Public Safety Committee on Feb. 10th, 2022

[S/Sgt Michael Rowe]

Sir, not to split the difference, but I believe it's an equal problem on both sides. Firearms, especially handguns, are being brought in from the United States. These handguns are not being used for any lawful purpose. They're being used to commit violence.

We definitely need to work with our partners at CBSA and the RCMP border integrity teams in order to be able to combat those illegal importations and make sure that domestic firearms are secured and domestic firearms are not falling into the hands of the criminal element through theft or the use of straw purchasers. A straw purchaser is someone who has a lawful firearms licence, who is able to lawfully purchase firearms, but who is being used by the criminal element to go out and purchase non-restricted firearms, which are then entering into the criminal groups through that kind of lawful means.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I know we don't have much time, but I'd love to dig into the question you raised around the regulation of parts that are required to manufacture weapons. Can you talk a little bit about what you would like to see? In an ideal world, how would this roll out? What would be some of the recommendations you would have around this? This is uncharted territory and I think it's something that we need to get our heads around very quickly.

[S/Sgt Michael Rowe]

Yes, I'd like to see the regulation of the purchase of parts. As I said, we had a target recently who purchased 50 Glock slides and barrels. I would be hard pressed to find a lawful reason for a legal gun owner or gun enthusiast to possess 50 Glock slides and barrels. It's simply not a consumable part that you wear out that quickly.

It's the same thing with trigger assemblies. Definitely, I see there's a need for gun enthusiasts and lawful gun owners to be able to replace and upgrade their trigger assemblies, but when these are being purchased en masse or in bulk, being imported or being possessed in bulk, I believe it's definitely an indicator of firearms manufacturing.

I would like to see some type of regulation into the purchase, importation and possession of key firearms parts that are being used to manufacture ghost guns.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Fantastic.

I suspect I'm running out of time, but I'll say one more thing very quickly. If you would be willing—and your colleagues as well—to provide us any additional recommendations in writing around this or what you might like to see in terms of legislation, it would be very helpful to us. Recommendations like these are super helpful to us. I'll leave that invitation open to you and to your colleagues, sir.

Again, thank you all for your service, and thank you for what you are doing to keep our communities safe.

[S/Sgt Michael Rowe]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

Now I will invite Ms. Michaud to take full advantage of her two minutes.

The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have another question for Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Dubé, guns have become a serious problem, particularly in Montreal, or at least greater Montreal. In 2021, the Deputy Premier of Quebec, Geneviève Guilbault, announced Operation Centaur, with funding of $90 million. A $52‑million violence prevention plan was announced afterwards.

There is of course federal funding in all of that, but the fact remains that Quebec seems to be a little more proactive than the federal government in combatting crime involving firearms.

Since it's the federal government that controls the borders, do you believe that it could introduce legislative changes for gun controls? Do you think it could have been somewhat more proactive in this area?

[Benoît Dubé]

That's a good question, Ms. Michaud.

As Mr. Rowe pointed out, legislative changes to control the importation of firearms at the border and of firearms parts via Canada Post, would help us in our work.

Currently, the act does not allow us to search or seize firearms parts at Canada Post. To be sure, these legislative changes might help us be even more proactive with respect to the matter of firearms manufacturing and the movement of parts.

A firearms part on its own is legal. It's only when parts are assembled that the weapon becomes illegal. As Mr. Rowe said, that's when it becomes a serious problem for us. It's difficult for us to conduct investigations when weapons leave the United States disassembled and arrive in Quebec assembled.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask one last question.

Briefly, Mr. Dubé, there are many options and it's possible to take action on several fronts at the same time, but if you were to suggest to the government the single top priority to combat firearms trafficking, what would it be?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

You have 10 seconds, please.

[Benoît Dubé]

As I was saying, most of the weapons linked to crimes committed with firearms that we seize in Quebec come from the United States. We need to focus our efforts on the borders between the United States and Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacGregor, you will close out this panel and this portion, and you have two minutes to do it. Thanks very much.

The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Staff Sergeant Rowe, I'll continue with you for the two minutes.

We have heard repeated testimony during this study about the intricate links between the drug trade and the firearms trade. I know that in Vancouver and British Columbia we have served as the epicentre for the ongoing opioid crisis. We know that the introduction of substances like fentanyl and carfentanil has increased the toxicity of the drug supply. They are far more addictive and are able to be smuggled in relatively smaller amounts because of their potency.

In the time I have remaining, can you talk a bit about the last six years, what the introduction of carfentanil and fentanyl has done to the drug trade and how that has impacted gang activity in the entire region?

