Public Safety Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay. Thank you, all.

We will go now to Madame Michaud, please.

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

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

Thank you.

Mr. Giltaca, an article in Le Droit in May 2022 reported that, even before the nature of the proposals in Bill C‑21 was known, your coalition said it was prepared to oppose arbitrary, punitive, and ineffective measures and to defend the ability of legal gun owners to own and enjoy their lawfully acquired property. We understand that you are against gun bans in general. You say that they don't work and that you don't really believe in them.

However, it is rather curious that, on the other side of the border, our neighbours to the south are carrying out a debate going in a direction contrary to your view. More and more American groups are calling for tighter gun control. As of last May, guns have become the leading cause of death among young Americans, ahead of traffic accidents, according to a recent study by health officials that shows a sharp rise in gun homicides in the United States.

Don't you feel that, by comparison, our gun control prevents tragedies like those repeatedly suffered by the Americans? I want to acknowledge that we have had our share of tragedies. However, the situation is quite pronounced among Americans. What do you think about that?

[Rod Giltaca]

The situation, when it comes to firearms—why you can own firearms, how they're obtained, everything—is completely different in the United States than it is in Canada. The United States has virtually no firearm regulations to speak of in comparison to Canada. In fact, if you look at the anti-gun groups in the United States, all of them are asking for what we have in Canada right now. They have no licensing. They have no storage regulations. They have nothing there.

I encounter this all of the time, people using studies and anecdotes from the United States. They do not apply. We've had gun control here for 30 years, since the early 1990s. We have a very strict regime in Canada. Licensed gun owners abide by it or they have their guns taken away. I think most people just want to continue to live their lives without this government intervention.

Hopefully that helped. Thank you.

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

Unfortunately, there are always exceptions to the rule. Some legal gun owners have committed atrocities in Canada and Quebec. We are not immune to them. It may be a good idea to regulate firearms.

I've heard you talk about effective regulations. Can you give us an example—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You have only a few seconds left, Ms. Michaud.

Ask a very quick question.

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

What do you think effective regulations would be in Canada?

[Rod Giltaca]

There are a lot of different aspects of firearm regulation.

I have my own concerns with holes in the system. I talked about the licensing system, the application and that the firearms program doesn't call references. Especially if you think in terms of domestic violence, if someone's husband is trying to get a firearms licence, and they're never called, and that person gets a firearms licence and can own and use firearms, that's a concern for me.

We're more than happy to work with anyone to get rid of some of those loopholes and make sure that the system is as tight as it possibly can be while allowing people to just own their property and continue to live their lives. That's all we're really after.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. MacGregor, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I keep on hearing on the word “ban” being used in place of a phrase. I think it's important to use the correct terminology. What Bill C-21 does is that people who currently own handguns will be allowed to keep them and use them. They may not be able to buy a new one, sell the one that they own or transfer it to another person after Bill C-21, but they will still be able to use the handguns they currently legally own. It's very important to get that clearly on the record.

Secondly, for the vast majority of people who are out there using long guns, Bill C-21 is not going to impact them. People with a possession and acquisition licence can still go out and buy a bolt-action rifle or a shotgun. This bill is not going to impact them.

If there are restrictions trying to control the number of handguns in Canada, and people still want to get into sport shooting disciplines, there are still options with rifles. Would you agree with all of that? There are options for people to engage in sport shooting with rifles.

[Rod Giltaca]

Yes. I agree.

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

Again, Mr. Giltaca, I have to put it to you that it's handguns, specifically, that are on the spot right now. There are major concerns with them. We've heard it at this committee. Again, I think the onus is on you. What further restrictions...?

Right now, if you look at the exceptions that have been put into the law, they allow for people who are training, competing or coaching in a handgun shooting discipline that is on the International Olympic Committee or the International Paralympic Committee.

What further restrictions do you think handgun owners or your organization will be able to accept, if we're trying to meet this goal of putting a freeze on the number of handguns in circulation, to be able to continue doing their sport shooting?

[Rod Giltaca]

The reason I call it a “ban” is that when I die, the RCMP will come and confiscate all of my firearms, all of my handguns and, of course, my semi-auto rifles that were banned in May 2022. There are probably half a million long guns sitting in safes. People just can't use them.

No one can tell us exactly why all of those people, who haven't done anything to deserve it, can't use them, but I guess it was politically expedient at the time.

