Public Safety Committee on Feb. 10th, 2022

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

Yes, Mr. Friedman.

[Solomon Friedman]

Wonderful. That's a great question. So, [Technical difficulty—Editor]. Any time you want to solve a legal problem, you have to look at how we ended up here.

Essentially, we ended up here with the passage of the original Firearms Act in 1992, which delineated what were non-restricted, restricted and prohibited firearms. Then, instead of coming back for further legislation—which meant unpleasant things like political debate in the House of Commons about firearms classifications—successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, used the Governor in Council tool to enact regulations, which would either add firearms to that list or remove firearms from that list.

My point here is that it really doesn't matter if you want stricter gun control or looser gun control. What you need is an open and transparent policy debate about it. You can only do that, in my respectful view, in Parliament. It doesn't advance rational policy-making to be simply saying that this year we added 1,500 guns to the list and the next government is going to take 800 guns off the list. My proposal is that, instead, you classify firearms based on their inherent danger, their use and other evidence-based criteria.

You are exactly right, Madam Vice-Chair. As of today, sitting here in 2022, you can take two firearms and line them up side by side. They will shoot the exact same calibre round at the exact same rate of fire with a similar firing mechanism. One of them is prohibited and formerly subject to a host of mandatory minimum sentences, like imprisonment for four-plus years. The other is non-restricted. It can be owned by any licensed individual and used not only for target shooting, but also anywhere it's legal to discharge a firearm, including for hunting purposes.

The legitimacy of that type of system is pretty difficult to justify to firearms owners who say that the gun they bought a week ago is prohibited today, but it's no different from the gun sitting next to it in the safe, which is non-restricted.

If you want confidence in your firearms regulation scheme, you have to start with rational, evidence-based policy. To do that, we need a rethink of how the Firearms Act classifies firearms.

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

That's interesting. Thank you.

You have said that new legislative changes or regulations would not lead to enhanced control over illegal firearms trafficking and that it would be better to introduce additional measures at the border. The border between Canada and the United States is 8,890 kilometres long. The Canada Border Services Agency and the police would tell us that it is rather difficult to maintain a 24‑7 human presence over 8,890 kilometres .

How can we prevent more weapons from entering the country?

I find it hard to believe that there are no technological means that could be used, drones for example.

Could you tell us a bit more about that?

What can be done to increase resources at the border?

[Solomon Friedman]

I'm not an expert on border controls. I defend those charged with firearms importation offences. You're right that it's a very difficult problem. One of the benefits that we have of having a generally friendly southern neighbour and having enormous amounts of cross-border trade and transportation is that it may [Technical difficulty—Editor] potential. Just as drugs enter this country illegally every day, firearms do as well.

Enforcement is obviously important in terms of protecting our borders, but we really need to look at the root causes of crime. These handguns are ending up in the hands of people who have decided—I use that word loosely—to engage in criminal behaviour. They've decided that the profit to be made in drug trafficking, and protecting that drug trafficking, is bigger than the potential they see in participating in a pro-social way in Canadian society. That's an enormous problem.

It's a really difficult problem, and it's one that is never going to be solved by more police officers on the street or by more border guards at the border. It is solved by the type of social development policy issues that are far beyond my ken but that I know are key to addressing the causes of gun crime, as opposed to simply its symptoms.

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

Thank you, Mr. Friedman.

Mr. Chair, I know that I don't have much time left, but I'd like Mr. Spratt to give me his thoughts on the same question.

According to you, Mr. Spratt, what can we do more directly at the border crossings? What can the federal government do? Is it a matter of more funding or the deployment of more resources?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

We're out of time. I'm sorry about that. It is just what the clock says.

I'll move now to Mr. MacGregor.

You have six minutes, sir. The floor is yours.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

I'll start with Mr. Spratt.

It's good to see you again. Thank you very much for coming before our committee and providing your analysis on this particular subject.

I was very curious. You have all of this experience representing clients, some of whom have been involved in alleged firearms crimes. Of course, you are aware of the debate we've been having in Parliament on repealing mandatory minimums. In your experience, when one of your clients was involved in an alleged crime, whether it was proven or not, did they ever think about the specific provisions in the Criminal Code to sway them or deter them from committing the crime? Does thinking of mandatory minimum sentences actually figure prominently in people's motivation to commit or not to commit a crime?

[Michael Spratt]

No, not for these types of offences, and that's borne out by the criminological evidence. If you're acting out of desperation, out of poverty, or if you just don't give a damn, the minimum sentences or the length of a sentence doesn't deter crime.

Where they might is when you have people engaged in complex cost-benefit analysis, but we hardly ever see anyone propose minimum sentences for large corporate crimes or greed in corporations. It might have an impact there, but certainly not in these types of offences.

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

Can you expand a little bit more, in about a minute, on the link between mandatory minimums and an increase in recidivism?

[Michael Spratt]

Yes. When you have someone who is detained for a long period of time without programming, without access to rehabilitation, when they're cut off from their community, when opportunities are closed to them, when they are not able to make choices about accepting responsibility because doing so would dramatically crush their future, once they are released, they are in a worse position to be rehabilitated and reintegrated. That's why we see in some cases that mandatory minimum sentences actually result in an increase in recidivism rates.

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

On the comments you made regarding how [Technical difficulty—Editor] firearms offences are almost always linked to the drug trade. We've seen that borne out in the evidence. Indeed, on the previous panel, in the first hour of this committee meeting, when I was asking a representative from the Vancouver Police Department, he stated on the record that the increased profitability associated with fentanyl in the drug system, especially in Vancouver, which is the epicentre of the opioids crisis.... He noticed a direct correlation between the high profitability of that drug, increased gang activity and more firearms usage, as there is competition to control turf.

