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

[Yves Francoeur]

This is all very well known in police circles. The guns enter at Châteauguay. The biggest native reserve where they come in is Akwesasne. Indeed, this is well known. If you are in the Châteauguay area, you know that Sûreté du Québec officers do not intervene on their own initiative, that is, they will only intervene if they get a tip or if they are suspicious. In that case they ask the band council if they can go to such and such an address. That's how it works.

That's why we are telling you that Bill C-35 is part of a larger group of measures. It also involves tightening border controls. That's something else I'd like to talk about, but I don't want to get off the subject.

As Tony said a few moments ago, we don't have specific statistics for Montreal because there are no official statistics. You can get statistics on almost anything, but not on the number of crimes committed by persons who are out and about.

A detective sergeant who works with us told me that he was on the intelligence squad of a federal program funded by the federal. He supervises 18 Quebec police officers working on firearms. They recently seized three guns in Montreal, or in Quebec, which all came from the same address in Wisconsin. When they realized this, they asked American police officers to look into the matter. They went to the address of the individual in Wisconsin to meet with him. He was a trucker who crossed the border at Vancouver once a week. In the United States, people must register their firearms, but they do not have to renew their permit. This man had 750 weapons registered in his name, and they were all handguns. The investigation found 250 of them, but there are still 500 missing as we speak. We're not inventing things. Detective sergeant René Comtois could come before the committee to give you more details. This is what's happening. As I said, this can help us with other cases, and I think it is important to make these issues public because it is in everyone's interest to know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you, Mr. Francoeur.

Mr. Dykstra, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To Mr. Francoeur, in your comments early on, you spoke about what you had witnessed. I think sometimes all of us get a bit caught up in expecting all of you to be tough cops—you've got jobs to do, and you simply do them without feeling, you do them without emotion. But you come here not just based on what you think should happen because you're non-emotional; you're here because you actually see it, you feel it. I think that gives you ostensibly the type of credibility that certainly helps us move forward.

So I just wanted to make that comment, that certainly your feelings on this are very well received and appreciated.

I do have a couple of questions. One is somewhat about the comments Tony made and the statistics he showed.

What we haven't heard here is a reference to the victims, who obviously have this intense sense of fear if the perpetrators who made them victims actually have the potential to be on bail. I wonder if you could comment on that a little bit.

[Tony Cannavino]

The point you're making right now is a very important point. As I said a little bit earlier, we ask people to help us by denouncing those who've committed the crimes. We need help. We need to have communities participate in helping police services arrest those people.

The thing is that we often get the comment—this is on a daily basis, which my colleagues could talk about as well—that, “You know what? If I do that, the next day he's going to be back on the street. He's going to threaten us. He's going to look at me, smile, and say, 'You see how long it took me to get out?'”

You see that in your community. Go anywhere in Canada and it's always the same comment from people: “How can you protect me? If I give this guy away, how can you protect me? We know he's going to be back in the community within 24 hours.”

That's why we think this bill is so important. As I said, we're dealing with violent people here, people who have committed serious crimes. If they become convinced that—

It's going to take a couple of months--it might take year--for people to realize that they will be protected. But then the comment will be, “If I denounce him, he'll go to court, he'll stay behind bars until he goes through his trial, and he'll get his sentence. I won't see him for a while, that's for sure.” This thing will just grow bigger and bigger. We'll have the support of some communities, and people will say, “You know, we're going to help police officers, because these guys won't be back on the street within 24 hours.”

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

Ms. Connolley, is that the position of the chiefs as well?

[Amanda Connolley]

Could I have a moment, please?

[Peter Cuthbert]

Allow me to answer. In a follow-up to Ms. Jennings and Mr. Petit, the community has lost confidence in the justice system. We had a great debate last year in St. John's, Newfoundland, with the justice minister, defence, crown attorney, and the public. We had a two-hour debate on the views and opinions of those professions and the community. The sense of fear is there, and the lack of confidence in the system.

The CPA and the CACP think this is one more tool. This is the basket of tools we have to move forward so the community will gain some respect in the criminal system. It's becoming a mockery, sadly. Every day you read in the paper about the release of an individual who committed a criminal offence or used a gun in the commission of an offence--they're out on the street prior to the initial police investigation. The tape is still up, and the people are back on the streets. That's why we see this as having value.

