Evidence of meeting #17 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was indigenous.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Ms. Durham.
Up next for five minutes we have Pierre Brochet, from the Association des directeurs de police du Québec.
2:10 p.m.
Pierre Brochet President, Association des directeurs de police du Québec
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning and thank you all.
I would like to point out that I am also the director of the Service de police de Laval, a city with a population of about 440,000.
I will first give you a few examples of cases that have occurred very recently. We have experienced a wave of violent events in the Laval area.
On the night of May 7 to 8, 2022, someone committed a murder by firearm by shooting at a moving vehicle. Five people who had just attended a 50th anniversary party were on board. The driver was killed and a 14-year-old boy was shot. The latter will suffer permanent injuries. Both of these people are not known to the police.
The next day, on Monday May 9, 2022, 10 shots were fired in a residential area at 2 p.m. It was in a multi-unit cooperative. You will understand that when residences or apartment buildings are targeted, this creates a great deal of insecurity in the neighbourhood.
The next day, May 10, 2022, an attempted murder with a firearm took place in the middle of a residential area, once again. Two young girls were only a few metres away from the scene of the shooting. They were looking for their cat under a vehicle. The girls are now suffering from post-traumatic shock.
So that's three days of violent events in a row. These three examples illustrate that the use of firearms makes direct victims, in addition to creating a great sense of insecurity among the population.
At the Association des directeurs de police du Québec, we are well aware of the prison system and the overrepresentation of indigenous people and visible minorities. However, we believe that removing mandatory minimum sentences is only treating a symptom rather than addressing the real causes of the problem.
We emphasize again that for the public to maintain confidence in the justice system, we feel that criminals who commit serious crimes, particularly with firearms, must face serious consequences.
We want to focus on the sections of the Criminal Code related to firearms. First, there is section 85, which deals with the use of firearms in the commission of an offence. There is also the discharging of a firearm with the intention of injuring, maiming or disfiguring someone, as well as the discharging of a firearm recklessly. These are the three types of offences that we have been dealing with for some time. This is not an isolated phenomenon. This is the third year in a row that the Montreal area has seen twice as many of these types of events, that is, shootings and firearm discharges. This is of great concern to the public and to all police services in Quebec. A major operation has been launched and many investments have been made by the Quebec government to counter this phenomenon.
We do have a proposal to make, however. In the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Nur case in 2015 and in the Lloyd case in 2016, one of the solutions proposed was the implementation of a notwithstanding clause. It would allow mandatory minimum sentences to be maintained for all firearms-related crimes, while allowing a judge to ignore the mandatory minimum sentence and opt for another type of sentence in certain circumstances, particularly humanitarian ones. This would enable us to achieve our goals of reducing overrepresentation and still ensure that exemplary sentences are imposed for serious crimes.
In conclusion, all the police directors in Quebec want to maintain mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences.
Thank you.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Mr. Brochet.
Next we will go to Catherine Latimer of the John Howard Society of Canada.
2:10 p.m.
Catherine Latimer Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Thank you very much, Chair and committee members. It's a great pleasure to be here before you to share The John Howard Society's views on Bill C-5.
For those of you who don't know about The John Howard Society, we are a not-for-profit that is committed to just, effective and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. We have about 60 offices across the country serving communities.
We fully support the policy objectives underpinning Bill C-5, but we feel that they have not gone far enough. I just want to take you through some of the ones that we specifically would like to raise.
One is the cautions, warnings and referrals to programs. It is often the case that it is more timely and more effective to deal with alleged criminal offences through cautions, warnings and referrals to community programs. It's not unusual for people to call the police when they see someone struggling with a mental health issue or an addiction issue in the hopes that by calling the police, they will enable the person to get the help they need.
In effect, that leads to the criminalization of the person and further involvement in the criminal justice system. It allows for the long-term discrimination of having a criminal record. These proposed amendments will allow for individuals with substance abuse issues to be referred to community programs where real assistance might be available.
These measures entrust the police with important discretion. As the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act show, they will lead to fewer people coming into the criminal justice system for less serious charges. To ensure that they are achieving the policy objectives of reducing racial inequalities in the use of such discretion, we think it would be important to track which races and genders are benefiting from this important discretion.
The next one that we like is conditional sentencing. We agree with Jonathan Rudin from the previous panel that this is essentially beginning to restore in some small measure what was there before and which had been proven to work very well. Conditional sentences are custodial sentences that are being served in the community. Unlike breaches of non-custodial sentences, a breach of these conditions leads to imprisonment. A warrant of committal to custody is underpinning the sentence, so if someone breaches the condition they can immediately be placed in custody. We feel that this is an excellent way to hold people accountable through the imposition of conditions that constrain liberties while promoting law-abiding circumstances such as the retention of employment, housing and community-based supports.
