THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 20, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 3:05 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).
Senator Tony Dean (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I’m Tony Dean, chair of the committee, representing Ontario. I’m joined today by my fellow committee members, whom I will now welcome to introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Good afternoon. Jean-Guy Dagenais, a senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Richards: David Richards, senator from New Brunswick.
Senator M. Deacon: Hello and welcome, Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Plett: I’m Don Plett, and I’m from Landmark, Manitoba — a very small village.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, from Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, senator from Ontario.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues. On my left is the committee’s clerk, Ms. Ericka Dupont.
For those watching the session, today we are continuing our study of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). Today, we will hear from three panels of witnesses representing law enforcement organizations.
On our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming by video conference, Deputy Chief Bill Fordy, on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Co-Chair of the Special Purpose Committee on Firearms; and on behalf of the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association, Edward Lennard Busch, Executive Director. We thank you for joining us today. We invite you to provide your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from our members. I remind you that you each have five minutes for your testimony.
We begin today with Deputy Chief Fordy. Please proceed wherever you are ready.
Bill Fordy, Co-Chair, Special Purpose Committee on Firearms, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: Thank you.
Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to address this committee on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP.
The CACP supports Bill C-21 in principle and believes this law is introducing essential provisions to the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.
We support the new provisions aimed at addressing privately made firearms, also known as ghost guns. This is why the CACP is strongly in favour of, the expansion of the definition of “prohibited firearm” to include “any unlawfully manufactured firearm regardless of the means or method of manufacture”; the addition of the definition of “firearm part” to subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code and the addition of this terminology to other provisions in the Code pertaining to prohibition orders, offences and exemptions; the creation of an offence for possessing or distributing computer data that would allow the illegal manufacturing of ghost guns; the creation of an offence for altering a cartridge magazine from one that is not prohibited to one that is; and, the new requirement to hold a firearms licence to acquire a cartridge magazine.
With respect to the issue of replica firearms, the CACP agreed with the prohibition originally introduced to the bill related to replica firearms, specifically those that are a likeness to real firearms and are indistinguishable from the genuine articles from near or far. They can be altered to convert them into deadly weapons. We welcome additional language in the bill related to likeness and discharge, including muzzle velocity and muzzle energy. However, imitation firearms remain largely unregulated, and users can acquire them easily without proof of age, licence or competency.
Regarding the issue of smuggling and trafficking, the CACP continues to maintain that restricting lawful firearm ownership will not meaningfully address the issue of illegal firearms obtained from the United States. That is why we support all legislative amendments focused on addressing border integrity, smuggling and trafficking priorities.
Of significant concern is the absence of data to help understand the pathways crime guns take before they are seized as part of a criminal investigation in Canada. In 2022, the CACP passed a resolution calling for the mandatory tracing of all crime guns in Canada.
At the moment, while the national police service, the RCMP, have introduced a policy that all crime guns must be traced, only the Province of Ontario has made it mandatory.
Firearms tracing creates a chain of custody, from the manufacturer to the licenced dealer to the purchaser. It can enhance our ability to identify trends and patterns, to identify and stop the sources of illegal firearms used to commit crimes in Canada, and to reduce gun violence in our country. In the absence of legislation to mandate that police agencies across Canada trace firearms in a consistent and regular manner, we will continue to struggle in this domain.
Fifth, the CACP also supports the new regime for emergency prohibition orders, also known as the red flag law, and the requirement to surrender firearms and relevant documents such as firearms licences to help reduce gender-based violence, intimate partner violence and self-harm by limiting access to firearms by those who pose a risk of harm to themselves or others. The CACP supports the addition of clause 16 in the Firearms Act indicating that an individual is not eligible to hold a firearms licence if they are or were subject to a protection order, and that their licence can be revoked if they have been convicted of an offence that involved the use, threat or attempted violence against their intimate partner or any member of their family.
Sixth, on matters relating to bail reform, the CACP is concerned with how repeat violent offenders and those charged with offences involving firearms are being managed by our justice system. Many individuals who pose a significant threat to public and officer safety are being released back into the community without the appropriate care or restrictions required while they await trial.
We ask the committee to consider adding the following legislative amendments to the Criminal Code.
First, require that bail hearings for the most serious firearms offences be heard by a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 of the Criminal Code, or a provincial court judge and that alleged breaches of a judicial release order be heard by a judge of the same level of court that granted the initial release.
Second, provide sentencing judges with the discretionary ability to increase parole ineligibility to two thirds of a custodial sentence when the court finds that an offender has discharged a firearm in a congregate setting in committing the offence, and that this discretionary ability on sentencing be extended to those who are found to be parties to such offences.
And third, create an additional route to automatic consideration of first-degree murder under subsection 231(4) of the Criminal Code, by including a death that results from the discharge of a firearm in a congregate setting.
In conclusion, and with respect, it is important for our citizens to remember that in Canada ownership of a firearm is not a right, it is a privilege. Legislation must strike an appropriate balance between the rights of the accused and those of victims, survivors, communities, police officers and public safety to help mitigate the impact of the worst outcomes of firearms. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Deputy Chief Fordy.
Colleagues, we have a third witness who was delayed earlier and can join us now.
Our second witness today appears on behalf of the Association des directeurs de police du Québec. We welcome Didier Deramond, Director General. Please proceed wherever you are ready. You have five minutes for your testimony.
[Translation]
Didier Deramond, Director General, Association des directeurs de police du Québec: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, the Association des directeurs de police du Québec, ADPQ, would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit its comments on Bill C-21.
First, let me remind you that our association, which represents all of Quebec’s chiefs of police, wishes, in the context of the rise in gun violence in Quebec and the history of the use of firearms in mass shootings, to highlight some of its concerns regarding this new version of Bill C-21. However, before going any further, the ADPQ would like to make it clear that it supports some of the changes made to the bill, including with regard to ghost guns, regulations to restrict high-capacity magazines and the creation of an expert advisory committee to independently study the classification of firearms currently on the Canadian market.
Although many adjustments have been made since our last appearance before your committee, the ADPQ believes that new provisions must be incorporated into the current bill to ensure that the new version of this bill has the desired effects. Let me explain. Currently, anyone with a possession and acquisition licence can buy not only the calibre of ammunition they want, but also the quantity of ammunition they want, even if it’s a quantity of concern. In other words, an individual can buy a particular calibre of ammunition for a gun they don’t own, and buy as much ammunition as they want. Moreover, mere possession of ammunition is not an offence.
I’m sure you’ll agree that this is a major problem, when you consider that there is an increase in the number of illegal firearms, 3D homemade firearms or ghost guns in Quebec right now.
The ADPQ strongly believes that there must be a correlation between the existing firearms licences and ammunition, and that an ammunition purchase registry, although complex to set up, must be created.
Given that the parts needed to make a weapon operational do not have serial numbers and there is no prohibition on possessing them, anyone can store them. The ADPQ believes it is essential to prohibit the possession of weapon parts if they have not been previously authorized by the registrar of firearms.
This is why the ADPQ also believes that the government should require manufacturers to issue a serial number on essential weapon parts, so that they can be traced.
Members of the committee, if Bill C-21 were amended with these four new provisions — that is, ensure a correlation between the existing firearms licence and the ammunition, create an ammunition purchase registry, prohibit the possession of firearm parts without a licence and require manufacturers of firearm parts to issue a serial number — the bill would, according to Quebec’s police chiefs, be better adapted to realities and have a greater impact.
That said, let me also share with you some of our concerns. Our president talked about them when he last appeared before you. It’s important to remember that certain provisions of the bill will have to be harmonized with Quebec legislation. In Quebec, we have the Act to protect persons with regard to activities involving firearms. That piece of legislation, which requires certain application deadlines, makes it almost impossible to comply with the 30-day time frame for revoking weapons prescribed by the federal legislation.
Some firearms remain in circulation, simply because the federal law does not mesh well with the Quebec legislation. The Association des directeurs de police du Québec recommends that you increase the 30-day time frame for revoking a firearm, so that federal and provincial legislation would be more harmonized.
Finally, the ADPQ is deeply concerned about police officers’ knowledge of the Firearms Act. A survey conducted by the Service du renseignement criminel du Québec, SRCQ, revealed that 65% of police officers claim to have limited knowledge of the Firearms Act. Eighty-five per cent of those same officers feel they could be better trained when it comes to firearms. These admittedly high percentages highlight the fact that police training on the Firearms Act needs to be improved.
This is why the ADPQ recommends that special attention be paid to funding police training when legislation is amended. Too often, the implementation of legislation by the responsible agencies is not taken into account. That being said, the ADPQ would like to reiterate the need for enhanced funding in certain areas, such as mixed teams, chief firearms officers and the science laboratory.
In closing, while the Association des directeurs de police du Québec welcomes this bill, it would like to point out that Bill C-5, which was passed, eliminated minimum sentences for certain gun charges by increasing the maximum sentence. We feel this is somewhat at odds with the current bill. The message must be consistent with the objective, which is to improve safety in our communities. Unlike in other countries, gun ownership must remain a privilege, not a right. Inevitably, this message of consistency must also be conveyed to younger people, especially when we know that it’s all too often young adults who use and trivialize firearms.
Finally, the Association des directeurs de police du Québec recognizes that the intent behind the current bill is a noble one and reiterates its support, while introducing a caveat. We would like to reiterate that, to ensure safety, it is essential that the federal government make adjustments to the current bill by including the following elements: correlation between the existing firearms licence and ammunition, creation of an ammunition purchase register, even though this is a highly complex exercise, prohibition of the possession of firearm parts without a licence and the obligation, for manufacturers of firearm parts, to issue a serial number to ensure traceability. I thank you and remain available to answer any questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Deramond.
Colleagues, our third witness on this panel is Edward Lennard Busch, Executive Director, First Nations Chiefs of Police Association.
Please proceed when you’re ready, Mr. Busch.
Edward Lennard Busch, Executive Director, First Nations Chiefs of Police Association: On behalf of the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association, I extend our sincere gratitude to the committee for inviting us to present our perspectives on Bill C-21. It’s an honour and a privilege to have this opportunity to share our insights and contribute to the conversation surrounding this critical legislation.
The First Nations Chiefs of Police Association, FNCPA, is an association representing self-administered Indigenous law enforcement across Canada. We were founded in 1993, established with the fundamental goal of advocating for and advancing the interests, rights and safety of Indigenous communities through effective policing strategies.
Our membership is comprised of chiefs of police and leaders from various First Nations communities and policing partners. The FNCPA serves as a platform for collaboration, knowledge sharing and the development of culturally sensitive law enforcement practices. These practices are tailored to the unique needs and traditions of Indigenous peoples, recognizing their distinct cultural heritage and in promoting community-centric policing methodologies.
We work hard to foster partnerships between Indigenous communities, government agencies and law-enforcement bodies at local, provincial and federal levels. Through these alliances, the FNCPA aims to address the complex challenges faced by Indigenous populations, including issues related to crime prevention, public safety and the preservation of cultural values within law-enforcement practices.
We are currently engaged with Public Safety Canada in providing insight and advice on proposed essential services legislation. As a recognized and respected voice within the Canadian law enforcement landscape, we play a pivotal role in enhancing dialogue, fostering understanding and promoting effective strategies, prioritizing the well-being and security of Indigenous communities across Canada.
An absolute consent on this issue is unattainable because the Indigenous policing across Canada is as diverse as the many communities served by the self-administered Indigenous police services with different geographical locations, sizes, capacity, cultural beliefs and local governance structures.
In terms of capacity, the FNCPA recognizes and supports Indigenous communities that are capable, even adamant, about their ability to inherently self-regulate and administer native law as it pertains to the use of firearms in their communities.
Some Indigenous communities have comprehensive strategies that work well and hope that the rights for them to do so will be recognized and reflected in this legislation. That said, there are aspects of the proposed legislation that would enjoy broad support from many of our police services, reflecting serious concerns in our communities about gun violence.
We recognize that Bill C-21 reflects acknowledgments by the government that addressing gun violence necessitates a multifaceted approach encompassing education, prevention and law enforcement. We recognize the importance of this comprehensive strategy to tackle the root causes of violence while addressing criminal elements that are doing harm in our communities.
The FNCPA generally aligns with the proposed natural approach outlined in Bill C-21, rather than a fragmented municipality or community-based strategy when managing handgun issues. We advocate for measures aimed at reducing access to firearms to criminals, while respecting the rights of law-abiding Indigenous individuals to engage in traditional sports and activities.
Honourable members of the Standing Senate Committee, the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association emphasize that while Bill C-21 constitutes a critical component in enhancing the safety of Indigenous communities in Canada, its efficacy hinges on other complementary forms. We underscore the necessity of coupling this legislation with substantive bail and sentencing reforms, along with comprehensive measures targeting the multifaceted facets of violence within communities.
As such, the FNCPA acknowledges the importance of Bill C-21. It stresses the importance of a multifaceted approach encompassing multiple strategies to effectively address the underlying causes of violence and ensure a safer future for Indigenous communities across the nation. It is essential to emphasize that restricting lawful gun ownership alone will not effectively address the core issue, which is the influx of illegal handguns from the United States, fuelling a troubling surge in gun-related violence in our communities and across this country. This surge is predominantly linked to gangs, street factions and highly organized criminal entities.
