Public Safety Committee on Oct. 27th, 2022

[Pierre Brochet]

I think that increasing the maximum penalty will work in exceptional cases, like for people charged with several counts of high-level arms trafficking. It is important to get this message across.

With respect to Bill C‑5, I testified before another parliamentary committee. As we explained then, we understand the aim of the bill, which is an attempt to resolve the problem of over-representation of indigenous communities and racialized groups in prison. We understand this very well. However, the entire country is dealing with an alarming rise in the use of firearms by organized crime and street gangs. We are very concerned about this, as are many Canadians. Personally, I am the chief of the Laval police service. When there are shootings in Laval, people tell me that they are thinking of moving to another city. These shootings, committed by increasingly younger suspects, incidentally, are having a major impact.

Bill C‑5, which aims to remove mandatory minimum penalties for certain offences, is sending the wrong message in our opinion. Not only do we not agree with removing the mandatory minimum penalties, as we said before, we even proposed an opt-out clause. In other words, the principle of mandatory minimum penalties would be upheld in the case of firearms-related offences, but a judge could opt out based on certain criteria. That's how it's done in a number of countries. The judge could, based on certain criteria, opt out and not apply the mandatory minimum penalty in some cases.

It's an important element. As you know, there is a whole process. You can make arrests and seize firearms, but criminals are very likely to re-offend if they are freed after a short period of time. In fact, there is a high recidivism rate. Also, the message we are sending other criminals lacks strength. We're giving the impression that Canadians do not take these types of situations seriously.

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

Thank you. That's interesting.

You talk about young people and the shootings in the Montreal area. Your organization is part of the provincial working table on violence, youth and the school environment. In this context, have you heard of other solutions that might help solve this problem?

We often hear that Bill C‑21 will not solve the problem of illegal arms trafficking. In the vast majority of cases, the firearms that end up in the hands of young people in street gangs in Montreal and other large Canadian cities are illegal.

I heard you mention other measures that are needed in conjunction with those provided for in Bill C‑21. For example, we should strengthen collaboration between the various police services and the Canada Border Services Agency along the border.

Can you suggest other solutions the government could implement?

[Pierre Brochet]

In the case of the border, we should obviously consider having mixed teams and dedicate more resources to addressing arms trafficking. That's crucial. Otherwise, there will always be far too many firearms.

It is true that we are part of the working table on street gangs. We are currently using the fund to build safer communities under an agreement with the federal government. For example, the City of Laval receives more than $4 million in subsidies. That's not really enough to implement prevention strategies. In the short term, there are investigations, arrests and visibility activities, but the Association des directeurs de police du Québec believes that there is still an underlying problem: the suspects found in possession of firearms are increasingly young. Mr. Sauvé mentioned that. It's not normal that a 16 year‑old have a firearm. In fact, this is not even a police problem, it's a social problem. That's why we want to use the funding, and perhaps other funding in the future, to adopt an integrated strategy for dealing with violence. We need to work with our partners in health care, education, the municipality and, of course, the Laval police service, as well as community groups and organizations. We are really working on a basic strategy. We want to establish a five- to ten-year plan. This is a bit like what they did in Toronto with their SafeTO project. We think it's an interesting approach if we want a long-term solution to the problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for helping guide our committee through its study of Bill C-21.

Chief Bray, I'd like to start with you. You made comments with regard to the red flag laws, and I know the statement on the CACP website states that you support the red flag law and “its goal to help reduce gender-based violence, intimate partner violence, and self-harm by limiting access to firearms by those who pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.”

We've had a lot of testimony on the proposed red flag law, and a lot of groups have problems with some sections in Bill C-21. They are worried that too much of an onus is being placed on a potential victim to go through a lengthy court process when going through the police is preferable.

Are there gaps in our current system that justify us adding this to the Criminal Code? In other words, in what instance is it preferable for someone to go through the courts to make an emergency prohibition order against someone rather than going through the police?

[Chief Evan Bray]

It's an important balance, and I appreciate the question.

