Public Safety Committee on May 22nd, 2018

[Alexandra Laberge]

We think that what is included in Bill C-71 regarding the register is a good start, but we feel there should be more restrictions, as we said in the recommendations we made regarding family violence.

There's no doubt that bringing back registries is one of the best solutions to enable the identification of women who are vulnerable because their husband has illegal firearms. As for police intervention, we think that this could help women who are trapped in a cycle of violence. Police officers could know if the spouse owns a weapon.

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

As I'm sure you are aware, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act passed by the previous Conservative government expanded the use of firearms prohibition orders to those convicted of domestic violence offences.

What I've taken away from your presentation today is that we really must address the risk factors that are present to stop the escalating domestic violence situations we have in this country. Do you think this bill does that effectively, and would you support mandatory firearms prohibition orders for those convicted of serious personal injury offences?

[Alexandra Laberge]

Yes, absolutely.

In fact, the recommendation would provide a framework for restrictions on the possession of firearms for anyone who has been convicted of assaults on women, family violence or sexual assault.

We would like better protection against men threatening women with firearms, when those men have already committed violent acts, either physical or sexual. In both cases, these are acts of violence. The firearm facilitates that type of violence and makes it more serious and more threatening.

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

Thank you.

Mr. LeRoux, thank you for being here today, and our sincerest condolences on the loss of your son.

On April 12, you wrote that you did not believe anything in this new bill would have prevented the death of your son. You briefly made mention of that in your opening testimony. Can you expand on that just briefly for us?

[Michel LeRoux]

Indeed, the part related to Thierry's death that concerns background, that is to say the part that extends to the individual's entire life and any background of violence, family violence and other elements like mental illness, is a step forward.

However, we are not taking into account what happens between the new request, the moment when the permit is issued, and its renewal five years later.

If, for some reason or another, an individual manages to get through the net and obtains a permit, there is nothing to stop you from implementing the systematic withdrawal of permits following an episode of family violence. Withdrawing firearms and weapons in those cases is optional. It's not mandatory, but that option can be considered if the firearms owner has a record of family violence.

As it is currently worded, the bill would not have prevented Thierry's death, nor that of several other police officers, despite the amendment. I am aware that it is a small step forward, but it is not enough. It would not have prevented Thierry's death. Mr. Papatie would have had access to his weapons.

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

Just so you are aware, Conservatives certainly share your view that keeping firearms out of the hands of those who are dangerous is critical. Unfortunately, we feel this bill does nothing to deal with that, but merely puts more red tape on law-abiding gun owners.

Would you support measures to target dangerous individuals, like a mandatory firearms ban for those convicted of serious personal injury, and would you support seizing firearms from those who have serious mental health issues and are detained for their own protection under provincial mental health legislation?

[Michel LeRoux]

Yes, absolutely.

I would support such an amendment, and not only for those who have been convicted. There are people who have not been convicted, but have had repeated episodes of family violence, or attempted suicide. All of these elements have to be included, not only for those who were convicted, but also for those who are known to police and medical authorities. We should include all factors related to mental illness, whether schizophrenia or Alzheimer's, and not only family violence.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. LeRoux, your time is up.

[Michel LeRoux]

Any mental issue requiring medication should justify the confiscation of firearms and permits from a person, even if they have not been convicted.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Mr. Dubé, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all of you for being here today. It is already difficult to fight for a cause, and having to relive horrible tragedies like yours requires even more courage. And so I thank you sincerely for being here with us.

Last week, following Minister Goodale's testimony on this bill, I questioned him about an issue which is important to you today, that is to say the definitions that lead to firearms classification by the RCMP. I think that in the debate surrounding this issue, we have skipped one step. Like you, I am in favour of giving that power back to the RCMP, and of withdrawing the right of veto, to call it that, from the cabinet—simply because such decisions should not be taken by politicians of any party.

That being said, I'd like to hear your opinion on the issue of definitions. I would like to know if generally, you are in favour of revising those definitions. This would help guarantee public safety, which is your goal.

I would also like to know how long it has been since these firearms definitions that are to be included in the law were updated.

[Boufeldja Benabdallah]

In reply to that question, if it were put to the Muslims of the city of Quebec, who recently had to deal with this situation, I would say that the classification is important to technicians in that field. You are asking us about that, and some people might reply in a more detailed manner, but for my part, I would like to ask you another question.

Do the politicians around this table take to heart the governance of the country? Do they care about getting a peaceful country that is recognized as such globally back on its rails? Do they care about protecting people?

If that is the case, what is preventing you from focusing solely on what we are asking for, as people who had to go through these events, and on behalf of all Canadian citizens? We have met with people, and everyone we met was astounded to learn that that individual owned an assault weapon.

Could you, as politicians, act in a concerted manner, unanimously, and set aside your political differences to see to it that these assault weapons are banned? We would at least have gained one thing. The entire Canadian nation would applaud you. Beyond definitions and classifications, we are talking about weapons of war that kill. What other classification could we adopt?

Please, be unanimous, be good. Please take to heart the desire that the country stand tall and not feel obliged to imitate its neighbour, and believe that the country wants to regain a certain pride; when they travel, Canadian citizens want to hear that they belong to the most peaceful country in the world.

Personnaly, I travel to various parts of the world. While I was with the Institut de l'énergie et de l'environnement de la Francophonie, I travelled to all of the francophone countries. When I go back there, what I am going to say to those people? That we are killing people in Canada with assault weapons, war weapons that are readily available on our markets?

Is this not a shameful thing for our Canadian nation?