In many cases, particularly in rural areas, Indigenous police services encounter otherwise legal long guns that have been modified to render them prohibited. Safe storage is also an issue in many Indigenous communities where police officers often encounter firearms in vehicles or residences where no accommodation has been made for trigger locks or secure gun cabinets. Therefore, our support extends to new firearms-related offences, reinforced border patrols and augmented penalties to dissuade criminal activities, to combat firearms smuggling and trafficking and to mitigate the infiltration of illicit firearms into our communities.
The FNCPA strongly advocates for initiatives targeting the criminal use and diversion of firearms into the illegal market as well.
Additionally, we endorse the red flag law aimed at reducing gender-based and intimate partner violence, as well as self-harm, by limiting firearm access to individuals posing harm risks. Such initiatives align with our dedication to ensuring community safety and well-being.
It is unfortunate that in some areas of Canada, the provision of the tools afforded to police under the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, such as emergency protection orders, have not yet been implemented. We’ve been told time and again that this is due to the fact that judges and Crown prosecutors have not yet been trained under that legislation and won’t prosecute offences under that legislation.
Furthermore, we welcome changes granting law enforcement enhanced access to information about licence holders involved in suspected criminal activities.
In conclusion, the FNCPA supports enhancing safety for the public and front-line officers. While endorsing the principles of Bill C-21, we emphasize the necessity of clear guidelines delineating the roles and responsibilities of police services in enforcing these regulations. Balancing the needs of responsible firearm owners with protective measures is crucial in mitigating the adverse effects of firearms within our communities.
As champions of Indigenous rights and traditions, the FNCPA remains committed to collaborating with government entities to ensure that measures aimed at firearms regulations align with the diverse needs and values of Indigenous communities across Canada.
We thank the Senate committee for letting us share our views on Bill C-21. We’re grateful for your attention to our thoughts on Indigenous rights, community safety and how this law affects our diverse groups.
Thank you for valuing our perspective.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Busch. We will proceed to questions. The first question goes to our deputy chair, Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Deramond.
Mr. Deramond, do you believe that Bill C-21 goes far enough in addressing the concerns of police services, who must fight increasingly young criminals who use firearms to establish their territory? Do you believe that the problem of armed young people is much more of a legislative responsibility than a judicial one where penalties are not a sufficient deterrent?
Mr. Deramond: Thank you for your question, Senator Dagenais. You’re absolutely right. That’s kind of what I was talking about in my presentation regarding message consistency.
With Bill C-21, we want to be tougher on certain aspects of the law, and that’s great for certain areas of crime. But for other areas of crime, does it ultimately address the problems Quebec is facing? No, but it’s a good start. We can’t be against improving community safety. It was never our intention to say otherwise, but the message should also be clear to young people, who are used by organized crime to discharge firearms, create a bit of a dichotomy or commit crimes in different communities. Our young adults are trivializing firearms. We need to send a message about the importance we place on a bill, on firearms and on all the tools we can put in place to improve this safety.
Senator Dagenais: Were the amendments you just proposed in your presentation introduced during the study conducted by MPs? If so, why wouldn’t your message have been heard, according to what you are saying?
Mr. Deramond: Yes, some of these amendments had been proposed. We proposed more than that. I mentioned Bill C-5, which was passed. A number of us had made proposals with regard to Bill C-5, but they were not adopted.
That said, I can’t tell you why these proposals were not taken into account. Following the latest adjustments to the legislation relating to firearms parts, with regard to the “red flag measure,” all this, of course, was not in the first version. That’s why we’re reintroducing certain proposals.
Senator Dagenais: My next question is for Mr. Busch.
Bill C-21 is a piece of legislation that includes a component to ensure the protection of women from domestic violence, including Indigenous women. Bill C-21 guarantees First Nations’ ancestral rights in terms of firearms. Yet the community representatives you have heard from say that Indigenous police services are able to deal with domestic violence when firearms are used. What are your views on the risks involved, and how can you take action?
[English]
Mr. Busch: I’m glad that’s in the legislation. I know that similar legislation in the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act regarding protection orders police has been used in Quebec and Ontario predominantly, but some of the other provinces have been slow to give police those powers. So reinforcing those types of powers within this legislation would be a good and useful thing.
Senator Plett: Mr. Fordy, one of the tasks of the committee, that you are part of, is to examine the current firearms situation from a legislative standpoint with a goal of assessing the effectiveness of existing legislation and identifying areas for enhancement or change. When it comes to Bill C-21, the bill will do nothing on the issues of firearms smuggling or the criminal use of firearms. In fact, other legislation that the government has enacted, notably Bill C-5, is actually reducing penalties for certain firearms-related crimes.
The main thing that the bill is doing is preventing the future purchase and sale of legal handguns, which will not take any of those firearms out of circulation, at least, not quickly. But it is successfully upsetting legal gun owners and enhancing division on this issue in Canada.
Mr. Fordy, if you look at Bill C-21 as a whole and in keeping with your mandate to assess the effectiveness of this bill, where would you rate this bill on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of effectiveness?
Mr. Fordy: Thank you for your question. With respect to knowing the long-term impact of the bill, it’s difficult. I would acknowledge that the bill does not address the root causes of crime and why people engage in the criminal lifestyle and, ultimately, have firearms in their possession. It does not address the root causes of domestic violence. But my hope is that we would see, over time, the ability to possess firearms diminish and that it becomes less lucrative and less productive in terms of their ability to generate money for their criminal enterprise.
Senator Plett: Of course, no one is arguing that criminal enterprise shouldn’t be having these guns. We’re talking about legal gun owners. Do you believe this bill is effective? I would like you to be a little clearer on the effectiveness this will have on doing exactly what you’re doing. No one is arguing that we shouldn’t clamp down on gun smuggling. We have every police organization telling us that’s one of the biggest problems, but it doesn’t address that.
My next question is for each one of the witnesses. The minister has been to our committee here and told us that the government has consulted widely, implying that almost every association and every organization had been consulted.
Very briefly, Mr. Fordy and the other witnesses, were your police organizations and associations consulted before this iteration of the bill — not a previous iteration of it, but this one? Were you consulted on it?
Mr. Fordy: My last personal consultation was with Minister Mendicino, so not this minister, the previous minister, to answer your question specifically.
Senator Plett: No, that’s fine; I appreciate that. But he did consult you on this bill.
Mr. Fordy: I don’t remember the exact date that I met with the minister. I thought your question was, did I consult with this minister, not the previous one. I did not consult with this minister.
Senator Plett: I apologize if I wasn’t clear. My question is really with the government, whether this minister or another minister or a committee.
But to the other two witnesses as well, were your police associations consulted? Mr. Busch first.
Mr. Busch: We had some conversation with the previous minister, Minister Mendicino, as well. I wouldn’t describe it as a deep consultation. It was more or less that we were informed this was an upcoming issue and that the government would like the support of the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association on it, but there wasn’t a lot of information at that time.
Since then, I’m unaware of us being consulted as an association. I can’t say that individual chiefs of police haven’t had more communication with the government on it.
Senator Plett: Thank you, and how about the Quebec police association, sir? Were you consulted?
[Translation]
Mr. Deramond: It’s the same on our side. We had a discussion with the minister’s office and the minister, but it was more of a presentation than a consultation.
[English]
Senator Plett: That is what this government does well. They tell you something, and then they say they consulted.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. We have waited a long time for the chance to listen to you today, so I appreciate that.
My first question concerns the issue of ghost guns, particularly those that can be downloaded and printed. We had a chance recently to see how this is done, and it’s quite overwhelming. Section 1.4 adds section 102.1 to the code which criminalizes the possession and accessing of computer data that would allow illegal manufacturing of these ghost guns with 3-D printers, as an example, or the distribution or publishing of data due to or afford the manufacture of ghost guns. How do you see this being enforced? Do you have the capacity to conduct investigations on this newer cybercrime?
I’ll start first with Deputy Chief Bill Fordy. Thank you.
Mr. Fordy: Thank you for your question, through the chair. I can confirm for you that the privately made firearms or ghost guns are probably the biggest single issue that we’re discussing with our colleagues in Canada and also with the United States as we’re seeing it’s becoming more and more prevalent in the United States.
In terms of our capacity to investigate, like any emerging trend or emerging issue, we will develop scale. We are not yet completely aware of the challenges we face. We are in dialogue. You’re seeing investigations take place that involves the Ontario Provincial Police, our colleagues in Quebec, our colleagues in Alberta. I’m a former Mountie. I spent 28 years in British Columbia. I have spoken with my colleagues in charge of the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, and what is commonly known as the E Division, major crime, and it is an emerging issue there.
As this issue continues to grow and develop, we will be as nimble as possible, but we do not yet find ourselves in a position where we have a task force designed for this specific avenue. But our colleagues in the States have now arrived at that place down in San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles. I saw some presentations and met with some of those investigators.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
I heard it mentioned briefly, particularly by you, Mr. Busch, around the red flag laws, and I heard a bit of your testimony there. We heard from earlier witnesses that there is a concern with the proposed red flag law, a concern that police officers will tell victims of domestic violence to seek out emergency weapons prohibition order themselves with the usual concerns around inequitable access to justice arising as a result.
I’d like to get your opinions on this and give you a chance to respond. I’ll go to Mr. Busch first because you started talking about it, you touched on it, and I want to make sure I heard you correctly.
Mr. Busch: Thank you very much. The provisions within the proposed legislation in Bill C-21 to help us combat intimate partner violence or the so-called red flag laws are similar to different legislation enacted in some of the American states. I think it would be useful for us dealing with all that type of violence that happens in our communities. As you know, intimate partner violence is a fairly significant issue in a lot of our communities. There is such a diversity of thought among the police services across Canada depending on its different causes, so it’s hard to give a definitive answer that everyone would agree with. Just based on conversations I had with some of our chiefs, I think I came up with a kind of loose consensus on that.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here, to the witnesses. Before my question, I just want to say I have six police officers, RCMP officers and city police officers in my family, so I want them to be as safe as everyone else in the country.
But I think this law flounders quite a bit and there is a sleight of hand attached to it. I would like to get Mr. Fordy’s views on this.
The problem is that we have ghost guns and illegal handguns, but in some ways we’re associating these two with legally owned guns and hunting rifles, and we have put them all together although we pretend we haven’t. This law doesn’t specify as well as it should.
So once again you are placing lawful guns and gun owners in the same bill as ghost guns and gang handguns. This, to me, is rather irresponsible. For thousands who are responsible, they can become suspect. I’m wondering if Mr. Fordy could just comment on this, please.
Mr. Fordy: Thank you for the question, sir. I didn’t look at it through that lens, to be honest with you. I viewed it as to me the role that lawful gun owners play or where they are potentially impacted is, as some of the other witnesses referenced, the majority of the crime guns that are falling into gang members’ hands are coming from the United States, and Texas is the number one source; but that doesn’t preclude the fact that some guns are being stolen in Canada from people who, as you referenced, lawfully own them. By virtue of that, they’re coming into the hands of criminals.
So any legislation that comes into place that reduces the potential for that as well, I think also increases the potential for public safety or enhances public safety across the country, particularly in the urban domains where handguns seem to be more prevalent than the long guns, but that’s my perspective.
Senator Richards: So that really puts a crimp in people who are law-abiding, good Canadian citizens who legally own a handgun or for that matter a hunting rifle, because someone might at some point in the distant future or the near future break into their house, rifle through all their belongings and steal it. Might you answer that, sir?
Mr. Fordy: So your question is do I think that is a possibility or do I think that’s fair?
Senator Richards: Well, both. Our property is our own. If somebody comes in and tears our place apart and finds a gun, whether it’s a rifle, a .303 or a .22 handgun, we cannot be responsible for the world if we are trying to live our best in our own way that is legal and proper. We can’t decide on these things that might happen in the future.
The Chair: I’m afraid we’ve run out of time. I suggest that was more of a statement than a question.
Senator Richards: Okay, no worries. I got it in. Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: I want to ask our three witnesses, we’ve had various kinds of testimony, as you’re aware. On the one hand, there are people such as the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, who are concerned that the culture of handgun use is being seriously undermined by this legislation. Then we heard from a number of organizations that work with women’s shelters and so forth and feel that this legislation is very important. Their concern is domestic violence, and intimate partner violence is at crisis proportions — if not epidemic proportions — and they feel this kind of bill is really important.
Could you each give us your thoughts on those two opposing viewpoints?
I’ll start with Deputy Chief Fordy.
Mr. Fordy: Thank you for your question. I’d start with the issue of domestic violence, if I might.
I agree with the perspective that some of the advocacy groups have represented and that this potentially helps reduce or mitigate intimate partner violence and domestic violence.
On the issue of the red flag law, specifically the concern that this might result in the police not taking enforcement action because they would rely on victims, counsellors, lawyers or other medical practitioners, perhaps, to make that claim, I don’t see that in law enforcement. I think police officers recognize that they have a responsibility — either by way of policy or fiduciary responsibility — to deal with those, and legislation has been put in place across the country in each province to make that mandatory reporting. So I’m not sure about that, then, moving off of their responsibilities or moving away from those responsibilities.
Could you just remind me of the second part of the question?
Senator Cardozo: The anglers and hunters who felt that their lifestyle is being affected by this bill.
