Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 44 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Today we have two panels. In the first hour we have with us, by video conference, Meaghan Hennegan, spokesperson for the families of Dawson. In person in the room today we have, from PolySeSouvient, Heidi Rathjen, coordinator, and Nathalie Provost, spokesperson.

We will ask each group to present an opening statement of up to five minutes. We will start with—

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Can you please confirm that we have done sound tests with the witness who is joining us virtually?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for that good intervention.

The clerk assures me that, yes, it is so.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I certainly thank everyone online for properly wearing your headsets. It is critically important for the interpreters. Thank you, all.

We will invite Ms. Rathjen and Ms. Provost to make an opening statement.

Please go ahead for five minutes.

[Nathalie Provost, Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient]

My name is Nathalie Provost. I am the spokesperson for PolySeSouvient, and I am also one of the persons wounded during the femicide that took place at the Polytechnique. I will be speaking with one of my former classmates, Heidi Rathjen, the coordinator for PolySeSouvient.

Here with us today are: Serge St‑Arneault, the brother of Annie St‑Arneault, who is representing the families of the victims; Stéphane Rouillon, a survivor and graduate of the Polytechnique, and Hélène Thibault, who also graduated from the Polytechnique. Both of them are volunteers with PolySeSouvient. We also have with us William Sylvain and Juliette Gagnon, members of the Confédération pour le rayonnement étudiant en ingénierie au Québec and the student organization NOT HERE.

Today, we will be talking about ways we can improve Bill C‑21. We believe that this is how we can make the best contribution. Please note that some of the things that we will be talking about today are requests that we have been making for nearly 33 years now since the massacre.

We know that the problem of gun violence is complex and that the causes of violence are vast and diverse, but one thing is certain: the combination of bad intentions and an easy access to firearms increases the risk of severe injury and death. That is our prime concern.

We are asking for a robust legal framework for firearms which exponentially increase the risk of violence. We have to reduce the risk of firearms falling in the wrong hands.

I know what I'm talking about. I came face to face with a man holding a powerful gun with a high-capacity magazine. The Polytechnique shooter, just like other mass murderers, was the legal owner of the weapon.

No ordinary citizen should have the legal right to own weapons that give them the ability to kill many people in a matter of seconds by simply squeezing a finger. That's the reason that we, along with the majority of Canadians, are seeking a ban on handguns and assault rifles, as well as high-capacity magazines.

We are here today to help make Canada safe for us and our children; that is our main goal. This is a crucial bill for us. After watching violence increase over 33 years, we believe it is one minute to midnight: we have to act now, and you have the power to do so.

[Heidi Rathjen, Coordinator, PolySeSouvient]

Since we have little time, I'm just going to focus on some of the key amendments we are hoping to convince the committee to adopt.

The first amendment we are eagerly awaiting is one that was promised by Minister Mendicino on the day this bill was tabled, that is, to introduce a comprehensive ban on assault weapons, including those that were not captured by the May 2020 orders in council.

The second is in terms of domestic violence. Remove clauses 4 to 12, which introduce American-style red flag measures. That is not needed, relevant or helpful in the Canadian context.

The third is to strengthen the wording of clause 36 of the bill, instructing chief firearms officers to refuse or revoke a licence when they determine an individual has been involved in “domestic violence or stalking”. It should not be up to one person to subjectively determine whether or not such an occurrence has taken place, as the definition varies, and also because some provincial firearms officers have been appointed—literally appointed—to protect gun owners' rights.

The fourth is to amend clause 36 of the bill to exclude employment as a justification for exempting an individual from licence revocation linked to a protection order.

The fifth is to include an expansive definition of “domestic violence” to include all intimate and family violence, including non-physical forms like coercive control and threats of suicide.

The sixth, regarding handguns, is to limit the current blanket exemptions from the handgun freeze for businesses in order to exclude gun clubs and gun ranges, and exempt only retailers who provide handguns to police or security firms, and only for those specific handguns.

The seventh is to restrict the exemption for Olympic shooting disciplines to those that are currently on the program of the Olympics. Failing to provide other legislative solutions, limit the exemptions to coaches and athletes who currently compete, train or coach in handgun-shooting Olympic disciplines, instead of the blanket exemption for any and all future beginners. In addition, the exemption should apply only to handguns that are used in Olympic disciplines. We would obviously strongly oppose any expansion of the exemption beyond the Olympic exemption.

The eighth is to amend the bill to ensure continuous eligibility for the Olympic exemption—not a lifetime exemption, as it is written now, by requiring an annual letter to the chief firearms officers. This principle of continuous eligibility should also apply to the legal qualification to owner-restricted weapons.

The ninth is magazines. Do not neglect the issue of large-capacity magazines. The government has promised regulations to ban magazines that can be converted to their full illegal capacity, as has been done by a number of mass shooters. This is a good thing. However, there are many other exemptions and loopholes that also need to be eliminated.

