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

[Daryl Tottenham]

In response to your looking for where this would come into play, the case I have here, and I can leave copies of this, I think is just one example of where I see the value of this legislation.

In this incident, at the first instance, when the arrests were made, the two individuals, if there had been the reverse onus on them, would have been held in custody. The spinoff that followed this involved five different shootings. One person was shot nine times, with 20 shots fired, in an open-area mall. In one, 15 shots were fired and a 10-year-old child was hit with shrapnel. In another, a person was hit and almost died at the scene. There were a number of shots fired—12 to 15—in an open area in a mall parking lot. All the things that happened in this case, right through to the end, would have been avoided if this legislation had been in place and those people had been detained and held in the first instance.

The charges are still before the courts, and that was two years ago. They would still likely be before the courts and we could have avoided a lot. That's just one example of a spinoff where I would see the value of this. It's taking people who are out doing this and preventing them from injuring other people and putting the public at risk, which I think is quite significant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Yes, Mr. Wilson.

[Dave Wilson]

Speaking to that public risk, people who commit offences with firearms are really playing Russian roulette with the lives of innocent people. They've made a choice to carry the gun. Once they've made a choice to carry a gun, they've made a choice to use it. A bill like this is very important in hitting not only the gangs, but in hitting the general population, people who are prepared to play Russian roulette with other people's lives, and that's why this kind of legislation is very important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Jennings, please.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you very much for your presentations.

I have to admit that I like Bill C-35, despite the fact that I don't think it will really do much to make Canadians safer in their communities. In fact, based on the information we received, as a general rule if someone is accused of committing a firearms-related offence, the judge considers this as an aggravating factor. In such cases, the accused may be held in prison while awaiting his trial.

What I like about this bill is that when an accused person meets with his legal counsellor or attorney, his representative will not tell him that the onus is on the Crown to prove beyond all reasonable doubt in a bail hearing that the accused constitutes a threat and therefore must be detained until he goes to trial. The lawyer is going to have to tell his client that it is up to him to prove that he should be released. That's a major change in philosophy. And that will probably have a bigger effect on the accused person than the process itself. Currently, the accused can simply off-load the burden of proof, which is actually quite substantial.

I read the Canadian Police Association's brief. There was something that really struck me on page 10 of the section entitled “The Canadian Judicial System Needs a Major Overhaul”. You stated the following:

We contend that the time is long overdue to reform our criminal justice system. An independent review of Canada's sentencing, corrections and parole systems remains a top priority for the Canadian Police Association.

I'd like to know if you feel frustrated at all by the fact that rather than carrying out such an overhaul and making sure an in-depth public inquiry is held on the sentencing, correctional, and parole systems, that a piecemeal approach is being adopted.

[Tony Cannavino]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To begin, Ms. Jennings, you would indeed think that in any incident involving violence along the lines of what you referred to in your preamble, the judge would take these facts into consideration and keep the accused in prison. But, this is not the case. One of the most striking examples of this was the slaying of one of our colleagues in Brossard. Everybody was astounded by the decision. In any event, there are procedures which are followed. But this is a flagrant example of someone killing an individual and yet being released while awaiting trial, while a claim of self-defence was already made. So let's leave it up to the courts to make these determinations, shall we? What is more violent than murder? That's just one example, but there are others which are not as well known because a police officer was not involved. There are other cases.

The other issue you raised is in relation to responsibility. The onus is on the individual who committed a violent crime to demonstrate that he or she should be released. That's why we've said that this bill makes sense and that it sends out a clear message: if you want to play at this kind of game and jeopardize Canadians' safety, well then you will suffer the consequences.

We have been calling for years for an overhaul of the Canadian corrections, parole, and sentencing systems. Last week, Minister Stockwell Day announced a review of the correctional system and struck a committee called the blue-ribbon panel. The blue-ribbon panel will have a mandate.