Mr. Fordy: I guess, in any bill you will never have everybody in alignment with respect to what’s right or what’s wrong. I understand the bill does not propose to take any firearms out of the hands of the Indigenous peoples that use them for hunting or trapping or anything like that, so I’m not sure I can provide anything beyond that point.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
I’ll just ask Mr. Busch, if I can, about your thoughts, especially in regard to Indigenous people and people in the North who use guns for trapping and for sustenance.
Mr. Busch: Yes. One of the most common issues that comes up when we’re discussing this legislation is that a lot of our communities are very fearful or insistent that the legislation should not infringe their inherent rights to hunt and harvest animals for food.
At the same time, I think there are aspects of this legislation and other laws that would make our communities safer, even if firearms — particularly long guns — are commonly present. That is safe storage and making sure that people have the hunter safety training that they need, that the access to guns isn’t ready, that they are stored safely, and that the police have the powers they need to look at people who shouldn’t have access to guns and take the necessary measures to prevent them from having ready access.
The Chair: Thank you. We have to move on, I’m afraid.
[Translation]
Senator Boehm: My question is for Mr. Deramond. In a press release issued by the Association des directeurs de police du Québec on February 19, 2021, you said that you advocated a comprehensive approach to combatting gun violence. Prevention, education and law enforcement must, in your view, be the cornerstones of the overall strategy to better prevent victimization.
However, you raised some concerns about police forces’ ability in terms of consistent enforcement, including the ability to give municipalities certain regulatory powers. You said the same thing in your statement today. Are these concerns still valid? Does the bill, in its current form, address them sufficiently?
Mr. Deramond: Thank you for the question, senator. The bill addresses part of the problem; absolutely. That’s what we’re saying. We’re in favour of the changes, but I think it’s just a good start. There are other things to consider. There’s a lot of talk about a balanced approach, and we understand that there are two sides to it: a much more urban side and a much more rural side. Quebec’s police chiefs understand all this. However, in cases of domestic or intra-familial violence, it’s true that very few acts of violence are committed with firearms, if you look across the country. On the other hand, when firearms are involved, it’s always a tragedy with a horrible ending. That inevitably has to be addressed when guns are involved.
As for illegal firearms, which also seem to be a problem, it’s hard for me to see how the bill can address the illegality of firearms by making illegal firearms even more illegal. There’s a difficulty on the enforcement side — I also mentioned the training of police officers who have to enforce the laws. The more complex the laws become, the more training and experts are needed to enforce them, including — I don’t know if any of my colleagues mentioned this to Mr. Busch — for Crown prosecutors, who have difficulty applying and interpreting this piece of legislation.
It’s really not easy to work with existing laws, let alone when they’re amended; communication is needed. When we talk about a global approach, we need to ensure consistency with all the legislation being studied in Parliament and the Senate.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here and for sharing your thoughts.
I have one question in the context of your responsibilities on behalf of the police chief in your jurisdiction and your area. Is Bill C-21 an important tool in the broader effort to deal with gun violence, from your perspective?
I know many of you have spoken on different aspects of that, but if each one of you could give me one particular example of how this bill will be able to assist you in the work that you’re doing on behalf of police chiefs across the country.
I would start with Deputy Chief Fordy.
Mr. Fordy: Thank you, sir, for your question.
Through the chair, I think it is helpful rather than hurtful. I think the stronger language around prohibited firearms is helpful. I think the efforts to reduce domestic violence are helpful, and as the previous witness referenced, the fatality attached to some of those incidents.
In general terms — to be brief — I think it is helpful, yes.
The Chair: Mr. Deramond, would you like to briefly respond?
[Translation]
Mr. Deramond: In Quebec, too, we’re in favour of the statute. It’s a good start. Don’t interpret my words in a pejorative way. We’re tackling different aspects, but we must continue to develop the Criminal Code. We also need to develop the tools given to police officers so that we can counter some of the realities we face, particularly in terms of ghost guns and all the amendments that have been made. As for domestic violence, there are also some good things that have been done, but we need to tie it all in with provincial legislation and legislation like Anastasia’s Law, which Quebec adopted after the death of that young woman in the Dawson tragedy.
There are many beautiful and consistent things, but there are others that are a little less so. So we’ll have to work on that.
[English]
Mr. Busch: Thank you. Similar to what my colleagues have told you, issues vary depending on the diversity of our police service. Some are almost urban or attached to major centres and others are very rural, so some of the things that change are different.
I do know particularly in a lot of our settings that controls have to be put on the easy access to guns. We have very high rates of suicide, where if guns were stored properly, perhaps we could eliminate a lot of those. Same with intimate partner violence. There has to be controls.
Speaking from the police perspective, our number one priority is to keep our people safe. Some of the ways we do that may not be universally popular in the community, especially when people are concerned about their inherent rights and things like that. We just want everyone to be safe, and any tool that we can get through legislation can help to do that, if it is applied correctly and backed up through our judicial system as well.
The Chair: Thanks very much. We are quickly running out of time. There are three minutes left for each of Senator Carignan and Senator Dasko.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for the representative of the Association des directeurs de police du Québec, but other witnesses can also chime in.
You said it was a bit more complex than that and that we had to address different elements, including the control and management of arms trafficking, which are fundamental elements and represent a big part of the problem.
I have been told that there has been a significant reduction in the number of RCMP officers responsible for controlling arms trafficking, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, given that the OPP and Sûreté du Québec are there. The RCMP, in its management of police forces, is reducing the number, which means there are fewer RCMP officers to control borders and arms trafficking. So you inherit the problem, and Bill C-21 will do nothing to help you solve it.
Can you talk more about this?
Mr. Deramond: I can tell you that the RCMP is part of the CENTAURE strategy, which Quebec established with the Sûreté du Québec and municipal police forces.
I will not speak for the RCMP, but I know full well that they have optimized their resources and have sent people to border crossings on the basis of analyses and information about key, strategic locations. That is a fact.
Now, I will let the people from the RCMP...
Senator Carignan: We are talking about the reduction in the number of police officers in Quebec.
Mr. Deramond: Yes, the numbers were reduced a while ago, but people are also being reassigned in Quebec to deal with the various circumstances we are dealing with now.
Senator Carignan: With respect to intimate partner violence, are other tools in place that are more effective or just as effective in order not to add fuel to the fire and increase the risk of violence? For example, could be a peace bond be issued or other tools in the Criminal Code, rather than risk aggravating the situation of individuals, giving rise to potential disputes, or placing the victim at greater risk because they are afraid of being identified as the person who complained in order to have someone’s firearm removed?
Mr. Deramond: In Quebec, special courses have just been introduced across the province; this addresses some of the problems. There are also monitoring bracelets. I know there have been proposals to include coercive control in the legislation. So a variety of things are being done now to find solutions and provide tools.
One thing is clear, however: the burden must not always be placed on the victims. The police must take action on all such cases. They must verify, validate and investigate to ensure that Crown prosecution charges laid under the Quebec model are very well founded.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Our final question for the panel goes to Senator Dasko.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. My question is to Deputy Chief Fordy. It’s about the issue of smuggling.
We’ve heard quite often during testimony that smuggling is a problem. We have illegal guns in the country, and sometimes a critique of Bill C-21 that is offered is that the bill does nothing to deal with smuggling, but, of course, smuggling is already illegal. It’s already against the law. That would lead one to wonder what this bill should do, if anything, to deal with smuggling.
Now, I took from your comments at the beginning of your testimony that you had some suggestions for possible amendments to the bill that would deal with the smuggling issue. Could you just elaborate what those might be? Thank you.
Mr. Fordy: Thank you for your question. When I made my comments — I don’t have specific recommendations, but I can tell you they would be things like enhanced information sharing, funding put in place, sentencing provisions relative to people who are coming across our country.
On the issue of interoperability and smuggling across the border, I can tell you that in Ontario, the RCMP footprint is expanding. We’ve created some Combined Forces Special Enforcement Units, one in the actual region that I serve. This is RCMP-led and works with municipal departments and the Ontario Provincial Police. We are seeing that interoperability, sharing of information and sharing of intelligence that maybe others — I gather from my friend’s comments in Quebec — maybe they’re not experiencing. But in Ontario, we’re seeing the RCMP continue to develop a bigger footprint and play a bigger role.
In the long term, the issue of border security, the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, needs and should play a larger role in that. I welcome increased funding and legislative authorities provided to them. Allowing them to share more information with us would be helpful.
Senator Dasko: Can I just take from your comments that you’re not actually suggesting amendments to Bill C-21; you’re suggesting changes and improvements outside of the legislative process in the way programs and enforcement are carried out?
Mr. Fordy: Yes, that’s correct.
Senator Dasko: That’s good. That’s the clarity I was searching for. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, that brings us to the end of our panel. I’d like to extend our sincere thanks to Mr. Fordy, Mr. Deramond and Mr. Busch. We greatly appreciate the time you spent with us and the expertise you bring to this. We have learned a lot. On behalf of my colleagues around the table, thank you very much.
We will proceed with our next panel. For those tuning in to today’s meeting, we’re exploring Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), all respecting the regulation of firearms in Canada.
For this next panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming, from the Vancouver Police Department, or VPD, Deputy Chief Constable, Fiona Wilson. By video conference, on behalf of the RCMP’s Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit — British Columbia, Mandip Mann, Assistant Commissioner, Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit — British Columbia; and Joel Hussey, Inspector, Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit — British Columbia. Thank you for joining us today. I invite you provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from members. I remind you that each organization has five minutes for testimony. We will begin with Fiona Wilson, Deputy Police Constable. Please proceed whenever you are ready.
Fiona Wilson, Deputy Chief Constable, Vancouver Police Department: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you so much for having me here today.
I have been a police officer with the VPD for 25 years and have spent much of my career investigating violent crimes, gang violence, organized crime and firearm offences. I currently oversee the investigation division that includes, in part, homicide, organized crime, special investigations, cybercrime and related support units, including surveillance, covert resources, forensic services and our firearms lab. I have seen first-hand the impact of firearm-related violence on communities across Canada and have watched the proliferation of unlawfully possessed firearms, replica firearms and prohibited devices such as high-capacity magazines and suppressors.
To date in Vancouver, we have had 22 shots-fired incidents in 2023 resulting in three homicides and 16 people wounded. Fifteen of the 21 incidents have confirmed or suspected links to gangs.
Based on my experience, I believe that the amendments set out in Bill-21 reflect the need for a national approach to reducing firearm-related violence and will give police valuable tools to address firearms crimes in Canada. It is easy to simply remove a rivet from a magazine to increase its capacity, and the dangers that high-capacity magazines create for communities, the police and offenders themselves are significant.
The new offence for altering a magazine will provide police officers with much-needed opportunities for enforcement and investigation. With new offences such as this, police officers gain the ability to charge offenders and apply for judicial authorizations targeting specific offences.
Modernizing the legal definition of a replica firearm and placing controls on the importation, exportation and sale of realistic looking replicas will help police address the very real use of replica firearms in criminal offences.
Additionally, this amendment will help police address the growing trend of altering realistic airsoft guns to fire live ammunition. Red flag laws will allow citizens to access judicially authorized processes to restrict a person’s access to firearms and provide police with the authority to search for and seize firearms, and will protect victims of domestic violence and those at risk of self-harm.
An ongoing trend is the emergence of privately made firearms, commonly known as ghost guns. We are seeing more ghost guns in the lower mainland gang conflict, specifically in the hands of people involved in active murder conspiracies and people believed to be working as hired contract killers. Many years ago, 3-D printed guns could fire one to two rounds before failing. Currently, 3-D printed guns manufactured in our VPD lab can fire more than 10,000 rounds without failure. 3-D liquid metal printing will further increase this capacity to the point that it will be indistinguishable from a commercially manufactured firearm. The addition of a new category of prohibited firearms to include unlawfully manufactured firearms will allow prosecutors to more easily define such dangerous firearms in court.
The addition of the new definition of a firearm part to include barrel and slides will assist in stemming the urgent and real threat from privately made firearms. Currently, barrels and slides are unregulated and ordered in bulk by those who are 3-D printing the currently regulated portion of the gun, the receiver.
Currently, it is lawful to possess computer data that pertains to the printing of 3-D personally manufactured firearms, or PMFs. As you all know, Bill C-21 will introduce necessary offences for police to use at all levels of investigation that will make the possession and sale of such data illegal. With the future threat of 3-D metal printing, the printing of slides and barrels at home is only three to five years away. This section will equip police with tools to combat the ability of criminals to fully print all gun parts at home.
I would also support increased funding for specialized firearms enforcement teams to proactively target offenders who import, manufacture and traffic unlawfully possessed firearms. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, has initiated a PMF working group to complement the CACP Organized Crime Committee and the CACP Special Purpose Committee on Firearms to develop a national education strategy.
I would also support increased funding for DNA analysis. DNA evidence is often preferred by the Crown as evidence of possession of a firearm.
Finally, I would like to thank the committee for their ongoing work addressing the real threats that unlawfully possessed firearms create for communities across Canada. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Wilson.
Mandip Mann, Assistant Commissioner, Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, British Columbia, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to be with you today. I’m Mandip Mann, Assistant Commissioner, Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, British Columbia, or CFSEU-BC and the Chief Officer of the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia.
The mandate of CFSEU-BC, as B.C.’s integrated gang unit, is to target, investigate, prosecute, disrupt and dismantle the organized crime groups and individuals that pose the highest risk to public safety due to their involvement in gang violence.
