Evidence of meeting #16 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was see.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Wade Chang Liberal Burnaby Central, BC
Dr. Sundberg, thank you for your service.
Just last week, every first minister in Canada, including Conservative premiers, released a joint statement calling on Parliament to move forward on bail and sentencing reform to better protect Canadians and strengthen our public safety. Given that level of unanimous federal and provincial agreement, do you accept that Bill C-14 represents a necessary and broadly supported step in responding to the concerns that provinces and communities have raised?
Professor, Mount Royal University, As an Individual
I do. The fact that we're having this meeting today and that Bill C-9 was put to the side so that this very important bill, Bill C-14, could be addressed is a testament to the members of this committee and those across the board...looking at issues. Are we achieving what everybody wants? Perhaps not, but at least there's some movement forward. It shows Canadians that there is an urgency and that their voices have been heard, and in my view, Canadians believe their voices are being heard. When we see co-operation across parties at the federal level and across provincial governments in achieving a resolution, I think it is a very positive move.
Part of what we're doing and what we're talking about with Bill C-14 is truly about rebuilding trust and credibility in our system, and this is an important first step, so I think it's positive. I see it as a positive move and we need more of it.
Liberal
Wade Chang Liberal Burnaby Central, BC
I'll go to my second question.
The joint statement was clear that governments at all levels expect action, not delays, on bail and sentencing. Do you agree that targeted reforms like those in Bill C-14, with a focus on repeat and violent offending while respecting core justice principles, are the kinds of responsible actions that first ministers are calling for Parliament to deliver now, and why?
Professor, Mount Royal University, As an Individual
I do. I think Mr. Baber brought up a good point with regard to sentencing. Bill C-14 is very much about bail, not so much about sentencing. Nevertheless, one it's step at a time, and it's very positive to see that there's earnest, and for some probably uncomfortable, discussion about moving forward so that we can find a balance between an individual's rights and the incredible importance of ensuring safer communities and protecting Canadians from violence, harm and organized crime.
We need to do more and we need to do better. I see a positive move forward, frankly.
Liberal
Wade Chang Liberal Burnaby Central, BC
Dr. Sundberg, when this committee started on bail and sentencing in the fall of last year, Conservatives invited Mr. Ari Goldkind, a very senior and experienced criminal lawyer from Toronto. Mr. Goldkind told this committee that the principle of restraint is “a very good thing” and that Canada should be very proud of how it treats even the worst among us.
Given that the principle of restraint does not require judges to release an accused and has never meant mandatory release, do you agree with Mr. Goldkind that restraint has an important place in our justice system, even as we take steps to better protect communities from repeat and violent offenders?
Professor, Mount Royal University, As an Individual
When we see discretion and how, in different jurisdictions and courts, matters are applied, there is a concerning level of inconsistency. Nevertheless, the fact that this bill is tabled and being seriously considered by all indicates that everyone recognizes we have to do better. I think we have perhaps been too liberal in our approach, and moving forward, we need to rein in some aspects of our Criminal Code.
What we're speaking about with the reverse onus is very important, but it's also important to keep in mind, and Canadians should know, that a large percentage of those who sit in our various correctional facilities across this country are there awaiting trial. The concern comes when we have omnibus sentencing. A lot of the charges that would otherwise be put on the record are dealt with separately or brought in, and that can cause some confusion for Canadians.
Really, this should be about assuring Canadians that their public safety and security are being seriously considered. I can see how some of the inconsistency would lead a number of Canadians to feel otherwise.
Liberal
Wade Chang Liberal Burnaby Central, BC
My final question to you is, would you urge all parties to pass Bill C-14 as soon as possible?
Professor, Mount Royal University, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely I would, and I'm glad to see that it seems there is a shared urgency to put this forward. I think that's commendable. As a Canadian, I thank you for it. As a voter, I'm glad that's happening.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sundberg, thank you for being here.
Mr. Copeland and Mr. Murias, thank you for being with us.
Mr. Murias, at the end of your testimony, you mentioned a few things rather quickly. What programs should be included in the act instead of being dependent on provincial funding? You mentioned custody during weekends, for example.
Can you elaborate on that?
Criminal Lawyer, Ameur and Múrias INC, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
That's what we call intermittent custody, meaning that the sentence is served on weekends. It's well known, and it exists for adults. It's a sentence provided for in the Criminal Code. It works for certain offenders with a specific criminal profile.