I think that you, politicians and political officials, are responsible for banishing these weapons, so that we can really say that Canada is standing tall, despite political allegiances with neighbouring countries, or with other countries that have not banished these weapons.

Forgive me for speaking at some length, but beyond these definitions, I wanted to send out this call to all of you who are here today.

I thank you for having given me this opportunity to speak. I am going to keep trying until I succeed, inch Allah, God willing.

[Heidi Rathjen]

As for definitions, the Canadian law, unlike other laws such as the American ones, does not define assault weapons. It does not refer to military firearms, paramilitary firearms and assault weapons. It only contains criteria for restricted, non-restricted and prohibited weapons. What we note is that the classifications are not related to the risks presented by the weapons. You saw the assault weapons we showed you. They are not restricted, and that makes no sense.

You are asking us what the technical solution is, but we are not experts. As Mr. Benabdallah said, it's up to the government to see to it that the most destructive weapons, those that have been designed to kill human beings, are not made available for personal possession.

I also want to answer your last question on updating the definitions. Around 2012, in several of its notes to the office of the minister responsible, the RCMP complained that the regulation that could have prohibited certain variations on assault weapons that are already prohibited had not been updated. Since 2012, two or three weapons may have been added, but in general the regulation has been ignored for more than 20 years.

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

Mr. LeRoux, I only have a minute left but I'd like to give you an opportunity to talk about what you raised with the minister in a letter to which you will, I hope, receive a reply.

I'd like to hear you talk about the background checks and the fact that we are not always in a position to identify all of the problem cases. I know that you have some ideas about that and I'd like to give you an opportunity to express them.

[Michel LeRoux]

For the most part, the message I sent to Mr. Goodale was about backgrounds containing violence, and everything that concerns the different types of mental illness. I'm referring to individuals that are known to health professionals and to the police. Police officers repeatedly withdraw their weapons from these individuals. They are returned to them later for all kinds of reasons, or because the law says it is optional and not an obligation. That is what must be avoided.

Finally, in my opinion, that makes no sense. When an individual has a violent or suicidal background and must take medication and is under its influence, he should have his gun permit withdrawn. It should be the responsibility of the person who has such a history to demonstrate that he can own firearms.

If an individual drives when impaired, he loses his driver's licence. We don't do that for weapons.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. LeRoux.

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Ms. Damoff, you have seven minutes, please.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Through you, first I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here today. To those of you who are with us who've lost loved ones, I want to extend my deepest sympathy. Thank you for your courage to come to speak to us today.

I know that all of you have followed this firearms legislation and firearms policy for a number of years.

I have a number of things I want to deal with, so I'm going to ask you to be very brief. How you would compare this legislation? While I know you feel it doesn't go as far as you would like, could you compare this legislation with that of 10 years of the previous government as well as the platform that was put forward on firearms by Mr. Scheer during the election campaign?

[Heidi Rathjen]

It's certainly an improvement over the previous system that was in place, which was weakened under the past government. Unfortunately, I think the comparisons that we find most important are those comparing what was previously in place in Canada or what is currently in place in the United States. Commercial sales records are the law in the U.S., so now at least we're in line with American law in terms of controls on sales.

However, we're a little worried about the access to this data. The minister has talked about judicial authority. We're not sure that this judicial authority was required in the past, and we want to make sure that police and government officials have easy access and quick access to this data.

In terms of supporting police work, it is much weaker than what was in place in terms of sales when the registry was in place. Under that system, all the data was centralized. If the Mayor of Toronto asked.... The minister talked about considering the possibility of being able to flag arsenals, people who buy many, many guns. It's just not possible when the records are kept in the stores. You can't see a pattern when the data is hidden in all the stores. In any case, where would you start looking? Why would you start looking?

The bill falls short of what it could have been and what it was in the past.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

One of the things, as I've been speaking to stakeholders and police and other organizations, that I have heard about and which I believe you put forward as well, is the idea of the duty of health care professionals to warn. When they suspect that violence using a firearm is likely, should they have a duty to warn the chief firearms officer?

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that proposal.

[Heidi Rathjen]

I'll be brief because we consider that to be more under provincial jurisdiction. The duty to warn has to overcome privacy issues, and so on.

Quebec passed “Anastasia's law”, Bill 9, after the Dawson shooting. With that law, medical professionals who notice a risk to public safety for a patient who owns a gun have to notify the Sûreté du Québec. This was recommended for other provinces to implement, but I don't think it falls under the purview of federal law. But we do support that, obviously.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay.

This one would fall under federal law in terms of the background checks. Right now we've extended the time period for the background checks. We have not added any criteria to it. Something that has come up in a number of my conversations has been the incidence of online hate and misogyny—where people are posting on social media—and the ability for that to be included when the chief firearms officer is checking whether a firearm should be.... I've heard this from police and I've heard it from people who work in the field of gender-based violence.

Do you think that would be worthwhile to add to the criteria?

Maybe I could hear from our friends by video conference on this as well?

[Heidi Rathjen]

Certainly one of the things we're asking for, any time there is a—

[Alexandra Laberge]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Sorry.

We will have Ms. Rathjen first, and then Ms. Laberge.

[Heidi Rathjen]

Okay.

In terms of criteria for automatic prohibition, one of the amendments we're asking for is that, when there is a protection order, that it includes a restraining order. I'm not very familiar with the laws. I don't know if stalking online could be part of that.

We are asking that a certain criteria, like a hard criteria that leads to automatic prohibition, be strengthened.

We also think that the criteria to be considered, where there should be discretion, should be broadened in any case. So certainly online stalking should be taken into consideration.