Public Safety Committee on May 29th, 2018

[Supt Gordon Sneddon]

I'm not sure that the bill addresses these things directly.

What it does do is it enhances police capacity to investigate. That's all it does. It doesn't go a whole long way into the forest, but it does bring some enhancements, from a policing perspective.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay.

Would you not agree that most of those enhancements make it easier...and more of your investigations are directed at law-abiding firearms owners, not the actual illegal firearms and gang crimes?

[Supt Gordon Sneddon]

Our investigations in Toronto are toward the gang members, the gang crimes committed by those people, and also to the source of those firearms. It's an unfortunate reality. We've had cases in Toronto since 2012, where people who had legitimate purchase and acquisition licences and had been given the privilege of being able to purchase guns, in one case purchased 23 handguns that were disseminated onto the street; in another case it was 44. There were at least 15 or 16—

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Would you agree that's more the exception than the rule?

[Supt Gordon Sneddon]

It's a trend that's really disturbing. It's a trend that started—we identified it in Toronto—and it's a trend that has continued across Canada. We've seen evidence of it in Edmonton. We've seen evidence of it in British Columbia.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Would you agree that most of those kinds of things came through organized crime, or definitely with a criminal element?

[Supt Gordon Sneddon]

Well absolutely there's a criminal element, because the criminal element were the ones enticing these people to go out there and purchase the guns. They had the capacity to go and purchase the guns for the criminal.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have one minute.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Mauser, with regard to this information you got, I have no reason to doubt it; I've seen similar information before.

Other than politics or sending a virtue signal, what other reason would there be for elected officials, or a government per se, to basically contort the evidence and use it to say it's dealing with illegal guns and gang crime, when really everybody knows that the testimony we've heard today tells us it won't?

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

My hearing here is impaired. The question is for me to—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It was as much a statement as a question.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

It's definitely a question.

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

Is the question for me to hypothesize what the motive of this bill is, if it's not directed towards criminal violence?

Not being a savant or able to read Mr. Goodale's mind, or even the minds of the cabinet, all I can do is hypothesize. Politicians probably are interested in politics and have ideas that this would win rather than lose votes. It's also possible that Mr. Goodale does not know that the police have fudged the data. He may actually believe this is a useful thing, but since I don't know what is in his heart, I can't tell you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave the hypothesis there. Thank you.

Mr. Hébert, welcome to the committee. You have five minutes.

[Richard Hébert, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for their comments, which are mostly interesting, but occasionally very surprising. I am really surprised by what I have heard from a number of people. I won't say more about that.

My questions are for the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Last week, the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights brought up a study by Caillin Langmann, a McMaster University researcher who identifies with the NRA. The gun lobby likes to use that study because it does not mention suicides by firearm.

On the other hand, a study by the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice indicates a reduction of 5% to 10% in firearm homicides following the implementation of statutes such as Bill C-71.

Mr. Drummond, can you talk about the science and research in this area?

[Dr. Alan Drummond]

This has been a very depressing conversation for me to listen to for the last half hour, as we've lost focus entirely on why we're here, which is public health and suicide prevention. We've gotten lost in the smaller percentage of criminality, guns and gangs. We may have failed in our opening statement to make it quite clear that the focus of your committee and of this legislation should be primarily on reducing the tragic suicide rate in Canada, which is one of the highest in the western world.

I'm grateful that you comment on Dr. Langmann, because a lot of people like to drag him out in support of their particular views or bias with respect to the relationships between guns and homicide. We're not going to talk about homicide, but I will mention that Dr. Langmann's article was published in a very obscure journal in 2012, when he was a resident. I believe clinically he's an outlier. Some of the evidence that he brought was subsequently addressed by the University of Montreal and found to be incorrect.

By contrast, there is a fabulous amount of direct, incontrovertible science in both The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association that talks about the association between guns and intimate partner violence, homicide, and suicide. There is no reconciliation; the science is very strong.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do you want to weigh in on this as well?

[Dr. Atul Kapur]

Thank you for your question.

One of the points that we need to emphasize in our recommendations is that there needs to be more opportunity for research, more data gathering, and more information made available. That was a fundamental part of our recommendation, and it's been consistent that we need more of that.

I looked at Dr. Langmann's brief. It is diametrically opposed to the large consensus of literature on the effects of gun control, and on suicide specifically. While we're talking about red herrings, remember that three-quarters of firearm deaths in Canada are suicide. I want to emphasize that that is a much bigger provision. Our recommendations here address mostly that provision of preventing suicide deaths.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have one minute.

[Richard Hébert, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

In the brief he sent to the members of the committee, Mr. Langmann maintains that firearm classification provides no benefit for public safety and should be scrapped. He also maintains that questions on previous suicide attempts, depression, psychological problems, divorce, separation, job loss and bankruptcy should be removed from the bill.

Does the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians share that position?

[Dr. Alan Drummond]

Clearly not. We've been very consistent since 1995 and the original Bill C-68. This is our third appearance before a committee where we've always continually and comprehensively suggested that there is a gun problem in Canada. It might not be a criminal problem, but there is certainly a gun problem in Canada.

That gun problem is suicide and it's mental health. I get tired of the Bell let's make a statement day, where we pay lip service to depression.

Here is something that the Government of Canada can actually do with respect to reducing the tragic consequences of significant depression. I believe there is at least a good starting point in terms of keeping guns out of the hands of people who are at risk particularly of suicide. Suicidality by guns in Canada is not an urban crime problem; it's a rural indigenous peoples problem with perfectly legal weapons, such as the family rifle and the family shotgun. The diversion of discussion here towards crime and towards an outlying scientific researcher is quite disturbing.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Hébert.

Mr. Calkins is next, and then Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Sneddon, I believe it was you who responded to an earlier question about the chief firearms officer being able to help with an investigation. We had the minister and the public safety officials before the committee. When I questioned them about it, they said that the chief firearms officer, in his capacity to go into a store to look at records, is quite different from a police officer doing an investigation, which would require a warrant, yet your testimony seemed to indicate that the chief firearms officer would be able to assist with an investigation because they would have immediate access to the owner's records. Could you clarify that for me, please?

[Supt Gordon Sneddon]

I would be happy to.

You are right; the chief firearms officer has a different approach and actually different responsibilities than police. However, somewhere along the line, there is a meeting of the ways that does take place.

Sure, the police do have to get a warrant in some instances. I can tell you that there was a difference of opinion legally between the Canadian firearms program and counsel for it and the crown counsel within Ontario. They have a different perspective on what's viewed as private, and within a government record, what would require a production order and what wouldn't. However, since we're talking about this generating the necessity for a production order, one of the challenges is—