Evidence of meeting #35 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was violent.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I agree with you. I've even represented a number of clients. However, isn't it up to the sentencing judge to tell the individual who is before him: “Sir, we've tried everything with you; we believe that you should be removed from society for a number of years, and I'm therefore going to sentence you to 25 years”?
I've had clients who were rehabilitated after 22 months of detention. Where do you get that statistic, that 20 months isn't enough to rehabilitate a person?
Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
I filed an ATIP request to the Correctional Service of Canada and I received some data back. This article that I'm publishing in the spring will have much but not all of the data. There are gaps, and I hope you, the parliamentarians, can address these gaps by calling on the Correctional Service of Canada to give data I can't get.
One of the pieces that is missing for me is the rate of success attached to specific programs. I don't want to leave you with the idea that there's one magic program. There are multiple programs--and this is straight out of the CSE documentation. There's a program of rehabilitation for sexual offenders; there's another program for violent offenders; there's yet another program for people with anger problems. There are multiple programs, and they customize and analyze the offender and then come up with a customized program.
I am working with averages in my article, as you saw in my presentation, and these said the average violent offender needs three programs. The length of time required is between 15 and 36 weeks, so I chose the midpoint, and I state this in my article...in months, that's right. I converted it to months.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Mr. Lemay, one very quick question, and I'll cut you off if it's too long.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Do you have those figures, Mr. Lee? Could you provide the committee with the figures on which you base your study?
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks to all the witnesses for attending.
Some questions have been raised concerning the government's approach. You can comment on anything I say to the witnesses. In the report from Statistics Canada, the national homicide rate rose for the second straight year in 2005.
I think, Dr. Lee, you mentioned that it's a myth that crime is going down. In fact, the most recent statistics say it's increasing, and in 2005 it reached “its highest point in nearly a decade”, while firearms-related killings increased for the third year in a row, as the government looked for better ways to control gun violence. “Police services reported 658 homicides last year, 34 more than in 2004. Of these, 222 were committed with a firearm, up from 173 in 2004. Most of the increase in the homicide rate was driven by a jump in gang-related homicides, particularly in Ontario and Alberta.” Also, “107 homicides were believed to be gang-related in 2005, 35 more than in 2004”. As well, Statistics Canada reported that “Two-thirds of gang-related homicides involved a firearm, usually a hand gun.”
So this is some of the information that Statistics Canada is telling us, and that's why we have the focus on gang violence and the use of handguns. The points that were made today are well taken, including wanting to minimize the bill's complexity and make it as effective as possible.
I want to ask, Mr. Cannavino or Mr. Griffin, about this serious issue. Our government's approach has been to target criminals. In the past, it seems we've seen efforts to target everybody but criminals. There's always reluctance to get tougher on crime, and I don't say tough just for the sake of being tough, but to try to restore some effectiveness and balance, and that factor we were looking for—denunciation of our criminals.
I hear from my constituents, and I know everyone else does, about someone who's literally back on the street before the victim is out of the hospital. There's no denunciation when that type of thing happens, so we're trying to have a very focused approach on specific crimes.
Regarding the issue of firearms, we heard from Chief Blair that it used to be about 50-50 between smuggled and stolen firearms, and he said even more are smuggled in now.
We also wanted to focus on the issue of a robbery or a break and enter where firearms are stolen. You represent police from coast to coast, in large and small communities. The point was made, does this necessarily address the rural reality? My argument would be that it's serious. If you break into someone's cabin in New Brunswick and steal their shotgun or you break into their house or apartment in Toronto and steal their shotgun, it's serious. Can you comment from the urban-rural...where you represent both? We have heard from the urban police, but I'd like to hear from the rural perspective on this issue of break and enter and robbery?
Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association
To my mind, in relation to the rural, a case in point is the murder of RCMP Constable Dennis Strongquill in Manitoba. His assailants were two parolees and a woman who was accompanying them. They had started a crime spree in Alberta that finished with the officer being hunted down, essentially, by these offenders and shot dead in Manitoba, north of Winnipeg.
