Evidence of meeting #46 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 licence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
You're advocating for the nuclear option right out of the gate. You won't even try anything else.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I don't think it's the nuclear option, sir, when law enforcement is coming before this committee and saying that fewer guns in homes will mean that fewer people die.
Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
What else did they say?
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
You're welcome to go back and listen to their testimony. They also said, sir, that the fewer the firearms that are available to people, the fewer the likely instances of crime they're going to see. Unless we all want to disagree with law enforcement and unless we want to say that the cops who are trying to keep our streets safe are wrong, sir, I think you and your organization may wish to reconsider your position on whether or not having fewer firearms is a good thing for this purported goal that you have of keeping Canada safer.
With the greatest respect, sir, I think that, in order to build legitimacy for one's cause, it would be helpful, as others have done before this committee—who have come to this committee with differing views from ours—to have the ability to do so and engage in ways that do not involve harassing members of this committee. I think we would be much more interested in hearing your views.
I have to tell you, the fact that you have chosen to come here and that you have done it under the pretext of the types of tweets and videos that have been put out seeking to harm people who are trying to keep this country safe is really disappointing.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.
I'll give the witness a chance to respond, if you wish.
Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
I'm glad you got that off your chest.
When we entered the arena, I reached out to the Doctors for Protection from Guns, to PolySeSouvient and to all these groups. I said, “Hey, our interests actually align, so why don't we work together?” Do you know what I got? I'm pro-murder, I'm a misogynist and I'm a racist. It was so much so that those words don't mean what they're supposed to mean anymore. That's how the other side engages.
When we send mean tweets, apparently, it's the end of the world. Their response was the abuse we've taken for seven years.
I don't know. You can put it all on my shoulders. I can take it.
Liberal
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will try to bring the tension down a bit.
Mr. Kapur, thank you for being here tonight and for using your valuable time to testify before us. I am sorry for the few interruptions earlier, but you must be used to it as an emergency physician.
In your opinion, the suicide rate in Canada is quite high compared with other countries. You also talked about the reporting system for people at risk, saying that the bill would have a very limited effect in that respect. Instead of asking a court to seize those people's guns, you believe that doctors should be able to report them directly to the police.
In Quebec, the Act to protect persons with regard to activities involving firearms, known as Anastasia's Law, came into force in 2008. This legislation authorizes any person working in a hospital centre who has reasonable cause to believe that a person is engaging in behaviour that may affect his or her safety or the safety of others with a firearm to report that behaviour to law enforcement.
To your knowledge, is this also the case in other Canadian provinces? If not, and without going so far as to put such a provision in federal legislation, since health is a provincial jurisdiction, would it be a good thing for other provinces to have similar legislation?
Emergency Physician and Co-Chair, Public Affairs Committee, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians
Thank you.
Anastasia's law is groundbreaking in Canada, and Quebec should be congratulated for bringing it forward.
As I said in response to a previous question, there are requirements for confidentiality with respect to what we learn in a doctor-patient relationship, and there are limited specific exclusions where we can breach that confidentiality. Anastasia's law provides for those. In many of the situations where we think that would be appropriate, it is not available in other jurisdictions.
We think this is an important aspect of it, this federal legislation with the improvements that we suggest, but it will need to be followed up with provincial changes to allow for that specific release of the confidentiality requirement.
The other aspect of Anastasia's law that has been unfortunate and disappointing is its limited effectiveness because of, we feel, two aspects. One is that not enough education has been done of the public and of medical practitioners on Anastasia's law existing. As well, there is the under-resourcing of the police, such that they are not always able to adequately respond when such notice is given to them. I think these are some areas for potential improvement and synchronization between federal law and the provincial jurisdictions.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you.
I know that the government sees the proliferation of firearms as a public safety issue, and it is absolutely right. However—and this is a question I like to ask health professionals—what do you think about the notion that the government should also see the proliferation of guns as a public health problem, and why?
Emergency Physician and Co-Chair, Public Affairs Committee, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians
As I said at the beginning, we find that a lot of the debate is focused on intentional violence, homicide and other areas of interpersonal violence. The true fact is that three out of four firearm deaths in Canada are suicides. Therefore, that is a great way for us to intervene and prevent access to such a lethal means of completing suicide.
We think there is still progress to be made. Studies have shown that our previous legislation has had beneficial effects in reducing the firearm suicide rates, and we believe we can make more progress and further improve those statistics. We still have some of the highest firearm suicide rates in the developed world, so there is further room for us to improve.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Giltaca, I'd like to come back to some of your comments.
I still find it rather curious that you said you contacted organizations like PolySeSouvient because you would have common interests. Indeed, I have also seen several tweets in which you have been quite aggressive towards them. I'll read one.
It says, “All anti-gun people are irrational, hyperbolic, dishonest, low-ability, slanderous, hateful fearmongers”, whatever that means.
So I can't imagine how you were able to work with that organization.
In your opening remarks, you mentioned all the groups that came to the committee to tell us how Bill C‑21 was not the solution to the gun problem. However, I think you may have failed to mention all of the groups that came to us and said that Bill C‑21 had some positive effects and that maybe we should go further.
I think that should also be considered, as well as polls that show that the majority of gun owners support, among other things, an assault weapons ban: 77%, according to Environics Analytics, and 70%, according to Léger Marketing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Michaud.
I'll give Mr. Giltaca a chance to respond, if he so wishes.
Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
I don't think there's anything to respond to there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay. Thank you.
We'll go now to Mr. MacGregor for six minutes.
Go ahead, please.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
Dr. Kapur, I'd like to start with you.
