Public Safety Committee on Oct. 20th, 2022

[Marcell Wilson]

I think education is key here. I myself don't understand the nuances of sport shooting and whatnot, but I'm all for people doing things that they enjoy. Maybe it's not being taken into consideration that people having those outlets may be reducing stress, that it may be conducive to their mental health and may be helping to keep them from becoming angry people. Education means people working together and understanding each other's position and finding a common ground. Not everybody who wants or owns a gun is a bad person, and not everybody who is not for firearms is a bad person.

What I think is happening here is that there is a lot of political gesturing, where people who may have shared similar experiences don't have the chance to work together and don't have the chance to make a difference together because they're being pulled in one direction or another. What I think would help most is if we took away the partisanship on this one particular issue and focused on the real things that are affecting the majority of people.

For instance, I know Ken and Claire. We've spoken at a lot of different things together. I can definitely relate, especially on a trauma level. Conversations that we've had in the past have been.... They know that I know how they feel, but in their case, this was an anomaly. Ken has admitted that prior to this event, there was no real knowledge or interest in gun violence in Canada, because it wasn't something that affected them. In my case, though, this was something I grew up with and lived with.

For instance, my assistant here—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry, sir. I'm going to have to cut you off. Mr. MacGregor's time has well passed.

That brings this panel to a close. I'd like to thank you all for helping us with our inquiry and for your time today in sharing your experience and knowledge with us.

With that, we will suspend for two minutes and change panels.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

In person we have Mr. Solomon Friedman, criminal defence lawyer, appearing as an individual. By video conference we have Chief Dale McFee, chief of police, Edmonton Police Service; and Inspector Michael Rowe, Vancouver Police Department.

Welcome to you all. We will start with a statement of up to five minutes from each group.

Mr. Friedman, we'll start with you. Please go ahead for five minutes.

[Solomon Friedman, Criminal Defence Lawyer, As an Individual]

Good afternoon Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and members.

Thank you for inviting me to address you today. It's always a pleasure to appear before this committee. It's particularly a pleasure to be in person this time.

In fact, since 2011 I have testified over a dozen times before this committee and others on proposed firearms legislation and regulation. In that same time, reflective of Parliament's consistently inconsistent push-and-pull approach to firearms legislation, the Annotated Firearms Act & Related Legislation—the firearms law reference text that I co-authored—has appeared in no less than four editions.

Instead of applying an evidence-based, principled focus to law-making, governments have taken a piecemeal and haphazard approach, which has favoured symbolism over substance and rhetoric over rational decision-making. While this might be good news for legal authors, publishers and booksellers, it is decidedly bad news for law-abiding gun owners and Canadians generally. Bill C-21 is the latest extension of this trend.

Given the time constraints that have been placed upon this committee's work, I will focus my attention on Bill C-21's proposed prohibition on the transfer of restricted firearms—that is, handguns—to licensed private individuals. More accurately, it's the deferred confiscation of a million lawfully owned restricted firearms, which were purchased legally, used and stored safely, and have never posed a risk to public safety.

In my view, there are three fundamental problems with this provision. First, support for this measure comes from fundamentally bad data. Instead of addressing the core causes of handgun offences—namely the factors that drive individuals into gang activity, such as poverty, addiction and marginalization—or even focusing on the true source of the vast majority of handguns used in criminal offences—handguns smuggled into Canada from the United States—this bill targets the law-abiding, without making even the smallest dent in handgun crime.

In February, I appeared before this committee to give testimony for your study on gun control, illegal arms trafficking and street gangs. As I said then, good decision-making requires good data. I cited an example of bad data, which has been used to justify bad policy. That is the oft-heard assertion that 70% of traceable crime guns have a domestic origin. This statistic is a good example of a number that is true, false and misleading all at the same time. To start, this statistic counts only those firearms that are traceable. It is therefore, by definition, a number that will skew towards domestic firearms, as those are much easier to trace. It doesn't count firearms with obliterated serial numbers or foreign firearms that cannot be traced.

Next, the definition of a “crime gun” further self-selects and obscures our focus. Crime guns generally refer to firearms—including, by the way, pellet guns and replica firearms—seized by police in the course of their duties. This includes both offence-related and public safety-related seizures. That definition does not differentiate between a handgun used in a gang shooting and a hundred non-restricted, safely stored firearms seized from an elderly gun collector who was the subject of a police wellness check because his daughter had not heard from him in days.