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

Mr. Chair, may I follow that up with one quick question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Madam Freeman alluded to an individual, Mr. Doob, who presented this morning. I just want to read this and get a quick response from you. He stated:

My concern about this bill has less to do with its direct effect on the operation of the criminal justice system than it does with the clearly incorrect messages that it gives Canadians about the relationship between crime and the criminal law, and the false pictures it paints of the operation of the criminal justice system.

[Tony Cannavino]

First of all, I have a little problem understanding what he means by that. How can somebody be opposed to this bill when it's focused on certain crimes and all of them are violent? What would be the logic if you think there are no consequences as soon as you're arrested? I can't follow his logic, I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you.

[Dave Wilson]

One of the things the committee needs to understand is the level of frustration that police officers experience. You're talking about officers with extensive investigative background in our homicide units. There are many cases when they know who committed the crime, but they are not able to charge the person because they do not have people coming forward. This has been expressed to us time and time again. They know who it was, they can't prove it, and they don't have the reasonable grounds to bring it before the courts. If something is in place to create trust in the system, we will be able to put more of these people behind bars.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you.

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to thank you, Mr. Francoeur, for your testimony. It touched me deeply. This is why we have a deep respect not only for police officers, but also for police chiefs. As a former mayor, I know there is a difference between both positions, as they involve different functions.

Also, the evidence we have heard on Bill C-35—a bill that we support—has been generally supportive, but there has been a different view of how it will play out. The Criminal Lawyers' Association, and others, suggest that the effect of Bill C-35 is to basically codify what is happening on very serious crimes.

With serious recidivists, bail is hard to get. That all goes to our first discussions on justice issues; it's the discretion of a good magistrate or good judge. I think Bill C-35 is just that. With the reverse onus--which sometimes puts somebody's liberty at risk, so it's an important issue—I'm confident that a properly funded legal aid system will give the accused representation, and a properly appointed and instructed practising judge will make the right decision on the three grounds of bail or interim release. So I'm totally in favour of Bill C-35.

What gives me a little inquiétude is that some of the witness statements perhaps suggested that the reverse onus is a sure thing, that in every case the person is going to be out on a judicial interim release. I don't think we should lead the public to think that's the case. It shifts the likelihood that the person will be kept; it makes it more likely. I think we might all agree on that, rather than giving the public the idea that it's pretty much automatic that they're going to stay—It still depends on the discretion of the judge, and I have confidence in that.

We've had this discussion before, and we've been in Toronto to hear the police chief speak. I think the big thing that comes up—and Mr. Cannavino and Mr. Griffin are almost veterans, and they should get a badge of attendance here—is that it's really about guns. That's really where we should turn our focus. Many of you have talked about guns, but how are we going to get to the issue? There's the gun registry.

We have the current Minister of Justice saying in the Commons that he doesn't want to target duck hunters; he wants to target criminals. Well, I am a duck hunter and I have registered shotguns. I grew up interfacing with the outdoors and learning the responsible use of guns. I don't need the Minister of Justice to protect me. I don't think he has ever owned a gun. That kind of hyperbole bothers me.

As some of the witnesses have said, the issue really is whether you are going to use a gun if you have it. I think Mr. Wilson said that. There's legal use of guns. There are people who believe that handguns can be used for other things than shooting human beings.

I didn't grow up in that culture, but I think we have to have a cultural debate. I think there's a difference between rural and urban Canada. In some cases I think there may be a difference between western and other parts of Canada. Mr. Bagnell said that about the north, as well. I think it's a cultural thing.

Are there effective models for gun control, which if properly resourced—that means detection, prevention, education, etc.—could work?

[Tony Cannavino]

Well, there's so much to be done first.

I'm hoping we're going to start by protecting our borders. The problem right now is that we have RCMP officers policing municipalities. I think that should be the municipal police. We should have RCMP officers patrolling our borders, taking care of ports. Those are all the places where you see the gun-smuggling into Canada. Let's start with that. Let's shut the door. Let's help by doing that first step. Then we can improve and improve.

If you have a big hole in the wall of your house and you put the heat up, you don't resolve the problem. The first thing you should be doing is to repair the hole in the house. You'll shut down some of the heat, it will cost you less, and you're going to have fewer problems. That's the way it should be done.

We need a first step. A significant step is to make sure that the Americans don't see an opportunity to sell or to trade guns for our good marijuana in Canada. Those are the things we should address first. Then we can improve.

Second, we need an update on restricted guns or firearms. It has been over ten years, and it's not there. We see weapons that should be restricted or prohibited. We have companies, as we said in the presentation, that exploit that. It's on their website, that it's legal to buy this kind of gun or rifle because it's not under the legislation.