With the support of the province of British Columbia and leadership of the Organized Crime Agency of B.C., a provincial police agency that works within CFSEU-BC, the Crime Guns Intelligence Investigative Group. or CGIIG, was established in 2019. RCMP Inspector Hussey is the officer in charge of CGIIG and he is here with me today and will take many of your questions.
The mandate of CGIIG is to investigate individuals and groups that are involved in the trafficking, smuggling and manufacturing of illegal firearms. CGIIG is comprised of an intelligence unit, investigative team and a forensic firearms lab. The CGIIG model has allowed for a greater ability to enhance firearms legislation, cultivate and share intelligence as well as provide for timely forensic examinations of firearms.
There are areas for future enhancement, but the concept of operations in combining the three areas under one command has allowed for greater operational interoperability and proven to be a best practice.
Combatting illegal firearms is an extremely important element in the fight against gangs and organized crime. In B.C., we have seen a year-over-year increase in the use of privately manufactured firearms by organized crime groups who are likely also drawn to PMFs given that they are untraceable.
More concerning, shootings involving illegal firearms are occurring in public spaces such as restaurants, retail parking lots and parks, which risk the lives and safety of innocent bystanders and erodes public feelings of safety. Although the number of PMFs seized overall is not significant, it is clear that the trend of using PMFs is growing as handguns become less accessible. The use of converted airsofts and 3-D printed firearms is also becoming a common occurrence in many of our investigations, both in large centres and smaller communities in B.C.
They can also be very lucrative in that a firearm can be 3-D printed for under $1,000 and sold for several thousand dollars on the black market. As the complexity cases and use of novel 3-D designs increases, we expect greater pressure on our firearms support services. These complex cases require significant time, skill and expertise to conduct the firearm analysis and to prove the firearm to be operational for the purposes of court.
As such, reducing the availability, use and impact of illegal firearms is a primary focus of CGIIG as well as CFSEU-BC. The possession and use of computer data used to produce 3-D arms using a variety of tools is a trend we are seeing in illegal firearms investigations.
Our intelligence capabilities are currently being modernized in anticipation that organized crime groups will attempt to circumvent any new restrictions such as firearms parts by turning to the dark web. To do this, we are working closely with our national and international partners, as well as academia, to advance both our own understanding of the dark web landscape and its future risks, as well as identifying enforcement opportunities to reduce the illegal smuggling of firearms and parts.
Finally, the tracing of firearms remains a top priority for our organizations and is critical in understanding how organized crime groups obtain illegal firearms. Since its inception, the CGIIG intelligence team has made significant progress in implementing a new process to capture firearms seizures and trace all crime guns in B.C.
In recent months, the Canadian National Firearms Tracing Centre, CNFTC, has established tracing capabilities in B.C., which has increased tracing in firearms and allowed for greater understanding of our current gun landscape. Through tracing, we can identify the suppliers of illegal firearms and take appropriate action. CGIIG’s efforts to trace firearms are consistent with the attempt of Bill C-21 to reduce gun violence.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and share our experiences from B.C.
The Chair: Thank you very much, assistant commissioner. We will now move to questions. This panel will conclude at 5:10 p.m. I’ll be limiting questions and answers to four minutes. I will hold up this card to indicate there are 30 seconds remaining in your time, so please keep your questions succinct and identify the person you’re addressing the question to. That being said, the first question goes to Senator Dagenais, the deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My first question is for Mr. Mann.
Mr. Mann, we know that a big part of the problem with illegal firearms trafficking — and seizures are made — is the porous border between Canada and the United States. Politicians promise results by announcing millions of dollars in investments.
Aside from funding, mobilization and vision are important. Setting aside the reassurances and political rhetoric, I would like some figures on your staff increases, in the last two years in particular. By how much has your staff increased to combat firearms trafficking? In other words, how many more police officers have been deployed on the ground in Canada, and where are they concentrated primarily?
[English]
Mr. Mann: Thank you for your question, sir. I don’t have the exact numbers with me with respect to increase in resources of the past number of years and staffing. Those are numbers that we can certainly get back and provide to you.
With respect to smuggling, we do work with our U.S. counterparts and share intelligence and information to advance any investigation that arises from the border.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My second question is for Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Wilson, we know that organized crime is firmly rooted in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, among other places. Do you think the government could have done more to help your police officers fight street gangs, who do not use registered firearms? What could be changed in this bill to help you fight gangs and organized crime, which by the way use illegal firearms?
[English]
Ms. Wilson: There are parts of Bill C-21 that certainly do address that with respect to sentencing, but for us, any legislation that’s enacted that gives us further tools to investigate people who are unlawfully in possession of firearms is very useful.
We recognize that many people are lawful gun owners. Those are, obviously, not the people we are concerned about from an organized crime gang perspective. The provisions in Bill C-21 do give us additional tools in order to start our investigations, many of which arise from the simple possession of unlawful firearms.
Senator Plett: My first question will be for Deputy Chief Constable Wilson. In both of the testimonies I heard here this afternoon, the biggest emphasis was on illegal guns. Of course, we’re all supportive of clamping down on both illegal guns and smuggled guns. The bill, however, deals with legal guns, not illegal guns. We already have laws.
The way I understand it, every gun that a person owns right now has to be registered. I don’t think most guns are registered, for example, 3-D guns are not registered. I’m not sure, deputy chief, where we’re using those. I support clamping down on that, but how does that deal with Bill C-21? Those guns have nothing to do with Bill C-21.
Sorry, that was a comment and it’s supposed to be a question. Your comment on that, please?
Ms. Wilson: There is no question that the majority of lawful gun owners follow the rules. I agree with you that those are absolutely not the people we’re concerned about with respect to gun violence in our city. However, any legislation that gives us additional tools to address people who are in unlawful possession of firearms is something that we welcome. Certainly, there are provisions in this bill that do just that.
We have seen instances in Vancouver where both break and enters to residences and break and enters to sellers of firearms have resulted in additional firearms being on our streets and getting into the hands of people who are not using them in a lawful way. I think that’s a consideration as well with respect to Bill C-21, namely, that anything that can reduce or restrict the likelihood of that happening is welcome.
One of our primary concerns in Vancouver is with respect to privately made firearms.
Senator Plett: Again, that’s illegal already.
Ms. Wilson: There’s quite a bit in Bill C-21 that currently addresses some of the gaps in that in the bill, though, especially with respect to parts, for example, and the data sharing that’s required to manufacture those ghost guns. We welcome that as well.
Senator Plett: You’re suggesting that in order to catch one criminal, we should penalize 100,000 legal gun owners. I know that’s a comment and not a question. You don’t need to comment on that.
My other question is on the red flag law. What does a red flag law do that you cannot already do without it? You have all the capabilities of doing what the red flag law allows. I can call you right now if I’m living beside somebody who is illegally possessing a gun. We don’t need the red flag law for that, do we?
Ms. Wilson: Again, I think anything that provides police and victims of crime with additional resources to try and address some of the violence associated with domestic violence situations involving individuals who are in lawful possession of firearms is welcome by police.
Senator Plett: I’m sure there won’t be a second round but if there is, put me on it.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Ms. Wilson and is similar to Senator Plett’s question, but with a different angle.
I would like to hear what you have to say about intimate partner and domestic violence. We often hear that this bill will not do anything to address illegal firearms. With regard to intimate partner violence and violence against women, however, is it not true that, probably in most cases, legal firearms are used — correct me if I am wrong — to attack or injure an intimate partner?
[English]
Ms. Wilson: Yes, we definitely see that. Interestingly, the two places where lawful gun ownership is used in unlawful circumstances are not only with respect to domestic violence situations but also with respect to shootings of police officers.
You may recall the shooting of Constable John Davidson in Abbotsford, in 2017, with a legally acquired firearm. In 2022, six police officers in Saanich, British Columbia, were also shot and two were wounded with a legal firearm in that situation. These were two situations — domestic violence and the shooting of police officers as victims. Those are two scenarios where we’re talking about lawful gun ownership.
With respect to domestic violence situations, I agree with the previous speaker that this isn’t always going to be a situation where it’s left to the victim to advance the prohibition. As police, we have a duty of care. We are heavily invested in investigations with respect to domestic violence when people do have the strength and courage to come forward. Any additional tools that we can have to keep those individuals or those families safe are welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are there any specific sections of this bill which, in your opinion, will make it possible to take direct action against domestic violence and intimate partner violence, and perhaps even curb that problem?
[English]
Ms. Wilson: I don’t know about the root cause of domestic violence, but I do know that, as a policing agency, we have significant concerns about someone who is prone to domestic violence. We’ve seen this in a number of cases across the country, namely, their use of lawfully owned firearms against their victims.
As I said, anything that gives us tools to try and combat that is much appreciated.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Many people have criticized the so-called “emergency prohibition” or red flag law, arguing that it could place the burden on the victim. Do you think that is a good thing? Is it possible to make a report while still protecting the victim and their identity?
[English]
Ms. Wilson: Absolutely. Those victims are already in a position of extreme vulnerability. We’re already addressing their safety plans and their safety concerns. I don’t see how anyone could argue that the prohibition would further the likelihood of violence when we’re talking about someone who is already in a situation where they have been subjected, in some cases, to extremely concerning levels of violence already.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to all our witnesses for being here. I want to come back to the opening comments you made with respect to ghost guns.
I don’t want you to repeat everything, but do you think we might be missing anything else in that section of the bill that would make it stronger? Is this section sufficient enough?
Ms. Wilson: We were pleased to see the provisions in Bill C-21 with respect to ghost guns. Our concerns are the parts that can be purchased in large quantities by anyone without a licence. We’ve certainly seen that in Vancouver. We had an investigation in Vancouver where we had a person who was making a high number of privately manufactured ghost guns in their home and had actually ordered — in one order — 50 components to facilitate putting those firearms together.
We’re very pleased about that and pleased to see the computer data piece in there. That’s a creative way to address that issue as we are not able to prohibit the use of a 3-D printer. We have created them in our own lab in Vancouver and know that blueprints are necessary in order to make the firearm, and prohibiting the possession of that is very useful.
So we’re actually very pleased with what we see in Bill C-21 with respect to ghost guns.
Senator M. Deacon: Okay. Thank you.
Carrying on with what my colleague asked you, while this legislation does not ban semi-automatic weapons, it will ban those firearms created with the new design after the coming into force of the amended definition. I think it is fair to say there are a number of recreational shooters, as mentioned earlier, who feel aggrieved by this future prohibition. Many believe they will need those firearms for the future.
In your area and in looking at these pieces, have you had the conversation outside of the cities but also with being called in or with expertise from hunters? If not, if I have time left, I will shift tack. I was just wondering about that in your jurisdictions.
My colleague also talked about gun violence and the ultimate root cause of gun violence. You’re all on the ground every day dealing with perpetrators of violence. If not this legislation, then what can be done to lessen gun violence so that we are keeping people alive and well instead of pulling the trigger?
The Chair: Who does the question go to?
Senator M. Deacon: I would like to hear from our folks who are virtual.
Mr. Mann: Thank you. I’ll ask Mr. Hussey to follow up on that one, please.
Joel Hussey, Inspector, Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit – British Columbia, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for that question.
As Mr. Mann mentioned in his opening remarks, we have our CGIIG team, which is a combined enforcement team; the intel team; as well as our lab, so we are very active in the focused, strategic enforcement on organized crime members and associates who utilize illegal firearms and who pose a risk to public safety. We deal with the manufacturing, trafficking and smuggling of firearms.
We work with a lot with our partners, provincially. We have people within our CGIIG team who are to the south, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, also known as ATF, and the Department of Homeland Security.
We use many conventional and unconventional techniques in order to advance our investigations, and we have very been very successful in doing so.
As far as what could be done to handle more, we always look for new techniques and try to keep up with technology. We also use as many techniques as we can to be able to stop this type of violence that’s happening and being perpetrated by high-level criminals.
What more can be done to handle it? I believe we’re doing everything we can through our collaboration, intelligence gathering and effective investigations.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We’re just having a little bit of trouble with the connection. We’ll try and get that sorted out in due course.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here and for your service.
Ms. Wilson, ghost guns are illegal, and they should be illegal, but there is no way to stop them, is there? Even with this legislation, there is really no way to stop them. I’m wondering if this law will improve the capacity to mitigate them.
Ms. Wilson: Absolutely.
You could say that about any type of crime. At the end of the day, it’s very hard to have a complete cessation of crimes through legislation, case law or whatever the case might be, but we do feel there is a lot of room for improvement with respect to ghost guns, and we do see that improvement in this bill.
As I mentioned earlier, the ability of the Crown to more effectively define what a ghost gun is in court is very important. The new definition of a “firearm part” to include the barrel and slides will assist with stemming the urgent and real threat from privately made firearms. That is a very important piece of this, as I just explained in that real life example from Vancouver that happened just a number of months ago.
But we are confident that we are going to be seeing 3-D liquid metal printing in the next few years. This bill will also address that with respect to the parts.
There is a good opportunity to address restricting gun parts through the existing Possession and Acquisition Licence, or PAL, process through the existing provisions that are in place in terms of lawful gun ownership, so that people who are lawful gun owners who do need to change and update parts from time to time are still able to do that while not allowing somebody who is not a lawful gun owner to order massive amounts of such parts to facilitate ghost guns.