In Saskatchewan and many provinces, families have the ability to help youth who are having problems with alcohol. We have something in Saskatchewan called the youth detox warrant, where a family goes proactively to the court and says that one of their children or a child in their care is having a problem with some sort of substance. They make an application for them to be taken in for treatment. It's a preventative measure, rather than waiting for that child to be engaged in crime and for our officers to deal with them, and then on the back end trying to get them some help through the courts.

I view the red flag law as very similar to that. It by no means is a substitute for the need for immediate action, and I've had conversations on that. There are concerns that people will feel they have to go through this lengthy administrative process and are potentially putting themselves at risk. If there's immediate risk, you should call the police; there's no question about it. However, if there's a way we don't have to wait for something to happen before police act to restrict access to firearms and we can do that in a positive way up front in a safe and secure environment, I think it's just another tool in the tool kit.

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

I appreciate that feedback. Thank you.

Moving on to the handgun freeze, you did say that the CACP is in favour of a national approach to managing the issue of handguns in Canada. You believe that a handgun freeze is one method of reducing these types of firearms, but what struck me in the second part of your statement is you said, “while allowing existing law-abiding handgun owners to practice their sport.”

I know that to be authorized to have a restricted firearm such as a handgun, you have to have proof that you practise or compete at an approved shooting club or range. There are exemptions carved out in Bill C-21 for Olympic-level and Paralympic-level shooters, but other shooting disciplines have raised concerns that they might be edged out because of how Bill C-21 is currently written.

CACP has said that it wants existing law-abiding handgun owners to be able to practise their sport. Do you believe a middle ground to this would be to require people in those other disciplines to provide more proof that they are actively engaged in their sport? In other words, should they provide actual proof that they have a demonstrated need to own a handgun?

[Chief Evan Bray]

The short answer to that question is yes. I think at the end of the day, the notion of firearms itself is a very divisive issue in Canada, and I think you probably see, even in some of the CACP communications, that there's a bit of a balance there. We recognize that that is a sport people are engaged in, and I think talking about Olympic or international competition is a good example of that.

I'm going to stick by a statement that I feel I've said 200 times in the last year and a half, which is that law-abiding firearm owners and possessors are usually not the problem. Predominantly they are not the ones who are causing the issue. The issue is criminals or people using them for a criminal purpose and who aren't really willing to follow the law in the first place. I think anything you can do in legislation that allows for exemptions, like legislative requirements that ensure added measures of safety are being followed, is a positive thing.

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

From a policing perspective, it's about making sure that there are exemptions for other shooting disciplines, but also adding more stringent requirements to demonstrate that they are actively involved in a sport and have a demonstrated need for the handgun. Is that correct? Am I interpreting you right?

[Chief Evan Bray]

Yes, that's correct. I think that's a good balance.

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

Okay. Thank you for that.

With regard to airsoft guns, I appreciate the previous testimony you've given in response to other questions. I think there's a realization around this committee table that perhaps the way Bill C-21 is currently written could be amended.

You would agree with trying to put in requirements that distinguish them ultimately from the appearance of a real firearm, and putting any measures into the legislation that specify that to give police services more peace of mind when responding to calls.

[Chief Evan Bray]

That's correct. Yes.

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

Thank you.

That takes me to the end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you very much, Mr. MacGregor.

That ends our first round. Before we go into our second round, I'll observe that I've been in conversation with the clerk regarding the matter of Mr. Schiefke's point of order on props. Generally speaking, we need to follow the procedure of the House, which disallows props in the House. Therefore, we need to not use props here as well.

Thank you, Mr. Schiefke. I stand corrected.

We won't have time to do a full second round. As usual, we're kind of constrained by time, so we will do one question slot per party.

We will start with Mr. Motz for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

It's nice to see you again, Mr. Sauvé and Chief Bray. It's been a while.

