Evidence of meeting #8 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Do you feel that the Liberal government has been too focused on gun legislation and regulation, as opposed to dealing with the root cause of gang and gun violence, such as disenfranchised youth and poverty?
1:10 p.m.
Founder, One By One Movement Inc.
My short answer is yes.
We are definitely not seeing enough resources going into preventative measures. As we all know through common sense and deductive reasoning, prevention is a lot cheaper for the taxpaying citizen than intervention.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Do you feel as though the government offers enough support to organizations such as yours that are aimed at youth diversion?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
In what ways could the government be helping you more?
1:10 p.m.
Founder, One By One Movement Inc.
As I stated in my testimony, I think there should be much more focus—or a main focus—on community-led organizations involving people with lived experience who understand how the streets work.
There is a huge disconnect from the street level to the government level when dealing with this subject matter. There needs to be an evaluation of the efficacy of programming that currently exists. There need to be more studies done on the impact of illegal gun crime in this country and things like that.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
With my last remaining minute, I'm going to pass it over to my colleague, Mr. Van Popta.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Wilson. I'm going to continue with you.
Thank you for the very important work you're doing in Canada, particularly with youth.
I have just one quick question. As we, the committee members, seek to develop policies and initiatives that are going to keep Canadians safer, could you perhaps tell us one of your success stories? It would perhaps give us a good example of where we could go.
Thank you.
1:10 p.m.
Founder, One By One Movement Inc.
Absolutely.
I'll speak of one of our members, Mr. Edward Hertrich. He was convicted of murder some time back and served, I believe, over 35 years in prison. He has now written a book and he is a public speaker. He now comes into communities and works with people who have taken a similar path to his. I'm actually very proud of Mr. Hertrich, the work he has done and the work he is doing with One By One movement.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you very much.
That is an inspiring story.
Ms. Damoff, we go over to you next. You have five minutes and the floor is yours.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Chair. I think all of us would agree that there's not one solution to the issue of gang violence. It's a multipronged problem that requires a multipronged solution.
I'm going to focus my question, though. I'm probably going to have time for only one. A number of police organizations have appeared before the committee to say that a buyback program will not make a difference. I'm wondering if maybe we could start with Mr. Benabdallah, then Ms. Cukier and then Ms. Rathgen.
Do you agree, and how urgent is it to move on a buyback program?
Mr. Benabdallah, do you want to say anything?
February 15th, 2022 / 1:15 p.m.
Boufeldja Benabdallah Spokesman, Centre culturel islamique de Québec
Thank you for the question.
Our goal has remained the same since I appeared before this committee last year and for the past two years.
We believe that assault weapons should be automatically bought back. We should not rely on the goodwill of the people who own them.
All firearms must be removed from our society, starting with assault weapons—we all agree on that—but also handguns. We cannot make a distinction between illegal and legal weapons. These are weapons that kill people.
We ask that everyone, not only the government, but also all members of Parliament, all senators and all people of good will, work together to eradicate these weapons from our territory. We want to be a non-violent people and a people who abhor the flow of these weapons that kill people. That is what we want.
We have chosen to support the assault weapons ban. We know that, following an order issued in 2020, a letter is circulating to inform gun owners. It's not perfect, but it's really not bad.
When we told our community that the regulation of assault weapons is now a bit better, people were still pleased with it, but they would have liked regulations to go further, for the government to make the weapons buy-back mandatory.
As you know, six fathers were killed in our mosque. They were starting their new lives in Canada, and they had done extraordinary good for society. Of the five injured, one is now in a wheelchair. He can't even play with his children or work normally. As for the other four survivors, their lives were turned upside down by a handgun, a weapon that kills people. This is not a toy for scaring them.
The killer had five magazines: five times 10 bullets, and another five bullets. He fired 48 bullets, killing six people and wounding five others. He caused as much damage to the public. These weapons should not be in circulation. We do not want these weapons to circulate, just as assault weapons should not be in circulation.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you.
I want to give the other witnesses an opportunity to respond as well. Thank you for sharing what I know is deeply difficult testimony.
Ms. Cukier, perhaps we could go to you. If we're going to give Ms. Rathgen time, I have only a minute and a half left.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Sure. Also, I often hear someone say they're not qualified to speak on firearms. I welcome the opportunity to hear from you here. Thank you.
1:15 p.m.