Honestly, the red flag law section of this bill has been the one that I think all committee members have been agonizing over because the testimony regarding it has really been all over the place.
I've read your organization's brief on this. I think that if we can find a way to give physicians the ability to talk freely with law enforcement, there's a willingness to do that. You have raised a similar concern as other witnesses, which is, namely, that placing the onus on someone to go through an already overburdened court system is problematic.
How should I phrase this question?
The police have repeated this. They feel that if there is an emergency situation, you should always go to the police. However, we've heard from other witnesses, and I've certainly heard this from people who have talked to me outside of committee hearings, that some groups may have a distrustful relationship with the police.
In your mind, would having this alternative route through the courts still serve a purpose in some situations, as long as it's clearly understood that it's not to be a first resort and that you should always go to the police first?
I just want to hear some of your thoughts on that.
Emergency Physician and Co-Chair, Public Affairs Committee, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians
It's taking me a bit outside of my area of my expertise.
I'm looking at this as an emergency physician contemplating a situation where I see a patient in front of me who is having suicidal ideation, who has dementia and impulsiveness, or who may be a victim of interpersonal violence. In those situations, we are saying that we, as the physicians, can be the reporting person. That takes away some of those roadblocks for family members or victims to make those reports.
It's similar to what we are called upon to do with people who are at risk of having a licence to drive. In those situations, it's not the individual but the emergency physician, or perhaps the family doctor, who would be making that report. That would hopefully take away some of those barriers.
Whether the court is there as a court of last resort doesn't really affect that kind of situation. I'm not sure I have a specific answer for you on whether keeping the court there as a possibility is helpful or a hindrance. We are saying that we need to have a more timely mechanism to help make this provision of the act actually fulfill its goal.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I appreciate that. Thank you. That was a helpful answer.
Mr. Giltaca, I'd like to turn to you.
It's nice to meet the head of the organization who was tagging me on all of the Instagram posts. Welcome to the committee.
In your opening statement, you did reference the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I found their time at this committee very valuable, as I have in all of their appearances. I think Chief Evan Bray does a credit to the service.
When you took the time to quote their stance, they did say, “We believe that a handgun freeze is one method of reducing access”, so you have to acknowledge that they are, in a way, supporting a handgun freeze. I know they put it into perspective by adding, “allowing existing law-abiding handgun owners to practice their sport.”
Most of the people in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are long-gun owners. They use those long guns for a demonstrated purpose, like around the farm to go hunting. There's a demonstrated need for a long gun. With a handgun, it's harder to make the argument. They are, by their very nature, more dangerous. They're easy to conceal. Some of them can discharge a high number of bullets in a very short period of time.
I'm asking you, sir, if we are to try to find some way to honour what the CACP is trying to do, what restrictions are you prepared to accept as an organization to both respect a handgun freeze, but to also allow sport shooters to continue to sport? You have to meet the CACP halfway on this.
Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
Gun owners have lived under progressively more and more gun control over the last 30 years. Handguns in particular—any restricted firearm—are some of the most strictly regulated properties that a civilian can have. There are a myriad of regulations: storage regulations, transport regulations and handling. You can only shoot them at an approved shooting range. When you transport them there, they have to be unloaded with a secure locking device on the firearm and in a locked case, and you have to go straight there. If you deviate from that route, it's a criminal offence, punishable by criminal sanctions. It's not a fine. It's not a regulatory offence. It's the very strictly—
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Yes, I understand that. We're all very familiar with those rules, but I'm asking you what you are prepared to accept as further restrictions, because the CACP did say that a national handgun freeze is one method of reducing access to these.
Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
I think police in general want anything dangerous out of the hands of anyone. They're supportive of banning airsoft. They're supportive of banning toys because they look like real guns, and I get that. They're always going to err on the side of officer safety and public safety under any circumstances, but I think in our society we need to be able to have property. We need to be able to have things. Motor vehicles are incredibly dangerous, far more dangerous than firearms are. They can be misused, just like firearms, but we accept in our society that people should have an ability to have motor vehicles, even some that can go 200 miles an hour, unregulated.
It's really a matter, in my opinion, of.... We are not anti-regulation. We need to have effective regulations that keep firearms out of the hands of people who would misuse them—for sure, there's no argument there—and find a way for us to continue to own our property as long as we do it responsibly. When someone colours outside the lines, yes, come down on them. Take their things, no problem, but we have to be able to live. People have had handguns for over a hundred years in this country. They've been registered since 1934.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cut it off here. Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
That brings our first round to a close. We will start our second round. We will have to do an abbreviated second round, with one slot per party.
We'll start with Mr. Van Popta for five minutes, please.
Conservative
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here with us here today.
I'm going to start with you, Mr. Giltaca. Thank you for being here and for your testimony.
You were asked earlier whether you agreed with the proposition that every gun added into our community brings our community closer to danger. I would challenge the premise of that question, which is that all gun owners are the same. When I came on to this committee, I decided to take the PAL course, just to see what it was like. I was successful. I now have my PAL licence. I was very impressed with how safety conscious people in this community are.
Could you elaborate on that?
Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
I teach the PAL course, and I've run 3,500 people through that course. I did it a long time, and I will say there were probably, to be honest, 10 or 20 people who didn't make it—twice—through the course. I did advise them not to buy any firearms, because it just wasn't something that was for them.
I think most people have the same reaction that you did, that the amount of regulation is more than sufficient and the safety is sufficient. Now, there are things that could be improved. I'm more than happy to submit some ideas in a brief before the deadline, but yes, I think most people who have gone through it would agree. They got their licence, saw what this was all about, understood why people own firearms in the first place and how important it is to them. I'm glad you had that experience.