THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 23, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms); and, in camera, examine and report on issues relating to Veterans Affairs, including services and benefits provided, commemorative activities, and the continuing implementation of the Veteran’s Well-being Act.
Senator Tony Dean (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs.
I am Tony Dean, a senator from Ontario and chair of this committee. I am joined today by fellow committee members and some other senators. I invite senators to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais, from Quebec.
Senator Boisvenu: Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: Senator Don Plett. I’m from Manitoba.
Senator Oh: Senator Oh. I’m from Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
Senator White: Senator Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator M. Deacon: Welcome. Marty Deacon, a senator from Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Richards: Dave Richards, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Senator Yussuff from Ontario.
Senator Duncan: Pat Duncan, Yukon.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, a senator from Ontario, and I’m a member of this committee. Thank you.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, a senator from Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We’re also joined by the clerk of the committee, Ms. DuPont.
For those watching the session, today we begin our study of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).
We have the pleasure of welcoming today the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs. Mr. LeBlanc is accompanied by Mr. Talal Dakalbab, Assistant Deputy Minister, Crime Prevention Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; Mr. Matthew Taylor, General Counsel and Director of the Criminal Law Policy Section of Justice Canada; and Mark Flynn, Acting Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Thank you all for joining us today.
Minister LeBlanc, welcome on behalf of the committee. I now invite you to provide your opening remarks. Please begin when you are ready.
Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs: Mr. Chair, honourable senators, good afternoon and thank you for having us at your committee and thank you for introducing my colleagues from the RCMP, the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Justice who have joined me. There are other officials as well from different agencies, the Canadian Border Services Agency, for example, and others that I think that you will hear from once I exit your august committee.
Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure, as always, to appear before you today. I thank my colleagues for joining us. I see some old friends at your table. I am an admirer of the work of what we call “the other place.” I have a family connection to your chamber. You will see my father’s portrait on the wall when he was Speaker. He enjoyed immensely the time he served in the Senate. It is always a privilege for me to be back at a place that he enjoyed so much.
Mr. Chair, through legislative measures such as Bill C-21, our government is aiming to tackle gun violence head on.
Since it was introduced last spring, Bill C-21 has been further strengthened through extensive consultations and amendments. We engaged with First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations, rural and northern communities, victims’ groups, and with the firearms community and sportspersons and sports shooters across Canada to hear their perspectives and to ensure that we respect their traditions and way of life. These consultations have informed our path forward.
[Translation]
Bill C-21 now explicitly states that nothing in the bill derogates from the rights of Indigenous peoples, and includes protections for law-abiding gun owners so they can continue to practise what is increasingly much more than a hobby for them.
We also consulted family members and communities affected by gun violence. Unfortunately, the most vulnerable communities are often among the hardest hit by armed violence. We must do everything in our power to ensure their safety and that of all Canadians, and Bill C-21 is an important step in that direction.
This begins with the fight against the proliferation of handguns, the firearm most commonly used in homicides. This bill will enshrine in legislation the national freeze on handguns introduced by order-in-council in October 2022. It will also help us fight organized crime by increasing maximum penalties for gun traffickers and setting up new authorities to combat firearm smuggling.
The bill also tackles the ghost gun phenomenon by tightening regulations around parts used in the manufacture of these weapons.
[English]
Bill C-21 also introduces new laws to protect victims of intimate partner violence. Victims of intimate partner violence are almost five times more likely to be killed if a firearm is present in the home, highlighting the urgency of further curtailing access to firearms for violent individuals. New red flag laws in the bill will allow courts to order the immediate removal of firearms from dangerous individuals.
The bill will also codify a technical definition of an assault-style firearm which will make it illegal to import or manufacture such firearms in Canada going forward. This will enable us to proactively respond to technological advances in the firearms market and keep dangerous weapons — those that aren’t used for hunting and sporting — from entering our communities.
[Translation]
Complementing these measures, regulatory amendments will be made to impose mandatory physical inspection by the RCMP of all new firearm models before they are placed on the Canadian market. These regulatory measures will ensure that no firearm enters the Canadian market without having been properly listed or classified by competent government authorities.
To address the issue of firearms classification, we are re-establishing the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee to independently review the classification of existing models that fall under the new prospective definition of prohibited weapons in Bill C-21, and to identify those that qualify as hunting firearms for exclusion from a future order-in-council to ban all existing assault weapons.
Finally, to complete the measures against assault-style firearms, we are strengthening the regulations on high-capacity magazines to eliminate loopholes and exemptions that allow access to magazines of more than 5 or 10 rounds for long guns and handguns respectively. Neither this measure, nor any other provision of the bill, nor any other complementary measure is intended to take firearms away from hunters or sport shooters. These are all measures that will help us fight the scourge of gun violence. Every time a violent crime occurs in our neighbourhoods or communities, residents’ sense of security is shaken.
[English]
No one measure, Mr. Chair, can address this issue alone. That is why we continue to pursue the implementation of an assault-style firearms buyback program. We are taking the time to get this program right and looking forward to keeping businesses and responsible gun owners apprised of the next steps as we move forward in this direction.
At the same time, we are strengthening law enforcement’s capacity to stop guns from coming into the country, investigating gun crimes and enhance their collaboration with provincial and municipal law enforcement partners.
Mr. Chair, I had a discussion with Secretary Mayorkas, the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary when I was in Washington a few weeks ago about precisely how we can better share information at the border, the Canada Border Services Agency with his department, and how we can work together collaboratively to deal with the importation of illegal guns across the Canada/U.S. border.
Prevention is also a key pillar of our approach. In collaboration with provincial and territorial partners, we are supporting the development of new gun and gang violence prevention and intervention programs. These investments support prevention and intervention efforts aimed at young people, helping them leave gangs or avoid joining them in the first place.
[Translation]
By investing in prevention and enforcement, we will improve public safety, prevent tragedies and hopefully save lives too.
[English]
Mr. Chair, while Bill C-21 is clearly but one element of a broader public safety agenda, we believe it is, nonetheless, a significant step forward toward enhancing the safety and security of Canadians.
We look forward to the work of this committee, and we hope that you will be able to join us in these efforts. I look forward to your questions today, and I thank so many colleagues for coming to a meeting on a Monday afternoon. If this were a committee in the other place, you would have maybe a third of the attendance here. This is either a good sign, Mr. Chair, or a very bad sign for me, but I am looking forward to the questions.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. We are about to find out shortly.
Before proceeding to questions, I just want to give a caution. I would like to ask participants in the room to please refrain from leaning in too closely to the microphone or to remove your earpiece while doing this to avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact committee staff in the room.
I note that Minister LeBlanc will be here with us until 5 p.m. today. We will do our best to allow time for each member to ask a question during the first hour. A second round of questions with officials will take place from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. With this in mind, four minutes will be allocated for each question, including the answer. I ask that you keep your questions succinct in an effort to allow as many interventions as possible.
That said, I offer our first question to the deputy chair, Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Minister, thank you for being here. First of all, I’d like to reassure you by saying that I’ll be voting in favour of Bill C-21. I can see you’re smiling, but I’m still disappointed.
The government has been in power for eight years and I have the impression that it is incapable of producing legislation that could have a significant impact on organized crime. There is talk of increased border surveillance, the hunt for arms traffickers and exemplary penalties for those who get caught, but what about the system for identifying prohibited weapons?
I’m not sure that Bill C-21 will reduce the number of illegal firearms being used by criminals to commit murder. But I can tell you one thing. If members of organized crime could come and testify, they would surely say that Bill C-21 doesn’t necessarily scare them.
Can you explain to us how the fight against criminals who use unregistered weapons is being carried out, when the bill restricts the rights of honest hunters and shooters? Who are we trying to please with Bill C-21?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, thank you for your question. If my colleagues from the RCMP or the department would like to add some clarification, I hope that will be possible.
The government believes that this is an important measure to protect the public. I fully agree with you, Senator Dagenais, and I know you have a great deal of knowledge in the field of public safety. We believe that providing additional resources to the Canada Border Services Agency will be one way to support our law enforcement agencies in the fight against what is increasingly becoming an organized crime activity.
As I mentioned, this measure is not aimed at hunters and sportsmen. In New Brunswick, people I know go hunting with traditional hunting weapons, and that’s not the type of weapon we’re talking about here. We’re talking about weapons that were originally designed to kill people in a military context.
We believe that the fight against organized crime and the prevention of gun violence will not be achieved solely through a bill passed in Parliament. It’s an important tool for reducing the number of these weapons in circulation. We also need to provide support for police forces and prosecutors. We also need investigators, not just from the RCMP, but also from other police forces, whether it’s the Sûreté du Québec or municipal police in the provinces.
I’m in constant discussion with my RCMP friends about how we can support our partners in this regard.
Senator Dagenais: As you know, there’s a difference between hunting weapons and combat weapons.
In fact, over the weekend, I did some research and found a shooting club in Kahnawake called Lahache Shooting Range. I invite you to take a look at the guns there. This is the type of weapon I believe I saw in the hands of terrorists in Israel two weeks ago.
At the Kahnawake Shooting Club on Montreal’s South Shore, for $135, I can train for an hour with this type of automatic weapon, which can fire 20 bullets in less than 5 seconds.
Do you think the bill sets a reasonable regulatory framework for this kind of activity, with such powerful weapons that I consider totally unnecessary for a citizen who goes hunting? What kind of oversight exists for this kind of hobby? I was surprised to see this type of weapon in a shooting club. I’ve been to a shooting club before, and I’ve never seen anything like this.
I’ve made copies that we can pass around.
[English]
The Chair: The four minutes are up. I will guide other members in order to be brief with questions. To the officials, this is a good question, and I am hoping that an answer can be provided in the course of this meeting. I’m sure it will be.
Senator Oh: Thank you, minister, for being here.
Minister, gun control is ultimately about controlling legal firearms. If gun control is going to be effective, it must have the support of legal firearms owners. It is very obvious that legal firearms owners are very opposed to this bill. Indigenous people are opposed to the bill. Many front-line police officers have said it will be ineffective. My question for you is this: How concerned are you that, by pushing this flawed bill through regardless, you are, in fact, undermining support for gun control in Canada?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, thank you for the question.
Mr. Chair, my colleagues say, with respect to Senator Dagenais’s question, that they will have the technical answers, because I share his surprise at exactly that. They will be happy to come back to it.
With respect to your question, Senator Oh, it may not surprise you that I don’t think Indigenous peoples writ large oppose this bill. As well, I don’t think hunters or sports groups oppose this legislation. Every time governments or Parliament legislate in this area, there is a very quick reaction from hunting groups and sports shooters, many of whom are in my constituency in rural New Brunswick. That is why I think it is important for us to continue to explain — and to be able to point to it in the legislation — why these particular legislative measures, first of all, respect Indigenous rights completely. That is a part we amended and added to the bill. In an initial version of this legislation, much of what you identified in your question was a very real concern. That is why I think the legislative process in our place, I hope, to a large extent attenuated or diminished those concerns. We are entirely respectful of Indigenous section 35 rights. We are designing legislation that deliberately targets those who use weapons or want to have weapons that are not, in fact, part of a typical hunter’s or sports person’s routine.
I think there is broad support in Canada for thoughtful, effective measures to reduce the proliferation of and access to military-style assault weapons. I am not a firearms expert. We have people from the RCMP and others who understand these details better than I do. However, I think Canadians in general approve, having seen tragedies across the country and around the world when these weapons are in the hands of criminals. Any measure that reduces the number of these guns that are circulating in communities or that can be imported into Canada or sold lawfully is a step in the right direction. However, as I said, it requires a series of measures, not simply one legislative measure around gun control.
Senator Oh: Minister, when it comes to gun control, I think the most important thing is illegal guns coming across the border. I think those are the serious problems. I’m from the GTA, Toronto, and that’s where most of the illegal guns are coming through and being used by the gangs.
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, I agree with you that that is a significant challenge. As I said in my opening comments, I thought it was an interesting discussion I had with the Secretary of Homeland Security in the United States, along with the Attorney General of the United States. They want the FBI and their border services partners of the Canada Border Services Agency to work collaboratively with the RCMP and Canadian law enforcement. We had a federal-provincial-territorial meeting of public safety ministers in Bromont, Quebec, two weeks ago. The weeks get blurred. Quebec Minister Bonnardel very much wanted us to work precisely on some of these points at the border. I think we can do a lot more, and we will.
Senator Plett: I will be succinct. I have two questions. If the minister will cooperate with me, maybe I can get both of them in.
Minister, you talked briefly in your opening remarks about engagement with Indigenous communities. In fact, we have a submission from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawá:ke in which they stated there was no consultation. Let me briefly read what they said:
There is no carve-out in Bill C-21 for the exercise of our inherent jurisdiction rights, nor was any consultation carried out to solicit our input.
Other Indigenous groups, of course, have reported the same. How is that possible, minister, when this bill clearly impacts them? They are saying there was no consultation. You are saying there was engagement.
Mr. LeBlanc: That is a very good question. Again, I believe that the elements of this bill — and it’s stated clearly in the legislation — are respectful of Indigenous rights. My predecessor Marco Mendicino had a series of consultations with Indigenous groups. Talal and I have a list here. We’re happy to share that with you, senator, because it is a good question. I see a number of Indigenous communities who were met with in the winter and spring of this year.
With respect to this particular community, Talal, do you have an answer for the senator?
Talal Dakalbab, Assistant Deputy Minister, Crime Prevention Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness: I’m happy to jump in. Actually, I would like to clarify as well. There were extensive consultations with Indigenous communities across the country when it was introduced the first time.
Senator Plett: My question was on this bill.
