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

11 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Good morning. This is meeting number 14 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, on Thursday, November 24, 2011, and for our orders of the day, we have Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

We will be hearing witnesses this morning.

I should say just before we begin that we had an agreement among all parties that these sessions would be televised. There was a competition for resources on the Hill this morning. There are only two rooms that can televise at the same time, and the common phrase is that we came third, so this session unfortunately will not be televised.

Yes?

11 a.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't think you're allowed to get someone to substitute in for you, sir, when you're taking over as vice-chair. That would be against the rules--

11 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

I don't believe that was--

11 a.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

You can have people sit in, for sure--

11 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

I just checked with the clerk. We have not done a substitution. We have an extra member at the table, as I believe you have.

11 a.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

That's fine. Thank you very much.

11 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Thank you.

I'd like to start by introducing the witnesses.

First, we have Gary Mauser, professor emeritus, Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, Simon Fraser University.

Welcome, Mr. Mauser.

Second, we have Mr. Greg Illerbrun and Mr. Kevin Omoth, from the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation.

Good morning.

Third, we have Heidi Rathjen and Nathalie Provost, from the Students and Graduates of Polytechnique for Gun Control.

Welcome.

By video conference this morning, we'll have Mr. Étienne Blais, associate professor, School of Criminology, at the University of Montreal.

We'll just check to make sure that Mr. Blais can hear us and we can hear him.

11 a.m.

Étienne Blais Associate Professor, School of Criminology, University of Montreal, As an Individual

Everything's fine.

11 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Merci.

We will come back to you at the end.

We will ask for about seven minutes of presentations from each of you to allow time for a round of questions. We'll begin with Mr. Mauser.

11 a.m.

Dr. Gary Mauser Professor Emeritus, Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and fellow panellists. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you.

I am Gary Mauser, professor emeritus, SFU. I am here as an individual criminologist to present facts, not myths. I will use my time to highlight a few issues referred to in the longer written brief that I have provided to the clerk.

For the past 25 years as an academic criminologist, I have focused on evaluating firearms legislation. The government is to be congratulated for proposing that the long-gun registry be eliminated. When a government program has failed to meet its goals, it should be shut down rather than permitted to drain funds for no good reason.

In my brief address, I will hit four points. First, responsible gun owners are less likely to be accused of homicide than other Canadians. Second, the police have not been able to demonstrate the value of the long-gun registry. Third, the long-gun registry has not been effective in reducing homicide. Fourth, the data in the long-gun registry are of such poor quality that they should be destroyed.

My first point is that law-abiding gun owners are less likely to be accused of homicide than other Canadians. This should not surprise. Firearms owners have been screened for criminal records since 1979, and it has been illegal since 1992 for people with a violent record to own a firearm.

Gun owners may be compared with other Canadians by calculating homicide rates per 100,000 people. Based on a special request from Statistics Canada, I calculated that licensed gun owners had a homicide rate of 0.6 persons per 100,000 licensed gun owners, while over the same time period there was an average national homicide rate of 1.85 per 100,000 people; thus, Canadians who do not have a firearms licence are roughly three times more likely to commit murder than those who do.

Despite these facts, the RCMP budgets more than $20 million annually for the long-gun registry.

The second point is that the police have not been able to demonstrate the value of the long-gun registry. Scrapping the registry could not appreciably compromise law enforcement's ability to trace firearms. Statistics show that the police recover registered long guns in exceptionally few homicides.

During the eight years from 2003 to 2010, there were 4,811 homicides, and 1,485 of those involved firearms. Data provided by Statistics Canada reveal that only 135 of these guns were registered. In just 73 cases, that is, fewer than 5% of all firearm homicides, was the gun registered to the accused, and some of those, of course, may be innocent. Only 45 of these 73 cases involved long guns--fewer than 1% of all homicides. The long-gun registry could not, therefore, significantly compromise law enforcement's ability to trace firearms.

The police have not been able to show that they have solved a single murder by tracing a firearm using the long-gun registry. Nor has the long-gun registry proved useful in solving police killings. Since 1961, 123 police have been shot and killed. Only one of these murders involved a registered long gun, and it did not belong to the murderer. It is a truism that the most dangerous criminals have not registered their firearms. Unsurprisingly, serving police officers say the registry is not useful to them.

Worse, the long-gun registry has reduced the effectiveness of the police by driving a wedge between them and responsible citizens who own firearms.

