Justice Committee on Oct. 4th, 2006

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

All right.

I think you were able to distribute for us a few pages reflecting some data, and the clerk confirmed that. I'm looking at page one. I just need a bit of help here, because I'm seeing two different things. I know you've made every effort to be accurate, and I may be misreading this, but as I read it now, I'm looking at two trend lines on the front page. One trend line is shown as CAN--presumably Canada--and the second trend line says EU, which either means Etats-Unis or the European Union. Which is it?

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

In English, it's U.S., which could be South Africa, but it is not. It is the United States.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

That's the United States of America. Now, this particular chart shows the violent crime rate in Canada in 2004 roughly, or perhaps 2003, at the end of the graph, at just under 1,000 and it shows the American, the U.S., violent crime rate at about 475.

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

That's correct.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

So are you saying that the violent crime rate in the United States of America is one-half the violent crime rate in Canada?

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

Those are the apparent numbers. You're quite correct--although I would point out that in order to be as clear and straightforward as possible, I have used the statistics available on the American FBI site as well as Stats Canada. So these are the official statistics.

Unfortunately, Canada includes many more crimes in their violent crime rate than does the United States. Sexual assault is a much broader category of crime here than there, as is assault in general. So we have a higher violent crime rate because we have more actions called crimes.

If one tries to compare apples with apples rather than use the local definitions of violent crime, one finds that the violent crime rates are almost identical but the U.S. crime rate is slightly higher.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Perhaps I could suggest then that it is indeed unfortunate that in your comparison of apples to oranges, rather than apples to apples, it's giving the appearance of Canada having a violent crime rate that is double that in the United States of America. I'm going to have difficulty working with a statistic that's not accurate enough for my use in making public policy decisions, because you've already explained that the violent crime rates in Canada are not double those in the United States. They're in fact either similar or less than.

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

My intent in both graphs is to focus the viewer's attention on the trends. Rather than heavily manipulate the data, which I did not think the committee wanted me to, I gave you the actual from-the-statistical-sources data so that it would be as untrammelled as possible. If you look at the data, you will see that the trend in Canada is very flat, while the trend in the United States is very steeply declining. That is true in both graphs, and that was the intent of my graphic presentation. I hope that clarifies for the members.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

It does clarify, and I thank you for that.

I suppose the same commentary would apply to the second graph, which shows the homicide rate trends in Canada and the U.S. roughly coinciding with trend lines down.

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

That's quite correct.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

However, the U.S. trend line runs on a graph that is up in the range of six to eight homicides per 100,000, whereas the Canadian graph operates within a trend line that runs from about 2.4 down to 2.3.

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

That's quite correct.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay.

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

And the intent here is not to compare the national problems of racism and the legacy of slavery with a country that was the foremost in the Commonwealth or the former British Empire in eliminating slavery. We do not have the legacy of slavery in this country.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

We're probably not a country without skeletons and misdeeds of our own--I'm sure we're not--but I take your point.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Barnes, do you want to...?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Shurman, there was some material that you weren't able to cover. Is there anything in your notes that you would like to put on the record? I'll make some time available.

[Isabel Schurman]

There's just the concern about the cost to the provinces of the building of prisons and the amount of money it's going to involve for provinces—not for the federal government, because it's obviously limited to sentences of less than two years; the conditional sentence of imprisonment is only applied in those cases.

We're talking about tremendous costs. If we say there are 55,000 people who have benefited from these sentences, or 55,000 cases since 1996, I believe that what was said here at this committee is that 5,784 of those who received conditional sentences of imprisonment in 2003-2004 would not be eligible under this new provision. I believe testimony given at this committee was that some of them would get a probation instead—so they'd actually get a lesser sentence than they're getting now—and some of them would get jail. But that would mean that even if only half of them got jail, you'd have to build jails for 2,800 or 2,900 more persons per year.

Then you're talking about the economic fallout of that when those people are in jail and not working—families on welfare, cycles of poverty—a lot of it coming under provincial funding and provincial funding obligations.

I think that was probably one of the things I had wanted to state that I didn't, towards the end, being afraid of going a bit too fast for the translators and too slow for the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Barnes.

Mr. Lemay.

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

Mr. Mauser, I want to try and understand something. You have statistics on homicide rates in Canada as compared to the United States. But I want you to know that conditional sentences do not apply in cases involving homicide. They apply only to crimes which are not homicides, except, obviously, in cases of manslaughter, where that is possible. When murder, premeditated murder, the murder of a policeman, and other similar crimes are concerned, they do not apply.

Have you compiled figures in Canada with respect to the failure of conditional sentences since the legislation came into effect in 1996? Do you have any figures on this, or have you not compiled these data?

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

Is the question, do I have figures on crimes other than violent crimes?

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

Yes. Also, do you have any figures on failures associated with conditional sentences? Have you compiled any such figures?

[Prof. Gary Mauser]

No, sir. I am looking at overall general effectiveness of a criminal spending time in jail. That was the intent of my presentation.

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

I see.

Ms. Schurman, I won't go back over your presentation, because I fully agree with everything you said.

I would just like to raise one brief point for the benefit of my friends opposite. If you ever sat on the Law Commission of Canada, you were probably one of the last people to do so, because they have just abolished it. That gives you an idea of what is to come.

Do you agree with me that one of the major legal principles recognized by every court in Canada is individualization in sentencing?

[Isabel Schurman]

Yes, absolutely.

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

If Bill C-9 passes, do you believe that major principle, that is so cherished by our courts of appeal, the Supreme Court and even the majority of lawyers in this country, will be completely demolished?