Public Safety Committee on Nov. 24th, 2011

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

Certainly. By all means.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

It would have been reviewed by Ph.D.s, by statisticians. It seems pretty credible to me.

There could be disagreements. Obviously you disagree. Your analysis gives you different results.

We're in the realm of social science; we're not in the realm of space science. I think we have to admit that. So there will be disagreements. There will be margins of error.

Yet people still say quite categorically, as though it is the gospel truth.... You talk about “garbage in and gospel out”, but there are people who, on social science issues, make categorical statements, such as that the gun registry, in all its years of existence, has never, ever—it's impossible, it's not within the realm of this universe—saved one life. Do you believe that statement?

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

Yes.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

You have one minute remaining, Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Illerbrun, you essentially don't think that a firearm acquisition certificate should ever be revoked. That's what you said.

[Greg Illerbrun]

No, that's not what I said. I said that it should be made for a lifetime, unless you do a criminal act, and then it should be revoked.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Fine. That is what you said.

[Greg Illerbrun]

The reason I'm telling you this is that farmers right now in my home province are being charged with criminal offences because their licences have expired.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I understand that.

[Greg Illerbrun]

That's wrong.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Right. That's what you said, absolutely, but if we find that someone becomes suicidal or mentally unstable, you don't think that their firearm acquisition certificate should be revoked? Only if they've committed a crime?

[Greg Illerbrun]

No, if they're mentally unstable they shouldn't have gotten it in the first place. They shouldn't have that licence.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

No, but people go through different phases. Sometimes everything is fine, but then they can run into some mental issues. So you'd be in agreement with taking away the certificate if a psychiatrist or someone said they were suicidal?

[Greg Illerbrun]

Absolutely.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Thanks to both of you. Unfortunately, the time for the session has expired.

My thanks to all the witnesses for their presentations today.

We will suspend briefly to allow the second panel to take their seats.

Thanks to all of you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Could we have order, please?

Could I ask those who are doing media interviews to please take them outside? Thank you very much.

This will be the second panel of witnesses today. I believe the order is a bit other than I expected, so pardon me while I try to welcome the witnesses.

They are: Mr. Caillin Langmann, emergency medicine resident at McMaster University, appearing as a doctor; Mr. Duane Rutledge, appearing from the New Glasgow Police Service, but as an individual; Mr. Bruno Marchand, from the Association québécoise de prévention du suicide; and from the Fédération des femmes du Québec, Manon Monastesse and Eve-Marie Lacasse.

Welcome.

We will begin with Dr. Langmann. Because of the time, I'm going to have to shorten it to about six minutes each, and we'll also have to shorten the questions.

Please proceed.

[Dr. Caillin Langmann, Emergency Medicine Resident, Fellowship Program of the Royal College of Physicians Canada, Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, As an Individual]

Thank you for letting me present my research regarding Canadian firearms legislation. I am an emergency physician in Hamilton. I treat suicide and violence on a daily basis.

During the next seven minutes, I will summarize research I have recently had accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Interpersonal Violence regarding Canadian firearms legislation's effects on homicide from 1974 to 2008. In particular, I will focus on the long-gun registry today. As well, I will go into brief detail and analysis of the association between the long-gun registry and suicide.

Several figures will be assessed during this brief that I present to the committee. I would ask that you examine the figures I am referring to during this discussion.

Briefly, three statistical methods were used in an attempt to find an association between firearms legislation in 1978, 1991, and 1995, and the long-gun registry. In particular, it is important to note that the long-gun registry was enacted in 1999 and was mandatory by 2003. The study is significant and is the only peer-reviewed study examining 1994 to 2008 and the only study using three methods to confirm results. The search for effects was conducted over several years. Surrounding legislation--as well as gradual effects--was examined, as some legislation, such as that for the PAL, are implemented over years.

To summarize the results, no statistically significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide by firearms, by the subcategory long guns, and spousal homicide, as well as the criminal charge of “discharge of a firearm with intent”, were found.

