Public Safety Committee on May 22nd, 2018

[Jérôme Gaudreault]

I'll start with your second question. Indeed, we support and recommend that firearms be taken away when they are in the possession of people who present a risk. From what I know, the process in Quebec is relatively simple: a report can be made to law enforcement authorities, who can intervene with the gun owner who presents a risk. Generally that person will voluntarily agree to give up their weapons.

As for whether the bill goes far enough, I'd say it would probably be possible to do more in-depth background checks for those who apply for gun permits, to go further back into the person's history, and to allow for more extensive security checks. This can be done by phone with the actual applicant, but also with the people connected to the person.

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

Having said that, how would you strike an appropriate balance between the vigilance to keep firearms out of the hands of those who apparently are mentally ill and ensuring that we don't drive individuals who may be seeking help for some mental health condition underground or have them keep quiet for fear that it may impede their ability to enjoy sport hunting as they might do currently? How do we do that responsibly?

[Jérôme Gaudreault]

That is a good question.

I'll be honest with you, I don't necessarily have an opinion on that.

But in my view, a person with mental issues, even if he wants to engage in recreational activities like hunting or the like, should not have firearms in his possession.

However, it's very important that we do not stigmatize those who have a history of mental illness. A person can have an episode of mental illness or a suicidal crisis and get over it completely. It's a matter of making sure the person has recovered before he is given permission to exercise this right.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Irons, thank you for being here today. First of all, please accept our condolences on the loss of your daughter in this horrific act. It takes strength for you to be here. It takes strength to be part of the political process, and I applaud you for that. While we may not always agree, I always think it's important for victims of crime to have a voice and be heard in the political process.

I'd like to ask you about efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals like the one who took your daughter's life.

While this bill allows initial background checks to expand their search to the life of the applicant for licence, it does nothing to really enhance the continuous eligibility screening or ban the possession of firearms from those convicted of serious personal injury offences, drug-related offences as in your case, or gang-related offences or those who have been detained under any provincial mental health legislation. Would you support measures, as I asked previously of other witnesses, to indicate those sorts of requirement in this legislation?

[Alison Irons]

Having worked in government most of my career, one of the things I do know is that a bill is a bill and what flows from the bill are the regulations, the policies and the processes to implement and support the bill. To me, the bill alone, when it refers, for example, to background checks, is only the first step. There is work to be done on how that bill is then to be implemented.

I do remember many occasions in my government career where the government would pass a bill and, we used to use the line, “chuck it over the fence” for the public servants to then figure out how to implement. I think it's too narrow to say, “Will the bill do this and will the the bill do that?”

However, my personal bias is that for somebody with a criminal record such as my daughter's killer concealed from her, where there was a crime of serious personal violence that got plea-bargained down to a much lesser offence, when combined with something, as you've mentioned, like drug trafficking, first of all, there should be no discretion under the stage A failure for the CFO to override that.

As far as I can tell...and, again, because of privacy law in Ontario and in many other provinces, I wasn't able to obtain the records on what else was done to check his background except to interview him. I wasn't able to find out whether his references were his mother or his best friend who had a history for domestic violence, but I do know from speaking to the police officer who arrested him in that kidnapping that they were never contacted by the CFO and they were shocked that nobody had contacted them to find out the context of those offences. I might add, they were more shocked to find out that he then used that firearm to kill my daughter.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Motz. Thank you, Ms. Irons.

Mr. Dubé, you have seven minutes, please.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Gaudreault, Ms. Irons, thank you for being here.

I want to echo comments made, obviously, and offer condolences, but also to thank you for your service, as well, in the RCMP. I think, in reading through your brief, that you talked about putting those investigative skills to use. We see that and there are a lot of really interesting points.

There's one that I want to look at where you, in the recommendations, talk about the fact that one of, if I'm not mistaken and I didn't misread, the persons supporting the application also had a criminal record. Is that correct?

[Alison Irons]

I should clarify, as I just said, that because of the privacy law in Ontario I wasn't able to find out exactly who his references were on the PAL application, but the application as it currently stands is not very stringent. Apart from excluding conjugal partners, anybody can be a reference on a gun licence application. That can be your mother or your best friend. In my view, those people are very often likely to lie for you or minimize your background if you have a criminal, mental health, or other history.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

You mentioned that the crimes were treated as summary convictions instead of indictable offences, but would the person on the other end, the chief firearms officer, have been able to see the nature of the crimes regardless, or would that also have been locked up?

[Alison Irons]

What I'm not clear about in that case was whether all that was done.... I know that because he was extensively interviewed, he would have encountered what is known as a stage A failure or a red flag in the system. That's what precipitated the interview. However, what I can't determine because of privacy barriers is whether the only other check that was done was a CPIC check and a CFIS check.

For example, I don't know if crown counsel reports were ever reviewed. I know that the Kingston police officer who arrested him for those offences, as I say, was never interviewed. I don't know the extent of the background check and I understand that very often references aren't contacted, and secondly—sorry, I lost my train of thought for a moment—there is a large use of, for example, volunteer personnel sometimes to conduct those reference checks. In this case, I don't know who conducted it. I did try to find out and was unable to do so.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

But it's clear that something set off, as you said, a red flag that led to the process going further than it would for a standard application.

