Evidence of meeting #14 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was firearm.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Étienne Blais  Associate Professor, School of Criminology, University of Montreal, As an Individual
Gary Mauser  Professor Emeritus, Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Greg Illerbrun  Firearms Chairman, Past-President, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation
Nathalie Provost  Students and Graduates of Polytechnique for Gun Control
Heidi Rathjen  Spokesperson, Students and Graduates of Polytechnique for Gun Control
Caillin Langmann  Emergency Medicine Resident, Fellowship Program of the Royal College of Physicians Canada, Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, As an Individual
Duane Rutledge  Sergeant, K-9 Unit, New Glasgow Police Service, As an Individual
Bruno Marchand  Director General, Association québécoise de prévention du suicide
Eve-Marie Lacasse  Main Coordinator, Fédération des femmes du Québec
Manon Monastesse  Managing Director, Fédération de ressources d'hébergement pour femmes violentées et en difficulté du Québec, Fédération des femmes du Québec

12:20 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Thank you, Mr. Marchand.

We go now to the final witness today, Ms. Monastesse or Ms. Lacasse.

12:20 p.m.

Eve-Marie Lacasse Main Coordinator, Fédération des femmes du Québec

Good morning. Thank you for welcoming us here today. We are grateful to the members of the Opposition who have lined up on the side of public safety. We note that this is not what the government has elected to do.

One of the FFQ's objectives is to combat all forms of violence and to stand up for the right to live in an atmosphere free from violence, especially for women, and the right to life and safety. We are of the opinion that this bill is inconsistent with these fundamental rights. Violence, and particularly firearm violence, still affects the lives of too many women. In Quebec, from 1997 to 2006, firearms were the method used in nearly two thirds of spousal and familial homicides, while in Canada they were used in nearly a quarter of spousal homicides between 2000 and 2009.

We observe, however, that firearms control works because, despite these high percentages, overall, the number of homicides by shotgun or rifle has fallen by 41% since 1991, while the number of non-firearm homicides fell by only 6%. The Firearms Act has therefore brought about significant progress by reducing the number of firearm assaults in spousal or family violence contexts.

Thus the number of murdered women killed by gunshot fell by nearly 50%, from 43 in 1995 to 22 in 2008. The rate of spousal murders committed with a rifle or shotgun has fallen by 70%. Although obviously there are multiple factors explaining that decline, such as more access to resources for women who are victims of violence, greater public awareness and improvement in women's socioeconomic situation so that they are able to leave a violent relationship faster, nonetheless this substantial decline is also, in part, a result of changes in gun control policies.

In terms of preventing violence against women, without the information in the long-gun registry, which the authorities can use to determine who has how many and what kind of non-restricted weapons, in real time -- according to a very recent study by the RCMP, the Canadian police consult the registry an average of 17,000 times a day -- it will be difficult for police to enforce prohibition orders imposed by the courts.

Although the government claims that Bill C-19 is an uncomplicated bill that simply eliminates the registration procedure, that is clearly not the case. The changes proposed, by clause 23, among others, will have serious consequences for public safety. This clause makes it optional for gun dealers to verify firearms licences when a gun is purchased or transferred. The only way to tell that a licence is not valid, the individual wanting to purchase a gun has a prohibition order against them, or the licence presented is forged is to check with the Firearms Officer. If the check is not done, a dangerous individual could easily purchase a non-restricted firearm, or more. Does the fact that in 2009 there were 254,036 firearms prohibition orders in force not highlight the need to preserve preventive measures like these, including the need to verify that licences are valid? Verifications, when a gun is purchased, should be of a higher degree than those carried out when a book is bought or borrowed from the library. I am using the example of the gentleman seated beside me. I'd also like to recall that the verification of licences became mandatory in 1998 to make up for the deficiencies of former measures, following the murder of a woman by her spouse.

In closing, we firmly believe that the safety of all Canadians should prevail over what some people regard as bureaucratic hassle, hassle that saves lives. In our opinion, the question should not even asked.

12:25 p.m.

Manon Monastesse Managing Director, Fédération de ressources d'hébergement pour femmes violentées et en difficulté du Québec, Fédération des femmes du Québec

My name is Manon Monastesse, of the Fédération de ressources d'hébergement pour femmes violentées et en difficulté du Québec. Last year, 9,000 women and children who were victims of violence took shelter in our 37 houses. Thank you for welcoming us here, especially on the eve of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, on November 25.