My third point is that the long-gun registry has not been effective in reducing homicide rates. There is no convincing evidence that the registry has reduced criminal violence. Not a single refereed academic study by criminologists or economists has found a significant benefit from the gun laws.

Two examples illustrate this: the homicide rate fell faster before long guns were required to be registered, and the homicide rate fell faster in the U.S. than in Canada over the same time period of 1991 to 2010. Needless to say, the U.S. did not share Canada's gun laws. Also, the rate of multiple murders has not changed since the long-gun registry began.

The fourth point is that the data in the long-gun registry are of such poor quality that they should be destroyed. The many errors and omissions in the long-gun registry vitiate its utility for police and courts. The Auditor General twice found that the RCMP could not rely upon the registry on account of the large number of errors and omissions.

In closing, I wish to thank you for your attention and leave you with a few thoughts.

The long-gun registry is misdirected because it focuses on law-abiding citizens rather than violent criminals. To do their job, police require the support of those they police. Ending the registry will help to heal the rupture between the police and responsible citizens. I urge that BillC-19 become law and the data in the long-gun registry be destroyed.

By the way, there is clearly precedent for destroying such data. During World War II, all guns, including long guns, were registered. After the war, this information was discarded in the trash bin as no longer of value or utility.

Thank you.

11:05 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Thank you very much, Mr. Mauser. You kept well within the time limits. I appreciate that.

We'll now turn to the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation and Mr. Illerbrun or Mr. Omoth.

Mr. Illerbrun.

11:05 a.m.

Greg Illerbrun Firearms Chairman, Past-President, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation

I'll be speaking on behalf of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation.

Mr. Chairman, honourable committee members, and fellow witnesses, it is an honour and a privilege to speak to you today.

Our time is valuable, so let me get to the point: the thousands of people I represent support the permanent elimination of the registry.

This is a vital first step in fulfilling this government's long-standing commitment to replace the current law with one that preserves the right to our traditional lifestyle. I have a passion for hunting and the shooting sports that I share with three daughters: two are avid hunters and the third one raids my deep-freeze.

Hunting is a widespread family tradition in Saskatchewan. I am a former RCMP officer as well as a past provincial president of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, one of the largest wildlife organizations of its kind in the world. Since 1995, I have been the chair of the Saskatchewan Recreational Firearms Committee, which works with firearm groups, local governments, and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. These organizations comprise everyday people interested in the outdoors and the use of firearms. We, along with other Canadians, took great offence to the creation of the Firearms Act, still commonly referred to 16 years later as Bill C-68.

What is so offensive about this legislation?

Former Auditor General Sheila Fraser summed it up best when she stated that the initial focus was to use the registry information to target high-risk cases, but this was expanded to regard all gun owners in the same way, as the use of firearms is a “questionable activity” that requires strong controls. This law targets law-abiding citizens, but does little to stop the criminal use of firearms. That approach is fundamentally wrong. Look at the example of the handgun registry: in place for decades, yet we see increasing use of handguns by criminals today. Registries do not work to stop crime. Check the record in New Zealand.

You may be aware that Allan Rock, former Justice Minister, once said, “I came to Ottawa...with the firm belief that only the police and the military should have firearms”. This plan to rid Canada of private firearms was strategically planned and made possible by the Liberal Party through the creation of Bill C-68. The tools were carefully crafted into law, where they exist to this day, waiting to be used. Here's some quick background on the Firearms Act today.

First of all, it is a criminal offence for anyone other than a soldier or a police officer to possess a firearm. The current licence is a temporary permit that prevents the police from charging you for the crime you are committing. At the whim of government, it can be revoked or made difficult to obtain or keep. Without it, you cannot possess a firearm.

Many Saskatchewan residents have been charged with a criminal offence simply because they forgot to renew their licence. As a former police officer, I cannot support convicting farmers who need to use a firearm for pest control, and I submit to you that some of these same people were veterans, who should not have their freedom, paid for in blood, vanish with the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen. A firearms licence must be made valid for life unless the individual has lost that right through a criminal act.

Second, it is a criminal offence to possess an unregistered firearm. Some would suggest that this is the same as registering a dog or a vehicle. Dog and vehicle owners do not receive a criminal record for failing to comply. Using criminal law to enforce gun control is not acceptable yet, sadly, we have spent two billion dollars tracking honest citizens. Please kill the registry and use the money to deal with real criminals.

Third, the government can change any regulation through order in council, including firearms classification. This means that any firearm that is currently legal can be re-classed and confiscated as the result of a closed-door cabinet meeting. Confiscations have and will continue to happen as long as this insidious legislation exists in its current form.