As I mentioned, there is a lot in this bill that is important with respect to ghost guns. Of course, we’re never going to be able to completely eliminate the ability of people to create privately manufactured firearms, but I think the provisions in this bill to go a long way to assist police with investigative avenues and tools that we can use to try and investigate these types of situations, and hold offenders accountable when we do come across them, either manufacturing ghost guns or in possession of them.
Senator Richards: I have a quick second question. They are two questions you’ve dealt with, so I’m going to ask you again.
Are you or the police concerned at all — because I’m concerned about this, and I think a lot of people are — that the red flag law can be misused and abused in order to target innocent people?
Ms. Wilson: No.
Senator Richards: You don’t think that could happen?
Ms. Wilson: I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but the benefit of having that in place and the protection of victims in domestic violence situations, in particular, outweighs the unlikely possibility that the provision could be abused.
Senator Richards: Don’t you think we already have that in place?
Ms. Wilson: As I said earlier, any tool that we and victims of crime have access to that can further their safety is something we welcome.
Senator Richards: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Boehm: Thank you to our witnesses. My question is for Deputy Chief Constable Wilson. Thank you for being with us here.
According to the City of Vancouver’s website, more than 21,000 people have lost their lives to overdoses across British Columbia since 2016 when the overdose crisis was declared to be a public health emergency. That’s seven years ago. Vancouver is the epicentre of this.
The opioid crisis is not unique to Vancouver and B.C., of course, but given the particular level of crisis for so many years — so many more years than it’s been documented in the rest of the country — where do firearms fit into the daily work of your department? I would think there would be a significant strain on police forces to effectively respond to both the drug crisis and firearms, along with everything else.
Could you tell us about the strain on resources and if the proposed red flag provisions in the bill will reduce that strain and help police in Vancouver do their work more effectively?
Ms. Wilson: Certainly in Vancouver, we’ve seen the proliferation of a number of what I would call — maybe not so much crises, although the opioid is certainly a crisis — but when we look at protests in our city, the opioid crisis and the proliferation of gangs and violence associated with those.
There are always competing resource challenges. There is no question about that.
With respect to domestic violence situations, we have a domestic violence unit, and so the resources that would be directed toward that certainly are distinct from the resources that we direct in our organized crime section and our front-line members with respect to the opioid crisis. Generally speaking, from a resource perspective, we are constantly trying to balance our resources under the weight of an increasing workload. There is no question about that.
However, the provision with respect to domestic violence situations and being able to prohibit a lawful gun owner in situations where they’ve known to engage in violence, I can’t see that that will necessarily add another significant layer of work for our members. I understand that it’s something that a victim could advance in the absence of police, and I think there is value in that. I think we often come across situations where victims are not willing to come forward to police, and it’s a tool for them in the absence of this that they could still utilize.
As far as our police officers taking on this additional task, I think it’s something that we would welcome, because we end up being so invested in those investigations. Anything that we can use to further protect victims and families in those situations, as I say, is welcome.
Certainly, resources are a huge issue. I don’t think that this provision is going to necessarily lighten our load, but despite any added work, that would be welcome, in any event.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much.
Senator Cardozo: My question is for Deputy Chief Constable Wilson and Mr. Mann. I wonder if you could educate us a little more about personally manufactured firearms. We hear a lot about them. I had the opportunity to tour the firearms centre at the RCMP just this morning, and some of the things you mentioned were there, in as much as you see the early ones and they are of clunky, white, plastic and the new ones are black and look like a real gun.
What should we be expecting and concerned about over the next few years? These things don’t come with numbers on them, but you could put a false number on them or make up a number. I’m wondering about all of that.
Ms. Wilson: We’re definitely seeing an increase in these types of firearms. As you would have seen this morning, the quality of the firearms is really quite extraordinary. We’ve made a number, and test fired those extensively in our own lab at the VPD. One of the people who work in our lab also happens to be a machinist and he was able to actually in the lab machine make the parts so that he was able to create a fully functional firearm.
Senator Cardozo: He could make the metal parts?
Ms. Wilson: That’s right. I think we are likely going to see more of these as technology and the ability of 3-D printers improves. In the United States we’ve actually seen this business of 3-D liquid metal printing. I think we’re only a couple of years off of that as well. So getting to a place where there is no need to order any parts from anywhere, and the entire firearm can be printed on a 3-D liquid metal printer.
I think that we’re going to see more of these. We certainly have seen increasingly in Vancouver over the years, year over year, more of those privately made firearms. As I said, we had essentially a lab that was operating in our city that we took down just a number of months ago that was very sophisticated and was churning out a high number of high-quality firearms that were all handguns that were being sold in our city. I think this is something that we’re going to see more and more of, and any regulations we can put in place are very much appreciated from a policing perspective.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. Mr. Mann, we probably have a minute or so.
Mr. Mann: Thank you for the question. Yes, with privately manufactured firearms, in the last few years, especially here in the last year or even six months, we’ve seen more and more seizures by our teams throughout the province, including smaller communities across the province. Mr. Hussey oversees our Crime Gun Intelligence and Investigations Group. I am turning it over to him for more specifics. Unfortunately, we are seeing that they have proliferated across the province.
Senator Cardozo: Do you have any thoughts on what we can expect in the next couple of years on this?
Mr. Hussey: Perhaps I can provide some statistics on PMF seizures. For the province of B.C. in 2018, there were two. In 2019 there were nine. [Technical difficulties] — in 2021 there were 39. In 2022 up to September 30, there were 34. So B.C. has yet to experience a high number of PMFs. However, law enforcement agencies are noticing a year-over-year rise in seizures and the criminal use of these types of firearms. It is an emerging trend and year after year they keep going up. It’s a challenge for law enforcement. It’s a fast-growing phenomenon. There is a low barrier to entry. It’s inexpensive. Few skills are required and there is a high return on investment. It’s putting the public —
The Chair: I’m sorry to the witness. We have to proceed.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Bill C-21 has a whole myriad of tools available for front-line officers trying to do their job. Given the complexity and the challenge we face, I can’t begin to imagine all the difficulties. More importantly, would you say the new tools provided in Bill C-21 will greatly enhance the role of police officers in doing their job a bit more effectively than currently?
Ms. Wilson: Yes, do I think that Bill C-21 will enhance our ability to do our job with respect to people who are unlawfully in possession of firearms. We require offences to start investigations, and Bill C-21 gives us more tools to investigate those people who are unlawfully in possession of firearms, and that’s helpful.
Senator Yussuff: Maybe both witnesses could answer this next question. Smuggling of illegal firearms coming across the border is an issue. I don’t think there is any dispute about that and interdiction is a critical part of it. But with the proliferation of technology in manufacturing illegal guns in this country, you don’t have to do it across the border. From both your perspectives, in terms of the provision in Bill C-21, could the tools provided to interdict domestic manufacturing of illegal guns in this country greatly enhance interdiction?
Ms. Wilson: Yes.
Senator Yussuff: Mr. Mann?
Mr. Mann: For sure, any legislative tools that may be enacted will certainly enhance our police investigations and allow us to further expand investigation into any newer offences that are introduced.
Senator Yussuff: The Crime Gun Intelligence and Investigations Group, or CGIIG, as you referred to, is the new establishment of this new enhanced way of collaborating across borders and across forces. Can you talk about the creation of this CGIIG, and, of course, its function so far in interdicting and trying to build collaboration across borders in dealing with illegal guns and gangs across our country but also in relationship to our American friends?
Mr. Mann: Certainly. The CGIIG team was borne out of the illegal firearms task force from 2017. CGIIG started in 2019. As we said earlier, it consists of a firearms lab, an intelligence component and an investigative team. They’re able to work together without barriers. We believe that’s a best practice. There’s a high level of intelligence sharing not only within the team but with our law enforcement partners within this province, the country and internationally.
We see continued cooperation and collaboration between police agencies which allows us to share intelligence and advance our investigations more effectively.
Inspector Hussey, do you have anything else to add to that?
Mr. Hussey: Yes, the makeup of CGIIG. Within our firearms enforcement team are 12 members who are dedicated to investigations involving the manufacturing, trafficking and smuggling investigations — 5 within our provincial intelligence team, then also 11 within the provincial forensic lab.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses.
First of all, Chief Wilson, I’m very happy to hear about your endorsement of the red flag provisions in the bill. That’s very good. Canadians strongly support this. I’m really pleased to hear your fulsome support for this very important provision.
However, I wanted to ask you about the handgun freeze in the bill. As you know, Bill C-21 would implement a freeze on the sale, purchase, transfer and importation of handguns.
I want to get a sense from both witnesses, if you wouldn’t mind telling me what you think the impact of this is going to be in terms of the presence of guns in the country? In terms of public safety, is this going to have a significant impact on your work, the crime scene and the harm that guns do generally?
Then I would ask, do you think this bill should have gone further than this provision to place even further restrictions on handguns in Canadian society?
Those questions are to both witnesses.
Ms. Wilson: Would you like to go first on this one?
Mr. Hussey: Yes. For our team, our focused strategic enforcement is on high-level organized crime, their associates and their illegal use of firearms. We go after those who are using firearms that are putting the public at risk.
The freeze on handguns, it’s only so much as how it affects our engagement and targeting of high-level organized crime; that’s our focus.
Bill C-21 is a tool that allows us to investigate crime guns. We always welcome new and innovative ways to combat gangs and gun violence. If this legislation is passed, I would look forward to incorporating it into some of our investigative strategies.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Ms. Wilson: I would agree with that. Our focus is certainly on organized crime and people who are committing violence in our communities who are certainly not lawful gun owners.
Should the bill have gone further? I think the bill strikes a good balance between respecting the rights of lawful gun owners and also giving police more tools to address violence associated with guns in this country.
We’ll continue to target our efforts with respect to people who are not lawful gun owners. With the exception of domestic violence and police shootings, where police are the victims, we’re generally not seeing lawful gun owners being responsible for the shootings in the city of Vancouver. Without exceptions, those are firearms that are not lawfully possessed in the first instance. We will continue to focus on that. Certainly, Bill C-21 gives us a few more tools to do that.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: The final question for this panel goes to Senator Carignan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for Ms. Wilson.
A number of witnesses have said that the more tools that are provided to fight crime, the better it will be for us.
Wouldn’t it be better to have the best tools to achieve the objectives? Let me give you an example. I call you to make a complaint about Google because subclause 102(1) says: “Every person commits an offence who possesses or accesses computer data that pertain to a firearm.” In addition, subclause 102(2) says: “Every person commits an offence who distributes, publishes or makes available computer data that pertain to a firearm.” I did a Google search and in two minutes found a site for making weapons and importing data to print 3D weapons. Will you go after Google?
[English]
Ms. Wilson: I’d have to read the exact wording again, but my understanding is that it’s the possession of the blueprints. I would have to read that again and go over it.
I think that’s something that would probably be better answered by someone from the prosecution service at the end of the day.
If this bill goes through, we would have to have an opportunity to fully review, study it and understand —
Senator Carignan: That’s our job to do that now.
Ms. Wilson: But fully understand what has been put in place.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: We must not wait for royal assent; we have to do it now. Subclause 102(2) says: “[...] every person commits an offence who distributes, publishes or makes available computer data that pertain to a firearm.” Google already provides access to computer data. Should I pass this bill and say that Google is committing a criminal offence, under subclause 102(2) of the bill?
[English]
Ms. Wilson: I would have to take a closer look at the legislation and how it applies. At the end of the day, if Google is making those blueprints available, then certainly that’s something we would have to look at, from an enforcement perspective.
If the objective is to ensure that people don’t have access to those blueprints because they’re being used to manufacture firearms, then certainly that’s something we would have to look at, from an enforcement perspective.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My second question is the following. You talked about DNA. The bill will help you use DNA. I am trying to understand this. Can you elaborate?
[English]
Ms. Wilson: Yes. What I was saying is I would support increased funding for DNA analysis. DNA evidence is often what’s preferred by the Crown to prove possession of a firearm. Without a violence index offence, like a shooting or a homicide, it’s difficult for us to access DNA analysis in a timely manner because the federal lab has criteria that we have to adhere to, before they would take a submission for a DNA analysis.
Increased funding for firearms related to DNA testing would be something that I would certainly advocate for. That’s what I was referring to with respect to DNA.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Yes, it’s another tool.
[English]
Ms. Wilson: That’s correct.
The Chair: Thanks very much.
Colleagues, this brings us to the end of what has been a very informative panel, I think you will agree.
I want to thank you, Deputy Chief Wilson, Assistant Commissioner Mann and Inspector Hussey for joining us today and for sharing your considerable expertise with us, and for providing thoughtful advice. While we’re here, we thank you for the work that you and your colleagues do every day to keep us and our colleagues across the country safe. Thanks very much for that. We’re very grateful for the work you do.
We will now continue with our third and final panel of our meeting today: Stéphane Wall, Supervisor, retired; André Gélinas, Detective Sergeant, retired, Intelligence Division, both from le Service de police de la Ville de Montréal; and on behalf of the Customs and Immigration Union, National President, Mark Weber.
Thank you for joining us today. I invite you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions by our members. I remind you that you each have five minutes for your testimony.
Mark Weber, National President, Customs and Immigration Union: Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Mark Weber. I am the National President of the Customs and Immigration Union, which represents personnel working for the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA.
