Public Safety Committee on April 25th, 2023

[Matthew Taylor]

I'm swimming a bit out of my lane, but I'd say two things, based on general knowledge.

Statistics Canada can do special data projects in which they mine the data they receive from the provinces and territories, from the police forces and from the court systems. That's a qualitative data analysis that they would be able to do.

Another way to do it—and I know, because you've been talking about it a lot—would be looking at whether new criminal offences could be added to the code, for example, which then provides, specific to ghost guns, a better data point to measure against. If there is a specific offence, then there's a charge entered with respect to that offence, and Statistics Canada is able to pull that information.

Those would be the two ways I can think of.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Would the Department of Justice be willing to make that request of StatsCan?

[Matthew Taylor]

We can certainly ask Statistics Canada to see what information is available.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

That would be helpful, I think, for committee as well.

I don't have a lot of time, but the chair has been very flexible—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You have 45 seconds.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have two questions. First, on the issue of border measures, I note the 1,100 seized illegal weapons. Do we have any estimate on the flow of illegal weapons across the border? That has been a concern, I think, that all recognized parties have been raising in the House of Commons.

Second, in terms of buy-back programs, we'd like to know how they are evaluated. We've heard concerns from people that buy-back programs offer much less than the value of their firearm. That seems to me, in the sense that they are contributing to ensuring that the laws are enforced in Canada, very unfair to those individuals.

[Talal Dakalbab]

Maybe I'll start with the last question, Mr. Chair.

Throughout our engagements on firearms, as the minister indicated, we've been also engaging in asking stakeholders, indigenous communities and gun owners for feedback on the price list that was provided publicly to gather this feedback and be able to provide informed advice to the government afterward.

I want to reassure you that we are gathering, from any consultation or discussion or engagement that we're doing, not only information about the amendments that were withdrawn about the bill itself but also about the buy-back program. We're still in the process of gathering feedback, and we always welcome the feedback to be able to provide informed advice to government.

As for the border, I can turn to my colleague here who is with us from CBSA.

[Daniel Anson, Director General, Intelligence and Investigations, Canada Border Services Agency]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Regarding the pattern of firearms flow across the border, particularly with regard to illicit firearms that have been seized, we've definitely seen approximately 1,100 over the past two years. It was 1,109 two years ago. Notwithstanding the gap in time over the pandemic, when we would have seen an artificial reduction in volumes due to the limited travel, that is still an approximately 40% increase from the prepandemic levels.

Overall, we are seeing an increase in illicit firearms as represented by what we seize and interdict, but again that is a representation of what we know, not necessarily of what we do not know. I'm sure there are going to be corresponding volumes increasing as the restrictions potentially are ratified within Canada. Domestically, as the availability of firearms that are then listed or prohibited, or as that evolves, we will tend to see probably an increase in traffic of cross-border firearms smuggling.

As such, we do benefit from the range of investments that have been afforded the CBSA in the past couple of years. We are definitely advancing our ability to detect and to interdict firearms through both technical and K-9 measures, as well as through training in BSO measures. We have a variety of different measures that we're hoping will have a greater impact. I'm hoping that impact will continue to be reflected and present within the statistics for seizures.

I anticipate that we will continue to see an increase in relation to potential domestic legislative changes. At the same time, the agency is attempting to do its best to position itself to better prepare to interdict firearms and deal with an increase in volume through the variety of modes by which we see them arrive in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you. That was a very ample 45 seconds.

That wraps up our first round. You've all been very tight with your questions and generally very succinct with your answers. We may well have a chance to do a full second round, although I may need to shave a couple of slots at the end.

We'll start the second round with Mr. Motz.

Mr. Motz, please go ahead for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here.

For Mr. Larkin, first of all, Bryan, thank you for your many years of service. I appreciate your leadership on the CPA.

Mr. Anson, thank you for your military service. It's greatly appreciated.

For all on the committee, did any one of you have a hand in the development of this Bill C-21, or was that from the minister and his department specifically?

[Talal Dakalbab]

I am part of the Department of Public Safety that provides the policy advice to the minister—for sure.

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

This was something that you may have had a hand in.

[Talal Dakalbab]

Yes, absolutely.

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

Okay.

Again, if I demonstrate any ill will towards Bill C-21, it's not directed towards you personally, just so you know.

I know that we've had many people here talk about the impacts of Bill C-21, or the lack of impacts of Bill C-21. Did you or anyone on this committee provide the minister or Public Safety Canada with any documentation or evidence that Bill C-21, as proposed, was actually going to make a positive difference on public safety in this country? Was there any evidence to support it?

[Talal Dakalbab]

I believe I've testified in this committee in the past that Bill C-21 not only addresses crimes but also addresses gender-based violence and mental health issues. It is important to bear in mind from my perspective as a policy wonk, if you wish, that the bill is really a step among many other pillars that are important.

Quite frankly, I do want to refer a bit to the Mass Casualty Commission's report. It asks us to look at what community safety is in Canada, not only in the one pillar but as a whole, and I do believe that Bill C-21 is one of the steps, but not the full spectrum.

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

I would disagree with that assessment, and I can. I don't see anyone producing, and I have never seen anyone produce, any credible evidence that suggests that going after law-abiding Canadian firearms owners will have any positive impact on public safety. Everyone in this committee and all over the country, including the millions of firearms owners, is concerned about and supports the idea of improving public safety. This bill does not do that.

