Public Safety Committee on Oct. 20th, 2022

[Marcell Wilson]

Thank you for the question.

One of the fundamental flaws that we see is the application process itself. A lot of the people who can do the most effective work in the most affected communities may not be educated in writing a grant or even understanding the language.

From what we understand, at least in Ontario or in Toronto, when you are applying for a grant or something along those lines, the application goes through an algorithm that looks for key phrases and keywords before it ever hits human eyes.

If they can't speak the language—and many of the most affected groups that we've encountered cannot—unfortunately, they're never heard. I'm speculating here, but lots of times it seems that the squeaky wheel gets the worm. Organizations that may have “name capital” for whatever reason tend to receive a lot of the funding. I think maybe where that money's going is comfortable for a lot of people who make the decisions.

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

Five billion dollars could go a long way on programs that are multi-faceted across many spectrums. We can tighten our borders. We can deal with the revolving justice system, whereby criminals continue to commit offences over and over again while they're out on bail. We could get programs like yours and other similar ones across the country that actually can get some funding and get some results.

I guess one of my concerns as I look at this bill and as I listen to the feedback of millions of Canadians like myself is that we don't see any positive outcome being proposed that will play out and have an actual impact on public safety. It really will not. The targeting of licensed firearms owners who are lawfully vetted and who do not pose a threat.... As a PAL and RPAL owner, I am three to five times less likely to commit an offence than anybody else in this room. It's not criminals; it's the average Canadian. To target those people, Mr. Wilson, it seems to me that we are misguided in our approach. You've said it. I've heard from gang members myself, as I'm sure Mr. Chiang has, that they don't follow the rules. They already don't follow the law.

More laws on top of existing laws that already aren't being followed are not going to keep us safer. What do you say to something like that? Besides your program and programs like it, how do we have a positive impact on public safety that we can all go in the same direction on? Right now, we're not.

[Marcell Wilson]

Especially when it comes to recidivism.... A young man I work with was gang-involved for quite some time. He had done quite a bit of federal prison time. In having a conversation with him one day—he's a very articulate young man—he expressed his disappointment. This is a guy who's done some pretty horrific things, but while he was incarcerated, he had time with his thoughts and became bored. He became very interested in things like violence prevention. The current VPP, the violence prevention program within CSC, is a booklet this thick.

Focusing on the violence prevention programs while inside, catching young people while they're very young and having the education system.... We have these kinds of siloed things happening. We're not working together, at least in our province.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Could you wrap it up in 10 seconds, please?

[Marcell Wilson]

We need to work together more and with focused attention on prevention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, sir, and thank you, Mr. Motz.

We go now to Mr. Chiang for five minutes, please.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today and taking time out of your busy schedules to help us in getting this work done.

Personally, in regard to the Danforth shooting, I have a connection to that because Julianna Kozis and my niece were on the same swim team. I met you, Mr. Price, back on July 5 at the centre when we made the announcement.

As a retired police officer, I have come across a lot of gun violence and a lot of domestic situations. I understand what a gun can do to somebody. It's not the gun itself, but it's the person who pulls the trigger and who causes the gun to go off.

Mr. Price, on our government's announcement on Bill C-21, you stated that most Canadians want more gun control measures, more community resources devoted to addressing the root causes of gun violence and more action to control guns at the border. You then said the reason you support the announcement of Bill C-21 is that it is a combination of all those things.

Could you elaborate on your position and why you believe we are taking the right steps to make our communities safer?

[Ken Price]

Thank you, and thank you again for the other questions from the committee as we're working through this.

I want to say as well that the father of one of the victims affected is a retired police officer. We have that influence in terms of our thinking.

I would say again that it's not going to be about one thing.

Here's the thing: We want to be a country that is very heavily armed relative to other countries in the world. That is the fact. We have a lot of guns out there. Maybe there are a lot of good reasons for that and maybe there are a lot of reasons related to recreation. Now it's going to come time to pay the bill, so we're going to have to step up and do those things. We're going to have to fund the programs that require prevention. We're going to have to fund those programs that talk about more intense consequences for stepping outside of that. We're going to have to fund the program that says we should take those very much most dangerous guns out of here. They never should have been here in the first place. There should have been more oversight all the way along through successive governments of various stripes.

Now it comes time to pay that bill, because the gun violence is continuing to grow. We're letting more and more guns in, and if we don't do anything.... It is naive to sit here and say that supply does not have some kind of impact. It's a supply-and-demand marketplace, just like anything else. A more ready supply has got to be part of the issue.

It's all of those things, sir. It's not just one. We never said it's just about banning handguns; it's about a number of things. That's what we hope the committee will conclude, and we hope they will step up, make the recommendations and push this government to put in place the regulations and resources that will make Bill C-21 effective for all of our neighbourhoods.

Thank you.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Price.

