Evidence of meeting #15 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was firearms.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Stéphane Wall  Supervisor (Retired), Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM), As an Individual
J. Michele Guerin Skalusat  Manager, Indigenous Relations, British Columbia Infrastructure Benefits, As an Individual
Robert A. Davis  Chief of Police, Brantford Police Service
Rachel Huggins  Deputy Director and Co-Chair, Drug Advisory Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
Sergeant Michael Rowe  Inspector and Member, Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
Brian Sauvé  President, National Police Federation
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Jean-François Pagé

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 15 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, March 31, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

I would now like to welcome all the witnesses.

Before I begin, I want to let you know that I'll be waving a green folder when 30 seconds of your time remain. Today, I also have a black card that I'll wave to tell you that your time has ended. Hopefully, I won't have to interrupt you, but be mindful of that. The same goes for the members.

Each witness will have five minutes for their opening statement, and then there will be a round of questions.

I'll begin with Mr. Stéphane Wall, retired supervisor from the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal.

It's over to you, Mr. Wall. You have five minutes.

1:05 p.m.

Stéphane Wall Supervisor (Retired), Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM), As an Individual

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm one of the founding members of the CCACV, the Communauté de citoyens et de citoyennes en action contre les criminels violents. You've already heard from two of our other members, Mr. André Gélinas and Ms. Anie Samson.

On January 26, 2022, the CCACV proposed 16 measures to the various levels of government to fight gun violence. Letters appeared in two media outlets. We invite you to read those letters, particularly the measures that we are recommending to the federal government.

On February 21, 2022, Montreal city council adopted a first measure proposed by CCACV. The opposition and the elected officials agreed to implement a helpline for parents who see their children falling into violence.

Victims of violent crimes and their loved ones are our inspiration. Most of us are responsible parents who feel that a child needs as much love as discipline to develop. Discipline should take the form of punishments that gradually increase in severity, based on what was done. The vast majority of parents are like this in Canada, including racialized, Black, indigenous and underprivileged communities.

Responsible lawmakers should also adopt laws and sentences that gradually increase in severity and that are appropriate to what was done, particularly with respect to serious crimes, such as the possession of illegal firearms, a scourge that is decimating Canadian cities.

Unfortunately, there are also entitled, lax and indulgent parents, who overprotect their spoiled children. Those children grow up with no respect for others and live with a feeling of impunity and a sense that they are all-powerful.

Lawmakers who are indulgent when it comes to serious crimes committed by people in possession of illegal weapons can rest assured that there will be a sharp increase in victims from the same communities as the suspects. Those communities already have a disproportionately high number of victims.

There is absolutely a dichotomy between Bill C‑5 and the social context of gun violence.

A first fact: All major Canadian cities are dealing with shootings, attributed primarily to members of street gangs. The number of shootings doubles each year almost everywhere. Several reports in the media have highlighted the extent to which these criminals have a feeling of absolute impunity, which Bill C‑5 would exacerbate. On social media, they laugh at the justice system and the often lenient prison sentences given to them by an indulgent justice system. They show off their illegal weapons with defiance and pride.

A second fact: On March 7, 2018, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness organized the Summit on Gun and Gang Violence, held in Ottawa. Four years later, there are three main questions. First, what arose from the findings and the solutions proposed at the summit? Then, has the situation related to violence improved or significantly deteriorated in four years in Canada? Finally, are there fewer illegal firearms in circulation than in 2018?

A third fact: Community members don't all think alike. Many members of diverse communities think like Murielle Chatelier, who was born in Haiti and is a member of the CCACV. I invite you to read her letter, co‑signed by other members from diverse populations, which speaks about being accountable rather than wallowing in victimization.

A fourth fact: In Toronto, ideologists have been in control of public safety for the past 10 years. The result is revealing. Indeed, there are over 450 shootings and hundreds of victims each year. Faced with amalgamations, police are disengaged. They do less and less prevention and stops. They put tape around the victims' bodies. Street gang members are so not afraid of being arrested that they now keep their firearms on them, ready for the next shooting. Street gang members also have the criminal speciality of procuring and have no respect for the bodies of girls and women, who they see as merchandise.

