Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 1st, 2007

[John Muise]

Did you want me to answer that, Mr. Comartin?

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

No, I didn't. That was my comment. I get to make comments. If you're going to tell us to do things in terms of understanding statistics--and I do--I suggest you should probably understand them better than you do at this point.

Professor Doob, regarding the 40% figure for people being out and then committing a subsequent crime--and Mr. Muise used the figure, not surprisingly--you're playing that down, at least both in your text and your verbal presentation today, and I'm not sure why. Why should we not be concerned? Is that figure just not accurate?

You used the words “it wasn't relevant”, but I didn't understand that, so could you explain your position on that?

[Dr. Anthony Doob]

My position is very simple, which is that the category of 40% of people who commit offences with firearms is a large one. Those are people on probation, people on parole, people on some form of release, people on some form of warrant. What we're talking about today is bail, and the question is what proportion of those are on bail.

The second issue is--

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

We don't know that?

[Dr. Anthony Doob]

Well, it's not my study. I've only seen the citations of it, and I don't believe it's a published study, so I don't have access to it.

The second problem we're talking about is how many of those people were not just on bail, but also on bail for firearms offences. So I think we have to be careful about who is the target of this, in terms of public safety. It's people who are charged with a firearms offence, who are going to go to a bail court, who are going to be detained, and who would have been released were it not for this bill—that is, who would be detained because of Bill C-35—but then commit another offence. So you're talking about a minuscule potential impact, because you're talking about this group.

My starting point from the Ontario data I'm aware of is that these folks are going to get detained. So when you change it by reversing the onus.... In reality, the onus is already reversed, as the previous witness has already told you. So you're talking about a minuscule number of people who might now be detained, but otherwise would have been released. Now you're saying, what proportion of that tiny number would commit another offence? This isn't public safety.

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

I accept that.

Are there any other similar results from this practice by courts, shown in your graph on the increased rate of women being incarcerated pending trial or disposition of the charges, for visible minorities, first nations, aboriginals or Métis? Have you seen anything in that regard?

[Dr. Anthony Doob]

I think I used the word “impoverished” when talking about statistics in this country in many ways. This is another area. I'm only able to get these data for Ontario. We don't even have these data for women. You would think it would be relatively easy.

I have been looking at this issue in another context recently, and the difficulty is that there are shifting definitions. We don't have clear definitions of what other groups are. I don't really want to defend the statistical agency in this case, but the circumstances are such that measuring who is an aboriginal person, for example, is not easy over time. In its population data, Statistics Canada reported that the number of aboriginal people increased by 106% between 1981 and 1991. That's largely because people were willing to identify themselves as aboriginal in 1991, and weren't willing to do so in 1981. We have no information about how aboriginal status is collected in prisons.

So the simple answer is that this is an area where I have sympathy for the statistical agency not having data, though there are other areas where I think they should have data, but don't.

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

Have you had any contact with the agency? They are undertaking to gather more statistics—whether meaningful or not, I'm not sure—over the next year or year and a half. Have you had any contact with them as to how they design that statistical gathering?

[Dr. Anthony Doob]

I looked quickly at the evidence from when they were here a few days ago. I believe they were talking in terms of court statistics. The difficulty with court statistics at the moment is that we're already two years behind. They promised to release the 2004-05 court statistics in the third quarter of this fiscal year. They've never released the 2003-04 statistics. This is true for youth and adults. So in terms of our ability to get detailed information, we're way behind.

In addition, the level of detail they typically release—at least to people like me—is such that it's very difficult to use it to inform policy such as this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you.

Mr. Moore, please.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you to both of you.

One of the things we heard overwhelmingly from witnesses before—and I heard it from you today, Mr. Muise—including the chiefs of police.... And I think we did hear, Professor Doob, that this could be affecting a relatively small number of people.

What we've heard overwhelmingly as a committee is that a relatively small number of people are the problem, when they're out on the street. We heard testimony that when you take this small number of serious repeat offenders off the street—the people who are committing offences with a firearm, such as the serious ones Bill C-35 addresses—in some communities crime rates can dramatically fall from very high rates.

So I'm wondering, Mr. Muise, if you can comment on that, in your experience, because it's certainly something we've heard time and time again. Also, I think you wanted to make some comment on a question from Mr. Comartin, so I'll allow you time for that.

Could both of you keep your remarks brief, as I do have a couple of other questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Be very brief, because we have three minutes left.

[John Muise]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Moore.

On the first count, yes, incapacitation.... Ultimately, the reason for withholding somebody's bail is about ensuring an appearance in court and making sure that if they're a threat, they're not going to engage in further crimes when they're out on bail. But there is no question that overall, if you incapacitate the worst offenders who commit a disproportionately large number of serious violent crimes, at the end of the day, if it's firing on all cylinders, it's going to work. Crime will go down.

As for the statistics, we're not in a position to get into a debate here. I am aware of the difference in collecting over the years. Subject to some more robust information coming forward from experts in the field, I think that particular graph of the violent crime is reasonably reflective of the course of the violent crime rate in this country between 1962 and the present.

I'll leave it at that for now, and thank you for allowing me--

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

We've heard also time and time again that it's difficult to get the statistics. Likewise, we've heard just as often that it is always a relatively very small percentage of our entire population in Canada that is actually the problem, and if you focus on those very few, you can make a real difference in communities.

Professor Doob, I agree with one of the things you said. We should be doing something whether crime is up or crime is down. If we have a crime problem, we should be acting. I agree with that 100%.

You mentioned the higher remand rates versus sentence. Do you see that as somewhat due to delays in getting to trial? Have you examined and compared these rates with various jurisdictions, where someone is able to get to trial sooner or later, depending on the jurisdiction?

[Dr. Anthony Doob]

Yes, your point is a good one, which is that part of this does have to do with delay.

What we seem to see in more detailed things in Ontario is that there are two problems. One is that the bail hearings themselves are taking longer, and instead of people taking a day or two for the bail hearing, they are actually taking a substantial amount longer. In addition, they're being held for long periods of time. But it also appears that there are more people being held for longer periods of time. So it's all three possibilities.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Okay.

And Mr. Muise, you've seen what this bill focuses on. We've seen where reverse onus has been used in the past. It's used currently. It's been upheld on a couple of occasions, even by our highest court, as being constitutional, particularly when it's in such a focused manner as in this legislation. Some of the eight serious offences--dealing with a firearm, attempted murder, robbery, kidnapping....

Can you comment a bit on how you feel a focused bill such as this one will have an impact on some of these cases?

[John Muise]

Well, I think some thought went into it. Obviously when they wrote this, people looked at the case law of Morales and Pearson, and they looked at the charter, because it would be hard to imagine a more targeted set of offences that lay waste to a community than firearm crimes in urban areas in the hands of people who shouldn't possess those firearms.

I'm with the previous speaker on this--and I don't want to diminish it--but more so than the local pot dealer. It intuitively makes sense that we want to target people who possess firearms and use firearms in the commission of serious crimes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you very much to both witnesses, Mr. Muise and Professor Doob.

I want to remind our colleagues that we have an appointment this afternoon at three-thirty, in room 308, West Block. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.