This is a ban. They're trying to make people like me extinct, because obviously we're terrible. As far as—

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

Do you have other rifles that are untouched by the OIC or—

[Rod Giltaca]

I'm running out of firearms, because I lost all of the semi-autos and now it's the handguns.

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

Come on, Mr. Giltaca. There are lots of firearms you could still purchase with your PAL.

[Rod Giltaca]

What happens when these ones and the handguns are gone? It's going to be the same conversation. “Well, you still have two rifles left. You can certainly use those.”

To be fair, the onus isn't on me to prove why I should still own guns. The onus is on the government to prove that it's going to have a demonstrable positive effect on public safety. It keeps getting switched around. Somehow, I have to defend what I've been doing for 20 years and what Canadians have been doing for over 100 years. Now the onus is on us.

The government has all of the data. It has everything. It should be able to show us. Have we seen any data that this will have a demonstrable positive effect on public safety? I've watched every hearing and I haven't seen any yet. I've seen lots of rhetoric. We've had all kinds of interesting things happen tonight, but I haven't seen any real data.

It's just, “You know, you don't really need them anyway.” I have to disagree. There are two million people who own firearms and 650,000 who are licensed to own handguns, and we haven't done anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

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

That brings this panel to a close. I thank both witnesses for appearing and helping us with our inquiries. Your expertise and your experience are helpful.

With that, we will suspend to bring in the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting back to order.

With us by video conference for this second hour, we have, from the Battered Women’s Support Services, Angela Marie MacDougall, executive director. From Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, we have Louise Riendeau, co-responsible for political issues. From Women’s Shelters Canada, we have Lise Martin, executive director.

Welcome to you all and thank you for joining us tonight. I will give you up to five minutes per group to make an opening statement. We will start with Ms. Riendeau.

Please go ahead for five minutes.

[Louise Riendeau, Co-responsible, Political Issues, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale]

Good evening.

I thank the members of the committee for letting us bring our perspective to the issue of gun control based on our experience with thousands of women who are victims of domestic violence.

The Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale includes 46 assistance and shelter homes located in different regions of Quebec. Our organization feels that Bill C‑21 will certainly improve the safety of Canadians.

Tonight, we will be talking specifically about the safety of women who are victims of domestic violence. We would like to highlight two positive aspects of the bill as it relates to domestic violence. The first is the fact that a firearms licence will not be issued when there is a protection order in place. The second is the fact that the licence can be revoked if a person has committed acts of domestic violence.

On the other hand, we are concerned about some of the provisions in Bill C‑21.

The first, called “red flag” measures, enable a person to go directly to court to request the revocation of a firearms licence. Since victims and those close to people with issues can already go to the police department or the chief firearms officer, we think these measures are unnecessary and may even be counterproductive for victims. We are concerned that police officers, instead of taking the investigative steps to revoke a licence, will ask victims to do so themselves. In our view, it would be much more burdensome for a victim to go to court than to go to the police department.

Therefore, we recommend that clauses 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, which introduce these “red flag” measures, be withdrawn. As we have stated, we believe that the current system, where concerned individuals can go to the police department or to the office of the chief firearms officer, is more appropriate and better adapted to the reality. Victims don't have the energy or the fortitude to go to court to request licence revocation at a time when they have all kinds of steps to take to escape violence and protect themselves.

The second provision of concern to us is the provision indicating that the person whose licence is revoked would have a so‑called reasonable period to deliver their firearms to the police or otherwise dispose of them. While a search is possible, it is not automatic. In addition, the period may give some abusive spouses or ex‑spouses time to kill their spouse or children. Therefore, we believe that firearms should be delivered promptly, to a police officer.

Improvements can also be made to other aspects of the bill. In our view, it would be wise to include a definition of spousal or domestic violence in the bill. This would make it possible for a licence to be revoked in cases of domestic violence. It would also ensure that police and chief firearms officers consider the entire situation, not just the physical acts of violence that constitute offences.

This definition should cover all aspects of coercive violence or control. The Divorce Act already contains such a definition. Domestic or family violence is not just physical or sexual abuse that is an offence, but is expressed in a variety of manifestations that are intended to control a spouse and her children.

This evening, I am submitting to the committee tools that our association has just produced for judicial actors. The documents titled “Comprendre le contrôle coercitif” and “Principales manifestations du contrôle coercitif” outline many of the tactics used by abusive spouses to infringe on the freedom and safety of victims. I am also adding the document “Le contrôle coercitif, prédicteur de risques homicidaires.”

