Public Safety Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2022

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

You've made another leap that I don't share, in saying that we have to choose between the preventative measures and gun control measures. We're in a wealthy country where if everybody paid what they actually owed, we could afford to do both.

I want to talk specifically about some more statistics. As I have heard as a member of the justice committee and seen in looking at recent evidence here from narrower studies, the evidence has shown that a woman is five times more likely to be killed as a result of domestic violence when there's a gun present. We've also heard that adolescent suicide rates increase by three to four times when a gun is present in the home. That seems to be at odds with your more general studies.

Would you say those studies are invalid or that they're perhaps dealing with a more specific question and we should pay attention to those studies?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

First of all, you need to read the American Journal of Public Health study, because that study also showed that a woman who owns a firearm for protection is less likely to be killed.

That was a cross-sectional study, and those are the weakest studies of all. It was also an American study done on American women. My studies are not cross-sectional. They are quasi-experimental studies. They are time-series studies. They have a control and an experimental effect.

I have looked at spousal homicide and have looked at the legislation with those studies, and there's been no reduction in spousal homicide with any of that legislation or the prohibition of firearms. In the last 10 years, looking at some of the evidence, maybe 0.01% of firearms owners have their licences confiscated for domestic reasons, so I don't expect there to be any effect from the legislation you are proposing.

In terms of adolescent suicide, once again, it's a cross-sectional study. You may have heard about cross-sectional studies showing that drinking more wine causes cancer or drinking more wine does not cause cancer. They conflict with each other all the time. It's because they don't have proper controls and they have confounders. You need to look at the better studies. Those are the ones I'm talking about that are like the quasi-experimental studies that I do.

I have done studies on youth suicide and firearm legislation in terms of prohibition, storage and so on, and none of those studies have shown that there is a reduction in overall youth suicide rates after the implementation of legislation or the confiscation of firearms.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Dr. Langmann, I want to thank you for the frontline work you do as an emergency physician, even if we may differ on the implications of your research.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

We'll now go to Mr. Motz, please, for five minutes.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both witnesses for being here.

Dr. Langmann, thank you for your comments in regard to youth deterrence and youth at risk initiatives there. I agree that it's something we need to be focused on.

I'm a firm believer—and I think the evidence is clear, as you've indicated—that Bill C-21 is flawed. I've only been on this committee for five or six meetings, but most of the witnesses I've see at this committee have been critical of aspects of Bill C-21 as it's proposed. We've seen that pieces of this legislation are already covered in existing laws. This has been mentioned by many witnesses.

This seems to be ideologically based on a fear of firearms. We've seen what can only be described as a complete lack of understanding of sport shooting, recreational airsoft, recreational firearm use at ranges and the culture that is built around not only the safe but legal use of firearms.

We have all heard the saying that if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Some would think that you can legislate away gun violence, but the fact is, those who would use a gun to commit a crime will likely not care about laws or the good intentions behind the creation of those laws.

I'm kind of curious about that. What practical advice would you give this committee on what we need to add to Bill C-21? Is Bill C-21 or sections of it even worthy of saving? Where do we start, and what do we need to do to fix it?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

I think the sections that I've talked about, especially the handgun ban, are not going to have any effect, and I have certain concerns about the prohibition orders.

The system we have now allows someone to make an anonymous complaint to a CFO. In my experience, those have been rapidly investigated. This new legislation asks people to stand before a judge to give evidence. In my experience of working with women at risk, that is one of the most dangerous things you can have them do, because there are going to be repercussions.

I would suggest, rather, that we start looking at investment into women's shelters. Women are most at risk in a domestic situation when they are about to leave or when they are about to call the police or another authority. We need to get them out of that situation. In my experience of working with my patients, very often women's shelters are filled, so where can those women go?

I don't see this new prohibition order having any beneficial effect. I see it acting even more as a boundary or hindrance for some parties. I think the current system works at acceptable levels, but in terms of the handgun bans, as I said before and I can restate, there's going to be no beneficial effect.

In terms of what we can do, we really need to start looking at root causes. They've mentioned that they've spent some money in some places. Why not spend more? The buyback of restricted firearms that we talked about last time is going to cost billions of dollars. We're looking at billions of dollars, but right now I can't get patients seen within six months for psychiatry. I just don't understand why we're not investing in those other areas.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you for your thoughts on that, Dr. Langmann. I agree.

One thing that has always amazed me since I've been in this place is that, while some things may be well-intended, the consequence or how we go about them is very backwards.

I look at this legislation, and I've heard others describe it as lazy. I would concur. It's easy to go after the low-hanging fruit that have, as you said, a 0.01% potential of being a problem. We have gang violence, problems with our bail reform act, problems with smuggling and youth who are at risk. We have funding to throw around everywhere but not where the problems really exist.

I am extremely troubled by where this is going. We're spending effort, time and resources on a piece of legislation that, as it's currently written, will have zero impact on public safety, period.

If there is anything that either of you gentlemen can add to the recommendations on where this legislation needs to be amended and changed, I would encourage you to please forward it to the committee, if you haven't already done so.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

We'll now go to Mr. Noormohamed for five minutes.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you very much.

Professor Langlois, I'd like to begin with you.

