Public Safety Committee on May 22nd, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Good morning, everyone. It's 11 o'clock, and we are continuing the reference of Wednesday, March 28, Bill C-71.

We have with us two sets of witnesses. We have Fédération des femmes du Québec, coming to us by video conference, we hope, and we have PolySeSouvient, who are going to split their time among themselves as they see fit.

I will remind members of the audience that there are no pictures allowed during the hearings.

With that, I will ask those who are not here via video conference to speak first. Let's hope that those coming to us by video conference will join us shortly.

Ms. Rathjen, I'll turn the microphone over to you. I assume you will split your time as you see fit.

[Heidi Rathjen, Coordinator, PolySeSouvient]

Thank you very much. Good morning.

Hello, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

The organization “PolySeSouvient” is an informal group of students and graduates of the École Polytechnique, as well as survivors and families of the victims of the 1989 massacre at the Polytechnique. We also work with the families of victims of other gun killings.

I would like to mention the presence of Nathalie Provost, a survivor of the Polytechnique killings, and Serge St-Arneault, the brother of Annie, who was killed there. We are also joined by representatives of student associations, including Wendy Vasquez, President of the Quebec Confederation for Engineering Student Outreach, Jade Karim, Mobilization Coordinator of the Quebec Student Union, Manuel Klaassen, President of the Association des étudiants de Polytechnique, or Polytechnique student association, as well as a number of other students and graduates who are with them.

Our mission is simple: to reduce the number of deaths, injuries, and crimes committed with firearms. Having witnessed the human suffering that a single gun in the wrong hands can cause, we consider it our duty to make our voices heard in the public debate on gun control in order to defend everyone's right to life and safety.

Despite our strong criticism regarding its scope and its strength, we support Bill C-71. The measures contained in the bill will allow Canada to move forward by reversing some of the losses that occurred under the previous government, namely the requirement to verify the validity of a potential buyer's licence, and a reinstatement of sales records at commercial points of sale—in both cases, for non-restricted firearms.

Unfortunately, Bill C-71 is not a bold step. It barely fulfills the Liberal election promises, and it fails to address many flaws in the current law. For example, the Liberals promised to “repeal changes made by Bill C-42 that allow restricted...weapons to be freely transported without a permit”. However, before Bill C-42, authorizations to transport allowed the transportation of restricted weapons for very specific itineraries and even a period of time, for example, between a gun owner's home and the gun club of which he or she was a member. Bill C-71 does not reinstate this previous situation. In fact, the bill still allows the owner of a handgun to transport it between his home and any of the approved shooting clubs or ranges within the province, even if the person is not a member and the gun has no business being there.

The bill also does the minimum in terms of control on sales. If the goal is to support effective police work and deter illegal sales, Bill C-71 should have extended this requirement to private sales, as was recommended by the B.C. Task Force on Illegal Firearms. Since private sales are not included, opportunities for undetected diversions to the illegal market are still possible. For example, it will not be possible to track the future sale of any of the seven or eight million non-restricted firearms that are currently privately owned in Canada. At least in Quebec, more than a third of all transfers of non-restricted weapons in a year are between private individuals—one third.

Finally, the bill in no way addresses the legal availability of assault weapons, despite repeated warnings by the RCMP about their risk to public safety.

The intent of the 1991 and 1995 laws was to prohibit civilian versions of military weapons and large-capacity magazines, but because of the arbitrary nature of some of the criteria in the laws, the failure to update regulations meant to ban variants of prohibited weapons, loopholes, and unforseen market adaptations with respect to large-capacity magazines, it is today legal in Canada to own assault weapons for recreational purposes and to easily equip them with magazines that surpass the legal limit.

We hope that this committee will see fit to strengthen the legislation, and we hope that the Liberal government will also commit to further improvements beyond this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Rathjen.

Mr. LeRoux and Mr. Benabdallah, you have about five minutes.

[Michel LeRoux, As an Individual]

My name is Michel LeRoux and I am Thierry's father, who was killed by a bullet on February 13, 2016, barely six months after joining the ranks of the Lac-Simon police. Thierry was confronted with an intoxicated, armed man who had a history of suicide attempts and whose guns had first been taken away from him, but to whom Thierry himself had returned those guns as ordered by his superior.

How can it be that an individual with that history was able to keep his gun licence, had his guns returned after they had been seized by police and, worse still, was able to obtain more guns, including an assault weapon?

