Evidence of meeting #45 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gun.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I want to thank the witnesses.
I'm sorry I couldn't get to you, Mr. Langlois. I found your stuff on ghost guns very interesting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.
We'll now go to Mr. Van Bynen for six minutes, please.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the input from the witnesses, particularly from the witnesses who are experiencing the outcome of gun violence in the operating rooms and in the emergency wards.
My first question will be for Dr. Langmann.
I understand that you appeared before the guns and gangs committee and I'm aware that you completed some research. Did that research reflect on the impact of Bill C-71, which included background checks and forfeiture of firearms to the Crown under prohibition orders? What was the date or time of your research?
Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, As an Individual
My research has looked at the years over 1974 to 2016, during which time there have been a number of legislative regulations implemented, some of which involves licensing implemented in 2001. Unfortunately, there's no evidence that there has been any reduction in homicide rates or spousal homicide rates with that, as well as confiscation of firearms—
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
That evidence is dated 2016. That's the evidence you were looking at. I'm facing a very difficult challenge here, and that is trying to equate and balance what you're saying with what I heard from other witnesses—as recently as last week—who have a very different opinion.
I'm sure you're aware of Dr. Najma Ahmed and her testimony. Dr. Ahmed is a professor of surgery at the University of Toronto. She's also a trauma and emergency surgeon. She has indicated, “Gun injury and death is an urgent public health issue.” She also indicated that the Canadian Medical Association declared firearms-related injuries and fatalities “a major cause of premature and preventable death”. Do you agree with that statement from the Canadian Medical Association?
Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, As an Individual
Yes, of course. Firearms injuries are a serious issue. What we're talking about today is legislation, and I've done research on that. Dr. Ahmed has not. This is what the evidence shows. I can only bring you what the evidence shows.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
I appreciate what you're saying in your research, but to me what you're saying is that the existing legislation hasn't been as effective as we would like it to be for the outcomes. That would lead me to conclude that what we should be doing is considering the provisions of Bill C-21 to enhance and strengthen the safety measures that we're trying to create.
Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, As an Individual
Sure, and the point of my research is to address some of those issues.
As I said, in the 1990s, over 550,000 firearms were banned, which included handguns. Australia also banned handguns, essentially restricting them to people like Olympic sports trainees, and there's been no reduction in firearms homicides from that.
I would suggest that you may wish to pursue other methods, such as investing in youth deterrence programs and getting at youth when they are at risk of developing criminal behaviour. Those diversion programs have shown significant evidence of a reduction in homicide later on, as well as criminal violence. Even Public Safety Canada conducted a report in 2012 showing that some of the small programs that are performed in Canada had a 50% reduction in recidivism among juvenile offenders.
I would suggest that what you're doing probably isn't working because you're focusing on firearms owners who tend to be extremely low risk. They've been licensed, they've been screened and they are monitored daily, so your gain from spending a lot of money in those areas is very low, considering that those licences, for example—
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Doctor. I do want to state that we invested $122 million to support 47 gang prevention and diversion projects, and we invested $250 million in the building safer communities fund, so we are making those investments as well.
I want to turn to another item, and it is something you alluded to in your introduction: the concern about confidentiality if you have a concern that surfaces with your patients. I understand that mandatory reporting is difficult, as it crosses several jurisdictions, including the rules that doctors impose upon themselves through your regulatory college. However, would you be supportive of a federal requirement for mandatory reporting for a physician if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a patient may pose a danger to themselves or to others? They would report that belief to the peace officer, firearms officer or the chief firearms officer for use as evidence to expropriate and initiate an ex parte transaction to remove those weapons.
Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, As an Individual
For violence, that already exists. If you have a significant concern that a patient is about to commit a homicide or violence, you have a duty to report to the police. In terms of suicide—
Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, As an Individual
You asked me two questions, so let me get into it, because that's a different subject.
What you're asking me to do as a physician is send to the CFO all of my patients who have had any form of depression or suicidal discussion, which may not be intent, and for them to keep a record of this. That's a significant number of patient records that are being submitted to a third party. I mean, there have already been releases of some patient records, including these psychiatric detention orders, to the American government—
Liberal
Liberal
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Langlois. Thank you for accepting our invitation to testify before the committee. I am pleased that we are able to benefit from your expertise.
The issue of firearms in Canada and in the U.S. is precisely your field of expertise. Since this bill was tabled, I have received many comments and emails from people who are worried, and I’m sure that is also the case for my colleagues. People think that Bill C‑21 will take away their right to own firearms, as if we had something like the U.S. second amendment. You know what I mean.