On February 1, 2022, I appeared as a witness in front of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security as part of their study on gun control, illegal arms trafficking and gun crimes. As part of my testimony, I highlighted a series of issues affecting border operations in general and undermining CBSA’s ability to control the flow of illegal firearms. This includes long-standing and widespread understaffing; major operational gaps impacting highway, marine and rail modes of operation; and the need for increased reliance on CBSA officers’ expertise, including between ports of entry.
This was almost two years ago. I take no joy in telling you that, as of today, nothing has changed. The agency’s ability to stem the flow of illegal firearms has not improved a bit. Instead of seeing meaningful movement toward an agency that would be better staffed and better equipped to deal with emerging trans‑border public safety issues, the past two years have made it evident that CBSA continues to pursue ill-fated, costly and poorly managed automated tools such as ArriveCAN, instead of focusing on bolstering its existing resources and developing effective tools and strategies to protect Canadian communities.
Nothing has changed. The agency’s front-line personnel is still overworked with many facing exhaustion due to sustained understaffing. Border officers still lack the ability to act between ports of entry, making it harder to address problematic situations in a timely fashion. Tools such as mobile X-rays that could help in intercepting illegal contraband, including dangerous firearms, frequently break down. There is still an almost 0% chance that any illegal weapon entering the country through rail would ever be found. Again, nothing has changed there.
If I tell you all of this, it is not to be alarmist but to highlight how much has to be done to reinforce our border services and how much of an opportunity the government has with Bill C-21 to really improve Canada’s ability to do something about illegal firearms.
When then Public Safety Minister Mendicino spoke in favour of the bill, he made it clear that one of the goals was to take on illegal gun smuggling in a very real and concrete way. As it stands, in the union’s opinion, the proposed legislation is insufficient in that regard and needs to be accompanied by other measures if the government wishes to engage with the issue beyond playing security theatre.
I do wish to acknowledge the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, whose members clearly worked hard to improve the bill, given its limitations. For example, in its current form, the bill does introduce language granting new authority to border officers to seize specialized ammunition and cartridge magazines, which is long overdue. At the end of the day, however, far more is needed to address illegal gun smuggling, and Bill C-21 is clearly not the legislative tool needed for that job. Far more needs to be done.
On the CBSA front, the agency and our membership would benefit from adequate staffing levels, proper equipment, improved training facilities and even equitable retirement benefits to help with workforce renewal. On the legislative end of things, we truly need the government to look at addressing long-standing gaps in existing legislation, namely the Canada Border Services Agency Act and the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and The Government of the United States of America, also known as the Shiprider agreement. Changes to these documents would empower border officers to operate between ports of entry, helping to interdict illegal firearms.
I’m not a legislative expert, and I will leave it to you to decide if these changes can be incorporated as part of Bill C-21. If they cannot, I urge the government to consider additional legislation to see this addressed promptly.
In conclusion, it’s my hope that the union’s input will assist this committee in this important work. I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Weber.
We will hear now from Mr. Wall. Whenever you’re ready, please proceed.
[Translation]
Stéphane Wall, Supervisor (retired), Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, as an individual: Mr. Chair, I am a retired supervisor with the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal. Since June 2020, I have been working with the media and elected officials to explain police work and the reality on the ground.
In a letter to the media dated January 26, 2022, we proposed to various orders of government — with my colleague André Gélinas, who is to my right — a series of concrete measures to prevent and crack down on armed violence. We are non-political and talk to members of all political parties.
In view of the normalization of violence in Canada, we believe that the legislator must enact legislation with the right targets, namely, violent criminals, which include members of street gangs and organized crime who for the most part use illegal firearms to commit their crimes.
Bill C-75, which was passed in 2019, facilitated the release of violent and armed offenders, without any real monitoring of release conditions.
Bill C-5, which was passed in 2022, abolished certain minimum mandatory sentences, even for serious crimes, including the possession and discharge of firearms and armed holdups.
The Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which allows for the release of violent offenders whose release conditions are not really monitored by an overloaded system, with board member who are not accountable for their decisions, has resulted in loss of life in communities. Consider the case of Eustachio Gallese, who killed Marylène Levesque, among many other cases.
Bill C-21 has the wrong target. It is a cosmetic and ideological approach that will have no effect in reducing the number of shootings by violent criminals, 90% of whom use illegal firearms that have come across the border and through Indigenous reserves.
To draw an analogy, there is an impaired driving problem in Canada now, which results in many deaths and injuries caused by highway offenders. Would the legislator’s response be to ban everyone from driving cars — which can be a lethal weapon —, even drivers who follow the rules and have a valid driver’s licence? The answer is a definite no.
Is Bill C-21, which attacks legitimate gun owners who have licences and own guns for hunting or sport, a concrete and pragmatic solution to armed violence committed by violent offenders in Canada?
The laws I mentioned have had no impact in reducing crime. On the contrary, we have seen an increase in violent offenders’ sense of impunity, including street gang members who are bragging on social media and in their videos, thereby propagating a culture of gangster rap.
We have witnessed the normalization of armed violence and sexual and intimate partner violence against women and even against children by imposing house arrest to watch Netflix, even for serious personal injury offences, without any real monitoring of release conditions or real access to rehabilitation programs, resulting in the double or triple victimization of victims.
We have seen an increase in the crime rate which was validated by Statistics Canada, which concluded in 2022 that the crimes reported by police in Canada had risen for the second year in a row, by 4%. We have seen a dramatic increase in homicide and femicide victims, who were already overrepresented in Indigenous, Black and marginalized communities in 2021 and 2022, according to Statistics Canada. We also see that overrepresentation among the violent offenders in Canada’s penitentiaries. Let us not forget that they were duly convicted.
From 2021 to 2022, the homicide rate in the racialized population rose by 2% over the previous year. The homicide rate among Indigenous peoples was six times higher in 2021 than among non-Indigenous people. In 2022, it was about seven times higher. In 2021, 49% of so-called racialized homicide and femicide victims were Black. In 2022, they still accounted for 43% of homicide victims.
So here are the solutions. How could the legislator address illegal firearms?
By requiring a permit to purchase any key component that can be used to build or operate a firearm.
By requiring closer monitoring along the border and around Indigenous reserves, such as Akwesasne and Kanesatake.
By adding cameras, drones, electronic monitoring and high-speed boats.
By adding Canada Border Service Agency, RCMP, SQ and OPP patrols and checkpoints.
By increasing the number of vehicle inspections on roads near the border.
By increasing the number of inspections of any motor vehicle leaving an Indigenous reserve by land, water or air.
By establishing a procedure requiring CBSA to lay criminal charges for each seizure.
By increasing cooperation between the RCMP and U.S. authorities for investigations.
By providing more funding for the development of informants and criminal sources who live near the borders and on Indigenous reserves.
By giving police better training on firearms and related legislation, and on the characteristics of an armed person.
In conclusion, with Bill C-21, the legislator should focus on the right target and not sport shooters or hunters who have the necessary permits. In addition to hunters, the legislator should, as a minimum, exempt sport shooters who train regularly, who are registered with a recognized shooting club and who participate in at least one competition per year in order to maintain their status.
We believe that, in Canada, the rights and freedoms of victims, of their loved ones and of police, and their right to life, health and safety should take priority over the rights and freedoms of violent criminals.
Thank you for your attention, honourable senators.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wall.
We now turn to our final witness, Mr. Gélinas. Please proceed.
[Translation]
André Gélinas, Detective Sergeant (retired), Intelligence Division, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, as an individual: Hello, Mr. Chair and senators. My name is André Gélinas and I am a retired detective sergeant from the intelligence division of the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal. Throughout my career, I worked in various units, including investigations and intelligence about street gangs and the Italian mafia. I was also seconded to the Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, and to an RCMP national security and terrorism intelligence unit. I also served during the war in Afghanistan with the European Union police mission and with the U.S. armed forces as a trainer and intelligence advisor. For close to three years, I have been a police current events analyst for various media, on television, radio and in the print media.
I was invited to appear before you today to share my knowledge and expertise on various aspects of Bill C-21. Before going any further, I want to state that my presence here is non‑political and non-partisan. I am not a member of any lobby or interest group. In the past year, I have met with and supported the work of MPs from the Liberal, Conservative and Bloc Québécois parties.
Bill C-21 pertains to a crucial and essential area for the collective safety of our citizens. It is essential to have an effective firearms control system, which is also based on a pragmatic, rational and judicious analysis of the situation in our communities.
In its current form, Bill C-21 does not achieve the objective that we are entitled to expect. It will not significantly improve public safety, because it does not address the real source of the problems afflicting our society as regards firearms.
Bill C-21 imposes a freeze on the sale and importation of legal handguns used by permit holders who use them legally for target shooting. It is also designed to target hunters and certain hunting rifles.
Yet we know full well that the real source of armed violence can largely be attributed to two factors: first, the criminal activities of groups such as street gangs, criminal motorcycle gangs and various mafia, including the Italian mafia; secondly, the use of illegally acquired weapons, that are used illegally and imported illegally by criminals without permits.
This statement is supported by the fact that more than 90% of the handguns seized in searches or following crimes have been illegally imported from the United States. It is interesting to note that, in 2021, a firearm was involved in just 2.6% of all violent crimes, according to Statistics Canada. So the problem of armed violence is concentrated in certain criminal activities and in the activities of criminal groups.
Bill C-21 assumes a causal link between urban violence and legal handguns. This is a false premise, however, and is the result of lobbying based on an emotional and ideological analysis, certainly not on the facts that police officers observe in the field, as evidenced by the statistics I mentioned earlier.
It is important for you, senators, to understand that the crux of the firearms problem is illegal weapons, criminal weapons and contraband weapons coming from the United States, with whom we share a border that is roughly 8,900 kilometres long.
Even if we could eliminate all the legal guns in Canada, we would still hardly see any improvement in this problem because of the overly permissive system in the United States.
Bill C-21 does not specifically address the situation along the border. Everyone in the police knows that our border is porous and that the rule of law does not apply on certain Indigenous lands as it does everywhere else in Canada. Those lands, strategically located along the border and the St. Lawrence Seaway, must be subject to effective control if we want to reduce the number of illegal weapons in circulation and reduce the number of shootings in our cities. This represents an incalculable risk to our national security: the weapons, drugs and individuals that surreptitiously circulate through those lands.
Bill C-21 must be amended to include provisions that address reality. It must be impossible to obtain any firearm without a permit. The police must be automatically involved in the reporting process that an individual may undertake before a judge to share their concerns about a permit holder. The burden must definitely not be placed on the victims. The bill must also make the reporting system more effective for health care professionals.
It must also make it mandatory to hold a permit in order to possess ammunition.
The government must amend Bill C-5 in order to re-establish mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences. It must make the sentences imposed on minors consistent with those imposed on adults, and also consider the objective gravity and the harm caused to the victims.
We must also provide better training for police officers in respect of the Firearms Act and regarding the detection of armed individuals.
In closing, I would also like to point out that the improvements seen in Montreal, Laval and Longueuil this summer are the result of the hard work of police officers who strategically targeted criminal organizations and high-risk offenders, and of the initiatives of various police forces in Quebec and of the provincial government, which created various units dedicated to fighting illegal firearms. These improvements can certainly not be attributed to the 2020 decree which extended amnesty for another two years, for a total of five years.
Thank you. I will be pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gélinas, as well as Mr. Weber and Mr. Wall.
We will now move on to questions. There are four minutes for each question and answer. Remember to identify the person to whom you’re directing your question and to be as succinct as possible. There is a 30-second warning flag that we have been using quite successfully. Senator Dagenais, our deputy chair, will start us off.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My first question is for Mr. Wall and Mr. Gélinas. In my view, Bill C-21 does not provide much of a disincentive for young criminals and street gangs who obtain firearms on the black market. I would like to draw on your expertise about the Montreal area. We know that criminals who are well established in the hierarchy often use young people, even minors, to shoot in their place.
What can be done now to have a direct and significant impact on those young people? My question is the following: Do the guns in the hands of gangs represent a legislative problem or a judicial problem? In many cases, judges hand down sentences that are too lenient. I would like to hear from both of you on that.
Mr. Gélinas: You are right, senator, about the consistency of sentences. One often hears of sentences that are a slap on the wrist, and I think that is true to some extent. I have to mention Bill C-5, which abolished minimum mandatory sentences for many offences that are crucial and are primarily committed by members of street gangs and other kinds of organized crime. Young people are indeed attractive raw material for street gangs, and street gangs don’t hide that fact. They recruit young people by saying, “You’re not 18, the worst case is that you will go to a youth facility and your record will not hurt you.” Unfortunately, those young people do not leave the street gangs because, once they get a taste of criminal life, the money it provides and the sense of prestige in criminal circles, they become adult criminals. So prevention no longer helps those young people.
Prevention has an impact for those who haven’t yet crossed the Rubicon, if I can put it that way. We are stuck with this situation and it’s a very easy group to get to and influence. In addition, they are attracted to money because they often come from underprivileged backgrounds and broken families. They yearn for some sense of belonging, and sentences need to be enforced accordingly, much like monitoring must be ensured.
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: If I may, I’d like to complete the response and go in the same vein. In my presentation, I talked about the gangster rap culture spread on social media and in videos. This culture, which normalizes violence, is a reality. Several media outlets have investigated, researched and catalogued it. Unfortunately, some young people are attracted to this hatred and exploitation of women’s bodies in videos, this culture of easy money, this culture that shows you can get anything you want through violence.
