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

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Good afternoon, everyone.

This is meeting no. 6. As the agenda indicates, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 27, 2007, the committee is considering Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

As witnesses we have, from the Canadian Police Association, Mr. Tony Cannavino, the president; David Griffin, executive officer;

Mr. Yves Francoeur, President of the Fraternité des policiers et policières de la Communauté urbaine de Montréal—I doubt that the community exists anymore, but in any case—

Dave Wilson, the president of the Toronto Police Association; Daryl E. Tottenham, sergeant, Westminster Police Service.

We also have, from the Canadian Police Association,

Mrs. Amanda Connolley.

We're going to have two presentations. The first one is by Mr. Cannavino. Mr. President, the floor is yours.

[Tony Cannavino, President, Canadian Police Association]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good afternoon.

I would like to introduce the colleagues who are with me and who are members of the Canadian Police Association's board of directors. They are Yves Francoeur, President of the Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal; Dave Wilson, President of the Toronto Police Association; Daryl Tottenham, President of the BC Federation of Police Officers. I am also accompanied by the Executive Director of the Canadian Police Association, David Griffin. I will begin my presentation and then my colleagues will be available to answer your questions.

The Canadian Police Association welcomes the opportunity to present our submissions to the House of Commons Legislative Committee on Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences).

The CPA is the national voice for 56,000 police personnel serving across Canada. Through our 170 member associations, CPA membership includes police personnel serving in police services from Canada's smallest towns and villages as well as those working in our largest municipal cities, provincial police services, members of the RCMP, Railway Police, and First Nations Police Associations.

The Canadian Police Association is acknowledged as a national voice for police personnel in the reform of the Canadian criminal justice system. Our goal is to work with elected officials from all parties, to bring about meaningful reforms to enhance the safety and security of all Canadians, including those sworn to protect our communities.

Urban violence has been a significant concern for our association. For over a decade, police associations have been advocating reforms to our justice system in Canada. In particular, we have called for changes to bolster the sentencing, detention, and parole of violent offenders.

Make no mistake about it, repeat offenders are a serious problem. Police understand this intuitively as we deal with these frequent flyers on a routine basis. Statistics released by the Toronto police homicide squad for 2005 demonstrate this point. Among the 32 people facing murder or manslaughter charges for homicide in 2006, 14 were on bail at the time of the offence, 13 were on probation, and 17 were subject to firearms prohibition orders.

In November 2006, statistics provided by Toronto police indicate that of the nearly 1,000 crimes committed so far that year involving firearms or restricted weapons, nearly 40% were committed by persons on bail, parole, temporary absence, or probation. The revolving door justice system is failing to prevent further criminal activity by these repeat violent offenders.

Gun violence requires a non-partisan approach. Stopping the gang violence in Canada's major cities is a concern for police officers across this country. The solution begins with bringing an end to Canada's revolving door justice system.

Canada's police officers have lost confidence in a system that sees violent offenders regularly returned to the streets. We need to restore meaningful consequences and deterrence in our justice system, which begins with stiffer sentences, real jail time, and tougher parole eligibility policies for violent offenders.

We need to protect Canadians from offenders who commit crimes with guns or any type of weapon. We support the introduction of reverse onus legislation for offenders charged with serious offences involving firearms and other regulated weapons.

Support for tougher measures to thwart gun violence transcends party lines. During the last federal election, all three major parties promised tougher legislation for crimes involving firearms. The NDP platform promised to increase the mandatory minimum penalty for possession, sale, and importation of illegal arms such as handguns, assault rifles, and automatic weapons, and to add mandatory minimum sentences to other weapons offences, including a four-year minimum sentence on all weapons offences such as possession of a concealed weapon.

Former Prime Minister Martin promised to introduce reverse onus bail rules and to toughen penalties by reintroducing legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence, by doubling the mandatory minimum sentences for key gun crimes.

