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.
Liberal
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I would just say, Chair, that the subcommittee did a lot of work coming up with a balanced list of witnesses, so I wouldn't support adding additional witnesses at this time.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
If I may, Mr. Chair, there are a lot of organizations in this country that represent people who are going to be impacted significantly by this legislation. The number of witnesses I've provided here, at the current rate of five per committee meeting, would only take another week, at the most, maybe a week and a half if we were able to get five per committee meeting. That's 10 people per week. There are about 15 names here. That's an additional three meetings of this committee. That's not an unreasonable request, given the scope and the number of people who are affected.
I would urge my colleagues here to hear from these groups. They want to testify. They want to be here. They should not be stifled in any way from being able to testify before the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
My concern is that we do have witnesses and we do have limited time.
Mr. Dubé.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
That's perfect, Mr. Chair, because out of respect for those who are here, and in speaking of allowing people to speak, without having a position one way or another on the witnesses proposed, I move to adjourn the debate.
(Motion agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
With that, have we sorted out who's speaking first?
Ms. Irons, welcome to the committee.
Alison Irons As an Individual
Good afternoon Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak today.
My name is Alison Irons. I'm the mother of Lindsay Margaret Wilson who, at the age of 26, was stalked and murdered by shotgun by her ex-boyfriend on April 5, 2013, in Bracebridge, Ontario, two weeks before completing her graduating semester at Nipissing University.
My daughter's killer drove from Kingston earlier that week and followed her car from her tiny campus to discover where she was living. The day of her murder, he drove up again, followed her, and hid behind the house. He took four videos of himself on his phone preparing to kill her, and waited until she emerged from the house. He confronted her in the driveway and shot her while she bargained for her life, with pellets and slugs from one of the two long guns he took with him to ensure that he got the job done. He then took his own life.
She was conscious for a few moments, but in no pain, and told EMS that she knew she was dying. Imagine living with that as a parent. Mortally wounded, she didn't know that her murderer had killed himself beside her. She died about 20 minutes later at the Bracebridge hospital.
According to the pathologist, there was extensive internal injury to my daughter's heart and lungs. Her killer knew what he was doing. I'll tell you, as an ex-RCMP officer myself, that this is a lethal target known as centre body mass. Her right shoulder was fractured, five ribs were shattered to pieces. Her left forearm was completely fractured and left hanging by a thread, with what the pathologist called an avulsion of most of her left forearm, likely a defensive wound.
She had minor gunshot wounds to the back of her head, likely from the first shot spinning her body around, and stippling wounds to the lower part of her beautiful face. I'm grateful to the pathologist's staff for concealing these facial injuries with makeup, so that I could kiss my daughter goodbye for the last time.
I don't apologize for being graphic about my daughter's injuries. This is what guns do in the hands of the wrong people.
My daughter met her killer sometime in 2009 or 2010. He hid his criminal past from her and had plausible explanations for why he, as an adult, was living with his parents and seemed to have no real job prospects or tangible income. He was charming, articulate, clean-cut looking, and a recreational hunter.
There was no violence in their relationship, although he could be controlling and manipulative. She left him for the first time in 2011 when she caught him drug dealing. He successfully lured her back with false promises of change, but a year later she caught him drug dealing again.
In 2012, she was devastated when he contracted meningitis and nearly died. She thought that his illness was her fault for having left him. When he survived, she, as a person trained in disability support and out of her sense of guilt, tried to help his recovery, but by Christmas the same manipulative, controlling behaviours recurred, and she severed all contact. He stalked her and murdered her three months later.
As a career-long investigator, I researched his history. He had concealed from my daughter that in 2000 he was arrested by one police force for drug trafficking. Seven days later, he and another male kidnapped a third male from a residence over what Kingston Police believe to have been a drug deal gone wrong. They bundled the victim into a car, drove him off down a secondary highway, while one of the two beat him up in the car. He escaped by rolling out of the moving car onto the side of the highway, where he was rescued by a passerby, and taken to police. Had he not done so, who knows if the victim would have been murdered.
My daughter's killer and the other kidnapper were charged with approximately five offences including forcible confinement, assault, threatening, and at least a couple of other charges, which Kingston Police told me were related to drugs. Through an apparent plea bargain, he was convicted in 2002 of only forcible confinement and assault, through summary conviction. The previous drug trafficking charge was withdrawn. His only sentence was two years' probation.
Immediately upon completing his probation in 2004, he applied for and was granted a possession and acquisition licence. He privately purchased several guns, one of which was the gun he used later to murder my daughter in 2013. Through my own sources, I learned he had been extensively interviewed about his PAL application under the self-reporting model. This meant that he had been red-flagged in the Canadian firearms information system, what is known as a stage A failure, but this flag was then discretionarily overridden in order to grant him the gun licence.