Mr. Dakalbab: With this bill as well, when there were amendments introduced, we did further consultations, but most of those amendments were removed from this bill. I’m happy to share with you the consultations we did.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Minister, you talked about wanting to take illegal guns out of criminals’ hands. I do not think there is anyone around this table who doesn’t support that, but of course, this bill is not dealing with illegal guns in the hands of criminals. This bill is dealing with legal guns in the hands of hunters and sports shooters.
You say the government is set on combatting gun crime, and your predecessor claimed that your government’s goal with this bill is the eradication of gun violence, but under your government, minister, you have in fact repealed mandatory sentences in Bill C-5 for the following: using a firearm or imitation firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of a firearm or weapon knowing its possession is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, discharging a firearm with intent, robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. I am wondering, minister, how this is consistent with your goal of trying to eradicate gun violence. I know you’re going to say they have increased maximum penalties when the 10-year maximum was never handed out in the first place, so increasing the maximum isn’t what we’re concerned about. You have taken away minimums. Why is that, minister?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, just to go back to the initial part of your second question, it won’t surprise you that I don’t agree with your characterization that we’re taking guns away from lawful hunters and sports persons. Just because that phrase gets repeated over and over again, it doesn’t make it true. I want to be careful to make it clear that I disagree with the premise of that question.
You spoke about legislation that Parliament adopted over a year ago. Matthew can go through some of the specific elements of Bill C-5. We may have a fundamental difference of opinion with respect to the appropriate use of mandatory minimum sentences. As a member of Parliament, I’ve voted for a number of mandatory minimum sentences, and I’ve also voted for legislation that I believe brought them in line with some of the constitutional provisions of various court decisions.
I would also point to the fact that we have given $900 million to provinces and territories precisely to improve law enforcement’s ability — our partner law enforcement agencies — to go after the illegal guns and criminals who are using guns.
Senator, I share your premise entirely with respect to the fact that the focus has to be on the illegal use of firearms to commit criminal offences. That should unite us all. On that, I think you and I would agree quite easily.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, minister, for being here.
I would like to read a couple of paragraphs of interventions that we received and get your input because, at the end of the day, that is what we have to pass judgment on.
This is from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.
The prohibition of semi-automatic long guns will do nothing to prevent crime, as it will not curtail the demand for illicit firearms by gangs and those involved in organized crime. … Tangible benefits to public safety will require non-legislative efforts, including increased funding for border services, improved firearm tracing, and initiatives to tackle gang activity and organized crime.
Maybe I can get your thoughts on that before I read a quote from the other side of the discussion.
Mr. LeBlanc: Thank you, senator, for the question.
As I said in response to Senator Plett, we do share the view that we have to increase the ability of law enforcement, both on the federal side — the RCMP and the border services agency — and our provincial and municipal partners and some Indigenous police forces to collaborate with law enforcement to share information with our American partners, as I mentioned. I accept their view that we also need to invest in the appropriate law enforcement instruments to cut down on the illegal importation of firearms but to remove what, as we said, are firearms designed not for sports shooting or for hunting but designed for a battlefield context that we don’t think should be circulating freely in communities in Canada.
Again, the premise that this affects law-abiding gun owners who pursue sports activities, such as hunting or sports shooting, is a phrase that is often used. We have been explicit and careful to ensure that these measures do not target those people and, in fact, allow them to practise their sport and other recreational activities that hunters in my community of rural New Brunswick participate in, while at the same time giving law enforcement and prosecutors the ability to deal with a particular kind of weapon that has caused much death and destruction in Canada, to deal with things like ghost guns and other elements that we think recognize technology evolving and modernize the legislative framework so that police are better able to control those kinds of guns.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
PolySeSouvient has a different perspective. They would like the bill passed as soon as possible, and they add:
We also hope senators communicate to the government their support for strong regulations aimed at banning current military-style weapons and eliminating all exemptions and loopholes that undermine the so-called “ban” on large-capacity magazines.
Mr. LeBlanc: I had an opportunity to speak to representatives of PolySeSouvient earlier today, in fact. I am going to meet with them in the coming weeks, I hope, in Montreal. I absolutely share their concern. They have expressed it to me and to our department. That is why, in my opening comments, I thought it was important to publicly commit the government, once the bill receives Royal Assent, obviously, to work with the appropriate authorities to quickly put into place a regulatory framework that we think will answer many of those questions and concerns that PolySeSouvient and other groups representing victims of gun violence have advocated for. We are very much lined up with that sentiment and will do so in an expeditious way should and when this bill receives Royal Assent.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, minister.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, minister and witnesses, for being here. I have a couple of questions. I’ll try to be as direct and succinct as I can be, and maybe I will get an answer. If not, I will follow up with your officials.
Amendments were introduced in the other place to ensure the provisions enacted through Bill C-21 are to be construed as upholding Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous people as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the constitution, not abrogating or derogating from them. Can you confirm and explain how treaty rights will be affected by Bill C-21?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator Yussuff, thank you for the question, and thank you for your willingness to sponsor this legislation. We appreciate it and look forward to working with you and your colleagues in this place.
Since last fall, as I mentioned, we have been engaging with Indigenous partners across the country, including Indigenous partners in the northern territories as well. We understand and can certainly assure those Indigenous peoples that firearms that have been used and passed down for generations in their pursuit of sustenance hunting, for example, or other activities that they have done lawfully for generations will not be affected; they will be untouched by this legislation. Those traditions are important for Canadians and Indigenous peoples. This bill won’t prevent the pursuit of those traditions.
We also thought it was important precisely because of some of the concerns when the initial bill was presented — I think you are referring to that — to add a non-derogation clause to reaffirm, without question, that the section 35 constitutional rights of Indigenous people are to be upheld. That definition was codeveloped with national Indigenous organizations and reaffirms what we all have known: that the constitutional and treaty rights that Indigenous people hold need to remain protected and should not be affected by a legislative measure.
We don’t propose in this legislation to take away any firearms that Indigenous people use to hunt or trap. As Talal mentioned, my predecessor in this portfolio worked on that a lot in the spring, and it’s work I will continue. In fact, I had this conversation with Northern premiers. I’m also the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and in my conversations with Northern premiers, this issue has also been raised. I’m happy to work with them and other groups across the country.
Senator Yussuff: Bill C-21 is not without controversy, to say the least, and being the sponsor of the bill, I have gotten an earful from both sides of the spectrum on this. A lot has been said on both sides of the spectrum in regard to what the bill is and isn’t, to a large extent.
As a country — I think my colleague Senator Plett said this earlier in his remarks, I think Senator Oh said the same thing — Canadians are concerned, especially in urban environments, about gun violence. It’s a real issue. It’s hard to go an evening or a day without hearing about gun violence in our society.
First, how do we have dialogues with each other in ways that respect the need for legislation that’s going to help protect Canadians from the harm we see all the time; and second, how do we find the fortitude to recognize there are things we need to do at a society for the greater good of society, especially on the question of gun rights? We look to our neighbours to the south who have a different perspective on this issue, and I hope that we don’t fall in that trap. From your position of responsibility as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, you could reply.
Mr. LeBlanc: I like the way you began by saying that if I don’t know the answers, you can get them from the officials after I leave.
Senator, this is the struggle of successive governments in this space. It’s not new to our government. Legislating in this area brings with it understandable reactions from people who are concerned. There is a significant amount of misinformation that circulates in the space as well. Some of it, as you say, is fuelled by an American constitutional provision or American interest that comes across the border on social media or the internet.
It’s not easy to have a conversation that identifies exactly the balance that you expressed that many Canadians share. How do we respect the rights of law-abiding sportspersons and hunters who use firearms in perfectly appropriate ways while also dealing with the increasing challenge of gun violence, including the use of weapons — and the RCMP and others can speak to this — that are increasingly violent, military-style assault rifles? Some of the crime scenes and investigations that the RCMP have told me they are doing are involving increasingly high-powered weapons that are being used to perpetrate violence with devastating consequences. Law enforcement needs new and modern tools, and we think this bill is part of those steps in that direction, but we recognize there will still be more work to do once this legislation gets Royal Assent, as we hope, because there are things that will constantly evolve as the threat evolves.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much, minister, for being with us.
Like others around the table, I have received hundreds and hundreds of emails from concerned Canadians, and I want to thank them for reaching out.
My question is around seeking a response to two of the issues they have raised with me. The first issue I hear about over and over again is that this bill will not impact criminals and illegal use of guns, and it’s therefore unnecessary and unwarranted. That is a different perspective than what I read on the Public Safety Canada website, which says that this bill is part of a comprehensive strategy to address gun violence and strengthen gun control in Canada. Those are quite different, and I would like you to comment on that.
Second, this bill takes away the property rights of Canadians to own guns. I’m aware of the 1993 Supreme Court ruling that found that Canadians do not have a constitutional right to own firearms and the argument that owning guns is a privilege, not a right. However, could you help clarify the issue around property rights and guns?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, thank you for the question, and thank you for the work you are doing on a series of issues across the country that are important to me and to many people. I laud you for that work and thank you.
Perhaps Acting Commissioner Flynn can go into the specific difference between what may be on the Public Safety Canada website and what we believe is an important tool for law enforcement to have in the continued fight against the illegal and violent use of firearms.
As to the second part of your question around property rights, I’m glad you used that phrase, because that is an example of some of the confusion that comes from our neighbours to the south. They are 10 times our size. They are very loud on these issues. I have people that come to my constituency office sometimes and talk about whether a grand jury is going to indict someone. That comes from watching American TV shows. There is a lot of confusion around some legal concepts that have their roots in American constitutional law. You referred to a Supreme Court case. It’s not an issue of property rights; it’s an issue of responsible criminal law enacted by Parliament to keep Canadians safe. That’s how we look at this particular question. That’s an importation of an American phrase. I’m not a constitutional expert. Perhaps Matthew from the Department of Justice can explain more. Regardless, I don’t think that has a lot of application in Criminal Code changes in Canada, but he could go into that in more detail.
Mark, did you want to pick up on the first part of that question?
Mark Flynn, Acting Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Yes. I will provide a bit of information that will hopefully help characterize my view on this.
Gang-related homicides involving firearms increased by 27% in 2021. Also, if you look at the number of firearms that we have traced through various tracing efforts, 69% of those firearms were deemed to have been illegally imported into or manufactured in Canada. When you combine those two facts together, you see that legal firearms that are in Canada are likely contributing to the pool of firearms that are being used in gang-related and organized crime homicides. Anything that helps, from a policing perspective, remove the resources available for gangs and organized crime to commit these violent acts is beneficial for public safety, as well as the police and our mandate to enforce the law.
Senator Anderson: Thank you, Minister LeBlanc, for your attendance.
Minister LeBlanc, you spoke about recognizing and upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples, yet in Bill C-21, under clause 110.1(1), there are processes for:
. . . an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting another person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, if the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person against whom the order is sought or of any other person that the person against whom the order is sought should possess any such thing.
This is ex parte.
This is at the risk of further creating disparities in the three territories — the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon — and criminalizing individuals.
I point out that in domestic cases, there is a suspicion of probable cause, whereas Bill C-21 works on reasonable grounds “not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person against whom the order is sought …” In Bill C-21, there appears to be a presumption of guilt when there are no reasonable grounds to have proven that there has been an offence committed. This is problematic.
I want to point out, Minister LeBlanc, that you spoke a lot about hunters and sport hunters. For some, this goes beyond hunting and sport hunting. That’s the case for the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon. This is how we survive. This is how we feed our families. It’s a matter of ensuring food security for our families and our communities. To be lumped in with sport hunters and hunters is not a clear definition.
In the North, we also have travelling courts with intermittent scheduled courts in the communities, as well as two to three generations who live in the same home, and reliance in many communities to ensure safety from predatory animals as well as subsistence hunting to address food security and disparities we face in the North.
Could you tell me, between the mandate, UNDRIP and addressing systemic inequities and disparities, how Bill C-21, given what I have just stated, has factored and taken into account the realities in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, thank you for a number of very good questions.
I wouldn’t purport to say that we have lumped in sportspersons or hunters in the South with, as you properly note, residents in the North for whom hunting is very much about food security. I was Minister of Northern Affairs for a number of months and learned a great deal about food security, the northern food program and totally accept your premise that, for many people in Canada’s North, access to firearms is very much a question of food security and a traditional way of life that we want to respect. We believe that this legislation entirely supports and respects that particular issue. We had a number of consultations with northern governments and northern Indigenous groups, and my colleagues would be happy to share with you an extensive list of people from whom we sought input.
At the front end of your question, you were identifying the provisions of the law around the red flag provisions. Again, the question was long. I’ll try and keep the answer short, but I want Matthew to explain, my having not practised in this area of law before. It’s not a criminal finding. This is about giving law enforcement a chance, on a protective basis, for a temporary order to remove a firearm. We’re not criminalizing people. We’re trying to protect potential victims, in a way. I have had friends that worked on circuit courts in the North. It is a different context, and maybe Matthew could explain. I wouldn’t want us to look like we’re criminalizing people when we are, in fact, trying to protect potential victims of domestic violence by a temporary order.
Mr. Taylor: Thank you, minister.
The Chair: Maybe we can come back to this in the second part. We have five senators still on the list.
Senator M. Deacon: Hello, minister and officials and support. Thank you to all of you for being here today. I have two questions.
We have heard from many Canadians and non-Canadians, and we have met with many groups and many Canadians, from a great range. For me, the youngest was a 7-year-old boy, and then a 93-year-old woman. That represents quite a diversity in this country. If you distill everything we have and everything we see, one of the most common pieces that comes to us is that farmers will not be able to farm and do their work and that hunters will not be able to hunt and do their work. If you had those Canadians in front of you, what would you be saying to them?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, thank you for the question.
That assertion is not accurate. I have heard it, as you have and as we all have. Farmers or people in rural communities who need firearms for pest control purposes, and other hunters, sportspersons, people using firearms in northern and Indigenous communities, they are not targeted or affected or included in these measures that we’re trying to have adopted to specifically go after persons using weapons that are designed specifically to kill the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time. I have cousins in New Brunswick who go hunting for moose. They don’t go to war with moose. This is a fundamental difference.
