworth asked me.

I did respond to Mr. Jean that in fact the bar supported that provision in the law. However, that provision does not go far enough. That provision applies to people who successfully complete a program for detoxification. There are people who don't have a drug problem who shouldn't be sent to jail as well. And that provision does not apply to the other minimum sentences that are provided for in Bill C-10.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We're way past our time here.

I would like to thank the panel. I know the time is short and it never is long enough. We do have votes, and in addition to that we have another committee coming in.

So on behalf of this whole committee, thank you very much for your time.

That portion is adjourned.

Members, don't run away. We need a very short meeting here.

As you know, Mr. Comartin has left the committee; he was the vice-chair. We now need to elect a new vice-chair from the opposition side. I believe Ms. Boivin has a nomination.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I would like to propose Mr. Jack Harris.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I have a question for Ms. Boivin. No doubt you will recall yesterday that Mr. Harris and I, and Ms. Boivin and others, appeared before an ad hoc committee regarding Supreme Court appointments. She strongly felt that one of the nominees, because of his lack of bilingualism, was disentitled to be on the Supreme Court of Canada. I'm curious as to why she thinks Mr. Harris is qualified to be the vice-chair of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I don't think we need to have that answered.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

No, but I love it. You equate a vice-chair of a committee to a Supreme Court justice. Excellent. We'll have a debate one day.