On Thursday, November 23, Prime Minister Harper, Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty, and Toronto's Mayor David Miller held a joint news conference in Toronto to announce new federal legislation to toughen bail conditions for gun-related crimes.

Premier McGuinty has been a proponent of tougher measures to deal with gun crime. On December 29, 2005, following the Boxing Day shooting death of Toronto student Jane Creba, Premier McGuinty wrote a letter, entitled “An Open Letter from Premier McGuinty to Federal Leaders on Gun Crimes”. In the letter, the premier proposed the following initiatives to address the gun crime concern: impose a ban on handguns; impose a mandatory minimum sentence of four years for illegal possession of a handgun; impose increased mandatory minimum sentences for all gun crimes; create two new Criminal Code offences with mandatory minimum sentences for robbery with the intent to steal a gun and for breaking and entering with the intent to steal a gun; impose a reverse onus on bail for all gun crimes; and set more severe penalties for any breach of bail conditions.

Premier McGuinty supports reverse onus legislation. As he stated, “When you pick up a gun and commit a crime, you lose your right to be free.”

In January 2006, Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant released the province's anti-gun strategy, which includes a call for reverse onus bail.

Toronto Mayor David Miller stated that he supports the new legislation, because “guns are different than anything else. Witnesses need to know that if they help police in apprehending a criminal using a gun, they'll be able to come forward and speak without fear, because the criminal will remain in jail.”

Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has “pledged that his caucus is prepared to offer the Conservatives the vote they need to pass 'reverse-onus bail hearings' legislation that would make it more difficult for those arrested on firearms offences to be released on bail”. The Liberal crime strategy announced on March 14, 2007, includes a commitment to “continue to support reverse-onus bail hearings for those arrested for a gun crime”.

Canadians are rightly concerned that our criminal justice system does not provide an adequate response to firearms offences. They are looking to Parliament to move swiftly to fulfill these commitments.

Gang violence is a major problem in many of our cities, as we have seen in recent months in the city of Toronto. But make no mistake about it, urban violence is not only a Toronto problem. Statistics Canada confirms that the cities of Regina, Winnipeg, Abbotsford, Edmonton, Saskatoon, and Vancouver have had consistently higher homicide rates than Toronto for the past decade.

The tragedy at Dawson College in Montreal has reinforced the need to strengthen Canada's controls over civilian firearms possession. To our knowledge no new firearms have been added to the restricted or prohibited categories in Canada for over a decade, yet many new firearms are being offered for sale that would arguably meet existing criteria. As a consequence, some weapons are being legally sold in Canada despite the fact that they meet existing criteria for restricted or prohibited status and present significant concerns for public safety.

Retailers understand and exploit those loopholes, as demonstrated by the posting of the website for Wolverine Supplies in Manitoba—you'll find it in your brief. We submit that further steps must be taken to close the loopholes by updating and maintaining the restricted and prohibited firearms classifications.

In conclusion, stopping the gang violence in Canada's cities is a concern for Canadian police officers, and the solution begins with bringing an end to Canada's revolving door justice system. Canada's police officers have lost confidence in a system that regularly releases violent offenders and lets them go free in our streets.

Bill C-35 is a positive step in addressing the pre-trial custody of persons accused of serious crimes involving firearms and regulated weapons.

In addition, we need to restore meaningful consequences and deterrents in our justice system, which begins with stiffer sentences, real jail time, meaningful intervention and rehabilitation, and stronger parole eligibility policies for violent offenders. We need stiffer minimum sentences for offenders who commit crimes with guns or any type of weapon.

Bill C-35 provides a positive component in an integrated strategy to address current shortfalls, specifically pertaining to the concern with gun violence. We urge Parliament to proceed swiftly with passage of Bill C-35.

We thank you for your attention, and we welcome your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cannavino.

Now we will pass to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. We have Mr. Peter Cuthbert, the executive director, et aussi Madame Connolley, qui est la conseillère juridique.

Ms. Connolley, your presentation, please.

