Evidence of meeting #8 for Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was statistics.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
Good afternoon. It's the Legislative Committee on Bill C-35, meeting number 8, and these are the orders of the day. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 27, 2007, we are going to be considering Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).
As a witness this afternoon we have Mr. Gary Mauser, who's a criminologist from Simon Fraser University.
Welcome, Mr. Mauser. We're waiting for your presentation, please.
May 15th, 2007 / 3:30 p.m.
Professor Gary Mauser Criminologist, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Okay, thank you very much.
I have a few words to say as a preface and then I will walk the committee through the tables that I had cause to be distributed. I think I know many of you, but just in case my face is fleeting, I would like to give you a few key facets of my background so you will know a bit about who I am.
As said, I am a professor at Simon Fraser University in both the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, which is in criminology, as well as in the faculty of business administration. My doctoral training was in social psychology and quantitative methods, and I have researched and published in criminology, mostly in the area of firearms and violence, for more than 15 years.
I appear before you today because I support Bill C-35. I believe it is a step in the right direction towards improving the safety of Canadians--a small step, possibly, but I think a positive one.
Despite my support for Bill C-35, I have a few reservations, and I'd like to outline them.
First, in my view, the focus should be serious violent crime, not merely gun crime. I say this for two reasons. Violent crime involving firearms is only a small fraction of serious violent crime, and second, knife-wielding criminals cause more and more serious injuries to their victims than do criminals with firearms.
To illustrate the small fraction of violent crime that constitutes firearms, only 3% of crimes classified as violent crimes involve firearms. A much smaller percentage than 3%, typically around 1%, consists of victims injured by firearms. One-third of homicides involve firearms, and about one-third, knives. Also, 15% of robberies are with firearms. So as you can see, firearms are not the only serious item used in violent crime.
To look at the claims about knife injuries, I urge you to look at tables 1 and 2--I trust this has been distributed. Here in table 1 we look at assault victims; table 2 looks at robbery victims.
So let us look at table 1. In the first line we see that 6% of the victims injured by firearms are injured seriously, while 11% of victims injured by knives are injured seriously, that is to say, Statistics Canada classifies those as major physical injuries.
These data were generated by a special request to StatsCan, so they went through their annual data. I did this in 2004, so the data are from 2003. I don't doubt, but haven't done it, that if we do the similar studies for 2004, 2005, other years, we will get approximately the same kind of distribution.
The second point about table 1 is no reported injuries. Over 50% of victims injured with firearms had no reported injuries, so an injury that is non-existent--this is StatsCan. Equally, in knife injuries, 47% of incidents received no injuries. In other words, victims attacked with knives were much more likely to have an injury--and if an injury, a serious injury--as opposed to guns. This is in assaults.
You get similar kinds of things with robbery victims. In 2% of incidents involving firearms, the victims had major physical injuries, compared to 3% of victims who were robbed by a knife-wielding person.
Similarly, with incidents involving no injuries, 80% were with firearms as opposed to 83% with knifes. This is not to say that firearms are not dangerous; this is merely to say that knives are serious weapons, and Parliament might well be advised to look at knife-wielding criminals as well as gun-wielding criminals.
In tables 3 and 4 are some of the few statistics available on criminals who have been released from prison. In table 3 we look at statutory release and see that over 40% of the prisoners released on statutory release find their release revoked for either breach of condition or commission of a crime. About 3% are violent crimes.
So this goes to the argument that we have some data. The data are very scarce so we do not have very convincing or thorough data, but this is the best of what we have. Whether you classify this as a glass half full or glass half empty, if we look at this as a threat to the Canadian public we can see that 40% of the prisoners released cannot be trusted and are back in jail soon. That causes danger to the Canadian public.
In table 4 we have some data that look at recidivism. Depending on the last crime for which the person was imprisoned, from breaking and entering down to drugs, somewhere between 30% and over 63% of these released prisoners reoffend within three years. There's no information available on the percentage who reoffend if we look at a longer period of five to ten years. The argument here is basically that while it costs money and it costs the freedom of some people, keeping serious offenders in jail protects the public.
Next we look at the cost of crimes borne by the victims. We're not looking at policing costs, court costs, or correctional costs--none of the costs borne by government; merely the costs borne by citizens who have had crimes committed against them.
There are two dimensions to tables 5 and 6. The first is the number of crimes. We have two ways to estimate the number of crimes, and neither one is very good, but they'e different and give you a range of estimates.
One way to estimate the number of crimes committed is by the crimes known to police. In 1996 when this study was published, there were 254,000 crimes known to police that fell into the violent crime category. In 2005, the most recent year that annual statistics are available from StatsCan, we have over 300,000.
The other way of looking at how many crimes are being committed is to do surveys. We have several types of surveys, but perhaps the best we have conducted in Canada involved asking people to report to them on a regular basis. Rather than showing 254,000 violent crimes, this shows about two million. Typically the police know about only a small percentage of the total crimes committed.
We believe the crimes that police know about tend to be the more serious of the crimes committed, but this is not always the case. Since we don't know much about the ones that we don't about, this is an unknown unknown.
The second dimension, and much more problematic, is how do we estimate the costs that victims bear when assaulted, robbed, raped, or killed? This is very difficult. What I have tried to do here is look at victim interviews where victims report what costs they incurred. I have limited my estimates to financial costs, by and large, and I've tried to make minimum estimates for these. Still, it's very problematic—I freely admit that—but it's just the best available.
If any of you have ever been involved in a violent crime—not as a perpetrator, I assume, but as a victim—you know there are many subtle emotional costs. People will not go back into their apartment after it has been burglarized. People will not go to certain areas where they've been attacked or even suspected an attack. There are strong psychological costs for violent or property crimes.