I would like to add this to what my colleague has just said. Hunting rifles and shotguns are also the weapons used most often to threaten women and children. Threats made with firearms are not counted in the statistics, but the damage they do is very real. How many women in shelters have told us that the simple fact of there being a hunting rifle beside the door was a constant threat to their safety! It is thanks to the fact that the police have seized such firearms that women have had access to our service and that they have been able to go to a shelter to ensure their complete safety and their physical integrity.

While Canada is often cited on the international scene as a leader in the area of firearms control, the repeated efforts in recent years to dismantle firearms control indicates a marked change in attitude. Freedom from fear is a fundamental human right, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the prevention of human rights violations with small arms and light weapons and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women have both pointed out that countries that did not adequately regulate firearms were not in compliance with their obligations under international law.

We firmly believe that the safety of women in Canada and Quebec must take precedence over what some people consider to be "bureaucratic hassle," which we feel are just basic formalities that are an integral part of a functioning democracy. A little hassle to save lives? It is not a question that should even be asked.

Since 1995, Quebec has been the only province with a spousal violence intervention policy. It is called Prévenir, dépister, contrer la violence conjugale. It required the police to:

Ensure the safety and protection of victims and their families: [...] If possible, by seizing firearms at the time of arrest, and otherwise, by ensuring that interim release provisions provide for them to be delivered forthwith to a peace officer;

This is why we expressly ask that you respect the position taken on September 22...

12:30 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Ms. Monastesse, can you conclude, please?

12:30 p.m.

Managing Director, Fédération de ressources d'hébergement pour femmes violentées et en difficulté du Québec, Fédération des femmes du Québec

Manon Monastesse

Yes, I'm concluding.

The decision was made in the House of Commons on September 22, 2010, namely that the firearms registry be preserved in its entirety.

12:30 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Thank you.

If we're all very cooperative, we may get through a first round of questions here. We'll go for about six and a half minutes.

Ms. Hoeppner, please.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will be sharing my time with my colleague, Mr. Aspin.

Dr. Langmann, I want to begin by thanking you very much for your research. We have some questions on that. I'm going to let my colleagues ask you some questions, because there seems to be a real contradiction between the evidence you presented to us--which was right before our eyes--and the evidence given in an oral presentation. I'm going to let some of my colleagues ask about that.

Mr. Marchand, I couldn't agree with you more that we need to reduce any kind of access, any kind of method.... I think you said we need to make firearms less accessible to individuals who are at risk of suicide, at risk of committing any violent act against themselves or any individual--their spouse, their children, or a stranger.

I can tell you personally, as I've fought to end the long-gun registry and have sometimes received criticism for it, that I believe very strongly that we need to strengthen the licensing process.I think we need to make sure that an individual actually looks someone in the eye and is interviewed personally—that's my personal belief—before they are allowed to have a firearm. So I agree with you and I follow your logic on that.

Where we disagree, and where I still cannot find any evidence, is that once we say to an individual that they can legally own a firearm, that we believe they're safe, that they're not going to hurt their wife or themselves, so they can own a firearm, there is no connection to counting that individual's firearm or firearms in a registry--for a couple of reasons. First of all, because it won't stop them from doing an act that is, many times, spontaneous--sometimes it's premeditated, as in a suicide or a domestic violent act--and as well, most of these people are only registering half their firearms.

Although there could be a slight argument—and I'll go to Sergeant Rutledge when I'm finished with this statement to hear from a front-line officer—our government's belief is that with suicide prevention, the best thing we can do is help people with mental illnesses and the mental issues they're struggling with, and then deal with the methods they're using. I think that includes doctors who give prescription drugs to people who will use those prescription drugs to kill themselves. It's a huge picture and I think we need to really talk seriously about how we can help people and prevent suicide.

Sergeant Rutledge, I want to ask you two questions, or you can describe two situations. First of all, let's suppose you were going to enforce a prohibition order. Someone has a licence to own a firearm, that licence is revoked, and you have to enforce that. Do you look at the registry to see if they have any guns registered, collect two firearms, and know that you're done? How do you actually enforce that licence prohibition?

12:30 p.m.