The Vancouver Police Department, as well as other police forces like the CACP, has shared with us their concerns about ghost guns and the ability for people to make their own weapons at home and to order parts. One of the opportunities for us in Bill C-21 is to start thinking about adding provisions that look at regulating trigger assembly, slides, barrels and so on.

What impact do you think this would have on the problems of today and, more importantly, on solving the policing problems of tomorrow in terms of gun violence?

[Francis Langlois]

Thanks for the question.

Identifying other parts, like the barrel figure and the slide, would make it more difficult for anybody to order parts and make them. Then if they're caught making them, they will be caught making a weapon and they can have bigger jail sentences.

It would be easier for the authorities to arrest somebody who is importing those parts in Canada. At the moment, they are part of a weapon, but they are not identified as a weapon if a person made the parts themselves. That's the first thing. The other thing is that the government should be thinking about asking firearms producers to give identification numbers to those parts.

Also, the Canadian government should think about how to forbid anyone from creating or importing 3-D printing machines that are specially designed to make weapons like the Ghost Gunner, made in Texas by Defense Distributed. This is one of the best known examples, but there are other such devices or machines that are available online. That being said, regular 3-D printing machines should stay available.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Professor.

Professor Langmann, I'll turn to you.

You've expressed a particular set of views that I don't necessarily agree with, but perhaps ghost guns are something that we are able to agree on. Do you think this is a problem going into the future, or do you think that ghost guns are just a passing fancy?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

No, I think it's a serious problem going into the future. We're seeing more and more unidentified guns coming up in the statistics.

I think any restrictions on imports may cause a small reduction in the numbers available, but I suspect that over time there will be substitute methods of procuring those parts and substitute developments in making those parts in underground markets.

Once again, if you don't start targeting the root causes.... The people using these are youth at risk. They get into small crime—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'm sorry, Professor. I'm not disagreeing with you on the importance of prevention. I just want to confirm that you agree that ghost guns are a problem we should be thinking about addressing. Whether you do or not is what I wanted to know.

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

They're definitely a problem worth addressing, but I think most of your methods are probably going to be futile in the end.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you.

Professor Langlois, I want to come back to your research in this particular area. You have been speaking to police forces and looking at trends for the future, and when you consider the ease with which parts for ghost guns can be acquired and the ease with which these weapons can be manufactured at home, what do you see as the trajectory if we don't put a stop to this and if we don't try to take this on head-on by ensuring that many of the same provisions placed on firearms are placed on parts?

[Francis Langlois]

It will get worse, faster, but I think Dr. Langmann is right. The problem will grow because it has gotten easier to make ghost guns since 2013, when the first printed gun was made. It was cheap then; it would break very easily, but now, very efficient firearms can be printed and made at home.

Of course, the government has to act and do something to slow this down and show its intent to curb the trafficking of [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Doctor, you've gone on mute.

[Francis Langlois]

Yes, I was on mute. Sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I think we have to pull the plug there.

We'll now go to Madame Michaud. We will terminate after that.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Langlois, when the government tabled Bill C‑21, it presented four or five measures or provisions that would help in the fight against illegal firearms trafficking, such as an increased maximum sentence for firearms trafficking. However, according to an article published in the Devoir in June, when you were asked if longer sentences would prove useful, you replied: “We know that, generally speaking, criminals are more motivated by the fear of getting caught than of longer sentences.”

I am inclined to agree with you, and I often give the example of William Rainville, a young man who had no criminal record and crossed the border with approximately 250 firearms in his possession. He was sentenced to five years in prison and released on parole less than a year later.

Do you believe that this measure will really help in the fight against firearms trafficking? If not, what do you think would be useful?

[Francis Langlois]

Mr. Rainville's case is interesting because he only spent a few months in prison for having tried to import approximately 250 replica Glock 17s. He was released from prison in July of this year.

My opinion hasn't changed: punishment is not the best way to discourage people from committing crimes. That said, we cannot soften our stance when it comes to people who import firearms or other dangerous goods that are a threat to public safety.

The increased maximum sentences are not necessarily a bad thing, but we have to wage a war on two fronts.

We should increase surveillance at the border in cooperation with the American authorities. That's what I'm currently working on. We have to work on both sides of the border to prevent firearms trafficking. We should improve surveillance by bringing in more human resources and increase sentences for firearms trafficking.

We also have to tackle the root causes of violence, as Dr. Langmann reminded us. Why are young men in our big Canadian cities getting guns? We could target these causes to reduce gun violence generally.

I'm now going to make a link with the question you asked me earlier.

It seems that in this forum, as well as in the media and in public discourse, we have imported the American way of discussing the issue of firearms. According to this way of looking at the issue, either we ban firearms, or we have a policy of intervention on the ground. But I say that we should do both; they are inextricably linked. We have to tackle the problem by repression and fight the root causes of firearm violence by working on prevention with those at risk of falling into a life of violence. We have to help the communities that need more resources. We could set up numerous programs.

So I think we need both, and not just one or the other. Obviously, there are budgetary considerations, but I...

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Langlois.

That wraps up this panel.

I thank both witnesses for their wisdom, their experience and their information. It is a great help to us as a committee.

I want to remind the committee that the deadline for submission of amendments remains the 17th, as per the work plan. We have one more witness meeting this afternoon, but I would certainly encourage everyone to get their amendments to the legislative clerks as soon as possible in case there are any bottlenecks.

With that, thanks, everybody.

We are adjourned.