Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on April 16th, 2007

[Julie Besner]

I'm sorry, are we talking about a prohibition order meaning that they have a conviction for which they were ordered by the court not to possess?

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Yes, there was a previous conviction with a prohibition order, and that prohibition time has expired. Then he commits another firearms offence.

[Julie Besner]

If the prohibition order has expired, then it's no longer in force. The individual would not be subject to a prohibition order--

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Or the reverse onus on bail.

[Julie Besner]

That's right. If that were the scenario--

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Unless it were one of the offences that we've specifically included.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Right. Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you.

Ms. Freeman.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you for joining us today, Mr. Nicholson. I have a question for you concerning the reverse onus scheme. Can you tell us exactly how this scheme would work? Would someone raise reasonable doubt, on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities, or will someone have to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Reverse onus is being proposed, but what must be done to convince the judge that the person should remain out on bail?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's done on the balance of probabilities, Madam Freeman. It's not something they'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the ultimate test of whether an individual is guilty of a criminal offence. The same tests that basically apply now to other reverse onus sections--and there are a number in the Criminal Code at the present time--would apply in this particular case. It's always open to that individual to make the case that they should be released.

We've come a long way in this area, and I've supported the changes over the years. I think Mr. Murphy indicated what a major step forward it was with the introduction of the Bail Reform Act in this country, but there have been a number of modifications, and we've had opportunities to have a look at the way it works. I see this as part of that process in which we are massaging, if you will, the Criminal Code, particularly now with respect to its provisions on bail. I think this is a step forward. It's not changing the test in any way that applies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Ms. Freeman.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Please know, Mr. Nicholson, that I appreciate a great deal the small steps that you are taking to improve the system. Both your preamble and your statement reflect your concern about crime. However, your stand on the Canadian gun registry is inconsistent with your position on the reverse onus proposal in the case of weapons-related offences. The two don't quite jibe.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Some people might say we've got it right, Madam Freeman. I believe your position is that you support the existing firearms registry, but you're against toughening up the provisions with respect to people who are accused of committing a crime. Maybe you are. I hope you are supportive of this bill.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Please don't put words in my mouth. What's more, you haven't really answered my question. Sir, as it now stands, your bill is not based on any data, but merely on the fact that you met with two individuals in Niagara Falls who supported your position. Correct? To my mind, that's not much to go on.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think the support we have is a little broader than that. Across this country I think people are in support of what we are doing. I know you have your position with respect to the firearms registry. We have been very clear about the waste that we believe was incurred. We believe the whole firearms registry had less to do with fighting crime and more to do with creating bureaucracy. So we have some serious concerns with respect to that.

You ask, how can we be consistent and be against crime? Well, I think we are being consistent. Bill C-35 as well as other pieces of legislation that you presently have or have had before this committee are all part of our efforts to make our streets safer, to protect our communities, and quite frankly, to increase people's confidence in the criminal justice system. That's always a concern to me, as I think it should be to all Canadians. We want people to believe that the system works and it works to protect them.

Indeed, you would be aware that I announced several weeks ago the creation of the victims ombudsman, so that we have an individual and an office that is specifically tasked with the concerns and the issues of the victims of crime. I think you would agree with me that sometimes they are the forgotten ones in the process. I'm very comfortable that with the legislation we are moving forward on, as well as some of the other initiatives, we are directly targeting crime. But you and I will perhaps have to agree to disagree on the firearms registry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you, Sir.

Mr. Petit.

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

Thank you.

Good day, Mr. Nicholson, Ms. Kane, Ms. Besner. I have a question I'd like to ask in an effort to get some idea of where we are heading with Bill C-35. I want to be certain that everything is clearly understood. In the background material given to us by the Library of Parliament analysts, a criminologist by the name of Gary Mauser notes that according to the statistics on violent crime quoted by the Government of Canada, of the nearly 1,000 crimes committed in Toronto in 2006 with firearms or restricted weapons, nearly 40% were committed by a person out on bail, parole, temporary leave or probation. Therefore, according to law enforcement officials, 70% of the people charged with homicide in 2006 were under some kind of court order when the offence was committed.

The findings for Toronto, a city of three to four million, can also be applied to Montreal, which is grappling with the same problem, despite what everybody says. Gangs are very active in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. People are shooting at one another on street corners and we're dealing with many problems. When you collected this data, did you...

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

There are no street gangs in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Contrary to the inane comments you made on the radio...

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

That's not a point of order.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You are not the chair. It's a point of order.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I can disagree with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Please continue, Mr. Petit.

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

Minister, I want to be certain that I understand everything clearly. Does Bill C-35 with its reverse onus proposal in fact address a genuine need? Legislation must ultimately meet a need and according to what Mr. Mauser told us, there was in fact a problem in 2006.

Can you apply, as I have done, the situation he is describing to cities like Montreal or Vancouver? Could Bill C-35 minimize the chances of having many people who are on probation or otherwise have been released commit offences?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Minister.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Certainly, Monsieur Petit, the bill is designed to address problems of the type that you've set out, without getting into where gangs are a problem or where they're not a problem. Certainly when offences of the type described in Bill C-35 are committed, the public, whether they be in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, or indeed any other community within Canada, have a real right to be concerned, and they look to people like you and to this committee to try to respond to those concerns.

Quite frankly, that's why I believe this bill does have widespread support right across this country; it does address one of the concerns. Is it the only concern of the Criminal Code? No. I have other concerns with respect to the Criminal Code, and you, as a committee, are dealing with the legislation that reflects the government's concerns and the priorities that we talked about with Canadians during the last election.

Again, it's one more component of bringing our Criminal Code into line with the hopes and the aspirations of Canadians. I'm very pleased to be associated with it, and I hope all the members of this committee can take some satisfaction and some pride that we're moving ahead with these improvements.