You can see now why that 70% number may be true on its face but is really irrelevant to assessing what measures are necessary to address violent gun offences. In fact, in your report, this committee agreed with the accuracy of my critique.

Skewed and manipulated data can never be the basis for evidence-based policy. Canadians are entitled to legislation drafted on the basis of empirical data, not misinformation.

The second fundamental problem with the legislation is that it is a distraction and a gross misdirection of policing and other justice-sector resources. These resources are in short supply and are desperately needed to address the core causes of crime. While criminal legislation looks free on its face—it does not require an upfront expenditure—criminal defence lawyers know all too well the costs of increased criminalization and the ever-expanding Criminal Code. We as a group are not surprised as the justice system sags under the weight of well-intentioned amendments and justice is delayed and denied and charges are ultimately stayed by the courts.

Finally, this legislation suffers from the fundamental flaw that is endemic to much of this government's criminal law reform. It is a solution in search of a problem, like the hasty elimination of centuries-old procedural protections like peremptory challenges for juries, the preliminary inquiry, or case-specific responses to unpopular acquittals, which limit the rights of the accused to provide admissible evidence. These justice amendments bear the hallmarks of a government that legislates based on tweets and sound bites without taking into account the real consequences—unintended or otherwise—of their criminal law policy.

This is certainly true of the deferred confiscation provisions of Bill C-21. Legally obtained handguns in the possession of law-abiding citizens are not and have never been a public safety problem. In 2019, Vancouver police chief Adam Palmer, head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, explicitly rejected the public safety benefits of any such handgun ban, calling it “naive to the realities of...organized crime and smuggling”.

When defence counsel agrees with the policy position advanced by Canada's police chiefs, it is one more indication that these provisions are not based in evidence or data but are political in nature. Once again, it has been the case for each subsequent amendment to our firearms law.

Law-abiding Canadians, citizens who have complied with the law time and again, will pay the price. Worse yet, public confidence in our legislators inevitably erodes even further—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Can you wrap up, sir, quickly?

[Solomon Friedman]

—as it becomes crystal clear for all to see that substance, once again, takes a backseat to symbolism.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We will go now to the Edmonton Police Service and Chief McFee.

Go ahead, Chief, for five minutes, please.

[Chief Dale McFee, Chief of Police, Edmonton Police Service]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the parliamentary committee for allowing us to speak today about the significant safety concern relating to firearms.

I'd also like to acknowledge really quickly those families who have lost a loved one due to violence, particularly violence with firearms.

I've been in police leadership for approximately 20 years, serving both as a police chief in two services—currently, Edmonton, as mentioned—and as a former deputy minister of public safety.

As a police service in Edmonton, we see that most of our gun crime happens with handguns. We support any legislative tools and powers that might help enforce and prevent gun crime in Edmonton. Bill C-21 acknowledges that while law enforcement plays a crucial part, we must build society-wide capacity to find a balance between education, suppression, intervention and prevention.

To give you a bit of local context, over the last two years in Edmonton, as in many other jurisdictions, we have seen an increase in illegal ownership and the violent use of firearms. So far in 2022, we've taken 528 firearms off the street. This year to date, our officers have responded to 127 shootings, of which 50% resulted in injury and 85% were considered targeted. In the same time frame in 2021, there were 125 shootings, of which 57% resulted in injury. These had the potential for bystanders to be injured.

Most of the violence remains targeted, though that provides little comfort to the communities that are often left reeling in the aftermath of gun violence happening in their backyards. We continue to work diligently to mitigate these crimes, but the gangs and organized crime groups driving gun violence are growing more brazen and show disregard for the law, including the legislation we're discussing here today.

I want to break this into two parts. There are things that we support and there are some things that we have some serious concerns with. I'll try to run through these very quickly.

I'm encouraged by parts of Bill C-21 that strengthen our existing approach to firearms and that propose the implementation of new offences. Intensified border controls and stronger penalties combat trafficking and smuggling. All are beneficial and deter the criminal element. Provisions prohibiting the import and export sale of replica firearms are also greatly appreciated. The use of replica firearms to commit crime is something that we see quite often in Edmonton.