Fourth, government inspectors--not police services-can enter your home without a warrant based on the suspicion that there is a firearm, ammunition, or documentation of a firearm. Am I painting you a clear picture? It sure doesn't seem like firearms owners are treated the same as other Canadians.

Fifth, the Firearms Act removes your right to remain silent. Inspectors can demand that you tell them where your firearms are--or any other related evidence--and if you do not assist them you can be charged and put in jail. You do not have the right to remain silent. This is not because you are a drug dealer, a sex offender, or a murderer. It is because the law identifies you as a legal firearms owner. Criminals enjoy more rights than firearm owners.

Is there a long history of legal gun owners using them for illegal purposes? The answer is no. The entire regime was built for a potential risk that I can tell you today does not exist. The previous Liberal government deliberately drafted these tools and others so that over time they could bring an end to all private ownership of firearms in Canada. Leave the current act as it is, and it's only a matter of time before government will use those tools to end a time-honoured and legitimate way of life in Canada.

Ending the registry is an excellent first step towards replacing the Firearms Act. I challenge the government to continue to lead by integrity.

Keep your promise to develop a law that all Canadians can support.

Thank you.

11:10 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Thank you very much, Mr. Illerbrun.

Again people are being very well-behaved on time. That will leave us time for questions. Thank you.

Now we turn to the Students and Graduates of Polytechnique for Gun Control.

Ms. Provost.

11:15 a.m.

Nathalie Provost Students and Graduates of Polytechnique for Gun Control

Hello. Thank you to all of you for inviting us to appear before this committee.

My name is Nathalie Provost, I am an engineer, a 1990 graduate of the École Polytechnique, and a mother of four. I represent, with Heidi Rathjen, the Student and Graduate Student Associations of the Polytechnique, the board of the Alumni Association, and many witnesses and survivors of the massacre and their families.

I was injured on December 6, 1989, at the École Polytechnique by a shot with a semi-automatic rifle while other more seriously wounded students died around me. Long guns are dangerous, as I know only too well. The shootings at our school triggered a Canada-wide movement to improve our gun control laws. The massacre highlighted the weaknesses in Canadian legislation.

At the time, it was relatively easy for a 16-year-old to be authorized to acquire an unlimited number of firearms. There were millions of long guns in the country that were invisible to the police. Soon after the murders, students at the École Polytechnique launched a huge petition calling for stricter gun control.

In 22 years, we have been able to contribute to impressive legislative and public progress, particularly with respect to the substantial decline in gun-related death and suicide rates. When Conservative politicians argue that long guns are not a problem because they are not the weapon of choice for criminals, they are ignoring the evidence and basic common sense.

The Supreme Court underscored what is obvious to all but the Conservatives. Guns cannot be divided neatly into two categories -- those that are dangerous and those that are not dangerous. All guns are capable of being used in crime. All guns are capable of killing and maiming. It follows that all guns pose a threat to public safety.

Out of respect for the memory of victims of long guns, including the 14 victims at the École Polytechnique, and out of compassion for all those who, like me, have felt the burn of a gunshot, could you, Conservative Members of Parliament, stop pretending that long guns are not a crime-related problem?

In fact, every year, police revoke the licences of over 2,000 potentially dangerous individuals and confiscate the weapons in their possession. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews recently admitted to the House of Commons that in a little over two years, 4,612 long guns were seized in connection with licences revoked for public safety reasons. In all, 111,000 firearms are currently in police custody, of which 87,000, or close to 80%, are long guns.

These actions, supported by the registry, prevent tragedies and save lives. Which ones exactly? We don't know -- because they haven't taken place. No massacres, no headlines, no list of names of people saved. When prevention measures work, there are no incidents to document. Just don't try and tell us that the registry is not effective.

In 11 days, it will be the 22nd anniversary of the Polytechnique massacre, in which I was injured and escaped death. So it is with a very heavy heart that I am witnessing the legislative process leading to the dismantling of one of the few positive outcomes of this tragedy: the law that helps save hundreds and hundreds of lives.

With Bill C-19, we are allowing the gun lobby to dictate the kind of society we want to live in, a society that is irreversibly going backwards towards easier access to firearms, which will doubtless lead to more lives and families being destroyed with the pull of a trigger.

11:15 a.m.

Heidi Rathjen Spokesperson, Students and Graduates of Polytechnique for Gun Control

Good morning. I will continue in English.