[Alison Irons]

Yes, I'm sure the forcible confinement and assault convictions led to that stage A failure.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

There are definitely gaps that need to be filled, then. I'm wondering from your experience, both with this horrible situation and with being with the RCMP, another legislation that this committee studied.... You mentioned CPIC, and it comes up a little in your brief, just the fact of the information being out of date and the fact that even across provincial borders sometimes there can be challenges as well.

Would you agree that working on improving that type of infrastructure would go a long way, along with other changes that need be made to how these checks are conducted, to help along this process and try to close any of these gaps that exist?

[Alison Irons]

What I was able to establish, and also had confirmed by the chief superintendent of the criminal investigation branch of the OPP, is that in large court jurisdictions like the GTA, criminal record information, or charge or domestic violence information, is transmitted electronically to CPIC and CFIS. In smaller jurisdictions, it's very often sent by paper.

With my experience in government, that often leads to delays in data entry and loss of paper. In smaller or remote communities, some court jurisdictions never send data at all. That means with the gaps in the system right now—and by the system, I mean the Canadian firearms information system—licences are being granted on the basis of incomplete or out-of-date information.

I don't think it's any surprise to anybody on this committee that there have been chronic delays even in the ability of the RCMP to keep CPIC up to date. I think chronically and historically, it's run about six months behind. I don't know if that's the current situation.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I apologize for interrupting, as I have a short time left.

I have another question for you, Mr. Gaudreault.

In our study of Bill C-71, I had the opportunity to question some people about what has come to be known as “Anastasia's law” in Quebec. There are people elsewhere in Canada who wonder whether we should not consider something similar. However, there seem to be loopholes in that approach, when it comes to reporting problematic cases.

Can you tell us a bit about that experience? This could be useful to us, if we pass Bill C-71, for instance, in order to give us a better understanding of the ethical dilemma for a psychologist or other health professional who would like to provide information to prevent a tragedy or violence from occurring.

[Jérôme Gaudreault]

I'm not fully aware of all the circumstances relating to “Anastasia's law”. Our specialty is really suicide prevention. In my opinion, however, when you consider all safety aspects, confidentiality should not be the priority. One has to report risks, if one feels they are present.

Take, as an example, an article that was published recently in La Presse+, on the verification procedure for gun permits. In Quebec, the office of the Chief Firearms Officer calls on the references that were given. They are asked specific questions, such as whether the person has a marked interest in committing violent acts, in terrorism, or whether he is connected to specific groups in his region. Some very specific questions are asked that do provide an accurate picture of the situation.

In my view, even if there are confidentiality issues, I think it is incumbent upon us to look into the situation as thoroughly as possible.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

That's good, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Picard, you have seven minutes.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Gaudreault.

Before getting to Ms. Irons' even more serious case, let's start with more conventional cases regarding the means of suicide.

You said that the acquisition and possession of firearms is a privilege and not a right.

Suicide triggers vary greatly. We understand that mental illness can be one of them. That said, losing a job or undergoing a separation can be a very serious event, more or less serious according to a person's level of tolerance; such events can trigger depression and a series of events that can lead to suicide.

Should we systematically verify whether the person who is experiencing a crisis has firearms in their possession, and if so, automatically remove them from him? Should this be a quasi-automatic procedure?

[Jérôme Gaudreault]

It is in fact a normal procedure when it is known that the person has weapons and that he is at risk of being suicidal.

I'll give you the example of people who work in suicide prevention in Quebec. When they meet with a client, they ask if he or she has firearms at home and if he has access to means to commit suicide. That is one of the first questions they ask. Firearms are a very lethal means of committing suicide. So workers take the time to check on that specifically. If the person says yes, he is asked to relinquish his firearms voluntarily. He is asked whether he is in agreement that his weapons be removed. Generally, people agree. If they refuse, then a report is made to authorities.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I see.

How do you keep a balance? We always want the best for persons who are in crisis. Rehabilitation is always desirable, or hoped for, I would say, as someone who has experienced something like that. Since owning firearms is a privilege, would you, even if the person has recovered, insist that they not have access to firearms again?

[Jérôme Gaudreault]

That is a good question, and frankly, I don't have a specific answer for it. That said, you need to make sure that enough time has passed before the person is allowed to recover their weapon. A medical evaluation should show that the person no longer has mental issues or suicidal ideas. In that case then, the possibility could be considered.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

In the personal examples of depression we heard about, the person was dealing with their own feelings. But what we are increasingly seeing these days — it's become almost systematic — are people who attack others and then commit suicide.

How do such cases, similar to what Ms. Irons experienced, develop?

[Jérôme Gaudreault]

What do you mean by “develop”?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I get the sense that over the past 10 years or so, it has become increasingly frequent to see someone assault another person with a weapon and then take his own life. I'm thinking here of massacres that occurred in the United States, or situations like the one experienced by Ms. Irons and many others. I may not have grasped the scope of this problem at the time, but it seems to me it was far less frequent 15 years ago. Now, it's almost systematic; people hurt others before they take their own lives.

What is the operative process there which we should understand, and how does it evolve?