However, I’m careful not to lump everyone together. Often, when we study the problematic gang situation in hot spots like Montreal North, we’re only talking about a minority. The vast majority of young people who grow up in Montreal North won’t turn into violent criminals. Instead, they will become productive citizens. However, some young people are attracted to this culture of violence. I believe that lawmakers should therefore ensure that videos promoting hate or violence be banned. We can’t abide by young people spreading decadent or degrading videos about women. There is certainly work to be done on that as well.
[English]
Senator Plett: Mr. Gélinas, you answered my first question, which had to do with Bill C-5. Thank you for that. I was going to delve into that, but you did that well. I have another question for you.
When you testified before the House of Commons committee on this bill, you noted that the government chose to announce this bill in Montréal Nord, an area of the city that is particularly affected by street gangs. You stated before the committee that there is, in fact, no link between gang violence in Montréal Nord and firearms legally held by sport shooters. As many other witnesses have told us, the crime guns seized in Montréal primarily originate in the United States and are smuggled across the border. What impact do you think Bill C-21 will have on the problems of gang and gun crime in Montréal?
[Translation]
Mr. Gélinas: Thank you for the question, senator. Bill C-21 will not have a significant impact on the street gang situation. As you mentioned, the bill was announced with great fanfare in Montreal North, when we know full well that the weapons this legislation targets are legally owned and used by Canadians who bought them legally and have permits.
We do realize that in Quebec, about 90% of handguns seized, either as a result of criminal offences or during searches, come from the United States. Unfortunately, we can’t break down the other 10%. The most convincing theory is that these firearms are often stolen. They had been legally stored, in full compliance with the regulations. However, nothing is theft-proof. Only an infinitesimal proportion of people who legally possess a handgun ever use it in a criminal act.
[English]
Senator Plett: It must be very frustrating for officers like yourself when a bill like Bill C-21 gets in the way. It must be frustrating for officers who have been trying to combat the problem of gang and gun crime in Montréal. Thank you for your service and for continuing the battle.
Mr. Weber, I have a very brief question. In your remarks, you referred to playing with “security theatre,” I think, were your words. Can you explain that to me, please?
Mr. Weber: Yes, I can, thank you. I think the point that we try to make as the Customs and Immigration Union is that, given our staffing levels and the tools we have available at the border, we could pass any legislation we want regarding firearms but our ability to interdict those firearms is extremely limited. We know where they’re coming from. We heard previous testimony that approximately 90% used in crimes are coming from the United States. Our job is to keep them out of Canada, knowing that they come from the United States. We have no ability to patrol between borders. We don’t really inspect rail at all. We’re inspecting less than 1% of marine shipments that come in. Our staffing levels at land borders and at airports are below critical. We’re really not looking at very much in terms of practically stopping those firearms from getting into Canada in the first place.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Mr. Wall and Mr. Gélinas.
One of the objectives of Bill C-21 is to reduce the number of weapons — even legal ones — in circulation. People want fewer weapons, because statistically, fewer weapons can translate into fewer crimes. I’ll give you an example. You focus mainly on illegal weapons, but legal weapons can also kill or cause injury.
Between 2011 and 2021, 1,125 women and girls were murdered in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, the largest proportion of attempted murders of women and girls committed in residential settings involved a weapon that resulted in bodily harm. You seem to be downplaying that as opposed to gang activity. I’m not claiming that this proportion represents the maximum number of people injured or killed and cases of weapon-related violence. However, wouldn’t it make sense to also try to reduce the number of legal weapons in Canada, to avoid these kinds of situations where women are often the victims if a weapon is in a residential setting?
Mr. Gélinas: Senator, I’m not questioning your statistics. I’m simply telling you that, based on the latest statistics available, this proportion represents only 2.6% of all cases of violence where firearms were present. As a patrol officer and investigator, I’ve dealt with thousands of cases of domestic violence. I will tell you that I have seen very, very few cases involving firearms.
The existing legislation is very effective right now. It’s just a question of applying it correctly, that is, making the people around these individuals aware that they can file a report. They are trying to include something about reporting in Bill C-21, but we’ve been using these procedures for a long time. I remember intervening as a patrol officer early in my career, in the late 1990s, and seizing firearms as a preventive measure. I’m not downplaying that fact. Instead, I’m saying that Bill C-21 will only have an impact on 2% or 3% of the illegal firearms involved in crimes. That’s where the problem lies. We absolutely must see it from the other side and ask ourselves, what’s killing people on our streets and what’s claiming innocent victims?
At the same time, it’s not a matter of denying what you’re saying. We need only look at the situation and analyze it. We’ve seen a lot of femicides in Quebec recently. If I remember correctly, I believe firearms were used in only one case. I even recall a case where an individual was involved in a hunting association. The Sûreté du Québec had seized his firearms two weeks beforehand, monitoring had been done, and the individual then killed his victim with a knife.
Cases of domestic violence are a little like suicides, and police officers are well placed to know it. If someone wants to get it done, unfortunately there’s not much anyone can do to stop them. I’ve seen it and experienced it all too often.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You’re basing this on your experience. However, statistics also show that when a legal firearm is present, women stand a greater chance of being injured.
Mr. Gélinas: There’s no such thing as zero risk, you’re right about that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Wall, do you have something to add to this?
Mr. Wall: I’m thinking along the same lines. There’s no denying that the situation you are describing happens; there’s no such thing as zero risk. Therefore, when things aren’t going well, when their wife is going to leave them and they don’t have access to a legal or illegal firearm, an individual in crisis or experiencing depression will certainly use something else to achieve their ends.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: However, that’s no reason not to try to reduce the number of firearms.
Mr. Wall: No, that’s not a reason. We’re aware of it and agree with it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Except that you seem to be saying that the only problem is illegal firearms. They are the main problem.
Mr. Wall: They are not the only problem.
[English]
The Chair: We may be having a debate, but we have certainly run out of time, I’m afraid.
Senator Cardozo: I am a bit disconcerted by some of the comments. Maybe I just don’t understand the issue here, but it would seem that you’re suggesting, Mr. Wall and Mr. Gélinas, that most of the problems come out of Montréal Nord, with people who listen to gangster rap. I’m sensing that there is a much larger problem in the country with guns — as my colleague Senator Miville-Dechêne just talked about — and that there is a considerable problem for women who are subject to violence in domestic situations in urban as well as rural areas.
We heard from various groups earlier on, such as from women’s groups, who were concerned that in rural areas there is as violence as there is in urban areas, and there is much less support for women to be able to get away from a violent home.
I think about the extreme right. I think about incels. I am wondering if you have any concerns about domestic violence, incels and the extreme right? If I can ask you to comment on that, Mr. Weber.
In terms of the Canada Border Services Agency, if you can tell us what exists presently for CBSA officers to keep guns out of Canada. What can you do presently, and is the gap primarily in between legal entry points? Do your staff not have the time to examine every car? I’ve come through the border and waited a long time, so is it that they’re pressed for time?
Maybe you can comment on that, and then I’ll ask the other two gentlemen to comment as well.
Mr. Weber: Thank you.
The problems are everywhere. Given our staffing levels, the difficulty in interdicting anything exists at land borders, air, rail and marine. Legislatively, we don’t have the ability to interdict between ports of entry whatsoever.
Senator Cardozo: “Between” means in the miles between one port of entry and another?
Mr. Weber: Exactly, yes. That’s the purview of the RCMP to do that. When people run the port and drive through, we have no ability to chase them down. We have to call a police agency to help, who do help if they’re available to, which is often too late. We have modes — as I mentioned rail — that we don’t really inspect at all, and at our ports of entry, we’re so short-staffed, it’s become almost primarily about facilitation. We don’t have the people available to actually do those secondary searches and inspections that we should be doing to keep the firearms out.
[Translation]
Mr. Wall: Respectfully, Senator Cardozo, first of all, I must say that I was responding to Senator Dagenais’ preliminary question about gangster rap culture. That’s only part of the problem. It’s important that it be said: When young people are influenced, why are they attracted to violence? It’s part of the problem. Of course, other factors come into play and must be mentioned.
The important thing to understand is that this is a broad issue. Bill C-21 will give the police certain tools. There’s no denying that the bill may propose certain solutions, but we have to recognize that, on the whole, the legislative measures adopted in recent years have not produced the expected results and have not reduced crime and violence in Canada. I’ve listed a few pieces of legislation. Bill C-21 won’t reduce crime or violence either because it’s not aimed at the right target. Do we believe in virtue? We do, but will that work in practice? Unfortunately, it won’t work, much like the other legislative measures.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here. It is really important testimony. I want to come back to clarify two things first.
Mr. Weber, the first thing I want to ask you about is a comment about continued shortage of staff, cutbacks or whatever it is. Is it because the budget is trimmed, and you’re being asked to do more with less? There is a college program, as we all know, for border services. Is it because you can’t get enough graduates into the jobs? Where is the problem?
Mr. Weber: It’s both. The budget is what it is. The college itself, we currently only have one college that can graduate about a maximum of 600 officers per year, which doesn’t cover attrition. We desperately need a second college to begin and get our numbers back to the 2,000 or 3,000 additional people we need to patrol properly.
Senator M. Deacon: Is it two colleges and two programs, 1200 people, or more?
Mr. Weber: Right now we have one. We would be thrilled to get a second. A third would be gravy.
Senator M. Deacon: That is helpful. Thank you.
A follow-up question for the Canada Border Services Agency. We’ve talked to and listened to professional competitive Olympic shooters, and to know them is to know the challenges they have in transporting their sports equipment.
My question is: From a border perspective, do you have any idea of the hoops that these athletes are trying to jump through in order to transport their weapons internationally?
Mr. Weber: I know the CBSA website itself is quite comprehensive and has exactly what you need to transport that. As far as I know, there haven’t been any major issues with that.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much for that. I’ll keep going until I get cut off.
I also wondered, when we look at these weapons that are travelling across the border — you talked about the number 90% — in your experience, do we know which border points these weapons are primarily coming from? Is it more or less ubiquitous across our borders, or are there specific places where the majority of illicit guns are being captured as they cross or, perhaps, are being neglected because of staffing; I’m not sure.
Mr. Weber: It’s a little bit of everywhere. It is amazing what you cannot find when you don’t look. We’re not doing the inspections that we could, because we simply don’t have the staff to do it.
It’s very difficult to say where they are coming in. We’re not really looking. That’s the difficulty.
Senator M. Deacon: If I’m a gun exporter to Canada, and you tell me that 1% of the inspections — we are only doing 1% of offshore inspections on shipping, wouldn’t I be taking thousands and thousands and thousands of illegal weapons and try to ship them, not through our truck borders, but through our waterways?
Mr. Weber: I think you could go that route, yes. I think rail would be another good route you could go. There are a few.
We don’t even inspect rail at the first point of entry into Canada. We inspect at the first point of inspection, which means that rail cars are sometimes travelling 400 kilometres into Canada before they could ever be looked at, and most of the time they’re still not even looked at.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: It must all be frustrating for a police officer. Mr. Wall and Mr. Gélinas, you’re retired. Internally, police officers must be demotivated. How are our police officers feeling right now? You’re not telling us that Bill C-21 will have no effect, but that its effect will be mitigated. I have to hammer in a nail, I need a hammer, and they give me a screwdriver. If I use it to hit the nail, I may manage to drive the nail partway in, but the screwdriver isn’t the tool I need; I need a hammer and a worker to drive the nail in with the hammer. The police are watching the government announce a bill that will, among other things, solve all the firearms trafficking issues in Montreal North, when there’s no connection to the existing problem.
How are police officers feeling?
Mr. Gélinas: You’re right, police officers are feeling a little bewildered. It started with Bill C-5, because we realized that there was a dichotomy between how serious the problem was and the remedy being proposed. We weren’t taking action upstream to deal with overrepresentation. We were waving a magic wand to make the problem go away.
It’s kind of the same thing with Bill C-21. What we often say amongst ourselves — and I speak often with experts in specialized units with which I’ve worked — is that if we eliminated legal possession of all weapons tomorrow morning, if we went in that direction — no more hunters, no more shooters, no more, period — there wouldn’t be any fewer instances of violence in the newspaper. As I was saying, Bill C-21 will perhaps have a 1%, 2% or 3% effect on legitimate gun owners who unfortunately misuse their weapons. When it comes to 90% to 95% of guns that come over the border from places described by my colleague and through territories where the rules of law don’t quite apply, yes, we are a little discouraged. We feel like we aren’t being heard.
Mr. Wall: I’ll give you a clear example of the police being discouraged. In the summer of 2022 in Montreal, some police officers wrote to me that when they stopped a vehicle, they found a handgun on the floor in the back seat of the vehicle. Therefore, three young people were arrested for possession of a firearm and when the patrol officers contacted the investigation unit, they didn’t know if it was a real weapon or not. So, they decided to only do the examination and, given that the individuals were young, the police only carefully identified them and released them to their parents. The young people were released immediately, and they laughed in the police officers’ faces.
