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

[Tony Cannavino]

All that to say that on important issues like Bill C-35, we have had a number of discussions in our organization, the CPA. The board of directors alone has 30 members from across Canada. We have tried to come up with solutions to present to you as legislators on how best to fight crime and deal with violent criminals.

We want to find a different way to deal with violent criminals because we make a distinction in their case. Unfortunately, we did not find a panacea or any one solution that would address everything. These issues will take a lot of effort, on both your part and ours. They require a variety of approaches. We will need more than one piece of legislation or one bill that has a number of different facets.

You were talking earlier about street gangs and criminal organizations. The problem is that police forces also have to prove that the individual belongs to a criminal organization. You know that proving that is not always easy. I remember when I first started investigating the Hells Angels. It was easy: they were so stupid that they wore their colours on their jackets when they committed offences. We photographed them and it was in the bag. At some point, they got wise and seemed to change their approach. When they were all imprisoned, they decided that they had not been very smart. So they changed their techniques and their approach.

In the case of violent criminals, what needs to be done? You talked about borders, and I agree entirely with you on that. We have been saying for a long time that we need to strengthen and protect our borders. We are also going to have to protect our ports. Moreover, criminal organizations are recruiting young people and individuals who are not members, but who commit crimes for the organizations using weapons. Things may change if these people learn that if they commit a firearms-related offence, the first thing they will have to do is show that they are not violent individuals, or else they will stay in detention, that they will face stiffer minimum sentences and that the principle of two-for-one or three-for-one will be abolished.

Mr. Chairman, I am making a connection here with the bill. The government has announced a review of the Canadian parole system, and we will be participating actively in that. Why? We feel that parole should not be systematic, but rather that it should be earned. We want to make things difficult for people who commit violent crimes by placing the onus on them to prove that they are not violent. We want them to understand that once they are imprisoned, they will stay there for a long time, that they will have to take part in rehabilitation programs in order to earn parole and that they will not get out after serving one-sixth of their sentences. That is indeed an unacceptable practice.

The list of offences should also include drug smuggling and trafficking. Although it is not considered to be a violent offence, it does cause a huge amount of violence. It is time that we look at that problem properly.

That is why I feel this bill is important, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you.

I'm going to ask if there any comments from the Association of Chiefs of Police.

Mr. Cuthbert.

[Peter Cuthbert, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

My comment right at this moment is that an individual who uses a gun to commit a criminal offence is a different type of individual and has to be treated differently, and the reverse onus.... Someone who walks into a corner store, uses a gun, and threatens the life an individual is different from the individual who shoplifts. The shoplifter is released, promises to appear, is quickly through the system and out of the system, and is then asked to appear back before the courts. But an individual who intentionally has a gun in his or her possession and has the nerve to go into a store or dwelling with the intent of using that gun to commit a criminal offence has to be treated differently from the other so-called criminals we have in our system.

I would also emphasize that by keeping that individual--if that individual cannot explain to the courts why he or she should be released--the courts will have the opportunity to assess that individual at the time when, if convicted, appropriate programs are in place and an appropriate placement is in place for that type of individual.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you, Mr. Cuthbert.

Mr. Comartin, please.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I was going to pass, but I'm going to ask one question. Maybe Mr. Cannavino or Mr. Wilson may be able to get this.

When Professor Doob was before us this morning he challenged the relevance of this figure that you constantly throw forward, the 40% of crimes being committed by persons on bail, parole, temporary absence, or probation. I'm not going to ask you to go back, Mr. Wilson, and recall those thousand cases of crimes in Toronto, but I think you would be able to do the following. Of the 32 people facing the manslaughter and homicide charges in 2006, you have 14 on bail and 13 on probation. Could you find out and get back to the committee on what charges they were confronted with on bail, what they had been convicted of, and what they were spending time on probation for? I'm assuming you can't get me that now.

[Dave Wilson, President, Toronto Police Association, Canadian Police Association]

Unless Tony is going to pull it out of his hat, I can't give it to you right now.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

He doesn't use statistics that way, Mr. Wilson.