While these are good first steps, we must have balanced and impactful legislation. I want to say that I have concerns, and EPS has concerns, about the logistics, resources and long-term impacts of other portions of this proposed handgun freeze.

A handgun freeze will reduce the number of handguns in circulation in the long run. That is the belief. In the short term, we can expect that those wanting to acquire guns will find alternatives, increasing incidences of smuggling, 3-D printing and the conversion of airsoft guns. This may also increase the commodity value and motivate individuals, including lawful firearms owners, to sell their handguns through illegal channels, knowing that restrictions drive up monetary value.

Additionally, we share a border with one of the largest sources of handguns. A freeze would limit our ability to trace transactions originating within the U.S., and we'll be unable to locate a point of sale. We are told that the ban of handgun transfers resulted in an increase in handgun sales, with approximately 20,000 handguns purchased since the ban and 12,000 transfer applications still waiting to be processed.

The “red flag” law is well-intended. However, many of the proposed powers already exist under section 117 of the Criminal Code. As it stands, a law would pose a significant draw on police resources should numerous applications be granted at a time when many Canadian police services are stretched thin. This could further increase service demands.

On expanded licence revocation, with lawful firearms owners no longer able to purchase handguns, they may not be motivated to renew their licence. This may lead to an increased number of expired licences and individuals who are no longer authorized to possess handguns. There is already a backlog in enforcement in Alberta. There are already 3,700 revoked or expired PALs—possession and acquisition licences—that aren't being enforced, with some dating back 20 years.

The RCMP does not have the resources to enforce these expirations. Getting a permit for a firearm is a lengthy process. It impacts the freeze and expands licence revocation, meaning that police may lose vital information for proactive service.

On the buyback program, the police service is still waiting for more information on its implementation. Like other services, I share concerns that it will impact police resources, and I'm not sure what the benefit might be.

Not long ago, we had a large shooting event. I want to share a success story of how this works. There were multiple shooters and a large crowd, and an individual outside. Some of those people were deceased. Some were injured. Through the work that we did in relation to that, finding the firearms and tracing the ammunition, we were able to trace this to a gun that had come up through the U.S. There were multiple shootings in another Canadian jurisdiction. As a result, we, in a very short period of time, had four people in custody, preventing further offences.

If we don't start investing in the Canadian system.... The ATF is a better partner in the Canadian system, particularly the forensic laboratory service, and without it, it would have taken us up to a year to actually solve this case. Steps to strengthen our current approach and investigative tools will bring us long-term change and meaningful....

I heard it earlier today: Focus on the people pulling the triggers and the motivation. Three of our 25 homicides this year to date have been through the use of handguns. The reality is if we have someone who's motivated to do this, I'm not sure when you look at the criminal element that the handgun freeze is going to solve that, but it is going to put more strain on resources.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Sorry, Chief; could you wrap up?

[Chief Dale McFee]

I look forward to your questions.

To end that, we have 528 guns seized today, and approximately 19% of those are handguns.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Chief.

We go to Inspector Rowe. We invite Inspector Rowe to make a statement of up to five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Inspector Michael Rowe, Staff Sergeant, Vancouver Police Department]

Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for your time and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this committee.

I've been a police officer with the Vancouver Police Department for over 20 years now and I've spent much of my career investigating violent crimes, gang violence, organized crime and firearms offences.

I have developed extensive experience conducting investigations and taking enforcement action against those people who use firearms to commit violence. I have seen first-hand the impact of firearms-related violence on communities across Canada and have watched the proliferation of unlawfully possessed firearms, replica firearms and prohibited devices such as high-capacity magazines and suppressors.

To date in 2022, there have been 16 shootings within the city of Vancouver. Eight of those have resulted in injuries or death, and 11 of those were identified as having a significant potential for the injury of innocent bystanders. Sixty-two per cent of those shootings also had a nexus to gangs.

During the same period, there have been 127 shootings across the Lower Mainland region of British Columbia, 74 of which have been identified as having a nexus to gangs.

As we are all aware, firearm violence is not limited to the city of Vancouver. Police officers across Canada are seeing the very real impact that the unlawful possession of firearms and the use of firearms and imitation firearms to commit crimes have on public safety in communities across Canada.