When my colleague was talking earlier about finding an effective way for adults to discourage teenagers from using firearms, that sends the wrong message. Some teenagers have an unexamined weapon, but they are released on the spot thanks to Bill C-75. Imagine to what extent police officers are discouraged when they see that happening and how it normalizes violence for young people, who go tell their friends that it’s okay to walk around with a firearm. That’s part of the problem.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Carignan, you’re out of time, I’m afraid.
Senator Richards: Thank you all for being here. How much ability do you have or how much influence can Canada exert on those certain reserves that have their own policing and straddle both sides of the border and who believe, in many respects, that they are their own nation? How much influence can we have to mitigate the smuggling of arms? Or do we have any?
[Translation]
Mr. Gélinas: Thank you for your question, senator. It is very difficult, yes. Indigenous police work is extremely complex. You know, being a police officer with your brothers-in-law, cousins and their family members is not easy, because you work in small, very circumscribed territories. It leads to reliability issues, because there’s a closeness with the people that doesn’t happen anywhere else.
The influence that we might have... Obviously, we do some collaborative work, but I’m going to tell you about something that happened about two weeks ago. Two people were charged with tobacco trafficking; they were acquitted for reasons known only to the judge. Even the defence counsel said that the Montreal police, the Sûreté du Québec and the RCMP did not intervene on native reserves. When they did, if they were going after Indigenous citizens, they had to seek permission in accordance with their rules. Some migrants died last winter. The smuggler was Indigenous. They recently recovered his body in the water. If I’m a member of a criminal organization, I can cross just about anywhere, as my colleague mentioned earlier, but if I know my chances of being caught, which I can secure on the spot by paying criminal groups, obviously I’m going to choose this place, because the chances of me being caught are very low.
Mr. Wall: If I may add to the response, I talked about this in my opening remarks. We need to improve funding for sources that draw information from the reserves. There are good people; the majority of people on Indigenous lands are good people, upstanding citizens who don’t agree with Indigenous criminals, who themselves are in a minority. There’s a lot of conflict. We need to improve funding for sources who inform Indigenous police officers, but also for those who inform police officers in the surrounding areas, working together in mixed teams. We need more mixed teams made up of police officers from the OPP, the SQ and Indigenous communities to get to the bottom of the information we receive. If we don’t want to enter the territories and cause a diplomatic crisis — because that’s always been a little dangerous since the Oka crisis — we must work in surrounding areas. There have to be more searches, more investigations, more vehicles, whether on water, on the ground or in the air. We need more sampling, because weapons are going out through the borders. These measures could help secure Indigenous territories.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Richards. We might have a bit of time after Senator Yussuff and Senator Dasko, Senator Carignan, to ask your supplementary question.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you to the witnesses for being here. My first question is both to Mr. Gélinas and Mr. Wall.
I hear your perspective, but a number of police chiefs have also been here today testifying in regard to the bill. They found that there are many aspects of this bill that would be very useful in doing their job. It’s not a perfect bill. Legislation never gives us the utopian solutions we’re looking for, but why are you so definitive? Do you think there are any aspects of this bill that are helpful in a variety of ways? The bill provides new provisions to track ghost guns using technology and developments. Given the proliferation of assistive technology, you don’t even need to smuggle a gun anymore. You can manufacture them right here because people can do it legally.
There are many other critical aspects with regard to interdiction and collaboration with our American friends in the counterintelligence unit and support. Isn’t there an aspect of this bill that you’re missing that would help front-line police officers do their jobs better?
[Translation]
Mr. Gélinas: Senator, the whole issue of ghost weapons has been addressed by Deputy Chief Constable Wilson. There are certainly things we can do to prevent the proliferation of knowledge and computer files that could be used to make ghost weapons. If people are no longer importing weapons that are already made and they can make them here, that’s problematic.
You were talking about the Americans. The problem is that in the United States, owning a firearm is a constitutional right; here, fortunately, it’s a privilege. In Canada, we know just how complex it is to amend the Constitution; there’s no need to rewrite history. What happens in Canada is not a problem for them. They don’t feel concerned. For them, if an individual sells his firearms and they end up in Canada, they’ll co-operate by giving us information on the weapon that was manufactured in the United States. For them, it’s not a crime.
There are a lot of agencies in the U.S. involved when a package leaves Florida, where the largest number of illegal firearms originate, as well as Ohio. It takes an enormous amount of resources for the Americans to be able to track a gun and individuals, and ultimately build a case against them. For them, there is no benefit. That’s unfortunate, but they aren’t deeply bothered if certain firearms end up in Canada. Bill C-21 has some good points. It simply codifies what we were already doing with the “red flag” measures. These methods already existed, but this formalizes them, and we can’t be against virtue.
Making modifying a high-capacity charger an offence is certainly a good thing. However, it’s so easy to do in Canada that no one specializes in it. They’ll sell you the charger and tell you there’s a rivet there and you’ve got to take it out, and here’s how to do it. The person won’t take that heat on; they’ll make the other person do it.
So, it’s not all black and white. There are some good provisions, but unfortunately, the main provisions won’t solve anything, because over 90% of handguns are illegal. So, the problem is on the left and we’re intervening on the right.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses. Mr. Gélinas and Mr. Wall, you’ve obviously emphasized the presence of illegal guns in Canada as being a source of crime. I wonder what you have to say about the fact that we have had so many mass shootings in Canada, such as Polytechnique, Dawson, Moncton, the Quebec mosque, Fredericton. These were all legal firearms. There have been mass domestic murders also involving legal guns, such as the one that just happened in Sault Ste. Marie, where an ex-spouse and three children were shot dead, plus another victim injured, and the killer killed himself.
Do you consider these to be crimes? Are they part of your statistics?
[Translation]
Mr. Gélinas: Of course. They are included in the statistics. I agree with you that the crimes you described in terms of mass shootings... Obviously, we shouldn’t compare ourselves with our American neighbours, because there are hundreds there, if not thousands.
If you look at Canada’s history, fortunately, there haven’t been many in over 150 years. I totally agree with you that one killing is one too many, but there’s no such thing as zero risk. The proof is that driving is a privilege, yet there have been around 1,000 deaths on Quebec roads in the last three years. So, we have to look at all this in proportion.
If we look at the totality of murders that have been committed, whether with a firearm or by other means, and the unfortunate events you’ve described, it’s certain that proportionally speaking, it’s still a fairly small percentage. That doesn’t excuse these people, but there are certainly ways of intervening. Portapique was the largest mass murder in Canada, and the crimes were perpetrated with illegal weapons. The AR-15 the individual used had arrived in the country via the border.
Both the order and Bill C-21 will have no impact on this, because criminals don’t care about the laws. With everything we’ve said, which describes our experience and that of our colleagues.... The border, I think, is no longer a hypothesis, it’s a fact: It’s very porous, not least because of its length. So, we’re very concerned by what you’re saying, but we also have to look at the existing law. There are checks that should probably be more exhaustive, more serious, because permits are issued for a period of five years, but if no events are reported between permit renewals, there are generally no spot checks. Perhaps we could arrange for spouses or others to be called in more regularly.
Once again, having dealt with thousands of cases of domestic violence, I can tell you one thing: Unfortunately, when an individual is determined to kill his spouse or his children.... We’ve seen it all, and firearms are certainly not the tools most frequently used to commit these horrific crimes.
These are murders, not family dramas; these are murders.
[English]
Senator Dasko: We have so many instances of legal guns being used in crimes. Surely you’re not saying this isn’t a problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Gélinas: You say there are a lot of them; I’m telling you that Statistics Canada said in 2021 that, among all violent crimes, a firearm was involved in only 2.6% of cases; in 2020, if I’m not mistaken, we were talking about 3%. So, 97% of violent crimes are not committed with a firearm.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. I’m afraid we have to move on. We have Senator Plett and Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Weber.
I was anxious to talk to you about the state of affairs at border crossings, because every time I’ve had the opportunity to question the executives and deputy ministers of the Canada Border Services Agency, I’ve been told that everything is going very well and that measures are being put in place. I’d say your answer is a little different.
On the fight against arms trafficking alone, what could have been done that hasn’t been done with the large sums of money that politicians say they’re investing to fight these phenomena? Do you know where the money goes exactly?
[English]
Mr. Weber: The money invested is certainly not going toward staffing. I can provide examples. Our busiest land border in Windsor hasn’t had a functioning X-ray since pre-COVID. We have marine units with no boat. We call them the “dock crew.” The situation is absolutely dire.
The difficulty that I have with the counterparts I sit across at the CBSA, which is very different from policing agencies, is, for the most part, they are people who have never done the job. I am explaining it to new people, year after year. I’ve been doing this union work for over a decade, and it is a new cast of characters that repeats itself every year and a half, every two years. They don’t come from the line, and they don’t take our input on how to actually secure our borders.
The other problem, as I’ve highlighted a couple of times, is we have no ability to do any work between our ports of entry. It’s almost 9,000 kilometres of the border, and those are just blind spots for us.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Mr. Weber, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you for answering my second question, Mr. Weber. That was going to be my second question if we had time, but I do have a different one.
On October 23, we heard from Aaron McCrorie, Vice President, Intelligence and Enforcement Branch of the CBSA. He said about 400 of 1,100 firearms seized at the border in 2022 were seized at ports of entry — in other words, where CBSA had priority. However, only a small portion of those firearms were being smuggled by criminal organizations and were therefore destined specifically for illegal use. Most guns being seized by CBSA were simply being taken from American travellers who may not have been familiar with the Canadian law, thinking they could legally bring their gun across in their truck.
Is that consistent with your experience? Is it fair to say that most illegal gun smuggling into Canada by criminal groups does not occur through ports of entry?
Mr. Weber: Those statistics, I believe, are correct. It is a very common phenomenon that Americans simply do not know what our laws are and don’t know that they’re not allowed to bring those handguns into Canada.
To say the majority are not coming through our ports of entry, again, we’re looking at very little, so it’s difficult to provide accurate statistics when you’re not looking for what you’re trying to find. Again, I highlighted the deficiencies in rail and marine and our inability to patrol between ports of entry. Obviously, those are big gaps for us. But at our land border, again, we’re doing very few searches because our staffing levels are so low. It has become all about facilitation, and the money we see being invested is invested into technologies that take away interaction with travellers. It’s about pre-clearance, artificial intelligence, ways for people to clear without ever having to interact with an officer or have anything searched, which is very concerning. We’re here talking about keeping illegal firearms out of Canada. No one is ever going to declare that they’re smuggling in a firearm. That’s simply never going to happen.
Senator Plett: Would it be fair to assume, gentlemen, that in your opinion, Bill C-21 is not the answer to our problems?
Mr. Weber: I think there are some real positives in Bill C-21. We’ve provided some proposals regarding things we don’t know if they could be added as part of Bill C-21, but in order to keep those illegal firearms out of Canada, we need to be doing more at our borders.
Senator Plett: We would be interested in hearing your proposals, and we’d be happy for you to send them to us through the clerk.
Mr. Weber: I will. Thank you, sir.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: First, Mr. Chair, I’d like to apologize. I was in the other place defending my bill, which is going very well by the way, so I apologize to you.
In fact, you’re saying that most, if not all, of the killings in Canada over the past 20 years have been committed with illegal weapons?
Mr. Gélinas: No. In fact, almost all of the killings that took place were committed by permit holders with legal weapons. This was not the case with the Portapique massacre, which is the largest. It’s true that this risk does exist, unfortunately.
Senator Boisvenu: We know that, since 1979 in particular, there has been a steady decline in murders or homicides committed with a firearm. There have been six laws passed during this period that have in no way accelerated or slowed this decline; it is constant. We’re talking about 1% to 2% per year. This translates into a 70% reduction in murders since 1979, regardless of the laws passed. In the case of a law passed in 1995, $2 to $3 billion was invested. It had no greater effect on the crime rate.
Maybe we’ll invest $1 billion in this bill to buy back guns. Will that billion dollars have a direct relationship to crime reduction?
Mr. Gélinas: No, absolutely not. You’re referring to the order and the buyback program, if I understand correctly?
Senator Boisvenu: Exactly.
Mr. Gélinas: No. For three years, the supposed assault weapons have still been in the hands of their owners. The government had originally decided to leave them with these people so that they could not use them. Following pressure from groups not in favour of gun control, but for their abolition, the government changed its tune.
It’s been three years. Has an AR-15 been used in a mass killing in Canada? Absolutely not. Only one was used in Portapique. It was an illegal weapon from Maine. Once again, amnesty is being postponed for another two years. I don’t want to be cynical, but they’re announcing the apocalypse by trying to link this to the situation in the United States, which is light-years away from what we’re experiencing here. For the past three years, for these people who bought these weapons legally, with permits, the apocalypse has not arrived.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, that brings us to the end of this panel. I want to extend sincere thanks to Mr. Weber, Mr. Wall and Mr. Gélinas. You’ve taken us over time, which always means you’ve done your job well. We greatly appreciate your experience, expertise and advice that you bring us today.
I’d like to thank my colleagues around the table for their participation this evening. As always, they brought out the very best of our witnesses. We will continue our examination of this bill on Wednesday, November 22, at 11:30 a.m. in room B45.
Colleagues, we’re approaching the end of our list of witnesses and anticipate proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration next week, on Monday, November 27. I remind members who wish to propose amendments that they’re encouraged to consult the Office of the Law Clerk of the Senate to ensure amendments are drafted in the proper format and in both official languages.
I wish you all a good evening. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)