Justice Committee on April 29th, 2022

[André Gélinas]

Yes, organized crime and street gang members, as well as bikers and mafia members, use illegal weapons almost exclusively, if not 99% of the time. In fact, it is not attractive for organized crime members to use legal weapons because they are generally unlicensed and it is too risky for them to go to a legal place to obtain a weapon that would be legal in Canada.

The seizures that have been made and the experience prove that. I can say, based on the contacts I have with my colleagues who are still active, that the weapons that kill and those that injure, especially on the streets of Montreal—I used to work for the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, or SPVM—are illegal weapons. It's very rare that we see legally acquired weapons or stolen weapons from legal gun owners.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Would you agree, sir, that if we're spending millions or billions of dollars on seizing legal guns from legal gun owners that this funding might be more effective if it were put towards law enforcement? I'm talking about serious organized crime and serious gang activity, about enforcement for that and for the illegal guns that are transported into Canada.

[André Gélinas]

Yes, I completely agree with that.

In my opinion, the debate is in the wrong place. In fact, gun control in Canada is very effective with respect to legal weapons. However, where the problem lies is in situations where there is an influx of illegal weapons, particularly from the United States. The border between Canada and the United States is the longest in the world. However, our neighbours to the south have a very liberal approach to the possession of weapons.

So I think that if we assume that illegal weapons are the problem, the money spent on other projects should be used to deal with that problem. Indeed, experience has shown that weapons seized as a result of crime, both now and over the years—particularly those criminals have in their possession or those found at crime scenes—are illegal weapons.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

How do you feel that Bill C-5 is going to have an effect on future crime reduction, or crime prevention even, for the illegal behaviour of gangs and organized crime?

[André Gélinas]

What we know is that criminals are increasingly arrogant when it comes to firearms. In the past, criminals, particularly the heads of biker gangs, did not carry their weapons. They had them carried by bodyguards. It was the same for street gangs, who had their women carry them.

Today, this is no longer the case. One might think that it is because minimum sentences no longer scare them, but that is not the case. In fact, we have reached a point where criminals are becoming so arrogant that the use of firearms is becoming almost routine. To control their illegal activities or their territories, they resort to violence and firearms because their opponents also have them. This is the only way to establish power when one is part of a criminal organization, when violence is lord and master and when leaders are defined by their extreme violence in relation to others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Mr. Morrison and Mr. Gélinas.

Next, for the six-minute round, we'll go over to Madam Brière.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for joining us this afternoon.

Mr. Tachie, I would first like to give you the opportunity to add to your comments. When you talked about abolishing mandatory minimum sentences, you said that this could be commendable, and even promising, but that the accused must plead guilty. I'd like you to elaborate on that a little bit.

[Raphael Tachie]

The last piece of my comments, for the most part, focused on diversion. Ms. Ka Hon Chu spoke eloquently on that issue, so I won't repeat myself on that. It was actually a really great dovetail in terms of where I was going.

I apologize. I didn't quite get the second question.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

You said that the abolition of mandatory minimum sentences was commendable, even promising, but that the accused had to plead guilty. I was asking you to clarify your thoughts on this subject.

[Raphael Tachie]

I'm sorry. I'm not sure what happened. On my end, there's a weird issue happening with the sound.

What I was saying to that point was that in certain instances you have to plead guilty before you can avail yourself of potential avoidance of the mandatory minimum. In requiring that, in putting that discretion with the prosecutor and not with the judges, what you're doing is really criminalizing the individual. They don't have the option of even pleading guilty, because that bars access to avoiding the mandatory minimum.

With respect to abolishing all mandatory minimums, that really related to drug offences and substance offences. Jackie is probably the best person to speak to that. In those instances, what we're arguing for is that it gives the ability to really impose a conditional sentence and keep the familial ties, keep less....

That approach focuses on a similar holistic approach to how we deal with these issues and the individuals who find themselves here. Let's keep them in the community to the extent possible.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

What else should be done to combat systemic racism in the justice systems and to care for people with mental health problems?

[Raphael Tachie]

I completely agree.

Jackie, I will defer to you. You are much more the expert on this topic than I am.