Coordinator, PolySeSouvient
Thank you.
There is an urgency. As long as these weapons are out there, there's a risk they can fall into the wrong hands. As I said in my introductory statement, most mass shooters, youths, are legal gun owners using legal weapons. Since the amnesty, since the ban took place, there has been Corey Hurren, who rammed Rideau Hall and who, luckily, was stopped. He had one of these weapons, these grandfathered weapons, assault weapons that are protected by the amnesty. That's just one example. As long as the weapons are out there, the risk to public safety, that there will be another mass shooting, exists. That's why the buyback has to happen as soon as possible.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I wasn't implying that you're not qualified, so please don't take it that way.
Ms. Cukier, I have about 15 seconds. Do we need to do it right away?
1:15 p.m.
President, Coalition for Gun Control
If you look at the successful prohibitions in the U.K. and Australia, they were accompanied by buybacks.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you very much.
Ms. Michaud, it's over to you. You have five minutes. Go ahead, please. The floor is yours.
1:15 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the witnesses for being here. I regret that we do not have more time to discuss these issues. They are all outstanding witnesses who are very active advocates for gun control.
My special thanks to Ms. Rathjen and Mr. Benabdallah. I watched your webinar a few weeks ago, on the fifth anniversary of the massacre at the Quebec City grand mosque. The main point of that webinar was that, unfortunately, not much has been done by the federal government to control firearms.
I'll get right to the point.
Ms. Rathjen, I know that you've done a lot of work on the verification process used when someone wants to obtain a weapon. We were told by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, that they were going to proceed with the verification, and that would have been implemented in Bill C‑71. However, last summer, the draft regulations that were tabled rescinded the mandatory verification.
I'd like to hear your comments on the issue.
1:20 p.m.
Coordinator, PolySeSouvient
Thank you for the question.
Following the introduction of the former Bill C‑71, all of the key documents, all of the debates and all of the media coverage dealt with the RCMP's verification of the validity of the license. On the topic of verification, the documents indicated that the license numbers would be checked in the system to ensure that they were valid. This is not part of the regulations. The regulations only require the vendor to verify the photo and contact the RCMP. All that was required of the RCMP was that they be satisfied that the license was legal.
The wording used is problematic. The same was true of the language included in former Bill C‑19, where the requirement to verify the license was removed. It states that the seller must simply have no reason to believe that the buyer is not licensed. In this regard, the Barreau du Québec stated that it was extremely problematic to prove in court what a person had in mind.
It is a loophole that has the effect of cancelling the measure altogether. One can think here of what a future government might do. The Conservative Party, which was opposed to Bill C‑71, could require the RCMP to accept all applications without any verification. RCMP officials have testified before this committee that there will be a verification. I think it's a bit disingenuous to put that forward, because verification is an extremely subjective thing. All that is required of the RCMP is that they say they are satisfied.
In our view, this goes against what was promised. We found that Bill C‑71 was relatively weak. Yet one of the main reasons we supported it was precisely because it included this measure regarding license verification. The current draft regulations do not include this measure. So Canadians will not get the measure that was promised to them.
1:20 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you.
Ms. Rathjen, you mentioned certain shortcomings. I don't know whether you were referring to Bill C‑71 or Bill C‑21, which never saw the light of day, in the end. I'm talking about high-capacity magazines here.
Could you elaborate on these shortcomings, give us examples, if any, and tell us about the risk this could pose to public safety?
1:20 p.m.
Coordinator, PolySeSouvient
One of the loopholes is that the law or the regulations allow the use of high-capacity magazines, with 20, 30, 50 or even 100 bullets, provided that a screw blocks the number of bullets at five or 10, depending on the weapon. It is possible to remove this screw, and unfortunately, many mass murderers have done so. I'm thinking of Justin Bourque, who killed three RCMP officers; Richard Bain, who attacked PQ leader Pauline Marois in 2012 in Montreal; Alexandre Bissonnette, who attacked the Quebec City grand mosque; and Matthew Vincent Raymond, who killed two police officers and two citizens in Fredericton. These individuals had all legally purchased modifiable magazines and removed the screw to use the full capacity of the weapon.
Bill C‑21, which was introduced last year but died on the Order Paper, included the addition of a penalty. A mere penalty is not what's going to stop someone who's about to commit mass murder from modifying a magazine. It was really a bogus measure that served no purpose.
I have other examples—