In Montreal, the ideologists are doing the same thing as in Toronto. The number of shootings is on the rise, as is the number of victims, and the police are increasingly disengaged.

Residents concerned about the violence are demanding a change in paradigm.

According to them, Canadian lawmakers should place the victims of violent crime and their loved ones at the centre of any legislative considerations; focus more on victims of violent crime in racialized communities, whether Black or indigenous, and in underprivileged communities, by ensuring that the people committing these crimes are arrested, detained and rightfully convicted by the justice system; value and trust the people who wear a police uniform; place less importance on lobby groups, which are divisive and include those opposed to the police, the so‑called woke and racists, who in no way represent the pragmatic and moderate opinion of Canadians; listen more to members of diverse communities, who, like Murielle Chatelier, disagree with the attitude of victimization but instead promote accountability; hold criminals responsible for their actions and their decisions, regardless of the community, the way responsible parents do with their children, instead of overprotecting criminals as though they were spoiled children; and refocus the principles of justice by implementing a new charter of duties and responsibilities.

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai

Thank you, Mr. Wall.

1:10 p.m.

Supervisor (Retired), Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM), As an Individual

Stéphane Wall

In conclusion, Parliament must better protect victims, who are overrepresented in racialized communities. In Canada, victims should have rights and freedoms, such as the right to life, the right to health and the right to safety, which take precedence over the rights of suspects.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai

Thank you, Mr. Wall.

Next we'll go to Michele Skalusat, manager of indigenous relations at British Columbia Infrastructure Benefits.

It's over to you for five minutes.

1:10 p.m.

J. Michele Guerin Skalusat Manager, Indigenous Relations, British Columbia Infrastructure Benefits, As an Individual

Thank you.

[Witness spoke in hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓]

[English]

Respected ones and friends, my traditional name is Skalusat Michele Guerin. I'm from the Musqueam Indian Band and I'm honoured to be here today.

The name “Skalusat” was given to me by my elders and my family in our longhouse. Skalus was a warrior who guarded Howe Sound and, according to our stories, he was also the first of our people who learned how to write. They chose this name for me because I was the first lawyer in the Guerin family. I often get asked, “Why did you become a lawyer?” I usually respond, “I became a lawyer because I'm an indigenous woman in Canada and I wanted to be able to protect myself, my children and my grandchildren.”

I testified publicly as a survivor in the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and Two-Spirit inquiry because I was apprehended, and my first son was apprehended from the hospital, spent one month in care, was returned to me, then died of SIDS at three months old. I was robbed of a month with him, and later my three kids were apprehended for three days. When the ministry came for my granddaughter decades later, I was a lawyer and could say, “Back up.”

It's important to me to tell you that my mother, Bev Guerin, graduated from day school with her grade 12, served in the Canadian navy, and was a secretary in an engineering firm. My biological father was willing to marry her, but I was still apprehended. I lived in one foster home for 14 years. At 14 years old, I was approached by my social worker and told I had the choice to be adopted by the foster family or to meet my family in Musqueam. I always say I did what any normal 14-year-old would do: I ran away and lived on the streets for a year. The main basis of my testimony—why I wanted to testify—is to share with lawmakers the kind of extreme violence I experienced on the streets in one year, and thankfully survived, as an example of what our women and girls go through.

I have a couple of points about your bill that I want to link to the testimony I made.

When I was reunited with my mother at 14, we didn't reconcile. I think the pain of losing me, then suddenly being faced with a real, live, high-risk teenager, was very hard for her. I lived with her for one month, then was placed in several different foster homes on the reserve. I've had the unique experience of being placed in several foster homes on and off reserve, and I can attest to the fact that I felt much safer and more loved and nurtured on reserve.

On the point of racism in courts, I'll go back to my first experience of identifying my children when they were apprehended. My children were apprehended when I left town to go to a church thing. My husband was in charge. I came home and my kids were gone. I was to go to court to identify my children. I was in family court. The courtroom was called to order, the judge came in, and before he sat down, he turned to me and asked, “What are you going to do about your drinking problem, Mrs. Sparrow?” I replied, “I don't drink, Your Honour.” Then he opened the file.

