SECU Committee Report

Safer Communities: Focusing Resources Where They Make a Difference

Introduction

This report has been drafted by Conservative Members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to supplement the report by the committee entitled A Path Forward: Reducing Gun and Gang Violence. This comprehensive study reviewed the causes and contributing factors of gun violence, as well as analyzed the policing tactics, legal ramifications, and societal impacts. The final report contains a wealth of recommendations, many of which are supported by members of all parties.

However, a small number of recommendations were made that did not align with important evidence presented to the committee. Specifically, the recommendation to implement a mandatory buyback of firearms prohibited under the Government of Canada’s May 2020 Order-in-Council (and subsequent additions to the Order-In-Council) and the Government of Canada’s proposed provincial handgun ban, did not receive adequate support from witness testimony to warrant a recommendation to government to continue implementation of these initiatives.

Further, the committee heard the significant taxpayer resources to fund the buyback and handgun ban would have a greater impact in reducing gun violence in Canada if those resources were redirected to anti-gun smuggling operations at the US-Canada border, increasing police services, and to youth and young adult gang prevention and diversion programs.

Additionally, the committee heard that the government’s Bill C-5 An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which will end mandatory minimum sentencing for those convicted of violent crime involving firearms, would have a negative impact on reducing gun violence.

Recommendation 1

That the Government of Canada revoke the May 2020 Order-in-Council firearms prohibition, discard the mandatory firearms buyback program, and abandon the proposed provincial handgun ban.

The committee heard considerable expert testimony including from law enforcement, academia, and grassroots community organizations that disputed the efficacy and feasibility of the government’s proposed mandatory firearms buyback program and proposed provincial handgun ban. Importantly, the committee heard that gun violence is primarily a result of gang and criminal activity, not law-abiding firearms owners, and as a result, efforts to combat gun violence should be targeted accordingly.

The committee heard that approximately 80 percent of the firearms used in violent crime in Toronto are illegally smuggled from the United States. For example, Deputy Chief of the Toronto Police Service Myron Demkiw explained,

the City of Toronto's experience is that guns are not from law abiding citizens that are being used in crime. They're guns being smuggled from the United States. Those engaged in handling those firearms are not law abiding, licensed gun owners; they are criminals with no firearms license.

Further, Marcell Wilson, Founder and President of the One-by-One Movement Inc., an organization founded by former gang members, extremists and organized crime members to help identify, address, and research strategies on effective social programming for youth outreach, explained, “when speaking on gun control, when we hear the phrase, it should always by synonymous with illegal gun crime and illegal gun trafficking as over 80% of the gun violence we [witnesses is] committed with illegal firearms smuggled in from the USA.” 

Evelyn Fox, founder of Communities for Zero Violence, a group founded by a mother of teenaged son killed by gun violence that seeks to create and expand awareness of the violence crisis in Toronto and the GTA, stated, “all the community-level violence is being committed by those who are not licensed to possess or use [guns].” 

Additionally, the committee heard from multiple police experts and grassroots community organizations that it is highly unlikely any criminal who illegally obtained and owns a firearm would participate in, or be affected by, any firearm bans. As a result, a buyback program or handgun ban is not likely to take any of these illegally obtained firearms out of the hands of criminals and as a result, will not have a significant impact on reducing gun violence, while costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

For example, Chief Evan Bray, Co-Chair of the Firearms Special Purpose Committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, stated that, “a ban is only as good as the people who are willing to follow it. I said to Chief McFee [Chief of police, Edmonton Police Service] that we have a ban on murders in Canada and yet, sadly, we still have homicides happening all the time.”

Kevin Walker, Interim Director of the Bear Clan Patrol, a grassroots Indigenous-led community safety organization in Winnipeg, stated, “I think the people that are using the weapons, criminally, won't be turning them in to anyone any time soon.”

Dr. Caillin Langmann, an Emergency Room Medical Doctor, assistant clinical professor at McMaster University, and leading researcher in Canada on the impact of government gun control measures of licensed firearm owners on gun violence prevalence, who has written several peer-reviewed sociological studies on this issue, shared with the committee that,

No statistically significant beneficial associations were found between firearms legislation and homicide by firearms, as well as spousal homicide and a criminal charge of discharge of firearm with intent. Bans of military-appearing firearms, semi-automatic rifles and handguns, short-barreled handguns, and Saturday night specials in the 1990s has resulted in no associated reduction in homicide rates.

Recommendation 2

That the taxpayer resources allocated to administering the mandatory prohibited firearms buyback program and proposed provincial handgun ban be reallocated to target anti-gun smuggling operations at the US-Canada border, increasing police services, and to youth and young adult prevention and diversion programs.

It is estimated the buyback program could cost the taxpayer upwards of three billion dollars, and the Government of Canada has said it will provide an additional billion dollars to implement a proposed provincial handgun ban. Committee witnesses repeatedly spoke in favour of redirecting the resources for the buyback and proposed handgun ban towards more impactful areas to reduce gun violence, such as increasing anti-smuggling operations at the Canada-US border, increasing resources to police services, and funding youth and young adult gang prevention and diversion programs.