It's interesting how different police officials from across the country have varying perspectives. As I think Chief Bray mentioned, even within the CACP there's a wide range of perspectives on the application of firearm legislation, whether it be Bill C-21 and the OIC or others from the previous iteration of Bill C-21 in the previous Parliament.

My question is simple: Do criminals follow the law?

[Chief Evan Bray]

Is that question for me, sir?

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

Yes, for sure. I mean, I'll save you the time. We know that criminals don't follow the law. You kind of touched on that a bit.

Does having laws that predominantly target law-abiding firearm owners, as has been said by both of you in this particular testimony, really improve public safety to the degree that we need?

[Chief Evan Bray]

Thank you for the question.

Canada has some very good, strong firearm-related laws and regulations. When you compare us with many other countries, including the one to the south of us, they fail in comparison with what we have. We do a good job now in trying to restrict firearms and access to firearms among those who are licensed and legally able to possess them, but I think we have to focus on and consider the fact that law-abiding firearm owners are predominantly not the problem we have when we talk about this sharp increase in firearm-related crimes. It's criminals.

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

Yes. Thank you for that.

Mr. Sauvé, I have a couple of questions for you.

I appreciate some of the comments you made with regard Bill C-21 being focused incorrectly—I'm paraphrasing what you said—and also the comments that Mr. Lloyd was getting to. Mr. Bray will talk about the municipal aspect. You're talking about the confiscation of firearms, which the government wants to call the buyback program, and the impact of that on resources. If the government is expecting law enforcement to gather up these firearms, there is an impact on public safety since resources will be deployed for doing this rather than responding to public safety issues on the street.

Mr. Sauvé, first, if the RCMP is required to confiscate firearms, how do you see that impacting your frontline officers, your ability to respond to hot calls to 911, for example, and public safety?

[Brian Sauvé]

Obviously that's a good question. I think it's a discussion point that this legislation overlooks.

We have said on a number of occasions that police services in Canada, including the RCMP, are operating at minimal levels already. We're having challenges recruiting, we're having challenges with retaining and we're having challenges attracting people to the law enforcement profession. Every time we increase the mandate of police officers on the street, there has to be something that gives. Will that mean we don't respond to a mental health call from a person in crisis in the middle of the street because police officers are now tied up going to pick up guns that are no longer legal to possess?

There is an impact. In the end, do we leave it to, as Chief Bray said, another agency that may implement it? That isn't spoken to in the legislation. It isn't spoken to within the buyback program. It's going to fall to the cops on the street and the members of the RCMP. Without sustained resources, something has to fall off the plate.

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

I agree. I think what we've seen with a lot of this current government's legislation—certainly firearm-related—is the devil is in the details, and there are no specific details to deal with this.

Chief Bray, I think you would agree that the resources in Regina and at municipal agencies across the country are in a similar boat to the RCMP and that the confiscation process is going to be problematic on your already overloaded calls for service.

[Chief Evan Bray]

Yes, I absolutely do agree.

Can I add one quick thing? I know you're short on time.

Here's my other worry. If we continue to prioritize calls—meaning we'll go to mental health emergencies and go to assaults in progress—and this administrative work falls lower on the priority scale, I worry about the effect that can have on law-abiding gun owners becoming criminals once the amnesty period is closed. If it's not given a high enough priority, I think it will have a counter effect and will cause us problems on the back end as well.

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

Exactly. That's the problem with this legislation. Bill C-21 criminalizes people who aren't criminals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

We'll now go to Ms. Damoff.

Ms. Damoff, go ahead for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to start with a comment. If gun ownership actually enhanced public safety, the United States would be the safest country in the world, and we know that's simply not the case.

Chief Bray, you were talking about how the red flag and yellow flag laws are just one tool in the tool box. I know that's the way our government looks at it. It's not the solution for gender-based violence or people who are contemplating suicide. It's one tool.

Legislation was changed so that a women's shelter, for example, could go to court on behalf of a woman and she could remain anonymous. If Halton police got a call from Halton Women's Place, are they able to respond, or does it have to be the actual woman that calls the police?