Public Safety Committee on Oct. 27th, 2022

[Chief Evan Bray]

No. They would definitely be able to respond to that.

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

Okay.

I spoke with Dr. Alan Drummond, who's an emergency room doctor. He said that when there's imminent danger it's easy for him to respond, in particular around suicide, but when there's a question about the potential, he has concerns.

I have heard this from women's organizations when there has been coercive control, for example, and someone is threatening to shoot a companion animal, like a dog. The woman hasn't been shot and hasn't been punched, but there is coercive control. This is much more difficult, and I would expect it to be more difficult for police officers to respond to that as well.

[Chief Evan Bray]

Yes, for sure. It's guaranteed to be a factor. That's why when you have advocates and others helping people who find themselves in a domestic situation, there's a very strong willingness on the part of law enforcement and the justice system in general to use those advocates and their influence in trying to enhance safety.

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

I have some really specific questions around airsoft guns. Airsoft in Canada appeared here, and I know you've testified that you would like to see those guns not look at all like real guns. They have suggested they would support provisions that would require a purchase to be restricted to individuals over 18, and provisions around safe storage, safe transfer and requiring a licence to purchase an airsoft gun.

Do you see that as being a solution in terms of police response?

[Chief Evan Bray]

I would call it steps in the right direction. I think that's what you heard us talk about when we talked about replica firearms. Right now they look exactly like firearms, and anyone can walk in and purchase them. There's no recording of information. There's no requirement of age. There's nothing you have to be able to prove.

I think any steps we can take in a direction that restricts access to them and that allows us to do everything we can to make ourselves safe.... I still think the likeness issue is a big problem. I don't want to spend more time on it, but you can convert anything into a firearm. A ballpoint pen can be made into a firearm. I recognize that just because it may look purple and more like a nerf gun doesn't mean it's not a real gun, because it can be converted. However, I think it's less likely that this would happen than the opposite.

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

I was speaking with my police chief here in Halton, and he brought up the opposite point, which I hadn't thought of, that if it were only a colour issue, a real gun could be made to look like a replica.

[Chief Evan Bray]

Yes.

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

Monsieur Brochet, I wonder if you want to add anything on airsoft. What are your thoughts on those requirements versus actually changing the gun itself?

[Pierre Brochet]

I completely agree with Chief Bray: it's an important issue.

We regularly carry out interventions on the ground, and these are often risky. In some cases, the person has a replica firearm or a compressed air firearm. It's very risky for both the police officer and the person, since there is a risk of someone firing on the person. There is a risk of creating victims.

If we could find a way to legislate better control over these types of firearms, that would be a start.

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

I have only 30 seconds left.

Chief Bray, maybe I'll ask you this. Do you think the current penalties for trafficking in ghost guns are sufficient?

[Chief Evan Bray]

I don't. Especially in the area of ghost guns, I think we're deficient.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you to all our witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

We'll now go to Madame Michaud.

You have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for you, Chief Bray.

As you know, in May 2020, the government issued an order in council prohibiting 1,500 military-type assault firearms. At the same time, it promised a buyback program.

According to what I have heard in the corridors of Parliament, if the government is taking so long to implement a buyback program, it's because it has no idea how to go about it and what agency to assign the task to.

I think I heard you say during your opening speech that this type of responsibility should not be given to the police. Yet, in the collective imagination, that is the impression people who own this type of firearm have: the police will break down their door and come and get their firearms, which, from one day to the next, will have become illegal. However, the government has not revealed its intentions. We don't know whether responsibility for such a program will fall on the police or another agency.

Can you clarify your statements on this subject and tell us what you would do in the government's shoes?

[Chief Evan Bray]

I very much think the importance is in the details of how this will be rolled out. Police services and police officers, as Mr. Sauvé talked about, will follow and enforce the law. The buyback program is an administrative process. At the end of the amnesty period, the law becomes the law. Police officers will be involved in that process to enforce the law at that time.

In this administrative process, I think there are lots of ways—and the CACP is advocating for alternate ways—to find these firearms to be submitted for the buyback program rather than using police resources. Could they be used through some sort of courier or mail system? Could another organization go out there and collect these firearms as they're being turned in?

Through the administrative part of this process, it's a massive amount of work. It doesn't matter where you're talking about in Canada; our frontline officers are strapped. They're being overstretched. Their communities' expectations are much higher than what our officers are able to deliver. Sadly, we are delivering that work, but it's at the expense of our officers because of the drain on them and their mental health.

I think this added process needs to be diverted somewhere else rather than using police resources, if at all possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We will go to Mr. MacGregor, please, for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For this question, I think I'll turn to Mr. Sauvé. It will again be on the subject of the red-flag laws.

I want to invite your perspective, because we've heard Chief Bray from the CACP talk about it being another avenue. We're trying to balance that with the testimony we've heard from several groups—and we've also had letters and submissions—that feel it's very troubling to place the onus on someone who might be at risk of victimization, from firearms or other dangerous devices in the home, to go through a lengthy court process.