Research has demonstrated the links between coercive control and spousal homicide. For example, in the United Kingdom, a study of 358 spousal homicides showed the presence of coercive control in 92% of cases. In Canada, other studies found that spousal homicides occurred in the context of separation and that homicide or attempted homicide was the first act of physical violence for one-third of victims.

I think we really need to go further and expand the scope of the bill. Police officers and chief firearms officers need to be given all the elements necessary to recognize the presence of coercive control, rather than just looking at incidents of physical violence. Inserting a definition of violence in the bill that includes coercive control would be a first step

Police response can also be greatly improved, and police officers can be made to take victims' concerns seriously by being provided with training to assess situations based on known risk factors.

I am a member of the committee that reviews domestic violence deaths in Quebec. In the vast majority of cases, several risk factors were present, but the responders often did not recognize them. Therefore, it is really necessary to provide the police and the office of the chief firearms officer with an exhaustive list of risk factors related to domestic or family violence, which will enable them to handle the requests with all the necessary seriousness. They also need to be trained beforehand to recognize the presence of domestic violence even when there is no physical assault or offence. The tools I have submitted to the committee could be used for these purposes.

Other improvements are also desired. We have read the brief filed by PolySeSouvient and the brief filed by the National Association of Women and the Law, and we fully support them. They contain a number of recommendations for better gun control and safety for women.

As I said, we believe that Bill C‑21 is a step in the right direction. However, we hope that improvements will be made to ensure better protection for women and children who are victims of domestic violence.

We remain available to the committee for discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Riendeau.

We'll go now to Ms. Martin to make a five-minute statement. Please go ahead for five minutes.

[Lise Martin, Executive Director, Women's Shelters Canada]

Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.

Before I begin my presentation, I would like to express my frustration at the late invitation, three days prior, to appear before this committee. We are a small organization with limited resources and a very full agenda. Taking the time to prepare for and attend the session on such short notice presents significant challenges and does make us wonder if the link to gender-based violence against women is simply an afterthought for the committee.

Women’s Shelters Canada is a national, non-profit organization representing 15 provincial shelter associations and over 600 violence against women shelters and transition houses across the country. Bill C-21 is an important bill for those of us concerned with gender-based violence. Having said that, we do have some concerns and suggestions as to how the bill could be strengthened.

Guns are used to terrorize, injure and kill women and their children in urban as well as rural settlings. We know that the risks are higher in rural communities where there are more guns, more opposition to gun control and fewer supports for women living with violence.

According to the Canadian Femicide Observatory, there was a 26% increase in the killings of women and girls from 2019 to 2021. In 2021, 173 women and girls were violently killed. When known, 38% of these murders were with a firearm. As a result of these killings, 164 children were left without a mother. The 2021 report made it abundantly clear that, proportionate to their population size, small, rural and remote communities bear a larger burden of femicides than urban ones.

Firearms cause harm to women in ways other than by death and injury. In our annual “Shelter Voices” survey, we ask shelters to report on a specific 24-hour period. One of the questions is this: To your knowledge, how many women currently residing at the shelter have been threatened by a gun? Since the survey began, the average number of shelters that have responded is 230, and the average number of women staying at the shelter on that day who had been threatened by a gun is 100. The link between guns and violence against women is clear, as is the link between guns and the instance of lethality for victims of domestic violence.

It is my understanding that the bill will revoke an individual’s licence if they have engaged in an act of domestic violence, stalking or become subject to a protection order. In order to maximize the potential benefits of this, we feel that there are several concerns that need to be addressed.

We feel it is necessary to define domestic and family violence within the bill. Our suggestion is to refer to the definition of family violence recently adopted in the Divorce Act.

We have concerns in terms of the time it may take between when it is deemed that the firearm must be removed and when this happens. It has been documented numerous times that women are at the highest levels of danger of lethality when they make it known to their abuser that they are leaving the situation.

The bill authorizes the issuance, in certain circumstances, of a conditional licence for the purposes of sustenance or employment. We strongly feel that the employment exemption must be removed. One example here is the case of police officers. Although there is limited research in Canada, research done in the United States suggests that officers are more likely to abuse their domestic partners than the general public. In Nova Scotia alone, 14 police officers from across the province have been charged with crimes connected to domestic violence since 2012.