We'll be very active, and we'll make our voice heard, that's for sure. I think a whole cross-section of policies needs to be reviewed, and not only the Criminal Code and its statutes. The Canadian prison system's internal policies also need to be reviewed because there are a lot of things wrong with the way these institutions treat their inmates.

Quebeckers will always remember what happened with Conrad Brassard. How do you treat a psychopath whose diagnosis indicates a 100% chance of repeat offending and who, on three occasions, committed crimes which included sexually assaulting and killing his poor victims? There is something wrong with that. How is it possible that an individual considered to be dangerous and who was imprisoned in a maximum security penitentiary was able to get transferred in the space of a few months to a medium-security prison, and then end up in a half-way house? This individual did not even serve a third of his sentence and didn't even take part in a rehabilitation program.

That is also part of the tool kit. I get a kick out of saying that I need a tool kit. People that know me know that I'm not much of a handyman, but I need a well-stocked tool kit to deal with criminals. That's what we need.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

What is missing in what you have recommended, and this is something you have been fighting for for a long time, is the part on sentencing?

[Tony Cannavino]

As I said earlier, Ms. Jennings, that's why I've been coming here so regularly for some time now. I get the sense that we are part of a team or family.

Since there are a number of bills, if you follow the logic, the objective is quite clear: if somebody commits a serious crime, he or she will suffer the consequences. Such an individual would know from the word go that if he or she chose to go down that path, there wouldn't be a seasoned defence lawyer or magician able to get them released easily. Any individual going down that path would suffer the consequences.

Mr. Ménard raised a point. I recall that at the time I was part of the law enforcement squad that became the Carcajou squad. We were going head-to-head with the Hells Angels who literally controlled Quebeckers' everyday lives. People thought that in Quebec the police and government had thrown in the towel and that they weren't able to get a handle on this file. It took tough legislation, like the Antigang Act which was really put to good use. The upshot of the Antigang Act was that these individuals suffered consequences at the hands of the courts which they had not suffered before, in other words they were sent to prison for a long time.

But things are getting tougher with each and every case because these people exploit the system, identify its weaknesses and see how far they can get. That's why, bill after bill, you see us here saying the same thing over and over, hammering in the same message, and asking you to help us. We need several bills.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you, Mr. Cannavino.

I'll now recognize Mr. Petit.

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

Good afternoon, gentlemen. We do indeed see each other regularly. We're not a family, but we're a good team.

[Tony Cannavino]

We're Quebec cousins.

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

Yes, indeed.

My question is for you, Mr. Cannavino.

When Bill C-35 was tabled, I asked myself a number of questions. As you indicated earlier, currently, when an individual is arrested by the police, that person appears with his lawyer, and the Crown has to determine that the accused is dangerous in order for him not to be released. Of course, in the case of an individual without a criminal record, even if you do have information, the information cannot be used to detain the individual. You have no right to do so, and neither the Crown nor the judge would allow it.

I want to make sure I am properly understood. Bill C-35 adds a dozen serious offences. These are not minor offences, where reversing the burden of proof could create problems. I understand that the question I will be asking you, Mr. Cannavino, might be philosophical in nature, but it is important.

Many people, including senior citizens, watch television programs on TVA, Radio-Canada, TQS and other channels where stories of people shot in the streets are shown every night. For having worked in this field, I know that the problem is not security, but the sense of security. That is not only true for senior citizens. There are 50-year-olds who are scared, and there are 20-year-olds who are already scared.

Bill C-35 will ensure that people are brought before a judge, and as Ms. Jennings indicated earlier, will have to prove that they are fit to be released. Will the fact that an individual is not immediately released have an effect on people's sense of security? The Crown may postpone the trial by three days, as is currently done, and an arrangement can be made with the Crown on fairness issues to release the individual.

Could the fact that an individual is not immediately released, pursuant to Bill C-35—that does not mean he is guilty—create a sense of security? I call that philosophy, something you spoke about earlier. I do not want to speak about the case you alluded to where one of your police officers was killed, but I did see it on television. We all were shocked. I myself, as a defence lawyer, was surprised. I would like to know whether Bill C-35 addresses the issue of safety. The law is one thing; safety is another.