I want to make a couple of points about policing. I was married to a Vancouver police officer for 30 years. I've always been very supportive of the police. However, I have personally seen and experienced racism through the police. Most of the issues I've had have been with the RCMP.

One of the points I raised during my testimony was to ask that the inquiry use their researchers—perhaps you have researchers. The issue I'm particularly interested in is knowing how many indigenous women are arrested when they are victims of domestic violence versus how many non-indigenous women are arrested when they are victims of domestic violence. I'd like the statistics. It seems to me, from what I have seen in my communities, that it's standard operating procedure to arrest indigenous women when they are victims of domestic violence. It might be called “over-policing”, but I call it “inherent racism”.

I was also a 911 operator for the RCMP. One day in the radio room, as I sat working, a group of officers were sitting and talking behind me. One of them said, “I don't arrest Indians. I shoot Indians.” It was a very shocking and disheartening statement to hear. I think it's just another signal of some of that systemic racism.

On another point, after I returned to the reserve, sadly, my late mother, Beverly—a single mother—was convicted of fraud for writing bad cheques. She was sentenced to several months in jail in the Oakalla Penitentiary. I remember being in court and watching them sentence her. I sat in the back of the courtroom in disbelief as they sentenced her to serve her time in Oakalla, which I thought was a pretty hard-core institution to serve time in for a non-violent crime.

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai

Ms. Skalusat, your time is up. If you want to wrap up in the next 10 seconds, you can hopefully finish off before we go to questions.

1:15 p.m.

Manager, Indigenous Relations, British Columbia Infrastructure Benefits, As an Individual

J. Michele Guerin Skalusat

Okay. I have just one more point. There are two points in one.

I read with interest the proposed legislation that amends the CDSA to require police and prosecutors to consider referring people to treatment programs and other support services. I am a big advocate of this. My first husband was pulled over. He had four or five convictions for drunk driving, but when he was pulled over at the U.S.-Canada border and charged in the States, the U.S. court ordered him to attend a treatment centre, which proved to be life changing. He became sober. He studied to become a drug and alcohol counsellor on a reserve, and was very effective in helping others in our community because he brought credibility to the issue.

The last point I want to make is that in my current profession, my job is to recruit indigenous skilled trades workers to become part of our workforce to build large public infrastructure projects in B.C. under a community benefits agreement. One of the best organizations in B.C. that is aimed at helping youth, either living on the street or aging out of care, is a program called BladeRunners. I've met with several youth at friendship centres and talked to them. Their excitement about this program is enormous, because they see their peers, who are either living on the streets or aging out the system, going into this BladeRunners program that takes youth and builds their training and skills up to get them into the skilled trades.

However, those who have a criminal record can't access the program—

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai

Thank you. I'm sorry, Ms. Skalusat. We're over time and I'm going to have to—

1:15 p.m.

Manager, Indigenous Relations, British Columbia Infrastructure Benefits, As an Individual

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai

I hope somebody will be able to give you some time to finish up.

The member for the first six-minute round will be Mr. Moore.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of the witnesses for appearing today on this important piece of legislation that could have a profound affect on our communities.

I'd like to ask my first question of Mr. Wall. Thank you for your testimony, sir.

The government would sometimes have people believe that these are non-serious offences somehow and, therefore, not deserving of jail time. Some of these offences have been on the books since the seventies. The minimum penalty, certainly through reforms to the Criminal Code, remained intact and many have been upheld in court cases.

I want to bring your attention to a few. We have robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, using a firearm in the commission of an offence and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking. These sound like serious offences to me that are at the root of some of the gun and gang problems that we have in this country. What message do you think it sends to the criminal element?

You mentioned the word “impunity”. I thank you also, sir, for mentioning a word we don't hear often enough, which is “victims”. Too often, victims have lost their voice on how they would react to this legislation. We've been hearing a bit from victims, but thank you for mentioning them.