[Jacqueline Beckles, Secretary, Canadian Association of Black Lawyers]

Ultimately, the systemic racism we're seeing endemic in Canada has to do with both the level of interactions within the Black community, as well as once individuals are brought before the courts. What we propose with respect to Bill C-5, in particular, as my colleague Mr. Tachie has said, is the absolute repeal of mandatory minimums, because they don't serve the purpose for which they're intended.

Within the Black community, because our communities tend to be over-policed, because we have seen carding in some areas, because we have seen there is almost a circular logic that is applied to criminality within the Black community, our communities are policed and therefore, offences and offenders are located within the communities. They are disproportionately policed and therefore, we are seeing that a disproportionate number of Blacks and indigenous individuals are being brought before the courts.

We have seen that the discretion that is usually exercised by both police or prosecutors is not exercised in favour of the offenders. Where there is discretion to issue warnings, for example, or to divert cases, we are not seeing that being exercised in favour of first-time offenders within the Black community. They are then brought before the courts. When in court, the prosecutor is similarly not exercising the same discretion to divert cases to give individuals the opportunity to experience diversion, or to plead guilty to lesser included offences, for example. They are facing prosecution for the most serious crimes.

The circular logic I spoke of is as a result of this. Let's put a number to it. If you have 100 offenders, of those 100 offenders in the white community, there would be a diversion of 63%, let's say. These numbers are accurate, because our studies have shown that within the Black community, you don't divert as many as in other communities, and the numbers are quite significant. For the Black community, the diversion numbers are around one-third of individuals who are confronted by police, whereas in other communities, it's two-thirds of the individuals who will be diverted. Out of 100 offenders, you might see 60 offenders diverted in other communities. In the Black community, you'll see 30, which means you're bringing the other 70 offenders before the courts.

What that does for judges and other members within the criminal justice system is it brings the perception that Black people are committing more crimes. That is not, in fact, the case. It is simply that they are not being treated in the same way when they're intercepted or when they're interviewed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Thank you, Ms. Beckles.

Thank you, Madam Brière.

Next we have Monsieur Fortin for six minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gélinas, you spoke earlier about the increase in the number of shootings in Montreal and Toronto, among others. I have also heard a number of testimonies that point in the same direction. You only have to listen to the news sporadically to realize that.

Bill C‑5, in its current version, proposes to abolish mandatory minimum sentences for several offences, including one involving firearms trafficking. Not all firearms trafficking offences are included, but some would no longer be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence.

Is this illogical and does it only encourage criminals, as you said earlier?

However, can this be acceptable in certain cases, in terms of firearms trafficking?

[André Gélinas]

That is obviously unacceptable. In my opinion, anything remotely related to firearms trafficking must continue to be subject to mandatory minimum sentences.

The gun dealer may not use the gun to cause irreparable harm, but that person will enable other organizations or individuals to do so. When criminals walk around with a gun, they still do it with an intention. These people do not carry or possess a firearm just for fun. They know that they might have to use it in certain situations. For example, they might use it against rival groups or against the police, as the police are trying to prevent illegal activities. This is obviously very serious.

In my opinion, and that of many of my colleagues, people who facilitate the acquisition of a firearm are obviously as guilty as those who use them, because they enable them to cause irreparable harm by giving them the opportunity to do so. We must never forget that, at the end of the day, a person who owns a firearm can injure or kill someone. When a firearm is used, there is no turning back.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

As I said earlier, I do not like to say that some crimes are not serious. In my opinion, a crime is a crime. A crime is always serious. But some crimes have more disastrous consequences than others. I am thinking, for example, of extortion with a firearm, theft with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, not accidentally, and arms trafficking. These offences seem to me to be a little more serious. I think it would be a mistake at this time to eliminate the mandatory minimum sentences for these offences.

However, some of the other offences in the Criminal Code are perhaps less serious in nature. I am thinking, for example, of recklessly discharging a firearm or possessing a prohibited firearm without the intent to traffic in it.

In some cases, would you consider it acceptable for us to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences or should we maintain them in all cases?

What is your opinion on that?

