Justice Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2006

[Craig Grimes]

One of the difficulties we have with the data set is that we can't determine what the aggregate sentence is. Although situations like that are rare, it is possible that a number of charges are convicted in the case. I know from the data set generally that three-quarters of all the cases that are convicted have only one conviction in each case. The vast majority are of that type, not the type where there are multiple convictions in the case against the individual.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I have to disagree with you on that point. I know how many investigations I conducted, and most bank robbers were responsible for more than one offence, and the majority of them by far went into court on more than one. I'm curious as to what your data reflects when it comes to that kind of statistic.

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are studying Bill C-10. When the previous government created the firearms registry, it also defined 10 offences involving firearms which were to receive special mention in the Criminal Code. The logic behind Bill C-68 that the Liberals introduced was to deter people from committing crimes with firearms.

The question we must address today is with respect to increased sentences. So, the Conservative government wants to increase sentences by one or two years, depending on the offence, for all of these offences, and include two new offences.

Based on the data you presented to us, what would enable me to understand that harsher sentences act as a deterrent?

I'm sorry if I missed the beginning of your presentation, but I was held up in the House. If I've understood your reasoning, you're saying that generally speaking there has been a drop in firearm-related offences, but when it comes to violent crime, like homicide or murder, there's a greater chance of them being committed with firearms.

What evidence, if any, would prove to me that harsher sentences for crimes committed with firearms have a deterrent effect?

That is the question we must answer, under Bill C-10. That is what the government wants to do: where there was once a three-year sentence the government wants four years, and two-year sentences would be up to three. The government is considering longer sentences for offences involving firearms.

What lessons have we learned from Bill C-68? From a statistical point of view? I'm not asking you for your personal opinion, because I know that you must reserve judgment on this. But from a statistical standpoint, how can you answer our questions on Bill C-10?

[Craig Grimes]

One of the things we can learn from the court data is that since the enactment of the 10 mandatory minimums, we've seen fewer convictions for those offences and fewer guilty pleas. Those are some of the lessons we can learn from the data on those offences. The impact and deterrent aspect of the new legislation is something we can't speak to with these data.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

From an empirical perspective, what do you think this means? Why were there fewer firearm offences committed? I've seen studies commissioned by the former solicitor general, which showed that over a given period, following the adoption of Bill C-68, fewer firearm offences were committed, but perhaps other types of offences were.

Once again, it is important for me to understand this. As legislators, we are being asked to increase sentences. Quickly, based on what you've just shown us—and I will be reading it over calmly in the train—we would not be inclined to vote in favour of Bill C-10, because under the current regime, there are already fewer firearm offences being committed.

Do you think this is due to economic, demographic or perhaps criminal factors? Based on your statistics, why would there be fewer firearm-related offences being committed in Canadian society?

And if you can answer my questions, you may now run for a position as assistant deputy minister.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

I'm not sure if I should respond.

On slides 5 and 6 you can see some of the trends in the data. Now, the purpose for plotting some of the legislation in slide 6 is not to imply a causal link, because there are many factors that can impact these kinds of trends. But what it does allow you to do is situate the trends around the timing of legislation.

As we said, in terms of firearms, if you look at slide 5—and this may help you with your question—we have seen that if we go back to the mid-1970s, there was a general decrease in the rate of firearm homicides, for example. But in more recent years, we have seen increases, with 2005 as the third straight year for increases in firearm homicides.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

All right. Did you have anything to add?

[An honourable member]

No.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

No. All right.

So essentially, you are pointing to the fact that within a downward trend, we may also see some higher peaks, but overall, the reality is such that firearms crimes are decreasing. If the government wanted to be consistent, it should table a bill on edged weapons, because offences committed with knives and weapons other than firearms are increasing. Obviously, we aren't going to be pushing the government to do that.

So, am I reading your statistics accurately?

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

What we can speak to is the fact that as you can see on slide 5, prior to 1985, shootings were more popular, in terms of methods to commit homicides. But after that point, stabbings and shootings each accounted for about a third of homicides annually. It fluctuates from year to year, whether a knife or a firearm was the most common method. But since 1985, they've each accounted for about a third annually, in terms of the methods to commit homicides.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard

Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

Hello, Ms. Barr-Telford, Mr. Turner and Mr. Grimes.

I'd like to address the issue in the following way. I've seen the statistics that you presented to us and I'm trying to understand them. You seem to have figures which your colleagues didn't have when we were studying Bill C-9. In my province, for some years, no information whatsoever was sent to you, yet now all of a sudden, you have this information. That is worrisome to me.

On conditional sentences, there was a gap because you never received the figures for my province. Someone even came here to confirm that. Yet, you have these figures here. So, I believe in fact hat you have them. When you look at the Criminal Code as a whole, you must receive all of the data for a given year, say on conditional sentences, the increase in crimes, all of those things which were referred to earlier on. I'm trying to follow, because I will have to work with your figures later on.