What message do you think it sends to criminals to soften the offences for gun crimes?

1:20 p.m.

Supervisor (Retired), Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM), As an Individual

Stéphane Wall

Thank you for your question, Mr. Moore.

At this time, most shootings in major Canadian cities are committed by street gang members, who are fairly young. Some gang members give small contracts to younger members to intimidate people, threaten them and so forth. We can see that impunity reigns at this time. Several media have done multiple reports on this. On social media, we see young people laughing at the justice system. They proudly display their firearms, the vast majority of which are illegal. We are already in this situation.

The passage of Bill C‑5 would lead to lower standards and trivialize the possession of firearms for a criminal purpose. It would send the wrong message to criminals. In a way, we would be telling them that maybe society is being a bit too hard on them and that we'll be giving them more lenient sentences. We are therefore trivializing the possession of firearms.

It must be remembered that possession of a firearm by young people, who have easy access to such weapons, is followed in most cases by a criminal act. It's not just possession; the next step is shooting at enemies or people from the same backgrounds, including racialized and diverse communities or similar socio-economic backgrounds. Indeed, victims from the same background as the suspects are overrepresented.

By releasing criminals who were in possession of a firearm sooner—and parole also factors into that—we are allowing them to victimize more people in their own community or in an enemy community. This is a very bad signal to be sending. Passing such a bill is not appropriate given the reality on the ground.

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Thank you.

There is some misconception that's been perpetrated that somehow this is dealing with minor drug offences. But when we look at the legislation, the mandatory minimums that are being eliminated from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting for the purpose of exporting and production of a schedule I or schedule II drug. That includes heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth.

You've already commented on the guns crimes, but from the perspective of those who are trafficking, we have a crisis in Canada around drug use in both rural and urban areas. Canadians are dying and suffering. Crystal meth is a crisis. This bill would eliminate mandatory jail time not for those just in possession; there is no mandatory minimum for possession. What it does is it eliminates mandatory jail time for traffickers and producers and exporters and importers.

Can you comment on that?

1:25 p.m.

Supervisor (Retired), Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM), As an Individual

Stéphane Wall

I'll comment quickly, Mr. Moore.

We know full well that organized crime has the upper hand in terms of narcotics. Various intermediaries are involved before those products reach the street. They live off and depend on crime. They don't care that the health of hundreds of thousands of victims will be ruined. Prison sentences must therefore be significant for those who traffic narcotics.

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Thank you.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai

Thank you, Mr. Moore and Mr. Wall.

We now have Ms. Brière for a six-minute round.

May 6th, 2022 / 1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for being with us this afternoon.

Bill C‑5 is not intended to reduce sentences. It seeks to reduce the overrepresentation of certain marginalized communities and to give judges back discretion to consider restorative justice options, among other things.

My question is for Ms. Skalusat. First, I thank you for sharing your experience with us. You've gone through some very difficult times. Your experience in life reveals some gaps in the system.

Can you explain how house arrest can have a positive impact not only on offenders, but also on the people around them?

What is the impact on the child of an offender in terms of the balance in their life?

Thank you.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai

Ms. Skalusat, I think that was for you.

1:25 p.m.

Manager, Indigenous Relations, British Columbia Infrastructure Benefits, As an Individual

J. Michele Guerin Skalusat

I'm sorry. I didn't hear it. I'm having a hard time with this.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC

Can you hear me, Ms. Skalusat?

1:25 p.m.

Manager, Indigenous Relations, British Columbia Infrastructure Benefits, As an Individual

J. Michele Guerin Skalusat

Very faintly. I apologize.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC

Is it better now?

1:25 p.m.

Manager, Indigenous Relations, British Columbia Infrastructure Benefits, As an Individual

J. Michele Guerin Skalusat

I can hear it now. Thank you.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC

I thank you for sharing your experience with us. You've gone through some very difficult times. Your experience in life reveals some gaps in the system.

I would therefore like you to explain how sentences that are served at home can have a positive impact not only on offenders, but also on the people around them.

What is the impact on the balance in the life of an offender's child of having their parent at home instead of in prison?