Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

On the difference between Ontario and Quebec, obviously we have a population difference, but the crime rates are roughly similar. It's a little bit lower in Quebec across the whole line, but it's roughly similar. Are the applications for dangerous offender designations—not the findings, but the applications—also significantly higher in Ontario than they are in Quebec?

[Pierre Landreville]

I believe so, but I could not give you exact statistics off the top of my head. I know that we have statistics for long-term supervision orders, and that Quebec has roughly the same percentage of offenders under these orders as Ontario. Ontario has 40% of all the dangerous offenders and 25% of offenders under long-term supervision orders, while Quebec has 9% of the dangerous offenders and 26% of offenders under long-term supervision orders. This indicates that different decisions are made within the system itself.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Do you think that the difference between Ontario and Quebec can be attributed to their respective judges?

[Pierre Landreville]

In fact, I think that the biggest difference is between the prosecutors. The applications are where the greatest difference...

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Is it because the Ontario prosecutors are better, or it because they have adopted a more offensive approach?

[Pierre Landreville]

That is a matter of opinion. It depends greatly on the policy preference of the attorney general. There are times when governments want to be harsher on crime and times when they wish to adopt a less hard-line approach. As a general rule, and in many regards, sentences and criminal sanctions are harsher in Ontario than in Quebec.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Is there any way of knowing if the cost of doing the application for the dangerous offender is driving the number that we see in Ontario versus the number that we see in Quebec?

[Pierre Landreville]

I'm afraid I do not know.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That's all, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Kramp is next.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Professor Landreville.

I'm having a little difficulty with the fact that you're equating the legislation proposed with the California three-strike law. You've mentioned, as an example, that they have incarcerations down there of perhaps 40,000 people under this legislation in California, yet we have witnesses testifying at this committee and other justice committees that what we're talking about here is a very select few people. It's perhaps as low as one, two, three, four, or five; perhaps, it's been registered, there may be a possibility of up to 50 in this country, so we are talking about a very select few people with very heinous and serious indictable crimes, crimes against persons.

With the California three-strike law, do you have the percentage of crimes that would be crimes against property versus crimes against persons in the California law?

[Pierre Landreville]

I have a breakdown of the percentage of crimes against property versus crimes against persons somewhere around here, and I can say that...

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

A guesstimate would be fine. I'm not looking for actual statistics.

[Pierre Landreville]

Around half of the offenders sentenced after two strikes, and a slightly lower percentage of those sentenced after three strikes, were found guilty of property crimes on their second or third conviction.

I believe you said that some witnesses have told you that this bill is to deal with some 50 offenders. Did I understand you correctly?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

That's correct.

[Pierre Landreville]

Good. If, in an ideal world, the legislation was used to target offenders who have committed very serious offences and who constitute a real threat to the public, then I imagine that we would come up with a roughly similar figure. However, that is not the way that the bill has been drafted.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

My understanding is that the legislation is designed that way. These are serious crimes against a person. These primary offences are designated as such. We're not talking about one conviction. We're not talking about a second conviction. We're talking about a third conviction. And these are for rape, robbery, murder, manslaughter, and so on.

Now, every one of these convictions, of course, involves victims, and your experience, I expect, would also lead you to believe that there will be multiple victims. So do you not think that we have an obligation to society as well, to provide some balance there?

[Pierre Landreville]

You are right in saying that the legislators must provide tools to protect society; however, if I am correct in my understanding of your bill, there is a fairly long list of offences including, for example, burglary and assault which can... It is just like the habitual criminal act. Parliament wanted to target dangerous repeat offenders, but in reality, the legislation it adopted targeted chronic petty offenders. There is a difference between targeting chronic petty offenders and the stated intent of the bill, in other words targeting some 50 dangerous repeat offenders. In my opinion, dangerous repeat offenders can be adequately dealt with under the current dangerous offenders legislation, especially with the reversal of the burden of proof mechanisms. Looking at the list, I think you run the risk of repeating past mistakes: instead of targeting dangerous offenders as intended, the bill will primarily affect chronic petty offenders.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I just have a couple of other quick questions.

One point was disturbing to me a little bit, and perhaps I could be in error on this. You said that when individuals, of course, reach the age of 40, they're maybe not deemed to be a threat anymore relative to their previous years. Well, does not the fact that there was just another conviction registered allay that theory? Does that not suggest that they obviously haven't learned and they've just had another conviction registered? Does that not possibly suggest that the threat of recidivism is still highly prominent, regardless of their accelerated age?

[Pierre Landreville]

I think it is important to distinguish between people who are likely to commit serious crimes against persons and who constitute a real danger to society, and people who will commit further offences—including some of those on your list—but who do not pose a serious threat to the public. All of the evidence indicates that violent crime is less prevalent amongst those aged over 35 or 40. Furthermore, even if they are still numerous, there are far fewer people over 40 being sent to prison than there are 20-year-olds. In my opinion, only a small percentage of offenders convicted for a third time will go on to commit serious crimes against persons.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Okay, thank you.

We've heard from various witnesses—expert witnesses in their own fields--at this committee and at other committees in the justice field who have commented on, of course, this relatively recent phenomenon of guns, gangs, and drugs. You've stated that in reality there's a decrease in the rate of violent crime, and yet these witnesses have testified that it's quite the opposite. They've suggested that as of late there has been a rather dramatic increase in the rate of violent crime, particularly associated with this triple phenomenon.

Would you agree with that assessment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Give a very short response, Mr. Landreville, a very short response.

[Pierre Landreville]

Perhaps we could qualify that. Violent crimes have been decreasing consistently in Canada since 1991. It is possible that some gang-related violent crimes are on the increase, but generally speaking, violent crime has decreased noticeably in Canada since 1991. It is not increasing. I am talking about statistics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you, Mr. Landreville.

Madam Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.