Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[Heidi Rathjen]

I don't think I'm in a position to comment on specific cases. All I can say is that on balance we feel that the existence of such a measure will undermine the reforms that need to take place in those kinds of cases where police don't take complaints seriously enough. That should be the focus of improving the system, because that is the most effective system in terms of protecting victims and potential victims, especially of domestic abuse.

We have the tools, but they're not being used properly. That is the best solution, and we feel that having this nice-sounding red flag measure would jeopardize what needs to be done to improve the system.

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

Emergency room physicians have asked for an amendment that would give them a mechanism to identify and report individuals at risk of inappropriate access to firearms.

Are you supportive of an amendment that would allow physicians to report?

[Heidi Rathjen]

We would support the position of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. In Quebec, we have the Anastasia law, which allows such a thing, so I'm not sure about jurisdictional issues, but certainly doctors, especially emergency doctors who confront these at-risk individuals, should be able to report them and trigger action in a timely manner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

We go now to Ms. Michaud.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today, ladies. We are very grateful.

Thank you for your courage and thank you especially for carrying on fighting for the last 33 years, which is far too long. I know that you have been waiting for legislative amendments for a long time. Unfortunately, Bill C‑21 is not yet what is needed, and I know that you would like to see changes.

On the other hand, we have been receiving requests from other groups who would like to dilute certain provisions of the bill. You know as well as I do that the International Practical Shooting Confederation, otherwise known as the IPSC, is asking to be exempted from the national ban on handguns.

Can you explain to us why it would not be a good idea to exempt as many groups as possible? I agree that this would make the ban practically useless.

[Heidi Rathjen]

Thank you for the question.

Currently, the vast majority of people who own a handgun give as a reason the fact that they are a member of a shooting club.

A group such as the IPSC receives funds from the arms industry, uses handguns and assault-style firearms, and organizes games which are the polar opposite of legitimate sport shooting, i.e., Olympic shooting. The IPSC's members organize games based on hostage taking, violent home invasions, etc.

If the IPSC and its members were exempt, IPSC competitions could in theory be held in all shooting clubs. All members of the IPSC who currently own handguns could be exempt. That is essentially what one of the directors of the IPSC admitted in a letter sent to its members.

Such an exemption would nullify the objective of the ban. The objective is to limit the number of handguns in circulation. Exempting sport shooting with handguns would be tantamount to keeping the status quo.

[Nathalie Provost]

What is worrying us is seeing how more and more Canadians are looking to protect themselves with firearms. We see it, we hear it and it's in the media. Giving all sorts of exemptions would legitimize people's desire to protect themselves with a firearm. That is the most dangerous thing.

We have always used firearms in Canada, but mainly for subsistence and trophy hunting, not to protect ourselves. This new use is not in keeping with Canada's strategy and values. In our opinion, the more bans on assault-style guns and handguns are enforced and the fewer exemptions are granted, the stronger our bills will be.

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

Thank you.

We can see this in Montreal, where gunshots are heard and a growing number of young people are joining street gangs. Other young people could seek to legally acquire a gun to protect themselves, as you say, which contributes to this American-style culture that is coming here.

To further limit the number of people with access to such weapons, your organization even recommends that the exemption granted to Olympic shooters be renewed every year instead of being given for life, and that this exemption only be granted to Olympic shooters who are officially training or who are going to the Olympic Games in recognized categories, rather than to anyone who one day might become an Olympic shooter.

Could you please tell us more about the changes you are proposing?

[Nathalie Provost]

I do understand how proud Canadian Olympic shooting champions are. I had the privilege of meeting a shooter when I was working with the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee.

Nonetheless, I would go as far as to require guarantees from the Shooting Federation of Canada that all its members seeking an exemption do not represent a risk. We have to make the Federation responsible for its members. I can understand that it is seeking exemptions for its shooters, but in that case, it has to take ownership and real responsibility.

[Heidi Rathjen]

Stuff is happening right now. For example, a group such as the International Practical Shooting Confederation has been lobbying for decades to have its sport recognized by the Olympics. It is making progress and gaining recognition. This is a big international lobby that faces no opposition, because groups like ours do not have a seat at the table.

