Public Safety Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think what's unfortunate about this debate is that there is in fact a lot of consensus around the table. The victims who have spoken have talked about the need to not make these provisions available to the people who did crimes to them. I haven't heard anybody around the table disagree with that.

I've heard this now many times. It was actually raised in the House. When we're discussing first-time, non-violent offenders.... We've already agreed that large-scale fraudsters shouldn't be included. We have things such as rape of children coming up. There was a suggestion by one Conservative member that there were members of the House who supported organizations that support not doing anything to somebody who rapes a child. This debases not only the debate but the entire House.

We've heard a number of I think constructive ideas around the table. My concern is that when we use the most extreme examples and hold them out to make broad policies that make sweeping changes, not just for the extreme examples but for all of those other individuals, there are cascading consequences that are devastating.

We have to respond to the needs of every victim, and we have to do it in an intelligent, smart way. I have deep sympathy for the people at the table and what they went through. Yes, of course, we have to respond to that, but it has to be more than just incarceration. What we do has to be more than playing games or politics with the experiences you went through. We have to be able to deliver honest solutions that will actually make communities safer.

If I could go to Madam Pate on that point, can you talk to us about some of the things we could do? Maybe we could find common ground here in a constructive way, rather than engaging in name calling or in painting extremes.

[Kim Pate]

Thank you, Mr. Holland.

I appreciated the commentary, because Ms. Naltchayan talked about the victims. It may be a surprise to the committee members that in fact some of the Earl Jones victims are people who have obtained services and we have supported them through this process. They're individuals who have expressed very clearly the need for social justice reforms of the sort that our organization stands for. The notion is not lost on me that victims may feel as if they've been raped, when just yesterday we had demonstrations again across the country about the missing and murdered aboriginal women who don't obtain justice.

The issue of having resources in place for people before they're victimized and for people after they're victimized is a huge issue for our organization, and it's something that I think all of the organizations here have worked very hard to achieve. One of the things we do by putting more and more money into jailing more and more people—not just targeting the individuals we want to prevent from going on to commit more crime—is that we end up sucking the resources out of the community that allow us to support people who have been victimized, to prevent people from being victimized, and to support people who have paid their debt to society to reintegrate in a way that causes us to have a safer community overall.

So putting more and more resources into imprisonment is not making us safer. There's abundant evidence of that. Otherwise, the United States would not be retreating from its position.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I have a question for Mr. McIsaac.

But beforehand, quickly, just for the edification of the committee, Madam Berzins, can you just tell us the churches you're representing here?

[Lorraine Berzins]

There are 11 sponsoring denominations, founding denominations from 39 years ago: the Anglican Church of Canada; the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec; the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops; the Christian Reformed Church in North America; the Disciples of Christ in Canada; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada; the Mennonite Central Committee, Canada; the Presbyterian Church in Canada; the Religious Society of Friends, the Quakers; the Salvation Army in Canada; and the United Church of Canada. All of those churches designate representatives to sit on our board of directors and have done so for 39 years, and they choose people who are particularly knowledgeable and experienced in criminal justice issues in terms of their experience with victims, offenders, and the communities they live in.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that. I think that's important for the committee to know.

Mr. McIsaac, quickly, can you talk to me about the implications of this bill perhaps for the National Parole Board? The accelerated parole review has been effective at reducing overcrowding and dealing with some of the backlog. Do you have any impact you want to be able to give on that?

Secondly, do you have any input on the issue of rehabilitation, from your experience working on the front lines as you have for so many years in trying to deal with rehabilitation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Actually, your time is up now.

We'll move back to Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I notice that you let certain witnesses go on far longer after the time has expired and others you seem to cut off right at the five-minute mark. I would just ask for a little fairness here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

What I've been trying to do is this. If I give the warning, and I didn't always give the warning.... I haven't been cutting off the witnesses, but I will cut off the members who have five minutes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Chair, the question was asked and the witness was not allowed to answer. I noticed other witnesses can go on for up to two minutes after.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I did take “30 seconds” to mean, “ask your question in 30 seconds”, Mr. Chair. Had I known that, I wouldn't have...because I did want a response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yeah, right.