I understand that in emergency situations, the police like to underline that you should always call the police if you believe someone's life is in danger, especially with respect to a firearm. However, if you look at the provisions in Bill C-21 and at creating this new system where someone can go through a court system and remain anonymous, are there instances, in your view, where that court system is justified? Do you support having this additional avenue for people?

[Brian Sauvé]

I think anything we can do in Canada to address intimate partner violence and the threats thereof is a good thing. As for challenges that we've identified, as I mentioned, I don't think Bill C-21 goes far enough, and I don't think we're looking at the downstream activities of it. For example, we've spoken already about the overburdened policing system, the expectations of the community and mandates added to police officers.

Is this going to create an extra burden in our already overburdened court system? We are seeing in a number of provinces that there are not enough Crown prosecutors, there are not enough judges and there's not enough trial space. Even if we end up in a court proceeding for a red flag or yellow flag, however that might look, is it going to be addressed in a timely manner? If it's not addressed in a timely manner, is that person continually put at risk? The downstream impacts of this are something we need to consider.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

That concludes this panel.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for sharing your time with us and for your expertise in helping us with our study on this bill.

I will now suspend for a couple minutes as we bring in the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting back to order.

For the panel in the second hour, we have by video conference, as individuals, Mr. André Gélinas, retired detective sergeant, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, and Stéphane Wall, retired supervisor, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal.

Up to five minutes will be given for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

I would like to welcome both of you.

Mr. Gélinas, please make your opening speech. You have five minutes.

[André Gélinas, Retired Detective Sergeant, Intelligence Division, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, honourable members, hello.

My name is André Gélinas, and I am a retired detective sergeant. I worked for the information division of the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal. I was asked to appear here today to share my expertise on different aspects of Bill C‑21.

Before addressing the subjects of interest, I would like to clarify a few things. My presence here is apolitical and nonpartisan. For the past two years, I have been a police reporter for various media outlets on television, in newspapers and on the radio. I am not a member of any lobby or pressure group. In the past year, I have met with federal members of Parliament from every party to share my expertise and provide support for some of their projects and initiatives.

In my humble opinion, Bill C‑21 fails to achieve the very noble goal of increasing public safety by ensuring effective and judicious arms control based on a pragmatic analysis of the situation.

The bill suggests that a freeze on the sale and importation of legal handguns for target practice by licence holders will have a substantial effect on the declining safety of major Canadian cities.

Moreover, by choosing to publicly announce the bill with pomp and circumstance in Montreal North, a borough that is particularly affected by street gangs, they are suggesting that there is a causal link between the violence in this neighbourhood and the handguns legally acquired and used for safe and closely supervised sports activities. This is not true. It's the result of lobbying based on an emotional and ideological analysis, certainly not on observations made by the police on the ground.

It's important for you, members of Parliament, to understand that this situation will definitely not have the desired or announced effect. An overwhelming majority of the handguns used by criminals and seized by police services after shootings and brutalities perpetrated by street gangs, criminal biker gangs and the Italian mafia were illegally acquired and originate in the United States, a country in which the sale of firearms is virtually unrestricted thanks to a constitutional right.

Only a considerable and real intensification of border controls and the right of police officers in certain indigenous territories to enforce the law could possibly help the situation. That's the only way for police services to ever solve the problem of the illegal firearms supply when demand is increasing on a daily basis. If these measures are not put in place right away, we will never be able to gain control of the situation, and there will always be more firearms entering the country than we can seize. It would be like trying to empty out the St. Lawrence River with a bucket.

This bill targets legal weapons that are used by Canadians who meet high levels of screening and training criteria imposed by the government under the supervision of the police services, when we know full well that the real problem is all the illegal handguns. No criminal worth his salt wants to procure a legal, and therefore traceable, handgun. It's simply not in their interest. We want to solve the problem of shootings, but we aren't targeting the right firearms. This bill will absolutely not have the effect it is meant to, and the situation will remain more or less the same or deteriorate if we do not adopt pragmatic solutions based on a proper analysis of the situation.

Moreover, the bill contains measures prescribing the reporting of concerns, flag laws, in order to ensure surveillance of firearm owners. That's great, and a step in the right direction. However, any police officer with any experience at all on the ground knows full well that this procedure has existed for decades. Reporting has always been part of the solution, along with preventive seizures and licence suspensions. In 1998, when I was a young constable, I preventively seized firearms during domestic violence calls. There is nothing new in this bill, and it contains absolutely no new procedures. In short, there is nothing new under the sun.

The bill also proposes creating a new offence: modifying magazines to exceed their legal capacity. This offence is useless, since simple possession of a high-capacity magazine is legal under the Criminal Code. No criminals specialize in modifying magazines. Users do it themselves. It is a very simple modification. This new offence is a solution to a nonexistent problem.

The bill also proposes raising the maximum penalty for people found guilty of firearms trafficking from 10 to 14 years. At first glance, this appears to be a good move, but no defendants have ever been sentenced to the current 10‑year maximum sentence for this offence. The measure will have no real effect. It is another example of an ineffective measure.