[Dave Wilson]

I'd be happy to get that information and get back to you with it.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

You can get it to the clerk of the committee. Thank you.

That's all I have, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Mr. Hanger, please.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing, and ma'am, thank you for coming before the committee.

I'm always interested to hear what the police have to say. I know the police associations don't always agree on everything. When you look at the regional differences across the country, there are viewpoints that are somewhat different between regions. Be that as it may, I know that it's very clear you're looking at this legislation in a very favourable light.

Most of the representation here reflects big cities, but there may be some rural differences. There are shootings in the rural areas as well as in the urban centres.

Some statistics were offered on page 6, Mr. Cannavino, and I'm curious about something. When you talk about, for instance, the 32 people facing murder or manslaughter charges for homicide in 2006, and that 14 were out on bail at the time of the offence, are you inferring that in each one of these cases there was a firearm involved?

[Tony Cannavino]

I could check and make sure.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

You don't know, then.

[Tony Cannavino]

It was the question Mr. Comartin asked, and we'll provide you with the right information.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I must not have been listening very carefully when Mr. Comartin asked this question. I apologize for that.

Going back to these arrests and this legislation, how many individuals do you really think are going to be affected by legislation like that?

[Tony Cannavino]

In my mind, they will all be affected by it, for one reason. Actually, the onus isn't on the crown attorney; it's on the police officers to prove that these people are dangerous. For instance, the officer who was shot and killed in Brossard a couple of weeks ago—that is a pure example of somebody who shot and killed a police officer and is now released, waiting for the trial.

That means that in every violent crime or crimes committed with a gun, they would be submitted to that.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

In your view, in this legislation, who is the target of the reverse onus?

[Tony Cannavino]

It's going to target—

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I'm asking you to give me some examples.

[Tony Cannavino]

—all street gangs, for sure. You know the way the street gangs work. They recruit people to do their job, their dirty work. It's going to include them, also. It will be all crimes, all violent crimes, all crimes committed with guns.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

It's individuals, and you're looking at—

[Tony Cannavino]

Organized crime is one thing. There is also a burden to prove that those people were part of organized crime. When you have a bill like this one, then it's the individual. It's not only if he is part of organized crime. That's why, for us, this part is very important.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Monsieur, you brought up the issue of École Polytechnique and Mr. Lépine, I believe his name was, the individual responsible for the shootings there. It's very difficult to assess an individual like him unless he has come under some sort of review.

We were talking about organized crime here. We know about their propensity to use firearms. We know they're involved in drive-by shootings, gang shootings, drugs, and you name it. We know that.

Then you have another element, with different motives, that gravitates towards the use of firearms. We're dealing with a different class of people, as Mr. Cuthbert said. The man who goes in to rob a store is one type, but we're dealing with another type here, too, and it's an individual, as well.

I know it's pretty hard to equate this legislation to a man like that, who has a propensity for anger and retaliation. But how do you see this fitting into any legislation here?

[David Griffin, Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association]

First and foremost, what we're really talking about is prevention in those cases, and in particular, how we screen people who can access firearms. It's not just a question of screening the person—as is being suggested at present—at the time they first get firearms. How do we screen people ten years later, or five years later, or at the time they may have a marital breakdown or a family crisis?

What we see as one of the essential components of the current firearms program is the continuous screening of people who are in the firearms database as owners and the ability of people who are either living with them or working with them, if there's a problem, to call a hotline and say that this person is causing us concern because they've made threats. Or this person has some psychiatric problems and we're concerned because there are guns in our house. Or this person is demonstrating some unusual behaviour and we're concerned because we believe there are firearms. It's having the checks and balances in place to do that.

It's true that we're never going to solve or prevent every one of those types of tragedies. But certainly, having up-to-date information about firearms and about firearms owners, in a manner that's not intrusive but that allows the police to check that, is critically important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Are there any other comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Tottenham.