Public Safety Committee on May 22nd, 2018

Evidence of meeting #114 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was suicide.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Bill C-71

Committee Business

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Heidi Rathjen Coordinator, PolySeSouvient

Michel LeRoux As an Individual

Boufeldja Benabdallah President, Centre culturel islamique de Québec

Alexandra Laberge Co-leader, Comité de travail Féminisme, corps, sexualité, image, genre et violences, Fédération des femmes du Québec

Alison Irons As an Individual

Jérôme Gaudreault Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise de prévention du suicide

12:50 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise de prévention du suicide

Jérôme Gaudreault

I don't have specific knowledge of all the processes related to homicides and suicides. The process is indeed different in the case of a suicidal person. The fact remains that the person is experiencing acute suffering. However, insofar as statistics are concerned, I think there is a certain stability. The difference is that there is now more media attention focused on the phenomenon.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Okay.

You said that the registry had brought about more accountability.

Will the commercial practices we've included, such as ensuring that those who sell firearms keep records of their sales, also increase accountability? You referred to increased accountability earlier.

12:50 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise de prévention du suicide

Jérôme Gaudreault

In my opinion, it contributes to creating a certain state of mind, a context. The person who wants to acquire firearms sees that some fairly serious security measures are in place. It isn't easy to obtain a gun permit. It's not necessarily easy to purchase a firearm. It's a way of making the owner aware of the danger and lethal nature of the product he is purchasing and of making him take the necessary measures to ensure greater safety.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Ms. Irons, I first would like to say that I feel powerless in the face of your situation, the courage you've shown and the pain you are living with. I'm going to ask you to help me direct my approach.

The all-too-frequent problem we are facing in this case is that long guns are legal and available everywhere. We can pass all the laws we like, but I get the feeling we will never be able to prevent the use of long guns, which are commonly available. They are in fact the target of more and more break and enters and thefts, precisely for the purpose of committing armed assaults.

I'm faced with a dilemma. I don't know how to approach the matter of long guns, that are a common enough reality of life. Everyone owns them. In rural areas, they are common, for specific reasons. Some people own them for cultural or historic reasons, others for sport or hunting. Personally I don't hunt anymore, but that's immaterial.

How should we approach the issue of long guns? We are facing a dead end, to some degree. We do not have a short or medium-term solution.

12:50 p.m.

As an Individual

Alison Irons

I would need to think more about that question, but I can say this in response. I often hear about the rights of hunters and ranchers in rural areas to defend their property and so on and so forth. In fact, when the long gun registry was rescinded, a submission to the committee at that time said that rural women experiencing domestic violence feel far more terror if there is a long gun in the home and that the long gun itself might be used as part of the terror. In other words, they're often threatened with the use of that long gun: “If you don't do what I say, I'll shoot you.”

What frustrates me to no end is that we continue to hear about the rights of hunters and ranchers to defend their property, which, by the way, I don't object to. I'm not trying to get rid of all guns, but what about the rights of women and children to have equal standing under the law and be protected from the use of those long guns to kill them? I don't hear that in the debate.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Thank you, Mr. Picard and Ms. Irons.

Mr. Calkins, you have five minutes, please.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB

That was very interesting testimony today. I want to thank both of you for being here.

There's a question I have for you, Mr. Gaudreault. I will start with you. One of the concerns I have and one of the things that I've heard in the years that I've been a member of Parliament is that there's sometimes a general mistrust between the public and the government. One of the areas of mistrust that I've come across the most is from the community that I represent, the law-abiding firearms community, in terms of their general mistrust of the government, whether it's the classification process or what have you.

I guess this is my question for you. If there were a protocol in place whereby the confiscation or seizure of firearms was automatic based on a mental health consideration—if somebody went to a doctor or went to get the help they were looking for in regard to some of the triggers that people in the suicide prevention industry and so on would be looking for—would that automatic confiscation protocol not deter people in some scenarios from getting the help they actually need? I'm wondering if, in the balance of more good than harm, that's actually the right way to approach it. Do you have any information to help me with that?