In the next five slides, I will attempt to demonstrate some of the results pertaining specifically to the long-gun registry in graphical format, as I hope this will be easier to understand and interpret.

Figure 1 is a graphical depiction of a homicide regression analysis. In this example, the homicide rate prior to the intervention is marked B₁. At the time of the intervention, B₂, there is a sudden impact, shifting down the homicide rate. The trend of the decline of homicide after the intervention, B₃, continues post-intervention over time. Statistical analysis is done to determine if these effects at B₂ and B₃ are significant and not due to yearly variation. Successful legislation would be expected to have an effect depicted in this picture.

Figure 2 shows the homicide firearms rate, minus the effects of contributing variables such as aging population, on the bottom of the graph. As can be seen visually, right along the bottom of the graph, there is no sudden shift or decline such as might be expected from effects explained by legislation associated with firearms. For example, as the median age of the population increases by one year, the homicide rate drops by 8%.

Figure 3 demonstrates a two-dimensional depiction of multiple regression of factors associated with firearms homicide, such as socio-economic factors as well as the long-gun registry. Post-long-gun registry in 1999, there is no significant immediate decrease or a decrease in time after the long-gun registry. In fact, as you can see, the effect increases, and homicide goes up.

Figure 4 shows the same thing for homicide by long gun. Prior to the long-gun registry, you have a decrease in homicide. There is no statistically significant impact effect after the registry is implemented; there is no decreasing trend.

Figure 5 depicts the same thing for spousal homicide. Once again, this is multivariate analysis with multiple socio-economic factors included. Once again, there is no significant decrease in 1999, and afterwards, the trend effect increases.

A similar analysis is done on the suicide rate post-1991 to account for any potential background effects of legislation introduced in the early 1990s.

Figure 6 depicts total suicide. In 1999 there is no significant statistical immediate impact effect or impact effect over time. These trend lines are not significant.

Figure 7 demonstrates suicide by firearm. There is no significant impact effect in 1999, when the long-gun registry is implemented, and afterwards there is no decreasing trend; the trend lines are the same. A similar analysis was done by Gagne et al.

I'd like to close. In my humble opinion, the money that has been spent on the long-gun registry is unfortunately wasted; however, we can prevent further waste by taking the money we currently spend on the long-gun registry and spending it on things shown in the scientific literature to be beneficial at saving more than just one life. Those things are women's shelters; police training in spousal abuse; and psychiatric care, which is sorely lacking in this country. We are not winning the battle against suicide.

I have a quote from an emergency department chief, who said: “In a town where I have over 15,000 registered firearms--and probably as many unregistered--and 22 trains travelling through every 24 hours, guess which one gets used for suicide more often? What we need are more resources to fund mental health and treatment rather than registering inanimate objects in our rural community. Psychiatrists and outreach workers offer tangible results that are saving Canadian lives, something no gun registry on earth can provide”. That was from Dr. Ramirez, chief of the Stevenson Memorial Hospital.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Thank you very much, Dr. Langmann.

Now we'll turn to Mr. Rutledge. Again, I would ask you to try to keep your remarks to six minutes so we have time for questions.

[Sergeant Duane Rutledge, Sergeant, K-9 Unit, New Glasgow Police Service, As an Individual]

I will.

I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to speak today.

My name is Duane Rutledge. I am a police officer, a sergeant with the New Glasgow Police Service in Nova Scotia. I have 30-plus years of experience in law enforcement, and I continue today to be a front-line officer. I have worked in general duty, in drug investigations, and in general investigation sections and major crime. I'm on the emergency response team. At present, I'm a police service dog handler. To most people, that's a K-9 unit.

I've held and used firearms since I was 8 years of age and now the only time I use them is at work. I'd like to speak briefly on the fact of the gun registry and how it has failed to protect both the public and the police from the illegal use of firearms in this country.

