:
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 .
[English]
As witnesses we have, from the Canadian Police Association, Mr. Tony Cannavino, the president; David Griffin, executive officer;
[Translation]
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—
[English]
Dave Wilson, the president of the Toronto Police Association; Daryl E. Tottenham, sergeant, Westminster Police Service.
[Translation]
We also have, from the Canadian Police Association,
[English]
Mrs. Amanda Connolley.
We're going to have two presentations. The first one is by Mr. Cannavino. Mr. President, the floor is yours.
:
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 .
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.
[English]
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 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, , 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.
[Translation]
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 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.
[English]
We thank you for your attention, and we welcome your questions. 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.
:
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 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 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.
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.
:
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, and . 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 , 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 ; 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.
:
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.
I'd like to thank you very much for your presentations.
I have to admit that I like , despite the fact that I don't think it will really do much to make Canadians safer in their communities. In fact, based on the information we received, as a general rule if someone is accused of committing a firearms-related offence, the judge considers this as an aggravating factor. In such cases, the accused may be held in prison while awaiting his trial.
What I like about this bill is that when an accused person meets with his legal counsellor or attorney, his representative will not tell him that the onus is on the Crown to prove beyond all reasonable doubt in a bail hearing that the accused constitutes a threat and therefore must be detained until he goes to trial. The lawyer is going to have to tell his client that it is up to him to prove that he should be released. That's a major change in philosophy. And that will probably have a bigger effect on the accused person than the process itself. Currently, the accused can simply off-load the burden of proof, which is actually quite substantial.
I read the Canadian Police Association's brief. There was something that really struck me on page 10 of the section entitled “The Canadian Judicial System Needs a Major Overhaul”. You stated the following:
We contend that the time is long overdue to reform our criminal justice system. An independent review of Canada's sentencing, corrections and parole systems remains a top priority for the Canadian Police Association.
I'd like to know if you feel frustrated at all by the fact that rather than carrying out such an overhaul and making sure an in-depth public inquiry is held on the sentencing, correctional, and parole systems, that a piecemeal approach is being adopted.
To begin, Ms. Jennings, you would indeed think that in any incident involving violence along the lines of what you referred to in your preamble, the judge would take these facts into consideration and keep the accused in prison. But, this is not the case. One of the most striking examples of this was the slaying of one of our colleagues in Brossard. Everybody was astounded by the decision. In any event, there are procedures which are followed. But this is a flagrant example of someone killing an individual and yet being released while awaiting trial, while a claim of self-defence was already made. So let's leave it up to the courts to make these determinations, shall we? What is more violent than murder? That's just one example, but there are others which are not as well known because a police officer was not involved. There are other cases.
The other issue you raised is in relation to responsibility. The onus is on the individual who committed a violent crime to demonstrate that he or she should be released. That's why we've said that this bill makes sense and that it sends out a clear message: if you want to play at this kind of game and jeopardize Canadians' safety, well then you will suffer the consequences.
We have been calling for years for an overhaul of the Canadian corrections, parole, and sentencing systems. Last week, Minister Stockwell Day announced a review of the correctional system and struck a committee called the blue-ribbon panel. The blue-ribbon panel will have a mandate.
We'll be very active, and we'll make our voice heard, that's for sure. I think a whole cross-section of policies needs to be reviewed, and not only the Criminal Code and its statutes. The Canadian prison system's internal policies also need to be reviewed because there are a lot of things wrong with the way these institutions treat their inmates.
Quebeckers will always remember what happened with Conrad Brassard. How do you treat a psychopath whose diagnosis indicates a 100% chance of repeat offending and who, on three occasions, committed crimes which included sexually assaulting and killing his poor victims? There is something wrong with that. How is it possible that an individual considered to be dangerous and who was imprisoned in a maximum security penitentiary was able to get transferred in the space of a few months to a medium-security prison, and then end up in a half-way house? This individual did not even serve a third of his sentence and didn't even take part in a rehabilitation program.
That is also part of the tool kit. I get a kick out of saying that I need a tool kit. People that know me know that I'm not much of a handyman, but I need a well-stocked tool kit to deal with criminals. That's what we need.
My question is for you, Mr. Cannavino.
When Bill was tabled, I asked myself a number of questions. As you indicated earlier, currently, when an individual is arrested by the police, that person appears with his lawyer, and the Crown has to determine that the accused is dangerous in order for him not to be released. Of course, in the case of an individual without a criminal record, even if you do have information, the information cannot be used to detain the individual. You have no right to do so, and neither the Crown nor the judge would allow it.
I want to make sure I am properly understood. Bill adds a dozen serious offences. These are not minor offences, where reversing the burden of proof could create problems. I understand that the question I will be asking you, Mr. Cannavino, might be philosophical in nature, but it is important.
Many people, including senior citizens, watch television programs on TVA, Radio-Canada, TQS and other channels where stories of people shot in the streets are shown every night. For having worked in this field, I know that the problem is not security, but the sense of security. That is not only true for senior citizens. There are 50-year-olds who are scared, and there are 20-year-olds who are already scared.
Bill C-35 will ensure that people are brought before a judge, and as Ms. Jennings indicated earlier, will have to prove that they are fit to be released. Will the fact that an individual is not immediately released have an effect on people's sense of security? The Crown may postpone the trial by three days, as is currently done, and an arrangement can be made with the Crown on fairness issues to release the individual.
Could the fact that an individual is not immediately released, pursuant to Bill C-35—that does not mean he is guilty—create a sense of security? I call that philosophy, something you spoke about earlier. I do not want to speak about the case you alluded to where one of your police officers was killed, but I did see it on television. We all were shocked. I myself, as a defence lawyer, was surprised. I would like to know whether Bill C-35 addresses the issue of safety. The law is one thing; safety is another.
:
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.”
:
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.
[English]
Also, the evidence we have heard on —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 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?