It is unacceptable that such things happen in a country like ours, where owning a gun is not a right but a privilege, and where public safety is supposed to be the first priority. That tragic day changed our lives forever. Suffering, pain and tears are now part of our daily lives. My spouse Christine cannot get over it. My other son, Steffan, lost his brother and best friend. My grandson Charles-Antoine lost his beloved uncle. For all of us, life will never be the same. The people close to our family and I are counting on governments to study the circumstances that led to an avoidable death such as this and to make the necessary changes to prevent this from happening to others. Preventing any further victims is one of the few consolations that help ease the suffering of families such as mine. The people here in the room show that my family and I are not the only ones who have been through this.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, in its current form, the bill changes nothing whatsoever in the situation that led to Thierry's death. I understand that the law has to allow a measure of discretion. On the other hand, when the risk factors are so serious and obvious—such as a history of violence combined with suicidal tendencies, as in the case of my son's killer—, those persons should automatically be prohibited from owning a gun. That is already the case in certain states in the U.S.

Thierry's case is not an isolated one. Similar incidents have occurred because the law is too lenient. There are many ways of strengthening it, such as establishing criteria for an automatic ban or a list of criteria that can lead to a ban. As to my son's case, I would like a documented history of violence and suicide to be considered dangerous conduct that leads to automatic seizure of guns. Police officers like Thierry risk their lives every day. Of all the police officers killed in the line of duty, about nine out of ten are killed by a bullet. Like all citizens, they deserve protection against armed violence. I urge you to amend the bill so that my son Thierry did not die in vain.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. LeRoux.

Mr. Benabdallah, you have less than two minutes, unfortunately.

[Boufeldja Benabdallah, President, Centre culturel islamique de Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for inviting us here today. I am the President of the Centre culturel islamique, or Islamic cultural centre, which was founded in 1985. I have been in Canada for 50 years. I grew up in this peaceful, harmonious country, but in recent years, we have seen a change that is very dangerous to society, and I have witnessed it.

I have come here with brothers, one of whom was struck by bullets that went through his abdomen and hit his kidneys, and another one whose knee and toe were shattered by a bullet. Worse still, six people were killed and five injured, and we now have 17 orphans. We have a lot to say.

If there is one thing I want to ask of you today—just one thing—, it is that civilians should be prohibited from owning assault weapons. They are weapons of war intended to kill people and not for training or recreational shooting in the woods. In fact, we should also show our trees more respect and not shoot at them. We let people who are not in their right mind have weapons that are designed to kill, weapons of war, that should only be used by members of the military in accordance with the rules.

If that man had entered a shopping centre, as he had said, and had taken out his gun, there would have been a lot more victims. If his gun had not jammed when he wanted to kill the first two Guineans and he had killed them, he would have killed the 80 people there and would have gone up to the next floor to kill others. Please help us and help society by prohibiting these assault weapons and weapons of war in Canada. It is in the interests of all of society.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Benabdallah.

The next witness is from the Fédération des femmes du Québec, or Quebec women's federation.

Via video conference, we have Alexandra Laberge.

Ms. Laberge, you have the floor for 10 minutes.

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

Allow me to introduce myself briefly. I am Alexandra Laberge and I am an elementary and high school teacher. I am a volunteer member and activist with the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the Quebec women's federation or FFQ, and co-chair of the working committee on feminism, the body, sexuality, image, gender, and violence.

I would like to use the privilege of officially representing the FFQ here today, and the voices of the women and girls of Quebec—and the voices of the women and girls of Canada as well, I hope—to remind the government that firearms issues are women's issues.

Women's struggle against firearms is historical, global, and legitimate since firearms are primarily owned by men who victimize and make women vulnerable by how they use them. Our struggle dates back long before 2012, when the previous government passed Bill C-19.

In the years since then, we have suffered another affront as a result of Bill C-42, in 2015. Women mobilized and the public statements, briefs and actions, as well as the heartfelt cries of women who have suffered as a result of these bills have finally been heard by a Liberal government that has promised reform to the women of this country. We are confident that this government has heard us since we represent half of Canada's population and are the targets of the bullets fired predominantly by men.

Unfortunately, we do not think Bill C-71 will adequately protect Canadian women and girls. In our opinion, the government could do better than this bill to improve the safety of women and girls in Canada. We would like to take this time today to remind you of what these women and girls have concluded and what has been shown by various authorities and women's groups. We would like to give you recommendations that are the result of these women's reflections, which we consider legitimate and feasible, in order to help preserve the safety of women and girls in Canada.

As a volunteer, and at the same time as my work as a teacher, I have studied more than a dozen briefs, reports, and written demands by women, yet I have looked only at what has been produced since 2012, and in French only. Supported by reliable sources and recognized bodies such as Statistics Canada and the RCMP, these women have done an outstanding job in order to be recognized once again in the government's decisions on firearms. I hope that these documents, which have been reported in the media and are readily accessible, have been read and studied, but I have not been able to look at everything that has been done elsewhere in Canada. We could rely on the data from Statistics Canada, which are quite telling, or other government platforms, but women always have to work extra hard to assert their rights and, nowadays, their safety. That is why the Quebec women's federation insists on honouring this work by raising the main points that these women have taken the time to identify and that we officially support.

