Public Safety Committee on May 14th, 2015

[Dr. Katherine Austin, Canadian Paediatric Society]

Yes, I'm here now. I got some exercise running over from the other building.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We're thinking of your health.

Things will be a little bit abbreviated as we've had some challenges with technical hook-up, etc., today. You have up to 10 minutes, and then we will go to a brief round of questions and answers, so the shorter your brief is, the more time we have for questions and answers. You have the floor.

[Dr. Katherine Austin]

It's pretty short. I want to say hi to Mr. Bernardo. He and I were co-presenters the last time I was here. We have to stop meeting like this.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dr. Katherine Austin]

Today I'm representing the Canadian Paediatric Society. I have a PowerPoint presentation, and you have it on paper.

We are a national professional association that represent 2,000 pediatricians, and we advocate for the health needs of children and youth. I'm really proud of the CPS. It's a wonderful organization that always puts kids' interests first. We have published a position paper on firearms and youth and safety. In fact, we have been doing that for the last 20 years. We have a lot of interest in this area. We're very grateful to you for inviting us to come today and share our expertise and recommendations on the subject of Bill C-637, which I just learned about on Monday. It's been quite a week for me, immersing myself in the details of this bill.

I will start by going to the first slide. The modern day air guns and BB guns are very different from the products that were out in the 1950s and 1960s. These have the ability to cause serious internal injury and death. Mr. Bernardo and I are going to have to totally disagree on this subject.

The Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology published a study in which they reviewed all the accidents that occurred in the Ottawa area over a period of 20 years that resulted in someone losing an eye. The medical term for having to have your eye taken out because it's been so badly damaged is enucleation. Of all of those accidents they studied over a 20-year period, air guns and BB guns were the leading cause of enucleation.

I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Bernardo about the fact that losing an eye is not in the category of serious bodily injury. Imagine your child losing an eye. It's permanent. It's disfiguring. It affects your vision and your balance. It's a terrible issue. It's not as bad as dying, but it's one of the worst things that could happen to you, short of dying.

Permanent blindness is not the only problem that air guns and BB guns can cause. I'll have you look at the next slide. The present day non-powder firearms can cause skin penetration. They can cause eye penetration. In a number of cases, deaths from air guns and BB guns have been reported. The deaths occur secondary to brain trauma. The BB has penetrated inside the head and caused so much brain trauma to cause death. We also see brain trauma, neck trauma, penetration of the chest to the heart and lungs, and penetration of the abdomen.

This new generation of air guns and BB guns is so powerful that when we make recommendations to physicians who are treating these injuries, now we say that if someone has received an injury from an air gun or a BB gun, it should be treated like a regular firearms injury. The person needs to have MRIs and CTs, and all of the kind of observation that you would expect because there may be serious internal injury.

A lot of time and effort has been expended, and I've had a crash course this week to understand the meaning of the different categories of velocity that the projectiles are shot out at. I don't know if the committee feels they are expert on this issue, but I want to share with you what I have learned about the velocities.

For guns that shoot a projectile with a velocity of greater than 500 feet per second, and that would be 152 metres per second for those of you who are thinking in metres, those are required to be licensed and registered. A gun like that is highly likely to cause serious injury and death.

The next category is the category that this bill is most importantly affecting. These are guns that shoot a projectile with a velocity between 246 and 500 feet per second. That velocity is plenty to cause eye penetration, skin penetration, serious injury and death. The researchers who spent a lot of time shooting at things in laboratories felt that for guns that shot projectiles with a velocity of under 246 feet per second there was a lower risk of skin penetration and eye penetration, although it's not zero. In fact, the level at which there was no eye penetration in the laboratory was 214 feet per second, or 65 metres per second.

For the purposes of the bill that we're dealing with, these would be the three categories we would need to understand. The top category would be those firearms that need to be licensed and registered. The middle category do not need to be licensed and registered, yet they still shoot projectiles at a very high velocity and are capable of causing severe injury. The bottom category would be those which are much less likely to cause serious injury.

