Public Safety Committee on May 22nd, 2018

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Picard and Ms. Irons.

Mr. Calkins, you have five minutes, please.

[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?

[Jérôme Gaudreault]

As to whether we should indeed confiscate the weapons of people who are at risk, the answer is yes. We have to encourage any measure that allows us to remove weapons, voluntarily or following a report, from a vulnerable person who is at risk of committing suicide.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Do you not agree with me that for those who have a general mistrust of the government coming into their lives in such a manner—because the seizure of people's property is something that is of concern to a lot of people—if that were an automatic protocol, do you think it might actually deter people from getting the help they need?

[Jérôme Gaudreault]

I'm not sure I understood your question. However, I believe the majority of the population wants to see safety measures around guns, despite the fact that those who oppose any form of gun control express themselves loudly and clearly.

I think the majority of Canadians want safety measures to be put in place. In my opinion, Canadians are also in favour of arms being confiscated and of background checks for potential gun owners before they are granted permits, because those are measures that will improve safety.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

As somebody who's from the law-abiding firearms-owning community, I agree that every time somebody does something illegal with a firearm it casts aspersions, and it makes it more difficult for me as a law-abiding citizen. That's a frustration for me. I want to make sure we get this stuff right too. I have a vested personal interest, but I also, on behalf of the people I represent, want to make sure that we get the legislation right.

I'll move to you, Ms. Irons. Thank you for your testimony today.

You were nine years in the RCMP. Did I get that right? You mentioned that you've have had a lengthy career on the public service side of the fence. When I use that language, I use it because you used it.

[Alison Irons]

Sure. I like to think that we're joined at the hip.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

You talk about person Y, and I'll refer to that individual as person Y. When I take a look at the timelines you've laid out here, you've said that nine years prior to person Y committing the crime, he bought the shotgun and the other long gun. Is that correct?

[Alison Irons]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Your daughter was killed in 2013. Is that correct?

[Alison Irons]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

At that particular point in time, person Y would have had to go through a process—

[Alison Irons]

A renewal.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

—that would have been put in place by the party that is currently in government right now and is changing the legislation. The long gun registry would have been in place.

[Alison Irons]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

The licensing and acquisition system would have been put in place under Bill C-68 at that particular point in time?

[Alison Irons]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Yet your entire testimony was a damnation of that process epically failing your daughter.

[Alison Irons]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I want to get it right. I know that my colleagues across the way want to get it right.

You had a couple of recommendations whereby the firearms officer from the Ontario Provincial Police.... That is my understanding. Is that right?