Public Safety Committee on Oct. 20th, 2022

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Then we could do a better job of letting organizations know that funding is available and to provide access.

I'm interested in your programs. You have two focuses, as I understand it. The first one is the outreach for ages six to 29. How do you find people who are at risk of offending? How do you get that specific group engaged?

[Marcell Wilson]

What I think makes us niche is our background. It's very difficult, as I understand it, for government bodies and social workers to have direct contact with the at-risk or high-risk component. A lot of the youth that we see participating in programs are guys that we wouldn't really consider high risk. They may live in marginalized communities, but they are actively seeking assistance or help.

For the ones who need the most help, there's a lack of trust between government and community. Because of our background and connection and reputation with a lot of these guys, they feel a lot more comfortable speaking to people like us in those settings.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Is there a national organization that the government could reach out to that could help educate and provide the process?

[Marcell Wilson]

Yes—One By One Movement.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Okay. Great.

The next item is the concern about recidivism. There's a quote from you that says, “We like to think of ourselves as ambassadors of change unprompted by the threat of punishment.” Can you tell me how that works? I think the term you used here was “internal realization and transformation process”, or IRTP. How does that work? How effective has that been in relation to other programs?

[Marcell Wilson]

It's been quite effective, actually. We have a program specifically designed for those who are incarcerated. Then we have a program that is tailor-made for those who are either on the verge or just coming out. One of our very first steps is to guide these young guys who trust us through the internal realization and transformation process. These are indicating the positive factors that can contribute to realigning them with society.

Again, once they feel open enough and confident to speak with you, you'll find that there are a lot of parallels and there are a lot of things that we relate on. Once they're open to that, we have had a lot of success in terms of breaking the trust barrier and their being more open to following the path, because they see the people who have done it doing it.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Great. Thank you.

Mr. Price, I'd like to direct my next question to you and the organization that you've been able to put together. You should be proud of the way you're doing something positive with such a terrible experience. I congratulate you for that.

[Ken Price]

Thank you.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

In the Danforth Families for Safe Communities statement on the fourth anniversary of the Danforth shooting, it states, “From the facts of our case, we advocate for actions that can be taken by all levels of government to reduce the risk of death [by] guns.”

Can you expand on this? Do you have a specific recommendation that would help this committee provide effectiveness or improve the effectiveness of Bill C-21?

[Ken Price]

Beyond the statement, I do want to congratulate Mr. Wilson on his work. We have tried to reach out and become more educated about the issue. I will say that we were not educated about this issue before this incident came into our lives. It's shocking when it happens.

I am also thankful for the support of my lovely wife, of my friend Ali, and of the other members of the Danforth community. It's not just me who's making these statements.

It would be wrong for this committee to conclude that we have only one issue. It's not one kind of gun violence. In fact, and I think in the past we've agreed on this, there are different kinds of gun violence, frankly, and different remedies that are going to be required. According to Statistics Canada, only half of the gun violence activity is attributed to gangs and guns.

Frankly, if we deal with this, and we should, there are issues related to importation and smuggling. We need to fund these communities better, and we completely agree with that, but then to ignore the other half of the problem would ignore the problem that happened to us and that happened to the mosque. There are other shooters who have motivation and have different access to weapons.

Our recommendation is to not lose that focus. This bill needs to be balanced. We think this is a balanced bill. Maybe it can be tweaked and improved to make other people happy, but it needs to cover all of the things it's covering. It needs to cover the freeze. It needs to deal with assault-style weapons. It needs to deal with the borders. It needs to fund communities. It needs to make reporting easier for women or others who are feeling threatened by gun owners.

All of that work needs to be done, but that is the scope of the problem. It's not one problem, it's not one group, it's not one set of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry. I have to cut you off there.

Ms. Michaud, you have six minutes.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many thanks to the witnesses for being here.

On behalf of my party, I, too, would like to express sincere condolences to all those of you who have been affected, directly or indirectly, by gun crimes. Your expertise and experience are very important, and I thank you.

Mr. Benabdallah, thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today. I was afraid that you would not be able to connect, because I have some questions for you.

