Justice Committee on April 29th, 2022

[Jacqueline Beckles]

If I may, I won't echo what my colleague Mr. Tachie has said, but what I will say in response to the honourable member's question is that I come from much of the same communities that Monsieur Gélinas is speaking of. I grew up in Pierrefonds. There was a shooting in Pierrefonds just this week or last week, which I was watching on the news. What I can say is that mandatory minimums do not make a community feel safe. I know this because I'm a member of the community.

What we are proposing with the repeal of mandatory minimums will not remove the ability for judges to impose what is a just and fair sentence. Let's keep in mind that where you have organized crime, where you have gangs and where you crimes of a very serious violent nature, judges have the discretion to impose what is a reasonable and fit sentence in the circumstances.

All we are proposing is that there not be a basement to what those reasonable and just sentences are, and that the judges not be hamstrung, in appropriate circumstances, by imposing what is a reasonable sentence. As the honourable member mentioned, there are certain of the offences where mandatory minimums just are not reasonable: where there might be crimes of inadvertence and where there might be situations where the judge, in all of their wisdom, authority and discretion, sees that the mandatory minimum is simply too high for the circumstances. These are people who are appointed to this position, and we urge you to give them the authority to implement what is just and fair under the same laws that would see justice done.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I think also what your testimony here today reinforces is the cruel irony that not only is over-policing and over-incarceration caused by racism, but it also reinforces racism. Would it be fair to say that?

[Raphael Tachie]

We completely agree. It's what leads to over-surveillance. Then when you arrest more people, it's now the justification for saying why we need to over-surveil and keep people in jail. Ms. Beckles spoke to it. It's a vicious cycle that just repeats itself.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Next will be a round of five minutes.

I believe it's Mr. Cooper for five minutes.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Ms. Beckles, in your last answer in the exchange you had with Madam Brière, you cited a number of statistics. Would you be able to provide the committee with the studies or documents that those statistics are based upon?

[Jacqueline Beckles]

Yes, absolutely. I'm happy to provide it in writing to the honourable members of this committee.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

That would be very helpful. Thank you very much for that.

Mr. Gélinas, we've heard from several witnesses today and in a previous hearing who say to get rid of mandatory jail terms. They say that they don't work, that they increase recidivism, so why not just let a judge fashion a reasonable and fair sentence. Somehow mandatory jail time provisions prevent judges from doing so. Ms. Beckles just said that a few moments ago.

I was wondering, given your extensive experience in law enforcement what you would say in response.

[André Gélinas]

I would simply say that using a firearm is a very serious offence. As a society, we have to send a very strong message, particularly to the judiciary, that this is unacceptable. If someone is caught with a firearm, whether the person used it or not, as I explained earlier, that person has an intention, whether it is latent or not. In fact, this is what constitutes a serious danger.

Just imagine how you would feel if you were the victim of an assault with a firearm, even if the person was just pointing the gun at you while you were peacefully going about your business. I don't think you would feel any safer in your community knowing that this person would not be subject to a minimum of sanctions.

I have every confidence in the judges' judgment. However, at some point, the legislator must also convey society's message to the judiciary. The moment someone crosses a threshold by using a firearm in the context of criminal activity, a line has been crossed.

Judgments obviously evolve over time, either through doctrine or through decisions arising from case law that bind the courts together. However, I believe that, as legislators, you have the power to send the message to the judiciary and to the public that this is unacceptable.

We are currently seeing an increase in the number of shootings everywhere and the use of weapons is becoming more and more commonplace. We see on social networks that people are no longer afraid to show off with illegal weapons. Once again, this affects several sectors of society. We must not forget one thing, and that is that the first victims of gun traffickers from aboriginal reserves are aboriginal people themselves. Once again, having worked in the intelligence division to combat street gangs, I can tell you one thing: the majority of victims of street gangs are often people who live in the same community.

As legislators, you have a duty to protect all these citizens.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you for that.

You're quite right that Parliament, not judges, makes laws. You cited victims at the end of your last comments. At the end of your testimony you noted that nowhere in Bill C-5 is the word “victim” mentioned. Nowhere in the Bill C-5 backgrounder on the Department of Justice website is the word “victim” mentioned. Indeed, it's [Technical difficulty—Editor] that we ever hear members on that side utter the word “victim”. In the six and a half years that I've been a member of Parliament I've talked to many victims. Almost all of them have been very disappointed with the approach that this government has taken in terms of their disregard for the rights of victims.

Do you have any comments on that? Would you wish to expand upon the comment you made at the close of your opening statement?

[André Gélinas]

Yes, I would like to add a few comments.