Early on when it was proposed, I think everybody who owned a gun in this country knew that registering a weapon would not make it safe. People in this country continue to be the problem, not the weapon of choice, whether it be a firearm, an edge weapon, an explosive, or whatever device they tend to use when they sink to the depths of depravity to take the life of another human being.

I think we've wasted a lot of money, which everyone seems to understand. Even people who were in favour of it are horrified at the amount of money that has been spent to gain so little. I think the lack of buy-in by gun owners in this country, who felt they were being lied to when they were told that the registry would make things safe, pushed them to the outside, and they began to hide guns in this country.

As a front-line police officer, I believe there are more hidden guns today than there were when this legislation was introduced. This, therefore, makes it more dangerous for me now, because I'm guessing every time I go to a house if I rely on the registry to give me the facts. I don't believe it can do that, simply because there are so many people who haven't registered guns.

I took the time to speak to a number of different people before I came here. I spoke to one judge and a prosecutor. I speak to the general public in my community. I've lived my entire life in the place where I work. I've served my community for 30-plus years and protected them. I wanted their opinions on how they felt about the gun registry.

I sat down and spoke to the lady who runs our transition house, Tearmann House, which does a great job for battered spouses in our community. I spoke with her and told her I was coming here to testify to the fact that I did not believe in the gun registry.

I've taken this very seriously. I have opinions from everyone, even from some of the people I've arrested. I sat down and talked to them and asked them their opinion of the registry and what effect it has. It's more of a chuckle from them. When the government tells people what it's going to do and what the end result will be, the average person believes, well, it hasn't happened....

Some people registered all their weapons. Some people registered a few of their weapons. Therein lies the problem now. When you check a registry that has only some of the guns registered, as in the case of the female officer who was murdered in Quebec.... She checked the registry and found that a gentleman had been prohibited from possessing firearms, but he was given the right to have a firearm to dispatch animals that he was trapping, which left a huge gap in the system. She paid for it with her life.

And then, some people haven't registered any guns. I was thinking about this on the way up. If I had a better than fifty-fifty chance when I flew up here yesterday of making it on the airplane, I wouldn't be here today, and unfortunately, when our officers are going on calls now, that's what they're faced with.

I feel bad for the big city forces who do not really know the population they police. I've lived my whole life in my community, so I do have hands-on knowledge, and I know the people we police. I realize I'm in the east; the west and the north of this country are hunting cultures and we expect to see firearms. On the way to the airport yesterday, we passed numerous trucks on the secondary roads, and probably every second truck had a high-powered rifle on the front seat.

We do not panic when we hear about guns, as people think we do. It's an everyday event that people do have weapons. Also, 90% of the people in this country are good people and will not do anything wrong. As for the criminals, we will always have them. As well, when good people have mental health issues and they slip offside and commit an act, we will never be able to control that either. I think we've targeted the wrong people.

I am 100% in favour of licensing, as most of my people are. To keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them is what we should be looking at, because people will use other weapons.

In 1991, I was looking at some of the graphs after Bill C-17, I think it was, came into effect, on actual safe storage, handling, education, and training for people who have firearms, and we've seen some drastic changes in gun crime. For most people, when a policeman shows up at the door and there's something going on, between 30 and 45 seconds is the time it takes for people to vent and for there to be a de-escalation. I can safely say that having guns locked up, with trigger locks on them, and ammunition separated, has had more impact on this country's safety for firearms than this new legislation of registering firearms has; I don't see how that brings any safety to anyone and, unfortunately, I am guessing as much today as I did 30 years ago when I started.

Those are my comments. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rutledge.

We will now go to our next witness, Mr. Marchand.

[Bruno Marchand, Director General, Association québécoise de prévention du suicide]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In addition to being the Director General of the Association québécoise de prévention du suicide, I am also a member of the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention.

Suicide is a major public-health problem, a significant one that is recognized by everyone, that takes the lives of 10 Canadians daily. Tomorrow there will be another 10 people who will die and again the day after tomorrow. It takes the lives of three Quebeckers every day. Contrary to what was said earlier, in Quebec the suicide rate has not been declining since the 1960s or 1970s. The suicide rate rose until 1999. The decline began that year and continued up to 2008.