In that case the firearms involved were all long guns. They'd all been stolen from either private residences or vehicles. In some cases the firearms had not been properly secured. In one case the weapon involved was a long gun stolen from an automobile that was left running with the keys in it. The firearm was in the back seat.
From our perspective, these crimes transcend all communities. Certainly we've seen a lot of problems in Toronto, but we believe, in terms of this law, we have to recognize that often the weapon of choice is going to be the weapon of opportunity, and not necessarily based on a particular class.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
On the selection, yes.
I have a quick question for you, Professor Stuesser. You had mentioned the exception. We studied conditional sentencing, and the concern there is that what starts out as the exception becomes the rule.
Just so there's no confusion, you mentioned criminal negligence causing death and manslaughter. There are penalties associated with those, of course, but those are not included in this bill. This bill focuses on someone who deliberately sets out to commit a serious crime with a firearm.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind elaborating a bit on what you think an exception would look like, as I think you're the second person who's mentioned it. The concern obviously is not wanting the exception to be the rule, sending the clear message that firearms offences are taken seriously.
Professor of Law, Robson, Hall, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
I suppose I'm a bit of a pragmatist. Some people may well argue that we should have general discretion for all of the sections in Bill C-10. I don't think that will fly, with all due respect. I believe the tenor of the community, of the country, is that they do want some tougher laws.
I propose a very limited exception. There is some wording used by, for example, some of the justices in a case called Morrisey, where they talk about “grossly disproportionate” with regard to both the offence and the offender. For example, if a gang person committed an offence, I would submit that no judge in the land would regard this person as falling within the exception. It would be phrased such that the court would well appreciate that this would be an exception.
Incidentally, in my own view, I feel that the courts will in fact support the constitutionality of the provisions. I really think the whole difficulty is going to be, as in my lady example, that she will have no recourse, she will go to jail for four years--unless Parliament recognizes that there should be an easier way for unintentional use of a firearm.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you.
I'm going to drive you all crazy here, but I want to comment on the statistics again. I don't want to let the time pass without at least commenting on the suggestion that violent crime is increasing.
I do accept from Professor Lee his perspective. Looking at the data, it's very clear that from 1962, when Beaver Cleaver made it into the television world, crime did increase. But the Criminal Code changed, people changed; lots of sociological things happened.
As I look at the data--and I hope you'll agree with me--by the time we got to about 1990 or 1992, things changed. The data changed, the statistics changed. As of that point in time, in Canada and in California and in Florida, if you look at the charts provided by Professor Lee, all of that violent crime starts on a downward trend.
So as I read it, I can honestly say that for the last 14 years, violent crime has been decreasing. I will accept, however, your point that if you go back to 1962, you can see a trend of increase, which terminated around 1992.
I don't think we should be legislating for the fifties here, or the sixties, or the seventies. I'd like to legislate for the millennium, and that shows a decrease.
Have I described this relatively accurately, to your satisfaction?
Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
Somewhat. Let me qualify your qualification, if I can.
I want to step back, because there have been several comments today saying there's no research that proves it works. I want to make this broad comment, because this is what's been—
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
If I may, I don't want you to go into another area, because I've only got five minutes.
Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
No, I won't. I'll keep it really short.
There are two broad research trends. There's the research you've been introduced to by many criminologists, who have said it doesn't work--incarceration doesn't work, minimum mandatories don't work. I'm not denying the existence of that research stream. Of course it exists. And there's a second research stream, the law and economics.
Dealing with your specific question, this has been debated, believe me, in the law and economics research tradition in which there's a very large body of evidence. They're looking at this, and they're trying to using very advanced statistical techniques, because the law and economics people are people with advanced economics degrees. They're trying to deal with that question.