Up until now, the debate surrounding Bill C-19 has mainly focused on the registration of guns. However, the impacts of this legislation reach well beyond the issue of registration.

For example, clause 11 eliminates the requirement to keep any record of the transaction involving long guns. This means that there won't be any more paper or electronic traces indicating that a sale has taken place. There are more than 1.5 million of these private sales in about two years.

The requirement to record sales was introduced in 1977 and, in the absence of a more effective centralized registry, was at least able to serve the public safety by helping police in some criminal investigations. For example, sales records allowed police to identify the perpetrator of the Polytechnique shooting, who was unrecognizable, having shot himself in the face.

So unless a store voluntarily keeps a detailed sales record, there will no longer be any trail linking a seller to a buyer or to a gun that was sold, nor will there be any trace indicating that the sale took place. The sales will be taking place in the dark.

Bill C-19 will also critically weaken a second crucial component of gun control: the controls on ownership or licensing.

When in 2006 the Conservative government tabled Bill C-21, an earlier attempt to abolish the registry, it nevertheless recognized the importance of verifying the validity of a licence to own when selling or transferring a gun--any gun. In the accompanying fact sheet, the Conservatives reassured the public that the proposed amendment would still “require current owners to verify that a potential purchaser or another new owner of their non-restricted firearm has a valid firearms license by contacting the Chief Firearms Officer”. It stated, “This measure will assist in ensuring that guns do not end up in the hands of individuals who shouldn’t have them, such as convicted criminals”.

Yet clause 11 also repeals the obligation for anyone selling or transferring a long gun, whether it is a gun store or a private individual, to verify the validity of the buyer's licence. All they have to do is have “no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm”. Technically, they don't even have to ask to see a licence.

In order to properly understand the implications of this incredible loophole, consider this. Someone about to purchase a long gun can simply hold out something that looks like a licence. It could be a revoked licence, a counterfeit licence, or even a shabby but slightly official-looking plasticized card that could be produced in any copy shop.

With Bill C-19, there would be no obligation for the seller to check the validity of the licence with the Firearms Centre or to record anything about the licence, its number, the rifle being sold, or the person he is selling it to. He just has to believe that the owner is authorized to own a gun. The buyer can convince the seller: “I promise that I have a licence”. Is that enough?

In the event that the rifle is used in a crime, it will be practically impossible to hold accountable the person who sold the gun to an individual without a licence. All the person has to say is: “Yes, I sold a gun to someone. I seem to remember that he or she had a valid licence. At least, I believed he or she did at the time, but I didn't verify its validity or write down the licence number or the buyer's name”. There is no technical violation of the law unless the police can prove that this person didn't believe something.

11:20 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Ms. Rathjen, unfortunately, you're out of time. Just conclude the sentence.

11:20 a.m.

Spokesperson, Students and Graduates of Polytechnique for Gun Control

Heidi Rathjen

In one more minute, I'll be done.

11:20 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

I'm sorry, we're already—

11:20 a.m.

Spokesperson, Students and Graduates of Polytechnique for Gun Control

Heidi Rathjen

Twenty-two years.... Can you give me one minute?

11:20 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

No, I'm sorry. We have to give the same amount of time to each of the witnesses.

11:20 a.m.

Spokesperson, Students and Graduates of Polytechnique for Gun Control

Heidi Rathjen

All right.

11:20 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Just give us a concluding sentence, if you like.

11:20 a.m.

Spokesperson, Students and Graduates of Polytechnique for Gun Control

Heidi Rathjen

In other words—I will just conclude with one thing—what the authors of the bill have done is actually quite incredible: they have devised a legal framework that maintains the illegal nature of a sale of a long gun to a non-licensed person but has made it practically impossible to prosecute unless the police can prove something that is almost impossible to prove.

Thank you.

11:20 a.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Randall Garrison

Thank you.

Now we'll turn to our teleconference.

Monsieur Blais, please proceed.

11:20 a.m.

Associate Professor, School of Criminology, University of Montreal, As an Individual

Étienne Blais

Mr. Chair, distinguished members of the committee, good day.

Allow me first to introduce myself. I am Étienne Blais, a criminologist and associate professor in the School of Criminology at the Université de Montréal. I was hired for my expertise in research and crime prevention methods.

Since I was hired, in 2006, I have developed a research program on the prevention of crime and injuries linked to firearms. From the start of my career, I have had the opportunity to publish numerous articles with peer committees and give many lectures on the issue of gun control in Canada.