I want you to see this picture. I got this from the Canadian Tire website. This is the Crosman TR77NPS rifle. It's projectile velocity is 495 feet per second. Remember the categories. At 500, it would have to be licensed. It's just a few feet per second below that cut-off, which would put it into a full firearm category.

This air gun is capable of causing severe injury and death; in fact, I would say more than capable—likely. There is very little difference in terms of the damage potential of this kind of weapon and what we would consider a regular firearm. Under our current Criminal Code of Canada, this gun is considered to have the potential to cause serious bodily harm, and that is rightly so. The current law allows for criminal penalties for a person who displays extreme disregard for safety in storing or handling this kind of gun.

For example, if a person left a loaded Crosman rifle on a bench in a playground near a bunch of children, that would be considered a criminal act. That's how the law is right now. That person would be liable for criminal charges. Subsection 86(1) is the subsection under which that would be the case: a person who commits an offence without a lawful excuse “in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons”.

Unfortunately, Bill C-637 specifically excludes the guns in that medium-velocity category, like the Crosman rifle. It specifically excludes those guns from this subsection. For all those guns that are very dangerous and shoot at a very high velocity, now there would be no criminal charges, no criminal liability or responsibility for a person who committed a really egregious act with a firearm like that.

Sorry about the next slide. The next slide is just Bill C-637, and I'm sure you are all very familiar with it. The point is that for the purposes of section 86, if the firearm shoots a projectile at under 152 metres per second, or 500 feet per second, it is specifically excluded from this subsection. Needless to say, the Canadian Paediatric Society is vehemently opposed to this change. There should definitely be criminal responsibility for someone who shows extreme disregard for the safety of the public when handling a highly dangerous weapon.

The last slide shows our recommendations.

We would strongly recommend that air guns and BB guns, the projectile velocity of which is great enough to cause eye or skin penetration, should be classified as firearms under the Criminal Code for the purposes of storage and transportation, specifically under subsection 86(1). Our opinion is that this should include all air and BB guns with a projectile velocity greater than 214 feet per second. In that scenario, over 214 feet per second, the firearms would have the capability of eye penetration; under that speed, we would not expect it to.

The next recommendation has to do with the fact that one of the reasons this law is being proposed is that there really aren't clear guidelines for storage of air guns and BB guns.

I'm right, aren't I, Mr. Bernardo? There aren't any guidelines or requirements for storage of BB guns and air guns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We'll give Mr. Bernardo an opportunity to respond when we go to questions.

Please carry on, Ms. Austin.

[Dr. Katherine Austin]

We would recommend that guns in the category between 214 feet per second and 500 feet per second be stored locked, unloaded, and separate from their ammunition, just as the firearms in the higher velocity category are. That would be very important to safeguarding family members and children in the home who may be curious about a firearm.

Our final recommendation is that guns in the category of less than 214 feet per second, those much less likely to cause, though not incapable of causing, serious bodily injury be regulated by the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

Thank you very much.

I apologize for my lateness, and I'm willing and happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Given the fact that we will be going to committee business, we will have one round of questioning, which will be for four minutes.

We will start off with Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Bernardo and Ms. Austin, for your presentations. I must say I found them both a little on the extreme side looking at best-case and worst-case scenarios. I think I'm somewhere in between.

I can remember growing up as a young boy and getting a pellet gun from my father. It was a gift for his three sons, of whom I was the middle son, and he taught us the responsible use of it. He allowed us to go out and do some target shooting at tin cans and some gopher shooting—if it's okay to say that here. I can't imagine that by walking down a country road or even exiting the town where we lived while I was carrying this firearm that I could have been a criminal. I think it's incumbent on parents, if they're going to allow a youth to enjoy the use of a pellet gun, a BB gun, or an air gun, to also provide responsible safety training and to make sure the particular device is used safely.