I'm answering your question. Their conclusion is that notwithstanding what you're suggesting, when you tease out and put weights on, there is a causality between incapacitation or incarceration—
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you for that. I didn't ask a question about the relationship between incarceration and deterrence; I simply asked you to recognize that violent crime has been decreasing for the last 14 years. You can take a different view, but that is mine.
I also want to append to that that Toronto has been the source of some concern here in terms of gang violence and the number of homicides. There was a horrible spike in homicides with firearms here over the last year and a half to two years, but fortunately, the year 2006 has seen much better data coming in. From the data provided by the Toronto Police Service, the number of firearm homicides this year with about one month left to go has dropped 44%. It's fallen through the floor. The number of firearm woundings has dropped 19%, and the number of shootings is down 20%. So these are good statistical data. It doesn't mean we don't have a problem with guns. We still do. But the spike that occurred has gone back to where we were. I still accept we have a problem with guns in the community, but we don't have the huge increases and crisis that we had before.
Professor Chartrand, I want to ask you.... The Supreme Court, within the last two or three years, has commented that we have a crisis in our corrections system. That was a warning and a red flag for all of us in Parliament, and should be for society. It had to do with the very high proportion of aboriginals incarcerated in our system. I want to ask you, because you do have a perspective on this from your position in Manitoba, do you believe the provisions in this bill will help or hurt or be neutral with respect to our ability to address the crisis described by the Supreme Court in terms of the proportion of aboriginals in our corrections system?
Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
I think it will not help and would most likely make the situation significantly worse.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Could you put some meat on the bone? I appreciate your opinion. Could you describe what is in the bill, if that's your view? The procedures will exacerbate the numbers, the statistical data, the rate of incarceration, the disproportionality?
Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
There are many statistics. I can try to dig some of them out. I myself try to avoid these mysterious digits and leave most of that work to criminologists and other social scientists. But I know the statistics that have been compiled both by government agencies and by independent academic researchers indicate that the removal of the judges' discretion in sentencing, which by the way is contrary to the principle in 718(e), will likely increase the incarceration rate and make the result particularly difficult in the provinces that have a high proportion of aboriginal people, given our extension of the existing proportional incarceration.
The statistics are very high in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and this applies to aboriginal women in particular. In my recollection, by far the majority of the women in jail are aboriginal women. The percentage of aboriginal people in the Saskatchewan population is roughly 13%, but the incarceration rate is something like 70%.
Conservative
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you.
My question is for Mr. Lee, Mr. Cannavino or Mr. Stuesser.
When we want to evaluate a justice system, we have to know how others perceive us. In the United States, one New York judge gave one criminal convicted of aggravated assault the choice of one year in prison in the United States or three years in Canada. The individual chose three years of prison in Canada. It's obvious: it's because we're permissive. Is that out of greatness of spirit? Is it a quality? I don't know, but for the moment, we have a problem, and that's how people perceive us.
When a drug trafficker has to land because we know he's transporting drugs, he won't land in Vermont. He'll do everything possible to land in Beauce, because he knows his sentence won't be as harsh.
There's also another factor that bothers me a bit. The Attorney General of Ontario, Mr. Bryant, appeared before our committee. He seemed to agree with us, and you mentioned him in your brief. He represents 16 million of the 32 million inhabitants of Canada, approximately half of Canada. I imagine he speaks on behalf of at least 50 percent of the population. What's strange is that he's a Liberal. In his region, there are other federal Liberals and New Democrats. So I imagine they must talk to each other because they're close to each other.
Mr. Cannavino, the bill we want to pass concerns serious crimes. However, in Montreal — here I'm referring to Mr. Chartrand's remarks — there are now gangs of blacks. That's the fashion. There are others in Toronto. We know there will be more blacks in prison, because they hold the power in the Montreal region.
In your view, is that the only justification? Mr. Chartrand said earlier that it was senseless, because there will be more people from certain ethnic groups in prison. I'd like to know whether you believe that Bill C-10 has a colour or whether it will help you solve the gang problem that exists right now.