Public Safety Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Chief Bob Rich]

That's right. We have gone to a different background clearance system, I suppose.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I put it to you that when police officers did those background checks, people with dependency problems, whether drugs or alcohol or mental health issues, did not get a licence.

[Chief Bob Rich]

That's right. My belief is that a properly trained investigator, whether a badge-carrying person or not, can do a much better job than the system we're currently using.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

In the current system, I think you explained that someone with a pal talked to someone on the telephone, and—

[Chief Bob Rich]

It felt as if I were trying to apply for a credit card or something.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Right. I appreciate that.

Dr. Drummond, I also come from a more rural community as a police officer, and I agree with you wholeheartedly in what you said about not seeing the handgun injuries; what you see are long-gun injuries. You don't suppose that has something to do with there not being as many handguns in rural areas as there are long guns to start with, do you?

[Dr. Alan Drummond]

Well...

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

What I'm saying is that handguns seem to be more of an urban issue sometimes, so what you see is what's naturally there.

[Dr. Alan Drummond]

I'd agree with that. Again, I'm not a criminologist; I just report what I see.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I mentioned Bill C-17, and I think perhaps you mentioned it. I have seen in my time that the beginning of the change in accidental deaths occurred when it became mandatory to practice safe handling and safe storage and separations of guns and ammunition. It made a tremendous difference in accidental deaths, particularly in the rural areas and with children.

[Dr. Carolyn Snider, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians]

Do you mind if I answer that?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Please do.

[Dr. Carolyn Snider]

Thank you; I'll answer that.

We definitely did see a decline after the 1991 bill, but there's been some strong work done out of Quebec. They were able to do a time series analysis in which they looked at firearm deaths and were able to tease out downward trends and the putting into place of legislation. This was done by Gagné in 2008. They looked at Bill C-51, which was from 1977; Bill C-17, from 1991, and Bill C-68, from 1995--

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

My point would be that it's cumulative from Bill C-17, and Bill C-68 gets credit for much of Bill C-17's benefits.

[Dr. Carolyn Snider]

No. What's interesting is that she was able to tease out that regulation and actually see a much bigger decrease in both homicide deaths and suicide deaths based on that.

I would also suggest that we see that decline specifically in suicides.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Okay.

Dr. Drummond, I think you used some statistics with female deaths. The Statistics Canada data for 2008 are as follows: 51 women murdered by stabbing, 34 by strangulation, and 25 by firearms. I believe that of that 25, 11 women were killed with long guns. Would that fit the statistics?

I think Dr. Drummond used some statistics earlier that were certainly larger numbers than those, but these are from Statistics Canada. I'm just wondering—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We'll have to end it there.

If you come across it, please just let us know, and we'll go on to it. We're out of time.

Go ahead, Monsieur Desnoyers, please.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, everyone. Your contribution today is important for what we are trying to accomplish in controlling firearms, which, in my opinion, is extremely important.

I want to address the violence issue some more, including domestic violence and the way the police can use this registry in domestic violence and suicide cases. As you said, there is a downward trend right now. That said, we are not saying that it is only because of the registry, but rather that there are a number of tools, of which the registry is one of the most important in terms of prevention. The prevention component, which we often forget about, is built on that, and all those who have to use the registry benefit from it.

If the registry is not quite up to date, I could ask myself whether it is because of the Conservatives and the amnesty they came up with, which prevents people from registering their guns. But, with time, if we manage to keep the registry and get rid of the amnesty, we could control all those guns, especially the long guns.

In fact, we can save lives in domestic violence cases. When it is a matter of suicide, we can go and look for the guns. In domestic violence cases, the job of the police officers is to figure out how to react when they know that there are guns in the house.

So could you expand on the issues of suicide, then domestic violence and finally, the police?

[Dr. Carolyn Snider]

I'd like to suggest that there are two ways we use this registry on a daily basis as emergency physicians.

Starting with domestic violence, anywhere from 2% to 12% of women in our emergency department are currently being victimized by their intimate partners. In fact, in some studies out of the States—unfortunately we don't know this yet in Canada—one-fifth of women who have been killed by their partner were seen in an emergency department in the prior year.

I want to put that into the context of how many women I see every week with domestic violence. Every single one of them I ask about access to a firearm, because we know that there is an incredible risk of death due to a firearm in the home of an intimate partner in violence. Additionally, we strongly encourage them to contact the police if the police aren't already there. One of my main concerns is to get that gun out of the home. Often the police are involved and often that is one of the ramifications of their being involved, as well as being a very strong support for women who are being victimized.

In terms of suicide, it's the same thing. When a cop brings in a patient, which is actually quite common for patients who are severely depressed--often the police are involved in bringing them into our emergency departments--again I ask the question, “Is there a gun registered in this home?” If there is a gun registered in this home, I want to know that it's been taken out, and if they haven't been able to find it, that changes my safety assessment significantly.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Does the Fédération des femmes du Québec have anything to add?

[Alexa Conradi]

I will answer some of the questions that were raised and will then turn the floor over to Ms. Monastesse.

In Quebec, for example, we see that 15 out of 100,000 people in regions like Montreal, are killed with firearms, whereas in northern Quebec, in the rural areas, where Inuit communities live, 78 people out of 100 are killed with firearms.

Just this morning, I met with some women's groups, Pauktuutit in particular, a group of Inuit women who say that their greatest priority is to combat violence against women in the north. We know that having firearms in the house is a major risk factor in cases of domestic violence.

I have already been in the north and have spent some time there. I have enormous respect for Inuit hunting culture. I feel that it is extremely important that Inuit culture is able to continue to exist, and that Inuit are able to have access to hunting, the water and the land to get their food. That said, all the international conventions say that no customs or traditions can justify ignoring ways to combat violence against women.

So, with all respect for that culture, there are women from the YWCA in Yukon who tell us that the crux of the violence against women issue is not only that they might die but also that it is used as a threat in cases of domestic violence.

Manon, do you have anything to add?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you. I'm sorry; we're out of time. There may be time in the next round.

Go ahead, Mr. McColeman, please.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you, and thank you as well to all the witnesses for being here today. It's really appreciated.

I'd like to go down the first nations road with you, Minister Edzerza, and gather some of your comments. One of my reasons is that I represent the single largest first nation in Canada in my riding of Brant, including the City of Brantford, the Six Nations of the Grand River, and the Mississaugas of the New Credit. That's approximately 12,500 people.

I totally agree with you about the disappointment in being the only first nations person to be able to come as a witness. As a result of an agenda that was put forward in a very tight way by people across the table, we weren't able to hear as many witnesses as we'd like.

That aside, during your comments you mentioned your member of Parliament from the Yukon. I believe you used his first name, “Larry”. I would take that to be Larry Bagnell. He is the voice of Yukoners and, in particular, in your case, of aboriginals in the Yukon. Is that correct?

Are you aware that your MP, Larry Bagnell, has been saying that he's doing everything he can to fight the 13-year long-gun registry?

[John Edzerza]

No, I'm not aware of it.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Well, I'll read you a quote: “'People in the territory pretty well know how hard I’ve been fighting this over the years,' Bagnell said Monday...” This comes from an article written by a Jason Unrau on May 5. I'm using it as the basis for this.

Have you talked to your MP as to whether he is fighting this?