We're opposed to C-19 and profoundly worried about its consequences. Suicide is a complex problem, which will not be controlled solely by the control of firearms. Still, it is one of the ways that may have an effect on in the lives of our fellow citizens.

I wish to refer to the World Health Organization, which on its Web site answers the question "How can suicide be prevented?" as follows:

Not all suicides can be prevented, but a majority can. There are a number of measures that can be taken at community and national levels to reduce the risk, including:

reducing access to the means of suicide (e.g. [...] guns [...];

I remind you that this is the first measure mentioned. Why is that? Because, as rational people who enjoy sound mental health, we might think that the means is only a means and that, if a firearm is not available, well there is a rope or drugs. For someone who is vulnerable, someone who enters a process of cognitive constriction and whose condition deteriorates and who doesn't find ways of ending their suffering in their life other than this poor option, the means is not just a means. It's not as though they were choosing a car, a means of transportation to get from one place to another; it's much more than that. If we take away this means from them, there's a good chance of keeping them alive and with us.

By means of a process both rational and irrational, conscious and unconscious, related to their values, culture, themselves, a person chooses a means. If they have chosen firearms and if there is less access to firearms, a definite advantage is created. This is why we're convinced that we've prevented suicides by putting up anti-suicide barriers on the Jacques Cartier Bridge in Montreal. When the means was no longer available, the person who had selected this as their means of committing suicide didn't seek another one, even though there are other bridges around Montreal Island.

The same is true in Toronto regarding the subway and anti-suicide barriers. It was the same in the Northern European countries, when the quantities of acetaminophen and ibuprofen available over the counter were reduced. Yes, someone could go back to the drugstore 50 times. But this had a direct effect on the number of suicides because barriers were put up for the person who was vulnerable and wanted to put a permanent end to some temporary problems.

The firearms registry and all its components have prevented 250 suicides a year. Mr. Blais came to this figure and it's also what we believe since we see that the trend has declined. This cannot be compared with the relative importance of other means used. Obviously, the less firearms are used in suicides, even though the number remains more or less constant, the more the relative importance given to hanging increases as a percentage.

The registry affords more time for a vulnerable person. It means we can intervene. It allows the authorities to take the action required by a situation, and it also enables us to link the firearm to its owner. The registry ensures an accountability and traceability that most certainly allows us to let people who have a weapon and are completely entitled to have one know that they must act appropriately by protecting the people around them.

The registry enables us to take action that would not be possible with other means, for example, taking firearms away from people who are temporarily going through difficult times in their lives and who, if they had a weapon, might commit an irreparable act.

We strongly believe that the registry has had some positive effects. We're convinced of that. I wish to quote a Public Security Canada document from the government of the day in 2006 when it wanted to make some changes to the registry:

The amendments made to the bill tabled today will force current owners to check, by contacting the Chief Firearms Officer, that potential buyers of firearms and any other future owner of a non-restricted firearm have a valid firearms licence. This measure will help to ensure that weapons do not end up in the hands of individuals who should not have access to them, [...]

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Randall Garrison]

Mr. Marchand, can you speak more slowly, please, for the interpreters?

[Bruno Marchand]

Thank you.

At the time, we were already talking about this measure as a way of not putting in the hands of people who shouldn't have access to firearms, tools that could put an end to their lives.

In conclusion, on October 4, you all voted -- Conservatives, New Democrats and Liberals -- in favour of a national suicide prevention strategy. Today or tomorrow, if this bill is adopted, you will be going against this measure, which you have all approved, because you believe in suicide prevention.

I don't know how, a year or two from now, you're going to look in the eye a father who has lost his daughter or son by firearm because of the great availability of firearms, because it was easier to buy a firearm and less trouble than borrowing a book from the library. I don't know what you're going to say to that person, but you won't be able to say you didn't know. Thank you.