The two-year sentence limit for conditional sentences proposed by Bill C-5 seems unduly restrictive. Many people are supervised in the community successfully for more than two years while on parole. It seems to me that this certainly could be extended.
The restriction will also mean that the reform will have no impact on the federal prison population. To determine whether this most welcome reform has the impact of reducing racial inequalities, data would need to be collected on which rates—
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair. There is no more interpretation.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
I apologize for that. This is the first time we've had difficulties to this level.
Thank you, Monsieur Fortin, for identifying this quickly.
I will ask Ms. Latimer to resume 20 seconds back from where she left off, and then we'll go on for the next rounds. We'll probably have to extend a little bit of time to accommodate this.
2:25 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that there is still no interpretation.
Wait, I'm told that it has been restored.
Thank you very much.
2:25 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Thank you very much.
I was talking about the benefits of conditional sentencing and how the two-year limit that is proposed in Bill C-5 seems unduly restrictive.
The other thing I would suggest is that, if we're going to determine whether or not conditional sentences are having the effect of reducing racial inequalities in the system, it's also important that we collect and keep data on the use of these conditional sentences.
Mandatory minimum penalties are of grave concern to the John Howard Society of Canada. We're long-standing advocates opposed to mandatory minimum penalties, which we consider to be always unjust when the proportionate and fit sentence in the circumstances is less than the prescribed minimum penalty.
Certainly there is nothing in a reduction or an elimination of mandatory minimums that would preclude the courts from awarding the penalty that is appropriate and fit in the circumstances if it's more than the mandatory minimum, so eliminating mandatory minimums doesn't affect serious offences.
If there is a reluctance to remove all mandatory minimums immediately—and I take Mr. Brochet's point that his organization is comfortable with having what Jonathan Rudin described as a safety valve—we have long urged that there be some discretion added to give judges the opportunity to impose other than a prescribed mandatory minimum penalty if it's needed to achieve a fit and proportionate sentence. We would agree with l'Association des directeurs de police du Québec and others who you've heard who would urge that there be judicial discretion to allow for something other than the proposed mandatory minimum penalty.
We think that, without a measure of judicial discretion to impose a fit sentence where a mandatory minimum is prescribed, the Gladue provisions and some of the other mechanisms that are intended to allow for a cultural context to have an impact on the sentence will have little effect.
Minister Lametti indicates that he hopes these provisions will address and reduce systemic bias in the system. We hope he's right. We think that it is one small step toward looking at a very significant problem, and we think a lot more needs to be done.
In conclusion, the John Howard Society of Canada supports the general direction of Bill C-5 but urges the committee to amend the bill to provide judicial discretion to impose other than the mandatory penalty to achieve a fit and proportionate sentence, require the collection of data to assess whether the provisions are having the desired affect of reducing racial inequities, and consider a broader application of the diversion and conditional sentencing provisions.
Thank you very much, Chair.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Thank you, Ms. Latimer.
I'm going to use my chair's discretion and reduce times by a minute for the first round. Instead of six minutes, we'll go to five-minute rounds. In the second round, we'll go with four minutes instead of five minutes and, for the last one, we'll go for two minutes instead of two and a half minutes. Hopefully we'll be able to catch up on the time. If we need to, we may go over a few minutes. I'll get the consent of my members, but we'll see that closer to the time.
We'll go over to you, Mr. Morrison, for five minutes.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Morrison Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses on a Friday afternoon. I appreciate their input, especially on such an important bill, Bill C-5.
Ms. Durham, thank you for being here today. I know it's hard for an individual to come before a parliamentary committee and make a speech. I really appreciate your being here today.
What's important, I think, for us in the committee, is understanding the differences between rural and urban. When people haven't been exposed to some of the rural challenges, it's nice to hear from those who come from a smaller community, such as Cranbrook. I'm well aware of the issues Cranbrook is having: challenges with assaults, vandalism, break and enters, and arson. It almost seems as though it's a bit of a revolving door, with the local police having their hands tied in terms of being able to do any kind of incarceration. The same individuals are continually committing the same offences.
Two and a half years ago, Cranbrook was a community where people moved to raise their children, because it was safe, fun and, of course, in the middle of the Rocky Mountains, so it's a pretty beautiful place. Today, it's changed dramatically. The crime increase has been huge. The opioid crisis, like everywhere—a lot of places in Canada—is spinning out of control. Of course, the opioid overdoses are frequent, if not every day.