First off, on slide no. 4, you say that Canada is about fourth on a list of several countries. You referred to the United States, Scotland, Sweden, Finland, etc. I imagine that the choice of countries is random.

Are there other countries which you did not mention? If I were to do the research myself, would I find them? Could you answer that question, so I can understand your statistics?

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

Yes, there are countries that we have not included on this particular list. We were only trying to give some particular reference points.

But we've put out a publication with a more complete list of countries, and we can certainly provide you with a reference to that. In fact, John has those numbers with him today, if you would like to know that.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I would like that to be submitted to the committee.

I'm surprised to see that you've included Sweden in that list. As far as we're concerned, in Quebec, Sweden is seen as a leader. We always try to emulate Sweden, but I think this is the only case where we would not want to do so. There are more homicides over there than here. Is it due to socialism? I do not know, but either way, that will be decided later on.

I have another question for you, Ms. Barr-Telford. I'm intrigued by something here. You probably don't know organized crime, but I will ask you a question as though you did.

Do you know about loan-sharking, in other words loans that are given at an exorbitantly high interest rate? Take the example of a loan-shark from whom you borrowed money at a 50 per cent-interest rate per day. If he comes up to you carrying a weapon—you may not see it but you know that he's carrying one—I can assure you that you're going to give him what you owe him.

I understand that your statistics strictly deal with cases where there was a conviction, but you also refer to threats made by people carrying weapons. There are a number of people, in Montreal for instance, who are being had by organized crime carrying weapons and literally threatening others. We didn't come up with bills to prohibit that type of business for nothing. This is the type of thing we see in Montreal. We all know about José Théodore, the former star Montreal Canadian goaltender whose family is embroiled in loan-sharking. When you do that kind of thing, you carry weapons.

If individuals in organized crime, like the Hells Angels, come up to you, you know that they're carrying weapons. You're afraid of them and you obey their orders. They commit crimes and they force you to do things which you do because you know that they're carrying weapons and you are afraid of them. Naturally, you don't tell the police about it, because that just may get you shot in the back. That's what it's all about.

However, there is no mention of it in your statistics. I'm looking at them carefully. I find them pretty good, but we're going to have to take a stand on Bill C-10, and I am missing some information in order to respond to Mr. Ménard, Mr. Lemay or Mr. Murphy.

I'd like to know what you mean by threats or offences with firearms. There are individuals who commit many offences, but who are not necessarily convicted. I know that mobsters know how to use weapons.

So, I don't have this information, how can I get it? Do you have something to guide us? I'm not a statistician; I'll tell you that right now.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

I can ask John to speak to you about the way in which we collect information in terms of gang-related homicides, and so forth. He can also speak to you in regard to the details of the way in which we collect data.

Through our uniform crime report statistics, we are collecting police-reported incidents, and we collect them in that nature. In this particular case, they are the data we are showing here.

John can speak to how we collect the data.

[John Turner]

Yes. I can't add a lot more without getting into the details.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Are you referring to a specific page?

[John Turner]

No, I'm only answering the question in general.

For our homicide survey, as we've mentioned, we have a specific question that asks if the homicide is related to organized crime or a gang. We have a two-page definition on what constitutes gangs and organized crime.

But we recently added to our uniform crime survey, which covers all types of crimes. We added an indicator for street gangs and organized crime. We just began collecting that information, and it hasn't been released yet.

But even then, it would only be one. It was a specific Criminal Code offence that the police were aware of. They investigated and then determined it was related to organized crime or street gangs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Hangar.

First, on a point of clarification, I heard a reference to there being no minimum penalties prior to 1996. I note that section 85 of the code, on the use of a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence, was used for offences such as robbery and attempted murder, and there was a one-year minimum penalty. I only note that for the committee's clarification.

I have a few questions and need clarification to help give guidance to the committee in looking at this.

One suggestion has been made by some that minimum penalties cause greater delays, which result in greater court backlogs. Is there any evidence through your research that would support such a suggestion?

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

I'll refer you to slide 10 as well.

What we know from our data is that the elapsed time from first to last court appearances for these cases of firearm offences, most serious in the four-year minimum mandatory.... We have seen an increase in the average number of days from first to last court appearance. It has gone from 105 days in 1996-97 to 229 days in 2003-04. So there was an increase of about 118%.

That having been said, the small volume of cases progressing through the court system would have very little impact on the overall elapsed times that we would be seeing reported in our court data.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

So the bigger picture would be pretty minimal.

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

In terms of the number of cases that were heard in adult criminal court, it was less than 1% of the entire caseload for the jurisdictions we presented. And that complete caseload for 2003-04 was about 400,000.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

What jurisdiction was it that you looked at?

[Lynn Barr-Telford]

In terms of jurisdictions, there's Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the Yukon. They're indicated on your slides in terms of the input level.