Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 15th, 2007

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

Exactly.

Now, the point he did make, however, was given that the government has been marketing this bill as part of its law and order agenda in that it is going to make communities safer, he ended his presentation by saying to members of this committee--and he used the word “you”, so I think it goes beyond this committee--anybody who supports this bill, please do not use the argument that, if adopted, it will make Canadians and their communities safer. It will have a neutral effect.

My question to you is this. The Liberals supported fast-tracking this bill, etc., precisely because our research has shown that the reality is that you don't get out on bail. However, we're in support of your bill, so would you want me to table something that--

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Madam Jennings, please, your question.

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

So my question to you is, with the statistics that you have brought us, which show that criminal acts committed with knives and with other instruments, including blunt instruments—whatever the heck that is, a baseball bat I guess—

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

Anything blunt.

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

—appear to be much more of a problem than criminal acts committed with firearms, are you suggesting or recommending to the government to amend its bill to cover not just criminal acts in which the use of a firearm is present, but any criminal act where you have use of a weapon, whether it be a knife, or a blunt instrument, or whatever? Would that be a recommendation that you're prepared to make to this government?

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

I would encourage this government to consider either amending, or introducing another bill at a later time to do just that.

If I remember what Professor Doob said, it was usually the case that attorneys were not releasing the people this bill would cover.

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

Not attorneys, judges.

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

There would be a marginal improvement if it became mandatory, as opposed to no improvement. So it would be a small step in the right direction.

Legislation, beyond being immediately effective, also sets a goal for the police and courts. I think that by putting their stamp on it that one should be tougher on serious criminals, this will do more than merely ensure that 200 or 300 more people are not allowed out to murder, rape, or kill. And 200 or 300 who are not out is clearly an advantage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you, Mr. Mauser.

We'll go to Mr. Thompson.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay. Thanks.

Once again, I believe the information that you supplied in these tables is useful. I agree that maybe it doesn't apply directly to Bill C-35 , which we're talking about, but I think these are things we need to know.

Also, it suggests that the costs revolving around a victim are difficult to measure in dollars and cents. I've seen what the results of a tragedy in violent crime can do to victims, and it doesn't amount in pennies and dollars; it amounts in a long-term tragic situation.

One witness said that if you commit a crime with a gun, the practice is that you won't get out on bail. But I have talked to police officers personally, and they know of several who have been released on bail. They know of them, and I happen to know of some. So if you talk to the people who make the arrests, they know pretty well what goes on in these things. Yes, it is happening, and so I think the legislation is necessary.

I also have a private member's bill to include all violent crimes, not just guns. I want knives and everything to be included. I've also been told there would be a fairly good chance that the bill would not pass the charter test. I find it very amazing to be told that, but I have been told that.

But what I want to point out is, once again, the one statistic we have is that a person has committed a violent crime with a gun. That person is under arrest and in jail. He has shown that he's capable of doing that very crime. You don't take a chance. You simply don't take a chance. It's just like a dog; if he bites, you leash him up. You don't take a chance that he'll bite again, because he might. He might not, but you don't take the chance.

I'm just wondering if you agree that this would simply be a statistic that indicates, yes, you've been arrested and charged with committing this crime, you've done it once, and that's enough for me. I know some of my colleagues over there would think that's ridiculous, but I'm sorry, once is good enough for me. That person won't get another gun if I can help it.

I wonder if you agree with that scenario.

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

I definitely agree that we should consider it. I would encourage legislators to consider seriously the cost that average citizens pay, and I agree with you that it is not adequately considered.

When prisoners, particularly violent prisoners, are let out, they are highly likely to commit more crimes. These crimes hurt. These crimes have high costs, as I've tried to show in tables 5 and 6.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Mauser, there is something that I would like you to explain to me. First, the statistics in your brief only relate to crimes that come under the jurisdiction of the National Parole Board, which means that would only involve time served in a penitentiary. Is that correct?

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

That's correct.

Table 3 and table 4.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes, tables 3 and 4 only deal with individuals who have been sentenced to serve their time in a penitentiary. That is the way I understand it.

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

Table 3 looks only at statutory release, that is to say, the prisoners who were let loose on the legal agreement to terminate their sentence short of their full sentence. That's what a statutory release is, as I understand it.

Is that your question?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Yes.

If I understand table 3, 58% of those who are released serve out their conditional release without any problem.

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

That's right.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Then, 10% of them are subject to a revocation for a breach involving a non-violent offence. So it could be someone who—

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

To paraphrase, 10% of the prisoners released on statutory release are known to have committed a non-violent offence and have been put back in jail.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Unfortunately, 3% of the statutory releases are revoked because of a violent offence. Have you any figures to indicate at what stage in their statutory release these individuals were when they reoffended? Had they served out one sixth, one third or two thirds of their sentence? Do you have that information?

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

No, I'm not sure I understood that last question. At what...?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Let me explain. If you are sentenced, then you are entitled to statutory release after having served one sixth, one third or two thirds of your sentence.

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

If I understand correctly, this is at the end of their statutory release. So they've typically completed two-thirds of their sentence, and within three years of their release—after however long they were in there—3% are known to have committed violent crimes.