Public Safety Committee on April 25th, 2023

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for attending our committee.

Thank you to all the witnesses who are here.

In your opening remarks you mentioned that gun violence is a complex problem that requires a multitude of solutions. Of course you are right about that. Gun violence affects my community of Markham—Unionville directly, where there have been numerous home invasions and carjackings with firearms.

Can you tell this committee more about the work our government is doing to keep young people safe, prevent crime before it begins and build safer communities for all?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chair, to my colleague Mr. Chiang, first I want to thank you for your record of service as a police officer in keeping your community safe.

It was in your community of Markham that we launched the building safer communities fund. This is a $250-million fund that is going to give more support to local organizations, people who work on the ground, the volunteers, the community leaders, the people who know those young kids who are at the greatest risk of being exposed to gun violence and who work with them day in, day out. We made a similar announcement just last week in Surrey, British Columbia.

It's the local heroes who are doing the life-saving work. We want to give them more support, and that's what the building safer communities fund does. It taps into their expertise. It taps into their wisdom. Whether it's through the manifestation of more mental health supports or more educational and career training, by providing that additional capacity, I believe we're saving lives.

This is another important pillar of our comprehensive strategy, which is to stop gun crime before it starts, and that is exactly what we are doing through the rollout of the building safer communities fund.

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

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to pass my time to my colleague Iqwinder.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Gaheer, go ahead. You have three minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the minister and all the witnesses for appearing before the committee.

Minister, you acknowledge that no one initiative can tackle gun violence alone. Can you talk more about the pillars of the government's gun violence prevention plan and specifically the investments that had to be made after a decade of Conservative cuts to the RCMP and CBSA that made Canadians less safe?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Over the last number of years, we have invested close to a billion dollars to support law enforcement through the anti-guns and gangs fund and through our investments into the Canada Border Services Agency.

What does this mean in simple language? This means more resources on the ground. It means more personnel. It means state-of-the-art technology. It means making sure that we're stopping the illegal flow of guns into our country. You heard me cite the numbers: There were 1,100 illegal firearms seized in 2022.

There have been great strides, but the fact is that we have to do more. Supporting law enforcement is one pillar, but we also need to do the prevention work, as I said in my response to Mr. Chiang. Prevention is a pillar that often gets overlooked and does not get the same oxygen and coverage as, let's say, legislation like Bill C-21, but it is a game-changer. It is a game-changing pillar.

What I would say to you is that beyond the scope of this portfolio in Public Safety, the work that our government is doing through the creation of a national housing strategy—providing access to Canadians who are trying to get into their first home by providing more supports for mental health, which my colleague Minister Bennett is leading and shepherding in historic ways—is part of the way in which we can prevent crime. This is because it gets right to those social determinants and those barriers that stand in the way of people who are at risk achieving their full potential and giving back.

I strongly encourage the members of this committee and all parliamentarians, in their study of how we can solve the very difficult problem of gun crime, to also give equal focus and emphasis to addressing prevention. We are doing that, both in my portfolio at Public Safety and equally right across government.

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

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Gaheer.

That brings our second round to a close.

I'd like to thank the minister for his attendance here today. Thank you for that and for all of your great information.

We will now suspend and prepare for our next panel.

Thank you once again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We're resuming this meeting. Thank you to the officials who are remaining. I don't believe there are statements by the officials, so we're open to questions.

We will start with Mr. Lloyd, please, for six minutes.

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Let me preface. We can go until 10 minutes to six. I'm not sure how long we want to go; that's going to be up to the committee. We may have to shorten the second round to meet that deadline.

Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To all of the witnesses, thank you for coming,.

I'm going to start with Deputy Commissioner Bryan Larkin.

We had the pleasure across party lines of a tour of the RCMP lab here in Ottawa recently, hosted by you and others. At that lab, your staff told me that they already extensively work with manufacturers when working on what firearms will come into Canada. Is that the case?

[Deputy Commissioner Bryan Larkin, Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Mr. Lloyd, that is the case. We do work extensively with manufacturers, but the Canadian firearms program also does a fair bit of research independent of manufacturers.

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

There seems to be an assertion that's being made that manufacturers are deliberately exploiting some nebulous loopholes in order to import and distribute firearms in Canada.

Can manufacturers legally import and distribute firearms in Canada without the approval of the RCMP and without classification?

[Talal Dakalbab, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Crime Prevention Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

If you allow me, Mr. Chair, I will support my colleague on this question. In terms of the way it functions right now—and I don't want to say if it's a loophole or not—I'll just explain the process. If the gun that is manufactured in Canada is non-restricted and deemed to be non-restricted by the manufacturer, they aren't required to verify with the RCMP to verify the classification itself. It is sold as non-restricted.

What we heard from stakeholders is that in some instances, these non-restricted guns, due to the complex classification process, could be actually restricted but are sold in the market, and by the time the RCMP gets them and measures them—it's a very detailed process, as you probably saw when you had your visit—

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

In how many cases has this happened?

[Talal Dakalbab]

I don't have the numbers. I don't know. I'll refer to the RCMP. I just wanted to explain the process of the gap.

[Kellie Paquette, Director General, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I actually don't have the numbers of how often this has happened, but I can say that since 2020 we have seen a significant increase of records of firearms in the industry that have not received an FRT number.

Can I back up a little bit to give an explanation around verifiers?

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

I have limited time.

It seems to me that a manufacturer wouldn't want to be liable by importing a restricted firearm and saying it's a non-restricted firearm. Wouldn't the manufacturer be liable if they were importing firearms that were explicitly restricted or prohibited firearms, claiming that they're non-restricted?

[Kellie Paquette]

Businesses and.... Most of them are verifiers, and they do use the Criminal Code to identify the classification of firearms. Where the problem comes in is that there are varying degrees of regulations that have now been put in place that the businesses may not be aware of. When they deem a firearm to be non-restricted because of the barrel length, they don't recognize that there's another order in council or there's another regulation.

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

This is all very interesting and technical, but what we're here to determine is how we can make our streets safer. Is there any evidence that these firearms that are maybe somewhat vague in their classification that have come to Canada are being used in crimes? Do you have any evidence that this is being exploited by criminals to bring these firearms into Canada for criminal use?

[Kellie Paquette]

I don't have those stats.

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

Okay.

The original amendment stipulated that a muzzle velocity over 10,000 joules would be a new definition standard for an illegal firearm that would be automatically banned by the definition. This would include a very small number of firearms, many of which are very expensive, typically antique firearms used for hunting big game. In fact, the cost of ammunition for such a firearm is in the hundreds of dollars for a single box of ammunition.

Do you have any evidence that these particular firearms that have been used for hunting purposes have been used to commit crimes in Canada that would justify their inclusion on this list?

[D/Commr Bryan Larkin]

Mr. Chair, through you, we don't have any evidence. We do not have that information.

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

Okay. That's interesting. It seems like it's not actually an objective decision based on evidence that this is a threat to public safety, that this is causing fatalities or that this is being used by crime. It seems like the decision to include this specific classification in the definition is purely based on subjective values and the belief that these firearms should not be in Canada, but we don't have any objective evidence that they actually have posed a threat to Canadians.

In terms of airsoft, it was also very interesting. I know I only have a little bit of time. Most varieties of airsoft guns cannot really be converted into real firearms. Is that correct?

For the vast majority of airsoft guns, it would be very prohibitive for anyone to convert those into a real firearm. Is that correct?