I’m not surprised. I have been sitting in Parliament for 23 years. I have seen various versions of gun control measures. Accuracy and reliability in terms of what people say is often lost in the opening moments of this conversation. That’s fine; I’m serene with that. We’re doing the best we can in a minority Parliament to have legislation adopted that we think makes a significant difference in protecting communities and people, but we recognize that there is more to be done, and we’ll continue to work with parliamentarians in both places to determine the best way forward.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I think we’re all trying to refine and work through disinformation.
When we look at some of the communications we have had, you know, no doubt, that there is a concern in our sport-shooting communities about this legislation. While there are exemptions for elite-level and Olympian shooters, there is still confusion about how such labels will be determined and if some will be the last generation of sport shooters in Canada because novices will be unable to train at this level. I have led many shooters into the country in big, multi-sports games. They are unique athletes, and they are proud to wear that leaf on their back. How will we make sure they are still able to do that?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, that is a very good question.
In my briefings and understanding of the legislation, I was reassured that we’re not affecting the ability of these elite athletes to access the firearms they need for their sporting competitions. It’s not only the persons who go to these international competitions representing Canada; it’s those who are training and getting ready to, one day, hopefully, have the opportunity to do that.
Talal, we talked about this. Could you reassure the senator with respect to elite sport shooters?
Mr. Dakalbab: Absolutely.
We have been discussing this for a while now with Parliament and stakeholders. I believe you are referring to the handgun freeze and not the assault-style firearms. The handgun freeze will have provisions that will be more detailed in regulations. Further consultations will take place to clearly establish the process for the sport shooters and the people who will be training on how we will establish it. The legislation right now is giving the framework from a legal perspective, but further regulations will come and will continue.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
The Chair: I’m sure we will be coming back to this one later.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, minister and officials, for being here.
This is a very important bill. I live in Toronto. There have been so many incidents of gun crime. Toronto is a safe city, and yet we hear these stories all the time. It’s very scary for those of us who live there and want to continue to live in a safe community.
I want to explore deeper the issue of assault-style weapons. The bill includes a ban on future assault-style weapons but does not affect those that are currently in circulation and are currently legal. I would like to get a better sense of what your plans are to deal with existing assault weapons. Last fall, you introduced in amendments a list of 482 models that you felt were dangerous. I would like to get a commitment from you that those guns are going to be made illegal, and I want a real commitment from you as to how that’s going to be handled. The situation is just not acceptable. We have tens of thousands of guns out there that are illegal, and we’re talking just about the guns that we’re going to deal with down the road. That’s my question.
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator Dasko, you are right. Your city, like other large Canadian cities, has seen an alarming increase — as Deputy Commissioner Flynn said — in these violent crimes. Many of them, but not all of them, involve the weapons that we’re seeking to prohibit. I have a couple of points.
There are the buyback provisions. Many people lawfully purchased a gun that was available, which they ordered from a distributor, many of them received by Canada Post — guns that, by the Order in Council, we now want to prohibit. If we’re going to remove these guns from people who purchased them lawfully, we need the appropriate way to compensate them. That’s exactly what the buyback program will do. That’s 1500 and some models. Talal and others could give you the precise numbers in terms of the models that will no longer be lawfully permitted, senator.
This is an evolving space, as you said, and the technology and the manufacturers are designing, whether it’s magazine size or whether you can modify a particular magazine. A number of these things need to form part of a regulatory package following Royal Assent. We think having the firearms advisory committee of experts is precisely a way to deal with that group of weapons. Putting the 482 in a legislative amendment at the other place was going to ensure that we weren’t going to get this legislation adopted. In a minority parliament, we worked with opposition parties and came up with what we thought is a thoughtful compromise that moves us in the direction you articulated, for which I am totally in agreement. The firearms advisory committee will be a way to get expert advice on how to, in the regulatory context that Talal spoke about a minute ago, ensure that we’re continuing the process of removing these guns that don’t have a place in the lawful pursuit of sports activities or sustenance hunting and that are causing such threat and concern and so much carnage in cities like the great city of Toronto.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. I’m looking at the clock. We have three more senators on the list. We have time for two senators if we have very succinct questions and answers.
Senator Boehm: I will be succinct.
Minister, it’s good to see you. Thanks for being here with your team. Most of my questions have already been asked, but I wanted to make one observation and then ask a question.
This bill is a very controversial bill. We all know that. It has travelled back and forth through the other place, which we call the other place — your place. Amendments have been put in and withdrawn. You are new in the portfolio, so you have inherited this. It’s with us now. You mentioned that you are still meeting with groups. You are seeing PolySeSouvient. There will have to be an outreach campaign when this legislation is passed, as I’m assuming it will be, whether it’s amended or not. Are you meeting with the sports shooting federations, the hunting groups and associations and others who have a very valid interest in how this bill is going to be applied?
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator Boehm, it’s a privilege to see you. I had a chance to work with Senator Boehm when I was a young assistant in Mr. Chrétien’s office 30 years ago.
Senator Boehm: I was the same age then.
Mr. LeBlanc: I’m very happy to see you and very happy to say to you in unequivocal terms that the answer is “yes.” We share your view. We hope the legislation, as I said, gets to Royal Assent, but the regulatory work is not done. There will be government programs around prevention. There will be the buyback program, which is a complicated space to operate in. We’ll have to continue in a thoughtful way to respect all the groups who have very legitimate concerns. We think and hope we can answer their concerns and will continue to diligently work down the list and ensure that it is balanced for exactly the reasons you said.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome, minister. I’d like to talk to you about the Firearms Buyback Program included in the bill. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was talking about $750 million. Do you agree with that figure?
Mr. LeBlanc: Are you talking about the cost of the Firearms Buyback Program?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes, the Firearms Buyback Program, which has been extended to 2025, I believe.
Mr. LeBlanc: We specifically extended the gun amnesty so as not to criminalize people.
Senator Boisvenu: Is the $750 million projected by the Parliamentary Budget Officer the same as what you’re projecting?
Mr. LeBlanc: We haven’t finalized the details of our program. I’ve seen draft documents at the department with partners. I’ve spoken at length with the Quebec Minister of Public Security, Mr. Bonnardel, about the need to have the support of the Sûreté du Québec. That’s one of the reasons why we haven’t announced the final details of the Firearms Buyback Program.
We are aware of the cost involved. It’s a commitment we made during the last election, and we fully intend to set up such a program. I don’t want to get ahead of myself — the Parliamentary Budget Officer hasn’t seen the details of our program. I don’t want to take away his ability to provide you with analysis. Perhaps it’s a bit premature.
Senator Boisvenu: According to the union representing correctional officers at Cowansville Penitentiary, which reports to your department, the City of Cowansville intercepted illegal weapons and drugs worth $700,000 in three months. It is estimated that by 2023, this will reach a value of close to $2 million. Illegal firearms in Canadian penitentiaries are a scourge, and these weapons often enter with the help of drones.
The union tells me that it has been asking the department for eight years now to provide adequate equipment to intercept these weapons, because they jeopardize the safety of guards and other inmates. Nothing has happened in eight years to properly equip penitentiaries to detect these weapons.
Do you have a plan to intervene in this area? I understand that we can intervene when street gangs are involved, but they end up in penitentiaries with the same weapons. This bill won’t change that situation.
Mr. LeBlanc: I agree with you, senator. That was the subject of my first discussion with the Commissioner of the Correctional Service. We discussed this very issue. The arrival of drones is a prime way for people from organized crime to deliver drugs, and even firearms or other weapons into the prison environment. There’s a federal prison in my riding, in Dorchester, New Brunswick. I’ve visited it many times as an MP. I’m aware of the concerns that are being raised. In fact, I’ll be meeting with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers in Montreal this Thursday. I look forward to continuing the conversation.
I don’t think legislative action is what is needed. You’re right, we need to provide tools, funding and support for the extraordinary people who work in the prison environment. The people I’ve met over the years are facing very difficult times. Insecurity is on the rise. So it will be my job to do everything I can to support them and give them the tools and resources they need, because security inside these institutions should be of concern to everyone. Thousands of public servants face these threats every day.
[English]
The Chair: Minister, there is one more senator with a question.
[Translation]
Mr. LeBlanc: I don’t want to interrupt the chair, but I’d be happy to answer Senator Miville-Dechêne’s question.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I want to echo PolySeSouvient’s concerns, particularly with regard to assault-style firearms. You have chosen to ban some of these weapons through regulation.
Can you give us any guarantees? You said there’s an advisory committee that’s going to think about the issue, examine it and make decisions. Can we expect that six months after the bill comes into force, we will indeed have these regulations? I’d be a little generous if I said a year. Can you make a commitment here that we’ll have regulations in force six months after the bill comes into effect, or at least a year after that? Because otherwise, as we know, these things drag on and anything that drags on gets sullied.
Mr. LeBlanc: I understand and have shared your concerns with the PolySeSouvient representatives, as I said this morning. I understand the urgency. I don’t accept that two or three years later, we haven’t finalized this. I intend to act, and I can assure you without hesitation that I will act as quickly as possible. I am aware of other delays. This is a problem for us. There are delays on the electoral front. It’s not a subject you’re very concerned about here, but we are very worried about it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is one year reasonable?
Mr. LeBlanc: I’d be very disappointed if it took us a year. I’m not trying to avoid your question. In fact, I agreed to answer it because it’s a very good question, which I respect. In a regulatory process — and I saw some when I was at Treasury Board — there are periods of notice and consultation. However, this should not be an excuse for delay or for not getting it done as quickly as possible, at the right time. I’d be very surprised if in a year’s time, we haven’t completed this. I don’t know the legal process in the law, in the Canada Gazette. I don’t want to venture an answer.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can’t it be a commitment, rather than saying —
Mr. LeBlanc: Senator, it is a commitment. I’m not trying to avoid the question, but I don’t want to mislead you. It will be as soon as possible. If it’s not in a year, I’ll be as disappointed as you are. I promise not to let things get to that point.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, this brings us to the end of our time with Minister LeBlanc.
Thank you for joining us, minister, and for the extra time, and thank you for the work you do in this job and the other jobs that have been assigned to you. We are very grateful to you.
Senators, Mr. Dakalbab, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Flynn have agreed to stay behind and will continue answering questions for the remainder of the panel. They will be joined at the table by Aaron McCrorie, Vice President, Intelligence and Enforcement Branch, Canada Border Services Agency. Please note that two other officials are in the gallery and may be called to the table to answer questions if required. Moving forward, I ask that members identify to whom each question is being directed wherever possible.
Senator Plett: My question is for the CBSA officials. A principal task for the Canada Border Services Agency is combatting firearms smuggling. This is obviously a serious problem as the current chief of the Toronto police service, Myron Demkiw, has stated that about 86% of crime guns seized in Toronto were smuggled from the United States. He further stated about handguns on the Toronto streets: “They’re not domestically sourced. They are internationally sourced. Our problem in Toronto is handguns from the United States.”
CBSA has received about $86 million in funding in Budget 2018 and Budget 2021. Given that cross-border firearms smuggling is clearly a problem, in your view, does CBSA have sufficient resources to effectively combat this problem, and are you confident and pleased with the results that you are achieving today?
Aaron McCrorie, Vice President, Intelligence and Enforcement Branch, Canada Border Services Agency: Thank you for the question.
The mandate, as you note, of CBSA is both to facilitate goods but also to ensure public safety and security, and it is in that role that we are taking on the issue of gun smuggling.
We have received money through Budget 2018 and Budget 2021. You are correct that it is around $85 million and about $14 million ongoing. That has given us the tools to implement our firearms strategy. It is built around, first and foremost, being intelligence driven. We have increased capacity to develop intelligence to guide our efforts. It is based on collaboration, so working closely with our domestic partners, like the RCMP, but also police of local jurisdiction. Recently we worked with the Sûreté du Québec on Project Reproduction, and it’s given us tools like X-ray machines in post offices, X-ray machines in air cargo and dog detector teams to detect firearms.
In terms of collaboration, we are working very closely with U.S. partners as well. We recently signed an MOU with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to facilitate information exchanges, and we chair, with the U.S., the Cross Border Firearms Task Force that has undertaken a joint threat risk assessment and some joint projects to interdict both those receiving firearms but also target the sources of those firearms in the United States.
Senator Plett: Sir, my question is whether you are pleased with the results that you are achieving, not everything you are doing. Are you getting enough money? When the Toronto police chief says about 86% of crime guns seized in the city were smuggled firearms, I would suggest that we are not getting on top of the smuggling problem. I understand what you are doing, but are you succeeding? Are you having success in what you are doing?
Mr. McCrorie: We can always do more, but we are making a difference. Last year, 2022, we had 540 seizure activities that represented 1,100 firearms, and this year, year-to-date, 560 seizures where we seized 777 firearms. Those are at the border and post-border where we conduct investigations.
One key element — and this is why we talk about being intelligence driven — is each one of those seizures in turn leads to new intelligence and new leads that we can pursue or pursue in partnership with partners like the RCMP and police of local jurisdiction to affect additional seizures domestically.
Is there more to do? Absolutely, but the results we see to date are a great success and we’re very proud of it.
Senator Duncan: Thank you to all the witnesses who are here with us today.
I would like to start with Mr. Flynn. The legislation repeatedly references the Chief Firearms Officers in the provinces. The Chief Firearms Officer for the Yukon is located in Surrey, B.C., for Northwest Territories in Edmonton, and Nunavut in Winnipeg. That is a long way to go when you are trying to enforce, or administer, the legislation. I don’t want to necessarily use the word “enforce.”
