Evidence of meeting #8 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 women.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you very much.
I'm sorry; were you answering?
Sorry, Ms. Pate, are you trying to answer?
10:15 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
Thank you.
We're already seeing the impact of the changes that have occurred due to the overcrowding in women's prisons. For instance, women are not getting access to programs they need. They are therefore not able to complete the requirements of their correctional treatment plans and to have the least restrictive measures and earliest opportunity to be released to the community in a way that's safe for them and others. So we're already seeing some of those issues.
People I'm speaking to in the prisons, the staff in particular, are also concerned about this issue. As more and more people, particularly women, are being put in prison, there are fewer opportunities to meet their needs. When I was in the maximum security unit, for instance, there was the additional pressure of every unit being double-bunked. So we're likely to see less access to programs.
In the long term, the interests of victims and public safety are not being served. I would echo the calls for more resources for things like assistance for those with children, including child care; victims services; rape crisis centres; sexual assault centres; distress centres; mental health--
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
We'll have to cut it off there. We're a little over our time.
Mr. Goguen.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Chair, first off, thank you to all the witnesses for attending.
Thank you for attending this meeting.
My question is for Barry MacKnight. My greetings from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Mr. MacKnight.
A recent Statistics Canada survey reported increases in rates of child pornography of 36%; firearm offences, 11%; drug offences, 10%; criminal harassment, 5%; sexual assault, 5%. Now this is, of course, criminal activity that our government has specifically targeted in the past and in current legislation, including the measures proposed in Bill C-10.
I'd like to canvass your thoughts. What's the perception of this by your police force? What specific provisions do you support in this bill? Is this going to be beneficial for the prevention of crime?
10:20 a.m.
Police Chief, Chair, Drug Abuse Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Fredericton Police Force
Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you to the honourable member.
While my focus primarily is on the drug amendments, I think there are various aspects of the bill that focus on priorities that CACP has expressed over the years, including our strong denunciation of organized crime because of its impacts on our communities. That's certainly the case with the drug crime issues, but you also mentioned the statistics regarding the victimization of the most vulnerable people in our communities through Internet child exploitation. There are serious issues there as well.
While Internet child exploitation is not classically seen as an organized crime activity, we are seeing in certain circumstances groups of people who are organized to some degree—organization that would qualify under the Criminal Code definition of criminal organizations—to exploit children and to profit from their exploitation. So any of the aspects of the bill focus on strong denunciation and providing tools to the police to deal with the criminal infrastructure are certainly going to be beneficial in dealing with that slice of the response to any of these complex societal issues.
Again, I've talked about a balanced approach, which requires each of the components to be addressed. It's the view of CACP in supporting this bill that this bill helps us in particular in dealing with those enforcement issues around criminal infrastructure.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you, Chief.
I'm mindful that you're focusing perhaps more on the drug offences, but again, I want to canvass your thoughts on sexual offences, particularly dealing with children. Of course, the child pornography offence is increasing by 36%. Bill C-10 proposes two new offences. One of those is to ban anyone from providing sexually explicit material to a child for the purposes of committing a sexual offence against that child. The second one is to ban anyone from using means of telecommunications—the Internet—to make arrangements with another person to commit sexual offences against a child.
Now in your mind, would you say that Bill C-10 proposes exactly the sort of modernization of the Criminal Code that the members of the police force really need to deal with technologically savvy criminals?
10:20 a.m.
Police Chief, Chair, Drug Abuse Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Fredericton Police Force
Again, thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to the honourable member, I can give you some of my individual views on those—
10:20 a.m.
Police Chief, Chair, Drug Abuse Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Fredericton Police Force
—which I think is what you were asking for, rather than the CACP's position on those issues.
Again, with any of those offences where the victimization of the most vulnerable members of our community is involved, we require strong measures to deal with these crimes, to ensure that when they are dealt with in the law courts, the sentencing essentially fits the nature of the crime. That has certainly been our position for many years.