All the written briefs point out that firearms are a women's issue. Let us not forget that firearms are primarily owned by men and that, although they make up the majority of victims of homicide statistically speaking, women should not suffer as a result of firearms or laws that make it easier for men to harm them.

The Coalition for Gun Control, reports, for instance, that although men are more frequently the victims of homicide, women are about three times more likely to be killed by their spouse.

Let us recall the discussion in 2015 surrounding Bill C-32. More than 30 women's groups in Canada spoke out about the impact of Bill C-42 on the safety of women. Eighty-eight per cent of Canadian women were killed by a bullet that was fired by legally owned shotguns or rifles, the same weapons that some people do not consider to be the cause of gun violence.

Guns are fifth among the 18 main causes of death in domestic homicides.

Investigations of family violence, such as in the case of the children of Kasonde and Arlene May and the Vernon massacre, have shown the weaknesses of the old act. Changes to the current act have been recommended. Risk detection needs to be improved for gun licence applicants by using detailed questionnaires and requiring two references from the applicant, along with notification of the spouse. A gun registry should also be created because important information is missing from police databases.

Fifty per cent of domestic homicides end with the killer committing suicide, which shows that the key to protecting women and children is to thoroughly review gun licences and gun licence renewals. Eighty per cent of gun deaths in Canada are suicides which, for the most part, are committed by a rifle or hunting rifle that can be easily obtained.

In rural communities in western Canada, in particular, people are less in favour of gun control and the percentage of people with firearms licences is higher.

Women and children are especially vulnerable when there is a gun in the home. In Ontario, 55% of killers in cases of domestic violence had access to a firearm. The recent Small Arms Survey of 2013 studied the relationship between guns and domestic violence. It states among other things that while men account for the majority of victims and of those committing homicide using guns, the number of women killed, injured, and intimidated by guns in situations of spousal violence is significantly higher. Appendix D of the RCMP report states that some of those deaths could be prevented through stricter laws that prohibit persons found guilty of spousal violence from carrying a gun. Further, the report entitled “Homicide in Canada, 2011” shows that stricter firearms laws have protected women and children.

We agreed to appear today because we think the current government, through its actions and decisions, which support feminist policies, will finally consider the safety of women a top priority. We have chosen to take on this responsibility because what we are proposing will be analyzed by competent people and adopted for the safety of women in Canada.

We have two recommendations, which we are making jointly with “PolySeSouvient”.

The first is to prohibit anyone subject to a protection order from carrying a gun.

The second is to clearly prohibit anyone found guilty of spousal violence, rape or other sex crime from carrying a gun.

These recommendations would not eliminate gun violence against women, but our objective is more realistic. We are calling on the government to impose stricter regulations in order to reduce the number of women killed.

Carrying a gun is not a right; it is a privilege. It is logical and legitimate that people who are found guilty of a crime, especially crimes against women, should lose that privilege.

We want the government to take a clear stance on these two issues and show its support for the safety of women in Canada by adopting these two realistic and necessary recommendations.

In closing, we would like to mention the forgotten women and girls who suffer because of the right to carry a weapon, people who are not mentioned often enough and are never given the opportunity to be heard. According to Statistics Canada, indigenous women and girls have been forgotten for too long and suffer the consequences of guns more than non-indigenous members of both sexes combined.

The report entitled “Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile” shows that older women are also the victims of gun violence and are more likely than older men to be killed by a family member.

Finally, we must not forget transgender women, for whom no statistics are available as of yet.

In conclusion, I will draw a brief parallel with what is happening to women in the United States. Since the start of the year, there have been 22 school killings in the U.S. In Canada, we have also had our share of tragedies at educational institutions in which women were targeted in particular. Teachers, who are still part of a traditionally and primarily female profession, are offering an interesting perspective on women and men beyond the intimate sphere, the family, the public sphere or the workplace. Women are not safe because of the laws that allow people to own guns.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madam Laberge, can you wrap up, please?

[Alexandra Laberge]

Fine.

We want the government to protect women and girls at home, in the street and in their workplaces.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses. We now have a round of questions.

Madam Dabrusin, you have seven minutes.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'd like to begin by thanking all of the witnesses. We heard some very personal stories today, and I thank you for having taken the time to come and tell them. About PolySeSouvient, I was a student at Dawson College in 1989, and I also remember the tragedy at École Polytechnique very well. It is something I will always remember, and that I carry in my heart at all times. I know that you work very hard to keep that memory alive.