[S/Sgt Michael Rowe]

Yes. The introduction of fentanyl into the drug trade and the popularity of fentanyl have changed significantly how we see controlled substances imported into Canada, how the precursors for them are imported into Canada, the sale of these controlled substances on the street and the profitability.

The profitability has increased significantly. It's my belief that where there are significant opportunities to make a profit, that's also where you see the violence increase as well, as people compete for that market. I do believe there is a direct link.

With the proliferation of firearms right now into our criminal element, we often will be executing search warrants for drug offences and often will find firearms. A couple of weeks ago, we were executing search warrants for a place being used to traffic fentanyl, and we ended up discovering multiple firearms in those premises. There is certainly a link between the two, and there is certainly a link between the profitability the current drug market provides and the amount of gun violence we're seeing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rowe.

Thank you to all of the witnesses over the last hour, who have shared a lot of experience, insight and wisdom with us. We are very appreciative of your contributions.

Colleagues, we will suspend for about five minutes in order to facilitate the change of panels, and then we will resume the meeting.

We will have a five-minute break. We'll see you in a bit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Welcome back, everybody. I call the meeting back to order.

In this second hour, by video conference, we have as individuals Solomon Friedman, criminal defence lawyer; and Michael Spratt, partner, AGP criminal and appeal lawyers. From Statistics Canada, we have Jeff Latimer, director general, health, justice, diversity and populations; and Lucie Léonard, director of the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics. They will have up to five minutes for their opening remarks.

Welcome to you all.

I now invite Mr. Friedman to make his opening statement.

The floor is yours, sir.

[Solomon Friedman, Criminal Defence Lawyer, As an Individual]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

I would now like to turn to Mr. Spratt and invite him to give his opening comments for up to five minutes.

Sir, the floor is yours.

[Michael Spratt, Partner, Abergel Goldstein & Partners LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon. Thank you to all members of the committee for inviting me to address you today.

By way of a brief background, I'm a partner at Abergel Goldstein & Partners here in Ottawa, and I've been practising almost exclusively criminal law since 2005. Like Mr. Friedman, I'm a certified specialist by the Law Society of Ontario. I've represented scores of people accused of firearm offences. Some of my clients were factually innocent, some have been found not guilty, some have pleaded guilty and some were convicted after trial. Almost all of them were racialized or suffered from addiction or mental health issues or were struggling in poverty.

Before I talk about my experience and some solutions, I want to take a step back and look at some of the data. I'm very pleased that there's been an amendment and some experts from Statistics Canada are here. It cuts down what I was going to say on this point, because historically we are living in one of the safest periods in Canadian history. Crime rates, including serious crime and violent crime, have been trending down decade after decade. While it's true that there has been a recent increase in firearms-related offences, the use of firearms in homicides has remained fairly stable for the last 20 years and is dramatically lower than it has been since the mid-1970s. It looks like there was actually a decrease of almost 10% in gang-related homicides in 2020.

The statistics—I'm certainly not an expert here but it reflects what I'm seeing in court—don't necessarily back up the premise that there's a rash of new firearm offences in Canada. Having said that, statistics are cold comfort to individuals who are directly impacted by these offences, and reasonable people may disagree about the scope of the problem. I think we can all agree that one violent firearms offence is one firearms offence too many.

Having said that, I can tell you what some of the solutions are not. We can cross them off your list. One tired solution, dragged out by politicians after high-profile firearms incidents, is stricter bail. Toronto's mayor, John Tory, claimed that people were getting out on bail 20 minutes after they were arrested for a gun crime, and Doug Ford jumped on that bandwagon as well, saying that many criminals convicted of gun crimes are back out on the streets the very next day.

To put it bluntly, Tory and Ford are lying. That's not true and it's not backed up by any data. Without ripping up the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, bail for firearm offences cannot be made any tougher. Already in firearm cases the onus at bail hearing is reversed so that accused individuals who are presumed innocent have to justify their release. Conditions imposed upon release are strict, the police monitor those conditions, and prosecutors never consent or agree to the release of people charged with firearm offences unless, as we've seen recently, those accused people are police officers.

Stricter bail is not the answer, and neither are minimum sentences or harsher sentences, as has been suggested by former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole and Ottawa's mayor, Jim Watson. Remember, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled mandatory minimum punishments in the firearm context unconstitutional, and we've seen them struck down in a variety of offences across the country.

Even if mandatory minimum penalties were available—so you invoke the notwithstanding clause or recommended that—the evidence is clear that they don't work. They don't deter crime. They don't increase public safety. In fact, it seems that they might actually increase recidivism and they disproportionately affect so many historically marginalized and disadvantaged groups. They're also incredibly expensive.