Before he met my daughter, and again concealed from her, he was warned by a person in authority, apparently due to a domestic violence incident, that if he didn't obtain a pardon for these prior convictions, his PAL would not be renewed. Although this incident is recorded in the Canadian firearms information system, it wasn't coded by police in such a way as to precipitate a firearms hit or trigger a review or revocation of his licensing. Yet this warning suggests to me that his licence should never have been granted in the first place. CFIS also contained a conviction for impaired driving.
As Lindsay's mother I ask you how someone with adult criminal convictions for forcible confinement and assault related to drug trafficking, as well as an impaired driving conviction and a CFIS entry for a domestic violence incident could ever get a gun licence in Canada. How does our gun licensing system fail to properly take into account and weigh the actual context of someone's convictions and other CPIC or CFIS history before granting them a licence? Did he obtain the PAL and the guns for hunting, as he likely purported on his application, or did he obtain them to protect his apparently ongoing drug-dealing career over 13 years?
Our gun licensing system and process, particularly in the area of background checks, definition and validation of references, treatment of criminal offences, and the apparent broad discretion to override stage A failures or red flags, clearly failed my daughter. Please don't tell me that he just fell through the cracks.
Justin Bourque killed three Mounties in New Brunswick using legally acquired guns. Alexandre Bissonnette killed six people at a Quebec City mosque using legally acquired guns. Mayor Tory of Toronto has recently written to the minister for help since, due to tighter border controls limiting the smuggling of illegal guns into Canada, trafficking in legally acquired domestic guns to criminals and gangs is on the rise.
Since we couldn't even protect my daughter, we cannot say that bills such as the former C-51 and C-59 protect Canadians from terrorist acts, mass shootings, or lone wolf gunmen like the one who killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo on Parliament Hill, if we do not correspondingly review and begin to strengthen our gun legislation, regulations, policies, processes, and systems and close the gaps.
In the case of an applicant with convictions for personal violence, especially when related to other serious crimes such as drug trafficking, background checks must be more comprehensive and must consider the applicant's adult lifetime criminal history and the context of any crimes of personal violence. Definition of appropriate references for PAL applications must be more stringent and should not include immediate family members or those with a criminal record. All references for those with a criminal record for personal violence should be validated as to suitability, CPIC and CFIS checked, and contacted. An appropriate level of skilled resources should be in place to ensure that more comprehensive background and reference checks can be conducted.
Do I have just one minute more?
As an Individual
I'll be quick.
A review of the criteria and treatment of stage A failures in CFIS by chief firearms officers and the completeness and currency of data in CPIC and CFIS must be improved to avoid the granting of gun licences to applicants based on incomplete information.
In summary, some people have said to me that my daughter's killer could have obtained an illegal gun anywhere. My response is always, “Yes, but he didn't.” He legally acquired the licence and the gun he used to kill her nine years later. Our gun licensing system should not have made it easy for him.
Thank you for listening.
Liberal
Jérôme Gaudreault Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise de prévention du suicide
Thank you.
Good afternoon, members of the committee. I thank you very much for your invitation to come to speak to you about firearms control in the context of suicide prevention.
I am the director of the Association québécoise de prévention du suicide. The AQPS is a community organization that aims to promote and develop suicide prevention on the territory of Quebec. More specifically, we work to raise awareness among the population, and we make representations to elected officials so that measures are put forward and implemented to support suicide prevention. We also want to mobilize citizens and encourage them to take a position and rally in favour of this cause. In addition, we offer various training products developed for citizens, as well as for those who work in suicide prevention, and health professionals.
I will say from the outset that we have on several occasions expressed our position, which is in favour of better gun control. We in fact spoke out against the abolition of the federal long-gun registry in 2011. There are many studies that show that a series of measures to control firearms have a positive effect on reducing the suicide rate. I'll get back to that. In our opinion, Bill C-71 represents a step in the right direction, but we think that some of its provisions should be strengthened.
I'll say a few words about the state of suicide in Canada and Quebec. On this day alone, 11 people will commit suicide au Canada. In Quebec, there are 1,100 deaths by suicide annually. Among these, more than 125 are committed with firearms. There are 4,000 suicides in Canada each year and 1,000 of these take place in Quebec; that's a lot. Although there was a significant drop in the number of suicides in Quebec at the beginning of the decade, our society has not made any significant progress on this issue for close to 10 years.
As for those who are vulnerable to suicide, you must know that the suicidal person has not formally decided to commit suicide. Not only is his vision of things clouded by the suffering that he wants to put an end to, but he is ambivalent about his death up to the very last minute. That is why the method chosen by the suicidal person is so important, because the longer he or she delays, the more time there is for him to change his mind and obtain help. For each person who dies by suicide, we estimate that between 25 and 30 people make a suicide attempt that is not completed. If people do not complete the act, it is not because they are unable to commit suicide, but because they change their mind along the way.
