Public Safety Committee on Oct. 4th, 2022

[Talal Dakalbab]

Thank you very much. There are a lot of questions in that comment.

First, I would remind you of the democratic process involved in holding consultations. We're currently conducting many consultations and gathering information, but I can't begin consultations on specific items in the bill until it receives royal assent. Our consultations are more general for the moment. If the bill is passed by Parliament and receives royal assent, we'll already have a certain amount of data. That's unfortunately the process we have to go through.

As you know, this bill is being introduced for the second time. Changes have been made to this version, of course, but the fact remains that we can't conduct official consultations on regulations unless authorized under the act to do so.

I hope that answers your question as to why we haven't yet…

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I apologize for interrupting, Mr. Dakalba., but Ms. Michaud's time is up.

Mr. MacGregor, please go ahead for two and a half minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Clause 43, which is creating that new section 97.1 in the bill, specifically makes mention of the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee. It does make mention of other disciplines, and I understand that through regulations, you're going to fill that in a bit more.

Why did you take the approach to codify the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee in the bill, but then leave other disciplines open to interpretation in the regulations? Can you provide some rationale behind that?

[Talal Dakalbab]

I can't really speak to the discussions that led to the decisions of the government.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

There are two disciplines which were specifically named in the bill, which means there is no leeway for regulations. It's going to be part of the act, but the others will be open to a bit more interpretation based on your consultations.

[Talal Dakalbab]

I could clarify that the intent of the legislation, as it's drafted right now in front of Parliament, is to limit and freeze the number of handguns.

To be clear, some people will be exempt from the law. This was clearly described in the law to provide guidance. To the earlier points, it's to provide the committee and Parliament with the opportunity to add clarity on the intent of the government.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'm sorry to cut you off, but I have less than a minute left.

On May 30, when the minister made the announcement for BillC-21, he also very clearly identified the fact that the government wanted to bring forward an amendment to capture some assault-style rifles, which had escaped.

Can you inform this committee what specific section of Bill C-21 you're seeking to amend and what it is going to look like, so we have some heads-up notice on this?

[Talal Dakalbab]

The only thing I could say is that you heard the same thing I did from the minister on TV. I can't comment any further on that one. I'm sorry about that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you for clarifying.

I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We'll go now to Mr. Van Popta for five minutes.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you.

I may be splitting my time with Mr. Lloyd. He has a question.

I have a lot of constituents who are concerned about the handgun freeze. They might own handguns and were planning to transfer them to their children or grandchildren, or they have just recently obtained their RPAL licence and are hoping to buy a handgun because they're sport-shooting enthusiasts.

Can you assure all these people that if they have their application in for a transfer before the regulation kicks in, their transfers will actually be processed?

[Talal Dakalbab]

I'll take this one, if you'll allow me, Mr. Chair, because this is part of the policy work.

I believe today was the end of the 30 sitting days for the regulations. I can tell you the regulations will probably be publicly available shortly. I can't tell you exactly when yet. I don't even know that. What I can say is that in the legislation, there is clarity on transitional provisions. I can't tell you about the regulations yet, because, as I said, after the 30 days, we work on it with whatever comments we got. I can confirm that in Bill C-21, there are transitional provisions to that effect.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you.

I have another question.

To follow up on Mr. MacGregor's line of questioning about the Olympics and Paralympics, I have a letter here in front of me from a constituent, which states, “I'm a local elite athlete competing in the sport of International Practical Shooting Confederation.” He is concerned that his sport or confederation will be excluded by the wording in the bill.

Can you give any assurance to Mr. Gordon that indeed there will be consultations with the public, so that he can make a presentation about why his organization should also be part of the exemption?

[Talal Dakalbab]

I can't guarantee that personally. I'm pretty sure the committee would request to talk to them, but we will be consulting. I can't tell you exactly how the consultation is going to take place yet, but we usually have an open forum; the technology now allows everybody.

As I said earlier, I am already getting a lot of letters. I consider them part of the consultation that we have to work on with citizens from across the country.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

I will split my time with Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

My question is for Deputy Commissioner Larkin.

One of the sections in Bill C-21 would create a new offence. The offence is altering a magazine to hold more than the legal number of rounds, yet it's already an offence to possess a magazine that has more than the legal limit of rounds. This proposed new offence seems to duplicate an offence that already exists.

Why was this included in the legislation?

[Talal Dakalbab]

I'm being told it's a policy piece, so if you don't mind, Mr. Chair, I'll take this one.

Right now, there is a requirement—

I apologize for my very simplistic way of describing this, but I do it for my own understanding as well.

Right now, there is a way to stop at five or 10, to pin it. It's a requirement. What is added as an intention in this bill is altering it. What's been reported to our attention is some people.... Right now it's just a pin, and it can easily be changed, so they purchase it and change it. This is the part that was not yet an offence, so they want to ensure, in the bill, that it is.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

The act of removing a pin means that you are now in possession of a magazine that can hold more than the legal number of rounds, so you would be committing a criminal offence if you removed a pin. Why do we need to create a new offence for something that's already illegal? It's like saying it's illegal to murder somebody, but we're making a new act to say it's illegal to commit the act of murdering somebody.

[Talal Dakalbab]

Actually, it's five or 10. If you allow me, I don't want to go into too many details, but the alteration cannot be done if Bill C-21 becomes law.

Right now, as you're probably aware, there are some magazines that could be used for multiple guns, and some of them could be removed and be on a 10. That is allowed in the law right now. This alteration will not be allowed, obviously, unless it's authorized by our colleagues or done for the proper guns. Right now, there's a gap to be addressed.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I have 10 seconds left, but thank you for that explanation. It was illuminating.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

We will wrap up this round with Mr. Noormohamed for five minutes, please.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've spent a lot of time in this conversation talking about why this and why that and some important questions, but for me this always comes down to people. In 2021, 173 women were killed by either present or former intimate partners, and 40% of them were killed using guns, or just about 40%.

Deputy Commissioner Larkin, you've been the chief of police in Waterloo and you are here now in your capacity as somebody with a lot of policing experience. Do you believe that had Bill C-21 been in effect earlier, some of those lives would have been saved?

[D/Commr Bryan Larkin]

Mr. Chair, we do know that obviously there's a chance, a five times greater chance, of a fatality involving intimate partner violence when there's a firearm present, so it's very difficult to surmise what could have been prevented or not.

Again, our organization and I believe our policing profession support initiatives that will enhance public safety, but in particular, when we look at intimate partner violence in Canada, we see that we have a significant amount of work to do. In particular, the pandemic exacerbated intimate partner violence from coast to coast to coast, so naturally, anything that we see as a progressive piece of policy that may ensure safety from intimate partner violence, particularly, generally speaking, of females, is a positive step forward.

Again, it's important to note that there's a five times greater chance of an intimate partner violence fatality when there's a firearm in the home. That being said, it's something that you want to evaluate and monitor, as with any public policy or legislative change, to see what the outcome will be once we see that change.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

But it is fair to say, based on your comments, that fewer guns in homes likely means fewer gun deaths?

[D/Commr Bryan Larkin]

Again, Mr. Chair, when we look at the actual data, particularly around family violence, we do recognize that a reduction of firearms in the home potentially can lead to a safer residence, a safer familial situation.