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.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
I'm sorry, we're going to have to wait for other examples.
We're going to go to our last questioner.
Mr. MacGregor, that is you. Your five minutes will take us to the bottom of the hour and the end of the meeting.
The floor is yours.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll continue with Ms. Rathjen from PolySeSouvient.
Continuing on the issue of high-capacity magazines, when you read the mandate letter of the Minister of Public Safety, it states quite clearly in that bullet point the following: “Requiring the permanent alteration of long-gun magazines so that they can never hold more than five rounds”. To you, what does “permanent alteration” mean, and could police services ever visually confirm that from a distance?
Do you have any thoughts about that particular bullet point in the minister's mandate letter?
1:25 p.m.
Coordinator, PolySeSouvient
That's the problem we have now. We have these magazines designed for a much larger number of bullets than what is legally available and the problem is that they're readily convertible back to their illegal capacity.
The firearms industry, the arms industry, is perfectly capable of producing magazines that have five bullets and not more. By the way, we advocate for all magazines to be limited to five bullets. We don't see any legitimate purpose for allowing Canadians to have 10-bullet magazines. We think they should simply be limited to five, with no mechanism that would allow it—even something that would be very complex and difficult, but still possible—to be converted to a larger number, or a higher capacity.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Quickly, because I want to try to get three questions in, my second question continues on the verification checks. This falls under the theme of where the onus lies. We had testimony from the RCMP confirming that the seller has to verify the visual identity on a licence. We also saw in Bill C-21 that with the proposed red flag law, the onus is on someone to go to get a court order.
Do you want to talk a bit more about where the onus is placed here? Do you have an alternative suggestion for that?
1:25 p.m.
Coordinator, PolySeSouvient
With verification, the onus should be the law. From the early 2000s until 2012, licences were automatically verified—of both the buyer and the seller—for every gun transaction. It's the case now for restricted weapons. It should be the case for long guns. It should be in the law. There should be no reliance on the good faith. There should be no discretion. It should be automatic. That's what we were promised and that's what we're hoping this committee will recommend to the minister.
In terms of the red flag law, that's a really good point. Currently, unlike in the United States, there is no right to bear arms, so we don't have to go to court to remove guns, especially in an emergency. All victims have to do is call the police and the police will assess the situation and remove the guns if they feel that they're a danger. What Bill C-21 did was introduce another option where officials could direct victims to the courts to make their arguments under the same criteria, and there are lots of problems with the current criteria. It needs to be stopped. It needs to be better enforced. What Bill C-21 did with the red flag law didn't change any of the problems that we currently face.
As you said, it's again this tendency to offload the responsibility to do things right—
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you. I'm sorry for interrupting. I want to get my last question in.
Professor Cukier, my final question is to you. You talked about how the U.K. has twice the population that the Canada has, but a drastically lower rate of firearms deaths. You talked about firearm bans in other countries.
I'm thinking of Australia. I have in-laws who live in Australia. They live in Tasmania, where the Port Arthur massacre happened. Australia took 650,000 firearms. Can you talk a bit about the experience of that country and what resulted after that policy was enacted?
1:25 p.m.
President, Coalition for Gun Control
You're absolutely right. It had a dramatic impact.
Our legislation in 1995 had similar impacts, but the trends were reversed when the law was reversed.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you very much.
I'd like to thank all the witnesses for your insights. Much of this testimony is emotional and impactful, and yours is no exception to that. On behalf of the entire committee and all of Parliament, thank you very much for sharing with us.
Colleagues, we're exactly where we had to be, so is the committee in agreement to adjourn the meeting now?
1:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Okay. We'll see everybody on Thursday morning. As you know, it's a three-hour meeting, with two hours of testimony and an hour for instructions to staff. We'll see you in two days or I'll see you in question period. Talk to you later.