Evidence of meeting #7 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offenders.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
I'm sorry, Madam Jennings. I don't mean to interrupt.
We are running into some time constraints. We have ministry folks here, and I know there are some folks who want to ask some more questions. So I'm asking that we lower our rounds down to about three and a half minutes so that those who have indicated an interest in asking a question get a chance to do that.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, would you be able to tell us the annual number of individuals convicted for the first time of a crime found on the list in part 27 of Bill C-2?
Secondly, do you know the annual number of people convicted for a second time?
Thirdly, do you know the annual number of people convicted for a third time?
If you have access to these figures, could you tell us the percentage of these individuals who belong to visible minorities, or who are members of a first nation, who are women or people with an intellectual or physical handicap? In brief, I am referring to the four groups contained in our charter.
Do you have these numbers? If not, do you know how the committee could obtain them? Up until now, it appears the government has been unable to provide us with this data.
10:10 a.m.
Emeritus Professor, School of Criminology, Montreal University, As an Individual
No, I do not have these figures. I do not believe that we have figures for the majority of the cases you ask for. We could get some figures about people who are in jail, given that correctional statistics are more complete, for instance, for categories such as women, men, aboriginal persons and visible minorities.
The Correctional Service could probably also provide figures on people who are jailed for the second or third time, but these statistics are generally not available. I even believe that these people should be studying their statistics.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
To your knowledge, is there somewhere in Canada a study that is currently underway, or has been completed in a criminology institute, or one that has been ordered by the Department of Justice or any other group, in a effort to obtain these figures?
10:10 a.m.
Emeritus Professor, School of Criminology, Montreal University, As an Individual
No. I think that these figures could be obtained from researchers at the Correctional Service of Canada because they are the ones who have the data bank on admissions. Their system is probably sophisticated enough to provide such figures. These researchers could do this because they are the ones who have the information.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Landreville, it's been clearly established, I think, that the intention of the dangerous offender legislation is to catch the worst of the worst criminals in our society who have been convicted, and to remove them so that they cannot be a threat to our society, to our families, to our children. It's been agreed that judges and crown prosecutors still will retain a tool of discretion that they can use to work within the provisions of this new legislation.
No one at this table would disagree with the fact that there's a disproportionate number of aboriginals in our penal system today. No one would disagree that there are some tremendous social problems that aboriginals can face from the time they're born until the time they grow into their teens and perhaps start getting into some problems. Those have to be fixed, and no one disagrees with that. We want to fix that.
I guess the point I want to make is that in this piece of the legislation, the dangerous offender, I would suggest that given the discretion of the judges and crown prosecutors, given the way the legislation is written, and given the intention of the legislation, the chance of this legislation being onerous because of one's culture, race, or background is in fact a lot slimmer than what some of the members opposite would suggest.
I also would suggest, Mr. Landreville, and I'd like to get your opinion on this, that when it comes to this legislation, Canadians who are concerned about the threats to their personal selves, to their families, and to their communities are concerned about the threats. Notwithstanding their cultural background, whether people are white, red, black, pink, or otherwise, if someone fits into the parameters that would cause a crown prosecutor to seek a dangerous offender designation against a person who meets all the qualifications and fits that description, Canadians care not about anything but to remove that person from society. Do you not think it's the obligation of the justice system and the obligation of the Criminal Code to provide that in order to protect our societies?
Could you respond to that, please.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
You have about 30 seconds for that, Mr. Landreville. We're trying to make sure....
We have two more speakers—I'm going to allow Madame Freeman and Mr. Keddy—and then we're going to have to move on.
10:15 a.m.
Emeritus Professor, School of Criminology, Montreal University, As an Individual
Unfortunately, I do not share your opinion with respect to this issue. Despite the fact that neither you nor anyone else in the justice administration system has any intention of targeting aboriginal people in a disproportionate manner, they are targeted, and I am personally convinced—and this is my opinion—that they will be even further targeted, given the probabilities, as I mentioned earlier.