While there is capability to delegate, I believe, in the legislation — I have looked through that — that places yet another role on the RCMP, and the RCMP is also the only police service in the three territories. There has been so much put upon the RCMP. They fulfill so many roles in small communities.
Are there increased resources to deal with this? Is there a plan to work with the firearms officers if they are so delegated? Most importantly, are there additional resources to deal with it? Let’s start with that.
Mr. Flynn: With respect to the Chief Firearms Officers and where they are located and resourcing for it and delegation to the RCMP, I will look over my shoulder at my colleague who has far more information on this, but I do not believe there is any increase in RCMP resources for this. Perhaps she could come to the table.
Kellie Paquette, Director General, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: There are firearms officers in all of the areas. They are actually within your regions. You are correct in saying that the CFOs, the Chief Firearms Officers, are located in various provinces.
We are actually reviewing a northern strategy right now. We are looking at whether we need to have placement of Chief Firearms Officers actually in the territories. This is perfect timing. We just kicked off this review. We also have a meeting coming up with Senator Anderson to just talk about the services provided, how they are provided and if we can do things better.
Senator Duncan: Presumably, that would include more resources, then.
My concern for all of the panel is that when we try and construct legislation, one size does not fit all in this country. Dawson City does not have the same issue as downtown Toronto. While, as a legislator, I am eminently sympathetic and empathetic toward the concerns and the situation of gun violence throughout the country, the legislation as it’s constructed will not work in the North, such as the issues of firearms officers or of a provincial court judge being available.
The other key issue that has been raised in the Nova Scotia inquiry and elsewhere has been communication among different organizations. It is critical that the lack and the existence of communications systems in the North be recognized because, again, it is different in all three territories.
I would encourage you, when you are discussing this legislation, to examine the problem and the gaps in the legislation where it doesn’t meet the needs of northern and rural Canada. Thank you.
The Chair: We will leave that advice with our witnesses.
Senator Yussuff: Again, thanks to all of you for being here.
My question has to do with the banning of handguns. Once the ban legislation is passed and gets Royal Assent, the reality is that if someone owns a handgun, using an example that has been brought to my attention, and that person passes away but he or she has been licensed to have that handgun at home in safe storage, what happens to that handgun if they wish to transfer it to a family member? How does that handgun end up being safely transferred, especially in the context where someone may die? What if it’s an heirloom that has been in the family for generations? If they want to keep it, how do we adjust to that? This is a reality that has come up time and time again in the conversation regarding this legislation. I am asking you because it seems to be a gap, but maybe you have some answers that might help me to understand.
Mr. Dakalbab: I hope so.
Just to be clear, the handgun provisions that are in the bill have come into force through regulations right now. They are already in application. Prior to that, Canada had a very strong regulatory framework with handguns.
For somebody who is deceased, they will have some options. First of all, they could render the handgun inoperable and keep it if it has an emotional meaning to the family, for example. Second, they could send it to an authorized business or a person who is authorized to own and purchase a handgun. The third option is that it could be exported, which is a complex process, so I don’t talk about that a lot.
Our regulations in the past allowed the firearm officers to know exactly who has handguns, and in this way, there will be a possible tracing of what happens when somebody is deceased and a follow-up to ensure that either it is surrendered to the police, rendered inoperable or sold to a proper industry. There is already a very good monitoring framework in place from the past, not only with this bill or the regulations that came into force last year.
Senator Yussuff: What if the family wants to transfer it to somebody who is already a licensed family member?
Mr. Dakalbab: It is not allowed any longer, as of last year.
Senator Yussuff: So the legislation did not take that into consideration, that you could transfer it to a family member if you chose to do so?
Mr. Dakalbab: No. This is for in the future, if you wish. When we did the assessment, the advisory said in about 50 years, for sure handguns will be pretty much eliminated. We have around 1.1 million handguns in Canada right now, and in the last 10 years, there was an almost 50% increase, which is a huge increase that we have observed. No, there will be no transfers, and right now, as it stands, transfers are not allowed any longer.
Senator Yussuff: And there is no recognition that the CFO would have the authority to make a decision that they feel would be in the public interest in their domain?
Mr. Dakalbab: Not for handgun transfers. I believe you will be talking to our colleagues Teri and Robert later. The CFOs have discretion on other issues, but to transfer to a family member, it should not happen.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being with us. I have two questions, I hope.
First, my colleague Senator Plett started with an acknowledgment of the U.S. border, the longest border there is, and some of the issues around that. In addition to that thinking, we have seen and heard that many Canadians don’t agree with some of the guns that will be banned as a result of the legislation. Are we worried at this moment or practically thinking about how more Canadians will try to illicitly get guns as a result in anticipation of that, such as semi-automatics? I would like your thoughts on that.
Mr. Dakalbab: I’m happy to provide that.
I am not sure why the public is referring to semi-automatic guns banned by this bill because the technical definition that is in front of the Senate — I am not going to go into the past year because there were a lot of iterations — is prospective. It is for guns that will be designed after Royal Assent. Right now, I don’t believe this is something that’s applicable. I’m trying to understand the fear to be able to answer your question properly because, other than the handgun freeze that came into force already, no banned guns are included in this bill.
Senator M. Deacon: I think therein lies some of the confusion that is part of this. Thank you for addressing that head on, and we’ll see where that information takes us. I think that’s part of what’s misunderstood, and that is what we are trying to clarify today, so thank you for that.
I will carry on with a question that also started earlier around the red flag. This legislation introduces a new red flag law that would allow anyone to make an application to a court for an emergency weapons prohibition order to immediately remove firearms from an individual who poses danger to themselves or others. I am hoping that one of you are able to outline what that would look like in actual practice in terms of timelines. Would the firearms be removed immediately upon application, or is it within 30 days to determine if the removal is actually warranted? What would that look like?
Mr. Dakalbab: I will start and then turn to my colleague from Justice to clarify any legal details.
Let me just clarify for the committee that this is not a new provision. It already exists in the Criminal Code for law enforcement to use. This is an expansion that we heard multiple times was needed, and that’s why we provided this advice to government.
What will happen in this case is that a victim, a doctor, a neighbour or a friend will have the right to seek from a judge that a red flag be issued, which means immediate withdrawal of the guns from the individual that law enforcement will have to exercise as soon as possible. In this provision, clarity was added so that when a victim comes forward, their identity would be protected to ensure this is not being harmful. Furthermore, the government announced a program to, for example, support NGOs for victims and provide them with support, because we know some victims will be too exhausted, to be honest, and might not have the capacity to pursue a legal process. Someone was talking about communication. That will be important. We are working on a one-stop shop, if you wish, where they could easily access this provision online.
I’ll turn to my colleague from Justice Canada. I don’t know if I missed anything from a legal perspective.
Mr. Taylor: I will add that it will be as fast as the current process allows for in the sense that my colleague talked about. There is an existing power in the Criminal Code now for police officers and firearms officers to apply to the court to have guns removed in cases of safety concerns. As my colleague has referenced, it’s expanding to make it so that anybody can make that application. There are two provisions, and one is a warrant provision and one is a warrantless provision. Depending upon the exigence or seriousness of the situation, police officers can move more quickly without warrant to remove firearms in those more serious instances of safety concerns.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I will just finish by saying that since it’s not new, we shouldn’t see a glut in the system. The awareness might be different, but we shouldn’t see delays or gluts in the system because it’s not a new measure.
The Chair: We will perhaps come back to that.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I was just trying to slide it in.
Senator Cardozo: I wonder if I could ask a bit about the regulations. Once this is passed and you are developing regulations, can you give us an idea of which sections of the bill they would be pursuant to? Can you give us a sense of how many?What is the process you would follow? Would you put out a draft for feedback and then put them into effect? How long do you think that’s going to take?
Mr. Dakalbab: Thank you very much.
I’m happy to have this question because there will be some provisions that will come into force through Order in Council to allow us to do the proper work, either from consultation — for example, I know Senator Anderson was referring earlier to a disproportionate impact on Indigenous peoples or people in the North.
There are provisions in the bill that will not come into force immediately at Royal Assent. I’ll give an example. One is to require the revocation of a licence for individuals who have been involved in an act of domestic violence. According to our information, there is a disproportionate impact on men in the North. We have a duty to consult before the coming into force. Therefore, this provision, for example, will come into force through Order in Council; once we have Royal Assent, we will do the consultations properly and bring it forward to the government.
Matthew could correct me if I’m wrong, but I know the Criminal Code amendments that are included will come into force at Royal Assent.
To answer your question, the ones on red flag and the one on increasing minimum penalty to 14 years from 10 years are coming into force at Royal Assent. As for the regulations we’re discussing, they will take the regulatory process, which, depending upon what kinds of consultations and how much feedback we get — and as the minister indicated earlier, I work very closely with my colleagues from Treasury Board of Canada Secretary to ensure we have a critical path. In normal circumstances — I’m not saying which ones — we assess for about 18 months for our regulations to officially come into force.
Senator Cardozo: How do you go about that? Do you put out a draft set of regulations to get feedback, or do you ask open-ended questions?
Mr. Dakalbab: Depending upon the required consultations, we will do the proper consultations and then there will be a publication in the Canada Gazette Part 1. Then we will gather more.
To clarify, the Firearms Act has a unique provision for regulations that requires all regulations to be tabled in both houses for 30 sitting days.
Senator Cardozo: Before they go into effect?
Mr. Dakalbab: Before it comes back to us with the information to be able to propose the final version of the regulation. That’s very unique. This is something with the Firearms Act because the reality of the Firearms Act. You have probably seen firearms regulations in the past sitting for 30 sitting days in the Senate and 30 sitting days in the House before we can move forward.
Senator Cardozo: That’s a long time. Conceivably, we could give you feedback at that point as well.
Mr. Dakalbab: Absolutely. Every regulation amendment to the Firearms Act, unless there are strict exemptions, has to go through that process, and we do follow that process.
Senator Cardozo: Do you have a sense of how many regulations we are talking about or how many sections of the bill will have regulations?
Mr. Dakalbab: We do. I’m happy to provide you with the list. I have it here, and I don’t mind providing it to you. It is a list of which provisions will be coming into force through Order in Council and which will be coming into force immediately at Royal Assent. That will give you a bit of an idea of which legislation we’re talking about and which provisions will be —
Senator Cardozo: That would be helpful. Because there are so many different —
Mr. Dakalbab: Mr. Chair, we will provide it.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Flynn, I’d like to come back to the photos I showed Minister LeBlanc. In fact, he leaned towards you. Have you checked with the Lahache shooting club in Kahnawake? I see that they use weapons that fire 20 bullets in less than five seconds, and you can either rent or buy them. Have any checks been made with this shooting club to determine whether the weapons used and sold are legal?
[English]
Mr. Flynn: I’m not aware if any of the RCMP detachments or any of the police of jurisdiction have checked those locations to determine the legality of any of the firearms that are being used there, but it is certainly something that we can take offline and look into.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: The minister says he’s going to consult experts, but I’d like to know your point of view.
Now, I have a question for Mr. McCrorie. Police services agree that the Akwesasne reserve is the place most used by traffickers to bring in illegal weapons and other items. I had the privilege, during the Oka crisis, of working on the Akwesasne reserve for about a year, only to find that despite the best efforts of the police, it’s a major illicit gateway to Canada.
I’d like to know what proportion of the additional financial resources allocated has been used by your services to monitor this border crossing. How much sophisticated equipment has been made available to your agents to measure the efforts that have been made?
[English]
Mr. McCrorie: Thank you for the question.
In Ontario, we have taken a novel approach when it comes to gun smuggling. At the risk of being too bureaucratic, we have three different regions in Ontario, but Ontario is a single jurisdiction so we have combined our resources in all three regions to have a dedicated task force in Ontario to tackle firearms smuggling. As I’ve noted, they work collaboratively with other police of jurisdiction, such as the OPP, Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service and the cross-border element of it. We are focused on working with U.S. partners, not only to interdict the arrival here in Canada but ideally to stop the source as well. Through forums like the Cross Border Firearms Task Force, we have formed a strong working relationship with U.S. colleagues to that very end.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Dakalbab, I always have a lot of reservations when we say we have to pass a bill and then regulations will follow. I’d like to see the regulations passed at the same time as the bill, to avoid any surprises. It’s easy to see the quagmire the government is currently in with the Web giants, where after passing Bill C-18, there are regulations to come. Are you aware of the grievances and concerns of certain groups? Why not put the regulations on the table today?
Mr. Dakalbab: I’m happy to answer. We’d love to; unfortunately, it really takes legal authority to develop regulations. We have no choice but to wait until it becomes law, since we can’t work with proposals that haven’t received Royal Assent.
However, as I said earlier, really, the Firearms Act gives us the responsibility, if not the legal obligation, to make sure it’s done within 30 days in the Senate. We’ll make sure it’s done and that you’re all aware of it, especially this committee. I can assure you that for the time being, as long as we don’t have legal authority, we don’t have the right to work on regulations.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you all. I have two questions, one for Mr. Dakalbab and one for Mr. Flynn.
I was trying to get some data from the Library of Parliament on the percentage of licensed firearms versus unlicensed firearms used in homicides and suicides, and I was sent this answer:
Statistics Canada has limited information on the registration status of recovered firearms used in homicides. It is unable to provide a definitive answer on the exact number of homicides committed with registered firearms versus unregistered firearms, and Stats Canada does not have data on the legal registration of firearms used outside of homicides.
It seems to me we have a problem with the granularity of data. We need this data for good policy development. Could you help us understand whether there are any plans to improve this data set and what’s being done?
Mr. Dakalbab: Absolutely.
