Public Safety Committee on April 25th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Gaheer.

I am now giving the floor to Ms. Michaud for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have another question for the two RCMP representatives, Deputy Commissioner Larkin and Ms. Paquette.

Can you tell us whether the RCMP's role remains the same for a weapon made in Canada and one made outside Canada? Do the same rules apply?

I understood from our various meetings that the RCMP is not automatically notified when a new weapon enters the market. Could there not be some preauthorization process before a weapon hits the market? I don't know what happens with Health Canada, for example, but just for comparison purposes, before introducing a new pill to the Canadian market, I would imagine that a major pharmaceutical firm would first have to submit it to Health Canada for compliance purposes.

Getting back to firearms, the current process is to launch a weapon in the Canadian market and when the RCMP learns about it, it classifies it. Couldn't it be done the other way around? I would imagine that you understand what I'm talking about here.

Can you tell us what happens now, both for weapons made in Canada and elsewhere?

[Kellie Paquette]

For restricted and prohibited firearms, the individual or the business must have them verified, and that's linked to the registration certificate. In this case there will be a record of that firearm.

The gap—and this is the concern I'm hearing—is really around the non-restricted firearms. Individuals or businesses, whether they are external or internal to Canada, are not required to verify the firearm, and since they are non-restricted, they're not subject to registration. Therefore, no record is required.

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

So if a weapon enters the market and circumvents the new act, for example it would not automatically be classified by the RCMP. That could be done afterwards.

I believe my speaking time is up, but could you give me an answer in just a few seconds.

[Kellie Paquette]

Yes, that's correct.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Julian, you have two minutes and a half.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to come back to three things in my two and a half minutes.

First, Mr. Taylor, I understand you've made a commitment to look into how we might actually be able to determine the extent of ghost guns across the country. Thank you for that.

Mr. Dakalbab, I wanted to come back to the issue of the buyback program. I know you said we're getting feedback, and I have a question that is very specific about the buyback program and about the value of the firearm not being met. I'll give you a specific example.

A person who may have paid $3,000 for a firearm has no problem going with the buyback program, but the buyback program provides 50% of the value, which is $1,500. It seems to me that it is unfair to legal gun owners, who respect laws and respect the component around the buyback program, that they're not receiving the price that they paid.

Is that something that the government will address so that those people who are willing to go into the buyback program and who are part of the buyback program will actually get the full value of what they paid for that firearm?

[Talal Dakalbab]

Obviously I cannot speak on behalf of the government for what it will or will not do. However, what I can say is that our minister has been vocal on his intent to give fair value as an incentive for people to return their guns to the government. I cannot really tell you what the final value will be or what the minister will do, but I can tell you that we are asked to provide sound advice on what the fair value of the guns will be.

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

Would it be fair to say that the government has heard that it's a problem and is looking to address it?

[Talal Dakalbab]

It would be fair to say that we are reflecting on it when we hear that there is a problem. We are not hearing there is an issue with the price for every gun on the list that was provided. Maybe you're hearing otherwise, that there are some people who come with specific guns and say that the value of their gun is different.

It's my colleague who is leading the file now, and I could ask him if there is additional input to provide. However, what I know is that not every gun on the list is in question.

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

Thank you.

Just to follow up with Mr. Anson, thank you for your answer, but the question that I asked in part was this: Do we have an estimate of the flow of illegal arms across the border? If we captured 1,100, do we have any sort of estimate of the number that could be crossing our border every year?

[Daniel Anson]

Thank you.

Statistically speaking, we can use that as a sample that would potentially represent an overall increase in what the denominator would be in terms of the overall volume. That is a reflection presumably of an increase in volumes, but we cannot necessarily determine what we are not catching at the border.

I'm sure that some of the statistics might potentially represent a domestic crime in a post-border event. However, we're not able to speak necessarily to what we are not seeing in terms of interdictions or seizures through the various modes at the border, through a port of entry, through the postal stream, or commercially or otherwise. It's not a statistic that we necessarily are able to provide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

How time flies. We have five minutes left, so we're going to shave down the last two slots to two minutes.

Mr. Lloyd, you have two minutes, if you please.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

Commissioner Larkin or Ms. Paquette, Statistics Canada seems to be getting better at providing some of the data that we need to make informed decisions.

There was a recent report on violent crime involving firearms in 2021, and in that study it was determined that a long gun—a rifle or a shotgun, not automatic—was involved or was present at 0.47% of all violent crimes. Out of that percentage, 0.47%, how many of those would be classified as an assault-style firearm?

[D/Commr Bryan Larkin]

We do not track that information, so we'd have to go back and do some homework. We could attempt to respond to that, but we don't have that information available.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Presumably it would be smaller than 0.47%, though. I presume that 0.47% of those would involve regular shotguns, including even hunting shotguns, and rifles that could be used in crimes, but so-called assault-style firearms would represent an even smaller fraction of that 0.47%.

A potential situation has been brought to my attention. When people are facing mental health challenges, we know they can recover. Gun owners are no different. Under the previous rules, when a legal firearm owner was going through a mental health challenge, sometimes they would transfer a firearm to another loved one or a friend who also had a firearms licence. Then, when they got better, they would get that firearm back at a later date.

Under the handgun freeze that has been implemented, it seems like there could be an unintended consequence in that people undergoing mental health challenges would not be able to transfer that firearm to a loved one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You have 10 seconds.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Would they be able to transfer it to law enforcement and get it back from law enforcement, or is that not even possible?

[Talal Dakalbab]

If somebody has a mental health case with a yellow flag, their PAL could be suspended for a while and then brought back, so the person could get it back.

It's no different from what is happening right now with a red flag or a yellow flag. If the police deem that the person should not have their firearm, regardless of whether it's a handgun or not, the PAL could be revoked. Then, once the person is better, the person could get it back.

Is that right? You can correct me if I'm wrong. Please, go ahead.

[Kellie Paquette]

Yes, you're correct. However, also, if the individual is going through a crisis and they recognize that they would like temporary storage somewhere with a friend or someone, they can work through their chief firearms officer to do that.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Even with a handgun, I understand, the transfer—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

[Kellie Paquette]

It wouldn't be permanently—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Madam Damoff, you have two minutes, please.