Even though this is not the intention of this bill, it will have a disproportionate impact on them. It is perfectly fair to want to try to target dangerous offenders. You have this right and duty; however, what will happen in practice, unfortunately, is that they will—and here I am repeating myself—be discriminated against because they have a higher incarceration rate and they are sent to jail at a younger age, despite the discretionary power of the judges.
10:15 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Thank you, Mr. Landreville, for your presentation.
I would like to ask a question that follows up on Mr. Kramp's intervention. It is often claimed—indeed, the Conservative Party often claims—that violent crimes are on the rise. However, according to all these statistics that we have, it would appear that violent crimes, indeed crime in general, is really decreasing significantly. Given that all the proposed legislation is designed to tackle the increasing crime, I would like you to provide us with some clarification on the matter.
10:15 a.m.
Emeritus Professor, School of Criminology, Montreal University, As an Individual
I have here some statistics from Statistics Canada. In 1992, we had reached the highest rate of violent crime in Canada, namely, 1,084 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2006, this figure declined to 951 per 100,000 inhabitants, which represents a decrease of 12 %. During this period, the total number of criminal code offences declined by 27 %. Violent crime did not decrease at the same rate, but the rate it did nevertheless go down.
Murder has been, if I may use this expression, in a free fall since 1975. I have the figures here. Currently in Canada, the murder rate has gone down by 40 % since 1975. This rate has decreased in relatively constant fashion since that year, and it coincides with the abolition of capital punishment.
10:15 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
If I understand correctly, violent crime in Canada is declining. The government is saying that it wants to implement bills to tackle the increase in crime, but Statistics Canada is not telling us the same thing.
10:20 a.m.
Emeritus Professor, School of Criminology, Montreal University, As an Individual
Indeed. It would appear that the assumption is false.
10:20 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
All right.
This bill pertains primarily to repeat offenders, to offenders who are not necessarily dangerous. Could you tell us what type of repeat offender would be targeted by this bill should it be adopted?
10:20 a.m.
Emeritus Professor, School of Criminology, Montreal University, As an Individual
All of our previous experiences lead us to believe that a significant number of habitual offenders, which we sometimes refer to in criminology as chronic petty offenders, would be targeted by this act. Some dangerous offenders targeted by the act would certainly be offenders that eventually would perpetrate violent crimes, but the majority of the offenders, because of the fact that they are over the age of 40, would not represent a serious threat to others.
10:20 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
So the bill will not target dangerous offenders directly, the people that we really want to target?
10:20 a.m.
Emeritus Professor, School of Criminology, Montreal University, As an Individual
It would target these people, but it would not have an impact on them.
10:20 a.m.
Bloc
10:20 a.m.
Emeritus Professor, School of Criminology, Montreal University, As an Individual
This is what previous research demonstrates.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our witness.
It's been an interesting discussion here, in particular the discussion around the dangerous offender. You're basically saying the net would be cast too wide, and we're going to catch some chronic petty offenders.
The general public out there who are listening or watching or who will read this at some time need to know who is actually being targeted here as the dangerous offender. I don't see these individuals who have committed not one, not two, but three violent crimes, including those that involve the use of explosives, intimidation with firearms in the commission of an offence, sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, a parent or guardian procuring sexual activity, child pornography, a householder permitting the sexual exploitation of a child, luring a child, violent crime, sexual assault, living off the avails of prostitution, and unlawfully causing bodily harm.... These are not petty crimes. These are very serious, very violent, very heinous crimes.
I can't help but take note of your comment that violent crime is going down. Does that mean that we as a society and as people, we in the House of Commons who are trying to enact legislation for Canada, should do nothing or that we should be satisfied with mediocrity or that we should suddenly say that if we can do something to prevent violent crime...? We're not talking about petty criminals here, quite frankly. I disagree. We're talking about serious violent offenders.
To compare this to “three strikes and you're out” in California is a disservice to this piece of legislation, because it doesn't even resemble it. In California you can be put in prison for jaywalking, quite frankly, which is too far, and it's ridiculous. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about trying to protect the general public from serious violent crime.
I'm not saying the legislation is perfect, but surely we shouldn't settle for mediocrity.
If I have time here—