[Amanda Connolley, Legal Counsel, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, honourable members of the committee. My name is Amanda Connolley and I appear on behalf of the law amendments committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

For the purpose of clarification, I'm here today on behalf of Vincent Westwick, the past co-president of the law amendments committee. He is unable to attend today due to illness.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police represents 950 chiefs, deputy chiefs, and other members of the executive of over 130 police services across Canada. The association is committed to progressively modifying the law surrounding crime and questions of community safety.

It is an honour and a pleasure to appear before you today in order to address this important piece of legislation known as Bill C-35, which proposes to reverse the onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences.

Quite simply, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports Bill C-35. The provisions are both reasonable and supportable. It is not unreasonable or unduly burdensome for a person alleged to have committed a serious offence with a firearm to have to meet the burden of proof before being released back into the very community where the crime was committed.

More importantly, these provisions are consistent with positions the CACP has previously submitted to the government. For example, the provisions are in sync with the principle of serious consequences for serious crime. There needs to be a direct correlation between the two, in order to have the proper deterrent effect on the criminal element, as well as to instill a sense of confidence in the public with respect to the effectiveness of the law in dealing with crime. This is also true for the policing community.

Another issue the CACP has been emphasizing is the growing public disaffection with the criminal justice system among police services and communities across Canada. Too often, we hear that people are frustrated, disappointed, and losing confidence in the process. We also hear that the system is letting Canadians down. Provisions such as Bill C-35 intend to counter some of these unproductive trends and restore public confidence in our judicial system.

It is the position of the CACP that a successful anti-gun crime strategy must be multifaceted and include proactive and preventative programs and provisions, such as those in Bill C-35, which allow for reasonable enforcement and community safety.

That concludes my opening remarks. I would welcome any questions members may have today.

I would just add this caveat: I am a last-minute stand-in for Mr. Westwick, so I may not be able to provide fulsome answers to your questions. However, I can undertake to provide written response to your questions if I'm unable to answer them today. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police did not want to miss this opportunity to comment on such an important piece of legislation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you very much.

I just want to tell my colleagues that the first round will be seven minutes and the second round five minutes.

We'll start with Mr. Bagnell, please.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Before I ask my question, I just have a comment for Mr. Cannavino. Thank you very much for the stats on bail; we have a hard time getting those, and I might ask you about them later.

Also, Mr. Jennings, I quite enjoyed being at your awards ceremony, where we honoured the bravest in the country. I appreciate that you did that. We also appreciate your support for Liberal demands for an inquiry into the pension scandal.

My first question is for all the witnesses—everyone at the table. Do you disagree on anything?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

He's from the Yukon.

Who would like to volunteer?

[Tony Cannavino]

I think that we're almost members of the committee, we come here so often. We feel like family here.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

It's going to be hard to ask hard questions about this bill, because I think all of the parties basically agree, and all the witnesses agree, except for one we had this morning.

The facts show that when a person is in jail, they generally come out worse; they get trained by hardened criminals. I would not say it's a good environment for them to be in, with the type of people they are living with. They could have better mentors, let me put it that way.

I assume the witnesses agree with that.

[Tony Cannavino]

The thing is that most of the time, if they don't spend enough time there, they can't get into rehabilitation programs, because the first thing you know, they're playing the system. We're talking about “dead time”, that if they spend, let's say, a year, it's counted for double or triple the time. There's a strategy that criminals use right now, or defence attorneys use, based on the fact they won't fast-track a trial, so the accused spends more time in jail before the sentence and they know it's going to count as double time, and in some places triple time. Meanwhile, when they're in jail, there are no rehab programs; there's nothing. That's why they call it dead time.

So, for us, why we think this bill is important, and why there seems to be a consensus here—which we appreciate—is that we're talking about violent criminals. They're the ones committing the hideous crimes. Releasing them and waiting for trial—I don't think it should be done that way. It's going to be up to them to prove whether they should get out.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I understand that. But setting aside this bill for a second, you do agree that when someone is in prison, they come out worse?