I do know, too—you might not be aware—that the city mayor and council brought in British Columbia's attorney general to address the fact that small communities are not designed to handle some of the issues that come along with the opioid crisis and violence, with their smaller police forces. I'm sure our Quebec police officer can attest to this. They just can't handle the challenges in smaller communities. The attorney general, of course, said it was a federal problem with Bill C-75, which is catch-and-release, and threw it back to the federal side.
You're not only an individual victim but also a business owner. Talking to a couple of businesses.... One problem is, when they get repetitive break and enters, the amount of damage done is so much that, now, where they used to donate $50,000, $60,000 or $80,000 to non-profit organizations, all that money is going into repairs and in trying to build back their losses.
I wonder if you could comment on that for a second.
2:35 p.m.
As an Individual
I totally agree with you. I think it's come to the point where we're spending our money on fixing our fences. Just yesterday, there were two incidents at our place: they cut our fence again and there was a fire. One of our tenants called me about that in the morning. Then, in the evening, I was down there and found a vehicle parked on our property. I called the police, but they wouldn't go with me, so there I was under one of my sheds, by myself, having to check whether somebody was on my lot and what they were doing there. The vehicle looks like it's somewhat abandoned. I understand the person is currently in hospital. It's another drug-related incident.
We're not even able to support our local food bank, right now. We just can't afford to anymore.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Morrison Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Just so you know, some of Bill C-5, which we're discussing right now, is looking at conditional sentences for many more offences: drug trafficking, assaults with weapons, and things like that.
I realize that Cranbrook needs some assistance, especially with rehab and the addiction issue.
Do you think the victims have been left behind, and that it's all about the offenders?
2:35 p.m.
As an Individual
I do for sure—100%, actually. I feel as if these businesses.... One of my tenants has two properties. They're getting $3,000 worth of theft on one property and a couple thousand on the other property. Our insurance claims are a lot higher than that. We're just taking a beating.
The police are overrun with this. In my opinion, they've done a good job, but there isn't enough of them. We're having to take this on ourselves. I've been warned very carefully, by the police and fire department, not to approach some of these people. They are dangerous. One guy is carrying a machete around Cranbrook.
There are other businesses with the same thing...broken into.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
May 13th, 2022 / 2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My questions will be for Ms. Latimer.
In your opinion, how do mandatory minimum sentences delay court trials, and how can we mitigate this type of delay?
2:35 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
There is little doubt that having mandatory minimums actually slows down the court process. There are enormous backlogs now because of COVID-19, so removing as many mandatary minimums as you can should ease some of the pressure on the court system.
The reason why it delays the court processes so much is that people don't want to plead out. They don't want to plead to something less, because the mandatory minimum is fixed there, and so they have a tendency to want to contest and plead not guilty, rather than go by route of some sort of arranged settlement for something less than what they are charged with, which is often the way it goes when there isn't a mandatory minimum.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
For those who don't pose a threat to public security, would you, instead of having them imprisoned, maybe recommend rehabilitation? If so, why, in your opinion, would that be good or bad?
2:35 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I think the evidence is fairly clear that a custodial penalty is damaging in terms of rehabilitation and reintegration. If you can hold someone appropriately accountable in the community, it is far better to do it that way, because they maintain their links with housing, with any kind of treatment that they are undergoing, and with employment. If you come out of prison, you generally come out in a poorer state of mental and physical health than when you went in, often without provincial health care coverage, so you have some significant challenges in terms of locating health care. Unemployment is a big problem, as well as being released into homelessness.
Generally, people who are having to discharge their measure of accountability behind bars are facing a lot more problems.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Okay.
Can you speak to conditional sentences? We heard from the Elizabeth Fry Society, and they spoke a little bit about that. In your opinion, do you think it is better to let somebody back into the community or just put them in jail and throw away the key?
2:40 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I think it is a thousand times better, if they are not a threat to public safety, to keep them in the community with a conditional sentence, which is a custodial penalty; so as soon as they violate one of the conditions, public safety is protected because of how quickly they can be placed behind bars. If they're in the community, it instructs them, guides them and coaches them towards more pro-social conduct. They can be facing curfews; they can be facing a great number of stringent conditions. If you can get them to adjust to that lifestyle, you are well on the way of supporting rehabilitation and more effective reintegration and greater community safety in the long run than if they had been in prison and released without the supports.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Mandatory minimum sentences are, as we know, a one-size-fits-all approach. In your opinion, how is this very harmful to those from the indigenous community, the Black community, or other marginalized communities? How can such sentences be harmful to them? Are there aggravating factors, or mitigating factors? Can you please explain?