Real solutions are more complex and are going to carry, unfortunately for you guys, a political cost. One of the big solutions is changing how we deal with drug laws in Canada. Almost all of the firearms offences that I've seen are connected in some way to drug crimes. It's the system of drug enforcement and prosecution that we have in Canada, making narcotics illegal, that fuels the use of guns. Guns follow profit. A system of legalization and safe supply would cure many ills, and one of them is that it would help with gun offences.

Also—and I hope I get to talk about this a bit more—we need to make sure that rehabilitation and reintegration is available for anyone who wants it. I had a young client recently who was found guilty of gun offences, and we had to beg and jump through hoops to get the programming he needs.

Lastly, in the two seconds I have, I'll say that one good way to reduce gun violence is to limit the availability of handguns. That is not a delegation of responsibility to municipalities. That is making the hard political choice and banning handguns. That's hard, and these solutions are hard, but I urge you to consider them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

I'm sure there will be further questions and you'll have a chance to elaborate.

Mr. Latimer, you have the floor, for up to five minutes, for your opening remarks.

[Jeff Latimer, Director General, Health, Justice, Diversity and Populations, Statistics Canada]

Thank you very much, honourable chair and members of the committee.

I'd like to first thank you for the opportunity to present our most recent statistics on firearm-related violent crime. It's always a privilege as a public servant to be able to attend these sessions.

The information I will be providing to you today is based on two surveys within Statistics Canada: the uniform crime reporting survey, which collects information on all crimes reported to police; and the homicide survey, which collects more detailed information specifically related to infanticide, manslaughter, and first- and second-degree murder.

I will be focusing primarily on 2020, which is the most recent data available. As a context, following the remarks of one of my co-panellists, I would like to explain that in the first year of the pandemic, in 2020, all police-reported crime, including violent crime, decreased for the first time in five years. Previous to the pandemic, we had seen five year-over-year increases in crime.

Before discussing crimes involving firearms, I would like to note that my remarks will exclude Quebec. Unfortunately, given technical issues with Quebec's firearm data, we are unable to include it in our national figures.

In 2020, violent crime involving firearms accounted for less than 3% of police-reported violent crime. However, in the previous five years before the pandemic, the rate of firearm-related crime had been increasing year over year. In 2020, there were 8,344 victims of violent crimes involving firearms, again, excluding Quebec. The rate per a population of 100,000 in 2020 was similar to 2019.

In urban areas, firearm-related violent crime primarily involves handguns, while in rural areas, the firearm used most commonly is a rifle or a shotgun. In some major urban centres, handguns were used in the vast majority of firearm-related crimes, including Toronto at 86%, Windsor at 80%, and Ottawa and Barrie both at 78%.

I would like to provide some information very specific to homicides and the use of firearms. The national homicide rate increased for a second consecutive year in 2020, marking the highest rate since 2005. Police reported 743 homicides in 2020, 56 more than in 2019. Of these 743 homicides, 37%, or 277, were committed with a firearm. This is a slight increase compared to 2019.

The rate of homicides involving firearms has generally been increasing over the last eight years. Handguns continue to be the most used firearm, with about half of all homicides committed with a handgun. Gangs were involved in 39% of homicides involving firearms in 2020. This is the lowest proportion since 2015. However, firearms are used in the vast majority of gang-related homicides, and most often it is a handgun.

In closing, Statistics Canada recognizes there are still significant information gaps in the national data, including the source of the firearm, and we are continuing to work with our partners to identify and address these critical information needs.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Latimer.

I will invite members of the committee to pose their questions.

Up first is Mr. Van Popta, who will have six minutes.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here with us today and sharing their wisdom, knowledge and experience with this committee as we seek to develop policy to keep Canadians safer.

Mr. Latimer, I'm going to turn to you first. Thank you for being here, and for the statistics you have given us.

At this committee, we've heard testimony from witnesses who've said that up to 70% of guns used in crime were domestically sourced. We've heard other witnesses say that about 85% of guns used in crime were smuggled in from the United States. Could you help us understand that a bit better? Why is there such a wide variety of evidence?

[Jeff Latimer]

I would like to be able to provide you with accurate statistics on precisely that. Unfortunately, at this point in time we do not have national data. There are some substantial challenges with the way in which these data are both collected and stored in Canada. I cannot provide you with specific information at this time.

However, within the next year, we do plan and expect to be able to start collecting these data. It is taking some time.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Okay. That's good. Thank you for that.

I'm not surprised by your answer, sir, but I should tell you that when I first learned this, I was quite surprised that Statistics Canada would not have good, reliable data on exactly this very important question, which is so important to us, so central to our trying to develop good policy.

Perhaps you could just tell us a little bit about what Statistics Canada is planning to do in the next year or so to improve our data collection.