Sgt Duane Rutledge

You have to attend the residence and search it. You're only going to acquire what is there. My experience is that these people take their weapons and share them with their friends and family. They have other people who will hold the weapons for them. That's part of the issue with the whole registry. An individual registers the guns, but there's no way to track where that person keeps his weapons. Candice Hoeppner has guns: where are they? We have no idea where your guns are. To enforce these things is really tough. It's up to the individual to be honest and say, “Yes, here are all my guns”.

As I said, most people will register a few and hide the rest. With anybody who has family heirlooms, that's what we're finding. They may register the ones they use to go hunting, but people are hiding their guns. Let's be honest about it: they have an inherent distrust of government and they believe their guns will be seized. I'm not a big gun guy, but because you like to shoot, it's not for me to say that you can't do it. I don't understand why people golf, but I don't knock them for doing it.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Sergeant Rutledge, what about a domestic call? if you're called to a domestic situation, it's the same thing. Obviously you've told us that you don't depend on the registry, so--

12:35 p.m.

Sgt Duane Rutledge

No--

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

--can you just explain that process? If someone calls you and says they're concerned, that they're being threatened, how do you make that a safe situation in terms of any kind of weapon?

12:35 p.m.

Sgt Duane Rutledge

Any time we receive a call about domestic violence, whether it's a threat of violence or violence, we attend. In Nova Scotia there's a provincial policy: it's pro-investigation, pro-charge, and pro-arrest. We take it very seriously.

You show up there and do a search of the residence in exigent circumstances. You search the residence for firearms. Most times, if you can get the victim away from the spouse or boyfriend, the first person you're going to ask who has the current knowledge of what's in that house...they'll be honest most times, and you can work with them. That's how we go about it.

I'll go back to the female police officer who was shot in Quebec. She had full belief that the person was prohibited from having firearms and she let her guard down. Complacency is what gets police officers killed. I'd rather have no hope than false hope.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Thank you very much.

Mr. Aspin, go ahead.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Aspin Conservative Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

Dr. Langmann, I was particularly impressed by your analysis of the association between the long-gun registry and suicide by firearm. My background is in mathematics and I like to rely on empirical evidence.

I'm going to read you testimony from the Canadian Labour Congress:

For law enforcement, firefighters, emergency personnel, social workers, information about potential risks is crucial in ensuring their safety on the job. Like any worker, they have a right to a safe workplace. By denying them access to information about the possibility of guns in a home, this legislation puts their safety at risk.

Could you give us your comments on this and the impact on workplace safety?

12:35 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Give a brief response, Dr. Langmann.

12:35 p.m.

Emergency Medicine Resident, Fellowship Program of the Royal College of Physicians Canada, Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, As an Individual

Dr. Caillin Langmann

As a physician, I cannot access the long-gun registry. I also cannot disclose any confidential information between me and a patient. If a patient is just contemplating suicide, I cannot refer him to the police and have them go to his house.

I could be held accountable and my licence could be at stake with the College of Physicians and Surgeons if I disclosed any private confidential information. The best I can do--and have done--is ask them to get their friends to take their guns away. But I have also had other patients die from hanging after their firearms were taken away.

We need more--

12:35 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Dr. Langmann, unfortunately the time has expired.

I'll turn to Madam Boivin.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wish to thank the various witnesses.

I also wish to point out to everyone that this is the last group of witnesses in this process, which I liken to a high-speed train. We have had five short sessions. In fact, four, because the next session will be for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. This bill is very divisive and gives rise to as many arguments from all sides. To me, this is particularly absurd and absolutely abominable.

As one of the representatives of the Fédération des femmes du Québec and the Fédération des ressources d'hébergement pour femmes violentées et en difficulté du Québec said, we're at the dawn of a very dark period. This is the time of year when we recall sad events. We recall the extent to which violence against women and girls is still very much present in our society. I confess that this upsets me deeply.

I've just been to a press conference given by the YWCA, which was launching its Rose Campaign, aimed at ending violence against women. You're going to see tons of politicians wearing beautiful badges and white ribbons.

What concrete response can we give to women who are asking that the registry be kept, without it hurting anyone? In any case, no one has proved to me, in four sessions, that someone has died because of the registry. Whereas, conversely, we can have our suspicions but we can't be sure. I always take what looks like the surest option over the least sure.

As you put it earlier, we're weighing bureaucratic hassle against the saving of lives. It seems to me -- you'll forgive my English -- it's a no-brainer.