Mr. Chair, I cede my remaining time to Ms. Damoff.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Chiang.

Ms. Damoff, go ahead. You have one minute and 50 seconds.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Wilson, you're a for-profit corporation, are you not?

[Marcell Wilson]

That's correct.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

That disqualifies you for a number of government programs.

[Marcell Wilson]

Yes.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

The funding for the gang prevention strategy has gone through municipalities, so that actually goes through the City of Toronto.

I would suspect you're disqualified from that as well because you're a for-profit corporation. Is that right?

[Marcell Wilson]

Correct.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Do you receive funding—or have you ever— from the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights?

[Marcell Wilson]

Yes, we have. We received a donation of $6,000 two years ago.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Price, I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more. We've had a lot of pressure from the sport shooters, as Mr. MacGregor alluded to. If I run out of time, maybe you can provide it to us in writing. Why should we not be expanding that definition, because they've been quite vocal? I'm just wondering if you could give us some information on that.

[Ken Price]

I guess there is an exemption for sport shooting. We look at the Olympic program, and it's very tightly tied with respect to the kinds of guns that are used. They're very specific. This is all going to be about risk management. The risk of those guns turning into crime guns is probably lower.

If we look at something like IPSC on the other side, we see it's a very broad definition. There are five categories of handguns, including “open”, which basically means anything.

In terms of a control measure or being able to say what kind of gun should be used or not, or there being a risk that the number of those guns will grow because suddenly somebody is an IPSC elite shooter, we're just very skeptical that that could be managed. We think it undermines an objective we have.

We know this is not going to be easy and it's going to disappoint some people. On the other hand, we've been victims of gun violence. We're the examples of what happens when it goes wrong. It's obvious why we're coming through with this motivation. We're asking that somebody give something up to make sure that we have safer streets.

The guy on the Danforth was not a gang member. Richard Edwin, from Toronto, in the spring, was an RPAL holder. This perfect vetting process does not exist. It can't. It can't possibly understand the motivation of everyone who successfully gets through the RPAL process, or that they might change their mind or change their behaviour. He accumulated a cache of weapons and started shooting people at random in the downtown core of Toronto. These risks happen. They happen in addition to the other kinds of crimes we see that are the product of crime guns.

We have to solve the whole problem or we will be sitting here again and having other sad people standing here making the same testimony.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Madame Michaud.

You have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your personal testimony, Mr. Wilson.

You spoke about the problem of illegal weapons. I think we are all aware of the issue of the trafficking and importation of illegal weapons. I would like to understand your personal position on Bill C‑21. Do you think it goes far enough or too far?

I believe your organization was funded by a well-known firearms lobby. That organization defends very specific positions, stating for example that it is always honest owners of legal firearms who are affected by this kind of legislation.

Yet the witnesses who appeared today have given evidence to the contrary. There are owners of legal weapons who have committed horrific crimes.

Do you agree with the positions of that organization that you are linked with financially, or do you agree that we need legislation on legal weapons?

[Marcell Wilson]

I'll address the first portion of the question—our stance on Bill C-21 and whether it does or doesn't go far enough. I'll use the state of New York as an example. On May 24, 10 Black people, people of my culture, were murdered by a white supremacist. That state has one of the most rigorous gun laws in the U.S., red-flag laws included. This was not prevented by either these gun laws or by the red flag.

I'll emphasize again and say that I believe that if there had been prevention and an intervention for this young unhealthy man who committed this egregious act by somebody like Mr. Bradley Galloway.... He is a former neo-Nazi here in Canada. He does some fantastic work on keeping Canadians safe and preventing violence and pulling guys out of that world. If someone like him had gotten to that shooter, I believe that would have been the right measure to take.

To address the funding aspect, to us the issue of death and murder in Canada is not partisan. It's not a political issue, really; it's a Canadian issue and something that we all should care about. When there are people out there who can agree with our struggle or see the work we're doing and appreciate it, we greatly and strongly appreciate that in return. Regardless of what organization has even written us a cheque, we greatly appreciate that they see the work we're doing and are there to support it, regardless of what their political stances are and who they are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We go now to Mr. MacGregor for the final slot.

You have two minutes and a half, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wilson, I would like to continue with you. You've heard clearly that there is a very real concern in there about the domestic diversion of legal handguns. I think the intention overall in Bill C-21 is to try to limit the number of legal handguns in circulation. You've concentrated very much on trying to make sure that it's not just the supply but also the demand. You want to go after the demand, but if there is a great big supply out there, there is always a chance that some can be stolen and used in a crime.

Do you have any opinion on the sport shooting discipline aspect of it? I'm trying to find a way whereby people in my neck of the woods who love the sport, who love sport shooting, can in some way continue to do what they can, but also take into account the very real concerns that have been listed by the Danforth families. Do you have any opinion on how we may be able to strike a middle ground on this very delicate question that's before our committee?