Justice Committee on May 13th, 2022

[Catherine Latimer]

I think the challenge with mandatory minimum sentences, particularly for indigenous and Black people, and others, is that if there are provisions like the Gladue provisions that allow you to look at the historical and social determinants that have led the person to be in a circumstance that might predispose them or lead them to criminality, none of that can be considered as a mitigating factor in allowing them to have a less serious consequence if you have a mandatory minimum penalty. It completely eradicates the Gladue provisions and anything that could be done for Black people or others if you don't have that latitude.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Okay. Perfect.

How many minutes do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

You have 15 seconds.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you very much for coming today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Dhillon.

Next we'll go to Monsieur Fortin for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank Ms. Latimer and to apologize for having interrupted her earlier.

I also thank Ms. Durham and Mr. Brochet.

My questions are for Mr. Brochet.

I am very happy to see you here today, Mr. Brochet. As the director of the Service de police de Laval, your opinion is important. You experience the problems associated with crime on a daily basis, particularly with regard to firearms. Laval has seen an increase in gun violence in recent months, and even in recent years. In the last week or so, there have been a number of shootings in Laval and Montreal that have been disastrous in many ways. I am therefore very pleased that you are testifying here today.

From what I understand based on your testimony, you believe that eliminating mandatory minimum sentences is not a good idea, since we need to send a clear message to the public. However, you believe that a notwithstanding clause could offset the disadvantages of mandatory minimum sentences.

Laval has experienced shootings in recent weeks. What message would we send to the people of Laval if we decided to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes committed with a firearm, such as extortion, robbery, or discharging a firearm with the intent to injure someone?

[Pierre Brochet]

I think that would send a very negative message to the public.

As I said earlier, this is the third year that there has been an increase in violence, so it is not a one-off. We think it will continue, because a gun culture has developed. People are starting to use guns at an increasingly young age. Also, we are seizing many more firearms, two to three times more than before 2020. Police officers have to be constantly on guard, given the possibility that the person they are stopping may be in possession of a firearm.

I've talked to many citizens who told me they don't feel safe, especially when they see other types of criminal events, such as people going into the Sainte-Rose neighbourhood and shooting out the doors and windows of a family home. In the crime and gang world, this is done simply to send a message—it's called scoring points. As you can imagine, when events like these or the ones I highlighted earlier happen near their homes, many people say they can't stay there any longer and are going to move.

I am convinced that these citizens do not see it as a positive thing that the Government of Canada is thinking of passing legislation to abolish mandatory minimum sentences.

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

Objectively speaking, eliminating mandatory minimum sentences does not necessarily mean that the courts would impose less severe penalties, obviously. Even if the Criminal Code did not contain minimum sentences, the judge could impose the same sentence, or even a heavier one, in certain cases. In contrast, the judge could also, in certain specific circumstances, impose sentences that are less than the minimum sentences.

From your experience as a police chief, would you say that your fear is that we would be imposing lenient sentences, that is, sentences that are too low, or rather that we would be sending the wrong message to the community that is being victimized?

[Pierre Brochet]

Actually, I'm concerned about both.

As you know, Canadian society does not favour the use of firearms. We have a great culture in this area, but it is changing unfortunately. That's why I'm concerned about the message that we would send.

I am also concerned about some of the inequalities in the judgments. In reality, defence lawyers often shop around to try to find a judge who they think will be more favourable to the case they are defending, for all sorts of reasons. As a result, we end up with judgments that vary greatly, that have different consequences and that call for different sentences, depending on the philosophy of the judge in question. I say this with all due respect for the judiciary.

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

I apologize for rushing you, but I have about 15 seconds left.

Are the weapons used to commit these crimes legal or do they come from illegal trafficking?

[Pierre Brochet]

Most of the time, they are illegal weapons.

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

Thank you, Mr. Brochet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.

Next we have Mr. Garrison for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My questions will be to Ms. Latimer from the John Howard Society. I want to start by thanking the John Howard Society for the enormous work it does in helping reintegrate those who serve sentences all across the country and helping future victims.

We hear a lot about deterrence. My first question, Ms. Latimer, would be, in your experience, what deters future crime? Is it fear of severe punishment? Is it fear of getting caught? Is it getting successfully reintegrated into society?

[Catherine Latimer]

I haven't heard of the last one being evaluated, but I will tell you that it tends to be the fear of getting caught that has the effect of deterring crime. If they're likely to get caught, they don't want any part of it. It isn't the severity of the penalties. For a lot of the prisoners that I've worked with, their expectation was that they weren't going to get caught, and if they were going to get caught, they'd take the hit, but their expectation and hope was that they were going to do this and not get caught.

If they were going to get caught, they wouldn't do it.

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

In a lot of discussion, there seems to be a presumption that somehow we serve victims better with heavy sentences, rather than focusing on rehabilitation. From the experience of the John Howard Society, what would you have to say to those folks?

[Catherine Latimer]

When you are working with people who have been on a criminal path and you can get them off a criminal path and toward a more prosocial, contributing lifestyle, you are preventing victimization. There are a lot of people who, if they've been successfully rehabilitated and are being reintegrated with supports, will not reoffend.

More can be done there, but I think a significant amount can be done and is being done to reduce victimization.

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

You said you support the expansion of the use of conditional sentences. Do you share the same concerns we've heard before that those tend to be under-resourced in rural, remote and indigenous communities?

[Catherine Latimer]

It is a significant concern. I know that when you have community-based conditional sentences, you are hoping that the community has the resources to be able to support them. Many dysfunctional communities—“under-resourced” communities is probably a better way to describe them—will be producing a lot of friction and are likely to be more crime-prone, but they may not have the community-based resources to be able to provide very good conditional sentencing alternatives and programs.

It is important that some resources be supporting those sentences.

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

What, currently, is the role of the John Howard Society in the enforcement of conditional sentences?

[Catherine Latimer]

There used to be a lot more conditional sentences before they were repealed, so John Howard's role has changed, because there has been a real drawing back of conditional sentences. We work with people who are in conflict with the law in order to try to help them get on the right path. Frankly, it's much easier if there is a community conditional sentence than if there is a custodial sentence, because they do not get alienated from things like employment and housing, which are big challenges when people are coming out of prison.

The actual prison experience itself can be very traumatizing for people and have a negative effect on them.

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

I'm going to ask the same question that I asked to the Elizabeth Fry Society, about the impact of incarceration on families, as opposed to conditional sentences.

[Catherine Latimer]

It can be very difficult. A lot of the males, for example, who are placed in custody tend to be contributing to the household and the income of the household. When they're removed from that role, their families tend to slide into poverty and survival mode, which is very challenging for them.

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

I have very little time, so let me ask you very quickly about the role of criminal records in obstructing rehabilitation.

[Catherine Latimer]

It's devastating, I would say. People are not protected from discrimination on the basis of historical criminal offences until they get a pardon or a record suspension, and even then people can check things out on Google. If they have a pardon, which is not all that easy to come by—it's an expensive, convoluted process in desperate need of reform—not as many people are applying for that as should be. John Howard is a strong member of the Fresh Start Coalition that Emilie spoke about, which we would hope...to ease that.

You have raised also—