So you're going to see politicians wearing ribbons in their buttonholes. And what are we doing? We're getting rid of the registry. That's what we're telling the women of Canada, the women of Quebec, the victims' associations. We use them, though, to support other bills, like Bill. C-10. This step is absolutely unbelievable in its inconsistency.

There also seems to be a lack of understanding. They're trying to divide people who tell us it's not perfect. I agree with you. The registry is not perfect. First, you, the Conservatives, imposed a moratorium. Of course it's not up-to-date. It's not up-to-date because you imposed a moratorium five years ago. For five years, no data have been gathered. So it's pretty obvious that it's not up-to-date.

If an argument can't be used in law, we say that no one can plead his own turpitude. But this is what they are doing. They give us the argument that the registry isn't up-to-date. But this is something that can be corrected and improved. If there are mistakes because a postal code isn't right, that can be fixed.

Several of our police officers have come here to tell us repeatedly that it's dangerous to rely on the registry. Please, I hope there's not a police officer who's thick enough to consult a registry that hasn't been brought up-to-date for five years, and then go to someone's home thinking that there's only one firearm there. Come on! I don't think anyone would do something like that. I imagine that our police officers are a lot more professional than that.

The registry is a tool. If the registry tells us there are three firearms, it's better than nothing at all.

Yet it still looks to me as though bureaucratic hassle is being weighed against saving lives. I can't get over it. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police came here to tell us that it's a tool. Nobody said it was the only tool, but it's a tool.

Mr. Marchand, of the Association québécoise de prévention du suicide, told us and the statistics demonstrate it. No one can contradict it. No one can be 100% sure, on either one side or the other. But shouldn't we be in favour of life, rather than just falling in with the other side? That's the crux of the debate, to my mind. Unfortunately, our Conservative friends have used the debate to try and be divisive. I'm not against hunters. I eat meat and I like it, darn it!

If a hunter registers his firearm and we don't turn him into a criminal, that should solve the problem, it seems to me. If I sort out the things that aren't working in the registry, it seems to me that that will solve the problem.

Some survivors from the École polytechnique were here earlier. The people from the Fédération des femmes du Québec tell us that the registry is important, it helps and the statistics demonstrate it -- it has brought down the rate.

Perhaps it is not entirely due to the registry. However, personally speaking, if it were, I would not want to have that on my conscience. It is as simple as that. I am sorry but perhaps it is not something that bothers you but it does me. I should have a whole host of questions to put to you but I am starting to get a little tired of this being spun as an attempt to criminalize hunters. This is patently false.

We are endeavouring to get a proper handle on the issue. Section 11 is obviously a problem area. You have raised the issue yourself. There have been attempts to confuse the issue of firearms licenses with that of the purchase of a registered firearm. Come on! Imagine that I am a hunter with a license who wants to give up hunting. I need to make some money. So, I decide to sell my firearm to Mr. Rutledge on eBay without asking him to produce any documentation. How can you prove that I checked whether he could lawfully acquire the firearm once it is no longer registered? Quite simply, you cannot.

This legislation has shortcomings and the Government does not even realize. We are going relive what we went through with C-10 all over again. My colleagues and I will all work like dogs to table sensible amendments based on the solutions proposed by Quebec, which of course, wishes to recover the information held in the registry. But no, the Government is going to throw it all out! For goodness sake! We should leave the registry alone. It saves lives! We will table amendments and they will raise their hands like little robots to defeat them all. What a shame.

12:45 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Madam Boivin.

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Thank you. That was the last thing I will say before we move on to clause-by-clause consideration.

12:45 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Merci.

We'll turn to the other side. I assume that Mr. Breitkreuz is no longer substituting for Mr. Rathgeber.

Mr. Rathgeber.

November 24th, 2011 / 12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

I listened quite intently to Ms. Boivin's speech, and although I respect her, I too look for a path towards truth and valid evidence as opposed to hyperbole and half-truths. In that vein, I think I feel the need, Mr. Chair, to correct the record.

Ms. Boivin said that we have heard no evidence of the gun registry contributing to the loss of life. Also, she did preface her comments by saying that she had another meeting this morning, so that's fine. So I think she missed the testimony of Professor Mauser, who indicated very clearly that in 2005 in Laval, in her own province, there was a police officer who relied on the evidence—

12:45 p.m.

A voice

That's the problem--

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

I have the chair, if you don't mind--

12:45 p.m.

A voice

The floor--