You are aware, of course, of the debate that's going on in Parliament as to whether we should have a declaration of principles in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. My colleague Gord Johns is advocating for decriminalization, which has also been supported by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

Do you have any thoughts you would like to share with the committee on that whole subject?

[Michael Spratt]

One of the most heartbreaking and hard cases I've ever dealt with was representing a young Black man who was charged with first-degree murder. He attended a house to steal some marijuana. It was one of the most tragic and heartbreaking cases I've ever seen. Around that time, I saw a number of cases dealing with marijuana and firearms. Since marijuana was legalized, I've seen zero.

I think that is an example. The legalization of drugs and the provision of safe supply will save lives, not just because of overdoses and opioid epidemics and the tragedies that we've seen because of our drug policy; it will stop those bullets from coming out of the guns.

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

I appreciate that. Thank you so much, Mr. Spratt.

Mr. Friedman, I'd like to turn to you, because I was very interested in your testimony about the classification debate that's going on. You talked about the function of a firearm versus its appearance. Do you have any suggestions for our committee on that? For example, if you look at semi-automatic rifles, some rifles, of course, can receive a high-capacity magazine, making them far more deadly, while other semi-automatic rifles cannot take that magazine. They have a strict limit on how many rounds they can take.

I'm interested, as are a lot of my constituents, in having a reasonable debate on how we classify firearms. In the minute I have left, do you have any suggestions you can give us on how that system should be reformed?

[Solomon Friedman]

Sure. That's a great question. It's one of the important questions that I know you're all trying to tackle here.

I'll take your example of detachable magazines. Something that's really important to remember is that almost every type of firearm, particularly semi-automatic firearms, can be modified by people with a minimum of know-how. Take a look at detachable magazines. In Canada, a centre-fire semi-automatic rifle is already limited to a five-round magazine. If you possess a magazine of 10, 15, 20 or 30 rounds, even if you don't put it in that gun, you're committing a criminal offence.

Remember, some people aren't deterred by that, so let's go to the next stage. You talked about how some firearms appear to have a base plate that cannot accept a magazine. All of those can be swapped out. You can just go online and do a little bit of googling. I happen to have a little expertise, but you don't even need much gun expertise to know that all those firearms can be adapted to accept magazines. To me—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Friedman. I'm sorry. I'm a prisoner of the clock. It's not always comfortable, but that's my job.

Colleagues, we will move into the second round. I'm looking at the clock. We have five or six minutes. In the interest of fairness, I think there should be one question from each party, and the question should be very tight.

Let me start with Mr. Lloyd.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll keep this tight.

Mr. Friedman, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety have said on numerous occasions that their banned firearms “were designed...to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time” and that they were designed for use by “soldiers to kill other soldiers”, amongst various things.

I just happen to have a copy of the Geneva Convention on conventional weapons, which Canada is a signatory to. It prohibits the employment of weapons for the purpose of causing “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”.

Mr. Friedman, are the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety misleading Canadians on these firearms for political purposes, or is Canada indeed in violation of the Geneva Convention?

[Solomon Friedman]

That's an interesting question. I'll say as follows. It's unfortunate that inflammatory political rhetoric has taken the place of an informed policy debate.

I think this committee is a great example of what can happen when we actually look into the legal, regulatory and technical sides of these firearms. The statement that those guns were designed to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time is false. That's borne out by the fact that we happily equip our police officers with these firearms. We give them to them because they are efficient and reliable, and we know they operate well in all conditions.

The Prime Minister similarly said, “You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer.” Obviously, as someone who clearly doesn't understand both the wildlife regulations and the Firearms Act...he would know that the calibre of a bullet fired by an AR-15 is in fact considered too weak to take down a deer, and is therefore prohibited for hunting deer in virtually every province. Those are firearms that are regularly used for varmint or predator control by farmers.

I think what we need to do is take out the political rhetoric. We don't need to have an inflammatory debate. We don't need to divide people or to demonize one group over another. We need to have an evidence-based discussion on the direction in which we want to take gun policy in this country. I think that's what Canadians expect. It's what they deserve.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

Now I'll move to Mr. Zuberi.

You have two minutes. The floor is yours.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to give my time to my colleague Mr. Noormohamed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Mr. Noormohamed, go ahead.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

I'd like to use my time to move the motion I put forward earlier. That motion is as follows:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the rise of Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism (IMVE) in Canada; that this study include an investigation into the influence of foreign and domestic actors in funding and supporting violent extremist ideologies in Canada; that the study include the use of social media to fuel the IMVE movement; that the committee explore the impact of anonymous and foreign donations funding IMVE, including through crowdfunding sites; that the committee invite representatives from GiveSendGo to appear; that the committee further look at the role of payment processors in preventing the funding of IMVE and invite representatives from PayPal and Stripe to appear; that evidence and documentation received by the committee from upcoming appearances of representatives of GoFundMe and FINTRAC be included in this study; that this study include Canada's national security organizations and police involved in monitoring, countering and responding to IMVE threats; that the committee report its findings to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

Mr. Chair, I'm hoping we can go straight to a vote and not take up any more questioning time.

Thank you.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry. It's not a point of order. I'm asking for the floor, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Yes, go ahead.

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

In the interest of letting our other colleagues finish off this witness testimony, I move that we table this motion. We can talk about it later on in this meeting or at another time.

That's a dilatory motion, I believe, so it has to be voted on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Mr. Clerk, what is your guidance here?