I'm also looking at what the bill is actually talking about. To me the bill is talking about transportation and storage and not about how these guns should be classified. We already see in law that guns with a velocity of less than 500 feet per second are not considered firearms. You don't need to have a licence. You don't need to take the Canadian firearms safety course in order to purchase one. I think this legislation actually creates some consistencies in our existing laws so that some young boys who may be just out for a stroll in the country or in the hills with friends shooting at targets, aren't going to be found to be criminals. I think that's the intent of Mr. Sopuck's bill here.

Mr. Bernardo, could you comment on that a little further?

[Tony Bernardo]

Yes, I can.

First of all...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...500 feet per second, 495 feet per second, is an accepted world standard. Virtually every country in the world says that if it's over that, it's a firearm and if it's under that, it's a BB gun. Even in places like England, where firearms are virtually banned, you can still purchase air guns below the 500 feet per second mark.

I can tell you, sir, that the negligent storage of anything is already a criminal offence. You can be charged with criminal negligence should you leave a loaded BB gun in a place where a child could get it. That doesn't have to be enshrined in law. It's been there for many, many years already.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Go ahead, Ms. Austin.

[Dr. Katherine Austin]

I just want to mention that I had wondered about that myself. I spoke to a crown attorney about it, and he said that in order to file a charge of criminal negligence, someone would have to be hurt. Let's not wait for that, okay? If a behaviour is clearly irresponsible and dangerous, we shouldn't have to wait for someone to be hurt to file charges.

Mr. Falk, what you said about your enjoyment of BB guns when you were young is really important In fact, I learned how to do target shooting when I was a teenager. I have a badge somewhere—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I'm sorry, Ms. Austin, we're over time for Mr. Falk now.

[Dr. Katherine Austin]

Can you let me finish my sentence?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Make it quick, please, if you would.

[Dr. Katherine Austin]

Thank you.

The guns that were available when I was a kid, and probably when you were a kid, would fall in that lower velocity category. I feel pretty sure you didn't have the Crosman rifle with its 495 feet per second. These new-generation air guns and BB guns are much worse.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I'm very sorry, but we're well over our time. We must go on now.

Madam Doré Lefebvre, you have four minutes, please.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank Ms. Austen and Mr. Bernardo for joining us to discuss BillC-637.

In the last hour, witnesses raised questions about the concerns of police officers across Canada, as expressed by the Canadian Police Association, for example. I am going to quote a passage from a study by the Association des policières et policiers provinciaux du Québec:

With respect, we seriously question where the public interest lies in permitting the free and unrestricted transportation and storage of weapons as potentially dangerous as those included in the bill.

We also believe that failing to regulate the transportation and storage of those kinds of weapons in the same way as firearms will increase the possibility of them circulating freely. That in itself can do nothing but increase the number of situations in which police officers or members of the public will encounter what they believe to be a genuine firearm, with all the unfortunate or tragic consequences that may ensue.…we cannot look favourably on the passage of this bill because we feel that the public interest is being sacrificed to the personal interest of the small number of those it will benefit, all to the detriment of safety.

I wanted to quote the position of that association because the bill that we are studying affects public safety.

Ms. Austin, thank you for being here today. I am going to use the little time I have left to ask you some questions.

[Dr. Katherine Austin]

My apologies, but my French is not the best. If you speak slowly, I will be able to understand.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You can also use the simultaneous interpretation.

[Dr. Katherine Austin]

I do not have anything because I was late, but I can understand if you speak slowly.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

There is no problem. You can listen to the simultaneous interpretation you have available.

[Dr. Katherine Austin]

Thank you. My seventh grade French doesn't take me very far.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I will give you time to put on your headset. The wonderful interpreters we have with us today will be able to translate what I am saying for you.

At the last committee meeting about this bill, we asked questions about the best practices to instil into young people about firearms use.

Ms. Austin, can you hear the simultaneous interpretation?

[Dr. Katherine Austin]

I have it, but it's not very loud.