Mr. Benabdallah, from the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, I want to thank you, and I want to say Ramadan Mubarak. I appreciate the fact that you took the time to come and meet with us.

You all explained your positions very well, as well as what you would like to see in this bill. Personally, I receive many emails and letters from people who complain and ask questions about certain parts of the bill. Perhaps you can help me. I am going to explain these complaints that I receive, and perhaps you can tell me what you think of them.

One promise I heard a lot about was that the RCMP again be made responsible for the classification of weapons.

I am going to continue in English because it's a little easier for me.

Removing the Governor in Council override of firearms classifications is something that has been raised as a concern. I was wondering what your thoughts are about putting that back in the hands of the RCMP.

We will begin with Ms. Rathjen, from the PolySeSouvient organization.

[Heidi Rathjen]

We support removing the authority brought in by Bill C-42, which allows the minister to override. The RCMP doesn't decide which guns should be classified as restricted, non-restricted, or prohibited. The RCMP interprets the law. According to the criteria in the law or the regulations, the RCMP will deem a weapon restricted, non-restricted, or prohibited.

This power that allowed politicians to override, to second-guess, the interpretation by the RCMP, is for us an aberration. It's anti-democratic, it's deciding arbitrarily that certain guns are not subject to the law, and so we welcome the removal of this power. At the same time, it doesn't address the fundamental problem, which is that according to the criteria in the law, under the system we currently have, assault weapons remain legal.

There are many restricted assault weapons, and there are many assault weapons that are unrestricted. Canadians do not need this weapon for legitimate hunting or sporting purposes. This is a .50-calibre semi-automatic weapon. It is banned in certain U.S. states, like California. It's non-restricted here in Canada. There are a whole bunch of them.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I have some more questions for you, so I will ask if we—

[Heidi Rathjen]

We have a number of them pictured in our brief.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

The other part that I've had some questions about and that people have asked me about is the authorization to transport, the ATT, and the new system being put in place. I understand you have some suggestions as to what you would like to see happen when we're looking at this legislation with respect to the ATTs. Maybe you could tell us a little more about what you would like us to be focusing on when we're looking at this legislation.

[Heidi Rathjen]

We would like the bill to reflect the promise of the Liberal Party, which was to repeal the changes made in Bill C-42, which made authorization to transport restricted weapons pretty much automatic, not only automatic but allowed between a gun owner's home and any of the hundreds—depending on the province—of gun clubs, gun ranges, police stations, border stations, and so on.

This bill has taken out a few of those categories of places but, as we heard from the officials, wouldn't change anything for 96% of itineraries, meaning that a gun owner today with Bill C-71 could still be a member of a gun club in Toronto and end up in Ottawa with a handgun and be legal.

The way it was before Bill C-42, the way the Liberal election promise said it wanted to repeal it to come back to.... I have here a copy of the former articles, and just to quote:

A chief firearm's officer may issue to an individual an authorization to transport if the chief firearms officer determines that the transportation of a restricted weapon or prohibited firearm...between two or more specified places will not pose a threat to [public] safety....

The permit specifies the period for which the authorization is valid, the two places between which it can be transported, and the reasons why.

What Bill C-71 proposes is far from that. It will not change much in terms of the transportation of restricted weapons.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

To clarify, though, because of where we are starting, it does make some changes as far as the ATT. You welcomed those changes, and you're asking for further changes. Am I correct?

[Heidi Rathjen]

We don't feel there's much change when you can still be anywhere in your province, as long as you're between your home and a gun club. That defies the purpose of having authorizations to transport. These are restricted weapons. They should be restricted to the purpose for which they are allowed, and that means travel to a gun club. Then you get another permit if you need to take it to the gun shop, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

Mr. Motz, you have seven minutes.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the outset I'd like to give notice of the following motion that we would like to have read into the record:

That, given the concerning reports of terrorists who fought for the so-called Islamic State walking free in Toronto, the High Risk Returnee Interdepartmental Taskforce be invited to brief the Committee on their work no later than Thursday, May 31, 2018.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

My first question is to you, Ms. Laberge. Your group has previously stated that you believe a firearms registry is necessary to ensure the safety of women from domestic violence. While I disagree on your policy outcome, I would be interested in knowing whether you view the record-keeping requirements in this bill as a gun registry and if you believe they will actually help improve the safety of Canadians?

[Alexandra Laberge]

Excuse me, but I did not understand the question.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I'm sorry. I'll try that again. I'd be interested to know whether you view the record-keeping requirements of this bill as a gun registry and if you believe that they will actually help improve the safety of Canadians?