Public Safety Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2022

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you.

In an earlier study that this committee conducted about guns and gangs, we learned that the vast majority of firearms used in crime were smuggled in from the United States. One of our witnesses said that we live beside the largest gun manufacturing culture in the world, and we share the longest undefended border with them, so admittedly this creates a big problem for us.

Perhaps you could comment on that, the difference between guns owned by lawful gun owners and guns smuggled out of the United States by criminal gangs.

[Rod Giltaca]

Yes. The overwhelming number of firearms used in criminal behaviour come from the United States. That's anywhere from 80% to 90%, and it varies by jurisdiction. For instance, there are some smaller cities in Canada where they would have more domestically sourced guns, but they're seizing fewer guns overall so even just a little bump in domestically sourced guns reflect as a higher percentage.

Typically 80% to 90% come from the United States. The remainder of those—virtually all of those that would be domestically sourced—are stolen guns, which is property crime. When it comes to handguns, they're very securely stored, as we know. The law makes us do that. Then, a very small percentage—in fact, we found out what the percentage is, because it's not available data in Canada—around 0.007% of gun owners engage in straw purchasing. We think there were somewhere around 50 instances of that over the last 24 years. It's a very minuscule amount of that. There are some stolen guns, and then the overwhelming majority are from the United States.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you for that.

I have a question about handguns. It's following up on the question from Mr. MacGregor about regulating handguns. I don't have my RPAL, just my PAL. I recognize that there are even stricter regulations around having a handgun.

Would you agree with even stricter regulations rather than an outright ban? Do you think that's necessary?

[Rod Giltaca]

I think there are a few holes that could be plugged in the system.

I'll give you an example. During the PAL application process, you have to provide two references from people who have known you for two years or longer. If you're married or common-law, then your spouse has to sign off on your ability to own and use firearms. Ninety per cent of those references are never called. We did an ATIP on that.

In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of that application process is the human intelligence. You're asking someone if they're okay with their applicant friend having a firearms licence. That aspect of the system that already exists is not being used.

That's a really great example. We could call 100% of all applicant references for probably $2 million or $4 million a year, but we won't do that. We won't even use that to see if that works. Remember, only a tiny fraction of these guns are ever domestically sourced for criminal behaviour anyway. We won't do even that tiny fraction. We want to ban handguns instead, because it's ideological, as we've seen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Popta.

We go now to Ms. Damoff for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

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

Thanks, Chair.

Dr. Kapur, thank you so much for appearing, especially on such short notice. You talked about mandatory reporting for firearms. We know it's difficult because it crosses several jurisdictions, including rules that doctors impose on themselves.

I'm wondering if you'd be supportive of a federal requirement for mandatory reporting. It's something that we could hopefully put into Bill C-21. If there were reasonable grounds to show that a patient might pose a danger to themselves or others, then there would be a mandatory requirement that you report that belief to a peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer for use as evidence in an ex parte application.

My question though is whether that amendment would hold up, given that health professionals are regulated by provincial colleges. Would it also open you up to civil and regulatory actions? I'm curious to hear what your take on that would be.

[Dr. Atul Kapur]

I am proudly not a lawyer. I would say that I think the ideal situation would be to have a framework in which the federal government and the various provinces would work together on allowing this system to happen.

We have similar examples with mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds, which is the law in nine provinces, I believe, and one territory. That relieves physicians of their responsibility to protect confidentiality and, as I understand it, relieves us of the risk of civil liability.

I'm saying that as a non-lawyer. I believe it is possible to do it. In the case of gunshot wound reporting, it occurred organically. It started in Ontario and was such a good idea that it was widely accepted and spread across the country.

I believe the federal government could easily set up a template and work with the provinces and territories. This would allow for appropriate legislation in the various provinces and territories. That would remove the requirement for the colleges of physicians and surgeons—the regulator—to make that decision themselves, as legislation overrules the rules of the colleges of physicians and surgeons. I think it needs to occur together.

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

Thank you very much, Doctor.

Mr. Giltaca, two of the policies you have are self-defence with a firearm, and concealed or open carry. They're on your website. Do you think that Canadians support those policies?

[Rod Giltaca]

I think some do.

The reason those are on our website is for gun owners to know where we stand on different issues, but we've never actively lobbied for either of those things. We're quite a ways away from there. We're facing a gun ban.

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

They are policies of your organization, though.

[Rod Giltaca]

Yes, absolutely they are.

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

You know that you don't have right to a firearm in Canada. Is that correct?

[Rod Giltaca]

The Supreme Court has said something to that effect. Yes, that's right.

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

I just get confused because your organization talks about firearm rights. I have been subject—I see Ms. Wilson is here—to many of your tactics and attacks from your membership, who have wished me to go kill myself. That was the most recent one. I didn't know that KYS meant that.

[Rod Giltaca]

I don't know what that means, either.

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

I had to look it up, but it—

[Rod Giltaca]

Yes. I'm sorry that has happened to you. Some things have happened to me too.

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

I'll tell you, sir, that after you've appeared today, and Ms. Wilson tweets about me, I am going to be bombarded—and I have been for years—with your attacks, but I do want to thank you, because you came to my riding in 2019 and in 2021 with your Canadian NRA talking points, and I want to thank you for helping get me re-elected.

I will leave it at that and move back to Dr. Kapur.... No I won't, because I have 15 seconds left, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Do you wish to respond?

[Rod Giltaca]

Yes, I do.

We've never been in your riding spreading anything to do with firearms stuff. We did—

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

You came in 2019 on a bus. Tracey Wilson—

[Rod Giltaca]

Oh, that one, yes. Do you know what? You're right.

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

I know I am. You were there twice in 2021.

[Rod Giltaca]

That was a fun project.

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

You've been to my riding three times.