You talked about the announcement on May 30 of this year. You stood behind the government when it announced the introduction of Bill C‑21. I know that certain other groups also backed the government at that time, because Minister Mendicino had promised them that he would amend the bill in order to ban assault weapons as well. That is not in the first draft of the bill, the one we have to consider. That was one of the conditions that certain groups gave the government for supporting this bill.

Are you one of those groups? Did the government promise you that it would introduce that amendment during consideration of the bill? Are you confident that it will keep its promise? On a number of occasions, it seemed to be in good faith and willing to ban assault weapons once and for all, and amend the Criminal Code to remove existing loopholes. But that has not always been the case. The same applies to the buyback program for assault weapons.

Do you think the Liberals will make this amendment soon?

[Boufeldja Benabdallah]

Thank you.

Your questions are opportune. These two points were included in the 10 proposals I made on behalf of mosques, namely, including assault weapons and accelerating the process as much as possible.

That is what we want, you know that, and we are reiterating it. I completely agree. The government must do this. I am confident because we discussed this in person withMinister Mendicino when he visited the mosque. We raised this issue. If this criminal had had an assault weapon, the results would have been even more catastrophic. If they go into schools, it is the same thing. These weapons kill hundreds of people. They must be included in the bill. We will write to the minister again to remind him.

Thank you very much.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Benabdallah.

Rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will propose this amendment if the Liberal Party does not. Banning assault weapons was in fact your first recommendation.

You did not have the time to speak to your other recommendations, so please go ahead if you'd like to list them.

[Boufeldja Benabdallah]

Among the eight remaining recommendations is the one that Mr. Wilson and Mr. Price supported, regarding the prevention framework.

We consider it insufficient. The government has the duty to establish strong prevention programs, with local organizations that know what to do. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So prevention is essential, we have to pull out all the stops.

Awareness is the topic of my fifth and sixth recommendations. We remember the mass killing in Portapique and the ensuing confusion. Police officers must be better trained and there must be a public awareness program. I am not an expert on public communication, but people must be publicly warned through pop-up ads that the weapons in circulation are very dangerous, that our children must stay far away from them, and so on. I do not know how to go about this, but this must be communicated to the public. The information has to be communicated and awareness work must be done in schools, CEGEPs, colleges and universities. It must be thoroughly discussed so the entire population is made aware of this.

That will require an awareness program or programs involving experts in public communication, psychologists who know what to say so there is no confusion. This has to be done.

These are the items I stressed in my recommendations.

The other point I wanted to make is that there should be no exemption for new businesses such as clubs and shooting ranges, where customers shoot at fast-moving objects, just like Olympians. Olympic sports have a clear framework, are clearly defined and organized, and are well-known, and so forth.

The bill must be limited this to this framework so as to exempt only those international athletes who meet Olympic standards, and not to allow businesses that are lured by the appeal of adding new sports and taking advantage of this opening. If such businesses multiply, Bill C-21 will hardly have any impact at all, because these businesses will run the show.

We think this bill must be carefully constructed to prevent any opening for sports other than Olympic sports, which are internationally recognized.

That is what I wanted to add.

Thank you very much for this opportunity, very kind of you.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

I think my time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We go now to Mr. MacGregor for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like, first of all, to thank all of our witnesses for coming before our committee and sharing their stories.

I will start off with a comment. I think it's quite remarkable that we have two groups of witnesses here who have both been touched by gun violence and exposure to firearms in their own ways in the same city, and are coming forward before our committee with different approaches. I think now we're getting a sense of the challenge that's before us as policy-makers as we deal with this delicate issue.

Thank you for having the courage to come before us to share your stories. I know it's not easy. Many times, you can be reliving the trauma of that lived experience when you're recounting it to us. I want you to know that we as a committee appreciate that and we are certainly taking all of your testimony into account.

Mr. Wilson, I would like to start with you. I agree with you that there's no one silver bullet to address the very complex problem of gun violence. It takes different forms in different parts of the country.

I think there is room for some legislative aspects in approaching this problem. Bill C-21 is not just about a handgun freeze. There are provisions in the bill that address tougher penalties for a variety of firearms offences. There's a considerable section of the bill that deals with emergency prohibition orders under the yellow flag and the red flag.