Further, the committee heard from witnesses that the Canada Border Services Agency has limited resources to combat anti-gun smuggling operations. For example, Mark Weber, President of the Customs and Immigration Union of the Canada Border Service Agency, explained CBSA Officers face significant challenges in protecting Canada’s border with the United States, which is the longest undefended border between countries in the world. Mr. Weber stated, “not only is Canada’s ability to prevent smuggling lacking, but its capacity to gather reliable and sound data is also inadequate,” and, “there is an almost 0% chance that any illegal weapon entering the country via rail will ever be found.”

Police authorities from across Canada testified that their resources are stretched thin and there are significant challenges to keep pace with the growing gang violence and drug trafficking issues in Canada that contribute to gun violence. Recruitment and retention of police officers and lack of sufficient resources impact the ability of police to respond to calls for service and the capacity to undertake preventative policing measures. As a result, police services are experiencing burnout and fatigue. These issues contribute to the challenges of the vital role police services have in reducing gun violence in Canada.

Accordingly, the committee heard from police that diverting limited police resources to implement an ineffective firearm buyback program will only exacerbate the pressure on police services and impact their ability to focus on reducing gang activity that causes most gun violence in Canada. Police witnesses at committee repeatedly stated the billions of taxpayer dollars that will be spent on the government’s firearm buyback program would have a greater impact on reducing gun violence if those resources were directed to increasing police services for more officer recruitment, technology and equipment upgrades, and community outreach.

For example, Brian Sauvé, President of the National Police Federation explained, “Our challenges with the buyback program is once again increasing the mandate of an overstretched police service that doesn't have enough boots on the ground to do what it's doing today.”

The committee consistently heard that youth and young adult gang prevention and diversion programs that create supportive and positive environments at the community level with culturally appropriate outreach, can effectively divert youth from joining gangs at a young age. The committee heard if a youth can be diverted, the likelihood of leading a life of crime and contributing to gun violence is significantly reduced. Currently these programs are extraordinarily underfunded.

For example, the Winnipeg Police Service has only one full-time employee carrying out this work and Maurice Sabourin, President of the Winnipeg Police Association, explained that his force, “could use more resources on the street and also more resources for social programming, because if we can get to those kids early, that prevents them from entering a gang or continuing to be involved in a gang. I believe that funding for that buyback program should be diverted to those social programs.”

Community groups like the Bear Clan, the One by One Movement Inc., and Communities for Zero Violence, agreed taxpayer resources spent on gun buybacks and bans would have little impact on reducing gun violence and rather, those resources would make a significant difference in reducing gun violence if they were used to support at-risk youth at the grassroots community level.

For example, Mr. Wilson explained, “We are definitely not seeing enough resources going into preventative measures. As we all know, common sense, deductive reasoning and prevention is a lot cheaper for the taxpaying citizen than intervention.” 

Ms. Fox explained, “every instance of violence has an intervention point that has been overlooked or not been acted upon by either people closest to that person, service providers, or those in positions of power whose job it is to intervene,” and, “we have traumatized communities that are never able to heal due to the continued occurrences of violence and the lack of resources to provide them support,” and, “we hardly have any services that cater to community violence…It’s very difficult to find resources that are culturally specific.” 

Recommendation 3

That the Government of Canada withdraw Bill C-5 An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that seeks to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of serious firearm crime and allow the mandatory minimum penalties for these egregious crimes to remain in place.

A Path Forward makes no recommendation regarding the Government of Canada’s pending repeal of mandatory minimum sentences for several serious firearm crimes, including robbery and extortion with a firearm, and firing a firearm with intent to injure, despite multiple witnesses making the case that these sentences should remain in place to keep violent criminals out of communities. Given the task of the committee was to study how best to reduce gun violence in Canada, it is incongruous that A Path Forward fails to make recommendations to the Government of Canada pertaining to the legitimate concerns that criminals who commit violent crimes with guns will not face mandatory prison time and be removed from public society as a result, following the anticipated passage of Bill C-5.

For example, Mr. Sabourin expressed serious concerns,

With the introduction of Bill C-5 and the proposal to remove minimum sentencing, I fear that's going to have a negative effect on public safety here in Winnipeg. As a member of our property crimes unit and our stolen auto unit, I saw the benefits of intensive supervision as well as incarceration and members of the criminal element being placed in incarceration and in remand.

Chief Inspector David Bertrand from the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) suggested, “discussions about minimum sentences in certain gun usage and possession situations should be brought back to the forefront.” Further, Matthew Hipwell, an RCMP veteran, was concerned that by reducing mandatory minimum penalties, “we are failing to hold people and individuals accountable for their actions.”

Conclusion

This supplementary report diverges from A Path Forward on the above mentioned recommendations, which Conservative Members of the committee believe are critical to reducing gun violence in Canada. These recommendations provide a more fulsome reflection of committee testimony from expert witnesses and the realities and challenges of reducing gun violence in Canada.

The evidence is clear: the taxpayer resources earmarked for a mandatory firearm buyback program and proposed provincial handgun ban will not be effective in reducing gun violence because it fails to target the real issue—gang and criminal activity. Instead, taxpayer resources should be redirected to anti-gun smuggling operations at the Canada-US border, increasing police services, and to youth and young adult gang prevention and diversion programs. Properly resourcing these three key areas will have a much greater impact on reducing gun violence in Canada than ineffective gun buybacks and bans.

We hope that the Government of Canada will act swiftly to implement the recommendations contained in this supplementary report.