[André Gélinas]

As you mentioned earlier, you only have to listen to the news to see that the number of shootings is increasing in Montreal and Toronto. The danger is increasing. More and more innocent people are being shot and killed.

Some very serious offences are indeed covered by the provision repealing mandatory minimum sentences, such as robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and discharging a firearm with intent. As for the rest, one thing must be understood: it is a whole. Someone who recklessly discharges a firearm may not have been aiming at a person. However, this brings me to the notion of public safety and the feeling of public safety.

People who live in neighbourhoods where gangs and organized groups are very active feel totally abandoned by Bill C‑5. They feel that, even if you didn't intend to hit someone with your gun, the result is the same. Fear sets in. Afterwards, people want to leave their neighbourhoods at all costs. In some neighbourhoods there is an exodus. Unfortunately, people who cannot afford to move become captives and cannot escape the hold that these criminals have on these neighbourhoods.

I repeat that the use of a firearm is not a selfless act. When a criminal is in possession of an illegal weapon, it is not just for fun. There is an intention behind it. The person intends to use it and is very likely to do so.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

You said earlier that the firearms used to commit crimes are usually illegal firearms. You also talked about the importance of fighting firearms trafficking.

In your opinion, the creation of a joint squad that would bring together police officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Sûreté du Québec, peacekeepers, the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

Unfortunately, Monsieur Fortin—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Could this be a useful exercise in the fight against firearms trafficking?

[André Gélinas]

Obviously, all—

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I'm sorry. I'm going to have to end it there. Maybe you can answer that in a subsequent round, but you're up for time.

Next I'm going to Mr. Garrison for six minutes, please.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I want to draw us back to the fact that we're dealing with a bill that is supposed to be attacking systemic racism in the criminal justice system.

I'd like to direct my questions to the Association of Black Lawyers, questions similar to those asked of Chief Arcand. Certainly, it's clear that over-incarceration is an injustice, but I'd like to give the association a chance to talk about the impacts on Black families and Black communities of over-incarceration.

This is for either Ms. Beckles or Mr. Tachie.

[Raphael Tachie]

Maybe I will start and then, Ms. Beckles, I'll leave you some time.

In responding to that, I want to share my own personal story because of the comment Mr. Gélinas was making earlier.

My family immigrated to Vancouver when I was 13. When I turned 15, I was on a date in a movie theatre on Granville Street. Granville Street used to have two small movie theatres. At the end of the movie, I walked out with my date and saw maybe 10 Black kids. Half of them I knew and half of them I didn't know. I walked over to say hi to them and within 30 seconds of my being there, we were all detained by the police. It was the first time I had ever encountered a police officer in Canada: handcuffed and seated on the corner of the street on Granville, with people walking by.

Now, later on I came to understand that some of the boys I had seen were involved in some crimes and things like that, and some of them might have even had guns. Some of them might have even been part of gangs, but concepts such as party liability, mandatory minimum sentences and things like that swoop in kids who have bright futures and snuff them out.

In my case, the only reason I was able to avoid any connection to that was that the person I was on a date with had privilege. Her father interceded on my behalf to say to the Vancouver Police at the time that I wasn't part of that group and was some kid who had just come out of a date at the movie theatre with his daughter.

Fifteen years after that day, I'm now the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers. I now am a partner at a large national firm. I now lead a practice group. I now go out and motivate kids to tell them that law is an opportunity for them.

What these kinds of laws—mandatory minimum sentencing laws—and grand statements about gang activities, neighbourhoods and things like that do is to sweep up all kids, regardless of potential, regardless of ability and regardless of what the future holds for them. I'm here today because of that. It's because of that encounter on that street corner on Granville that day. It reminded me that my potential could have easily been snuffed out because I happened to have crossed the street to say hi to somebody I knew.

I want to stop there and give Ms. Beckles a chance to speak to the law, but narratives are powerful, and I wanted to show you my narrative and my personal story. I'm a Christian and I grew up in a Christian faith, and, but for the sheer grace of God, I would be the person you're labelling as a criminal and I would now be the person you labelled as a gangster—and my potential was so much more.