I'll give you 30 seconds. Go ahead, Mr. McIsaac.

[Ed McIsaac]

Thank you for the time.

The impact of overcrowding in the institutions, and an increase in the overcrowding, is going to limit access to the programs that are currently being run that assist with the rehabilitation. It will slow down individuals appearing before the National Parole Board, which in turn will add to the overcrowding because there will be a delay in release.

The other point that needs to be kept in mind is that the more time the individuals spend in the institution is in fact the less time they are going to be spending under supervision in the community. I think we are best served through the reintegration of offenders into our community in a timely fashion.

Thank you for the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. McIsaac.

We'll now move to Mr. Lobb.

Mr. Lobb, you have five minutes, and that includes questions and answers.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Is everything fair? Have you got everything evened up here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Well, I gave Mr. Davies a lot more time than I should have.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you. You can cut me off whenever you like.

Madam Lanctôt, I have a question for you. In your commentary you mentioned two non-violent offenders where accelerated parole had worked. I believe that's what you mentioned. One of them, you mentioned, was a drug mule who had been transferred back to Canada. The second was somebody who had fallen on hard times and decided to have a grow operation in the house. Am I correct?

[Jacinthe Lanctôt]

Yes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

For those who are at home or who have time to read this, a few members of the opposition here are saying that we're just looking at two people here, that we're just looking at Lacroix and Jones. But in fact we have someone who has been convicted of being a drug mule and somebody who's been convicted of a drug operation. These are not people who got arrested for jaywalking. These are serious crimes, in my opinion. I don't know anybody who has been a drug mule. These are serious crimes. I think it demeans our debate tonight to say that it's just a couple of people and this has worked well. I thought we should get that on the record.

My next question is for Mr. Gravel. Feel free to answer in French.

In terms of the people who were defrauded, people like you and others you know who were defrauded, what would their thoughts be to the argument that I heard tonight from some people that it just costs too much to keep these people in prison? What would the people who have been defrauded for millions and millions of dollars, who have seen their life's work vaporize, their scraping and saving, their savings for their children's educations and their retirement dreams vaporize? What would those people here who you know say? The argument on the other side is that it costs too much money, that it would cost too much money to house these crooks.

[Pierre Gravel]

Unfortunately, people too often forget what the victims are going through. In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there are 19 sections that deal with offenders, and only one that deals with the victims of these offenders. As for the argument that these people will be missing something, I am not at all familiar with the system, but I can tell you that people like me, who were unwittingly plunged into this type of situation, would certainly not want to hear that kind of argument.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I'm not a lawyer; I'm not a police officer. I'm just a regular guy who had a regular job, probably just like you. The other thing I find just stunningly amazing is the argument that we have to get right at rehabilitating these crooks. In my mind, he's a crook. That's his only weakness. He's a crook and he was greedy. What kind of rehabilitation do you think a crook should have? Keep in mind, he has no alcohol addiction and no drug addiction. What kind of rehabilitation does a crook need besides serving time and paying back whatever he owes?

[Pierre Gravel]

It's very tough for me to answer that because I don't know how they think. This guy has maybe $9 million to $11 million stacked somewhere in some countries that accept that. I'm sure that whenever he has the opportunity, he's going to get out of Canada and live with our money.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I think you're right.

Madam Naltchayan, what kind of rehabilitation do you think a crook should have?

[Jackie Naltchayan]

I think these individuals are born manipulators and that they cannot be rehabilitated. They are well acquainted with the system. When we launched civil proceedings against this gentleman, he asked for legal aid. I paid to be represented by lawyers, but he was represented free of charge, because he had access to legal aid. Now he is facing criminal prosecution and he has the best criminal lawyers there to protect him.

These people are manipulators and there is no way of rehabilitating them. They know perfectly well what they're doing and where they're going.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lobb.

We'll now move to Madame Mendes and then to Madame Mourani.