Yesterday, we heard from representatives of PolySeSouvient, who said they were concerned to see this kind of American‑style gun culture show up more and more in cities like Montreal and major Canadian cities. In these cities, young people are increasingly joining street gangs and other young people want to get firearms to protect themselves.
I am wondering if you believe that some ideologies or reflexes that are more American regarding firearms possession are slowly finding their way into Canada. Do you think Bill C‑21 can help protect us from that?
Professor and Associate Researcher, Observatoire sur les États-Unis of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies, As an Individual
Thank you for the question, Ms. Michaud.
Yes, we are indeed hearing here in Canada something very similar to the rhetoric being bandied about in the United States. Proponents of the right to own and use firearms sometimes spout arguments taken directly from organizations such as the National Rifle Association.
That said, you are absolutely right. The Supreme Court of Canada and one of the Ontario courts have reaffirmed the right of the federal government to legislate on firearms here in Canada. In Canada, ownership of a firearm remains a privilege that is given by the government.
Allow me to digress for a moment. Ghost guns weaken and even take away the powers of decision of the federal government in terms of who can own a firearm and the types of firearms that can legally be sold to Canadians. That's what I have to say on that issue.
Here in Canada, we are seeing a firearm ideology and culture that have been imported from the United States and are being broadcast in the media and on social media. However, as Dr. Langmann, has stated, protection is the number one reason why people get a gun. That's also the reason some criminals get one.
Research literature on gun violence has been published in the United States. I am referring to the studies conducted by Patrick Sharkey and Thomas Abt, which are fairly recent. These studies prove that protection is the main motivation for getting a gun. Then there is the cultural aspect, by which I mean status. Ownership of a firearm gives a certain status to the individual and obviously, that individual makes it known.
Other studies have shown the problems that follow. If someone is in possession of a firearm on the scene of an altercation, chances are very high that the firearm will be discharged, especially if it is illegal. The impact of these firearms can be seen in the news in our big cities, like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.
I would say that this culture is definitely imported, but the idea that a firearm becomes a solution to various problems, whether for criminals or other individuals, also comes from the United States. These ideas are percolating into Canada.
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you. That's very interesting.
You touched upon the issue of ghost guns. This phenomenon is increasing, and sadly, Bill C‑21 does not really tackle the problem. I know that you have a few suggestions to make. I also know that the government seems ready to make amendments to its bill. If it doesn't, I would like to do so.
What would be your recommendations in terms of legislation on the best possible way to tackle ghost guns?
Professor and Associate Researcher, Observatoire sur les États-Unis of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies, As an Individual
As I said in my introduction, one of the major problems is that the components that are identified by a registered serial number are the cartridges and the breeches, i.e., the receivers of handguns and assault-style rifles. Moreover, most firearm components have a serial number given by the manufacturer. Since only the receiver is considered an identifiable component of a firearm, it becomes easy to produce this component at home either using polymer and a 3D printer or by retooling a piece of metal with a machine.
Once a person has done that, he or she can buy the other components individually and there will be no checks. There are virtually no checks in the United States.
There is even an industry that manufactures “polymer 80” firearms, so‑called because the weapons aren't quite finished; you have to assemble them and makes some holes in the receiver. These firearms are easy to produce in the United States. Obviously, these firearms are coming in from the United States and we have no control over what is done in that country. We can, however, reinforce our controls, not only at the border but also with Canada Post, etc.
We have to check what people are ordering. If, for example, a person is ordering lots of barrels for handguns or something similar, we have to be able to identify the components so that they are included in the definition of a firearm. That would be very important. A firearm is not simply composed of a grip or a receiver, there's also the barrel, the breech...
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Langlois, but there is no more time.
Mr. Garrison, if you please, you have six minutes.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much.
Dr. Langmann, you say you have presented research—which I don't dispute as it is very well-respected—covering the years 1974 to 2016. In that research you found there was no effect on homicide and suicide rates from the various gun control measures.
What I'm having trouble with is the bit of a leap you seem to make when saying, then, that no future measures restricting or controlling firearms could have any impact on gun violence in this country. Is that actually what you're arguing?
Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, As an Individual
It's not a leap because you can extrapolate from the fact that a large number of handguns were already banned in the 1990s and there was no effect. There's been a large increase in the number of handguns owned by Canadians since 2000 and there's been no similar increase in the rate of homicides. Also, Australia adopted quite similar legislation that you're proposing, with complete handgun bans. These also demonstrated no effect in terms of homicide reduction. I think we can extrapolate from this that you're probably not going to see much benefit, if any benefit at all, from your legislation.
It's quite expensive legislation. You might want to consider some other methods that have been proven to have better effects, especially, as I said before, on youth deterrence.