As I mentioned in my presentation, the Criminal Code sets out the minimum requirements for functioning in society. One of the reasons it was established was to protect people. It is a protection that the community has given itself. These are the ground rules. A person who complies with the Criminal Code can be quite unpleasant and rude, yet still function in society. This is important, because victims need to have confidence not only in the police, but also in the justice system and its democratic institutions.

I have spent evenings—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Gélinas.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

The last five minutes are for Mr. Naqvi, and then we have some committee business.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to Mr. Tachie.

Thank you for sharing the story. I'm sure quite a few members may relate to the circumstances you described.

It reminded me of consultations that I was holding on the practice of carding in Ontario and hearing from 15- and 16-year-old Black boys who were stopped by police. Their school bags were checked and they were carded simply because they were walking home from school late in the afternoon, which we would expect any child to do. What you are sharing with us is real. That kind of racism is real and the impact is quite real as well.

I want to talk a bit about the conditional sentence orders that are part of this bill and your and Ms. Beckles' thoughts on that. What kind of impact could it have on the Black community, racialized communities and indigenous peoples if that discretion is restored within our criminal justice system?

[Raphael Tachie]

Thank you, Mr. Naqvi.

I think Ms. Beckles is the expert on that, so I'll defer to her.

My only comment would be to repeat what Chief Arcand said, because I'm really aligned with it. The extent to which our criminal justice system deals with first-time offenders, especially, by keeping them close to their families, keeping familial ties, access to education and giving someone the opportunity to recover from what might be a one-time mistake is important. That is the place we should start from.

If you put somebody in jail and the ultimate result is that they will return, their community is not safer, especially if they're coming back worse than they were.

Please, Ms. Beckles, go ahead.

[Jacqueline Beckles]

With respect to community sentence orders, the first thing that we would ask you to keep in mind is that CSOs are a form of imprisonment. Although CSOs allow an offender to serve their sentence within the community, there are strict conditions, some of which are statutorily required. They ensure that an offender complies with the order and they ensure that an offender is properly and adequately treated.

Expanding the use of CSOs is helpful to both the community and the offender, and it serves more of a rehabilitative aspect, as Mr. Tachie was just alluding to. We have to be mindful that since Black people are subject to hypersurveillance and over-incarceration, this can help serve the double objective of rehabilitation and punishment, where it is appropriate.

CSOs also leave Black offenders vulnerable to mandated state surveillance and ensured compliance with conditions. While we unreservedly advance and advocate for the position that an expanded use of CSOs is appropriate, we urge you to consider that it is still a punitive sentence, notwithstanding the fact that it's being served in the community.

If I can address for a moment the question that was posed by member Cooper, there is something to be said for what Monsieur Gélinas proposed. Often, these crimes are being committed in the community and the victims are from the community. There is something to be said for the fact that members of these same communities are coming to you, honourable members, to say, “We would like to see the lifting of mandatory minimums. We would like to see the imposition of CSOs, because our communities are the ones that are affected.” The Black community and the indigenous community have universally come to you to say, “We don't want these in place. We are the victims. We are not standing only on the side of the offender. We are considering the true victims of the crime, which is our community”. They are telling you, “This is important to us. This is what we want to see.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you.

Witnesses, thank you for sharing your personal stories and experiences with everyone here today. That concludes this part of the meeting. You're more than welcome to log off.

We have some committee business, quick housekeeping. I want everybody to know that this study has about three more meetings for a total of six, then we move on to clause-by-clause consideration for—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chair, while the witnesses are here, could we complete the round of questioning before we end the meeting? I had two and a half minutes left, as did Mr. Garrison.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

If I have the consent of the committee, I don't mind extending for another five minutes.

Do I have the consent of everyone?

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

We're at the end of our meeting. How long do you expect this committee business to last? I mean, we're introducing—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I'm done. I just wanted to let you know about the meetings.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Well, unfortunately, we're not done, because we never agreed we would only hear six days of witness testimony. There had been some proposal, I think by Mr. Fortin, that we have eight days of committee testimony on Bill C-5. I certainly supported that and spoke to that last time.

We did not come to a conclusion on how many meetings we would have. I would propose that we have eight, but this is something I would hope we would set aside time for as committee business, and we are at the end of our meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I'm more than open. I just wanted to let you know that's what I had so far. If you want, I can converse with you, and maybe on Tuesday, we can keep some time open for that, if you're okay with that, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes, if it's time to discuss the total number of meetings, that sounds good.

My proposal would be that we have eight.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I can't see the floor very well. I have no problem in extending for five minutes, but....

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Moore, I'm sorry, but I have another meeting to go to.