Consequently, it is very possible that new sports such as handgun shooting will be added to the Olympic program. With the way Bill C‑21 is currently worded, shooters in these sporting categories would also be exempt. That is why we are asking that the bill limit exemptions to those shooting categories that are currently on the Olympic program.

Moreover, we have tried to find ways to prevent any loopholes. Sport shooters can suddenly express a desire to become Olympic shooters. There are no standards in place and we can't question the sincerity of these people. Under such conditions, will there be a new wave of shooters looking to participate in the Olympic Games who will be exempted from the ban? This would allow them to buy any type of firearm, because we know that the act does not limit the definition of a handgun to Olympic shooting weapons.

These are possible scenarios that would allow people to circumvent the exemption, which would be against the spirit of the act as it is intended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry. I have to cut you off there.

Merci, Madame.

We'll go now to Mr. MacGregor, if you please, for six minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much to the witnesses for appearing today and helping guide this committee through our study of Bill C-21.

I took note when you were making your opening remarks and you made reference to the May 30 press conference announcing Bill C-21. I remember Minister Mendicino making a promise, I believe it might have been to a reporter's question, about bringing in an additional amendment.

Thank you also for providing my office with a list of some of the ways Bill C-21 can be strengthened.

You identified the fact that there's a problem with the definition of prohibited weapons, and I find this is a constant with all legislation. When you try to make a list of something, there's always the danger that you're missing out on something or that it can be expanded. I think that's why, although the original OIC was around 1,500, it's now climbed to 1,800. Of course, manufacturers can exploit loopholes by simply saying, “We have a new model that's not on the list, therefore it's allowed.”

We haven't yet seen what this amendment will look like. I hope my Liberal colleagues are working with the Minister of Public Safety to bring forward what he promised the public.

Can you help guide this committee as to how you would like to see that definition included? Could you share any thoughts to help guide our committee on that particular amendment?

[Heidi Rathjen]

You're right that having a list of prohibited weapons is what happened. In fact, that's the approach that was taken in the 1990s, and the lists were never updated. Having just lists means that you depend on future governments to update the list, which was not done under either government. That's how we found ourselves, years later, with a market full of military-style semi-automatic assault weapons.

In terms of the definition, we're not ballistics experts. We know what the semi-automatic military-style weapons are capable of, especially with large capacity magazines. The same weapons that are used in the United States in all of the mass shootings were legal here. Some continue to be.

In terms of definitions, there are different ways to go at it. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the United States has a list of criteria that can be used to determine whether or not a weapon is military-style. I think California also has a definition, which includes all semi-automatics that can accommodate magazines and have at least one other military feature. That's probably as far as we would go. We would also point to the New Zealand model, which is most centre-fire semi-automatics that can accept large capacity magazines.

That's pretty much as far as we can go, but like Nathalie and Meaghan said, if a gun is able to be used to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds, it should not be in the hands of an ordinary Canadian. We will defer to the experts—your experts and the experts of the government and the RCMP—to draw that line, which we know won't be easy, but currently the orders in council and the criteria that are in there do not cover all assault weapons, and that needs to change. We've been fighting for that for 33 years, and that's our top priority.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you for that.

In my remaining time, I think with the red flag law, that's something—and I think I can speak for all committee members—that we've really been struggling with, because we have had testimony on both sides of the issue. We had police services here saying, “Well, it might be nice to have an additional option.” Of course, if someone's life is in danger, they should always, always go to the police first and foremost.

It's hard for us to navigate this. I just want you to know that the committee is struggling with the question of what to do with the red flag laws.

In your submission, you called for the removal of several clauses for the majority of the red flag laws, but you said you support prohibition orders against individuals cohabiting with someone prohibited from owning firearms. You think that should be retained. Can you expand a little on that for us, please?