In closing, I would like to stress the importance of the need to improve the processes associated with screening gun owners and removing firearms from people who are at risk to themselves or others.

The federal government uses its powers to make decisions about who can have firearm licences. Despite the fact that several measures were introduced to help ensure this power, multiple inquests and inquiries have shown that this is not being done. We strongly recommend ensuring that there is strong language reinforcing this responsibility. The need for greater resources, commitments and accountability measures will be key in the successful implementation of this bill.

Women's Shelters Canada has been advocating for a national action plan on gender-based violence for over a decade. Key to our call for a national action plan is the need for consistency across and within jurisdictions in policies and legislation that address gender-based violence against women. It will be important that this be an integral part of the implementation of this bill.

Finally, as a member of the Coalition for Gun Control and as a signatory to the brief submitted by the National Association of Women and the Law, we would like to publicly state that we are in agreement with both of their detailed recommendations.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Martin.

We'll go now to Ms. MacDougall.

Go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Angela Marie MacDougall, Executive Director, Battered Women's Support Services]

Good evening, and thank you very much to the committee for this opportunity to join you.

I am here representing Battered Women's Support Services on the unceded ancestral territory of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam people.

For the last 43 years, Battered Women's Support Services has worked to end gender-based violence through support services, training, education and other community-based responses, including research and policy.

It's a pleasure to join you this evening to discuss gun violence in Canada. We understand that it has a hugely disproportionate impact on women and girls. We recognize that what hurts and kills women and girls is gender inequity. This effort to take action on gun violence has to be in concert with what Women's Shelters Canada has been leading around—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. MacDougall, can I get you to speak slower for the interpreters?

Thank you.

[Angela Marie MacDougall]

Absolutely. I apologize.

We recognize that what hurts and kills women and girls is actually gender inequity, and we are 100% in support of Women's Shelters Canada's work over the last 10 years to advance a national action plan on gender-based violence that takes into consideration the experiences of women and girls all across the land, both in rural and urban settings, and that has taken great effort to highlight prevention, support services, legal responses, social infrastructure and specific supports for indigenous survivors across the country.

Coroners have consistently identified access to firearms as one of the top five of 10 risk factors when determining when a woman will die in domestic violence situations. We understand that the presence of a firearm in the home must be determined and, if present, should be considered a high risk factor for homicide by a family member.

In Canada, women own less than 2% of registered firearms. This analysis helps us understand that women are twice as likely as men to experience being sexually assaulted, beaten, strangled or threatened with a gun or a knife. While firearm-related violent crime continues to represent a small proportion of overall police-reported violent crime, the proportion of lethal violence that involved a firearm rose from 26% of all homicides to 37% in 2020.

We are, of course, concerned about the relationship to gun violence and the killing of women and girls, but we must also recognize that 42% of intimate femicides were actually because of stabbings and knife violence, which speaks to the piece around the cultural shifts that would need to happen. Given that femicides are not currently uniformly documented, we understand that firearms in femicide are also not documented accurately and that would be an important piece of this action.

As my colleagues have said earlier, Battered Women's Support Services also endorses the National Association of Women and the Law and its submission on this matter. I would like to point out a few pieces that we agree with.

One is the removal of the employment exception. This is very important, because we understand that a job that requires using a gun is never the only vocation open to an individual. Regardless of an individual's past or qualifications, there will always be jobs available to them that do not have that requirement, so we are concerned that this section would be interpreted by how permissive chief firearm officers may be in granting conditional licences not based on need but based on an individual's job preference.

In echoing what Lise mentioned earlier, we understand that research suggests that police officers are even more likely than the general population to commit physical violence against a partner. Needless to say, the obstacles to reporting domestic violence are heightened for victims of police officers. Police officers are rarely disciplined or prosecuted for acts of domestic violence. They should not benefit from a legal exemption to losing their licence when they do so.

The other piece we think is important is strengthening the provisions around a licence in cases of domestic violence. We most definitely are concerned about giving chief firearms officers broad discretions to determine whether domestic violence has occurred. We are concerned that we do not have a proper definition of domestic violence and family violence in the bill. This would be an essential piece.

As has been stated earlier, we think there is good language within the Divorce Act, but more than that, we must also recognize that domestic violence and stalking are not defined, and that stalking is also a lethality factor.

We also would want to be certain that we are defining protection orders in the regulation. We would not want to see an opportunity where a protection order—