It is a gap that we are aware of. That’s why, mostly in the last two years — I don’t want to steal the thunder of our colleagues from the RCMP — we have been focusing a lot of efforts from a policy perspective on the tracing. In tracing of firearms that are used at crime scenes, we’re working very closely with the provinces, territories and all law enforcement to ensure that they are seeking the tracing. Usually this is something that the government is pretty good at doing, 100% of the tracing, but in all tracing, it has significantly improved. I will leave it to my colleagues from the RCMP to provide you with the data from the last year and a half on the tracing we are doing. This is the only way that we can ensure it is working with Statistics Canada. We do have a special program with Public Safety to establish the data, but this gap existed. We’re working on addressing it and ensuring that we have the proper numbers to do proper tracing.
If you don’t mind, I’ll turn to Mark Flynn to give more data on the improvement that we’ve been doing.
Mr. Flynn: In regard to tracing, I can give you some statistics. In 2022, there were approximately 5,000 firearms that were traced; in 2021, 3,200; 2020, 2,000; and then fairly consistent around 2,000 going back in the time that I have stats here, back to 2018.
You can see an improvement and a concerted effort, and there is ongoing collaboration, as my colleague Mr. McCrorie from CBSA articulated. There is a lot of collaboration across the border as well with our American friends.
Senator Kutcher: I’m glad to see that that’s starting. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming that once you get this data, it will be populated with Stats Canada so we can ask for that. That’s good to know.
Thank you, Mr. Flynn, for the tracing issue, because that was my question to you. It was a perfect segue. What proportion of guns seized at crime scenes are actually traceable? Why can some guns not be traced? Is there a notice on the manufacturer to make the guns traceable? Help me understand this conundrum here.
Mr. Flynn: I will start, and I may need to turn to my colleague if you require more granularity than I can provide.
Working from the stats for 2022, there were 5,022 firearm traces done. Of those, 1,888 were successfully traced to the point at which they entered the illegal market.
Senator Kutcher: That’s quite a small number, proportionally.
Mr. Flynn: It is two thirds. We considered it to be a success to start with.
Senator Kutcher: All right.
Mr. Flynn: There are 3,000 that could not be traced to the point at which they entered the illegal market.
I’ll stop there, and I’ll turn to my colleague. Is there additional granularity to those statistics you’re able to share, or is that it?
As you know, with many firearms, there are no serial numbers, whether they have been removed, ghost guns, et cetera.
Senator Kutcher: Is there anything that manufacturers of guns can be asked to do to make them more traceable?
The Chair: We are running short of time, so we do have to move on. These are great questions.
Senator Kutcher: Could we get a written response for that?
The Chair: If we could, that would be very helpful. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My question is for the representative of the Department of Justice.
I’m trying to understand the philosophy behind this bill, which aims to tighten the rules to fight organized crime. On the one hand, maximum sentences are being increased to 14 years. Under the old registry, which provided for 10-year sentences, no sentence of that length has been handed down in 20 years. On the other hand, minimum sentences are being abolished for possession of illegal weapons or for crimes committed with a weapon.
Recently in Quebec, a person arrested with illegal weapons and charged with drug trafficking was returned home to serve a two-year sentence there. Another person arrested for crossing the border with weapons was sent home.
With such a philosophy, how do you expect to curb organized crime, knowing that neither a maximum nor a minimum sentence will be imposed? The culprits may even return home. I’m trying to understand how this philosophy will have an impact on organized crime.
Mr. Dakalbab: Thank you very much for the question. To put things in context, the bill, as the minister indicated, is only one element of the work being done to counter gangs. The bill also deals with domestic violence, mental health and other problematic realities in Canada related to firearms.
Senator Boisvenu: I understand. This bill is being passed, and Bill C-75 was passed in 2019, decriminalizing crimes committed with firearms. Bill C-5 is being passed to send gun-wielding criminals home. I’m trying to understand this philosophy, when, to send a strong message, we should be imposing minimum sentences on people who smuggle guns across borders or who are found guilty of possessing illegal weapons.
Mr. Dakalbab: As you know, I can’t talk about the situation of judges or laws that have already been passed.
Senator Boisvenu: This has nothing to do with judges. Bill C-5 has nothing to do with judges. It’s your government.
Mr. Dakalbab: Well, it’s not mine.
Senator Boisvenu: You work for the government.
Mr. Dakalbab: But I want to assure you that I personally work with the provinces, territories and all police forces in Canada on programs. In Quebec, for example, I hear a lot of positive feedback about the guns and gangs programs to make sure the police have better records.
Senator Boisvenu: Have you heard any positive feedback from police about Bill C-5?
Mr. Dakalbab: No, I’m not talking about Bill C-5. I’m talking about the guns and gangs programs.
Senator Boisvenu: It’s this bill that’s sending people back home.
Mr. Dakalbab: Unfortunately, I can’t comment on Bill C-5. It’s a law that already exists in Canada.
Senator Boisvenu: We simply need to be consistent.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you again for being here.
I have some questions, just for clarification, on the assault weapons provisions of Bill C-21. We’re looking at new assault-style firearms that are to be prohibited. Does that mean that all automatic- and semi-automatic-style firearms will be prohibited in the future? Is that what it is saying, or am I missing something here? I see the word “semi-automatic” is used. Does that mean that just certain types of assault-style weapons are going to be prohibited in the future and others will not be prohibited in the future?
Mr. Dakalbab: I’m happy to walk you very quickly through the criteria that are proposed in the bill.
The bill speaks to firearms that are not handguns, that discharge centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and were originally designed with a detachable magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more and designed and manufactured on or after the date of Royal Assent. All these criteria have to be met for the gun, in the future, to be prohibited in Canada. So it’s not all.
Senator Dasko: Does that mean that there will be other assault-style weapons still out there in a legal situation? Is that what I understand from this?
Mr. Dakalbab: The purpose is to define what, in Canada, is considered an assault-style weapon and not welcome in this society. Every other gun that does not fit all the criteria will remain subject to assessment. Either it’s going to be restricted, non-restricted or prohibited, depending on other criteria from other laws, but this one is the specific criteria. So not all of them, for sure.
Senator Dasko: In terms of what’s going to be prohibited.
Mr. Dakalbab: Exactly.
Senator Dasko: So when something is prohibited, that means you cannot own it.
Mr. Dakalbab: It cannot enter our market or even be fabricated in Canada.
Senator Dasko: You can’t own it.
Mr. Dakalbab: No.
Senator Dasko: You can’t import it, sell it or possess it.
Mr. Dakalbab: Exactly.
Senator Dasko: Okay. I think that clarifies it.
I want to go back to the Order in Council from 2021 where the government prohibited about 1,500 makes and models of assault-style firearms. Did those 1,500 models include all of the assault-style weapons in the country at that time?
Mr. Dakalbab: No.
Senator Dasko: Was that a comprehensive ban?
Mr. Dakalbab: I want to be careful with the word “assault” here.
Senator Dasko: It’s used as a descriptor. It’s not a legal term, I understand.
Mr. Dakalbab: There are clear criteria in the Order in Council from 2020 that were established in order to identify which guns are prohibited. Any of these guns that are part of this criteria were prohibited at the time. We were talking about 1,500 but not all the guns in Canada. Actually, there are a lot of makes and models of guns in Canada that are still legal. The last number I saw — it’s not the exact number — was over 19,000 different models that still exist.
Senator Dasko: Yes, but they are mainly for hunting, are they not?
Mr. Dakalbab: Non-restricted, which could be used, and some are restricted, yes.
Senator Dasko: Right. So with these 1,500 that were prohibited, is this what the buyback is based on?
Mr. Dakalbab: Correct.
Senator Dasko: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: We’re going into what will be a brief second round.
Senator Plett: I have two questions. I will ask the member of the CBSA to be fairly succinct so I can ask the witness from the RCMP a question as well.
You talked about guns being seized at the border, and I talked about that. Can you tell me how many of all the guns you seized were actually seized from organized smugglers? I asked an Order Paper question quite some time go, and I got an answer that, in 2019, about 10% of guns seized at the border were crime guns, and then in 2020, only 2% of all guns seized by CBSA were identified as crime guns. Would those figures be correct? I think that’s a fairly low number.
Mr. McCrorie: I will try to be succinct. Of all the firearms we seized — last year, it was about 1,100 — about 400 were seized at the border. Of the ones seized at the border, I don’t have the data readily at hand, but I would suggest about 4% to 5% would be what we call —
Senator Plett: Would it be correct to say that it’s 8 of 470?
Mr. McCrorie: I don’t think it’s eight. I think it’s a higher number than that. However, I don’t have that data readily at hand.
Senator Plett: The Order Paper answer was 8 out of 470.
Mr. McCrorie: The other point is that a significant proportion of the guns we seized away from the border were typically associated with crime. We have two datasets: those at the border and those away from the border.
Senator Plett: Oh, you made an assumption.
Here is my question for the RCMP. Brian Sauvé, President of the National Police Federation, which represents RCMP officers as well, testified before the House of Commons on this bill. He stated that the bill will not
… address issues of organized crime or gang violence, illegal weapon smuggling, systemic causes of crime and emerging threats … firearms will continue to make their way into Canada.
Would you agree with Mr. Sauvé? Do you believe this bill is a wise use of the government’s time and resources? What does this bill add to the effort of fighting gun crime in Canada and to the resources and tools that the police do not already have?
Mr. Flynn: I believe this bill will aid in reducing violence —
Senator Plett: You disagree with Mr. Sauvé?
Mr. Flynn: I think it all comes down to the term “address.” I don’t think this bill alone will solve the problem. This bill does not speak to solving the root causes of organized crime violence and domestic violence, et cetera. This is a tool for law enforcement to use — and for the public, when you are looking at the different types of red flags we spoke about already. This is about providing additional tools to help reduce the harm that comes from firearms that are seen so frequently in domestic violence and in the hands of organized crime and gangs in their violent acts that take place in urban areas.
I read some statistics to you earlier that demonstrate how criminals do use some of these firearms in their acts. I believe that anything that helps reduce firearms that are designed for almost the sole purpose of killing or wounding as many people as quickly as possible will absolutely help public safety and will help police combat those types of activities.
Senator Plett: So the law enforcement community, if you will, is definitely divided on this?
Mr. Flynn: I don’t believe I would use the word “divided.” I think there are varying —
Senator Plett: Well, you wouldn’t use the word “divided” and you wouldn’t use the word “address.” Mr. Sauvé used the word “address,” and you are disagreeing. That, to me, would mean divided.
Mr. Flynn: My words were about the meaning of the word “address.” To me, the word “address” means “in its entirety.” I am saying that this bill will contribute to but not solve it in its entirety. When I use the word “address,” I take it to mean that it will take care of the problem.
The Chair: We will move on to the next question.
Senator Yussuff: I want to ask a question that builds on a question my colleague asked earlier in regard to trafficking, specifically. Can you give me the average sentence currently for trafficking illegal firearms and the proposed changes in the legislation regarding trafficking going forward? Obviously, there are two realities. There is the proposal to bring a harsher sentence for those who are trafficking, and there’s the current reality of what the average sentence for those who are convicted of trafficking firearms in the country is.
Mr. Dakalbab: I’ll turn to my colleague, Matthew, if he has it. If not, we’ll get back to you.
Mr. Taylor: I do have it. I’ll start with the statistics and then answer the second part of your question. I can happily provide this as well, if you would like it.
In 2020-21, there were no convictions under 103. In 2019-20, there was one conviction resulting in imprisonment of more than two years. In 2018, sentencing was from as low as three to six months to more than two years. So the sentences are what they are.
I would say a couple of things. The point about increasing the maximum penalty does a couple of things. First, it shows Parliament’s view that the offences for which the maximum is increased are deserving of a more stringent criminal justice system response. The Supreme Court, in a decision called Friesen, commented on how increased maximums are a signal that sentencing ranges for those offences should increase. The objective here with increasing the maximum penalty is to shift the sentencing range upwards. Of course, fundamentally, any sentence imposed has to be reflective of the principles of proportionality, the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.
On the issue of mandatory minimum penalties, it’s absolutely true that a number of those have been repealed. However, repealing mandatory minimum penalties does not in any way deviate from the responsibility of the court. The court is still required to impose the sentence that they think is appropriate, reflecting the seriousness of the offence. Nothing changes in that respect.
Senator Cardozo: My question is for Acting Commissioner Flynn, and it is in regard to the mass casualties and the Mass Casualty Commission in Nova Scotia. To what extent does this bill respond to the commission’s report and to the issues that were raised in that report, directly or indirectly?
Mr. Flynn: My colleague here says that he is able to succinctly respond to that.
Mr. Dakalbab: Thank you very much. I’m leading the coordination efforts of the government of Canada in collaboration as well with other provinces and territories on the Mass Casualty Commission report — a very sad and unfortunate situation.
The technical definition actually does respond directly to Recommendation C.21. Oddly enough, it is the same number in the inquiry report. We are working very closely with each of the recommendations to provide advice to government eventually. What we see in this bill, especially the technical definition, is pretty much reflective of what was written in the recommendation of the Mass Casualty Commission report.
Senator Cardozo: Clause 42 talks about a report to the federal minister. Does that report become public as well? Is that report made public?
Mr. Dakalbab: Do you mean from the Mass Casualty —
Senator Cardozo: No, sorry, I’m coming back to the bill here.
Mr. Dakalbab: I am not privy to this clause, unfortunately. We can look at it and get back to you.
Senator Cardozo: The Commissioner of Firearms is required on a yearly basis to provide a report to the federal minister.
Mr. Dakalbab: Sorry, I wasn’t sure which one you were referring to.
Yes, this one will be part of the report that the commissioner will provide. To your question as to whether it will be public, they will make sure that it is public, yes.
Senator Cardozo: Is that in the act, or are you just giving us that verbal commitment?
Mr. Dakalbab: Are you referring to the clause?
Senator Cardozo: Yes.
Mr. Dakalbab: The clause says that this has to be available information and will be public. That is a guarantee. It is not at RCMP discretion.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Flynn. Mr. Flynn, there has been some confusion in recent years about which assault weapons should be prohibited.