Finally, we hope the committee will push for rapid drafting of regulations alongside the bill. Experience has taught us that regulations can make or break a measure. Providing draft regulations in a timely manner is a way to be transparent on how these measures will look once implemented. It took four years to enact regulations after the tabling of Bill C-71. This is scandalous and should not be repeated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We go now to Ms. Hennegan.

Please go ahead for five minutes.

[Meaghan Hennegan, Spokesperson, Families of Dawson]

Hello to the chair and to committee members.

Sixteen years ago, at Dawson College, I was shot in the arm and the lower extremity. I was one of 19 people shot. Anastasia De Sousa, who was shot 12 times at close range, died. She was 18 years old.

The shooter was a young man who was obsessed with guns. He posted on his website at least 55 photos of himself posing with knives and rifles. He frequented shooting clubs and ranges, including the club where the 1992 Concordia mass shooter trained. He trained dressed in combat boots and a dark trench coat. The club administrators never raised any flags. In fact, he bought guns from at least two Montreal clubs. He tried to join the Canadian Armed Forces, but he never got through basic training. He should never have owned guns, yet our laws allowed him to own handguns and assault weapons.

This means two things. First, our screening system is flawed. We need more thorough background checks, and we need authorities to prioritize public safety.

Second, it means that until we have a perfect system, it won't be possible to prevent all at-risk individuals from having access to guns because police can't read people's minds. That's why some weapons are just too dangerous for private ownership. That's also why my family, Anastasia De Sousa's family and other survivors, like Hayder Khadim, have been calling for tougher gun control laws, including a ban on handguns and assault weapons.

I was shot with a Beretta Cx4 Storm. This gun, like many others, should have been prohibited. The coroner who investigated the shooting said that had the spirit of the 1995 law been respected, it would have been banned.

We need a comprehensive ban on assault weapons, and we need them to be taken out of circulation. We're looking forward to the promised amendment to ban all assault weapons and to the launch of the mandatory buyback program.

The killer also used a .45 calibre handgun. Like 70% of Canadians, we support a ban on handguns. The freeze on new purchases is a step in the right direction, and we support this measure. However, exemptions go too far. For example, why exempt gun clubs and ranges? Why should they be allowed to purchase new handguns, and why should we be perpetuating the so-called sports shooting that use handguns? Why teach people how to shoot weapons that are easy to conceal and that can kill anyone in the vicinity by squeezing a finger?

Twenty-five years ago, a legal handgun owner killed 15 elementary schoolchildren and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. The tragedy prompted a popular movement that led to the ban on private ownership of handguns in Great Britain. Just two days ago, the families of the victims called on their government to ban these so-called practical or tactical shooting games. Though they use long guns, the ones here in Canada are using handguns.

I agree with these families. The clubs are trivializing the use of dangerous weapons. These types of clubs glamorize shooting and weapons. It's an Americanized sport, and it's everything we want to get away from in Canada and the U.K. We would really be pleased if the bill was amended to make sure that the handgun freeze applies to gun clubs as well.

Finally, we're looking forward to the promised regulations to ban modifiable magazines, which can be restored to their full illegal capacity. However, it's important to not forget to fix other flaws and rules surrounding magazines. For example, even though the Beretta Cx4 Storm was restricted, it was a long gun, so its magazine would normally be limited to five bullets. However, a loophole in the regulations says that if the magazine is not purposely designed for a specific gun that it fits, it's exempt from the five/10 limits. This loophole was blamed by the coroner during the Dawson investigation for allowing the gunman to use 10-round magazines instead of five-round ones.

PolySeSouvient has been fighting for these measures since I've been alive. I'm 34 years old. I've been fighting for these measures for my entire adult life. My mother fought beside me for 15 years. She passed away last March without ever seeing the fruits of her labours. The coroner in the Dawson case said that without 10 rounds, the killer may have shot only half as many people on the sidewalk before entering the school. I was shot on the sidewalk. My mother was standing next to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll start our round of questions now with Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Shipley, please go ahead for six minutes.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Obviously, many of you have been through very tragic incidents in the past, and our hearts go out to you as you try to carry on with your day-to-day lives.

My first question today is for Ms. Rathjen and Ms. Provost, please.

In your organization's brief on Bill C-21, you state that you, along with other major women's organizations, oppose the ex parte red flag measures that invite victims to go to court themselves to have firearms removed from their abusers. Can you please explain why you oppose this measure?

[Heidi Rathjen]

First, there is not one women's group that asked for this measure.

Second, it's not relevant in the Canadian context, because in the Canadian context, women victims of abuse can call the police. It's up to the police to come and investigate, and they have all the legislative tools necessary to remove the weapons if they deem that there is a risk. The problem we've seen in too many cases now is that often the police don't take complaints seriously and don't do their due diligence and prioritize public safety. That needs to be improved.

There are some important measures in the bill that protect victims of domestic violence, but this measure is dangerous in the sense that it could encourage and allow police to offload their responsibility onto victims. I hope women's groups will have a chance to testify and explain how expecting victims to go to court is unrealistic. That may be relevant in the American context, because they have their right to own guns and there's room for going to court to remove weapons from dangerous individuals, but that's not the case here in Canada.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you for that answer.