Unfortunately, firearms are extremely lethal—their success rate is 96%—and that means that only very rarely does the suicidal person get a second chance. The firearm amplifies the impulsivity of the gesture and gives very little time to the person's friends or family members, to first responders or police officers, to intervene effectively and save the person's life. Statistical analysis and research shows that 80% of deaths by firearm are suicides. The weapons used are mainly non-restricted weapons, rifles or long guns. In 50% of suicides, less than 10 minutes go by between the beginning of the crisis situation and the suicidal act. When a vulnerable individual is in crisis, if he has easy and immediate access to a lethal weapon, the risk of suicide is much higher.
The risk of suicide is five times higher in homes where there are weapons. Hunting rifles are the most common type of firearm that is found in homes, and a large proportion of suicides using firearms are committed with a weapon the person does not own. It is recognized that deaths related to firearms constitute a major public health issue, and statistics show that in countries that have stricter firearms control, the rate of suicide using firearms is lower than the rate in countries that do not have such controls.
However, suicides can be prevented, and in order to reduce their number, it is necessary to implement a series of measures which, when applied simultaneously, create a context that is favourable to the prevention of suicide. According to the World Health Organization, reducing access to the means to commit suicide, such as firearms, is considered one of the most effective ways.
In order to control firearms effectively, those who own firearms must have a permit issued following a safety investigation. That is currently the case in Canada. We must also educate owners with regard to the safe storage of their firearms and the risks related to them. We can also say that that is the case in Canada. However, when we realize that one third of suicides with weapons are not committed by the firearms owner, we see that there are still some important gaps with regard to safe storage. The firearms also have to be registered. Registration is important because it facilitates the work of police officers and responders when they know that a person is in crisis and is thinking of suicide, and they can protect him against himself.
Currently, in Canada, there is no way of knowing how many weapons a distressed person may have in his possession. In order to ensure the safety of the occupants of a home, police officers have to have that information. This allows them to identify the legal owners, facilitates the traceability of weapons, and makes the owners more accountable.
Here is some conclusive data on the effectiveness of firearms registries.
According to the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, between 1998 and 2011, the years when the Canadian long-gun registry was in effect, the number of suicides by firearm in Quebec went from 283 to 131, annually. That is a 53% drop. There was no substitution by other means noted either, since the number of suicides using all other means besides firearms also declined. That is 150 fewer suicides using firearms per year. There was a lot of talk about the cost of the registry, but the cost of suicide is also high for Canadian society. Studies assess the cost of a suicide to be between $600,000 and $1 million for the community.
We believe Bill C-71 should be amended in order to tighten eligibility criteria and strengthen background checks of individuals seeking to obtain, renew or maintain permits in their possession; include notification of upcoming purchases in the new monitoring procedures for non-restricted weapons; allow easy and quick access by police officers to data on arms sales without procedural obstacles, such as having to obtain a court order; reintroduce permits for the transport of restricted weapons so that they specify the exact locations where the presence of such weapons is permitted; prohibit assault weapons; revise provisions regarding large-capacity magazines so as to impose a real five- or ten-cartridge limit on non-restricted and restricted firearms; and eliminate loopholes and prohibit firearms that can easily be modified to get around the legal limit. In these ways, we fully support the recommendations of PolySeSouvient.
In conclusion, suicide is a preventable cause of death. It's not a random fact that the number of suicides in Quebec decreased by close to a third between 2000 and 2008. That important decline can be explained by the combined effect of a number of measures, including increased control of access to firearms. The decline in the number of suicides using firearms demonstrates that clearly.
Hundreds of Quebeckers and Canadians who seriously considered suicide are still alive today and happy to be alive, because in a moment of despair, they did not have access to this way of committing an irreparable act.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Gaudreault.
Mr. Fragiskatos, you have seven minutes, please.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to both of you for being here.
Ms. Irons, I want to start with you.
Your perspective is a very important one. Thank you for your courage in sharing your story. It's particularly important to me because you've been directly impacted by gun violence. In your presentation, you talked about guns that are legally acquired and their role in violent acts. Opponents of the bill talk—almost instinctively, it would seem; it's almost a knee-jerk reaction—about how the bill does not look at gang violence, gangs, criminality, and along those lines. Gangs are obviously involved in the distribution of guns; that does happen. This government has introduced measures to deal with that, independently of Bill C-71.
Could you speak to that point that opponents raise? When they say, “Well, there's nothing to do with gangs here. Therefore, what does this actually do?”
As an Individual
The point that I made in my remarks that I'm learning more and more.... I have a friend who's a former homicide investigator in Vancouver who tells me that in the greater Vancouver area recently there's been almost a shooting a day that is related to gang violence. The point I made was that, from everything I've researched and understood, the police in the city of Toronto are seeing that, as its becoming more difficult at the border to get illegal guns into the country, trafficking in legally acquired domestic guns from allegedly law-abiding Canadian citizens to criminals and gangs is now on the increase. I'm not an expert on that, but that's my understanding from my research.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Indeed, that lines up with some of the other things that we've heard in testimony here at the committee. Thirty per cent of violent acts involving a gun do involve long guns, most of which are acquired legally.