So those are first steps.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you, Mr. Cannavino.

We'll go to Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you to all the witnesses.

One of the things we've heard today at committee and in the past in dealing with other bills is that even if this bill impacted on getting one or two guys who would have gotten bail not getting bail, at the discretion of the judge, but because of the change in onus the judge errs on the side of keeping someone who might otherwise be out on bail—

We've heard testimony that in Toronto and other cities a relatively small number of people are creating the problem, the recidivists, the gang members, and that when the small number of people are taken off the streets and are in custody, the police and those jurisdictions see a profound impact on overall crime in the area. We heard from a chief in Toronto that when they took a small number of individuals off the street in one neighbourhood, the crime rates dropped dramatically in that neighbourhood just because of a few people. I'm wondering if you can comment a bit on that.

I don't think anyone is interested in locking up all kinds of people. I think the focus is on repeat offenders, who in the current system are not getting the message. They continue to victimize Canadians. We want to, in a very cohesive and strategic way, target those people and say if they aren't getting the message about criminal justice and about targeting innocent Canadians, they're not going to be on the street; they're going to be in jail. That has to be coupled with resources for police and coupled with prevention. But this is a very specific bill, part of our legislative package. I wonder if any of you want to comment on what you've seen about who's committing the crime and what happens when they're off the street.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Mr. Cannavino.

[Tony Cannavino]

This bill, Bill C-35, expresses it very well because it addresses violent crimes and violent criminals, the ones who commit those violent crimes. So it is targeted.

Also, I think Mr. Wilson expressed the impact of this legislation very well, the fact that there's fear in the communities. When the onus is reversed, it's up to the criminal to prove he's not dangerous. It has a huge impact. Although we understand the judge has discretion to release him, I could give you.... We said the impact would be.... As an example, we witnessed a week ago what happened to one of our colleagues who was shot and killed. That person should have stayed in jail. If we had that, it would have been easier for the crown attorney to prove. When the person tries to prove he's not dangerous, if he's a drug trafficker, has a full load of guns, and kills a police officer, how can he find bail? How could he be released? If we had Bill C-35, he would still be in jail.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Mr. Francoeur.

[Yves Francoeur]

If I may, I would like to make a digression to respond to Mr. Murphy's question on long guns, hunting weapons. First, the majority of police officers who were killed in Canada in the last 10 years were shot with long guns, including those who died in Mayerthorpe.

When people talk about long guns, you think of domestic violence or spousal violence. I can give you an example. At the end of 2006, a woman was the victim of spousal violence in Montreal. Pardon the expression, but he had "got her real good". The woman was brought to the hospital. The man did not have a criminal record, but she was afraid because she knew that her husband owned several hunting weapons. However, she did not know whether he had 2, 10 or 12 of them. The police officers and the investigators consulted the firearms registry: the man had 16 weapons registered to his name. They searched the premises and seized 16 weapons and 45,000 bullets. This was a domestic case.

After the Dawson College shooting, in the Montreal region, three cranks from different areas made threats. The gun registry was consulted and, in two of the three cases, the police were able to immediately seize firearms in the places where these individuals lived.

We're not talking about organized crime. These things happen in daily life. In Montreal, not all of the 1.3 million service calls received each year come as a result of weapons being fired. There have to be between 50,000 and 100,000 domestic violence cases a year. We're talking about things that happen in the daily lives of people and citizens.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Mr. Lee, you have one question, a short question, and no preamble if possible.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

No preamble. I want to thank—Oh, this is a preamble. Sorry.

I want to thank the witness, Mr. Wilson, for pointing out that indirect impact that is allegedly there, the greater confidence of the public in the ability of police to protect them after a charge is laid. That's an important thing.

I just want to seek from you an acknowledgement as well that the net we've created here is not foolproof, and it's not going to produce huge results overnight, but it will allow police and courts to target appropriately and to have better ammunition in that regard, legal ammunition.

Having mentioned the word “ammunition”, won't the net that we create here also in theory include the individual, the buffoon, who has a couple of bullets in his pocket and tries to sell them? This is very theoretical, but it is a fact that the sections we've included in this reform include someone who has some ammunition in their pocket and they try to sell it. That's not really what we're trying to target here. So I'm seeking an acknowledgement that the net has been cast fairly wide—some will say not wide enough—but that we have to make sure that our courts, our police, and our legal aid components are at least on the case here, so that we don't end up misusing this section.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Mr. Cannavino, you may make the closing remarks.