[Tony Cannavino]

The sense of security you speak of is an excellent point. I have to tell you that the current case goes somewhat beyond that. As this future law, which is currently a bill, comes into force, it will lead to more than a sense of security. You know, we hear about all kinds of pressure, intimidation and the like, exerted in some neighbourhoods. Citizens are asked to cooperate by denouncing the individuals that threaten and assault them. Unfortunately, it is difficult to convince them not to worry, because every day we see offenders who, a short while later, catch up with their victims on a street in the same neighbourhood and taunt and threaten them. People do feel quite intimidated.

When we talk about the burden of proof, the word "burden" is meaningful. Proving that you are not dangerous is not easy to do. Nor is it easy for the Crown to determine that an individual is dangerous. Therefore, if the burden of proof rests with the person who committed a heinous or violent crime, the chances are that person will be detained, which will increase people's sense of security, because they will think that if they denounce someone, that individual will not be released prior to his trial and will likely remain imprisoned for some time. People will think that they did their job and got rid of the offender.

That is what will happen when the bill is passed. I think it is the cornerstone that will ensure that violent individuals are treated very differently than people who shoplift in a store, for example, although I do not want to minimize shoplifting. But people who threaten citizens are not considered the same way as people who shoplift.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you.

Ms. Freeman.

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

I would first like to thank you all for appearing today. This is all very interesting.

Since we began studying Bill C-35, only one witness has expressed reservations; that was this morning. Everyone, except for one person, was in favour of the bill. One of the reasons why he was more or less in favour of enforcing the bill was that, in his view, most people who commit firearm offences are already incarcerated de facto.

I would like to know whether you have any statistics to that effect. You have some concerning Toronto and Montreal. I would like to know the proportion of criminals who are incarcerated under existing laws. We are studying this bill and we understand, on a philosophical level, the scope of your arguments, but do you have any figures to provide to us?

[Tony Cannavino]

As my colleagues from Montreal and Toronto said earlier—

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

It would be helpful for us to have the information. We have been unable to obtain adequate information elsewhere. We were given Statistics Canada figures, but they did not help us much.

[Tony Cannavino]

I am pleased that my colleagues from Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal were able to appear with me because we wanted to show you how things are going in those cities and areas. We can try to find those statistics for you. We could send them to you.

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

The committee would find that extremely interesting and useful. Up until now, we have constantly addressed that issue, and nobody has been able to provide us with statistics, be it Statistics Canada or anyone else. If you could give us some material, that would help us.

[Tony Cannavino]

We have been collecting more and more information over the past few years.

Earlier, you spoke about the impact of reviewing, among other things, the prison and parole systems. You also spoke about the bill and the day when time will no longer count for double. If that was all there was, we would have problems.

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

Yes.

[Tony Cannavino]

But that is all part of a whole. We know that we will come to a point where offenders will no longer cause a backlog in the courts, there will no longer be the steady stream of adjourned trials. Why is that? Because offenders will not win out by remaining behind bars before their sentences are handed down. They will be incarcerated, and the time served before sentencing will no longer count for double.

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

In your view, that would unclog the system.

[Tony Cannavino]

That would greatly accelerate the process. There would no longer be an accumulation of cases and pro forma trials.

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

All right.

I have a question for Mr. Francoeur. First, I would like to thank you for your testimony. Since I come from the Montreal area, the dramatic events which took place at the École Polytechnique also left me—

In your presentation, you talked about how guns moved around freely, how it was possible to get them. You also talked about Châteauguay and Kanawake, which are municipalities located in my riding. It seems that it is easy to get weapons there. Since we are talking about crimes committed with a firearm, can you tell us more about the problem of the free flow of firearms? This is all relevant to our study of Bill C-35. It makes sense. We have to be logical and consistent. When you want to pass this type of legislation but ignore the firearms registry, in my mind that just does not make sense. Now we are talking about the free flow of weapons. Can you tell me a bit more about what goes on?