I want to raise another perspective that opponents of the bill frequently bring up. We heard comments here today, in fact, from my friends opposite. It is this whole idea that Bill C-71 is introducing red tape to law-abiding gun owners. As you know, under Bill C-71, vendors would have to keep sale information. This would involve the date of purchase, the firearm's licence number, and the make and model of the firearm that is sold. Most already do this on a voluntary basis because it's a best practice, but under Bill C-71 this would become mandatory.
In your view, as someone who has been directly impacted by violence, is this about red tape? What do you say to that sort of argument? I find it absurd, but I want to hear your perspective.
As an Individual
I need to think about my answer for a moment.
I think part of that argument is that the gun lobby in Canada, as it were—or whatever you would like to call it—is arguing that this is about taking away guns from law-abiding citizens and it's also about bringing back the former long-gun registry. I've not heard anywhere that's in fact the intent.
For example, in my daughter's case, without any tracking of that firearm.... In fact, remember that he took two firearms with him. He lived in a house that he shared with his parents. When he acquired those guns, he and the seller failed to record any transfer in the gun system, which they were supposed to do. That gun, had he not been captured at the time or had he not killed himself, could not have been attributed to anybody in that household. Had he lived, that means it would have been almost impossible to determine who should have been charged as the owner of that firearm.
Again, I had to think through my answer, and it's perhaps not the best I could give. I've always thought that if there were no way of tracking that firearm whatsoever, we couldn't link it in some cases—especially in a larger household or some sort of communal living—to who was responsible, as the owner of that gun.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Your answers are very clear, and the committee is better for hearing your testimony. The specific measure we're speaking of here is about making sure we can give police the tools they need to track all of this. I think it's a very reasonable way to go about things, and I wanted to get a victim's perspective as well.
Mr. Gaudreault, you've spoken about the importance of background checks, but I wonder if you could speak to the importance of mental health information as part of a background check in all of that.
Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise de prévention du suicide
Yes, absolutely.
It's very important to know the mental health history of a person who applies for a gun permit. That is indeed a risk factor. It is thought that in close to 90% of suicides, mental health issues were a factor, ranging from more minor issues such as depression, anxiety, or stress to more serious troubles such as schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder. So this is a major risk factor, though it is important to point out that the fact of having mental health issues does not mean that one will necessarily resort to suicide. In the majority of cases, people will not go as far as suicide, but the fact remains that it is a risk factor.
When an investigation is done to determine whether a person can be given access to firearms, those risks have to be taken into account, and an applicant's mental health history is one element that needs to be considered.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Gaudreault.
In a similar sort of vein that I put the question to Ms. Irons with regard to this argument about red tape, what do you make of positions like this?
Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise de prévention du suicide
There is no doubt that from the point of view of gun owners, who comply with the law in the majority of cases, this can be considered red tape and an annoying formality. However, in my opinion, given that gun ownership is not a right but a privilege, and one which presents a risk to the safety of the population, we have to put all the means at our disposal to guarantee public safety.
Putting a registry in place and carrying out a security check on the person's background are measures that allow us to ensure, or at least improve, the safety of the person and to verify whether that person will act responsibly around firearms.
Liberal
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to both witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Gaudreault, a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that while there is an obvious connection between the firearms ownership rate and the firearms suicide rate, there is no connection between the firearms ownership rate and the overall suicide rate.
Now while it's logical to assume that the presence of a firearm could lead an individual who is contemplating suicide to act in a quicker fashion, it seems that the facts don't bear that out. Would you not agree that there are more complex societal factors than just the presence of a firearm that dictate rates of suicide?
Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise de prévention du suicide
In fact, according to the studies we have, the presence of a firearm in a home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.
The data published by the Institut national de santé publique du Québec show that the number of suicides caused by firearms decreased by 53% between 2000 and 2008. The institute's assessment is that half of that drop was specifically related to the creation of the Canadian long-gun registry.
Why? Putting such measures in place can indeed be considered as annoying red tape, but it makes gun owners more accountable when it comes to the safe storage of their firearms. When police officers have to intervene in crisis situations, time is very limited and they need maximum information in order to modulate their interventions. Having access to that information increases safety, in my opinion.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you.
You indicated earlier in your testimony that 90% of suicide incidents are related to mental illness. Do you believe that this bill goes far enough to ensure firearms are taken out of the hands of those who are mentally ill to stop them from harming themselves or others? Then, would you support a measure to seize firearms possessed by individuals who are detained for their own protection under provincial mental health legislation?