Then the bill proposes allowing the police to obtain an electronic surveillance warrant for new firearms possession offences in sections 92 and 95 of the Criminal Code. Once again, this is a good idea that will have no real effect. These crimes are always investigated because the firearms in question are related to other criminal offences that authorize the use of electronic surveillance.

Lastly, I would like to point out the negative effects of the bill on gun clubs and sport shooters. Jobs will be lost, and there will be no new generation of people practising the sport.

Thank you for your time. I am prepared to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Gélinas.

I will now ask Mr. Wall to make his opening speech.

You have five minutes.

[Stéphane Wall, Retired Supervisor, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, distinguished members of Parliament, hello.

I am a retired supervisor at the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal. I work with the media and elected officials to explain the job of police officer and the reality on the ground. I am one of the three founding members of the Communauté de citoyens en action contre les criminels violents, the CCACV, which, on January 26, 2022, recommended 16 actions at the different levels of government, including the federal level. You have just heard André Gélinas, another founding member of the CCACV. Mrs. Anie Samson, who was once deputy chair of the City of Montreal executive committee, is the third.

Victims of violent crime and their loved ones are our inspiration. We believe that, in Canada, the rights and freedoms of victims and their loved ones when it comes to life, health and safety should trump the rights and freedoms of violent criminals.

We believe that a responsible legislator must adopt laws and regulations aimed at the right targets, i.e. violent criminals, including members of street gangs and organized crime, who almost always use illegal firearms in their shootings, often from moving vehicles.

In our opinion, when we become complacent in the face of serious crimes committed by criminals who possess, discharge or point a firearm, which we appear to be doing in Bill C‑5, which we also spoke about in committee, you can be sure that there will be two major social consequences. First, there will be an increase in criminals' sense of impunity, already a subject of boasting by members of street gangs on social media and in videos disseminating gangsta-rap culture. Second, there will be a drastic increase in the number of victims in the same neighbourhoods as the violent criminals, who are already over-represented according to Statistics Canada figures for 2021. These include Blacks, who accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in 2021, and indigenous people, among whom the homicide rate was six times higher than among the non-indigenous population in 2021.

Bill C‑21 is not aiming at the right target. It is a superficial measure that will in no way reduce the number of shootings perpetrated by violent criminals, who almost always use illegal firearms. Instead of hitting the right nail, i.e. illegal firearms trafficking over the border and through indigenous reserves, it is hitting a nail that will change nothing. It targets licensed firearm owners who legitimately use their guns to hunt or practise shooting sports.

Let's look at a few measures proposed by the legislation to counter firearms trafficking.

First, the maximum sentence for firearm offences, including trafficking, is increased from 10 to 14 years. In reality, courts almost never sentence offenders to 10 years. So why would they suddenly sentence them to 14 years? The young William Rainville, for example, who was arrested in Dundee with almost 250 Polymer80 handguns and firearm receivers, was given five years in prison, but was released barely one year later.

Second, the bill proposes prohibiting companies from promoting armed violence in their sales and marketing activities. Wouldn't it be better to prohibit street gang members from promoting armed violence on social media, where they threaten their enemies with firearms, show off their impunity from justice, their invincibility, their money and their victims of procuring?

Let's compare. By using the same logic that Bill C‑21 is based on, to solve the problem of drunk driving and prevent criminals on the road from causing numerous deaths, we could pass legislation prohibiting anyone, even those who are licensed and follow the rules, from owning a motor vehicle. You can see that the solution doesn't fit the problem.

What proportion of handguns used to commit crimes come from Canada? The figures I'm going to give you are taken from an online presentation by the RCMP in 2022 to the national firearms task force. In 2021, 10% of all handguns used to commit crimes were from Canada. They were therefore legal. The remaining 90% either came from the United States and therefore could not be traced, or were ghost guns designed to circumvent the law. So, in 2021, of all crimes involving handguns, 9 out of 10 were probably committed using illegal handguns. Since the beginning of 2022, 16% of all firearms used have been from Canada. In other words, of all crimes involving handguns, 8.4 out of 10 are committed using illegal handguns.

How can legislators target these illegal handguns? First, they need to ensure better surveillance at the border and around the Akwesasne reserve. They need to add cameras, drones, electronic surveillance equipment and high-speed boats, as well as patrols and border controls by the Canada Border Services Agency, the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec and the Ontario Provincial Police. They also need to increase the number of vehicle inspections on the roads near the border and the number of inspections of all types of motor vehicles leaving the indigenous reserve by land, sea or air. In addition, they need to implement a procedure obliging the CBSA to file criminal charges with every seizure. Prosecution is currently very rare. Also, they need to increase collaboration between the RCMP and the U.S. authorities in investigations. Lastly, they need to provide better funding for the network of informants living near the border and on indigenous reserves.

In conclusion, legislators must aim at the right target and not sport shooters or hunters who have the necessary licences. In addition to hunters, legislators should at least exempt sport shooters who train regularly, who are registered with a recognized shooting club and who take part in at least one competition a year to retain their acquired rights.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Wall.

We'll start our first round of questions with Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Dancho, go ahead for six minutes, please.