In recent years, I have witnessed the increasing proliferation of firearms. Lower costs and the increased availability of firearms have resulted in people involved in lower-level crime now having access to firearms when they would not have had access in the past.

An example of this is a street-level drug trafficker recently found in possession of a heavily modified ghost gun, a privately made firearm capable of fully automatic firing and equipped with a suppressor and a high-capacity magazine, something that we would not have seen at the start of my career.

Based on my experience, I believe that the amendments that are in Bill C‑21 reflect the need for a national approach to reducing firearm-related violence and will give police valuable tools to address firearms crime across Canada.

I've testified here before about how easy it is to simply remove a rivet from a magazine to increase its capacity and the dangers that high-capacity magazines create for communities, the police and offenders themselves.

The new offence for altering a magazine will provide police officers with much-needed opportunities for enforcement and investigation, and the benefit of creating new offences such as this is that police officers gain the ability to charge offenders and apply for judicial authorizations targeting specific offences.

Modernizing the legal definition of a replica firearm and placing controls on the importation, exportation and sale of realistic-looking replicas will help police address the very real use of replica firearms in criminal offences.

Additionally, this amendment will help the police address the growing trend of altering realistic airsoft guns to fire live ammunition.

Red flag laws will also allow citizens to access a judicially authorized process to restrict a person's access to firearms and provide police with the authority to search for and seize firearms, which will protect victims of domestic violence and those at risk of self-harm.

An ongoing trend that I have identified and testified here about previously is the emergence of privately made firearms, commonly known as ghost guns. We are seeing more and more ghost guns in the Lower Mainland gang conflict on the west coast of Canada, specifically in the hands of people believed to be involved in active murder conspiracies and also those we believe are working as contracted hired killers. Ghost guns can be 3-D printed or created from modified replica firearms. Modern 3-D printing materials produce a durable firearm capable of shooting hundreds of rounds without failure.

One of my investigations in Vancouver located a sophisticated firearm manufacturing operation capable of producing 3-D-printed firearms, suppressors and airsoft conversions. In addition to what is already included in Bill C‑21, I would ask this committee to consider regulating the possession, sale and importation of firearms parts used to manufacture ghost guns, such as barrels, slides and trigger assemblies. These parts are currently lawful to purchase and possess without a licence, and they can be purchased online or imported from the United States. The emergence of privately made firearms has reduced the significance of the currently regulated receiver and increased the importance of currently unregulated gun parts that are needed to finish a 3-D-printed receiver and turn it into a functioning firearm.

I would also support increased funding for specialized firearms enforcement teams to proactively target those offenders who import, manufacture and traffic unlawfully possessed firearms.

Finally, I would like to thank the committee for their ongoing work addressing the real threats that unlawfully possessed firearms create for our communities across Canada, and I ask that you continue to advocate meaningful legal consequences for those people who make the decision to unlawfully pick up a firearm.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Inspector.

We will now start our rounds of questions.

Mr. Lloyd, please go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Chief McFee.

Something that you said really stuck out for me. To reiterate what you said, is it your opinion that some provisions in Bill C-21 could have a negative impact on public safety?

[Chief Dale McFee]

Specifically in relation to the handguns, as stated and as we've heard several times, there are parts of this thing that actually make a lot of sense, but when we're going to actually ban handguns and not focus on the people pulling the triggers on the enforcement level and some of the things that currently exist—

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

But you agree that it could have a negative impact on public safety.

[Chief Dale McFee]

Absolutely.

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

Oh, man. Okay, thank you.

I know that police have an important role to play in combatting domestic violence. Bill C-21 proposes a so-called “red flag” law that would allow people to apply to the courts for an emergency weapons prohibition order.

The police would be enforcing this order. Is that correct?

[Chief Dale McFee]

That has yet to be determined.

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

Okay.

[Chief Dale McFee]

We're under that understanding, but it has yet to be determined.

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

Thank you.

If a domestic abuse victim or someone concerned that a loved one is mentally ill or suicidal comes to the police with a concern over safety and there's a firearm present, do the police take immediate action, including seizing the firearms?

[Chief Dale McFee]

Yes.

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

If this legislation passes as is, would you in your professional opinion recommend that victims go through this new court process or that they contact police directly?

[Chief Dale McFee]

Again, that new court process we are seeing isn't really clear.