We have had witnesses at this committee who we thought would be very strong on aspects of the bill. They have said quite the opposite. They do not believe it will have the positive impacts that are planned.

One of the things I found interesting is that when we had Dr. Bryant here, who is Alberta's chief firearms officer, I asked her about the definition of a military-style assault weapon—or military assault-style weapon, or whatever the terminology is. I find it astounding—in fact, the word I used was ludicrous—and she agreed, that this term would be used with no definition.

Now we're scrambling to try to find a definition for a term that really doesn't exist. No firearms fit it, because the firearms that should fit this bill are already prohibited in this country and have been since the seventies.

I asked Dr. Bryant for the definition of what could be defined as a military-style assault weapon. The answer was one that I knew from my experience: a firearm capable of producing a rapid fire with one pull of the trigger, with a large-capacity magazine.

All of those things are prohibited in this country already, so I find that quite astounding, to be honest with you, that we're trying to find a definition for a firearm that is already prohibited and we're going to make it more prohibited. We could be spending our time trying to tighten up and fix what could be fixed or made stronger in the Firearms Act and other pieces of legislation. I find it interesting that this is still what we're trying to do.

The minister was here and basically asked this committee to come up with a definition of a prohibited firearm. The only thing I agree with the minister on is that there should be a body designed to classify firearms that is separate from the RCMP. This does not mean that the RCMP is not involved in it, but it would be a non-political group of individuals with expertise—with the RCMP included—that defines firearms and classifies those firearms—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Motz, that's your time.

I don't know if there's anything there that you need or wish to respond to, but if you wish to, please go ahead.

[Talal Dakalbab]

I'll maybe say a couple of words.

I met personally with the chief firearms officer from Alberta as well, and she has very strong views. I'm not here to argue her views.

What is important is that the intent of the definition was to provide clarity on what kinds of guns we don't want in Canada. The intention was to have these characteristics defining—a bit like you were saying—what kind of gun we will not be accepting in our country. I think that was the purpose of this definition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We go now to Mr. Gaheer.

Please go ahead. You have six minutes.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My question is for Mr. Dakalbab, and perhaps for Mr. Larkin as well.

During our study, a number of women's organizations noted that red flag laws may place a burden on survivors of domestic violence, and that if police organizations were more responsive, these provisions wouldn't be needed.

How do we balance the need for police organizations to take the complaints of women more seriously versus the need to provide additional tools to victims and survivors of domestic violence?

[Talal Dakalbab]

If you'll allow me, I will start by answering the question.

First of all, the red flag provisions in Bill C-21 do not remove the responsibility of law enforcement and the police to do what they have to do, as prescribed right now in the Criminal Code of Canada for the red flags. It is an addition to further allow the victims' families or Canadians, when they feel there's a risk, to bring it to the attention of a judge for an assessment.

I would say that I was part of the first introduction of Bill C-21 by Minister Blair. I was part of the second one, and I had discussions with stakeholders. The second bill added some provisions to ensure privacy and to ensure in camera hearings, in response to criticism in Bill C-21's first time around.

That does not remove the fact that there is work to be done. That is the reason some of the funding that is provided to law enforcement in provinces and territories is to work with law enforcement and for their time to react or to take it seriously when they get these complaints.

I want to clarify that what I'm saying is that this bill adds support, but it's not the only thing that is required. There is more to be done through training for law enforcement and clarity on their roles and responsibilities.

I'm happy to turn it over to my colleague, Deputy Commissioner Larkin, if he wants to add anything.

[D/Commr Bryan Larkin]

I just want to reiterate that it's unfortunate to hear that many groups feel we're not taking it seriously, and we take that to heart.

As my colleague indicated, there is proposed funding to expand awareness, training and education for law enforcement in frontline policing, because it's critical that we get it right when we look at the challenge of dealing with partner violence.

The feedback is well received, and we're hoping that we'll be able to invest in a greater national program, not just for the RCMP but for all police services of jurisdiction, to raise the key awareness and education for the appropriate action to be taken.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

My next question is probably for Mr. Taylor. I want to touch on Bill C-5, because the minister touched on Bill C-5 in his opening testimony. Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimum penalties for groups that are historically disadvantaged—indigenous Canadians and Black Canadians, groups that are actually overrepresented in our present prison populations.

If you believe Conservative rhetoric on Bill C-5, you would think that these measures would increase recidivism. Do you want to comment a little bit about Bill C-5 and the effect on recidivism and the intent behind Bill C-5?

[Matthew Taylor]

Sure. Thank you for the question.

I could start by reminding the committee—and I think you know—that Bill C-5 did repeal a number of MMPs, including those for firearms offences, but it did not repeal MMPs for firearms offences involving prohibited or restricted firearms or where those firearms offences were connected to organized crime.

I think on the Justice Canada website there is fairly extensive evidence and information related to the purpose of Bill C-5, which was to address the disproportionate impact that MMPs for some offences had on certain individuals, certain populations overrepresented in the criminal justice system. The bill did not alter the purposes and principles of sentencing, which are that sentences must reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender. As MInister Lametti has stated countless times, and as Minister Mendicino has said in response to another question, they have confidence that the justice system will impose appropriate penalties based on the facts before them.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.