Before presenting my position on Bill C-19, I would like to recall that the issue of those injured by firearms goes far beyond that of criminality, or violence associated with criminal groups. Of the 800 or so annual deaths associated with firearms, 75% are suicides. Furthermore, about 85% of suicides by firearm involve long guns. In many cases, suicides involve people who are suffering from mental disturbances or who find themselves in a momentary crisis.

Suicides are very often committed in the victim's home. Many studies demonstrate that access to a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide in general. This is also so for spousal homicides. The presence of a firearm in the home increases the risk of spousal homicide. In these homicides and suicides, firearms are the perfect facilitator enabling those with suicidal or homicidal thoughts to act on them. Moreover, it is with a view to preventing such suicides and homicides that certain provisions were made in Bill C-68, respecting firearms and certain other weapons, and its regulations, including a provision to advise current spouses or spouses of the past two years of their spouses' or former spouses' intention to purchase a firearm and of the registration of all firearms.

In my research, I have focused on the effect of these laws on homicide and suicide rates. The results of my studies have been published in reviews, with peer committees, or presented at scientific conferences, also with peer committees. In one such study, my colleagues and I evaluated the effect of Bills C-51, C-17 and C-68 on homicide and suicide rates in Canada between 1974 and 2004.

First of all, our results show that the passing of Bill C-68 was associated with a significant decline in homicides committed with a firearm, and more specifically homicides involving long guns. This decline varies between 5% and 10%, depending on the province. This corresponds to the prevention of some 50 homicides a year in Canada.

The preventive effect of the law is all the more probable in that the decline in the number of homicides by long arm is not offset by an increase in homicides committed by other methods. Furthermore, this decline may be observed solely in homicides committed by long arm. Homicides committed with other weapons, such as knives and blunt instruments, have not budged. This means that the decline that may be attributed to Bill C-68 is indeed attributable and that it is not attributable to other factors or prevention measures put in place to prevent homicides.

Second, Bill C-68 was associated with a significant decline in suicides by firearm. Once again, there is no increase or decrease in the number of suicides committed by other methods. This suggests that the decline in suicides by firearm is not offset by a rise in suicides committed by other methods, and the decline is not attributable to other suicide prevention measures. We estimate at about 250 the number of suicides prevented annually in Canada since the introduction of the Firearms Act in 1998.

Recently, we conducted other evaluations, which consolidate our conclusions that Bill C-68 helped to reduce homicides and suicides. These recent results even suggest that Bill C-68 helped to prevent spousal homicides. The effects of Bill C-68 began to appear gradually from 1998, as the provisions of this legislation were implemented.

Many studies have now been conducted on the effect of Canadian legislation pertaining to firearms control. Why look at our results? How are our results more credible than those of other studies?

First, we take into account other factors, such as the proportion of young men, beer consumption, the number of police per inhabitant, incarceration rates and unemployment rates, to name but a few of other concomitant factors.

Second, we employ statistical methods enabling us to obtain valid estimates.

Third, we distinguish homicides according to the weapon used and the relationship between the parties. However, the chief advantage of our studies resides, in my opinion, in the use of the province as an analysis unit, which many studies do not do.

For example, in our latest study, we take account of the various homicide rates in the six Canadian provinces and the Atlantic region for the period from 1974 to 2006. That enables us to have a sample of 231 observations. This is a large enough sample to detect the effects of the laws. A simple sample of 30 or 35 observations would be completely inadequate, for lack of statistical strength.

In addition, this enables us to take into account provincial jurisdiction respecting law enforcement. Laws come into effect at the same time throughout Canada, but it is the provinces that are responsible for enforcing them. So any evaluation of the laws respecting firearms control in Canada must take this into account.

Finally, using the provinces as an analysis unit enables us to take into account crime rate variations among them. Canada in itself is not representative of the problems experienced in the provinces.

In conclusion, the results of our studies demonstrate that Bill C-68 has helped to prevent 300 deaths a year. On the basis of data on the direct and indirect costs of deaths by firearm, we estimate that over $400 million a year is saved in costs from the prevention of those 300 deaths. This amount compares favourably with the $63 million dedicated annually to the operation of the Canadian Firearms Program and the $9.1 million dedicated to registration activities, according to the RCMP report.

On the basis of our results, we think that eliminating the firearms registry may compromise the health and safety of Canadians. The requirements to obtain a firearms licence and to register firearms are two necessary and complementary measures. These measures allow us to link each firearm to its owner...