Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to address you today. It's always a pleasure to appear before this committee and support your work. This is particularly the case in regard to the important study before you on gun control and illegal arms trafficking.
As some of you may know, I am a criminal defence counsel in Ottawa. Aside from being a certified specialist in criminal law by the Law Society of Ontario, I've also developed an expertise in firearms law. I'm the co-author of the only text in Canada on the subject, Annotated Firearms Act. I've researched, litigated and spoken widely on the subject.
My law practice also involves defending otherwise law-abiding firearms owners who are caught up in the criminal justice system as a result of our complex, ever-evolving and difficult-to-predict system of firearms regulation in Canada.
There are three general points that I would ask you to consider as you engage in your important work.
First, any approach to tackling gang violence must employ a holistic approach. If you are focusing on the implement of choice at the time of the offence, the problem has long passed you by. Consider instead the difficult and complex questions: Why did this young person end up where they did? What paths have been foreclosed to them? What do we as a society need to do to ensure that criminality is not a more attractive option than a pro-social life? These are not easy questions. They involve matters of discrimination, marginalization, mental health, substance abuse and others. Do not be distracted by the barrel at the time of the offence and lose focus on the big picture. In my view, band-aid solutions and political proclamations are no substitute for evidence-based policy.
Second, ensure that the decisions you are making are based not only on good evidence but on a good interpretation of that evidence. One example that comes to mind is the oft-cited claim that 70% of traceable crime guns have a domestic origin. This statistic is a good example of a number that is true, false and misleading all at the same time. For starters, this counts only those [Technical difficulty—Editor] traceable. It is therefore by definition a number that will skew towards domestic firearms, as these are much easier to trace. It doesn't count firearms with obliterated serial numbers or foreign firearms that cannot be traced.
Next, the definition of “crime gun” further self-selects and obscures our focus. “Crime gun” generally refers to firearms—including, by the way, pellet guns and replica firearms—seized by police in the course of their duties. This includes both offence- and public safety-related seizures. That definition does not differentiate between a handgun used in a gang shooting and a hundred non-restricted, safely stored firearms that are seized from an elderly gun collector who is the subject of a police wellness check because his daughter has not heard from him in days.
You can see now why that 70% number may be true on its face but is really irrelevant to the pressing matters before this committee, including the source of firearms used in gang homicides.
My third point is this. Canada is in woeful need of a top-to-bottom rethink of how we classify [Technical difficulty—Editor] firearms. Two things, in my view, are urgently required. We need a classification system that is evidence-based, one that classifies firearms by function and not by appearance. A wooden stock versus a black plastic stock should not be the basis for a legal classification. Our current system, which layers order in council upon order in council, is not only irrational but also widely seen as unfair and unpredictable.
Most importantly, we need a legal framework that distinguishes between what the Supreme Court has called the regulatory end of the spectrum and the true crime end of the spectrum. Right now all firearms offences are Criminal Code offences. The rural Manitoban who leaves her rifle in her locked hunting cabinet without a trigger lock on it and the gang member with a handgun tucked in his waistband are subject to the same legal regime.
A free-standing regulatory scheme for non-violent firearms offences is long overdue. It would ensure that the criminal sanction is only applied to the morally blameworthy. It would unclog our overburdened criminal courts, and it would go a long way to restoring the confidence of over two million licensed, law-abiding firearms owners in the wisdom and good sense of their legislators.
These are not easy questions, and like so many difficult issues, I would urge you to examine the evidence dispassionately and make decisions and recommendations on the basis not of politics but of good legal policy.
Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.