I have tried not to make any estimates of these, although I do have a quote from Welsh and Waller, where they did try to estimate the impact of what they called “shattered lives”. As you can see in the third line up from the bottom on table 6, this is a fairly substantial estimate.
Essentially what we have here is the cost that average citizens bear for crime: we have estimated, in 1996, $4.6 billion as the cost that Canadian citizens bear—not the government, but the citizens—for property crime, and over $700 million for violent crime. These are minimum estimates. I'm sure that, as in many variables in criminology, the better the research the bigger the number, whether it's marijuana smokers, crime, costs, or victims. I have tried very hard here to give minimum numbers.
In table 6, we have specifically broken things out in more detail, so you can see the various component rather than just the total of violent or property crimes. You can see direct monetary losses, productivity losses, hospitalization costs, and of course, the more subjective “shattered lives”.
Let me conclude by saying, first of all, I have a sheet of references so that you can look up and verify my claims. For example, the Welsh and Waller references are there, various Statistics Canada documents, as well as econometric studies that are illuminating.
In conclusion, I support this legislation because I believe its aim is correct: minimizing human suffering. The research shows that keeping violent criminals in jail protects the public through simple incapacitation. I've tried to outline the costs the public bears so you can get a more gritty feeling of what these costs might be.
However, I feel that by focusing exclusively on guns, Parliament may not be dealing with violent crime as effectively as it might. As I'm sure you know, good legislation requires more than merely reacting to media events. Guns are big in the news; knives are not. That may not be a good representation of what is actually out there causing the problems.
I'm sure we all know the dog-bites-man argument of how things get into the news. Airplane crashes make more news than automobile crashes, and many more Canadians die in traffic accidents than airline crashes. So I urge you to consider knives. This may be peripheral and passed over. I appreciate that.
Thank you.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
Thank you, Mr. Mauser.
We'll now go to questions and answers, with seven minutes by party, to start with.
Mr. Bagnell, please.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you.
Thank you for coming. It's some very interesting information. I appreciate your point on knives. I think it's a very good one. Your other statistics are good to have for a number of reasons. Some aren't that related to this bill, but they're great to have. We appreciate your collecting them.
I interpreted table 4 differently. It shows that we shouldn't keep people in prison. It shows--as we've always said as Liberals--that the failure is in the retraining and what we do with people. They're coming back and reoffending. And everyone's going to get out; in fact, prison contributes towards that.
But my question is related to bail, because that's the issue. I sense that you're as frustrated as we are because there are no stats. A number of people are denied bail, and we have no idea of the percentage of people who actually commit violent crimes when on bail. Would you agree with that?
3:45 p.m.
Prof. Gary Mauser
I thoroughly agree with previous witnesses. Statistics Canada and the justice system do not collect or distribute those statistics. You will also notice that when people talk about crimes committed while on release, they carefully, if not gleefully, mix bail, probation, parole, statutory release, and everything.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Exactly.
Since that is the only thing we can discuss because it's the only thing we have numbers on, if we look at table 3, I just want to make sure I'm reading it correctly. Does it show that basically 58% have successful releases?
3:45 p.m.
Prof. Gary Mauser
That's right.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
So if 3% commit violent crimes, which is not necessarily acceptable.... But we had stats from another witness that suggested roughly 40% of people who are charged turn out to be innocent. They aren't guilty, so in the eyes of the law they're innocent.
3:45 p.m.
Prof. Gary Mauser
Yes.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
So for the sake of saving the 3% who commit violent crimes, we're incarcerating the 40% who are innocent people, after bail--if they got incarcerated through reverse onus.
3:45 p.m.
Prof. Gary Mauser
“Innocent” is not perhaps the right word. “Not found guilty” is perhaps technically more correct. They may in fact be innocent.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Prof. Gary Mauser
That's right.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Prof. Gary Mauser
It's a matter of which way you look down the spyglass. The vast bulk of violent criminals are male, but the vast bulk of males are not violent criminals. So only a small percentage of prisoners go on to commit crimes when released, but they commit many crimes.
As you say, the statistics show that the vast bulk of crimes are committed by repeat offenders. That's why I introduced this table that shows it's a matter of the glass being half full or half empty. I would like you to focus on the costs that victims bear and not just the imprisoned, for whatever reason.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
But just taking rough figures, we have 40% who are victims--the innocent people who are incarcerated, which is definitely being victims--as opposed to 3% who commit violent crimes if we let them out.
3:50 p.m.
Prof. Gary Mauser
Again, don't let statistics take you in a direction that is not substantive.
3:50 p.m.
Prof. Gary Mauser
We do not know what we do not know. These statistics are all we have collected. These are minimum estimates.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
But I'm just using your statistics for rough argument. The discrepancy is so big, I don't think juggling the statistics is going to make a difference in my point.
3:50 p.m.
Prof. Gary Mauser
Which discrepancy?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
The one between 40% and 3%. We're trading 40% victims by keeping these people in jail, as opposed to 3% by letting them out.
3:50 p.m.
Prof. Gary Mauser
Another way to say that is that you're perfectly happy allowing 3% of the Canadian public to be injured, raped, and murdered in order to protect the rights of the other 97% of prisoners.
3:50 p.m.
Prof. Gary Mauser
No, no. Let us say that 97% of the people released from prison come out white as snow—as innocent, wonderful, and sweet as the members of this committee—for the rest of their lives, but 3% turn out to be murderers, rapists, killers, or horrible people. This committee, Parliament, or lawmakers, must decide how to balance that. Should we protect the public and possibly imprison a number of future saints in order to protect the public? That's a horrible trade-off; there's no win.
What I'm arguing is, let us look for some of the problems and costs that Canadians bear, as well as the costs of the justice system, including the prisons.