It also exists for young offenders. It's provided for in paragraph 42(2)(m) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, except that a provision states that the provincial director approves it with credits. This measure existed until 2013‑14, particularly in Montreal, and it was an exceptionally effective measure. For a young person who was at the beginning of their criminal career but had already committed major offences, people hesitated between two options: strict probation or secure custody with other offenders who would lead the young person to more delinquency. There was also this program with special units where the young person would go only on weekends. Depriving a teenager of their weekend does the job: the recidivism rate was among the lowest for custodial sentences. However, it's expensive, and it requires units and educators. Given this, the program was cancelled because of a decrease in crime. In 2012, 2013 and 2014, youth delinquency was at its lowest, so it was decided that the program wasn't really needed anymore, and those resources were cut. There's now a rise in delinquency, but the program still hasn't been reactivated.
Paragraph 42(2)(l) is another example of an intensive rehabilitation program that should be reactivated. It hasn't been reactivated, for the same reasons. Funds were cut when there was a decrease in delinquency, but those programs have never been reactivated, even though they're needed now.
This shows to what extent this provision, which makes it possible to reduce funds and sentences on a discretionary basis, was a bad decision in hindsight. I think this is a good opportunity to correct that and bring back the obligation for the provinces to offer intermittent custody sentences. That's what I was referring to.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
You also said that we should take this opportunity to change the definition of a violent offence to include gun crimes. I'd like to hear more about that. What impact would that have? Why should gun crimes be included? Is it to increase sentences or reduce them? I'd like to hear more about that.
Criminal Lawyer, Ameur and Múrias INC, As an Individual
It's important to understand that the youth criminal justice system is based on the principle that in order to take away someone's freedom, the crime must fit one of the scenarios described in section 39. One of them has to do with the definition of a violent offence. Oddly enough, according to definition, someone who commits a simple assault, such as a slap in the face, can be taken into custody. However, someone found in possession of a loaded handgun with a bullet in the chamber is not automatically taken into custody. Exceptional circumstances have to be considered, which leads to a very complex legal issue that I won't get into. Having to demonstrate that there are exceptional factors at play is not a good thing. Crimes involving the possession of firearms should be included. I gave a list of examples, and I think they're the most relevant and cover a minimum—
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Murias, but there's not much time left in my turn, and I want to make sure I understand.
What would be the impact of including gun crimes or possession of a firearm in the definition of a violent offence? What would that do? Would the sentences be harsher? Would people be treated differently? What would be the impact?
Criminal Lawyer, Ameur and Múrias INC, As an Individual
In the case of possession of a firearm, it would allow for someone to be detained, even if it means the court would adjust the detention period without going through a long and complex procedure. That's what needs to be done. It's an aberration that the act doesn't already provide for that. As a defence attorney, I believe this is a loophole that must be corrected. The fact that the act doesn't provide for someone to be detained in such a situation is not right.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Murias.
Professor Sundberg, I found your statement interesting, as always. Indeed, this isn't your first appearance before the committee.
There's an underlying question to all of that—and I'd like to hear your thoughts on it—which is: What is the impact of minimum sentences on the crime rate?
It is often said that, before committing a crime, a criminal doesn't read the Criminal Code to find out whether the penalty is one year, two years, five years or 20 years in prison. I'd like to hear you on that. Minimum sentences can be added or removed. What impact does that have on the crime rate?
Professor, Mount Royal University, As an Individual
I apologize that I can't respond in French.
It's interesting. The research is quite sound that deterrence works because people are scared of getting caught. If sentencing were the solution.... On the extreme side, in the state of Texas, where they have the death penalty, there's quite a swift, certain and significant outcome. We would see no homicide if it were, in fact, the issue of the outcome or the sentence. To that end, though, the fear of apprehension—of being caught—and then facing consequences is the point that research shows ensures people experience general deterrence. On specific deterrence, however, when we think of an individual, the sentence does play a role, as does their experience throughout the process.
If it's protracted—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Mr. Fortin, I'm sorry. We have to stop.
We're going a bit past one, but we'll get the entire second round in. We'll do five-minute rounds, starting with Mr. Gill.
Conservative
Amarjeet Gill Conservative Brampton West, ON
Good afternoon.
Thanks to all the witnesses.
My question is for Mr. Copeland.
Extortion is a rising crisis at all levels, including in my city of Brampton. Residents and business owners are scared. We know that most of these crimes are being committed by repeat violent offenders. Do you think this bill has the proper penalties to stop the extortion crime wave that my community is experiencing?
Deputy Director, Domestic Policy, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Ultimately, I would repeat what I stated earlier: that the bill's focus remains too narrowly on bail and that we need to revisit it and modify sentencing provisions. I would like to see greater consideration for guidelines rather than principles and purposes. Now, this is a major undertaking, but it has been recommended before and was not adopted. This would remove some judicial discretion.
Another way of doing it is by ensuring that deterrence and public safety principles are given priority, among the other priorities and purposes that can be looked at in the Criminal Code, for a much larger range of offences. That would go some way to improving sentencing.