Can you give us an idea of the number of people assigned to this work over the past year or two at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Considering the recruitment difficulties you’re having, are you currently sufficiently numerous and well equipped to carry out analyses on current weapons and on the new ones that will come onto the market?
Can you give us an idea of how this department works at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
Mr. Flynn: Thank you for your question.
[English]
The RCMP has invested a lot of time and effort in training both internals of the RCMP as well as across our law enforcement community to ensure that all police officers, as they are doing their daily work, are well informed of the various elements of this legislation and in firearms enforcement in general.
With respect to resources, I don’t have the exact numbers, and I’m not sure whether my colleague does, but we can commit to providing you after this meeting any numbers as far as what the RCMP has in its firearms program.
Any type of public safety initiative and anything that is done to help contribute and give law enforcement new tools has a cost and a benefit effect to it. Even though there are additional resources being applied to a problem, much of it through funded positions, there’s also a positive impact on our day-to-day operations through the reduction in the violence and the reduction in the access to such firearms.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Do you ever assist the Akwesasne police force? We know that it’s a well-organized police force. It’s a very tough territory, by the way, to police, with the St. Lawrence and St. Regis rivers. It’s difficult to intercept boats crossing at night.
Is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police called in to assist the Akwesasne police force? A boat has been added. Can you tell us about the assistance you provide to the Akwesasne police force?
[English]
Mr. Flynn: As you stated, the Akwesasne Mohawk police are a very capable police force, and the RCMP works extremely closely with them and has an embedded member of the RCMP with them in many of their operations and with their police force. Our Cornwall detachment is in that area of operation. As I stated, they work extremely closely with them as well as their U.S. counterparts.
The Chair: Colleagues, this brings us to the end of the panel.
I would like to thank Mr. Dakalbab, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Flynn, Mr. McCrorie and Ms. Paquette for the time you have dedicated to be with us today. You have helped us considerably with this study and provided good answers to the questions today. Beyond this, we thank you for everything else that you do in your very important jobs and lives and the contributions that makes to Canadians across the country. On behalf of the committee and the Senate, thank you for the work that you do outside of this room. It is hugely important, and it is hugely appreciated.
We will now continue with our next panel. For this next hour, we have the pleasure of welcoming, from Alberta’s Chief Firearms Office, Dr. Teri Bryant, Chief Firearms Officer; and from the Saskatchewan Firearms Secretariat, Robert Freberg, Commissioner and Chief Firearms Officer. Thank you, Dr. Bryant and Mr. Freberg, for joining us today. I invite you to present your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our committee members. I remind you that each of you has five minutes for your testimony.
Teri Bryant, Chief Firearms Officer, Alberta Chief Firearms Office, Government of Alberta: Thank you for inviting me to appear today.
Bill C-21 is misguided. Its burden falls overwhelmingly on already heavily regulated, law-abiding firearms owners, and it is premised on the prohibition of specific types of firearms, a failed approach to reducing violence. If this bill cannot be abandoned, it requires, at minimum, significant amendment. All Canadians should oppose this bill in its current form, whether they own or even like firearms.
Those most directly affected by this bill are, of course, law-abiding firearms owners. This bill will effectively put an end to many long-established, safe, internationally recognized target shooting sports by cutting off the flow of new entrants. Even those sports that use single-shot, muzzle-loading black powder flintlock pistols, a Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-era technology over 200 years old, will die away. This loss will have no conceivable public safety benefit. For many individuals and communities, these sports are an important part of their heritage. They also serve to socialize new firearms owners into the safe and responsible use of firearms as a group activity.
If we allow this bill to shrink the pool of handgun owners, membership at shooting ranges will shrink, putting their economic viability at risk. Hunters and others who rely on these ranges to practice will be left without a safe place to shoot. Firearms businesses and the many thousands of hard-working Canadians they employ will also be gravely affected. The handgun transfer freeze, combined with the Order in Council of May 2020, has eroded much of the market that sustains these mostly small, family-owned businesses. Many are barely hanging on, and some have already been forced to close.
Canadians concerned about protecting citizens from injustice should be gravely concerned. Even if ultimately found innocent after an accusation that results in revocation of their handgun registrations, the prohibition on the issuance of new handgun registration certificates will prevent individuals from recovering their previous privileges. If there are flaws in Canada’s procedures for removing firearms from those who should not have them, these flaws are not in a lack of powers for CFOs to do so but in the resources most CFOs have available to apply them.
Canadians concerned with property rights should be gravely concerned by the hundreds of millions of dollars of lawfully acquired property that has been rendered effectively unsaleable at any reasonable price. Already, thousands of handguns worth many millions of dollars are stuck in estates, prevented from finding willing buyers by the regulatory freeze on handgun transfers. Many historic artifacts and cherished family heirlooms may end up being needlessly destroyed. Because the precipitous imposition of the handgun transfer freeze overwhelmed the transfer processing system in the months between the announcement and the imposition of the freeze, many who wanted to sell their handguns as an estate planning measure were unable to do so. These financial consequences are manifestly unjust.
Canadians concerned about public safety should be gravely concerned because this measure will do nothing to enhance public safety and will undermine it in ways large and small. Many individuals whose acquisition of a handgun could enhance public safety will be prevented from acquiring the equipment they need, such as instructors teaching the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. Many smaller police forces and security companies will find the ranges where they practice will close.
Our firearms control system is already riddled with inconsistencies and really needs to be redesigned from scratch, yet Bill C-21 would further worsen this confusion by defining prohibited long guns based on date of manufacture rather than any proven objective criteria. It will also centralize life-and-death decisions on Authorizations to Carry by the Commissioner of Firearms, an official far too removed from the field to make timely, informed decisions. These measures will undermine confidence in our firearms control system at precisely the time when everyone’s efforts should be focused on strengthening societal confidence in our institutions.
For all these reasons and many more, I hope that honourable senators will initiate a thorough review of this deeply flawed legislation and abandon it, or at least amend it significantly to strengthen public safety, allow legitimate shooting sports to continue and depoliticize this issue so we can all return to the hard daily work of ensuring maximum pubic safety. My staff and I stand ready to assist with more detailed support in this effort to ensure that what emerges from your process of sober second thought is a bill that all Canadians deserve, one that protects public safety in a measured and balanced way.
[Translation]
I’ll be happy to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Bryant.
Robert Freberg, Commissioner and Chief Firearms Officer, Saskatchewan Firearms Secretariat, Government of Saskatchewan: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee as it studies Bill C-21.
Given the complexity of firearms legislation and regulations, I have also brought with me Blaine Beaven, our senior legal counsel from Saskatchewan, who can provide some guidance when we get into questions.
The Saskatchewan Firearms Office’s mandate is to promote firearm safety and ensure that Saskatchewan’s firearms community has a strong voice on these important issues. The office has jurisdiction over the licensing, storing, transportation, carrying and use of firearms in the province. The office also focuses on intensive public education and community outreach to citizens about safe firearm use, storage and transportation. We have now expanded from our original mandate to include the establishment and operation of the new provincial Firearms Ballistics Lab to provide timely testing for law enforcement and also conduct prosecutions of offences under the Saskatchewan Firearms Act and manage the provincial Firearms Compensation Committee.
The Government of Saskatchewan strictly enforces the federal Firearms Act and holds accountable those who do not comply. Revocations and refusals of firearms licences in the province have increased threefold since Saskatchewan assumed administration of the federal Firearms Act in September 2021. However, the Government of Canada has yet to compensate the province at all for any of its costs of approximately $5 million to date, all costs incurred in our administration of the Canadian Firearms Program currently. The Province of Saskatchewan, however, currently budgets upwards of $8 million per year now that the Saskatchewan Firearms Office has taken over administering the federal Firearms Act, overseeing the provincial Firearms Ballistics Lab, prosecuting offences and advocating on behalf of licensed firearms owners.
In Saskatchewan, a significant proportion of firearms used in criminal activity are illegally acquired firearms. For example, firearms may be stolen and used to commit further crimes, but generally, these are not handguns or restricted or prohibited firearms. Rather, they are predominantly non-restricted or firearms that have been modified or home built.
Legal firearms owners have an important role to play, of course, in enhancing public safety, which is why Saskatchewan is focusing a great deal of effort on public education to ensure safe storage, licensing and use of firearms. Properly storing firearms can prevent firearms of any kind from getting into the wrong hands and greatly enhance public safety.
Banning and seizing firearms is not the solution. This fact has overwhelmingly been proven over and over again in many studies and in other countries that have taken actions similar to those our current federal government is looking at. Comparing Canada to the United States statistically is not appropriate as they do not have the regimented laws that currently exist in Canada regarding licensing, mandatory training, safe storage and effectively regulatory frameworks.
As a rule, CFOs across Canada have had little or no consultation whatsoever on firearms legislation, and they need to be directly involved as the front-line regulators enforcing these regulations — I should say “enforcing but providing the regulatory framework.”
Unfortunately, the announcement of this proposed legislation and subsequent OECs has dramatically increased inquiries from our stakeholders and therefore negatively impacted our agency’s ability to perform our primary duties and related public safety investigations with absolutely no resources, financial or otherwise, being provided by the federal government or any other provincial CFO agencies.
This legislation expects and trusts law-abiding firearms owners to voluntarily turn in their handguns for destruction without compensation, potentially after multiple decades of safe and legal ownership, storage and use. Ironically, this legislation does not trust those same owners now to engage in the commerce of purchasing and selling handguns between each other.
While Bill C-21 was being studied by the House of Commons, it was made clear that there was no intention to provide compensation for the destruction of handguns. In Saskatchewan, however, the Saskatchewan Firearms Act, which has been recently passed, mandates that where the federal government seeks to expropriate handguns or any other firearms, including the ones in Bill C-21, and renders them of no value, the fair market price must be paid by the federal government prior to their destruction.
Police agencies should not be in the business of seizing firearms from law-abiding firearms owners but dealing exclusively with those individuals or criminal organizations that use firearms illegally. Police resources across Canada are so limited as it is, and such seizures should not be their priority.
If passed, Bill C-21 would enact a slow ban on handguns and would codify the current prohibition that was regulated without notice in October 2022, which prohibits the transfer of handguns between licensed individuals in most circumstances. As a result, handgun owners will have almost no other financial opportunities to recover their investment. An option currently legally available to those owners is to simply sell the component parts of the firearm, that is, the components that do not contain the registration or serial number of the firearm, which can easily be sold to another licensed individual or business. In some cases, it’s been reported that the individual components being stripped are actually potentially fetching a higher price than assembled firearms.
Mr. Chair, I believe that to better safeguard firearms transfers and ownership, the chief firearms officers in each province should be permitted to transfer the existing registration certificates for handguns between licensed owners. That would maintain the overall value of firearms and serve to reduce the potential of parting out or existing handguns for compensation that, frankly, could be possibly diverted into illegal 3-D-manufactured firearms.
Further, this would potentially mitigate the risk of handguns from the United States being diverted to an unlicensed individual as they are not easily traced once the owner is deceased. By the time law enforcement, the Canadian firearms program or our CFO offices become aware of that occurring, it can take up to five years of time to have actually passed when the person’s licence expires because we only find out that the person has been deceased when they come up for renewal. As the law presently stands, individuals who possess firearms through the operation of an estate do not actually need a firearms licence to dispose of the firearm but do require the authorization that they must seek out. With limited options to realize the value of an estate asset, there is a risk for the illegal sale of firearms.
Licensed firearms owners are simply not the problem and represent a minimal risk to themselves and others. The sports they compete in are highly regulated, including the purchase, sale, transportation, use and storage of these firearms. The shooting ranges they are using for target practice are approved by the CFO under the Canadian firearms program. These same facilities are shared by law enforcement daily and will certainly cease to be in existence if the recreational firearms communities are no longer able to support them through membership and usage fees. This will have a very negative impact on law enforcement agencies across Canada who heavily rely on these for training.
To conclude, Mr. Chair, Saskatchewan is always supportive of gun control legislation that continues to improve public safety. Any proposed legislation must balance the privileges currently provided to responsible law-abiding firearms owners with strict enforcement and accountability for those who commit violent criminal offences involving firearms. Significant study should be undertaken on Bill C-21 to determine if it is appropriate to be passed and to determine if the potential costs are appropriate compared to minimal deliveries on public safety. There is also the increased workload of police services in dealing with surrendered handguns with the minimal resources that they already have.
The Saskatchewan firearms office and our team are prepared to assist in any way possible with the study of Bill C-21. I must tell you I am very committed to public safety and am very proud of what our firearms officers do every day, alongside law enforcement, to make Saskatchewan a safer place. We have also partnered with many Indigenous communities to develop safety programs where we’re embedding firearms officers in their communities to help increase licensing and compliance. We’re very proud of what we’re doing in Saskatchewan.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to share that with you today.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Freberg.
We will now proceed to questions. We have an hour to move through this session. In order to ensure that each member is able to participate fully, we’re going to stay with four minutes for the questions and answers. It would help if you keep your questions succinct and identify the person to whom you are addressing the question. The first question goes to our deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our witnesses for being with us.
My first question is for Ms. Bryant.
Ms. Bryant, you’ve done a good job of setting out the damage done to shooting sports by Bill C-21, but we’d like to hear your comments on other aspects of the bill.
Do you have any statistics for your province that would tell us what proportion of crimes committed in Alberta are committed with illegal weapons that would never have been registered in the first place? Can you tell us how Bill C-21 becomes an advantage or a tool to better fight organized crime that doesn’t use legal weapons? What would scare off organized gang members?
Ms. Bryant: Thank you for the questions.
Unfortunately, I don’t think there are any good statistics in Canada to give a precise answer to your questions about the proportion of firearms that come from domestic or foreign sources, and all those aspects of the problem. It’s a very important question, and that’s why, as part of the growth of our office, we’ve set up a unit to analyze the data. We will soon have a statistics specialist to answer these questions.