Would you propose anything you'd like to see instead, if we had to amend this, or would you just like it removed?

[Heidi Rathjen]

We have a number of amendments that we feel would improve the situation. Some just tighten up measures that are in the bill.

For example, we propose an amendment to the language of the clause dealing with chief firearms officers' evaluation of whether or not it's in the public interest to grant a licence. That could be strengthened, because right now the chief firearms officer needs to consider a list of factors but can decide either way.

There have been too many cases where, despite knowing about suicidal behaviour, domestic abuse or even police officers coming often to a home, removing the guns and then giving them back.... We can strengthen that language. The chief firearms officers, if there are risk factors, would normally refuse a licence, and there should be more of a burden to allow the granting of a licence in those circumstances.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you for that. You went through your list of amendments, and I was trying to scribble them very quickly, and I missed a couple.

I hope the one you just mentioned about the chief firearms officers is in clause 36, because if isn't, I'm going to ask you to repeat yourself, because I missed that amendment. Could you just repeat that part of what you said about clause 36? I didn't get a chance to get that down.

[Heidi Rathjen]

When there is a protection order that's imposed on an individual, the chief firearms officer.... Oh, I'm sorry. That's a different one.

In one of the proposed sections, if the chief firearms officer “determines” that there was domestic abuse or stalking, they need to revoke the licence. That is a really good thing, but because we have some provinces now that have appointed chief firearms officers with the explicit mandate to protect gun owner rights, we feel that allowing one individual to determine this is too subjective, and it could be strengthened by inserting a more reasonable standard. If the CFO, for example, receives information that any reasonable person would consider to be a case of domestic violence, then he should revoke the licence.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you for that.

Ms. Hennegan, you mentioned quite clearly that the screening system is flawed. Obviously, hearing what you went through and some of the shooter's prior actions, I agree.

Could you expand on that? What do you think is flawed, and what changes could we make to help strengthen that?

[Meaghan Hennegan]

Yes. I'm actually going to refer that question to Heidi, because she's excellent with the ins and outs of the screening. That's not really my area of expertise. While I think it's important, she's better suited to answer that question.

[Heidi Rathjen]

There are some things that could be improved in screening. For example, right now, if somebody has suffered from mental illness associated with violence, that is a factor to consider. We would argue that it should go further, that you could have Alzheimer's or you could be an alcoholic and have serious mental health issues that aren't necessarily associated with violence but that would still justify the prevention of access to firearms or their removal. That's one example of what could be tightened up in terms of screening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

We go now to Ms. Damoff for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all three witnesses for being here and sharing your stories. That can't have been easy, but it's important for us to hear from you, so I just want to begin by thanking you.

My first question has to do with a provision in Bill C-21. A chief firearms officer may issue a conditional licence despite a person having engaged in domestic violence “if the revocation constitutes a virtual prohibition against employment in the only vocation open to the individual.”

I know, having spoken to the women's shelter in my riding, Halton Women's Place, that the women who come to their shelter are in an abusive relationship with someone who works as a police officer or a correctional officer, and a firearm would remain available to that individual because of their occupation.

Do you feel that condition should be removed?

[Heidi Rathjen]

That's one of the amendments we're proposing, to remove that exemption. We don't understand why the life of a potential victim is less important than somebody's job. I don't believe it's impossible for a police officer or a security guard to find another job, in a temporary way too, because prohibition orders are temporary.

Yes, we would definitely argue for the removal of that exemption. I don't know about Canada, but I know that in the United States domestic violence and abuse are more prevalent among police officers than they are among the general public. That's a well-documented fact and another reason this exemption shouldn't exist.

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

Someone described to me that if someone who used their car for work was charged in Ontario, their car would be impounded and they would lose their driver's licence. We don't allow them to keep their driver's licence just because of their job. They might be put on desk duty, for example, so I think when we're talking about a woman's life, it should certainly be taken into consideration.

Do you want to add anything, Ms. Hennegan?

[Meaghan Hennegan]

No. I'm in complete agreement. There's no single job that needs you to have a gun that is the only job you're ever going to have in your entire life. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that jeopardizing someone's job is more important than someone possibly dying.

I completely agree with Heidi. I absolutely think that should be removed.

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

Thank you.

There's one red flag. I want to push back a bit on this, because I have heard of cases in which women have not been comfortable calling the police. The provision in the bill was not meant to replace that but to provide an additional tool. I think it was a year or two ago that there was an indigenous woman in the north who called the police. She ended up being arrested. She had breached her parole because she'd been drinking.

Someone like that is never going to feel comfortable calling the police to have the firearm removed. So we could give people like that an additional tool. Take the situation we just talked about, in which the abusive partner is a police officer. That woman is never going to call the police, but she might go through a women's shelter or go through the courts to have that gun removed.

I just want to push back a little on that. Do you see situations like that in which the current provisions don't work?