In many cases within our communities, we have begun to see an erosion of confidence in the judicial system, when it becomes unclear to people that these inconsistencies in sentencing are being addressed. I would hearken back to the comments made by the earlier group, when Mr. Trudell was here, about the clear benefits of communicating what's happening in the justice system. It is certainly helpful to the public's understanding, because we all have an interest in ensuring that the public has strong faith in the judicial system.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question is to Steve Sullivan—and if there's time at all, I'll put another one to Mr. Piché.
We've heard testimony from victims today and throughout our hearings suggesting that mandatory minimums are necessary, and that this approach can be characterized as being tough on crime. Now, I understand when victims say this. It's almost counter-intuitive to say we should not have mandatory minimums. But my question is this. Is this being smart on crime? How do you respond to victims who say this with respect to mandatory minimums?
10:20 a.m.
Former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, As an Individual
I've actually had the debate with some of those who have testified before you, and I respectfully disagree with them. For me, in an age where resources are very scarce in communities and we see children not getting the services they need, I think if you're concerned about victims of crime, you're better off spending money on serving them than on punishing offenders. If there were evidence that these mandatory minimums worked for a broad scope of offenders—and here I would say I don't oppose mandatory minimum penalties completely for any offence—I'd be standing with those victims. If there were evidence that they reduced revictimization and recidivism, if they actually helped someone begin the healing process, I would stand with them.
In my experience, mandatory minimums don't do those things. I would rather see more services. We're going to spend $10 million over two years on these penalties for sex offenders, to punish sex offenders. Some of those penalties may be warranted. Some sex offenders may deserve that kind of punishment, but we're using a blanket approach. The government is only spending $1 million a year for five years for child advocacy centres. To me those priorities are mixed up. If you really care about helping the children, then help the children.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
That's along the lines of what you were saying earlier, that you don't see evidence that this legislation in fact enhances victims' rights.
So my question, just to turn it around, is what would you specifically propose be included in this legislation, how should it be amended, so it would enhance victims' rights?
10:25 a.m.
Former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, As an Individual
I'm not sure what you would put in to enhance it.
I think the provisions for CCR are important.
I think if we're looking just at the particulars of the bill, it really doesn't deal with the majority of challenges that victims face on a day-to-day basis. There's a host of other things I could recommend that could do that. We work with women in my community who have a choice between staying in an abusive relationship or going into a shelter—which I know in the Ottawa area are often full—or maybe staying with a friend for a while. They risk actually ending up homeless. I would rather spend money on giving her a choice on what it is she's going to do to live violence free.
There is a concern of people not reporting. You might actually encourage reporting, if you give women and children choices about how to live safely.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Professor Piché.
You've addressed the question of prison overcrowding. So my question is this. Before this legislation was tabled, my understanding was that we had a serious problem with prison overcrowding. Certain provinces have reported that they are now at 200% of capacity. The United States Supreme Court has said that anything over 137% capacity puts one on the verge of cruel and unusual punishment.
You talked about the building of prisons. Can it be said that if one builds prisons, this will alleviate overcrowding, as some have suggested? Or is the whole approach of this legislation going to exacerbate the overcrowding and thereby bring us into a constitutional concern regarding cruel and unusual punishment, and inmate violence, and in fact end up increasing crime when these prisoners are released rather than helping to combat crime?
10:25 a.m.
Assistant Professor, As an Individual
We've had longstanding overcrowding issues in our Canadian prisons, particularly in the last decade and a half. If you look at Ontario, in 11 out of 31 of the institutions there are often double and triple bunks. Alberta and B.C. also report frequent double and triple bunking. Double bunking is pretty common across the country. That is in violation of our being a signatory to the UN's standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. If we continue adding pieces of legislation that will--
10:25 a.m.
Assistant Professor, As an Individual
--generate an influx of new prisoners, we will see an exacerbation of this.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses.
My first question is for Professor Piché. You indicated in your opening comments and in fact challenged the committee to bring before it the head of the Correctional Service of Canada, Mr. Don Head, regarding the cost. I was curious if you had an opportunity, sir, to watch or otherwise review the televised hearing of this committee on October 18 when Mr. Head did in fact appear in front of this committee and provided us with those very costs.