[Tony Cannavino]

Well, the problem with that is that they don't stay in for enough time—and that's what we were saying. When we talk about mandatory minimums, one of the reasons we insist on those for violent crimes is that criminals will then spend enough time in jail to go into those rehab programs. But actually that's not the case.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Yves Francoeur, we had some good stats from Tony. We had a hard time getting them from many other witnesses; the department didn't have them. It's embarrassing that as legislators we do a bill when there are no stats.

Could you give us some stats from Montreal on crimes committed by people on bail—and firearms-related stats?

[Yves Francoeur, President, Fraternité des policiers et policières de la Communauté urbaine de Montréal Inc., Canadian Police Association]

I did not bring any statistics on Montreal because they do not indicate the number of people out on bail pending trial. However, Montreal probably has the best statistics in Canada. People told me last week that only Montreal and Toronto had detailed statistics. One thing I do know is that, on Saint-Laurent Street in Montreal, 28 handguns have been seized since January 1^st, 2005, including 11 that were directly related to street gangs, with the rest connected to organized crime.

If Bill C-35 had been in force, Basil Parasiris, who murdered Laval police officer Daniel Tessier, would never have been on bail while awaiting trial. It was Basil Parasiris in this case, but in Montreal we are often dealing with street gangs. We might, for example, arrest three of them with handguns in a car. If a street gang member happens not to have a criminal record because he has never been caught before, he will receive a bail hearing in court and be released.

This legislation needs to be passed in its entirety. But we also need to look at firearms more broadly. Bill C-10 and the firearms registry will probably be back in the spotlight soon.

I am particularly sensitive on firearms issues. On December 6, 1989, at 4:40 in the afternoon, I was patrolling on Décarie Boulevard in Montreal, when I received a call to go to the École Polytechnique. Unfortunately, we arrived too late; there were 14 victims. For 12 hours, I guarded a crime scene a little larger than this room, where 6 female students had been killed and were lying on the ground. Against the back wall stood a metal ladder leading up to a small window. Those young women had tried to escape, and there were bits of flesh everywhere.

In Montreal and other major cities, we have seen a trend toward greater use of firearms. I was a patrol officer in Montreal from 1987 to 1998. During that period, we very rarely seized any handguns. We seized sawed-off weapons, prohibited weapons, because handguns were not available. These days, anyone can get hold of a handgun. I work for the police in Montreal and I could bring you to an Indian reserve in Châteauguay and find you a 357 or 9 mm handgun to buy.

Bill C-35 is a first step in the right direction, but it is up to you, as our current decision-makers, to ensure that future generations, our children and grandchildren, will be able to live in a society without firearms. So please, it is important to begin by passing this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you, Mr. Francoeur.

[Tony Cannavino]

Mr. Chairman, Daryl Tottenham can give some statistics from British Columbia.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Yes, if you want to bring statistics please do so.

[Daryl Tottenham, Sergeant, New Westminster Police Service, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Thank you.

Fortunately, on very short notice I was able to get some statistics for British Columbia on the lower mainland district, which is essentially from Vancouver out to the Fraser Valley and Hope. So it's not a huge area in British Columbia, but it's a fairly concentrated area.

In 2006 we had a total of 20 homicides involving firearms, and a further 83 incidents of attempted murder and woundings with firearms. We also recorded 268 incidents involving confirmed shots fired calls for this one region.

In 2006 members of the RCMP and municipal agencies in that area seized 447 firearms in relation to their duties in a one-year period in the greater Vancouver district, an average of 1.25 firearms a day.

Of the 268 calls for confirmed shots fired that we attended, 29 were in residential areas and 222 were in public areas. That is staggering when you think about public safety. We're going in to deal with shots fired calls when a vehicle has been sprayed by gunfire in a very open area—a parking lot of a mall in broad daylight—where obviously a lot of civilians are present and have been hit. We've had some fatalities as a result of that.