[Heidi Rathjen]

It makes sense that, if somebody is prohibited from owning firearms for public safety reasons, they shouldn't have access to firearms, and if they live with somebody who has firearms, that's a problem. That was inserted in the ex parte red flag measure, and that was one element we felt was helpful. It should maybe be removed from that section and added to another section to keep it in the bill.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

You said, I think, that the issue is that in some cases, the police may not take complaints as seriously. How do we further the national conversation on that, so that people can be assured that when they make calls to the police with legitimate concerns, they are acted upon and they do not have to use this alternate route? I don't have much time left.

[Heidi Rathjen]

It's not part of the bill, but we've said many times that there needs to be more training and more resources for better screening and for better preventative intervention, including training for judges, police officers and firearms officers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We're starting our second round of questions now with Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Shipley, please go ahead for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Hennegan, I'm going to start with you again.

In your opening statement, I didn't quite catch what you said. Could you expand on it? If I'm misquoting you, please correct me. You mentioned something about practical or shooting games. Can you just expand on that? Did I say it right, and what did you mean by that?

[Meaghan Hennegan]

Yes. If you think about practical or tactical shooting, it's basically a bunch of guys who want to go in and play the guy with the gun. You practice, following the so-called self-defence measures that are used, especially in the training of law enforcement and all of that. When you think of the American gun nut, this guy is the image that comes to mind.

In Canada it doesn't make sense to even have this as a sport or a game that people will go to play because, one, guns are not toys and, two, we do not have the same rights to self-defence as people in the U.S. have, never mind the right to guns. If some guy came into my house right now and tried to steal my TV, if I shot him, I would also be in trouble. I don't have the right to use excessive force against someone if running away is going to do just as good a job of protecting me.

Going out and playing the big, tough macho man who shoots down all these bad guys is not a game. It's not healthy. It doesn't encourage a very community-minded, safety-minded environment, and I don't really think there is a place for it.

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

Thank you for that.

I'd like to ask you a question and please, I hope you don't take this the wrong way. I'm doing this because we're trying to get down to some.... I really don't want to talk about your incident because I'm sure you don't want to talk about it either, but I just have to ask a couple of questions, if you don't mind, because you mentioned that this horrible human being who did this to you had not passed basic training.

Just recently, in South Simcoe, the person who shot the two police officers had not passed basic training either. Do you know anything more about—and if you don't know, or you don't even want to talk about this, I understand—why he was kicked out? Perhaps we should have some communication—and when I say “we”, I'm talking about the government, not you and me—as to when someone is removed for certain reasons. We don't know why they're removed or don't pass basic training, and perhaps that should be flagged and put on record, because there are two instances here. One instance you have talked about, and the second, as I said, was the recent tragic shooting of two South Simcoe police officers. The accused in that case had also been removed from basic training.

Do you know anything surrounding that case? Perhaps if we don't, we need to start communicating about that when it takes place. What I'm trying to say is maybe that's a flag.

[Meaghan Hennegan]

Yes, it definitely is a flag. If the army doesn't want you around its weapons, you probably shouldn't be around any weapons at all.

I am not entirely familiar with the reasons he had been kicked out of basic training, but I know that it takes some pretty serious stuff for them to kick you out before you even get halfway through. There were a lot of mental health concerns in the past that were brought up. Yes, if the army says it doesn't think you're fit for duty after having accepted you, that definitely needs to be looked into when you're looking to own a firearm, because there is a reason they didn't want you around firearms in the army.

It's really important that all these different systems be able to communicate with each other, because right now they're not, so you can pretty much go through life just.... If you're in this one spot and that happened and you move to another spot and try again, you may have very different results, right? If you're somewhere where the doctor needs to be able to report, or there needs to be a database of reasons that someone was kicked out of basic training, or maybe if someone was asked to leave a gun club.... These are important measures that need to be addressed when someone is looking to buy something as dangerous as these guns are.

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

Thank you for that answer. I must add that I don't know—and this has nothing to do with your case—whether the firearms used in South Simcoe were legally purchased. These might have been illegally purchased, which wouldn't have helped in a situation where they red-flagged him.

Thank you for all your information, and once again, thank you for being here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

The clerk has just advised me, Ms. Hennegan, that you have a four-month-old, and that you're working around the exigencies of this today and your father has come to help you out. Congratulations.

[Meaghan Hennegan]

Thank you so much.