You must, across your lived experiences, have come across situations of domestic violence in a home where a firearm was present. Do you have any comments on the part of Bill C-21 that provides more legislative authority for someone to approach a judge, remain anonymous and get an emergency prohibition order to remove firearms from the home? Do you think that this legislative part of Bill C-21 has value? Do you have any comments to help inform our committee as we're studying those particular clauses?

[Marcell Wilson]

Absolutely. I think we have a serious mental health crisis happening in the country. Especially in my communities—marginalized communities—it's taboo to speak on the subject.

In this particular case, in the areas I grew up, I witnessed quite a bit of domestic violence. In some cases, there were firearms involved.

My answer stays the same in that I believe that if this person had some type of intervention or preventative measures, if we invested more in our mental health programs and had more access to them and were better able to identify when somebody is in crisis and respond to that, it would be more poignant as a solution, rather than focusing on how we take the weapon away from a person. I know this from experience.

You can take away the weapon, but if the motivation is still there, a person who is motivated enough will find a way. Let's focus on the motivation.

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

More broadly speaking, do you see any areas in tackling gun violence that legislative solutions could assist with in the efforts that you are doing on the ground?

[Marcell Wilson]

Absolutely. A stronger focus on the illegal weapons that are circulating in our streets and a focus on our borders and investing there, along with investing in grassroots communities.... When we talk about this multifocal approach, we are talking about investing in law enforcement, investing in grassroots, investing in our mental health service providers, investing in our education systems and working collectively.

However, again, as far as focusing on any weapon is concerned, a person who is motivated enough will find a way.

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

Mr. Price, I would like to turn to you with respect to the handgun freeze.

I have met with a number of constituents, as well as those in neighbouring ridings, who are involved in sport shooting disciplines. They have been pleading with me and other members of Parliament to try to keep their sport alive somehow.

I understand your concerns with the exemptions. However, do you not think there is a way that we can find a compromise in this so that we allow those who are so passionate about their sports to continue in some way? We can try to attach further legislative restrictions so that we're taking into account your very real concerns about the domestic diversion, but also paying attention to a sport that many are extremely passionate about practising.

This is one of the challenges we're facing.

[Ken Price]

It is a great challenge.

I do like the fact that you've expanded the discussion again, because it's not one thing and it's not one person or one group's experience; it's all of our experience collectively. You're going to have the unenviable task of sorting through what, at the end of the day, you're going to prioritize.

I think we're going to have to change something to have a better public safety outcome.

The United Kingdom.... I know, here we go. Here goes the guy with England again. The United Kingdom, America...Canada is in the middle. We've been allowing 50,000 more handguns every year or so since about 2015, with more and more people taking interest, and—correlated or coincidental—more gun violence. Then you sort through it, and for the imperfect data sources that we have, you have an attribution that lots of times comes from Canadian sources and lots of times comes from illegal sources. Half the time it's gun and gang-related and half the time it isn't. You have groups here that represent that. I think you have to take all of that into account.

I would say to folks who are interested in sports, first of all, that there are going to be 10 million rifles out there still after this is over, and a million handguns still in use. Those sport shooters could choose to enter rifle competitions or other.... I don't want to be telling them what to do, but I'm asking them to give something up so that we can have safer streets.

That's my message.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

That's your time, Mr. MacGregor.

We'll start a second round. We're not going to have time for a full second round, so we'll have one question slot per party.

We will go to Mr. Motz for five minutes, please.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Again, as has been echoed, thank you to all the witnesses for being here and sharing their life experiences.

I'm a PAL and an RPAL holder. As does Mr. Chang, I have over three decades in law enforcement. I come from a different perspective as well, but we all are after public safety. That's really what we're after here.

I appreciate your comments, Mr. Price, that we have to look at all the experiences collectively.

I look at the value for dollar. If the government wants to look at up to.... They haven't given us a number, but industry experts are saying it could cost $5 billion to confiscate what's already on the books.

Mr. Wilson, I want to go to you first. Your program is exceptional, and I would like you as a group to submit, if you can, a brief highlighting what your group is about and how you accomplish your tasks and the success rate you've had. I think that would be very important for our committee to have.

The government has sprayed around money on public safety and crime prevention for decades with successive governments. It has not always been successful.

Why is it that a program like yours can be successful and doesn't get the funding you need, and other programs, with maybe louder voices involved, get big money, but they do nothing? Why is there this disconnect?