Just prior to leaving to come here late last night I was able to get one small snippet of information. I picked one jurisdiction, Abbotsford, which is out in the valley. They've had a high number of incidents of gang violence out there in the last few years. I contacted one of the members out there and specifically said I was looking for something on firearms and bail applications. But it wasn't a case of finding one; it was a case of narrowing them down to one.

They were able to provide me with information on a recent file concerning a two-year project that was undertaken involving several known gang members who were involved in drug trafficking and weapons trafficking at a very high level. At the culmination of this project, arrests were made and two of the four members who were targeted were arrested in possession of a huge number of semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons, kilogram levels of cocaine, and a large amount of cash.

They were subsequently turned out on bail. There were three more incidents after that when they were released and arrested and released, with more shootings and more firearms. At this point they're still out on bail on the same charges, with multiple shootings and multiple arrests over the course of six months.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cannavino, Mr. Francoeur, good afternoon. I have a few comments to make. Mr. Francoeur, thank you for your testimony and, in particular, for pointing out the contradiction between the fact that the government wants to have stiffer sentences, but is not concerned about the easy availability of weapons. You will not have to work very hard to convince a number of us.

It seems to me that there are two types of measures that are really needed to fight crime. First, there is the firearms registry. If I were appointed Minister of Justice or Public Security, the first thing I would do would be to look at parole. I do not think that this bill will have a big effect on the problems you are describing.

Mr. Cannavino, you will be pleased to know that the Defence Lawyers' Association supports this bill. They told us—see how all is right with the world!—that in practice, magistrates, justices of the peace and judges did not release people on bail who had committed firearms offences. Obviously, not everyone might agree. I introduced a motion on street gangs, and I hope that my colleagues on the government side in a great gesture of friendship such as we have seen all too rarely over the past few years in this committee, will pass it on Thursday morning.

Mr. Cannavino, you were there when parliamentarians considered Bills C-84, C-24 and C-36. You know how concerned the Bloc Québécois and others are about gangsters and street gangs. People in Montreal and Toronto, especially your colleague Mr. Robinette from Montreal, have told us that drive-by shootings are not covered by the definition of criminal organization in the Criminal Code. Should we not include that immediately? When people are intercepted, a drive-by shooting is not enough to prove that they belong to a street gang and can therefore be charged. They can obviously be charged with homicide and other offences, but it would be better to have a charge of gangsterism, since that delays parole and results in longer sentences.

If we have to choose between a bill like C-35, which seems to us to entrench a practice which already exists, and not being more vigilant with the firearms registry and not changing the definition of criminal organization in the Criminal Code, I would opt for the latter approaches.

I would like to hear from your colleague, Mr. Francoeur, yourself or any of the other witnesses who might like to comment, but I would first say that I find the current system, which allows people to serve only one-sixth of their sentences, totally unacceptable. One-third would be understandable. But the revolving door scenario that you have described does not seem to me to have too much to do with Bill C-35; it stems more from the fact that people can serve just six months of a sentence—Some crimes that allow perpetrators to be eligible for release after one-sixth of the sentence are much more serious than these. Gun smuggling is a real concern. There are people eligible to serve no more than one-sixth of their sentences who pose a much greater danger to society, in my view.

I would have liked us to review this issue of serving one-sixth of sentences and of amending the Criminal Code to change the definition of criminal organization, which seem to me to be much greater priorities than bail for firearms offences, which is basically a non-issue in practice, if we are to believe the people who work on the frontlines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Mr. Cannavino, if you would, please answer the questions about Bill C-35.

[Tony Cannavino]

Yes.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if you are implying that I am getting off the subject, it won't fly. Mr. Cannavino is man with broad general knowledge, and I know that he will be able to connect the dots.

[Tony Cannavino]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ménard. I appreciate the compliment. I should buy 6/49 lottery tickets today. If I can get along with defence lawyers, I am sure that I will be able to win the big prize.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You have a lucky star.