So far, I think this is perhaps the biggest problem in creating a good firearms policy.
Senator Dagenais: My second question is for Mr. Freberg.
Mr. Freberg, from a political and social standpoint, I’d like to know how Bill C-21 is being received by hunters and sport shooters in Saskatchewan.
I’m sure you have in your files handguns that have been properly registered by sport shooters, who comply with the law. Apart from the athletes who will have special rights, according to the minister, what will happen to those who shoot without competing?
[English]
Mr. Freberg: In Saskatchewan, we have 115,000 licensed nonrestricted firearms licence holders. About 65,000 of those have RPALs with the ability to purchase handguns that are used for sports shooting, because that’s their primary purpose; you can’t use them for hunting or other purposes under provincial and hunting regulations and federal legislation.
But as for the feedback that we’re getting, we go to the gun shows and speak with the stakeholders — as does CFO Bryant — and there is no support for this. The main reason is that for many of the firearms that are categorized in the bill, a lot of focus has been put on the AR-15. In Saskatchewan, we have about 1,200 AR-15s that are registered in the province, and they have not been used in any type of criminal matter. We haven’t had one single case where the AR-15 has been utilized. I’m not even aware that there are that many in Canada across the board, other than the tragedy in Nova Scotia, I believe, which was illegally acquired and smuggled from the U.S. But from registered owners, it’s non-existent.
For the handgun shooters, the only place they can discharge a handgun is on a licensed range. They all buy memberships to their local clubs. They support their local wildlife federations who buy habitat land. They build trout ponds. They mentor youth on hunter safety programs, and they deliver safety courses. With the handguns going away, a lot of the new people coming into the sport are purchasing handguns and getting the training. By taking that away, we have also lost the ability to maintain the instructors. Those same instructors teach the regular PAL course as well, and frankly, we’re losing instructors at a very fast pace because some of our older instructors are leaving and we can’t get new ones to come in. They can’t instruct the handgun course because they can’t even buy handguns to use and deactivate for the purposes of training. It’s devastating across the province.
ADM Dakalbab was saying that, well, we’re not affecting hunters or ranchers with these firearms. The Mini-14, for example, is one of the restricted firearms and was used in the terrible, terrible tragedy in Quebec and other places, but that firearm is very predominant in Saskatchewan for hunting coyotes. In different variations, it is very common in Indigenous communities, as is the SKS rifle that was originally on the list but came off because there wasn’t consultation done. They are a very popular firearm in Indigenous communities. Again, they have a bad reputation because there have been tragedies committed with them.
The whole purpose is to make sure that the people holding them are licensed, we have got some governance over them, they are being trained and they are being responsible with locking up their firearms. Since I have started with the Government of Saskatchewan, we have put an immense effort into that. We’re one of the few provinces that are actually in the process of moving an MOU forward with Indigenous partners to get the licensing up. We have communities in the north, for example, one with 1,600 people in a community with 12 licensed individuals. Well, there is a lot more sustenance hunting going on up there than 12 people. They are not feeding 1,600 people in the community. We need to work with them to get a solution.
The Chair: Thank you. I have allowed this to go over time because it’s a question on the minds of many of our members.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
My question is for both of you. As you know, under the red flag provision of this bill, anyone can go to the court and ask a judge to seize the gun or suspend the licence of a person who owns a gun if they believe that they pose a threat to anyone else or themselves. The criminal justice section of the Canadian Bar Association has said the following:
… the current law contains sufficient powers to accomplish the goal of seizing weapons believed to have been used in a crime or removing them from the hands of persons who are believed to be a danger to themselves or to others.
This provision will impact the firearms officers across the country. What consultation did the federal officers have with each of your offices in relation to this provision before the bill was introduced?
Ms. Bryant: I can answer that very quickly and save us time. No consultation whatsoever.
Senator Plett: There you go.
Mr. Freberg: I’ll save time for my longer-winded discussion. It was zero.
You are very correct in that 117 public safety orders can be used by the police, or the CFOs have the authority to do that. The issue is having the people there. Mr. Beaven has been in our office. We have two lawyers in our office. We reach out to law enforcement partners to promote the fact that they should be using these 117 tools and so forth. Many times they’ll go to a home when there is domestic violence, and they are not looking for the PAL or talking about firearms. Then we see the charge on there and find out that this person has a lot of firearms, and we have the police go back in there to seize firearms or take the PAL because we are now prohibiting the individual from having a firearm. You can bring in this legislation, but as I indicated earlier, you need to have the funding in place and the mechanism in place to make sure that our front-line officers and the firearms officers have the ability to go out and take these firearms.
When we took over in Saskatchewan, we had files that were 800 days old that hadn’t been looked at. We had files where they were sending out a letter to the gun owner that said, “You can’t have your gun anymore.” Well, if he is not in compliance with the law anyway, he’s probably not even checking his mailbox. And then 30 days later, you say, “Where is the gun?” “I don’t know. Gave it to somebody.”
We need to do more to make sure that whatever laws we have in place, whether it’s these new ones in Bill C-21 or the existing ones that we had before, we’re using the tools and providing the support to the firearms offices across Canada and the law enforcement partners to get the firearms away from the people that shouldn’t have the firearms so we don’t see these tragedies.
Senator Oh: If this bill passes, do you believe that the gun club businesses will go straight down and a lot of instructors will be losing their jobs?
Mr. Freberg: It’s not that I believe it, it’s that it’s happening already, senator. We’re losing a club that I was president of before I took this job. It had 3,000 members. They are down to 2,000 members. Their primary supporters were handgun sport shooters. It was a family activity. There are husbands, wives and kids, lots of people out there participating. I can understand when people look at the violence on the streets of Toronto, but it’s not the same situation in Saskatchewan or Alberta where it’s target shooting or sport shooting.
Senator Plett: Well, I’m not a gun owner. I used to be a gun owner. Thirty years ago, there was another Liberal government that passed a bill called Bill C-68, which imposed the long-gun registry, and many of us remember that. That initiative was a complete and colossal failure and wasted about $2 billion on a long-gun registry, which ultimately had to be repealed because it had no support from firearms owners. At that time, I gave my guns away because I didn’t want to bother with it. I wasn’t really a hunter. I was a bit of a sport shooter, so I gave them away. That’s not my question.
Dr. Bryant, the Alberta government has introduced Bill 8, which allows the Alberta government to establish regulations to prevent municipalities and municipal police services from cooperating with the federal government on any measures that negatively impact firearms owners. Saskatchewan has enacted the Saskatchewan Firearms Act, which, among other things, establishes licensing requirements for seizure agents involved in possible firearms expropriations. It is a clear response to the federal government’s arbitrary gun ban of 2020.
My question is for both of you. I would like your perspective on the impact of such provincial legislation on the offices such as yours, which are then put between potentially contradictory federal and provincial legislation. How do you see this playing out in the years ahead?
Ms. Bryant: Thank you. You are right that the Alberta government has taken legislative action to protect the interests of firearms owners and public safety. The point of this legislation is not to block the federal government in a legitimate exercise of its discretion in its areas of jurisdiction. The point of this legislation is that many of the ideas that they were putting forward could actually have negatively affected public safety. Our legislation is intended to ensure that whatever the federal government does, and we will oppose their ideas in a court of public discussion, but if they actually do proceed to do something like this, then we will make sure that their actions do not pose a risk to Alberta society at large. For example, if they are going to have some kind of procedure to confiscate guns — a measure which we do not support — if they insist on doing that, then we will make sure that it is done in a fashion that doesn’t expose the Alberta public to unnecessary risk, and we will also make sure that compensation is full, adequate and prompt. If these unfortunate measures are pushed through, then we will protect the interests both of the society at large in Alberta and of firearm owners, in particular with respect to compensation.
Mr. Freberg: I won’t repeat a lot of what Dr. Bryant has indicated but Saskatchewan has a similar approach.
When this whole thing came out with the OAC initially, and now the handgun slow ban, there really wasn’t a strong plan put together on the actual confiscation process. We have seen situations of people saying, “Well, we’ll just take them down,” and they take them to the post office and ship them back somewhere. Well, our post offices in rural Saskatchewan are hardware stores, and it’s certainly not secure to leave a bunch of firearms there.
The second side is the compensation. We’ve looked at the initial offers of compensation, and they are woefully inadequate. There are also all the accessories that people have bought for these firearms that have no value, and we feel that should be taken into account.
Finally, the third side of this is that we don’t believe that firearms — and I have heard the use of the term “weapons” in this Senate hearing. I’m sorry, but we call them firearms. They are weapons when they are used criminally. They are not weapons until they are used in a criminal manner. When these firearms are supposedly such a high risk to public safety, we shouldn’t just chop them up until we have done a ballistic test on them, which is one of the reasons why Saskatchewan has built, and is in the process of building, its own provincial ballistics lab. Currently, police forces take up to 18 months to analyze a firearm used in a crime. We feel it’s important before we destroy the firearm to take a digital signature of it in case it was used in a crime. A criminal could turn it in and get paid money for it, and then we would turn around and chop it up for him. What a great system.
We just want to put some control in there. We’re not there to block the federal government; we’re there just to make sure it gets done properly and to ensure that we’re doing it in a manner that makes good business sense.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have seven senators still on the list, so we will have to be very disciplined, colleagues.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to the three of you for being here today.
I would like to build on the question of my colleague about clause 43 that would allow you as chief firearms officers, both of you, to provide exemptions for the handgun ban if an individual trains, competes in or coaches a handgun-shooting discipline that is on the program of the International Paralympic Committee or Olympic Committee, with some other conditions included. You said this has already basically been in effect since October of last year with the regulations brought in. How have you, in both of your worlds, navigated this? Have people been applying with you from their sport, and have your offices had the capacity to handle the applications?
Ms. Bryant: Well, we received — I’m not sure that one can actually say an application. In at least one case, there is. There isn’t really a procedure established for this yet. We have a number of people whose applications we have tried to push through, and we have not been successful in accomplishing it even once. I am unaware of anyone, anywhere, who has. These are the cases that meet the very demanding and narrow criteria in the bill. When you talk about disciplines that are on the program of the International Olympic or Paralympic Committee, this is a tiny portion of even handgun shooting. This is maybe 1% of handgun shooting. It appears that not even that is actually being allowed.
I think the solution really needs to be — and I’m quite sure that we would find the resources to do this because our provincial government is supportive of the firearms community — to give CFOs greater discretion to designate which kind of organizations could issue those kinds of letters. Ideally, we wouldn’t need that, but if we are going to move to a more regimented procedure, I don’t think it should be one that gives the false image that no one is being affected because they have allowed for this, when even if it were allowed, it’s only maybe 1% of the handgun target shooting and, in practice, so far at least, not even that.
Senator M. Deacon: What’s your denial? What is coming to you? A letter? Correspondence? What’s the denial?
Ms. Bryant: We don’t even get that far. We put these things in and say, well, we need to do this, and it just — there is no response.
Mr. Freberg: We have had exactly the same, and I won’t repeat it all. We have sent in the same exemption requests to the registrar to allow people to have firearms specifically for Olympic target shooting, and we have not been able to get any paperwork pushed through. Our lawyer, Mr. Beavin, has even sent formal letters, but they refuse to send a refusal because then the individual can go and file an application to the court to have it overturned. So we’re not getting any paperwork. It’s just being sat on.
The point that Dr. Bryant was raising is very valid. I was an Olympic target shooter, but I didn’t start there. I started in another sport, shooting, and then I developed some skills, and they said, “Hey, you’ve got an ability to do this,” and I slowly started to move up into shooting in Olympic sports, and eventually — even though as I aged, my eyes went — I went off to shoot in other sports. I wasn’t able to compete in the Olympic realm anymore, but at least I had another place to go and enjoy my sport. That’s gone away. There is no way to feed into the Olympic system, and there is no way for us right now, currently, with these regulations — they are just refusing to pass the application.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Arnot: I’ll be very succinct here because there are some big issues that I want to point out to my colleague senators through your witness’s testimony here.
I believe, Mr. Freberg, that the model that you have implemented in Saskatchewan, your interpretation of your mandate, is a model for all of Canada, with the pragmatic things you have done, with the education that you are working on, and with all of the stakeholders — farmers, ranchers, sports shooters, hunters, trappers and First Nations and Métis people — you have gone out and made those relationships work, and you are producing good results.
My question is this: Do you believe that this one-size-fits-all approach that’s incorporated in this act is appropriate, or do you believe it would be wise for this legislation to give discretion to the chief firearms officers in each province and territory, after consultation with stakeholders in the province, and certainly the municipalities both urban and rural, on how firearms should be managed in the province and in that jurisdiction and how this act will be enforced in that jurisdiction?
The second component of my question is this: The Government of Saskatchewan has given you a mandate of $8 million to do that. That’s about $7 per capita. That’s a lot of money in Saskatchewan, but you have got a robust plan. It’s about safety, enforcement and education. You are working with stakeholders to ensure public safety and responsible firearms ownership. We all know that the strength of any law is directly proportional to the consistency and quality of the enforcement. What kind of monies have been talked about by the federal government to the provincial government with regard to how they are going to come up with the monies required to actually be successful and have enforcement in a real way, given what you have done in Saskatchewan with $8 million? To me, it’s all about enforcement. There’s no use having this act if it’s not going to be enforced in a fair and appropriate manner, and that can’t happen unless there is a lot of resources — nothing like what they have offered you in the past. I mean the federal government.
Mr. Freberg: I want to answer your last question first, if you will permit me. It’s an excellent question, senator. Thank you so much for your compliments. We’re very proud of what we have done. We are leading the country, I think.
The point that I want to talk about on the funding relates to what our colleagues that were here earlier from the RCMP and so forth were talking about with regard to tracing and all the rest of those things. Saskatchewan never had a provincial firearms lab. The province is paying for it. We have waited six months for the RCMP just to get the internet connection hooked up, which we still don’t have. We’re waiting for the MOU from the RCMP that allows us to trace the brass that’s going into the centre. I’m sure people are trying, but at the end of the day, we have a provincial government that is willing to build a provincial lab to trace firearms, and we’re not getting the support. We’re not even asking for money. We’re just asking for someone to turn on an internet connection and sign an MOU. Those are the types of frustrations that we see.
To your question about the financing side of it, we have been in negotiations since I took over the program. August of 2020 is when I started building it. I was appointed as a CFO by the government in 2021. We have been negotiating the contribution agreement with the federal government. It started at $1.2 million. It eventually got bumped up to $1.5 million, and we’re still negotiating, and we still don’t have a contract. We have been sending bills to them totalling $2.5 million per year, and they say, “Give us a business case.” Well, these are the actual costs. I mean, that’s the best business case you could ever have. I don’t know how any other CFO across Canada is going to be able to negotiate a fair and equitable arrangement. I mean, they are at the mercy of what they are being offered. There is no negotiation.
To your point, is there anything in Bill C-21 that addresses that? No. Has there been any money put forth under these programs? No. There has been work done in guns and gangs and some other initiatives, but what I am trying to get across to the Senate today is that we need to do more on the front end. Sure, we have the kids with the issues and guns and violence, but we need to do the storage. I mean, these firearms are quoted about 69% firearms. Those aren’t handguns. If you start drilling down into those numbers, you will find out they are rifles and shotguns that are not being stored properly. We need to fix that problem, and that is what we are focusing on in Saskatchewan, and we have been extremely successful in doing so.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Freberg.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Ms. Bryant, first of all, I’d like to congratulate you on your impeccable French.
My question concerns a statement you made about your concern for the future of gun control in Canada. You said that Bill C-21 continues to undermine confidence in our gun control system while doing nothing to reduce the violent misuse of firearms.
Can you explain your reasoning?
Ms. Bryant: I believe that in all areas, not just firearms, you have to have the trust of the general public and especially of those affected by a law or regulation. When that trust is damaged and threatened, we lose that relationship which is absolutely necessary, not only to comply with the law, but also to go beyond the law.
For example, when it comes to storing firearms, you can’t just have safety devices and measures that satisfy the law. We need to go beyond the law, and this is only possible if there is a bond of trust between the authorities and the general public. These measures undermine that trust. That’s why I believe they undermine public safety, because without trust, there can be no public safety.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Thank you to the witnesses who are here today.
My question is very direct for Dr. Bryant. Are you the CFO for the Northwest Territories?
Ms. Bryant: No.
Senator Duncan: Do you know who is?
Ms. Bryant: Yes.
Senator Duncan: Can you tell me that?
Ms. Bryant: Yes. I understand your confusion. The Alberta office used to be responsible for the Northwest Territories. When we converted from being a federal office to a provincial office, of course, a provincial office couldn’t manage a federal territory. The headquarters of the federal office for the Northwest Territories is actually in the same building where we are, just a different floor, and a previous Chief Firearms Officer for the combined territories of Alberta and Northwest Territories is now the CFO for the Northwest Territories, Jennifer Hart MacDonald, and I would be happy to provide you with contact information for her.
Senator Duncan: Thank you very much, and I will direct a written question to her.
Senator Boehm: Thank you to both of our witnesses for being here.
In listening to the questions being posed by my colleagues, I am wondering whether you have any commentary on some of the jurisdictional issues. By that, I mean, is there a good data-sharing relationship between you as CFOs between each other? Is that even required? Is it there with the federal government as well? Is there a trend line that you might want to comment on? In particular, with the laws that are out there — and this one, if it is passed, even if amended — where would that fit in in terms of any data-sharing and jurisdictional consultation? You mentioned earlier that there was no consultation on this bill, so that is what has prompted me to ask about the other areas.
Ms. Bryant: When you talk about data sharing, we’re actually required — mandated by law — to report on many things, such as how many of these authorizations or these licences we issue and so on. There are a couple of areas where there are gaps, but they are very small, minor parts of our activities.
Essentially, we report everything to the federal government, and then there is at least a subset of those statistics that is reported in the report of the Commissioner of Firearms, which comes out every year. There are tables in there that will, for example, provide the number of revocations by province and that sort of thing. The information sharing is largely from us up; there is very little that comes the other way.
I would also say that we do have opportunities to share experiences. CFO Freberg and I knew each other before we became CFOs. We probably talk every week informally about different issues.
One of the things that is a very important part of what I do — I work seven days a week, virtually every week. I work five days a week in the office, and I spend virtually every weekend doing outreach. I attend gun shows. I attend shooting competitions. I reach all kinds of other organizations. Also during the week, I often address, for example, annual general meetings of fish and game clubs and things like that. We have a very extensive outreach program. It is not only our colleagues in Saskatchewan, but we share many of the same philosophies. We exchange those opportunities.
Senator Boehm: Do you speak with other CFOs? I mean, you are adjacent now and next provinces —
Ms. Bryant: Yes, that was my very next point.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
Ms. Bryant: Twice a year, we have conferences. I will actually be back in Ottawa November 20–22, around then, and we meet with all of the other CFOs. We also consult on issues of importance that are of a more urgent nature. We will just send out an email, “We have had this problem. Do you have the same thing? How are you addressing it?” There is an exchange of experience. It is not specifically data, but it is sharing our experiences.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you both for being here, and equally, thank you for the work you do. You are on the front lines, obviously, and I do not pretend to understand the complexity and responsibility of trying to get folks to deal with the safety issue in storing guns, also recognizing that the outreach to reach communities that are not necessarily in urban areas is not easy in the broader context.
This bill, of course, has not just the issue of handguns, but it talks about other things, and I guess I will be very specific. The question of ghost guns is a real challenge for all of us. There are more and more on the market. You can buy a 3-D printer. Are you pleased with the provision being included in the legislation? This is an issue that police officers and other law enforcement personnel are dealing with? Do you have any thoughts on the ghost gun provisions now in the bill that can aid us in the efforts of how we try to deal with access to ghost guns and, of course, many of the parts that people are securing to build ghost guns in our country?
Mr. Freberg: I know there has been a lot of discussion on the ghost gun issue. In the States, there are what is called 80% lowers and uppers, which are full metal guns and you go in and make a router hole and you have a handgun or a fully functional AR-15. You put the parts on and away you go. The 3-D printed guns require a lot more parts and pieces to make them operate. Certainly they can be built, but the people who are building them are being charged right now. We have caught a couple of people in Saskatchewan as a result of our colleagues in Quebec who started a Canada-wide project and ended up catching people in several provinces who were manufacturing these firearms.
That was one of the things I brought up, senator, in my opening remarks. A lot of those prosecutions were as a result of our good friends at Canada Border Services who are able to track these parts coming in and are starting to see a profile of individuals who were building a gun or other techniques that they use. My concern on the handgun freeze is that right now, people have the gun as a whole. They can sell it. There is value in it. They can shoot it. They can enjoy it. If they can’t, they can certainly strip the parts off of that gun. The legislation says that it has to be sold to another licensed individual, but there are no serial numbers on any of those parts, so now you have actually created more parts that can eventually build more 3-D guns because you need the metal barrel, the metal slide, the trigger mechanisms and so forth in order to make that 3-D plastic gun work.
Could there be more done on the 3-D printed legislation? Maybe there could be some tweaking to make it a little tighter, but right now there are prosecutions and people in jail in Saskatchewan who cannot get bail who have built 3-D guns. Again, they were not building them to distribute, I do not believe. They claim they did it out of curiosity. They wanted to build a gun. That will be up to the courts to decide. It was still illegal, and they are in jail without bail. There is a legal framework right now to deal with 3-D printed guns without bringing Bill C-21 to the fold.
Senator Yussuff: My point is that there are provisions in the bill that actually strengthen the hands of law enforcement, people like yourself and others who are dealing with this. That was my question.
Mr. Freberg: To that point, I agree with that.
Senator Yussuff: I heard this testimony today, and I have read your testimony, Dr. Byrant, in the other place, where you talked about family heirlooms. I am struggling, and please excuse my ignorance because I don’t necessarily know what a family heirloom is. Is there a way that you can characterize it quickly and succinctly that would help me understand what you would describe as a family heirloom?I know that not everything is a family heirloom, but obviously there is some thinking in your capacity about what this might be.
Ms. Bryant: I can give you a personal example. My great-grandfather was a handgun owner. My grandfather was a handgun owner. I have a picture of him which I frequently use in my displays. He is on an indoor range in the 1950s. My father was a handgun owner, and I am a handgun owner. We have firearms that have been handed down. I even have pictures of these individuals with these guns. That is an example, one example, of an heirloom.
Another example is something that perhaps someone’s father or grandfather brought back from World War II and was a souvenir of his time in the war, and that firearm has been continued to be used in the family. More broadly, I speak to many people. Remember, Alberta is not the same as downtown Toronto. There are people who live by the old style of ranching. There are real cowboys in Alberta. I have one who works for me. These may be people whose grandfather settled the land and carried a handgun with them in the early days when it was legal to deal with predators attacking his cattle, and then that handgun has been passed on through the generations. These items mean a great deal to people. It is devastating to them to think that they will be the last generation to own these.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Freberg, Saskatchewan has some of the highest rates of gun homicide and violence in the country. Both in 2020 and 2021, the highest rate of gun homicides was in Saskatchewan, and in 2022 Saskatchewan had the second-highest rate. Gun-related crimes are extremely high in Regina. In 2020 and 2021, Regina was rated perhaps the highest in the country. Couldn’t a reasonable person like me and others conclude that there are too many guns in Saskatchewan? How would you explain this data to anyone? Thank you.
Mr. Freberg: Thank you for your question.
I appreciate the statistics that you put through. They speak volumes. When we look at the firearms in Saskatchewan that are being used in these terrible tragedies that you are seeing, we go to the police agencies and so forth and will start to inventory those firearms from the police agencies to use in our provincial lab. We will be using them for the lab that needs the firearms in order to operate.
We’re seeing modified long guns. It’s long guns, single shots, bolt-action rifles, shotguns and so forth that are being modified, cut down. That is primarily what we are seeing. We also recognize, as was mentioned earlier, some of these earlier model firearms were from the 1950s and didn’t have a serial number on them.
This is why we’re really focusing our efforts on making sure that our firearms community is locking up their firearms safely, that they are licensed and that they are following the rules. What we did to make that work — which isn’t being done anywhere else in the country but they will be doing it shortly in Alberta as well — is we brought in the Saskatchewan Firearms Act. We brought in legislation there that allows for the police to lay a charge that is not a criminal charge for things like unsafe storage, not having a licence, not storing it properly in your vehicle, leaving it in the back seat of your truck on a hunting trip and then getting it stolen. Those are the ones being diverted and going into the crimes you see in Regina, Saskatoon and elsewhere. The tragedy that we had in La Loche where a young fellow who into the school and shot was a shotgun left in a house with no trigger lock, no ammunition, and no one in the home had a licence.
That is why we are working with partners to say we need to change that paradigm, because the handgun ban is not the issue. It is not the handguns that are getting stolen in Saskatchewan. Most of the firearms owners in Saskatchewan are locking them up, especially now because they know that they cannot get another one. There are even more precautions being taken, alarm systems and all of the things that go around there. We want to focus on the education side and then use our firearms legislation to make it easier for police to lay a charge.
When they lay that charge, Mr. Beven behind me now and our other team will take that charge over. We will prosecute it, but we won’t be prosecuting it trying to put someone in jail. We will prosecute it with alternative measures — education, sending them back to school, maybe they get an inspection, they have to have a safe put in their house — and the next time they mess up they will lose their guns completely. The police are willing to lay those types of charges because it won’t take them years. They can simply just lay the ticket, and we will deal with it in some fashion. If the person doesn’t want to comply, then we’ll refuse their licence and they will get a $5,000 fine. It is better to try to do that through some education process, which is why we have this piece of legislation that we brought in recently. We are hoping that it will help with that issue because it is a big concern.
Senator Dasko: Through greater safety with the gun owners, you think that you can solve the problem?
Mr. Freberg: If you can stop people from being able to steal those firearms — they are certainly not going into a store with a PAL or an RPAL and buying them. They are getting them through some other illicit manner. In Saskatchewan, and in other areas, predominantly it is the long guns that are being modified that we see coming out on the street in those tragedies that you are seeing.
Senator Arnot: This is important to clarify. Those are the correct statistics, but who is behind those crimes? It is the gangs.
Mr. Freberg: And unlicensed gun owners.
Senator Arnot: What I’m trying to get at is that it is really significant gang activity in Saskatchewan, drugs, et cetera?
Senator Plett: It’s gang related. That’s what we’ve been saying. It’s not the legal guys, it’s gang related.
Mr. Freberg: Correct.
Senator Arnot: I want that on the record.
Senator Plett: The bill does nothing to combat that.
The Chair: Colleagues, this brings us to the end of the panel.
I wish to thank Dr. Bryant and Mr. Freberg for your help, for your advice and for the work that you do every day. In your case, it is every day, as we have learned today. You have helped us considerably.
I also want to thank our committee members around the table for bringing the best of every witness who has been before us today. It has been an important day of learning for us.
Before we adjourn, colleagues, I would like to bring to your attention a draft report sent to you on Friday from our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs which has completed the study on emerging treatment for veterans suffering from occupational stress injuries. This is the first report from the subcommittee this session. I would like to remind members of the process. When a report from our subcommittee is prepared, it is first presented to the main committee for consideration. If the committee adopts the report, it is then presented to the Senate as a report of the committee. Are there any objections to proceeding in camera to discuss the report in question? If none, it is agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)