Public Safety Committee on Feb. 14th, 2023

[Dr. Caillin Langmann, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, As an Individual]

Thank you for letting me present my research regarding Canadian firearms legislation and its association with homicide, spousal homicide, mass homicide and suicide in Canada.

I am an assistant clinical professor of medicine and an emergency physician in Ontario. I serve as an academic peer reviewer in the areas of firearm control, homicide, suicide, violence and gang deterrence for academic journals. I have four peer-reviewed publications on legislation and the effects on homicide and suicide in Canada.

In 2022 I presented and submitted studies and a report regarding Bill C-21 to the committee. The research demonstrated that previous bans in the 1990s of a large number of handguns had no effect on homicide rates.

Currently a definition of “assault rifles” and subsequent bans has been proposed. My research on previous Canadian legislation is applicable in answering the question of what the effects of this legislation may be. Since 2003 the number of owned restricted firearms has doubled from 572,000 to 1.2 million; however, the rate of overall firearms homicide has not increased, nor has the rate of homicide by handguns. There have been recent fluctuations, similar to levels in the early 2000s, but the rate of homicide has actually fluctuated about a steady mean when statistical analysis is performed.

In the 1990s, legislation prohibited over 550,000 firearms, including military-style firearms and handguns. However, my studies have demonstrated that there was no statistically significant benefit on homicide, spousal homicide or mass homicide rates in Canada. Restrictions of magazine capacity in 1994 were not associated with decreases in homicide or mass homicide rates. Prohibition of fully automatic firearms in the late 1970s was also not associated with decreases in homicide or mass homicide rates.

Other jurisdictions such as Australia and England have also applied significant controls to handguns and semi-automatic rifles, and in multiple studies no statistically significant changes in homicide rates were detected. Studies from the United States examining assault weapon bans have also revealed no significant benefit. Blau et al. and Siegel et al. found that these legislations were not associated with a decrease in victims.

Interestingly, when looking at 30 years of incidents, Blau found that shotguns were more associated with an increase in victims than semi-automatic rifles. Webster et al., using similar quasi-experimental methodology as I, did not find an association between assault weapon bans and public mass homicide incidents or deaths.

In summary, the evidence so far demonstrates that the proposed handgun and semi-automatic rifle bans would have no associated reduction in homicide rates or mass homicide rates. Methods that have been shown to be more effective in reducing firearms homicides involve targeting the demand side of the firearms prevalence in criminal activity. As demonstrated by StatsCan, a significant percentage of firearms homicide involves gang violence.

To reduce the violence that is currently occurring in Canada's cities, the evidence suggests that you need to act early to reduce youth gang involvement. A research report by Public Safety Canada in 2012 gathered evidence from programs operating in Canada to reduce the gang participation rate and demonstrated beneficial effects in the range of a 50% reduction in participation.

Targeting legal firearms owners, who rarely commit crimes, with new legislation already shown to have no significant statistical benefit will not change Canada's death rates by firearms. The likely billions of dollars forecasted to be spent on confiscating firearms would be better spent on youth diversion and gang reduction programs.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Langmann.

We'll start with Ms. Dancho.

Please go ahead, Ms. Dancho, for six minutes.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both witnesses for being here. I have a question for each witness.

Dr. Langmann, your résumé is quite extensive. I know you are a very humble person, but I would like to highlight some of it. You have a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology. You received your MD from Queen's University. You received your specialty in emergency medicine at McMaster University. You're also a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. You were the chief trauma fellow in 2011. You are currently an ER doctor at St. Joseph's. You are also assistant clinical professor of medicine at McMaster University, and the director of the clinical teaching unit at St. Joseph's hospital.

I could go on, but those are just some of the highlights. You've also studied a number of peer-reviewed papers, and you are certainly one of the foremost experts in Canada, from the research I have been able to do, on the issue of gun violence in terms of homicide, domestic homicide and mass homicide, and the impact, if any, of various governments' gun control legislation.

Is that, in brief, a summary of your qualifications and the research that you do?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

Yes.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Okay.

I've reviewed your papers. Just to conclude, it would seem that, as you mentioned in your opening, the gun control measures brought forward in the last number of years by this government and other governments have had no impact on homicide, domestic homicide or mass homicide.

Can you confirm that?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

That's correct.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Again, your research is heavily peer-reviewed and you have also been asked by various medical journals to review other research papers in a similar field. Is that correct?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

That's correct.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Okay. Again, you have found no statistical significant beneficial association between firearms legislation and homicide by firearm, as well as spousal homicide by firearm, as well as the criminal charge of discharge of firearm with intent. Is that correct?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

That's correct—in this country, in Canada.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

In this country, thank you, and your conclusions are based on sound statistical analysis, specifically in particular from the Government of Canada. Is that correct?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

Yes. I use a lot of the Statistics Canada data. However, my studies have been peer-reviewed. They've also appeared in review articles, including in a recent Canadian Medical Association Journal article and rated the highest evidence that was available for examining this issue.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

That's a very strict evidentiary standard with very high scientific analysis. Your latest peer-reviewed study included statistical data up to and including 2022. Is that correct?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

That's correct.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Okay. I appreciate your coming very much. I know there are a lot of questions for you as well, but as we all agree, it's important to make evidence-based decisions, so I appreciate your bringing this evidence to the forefront once again at our committee.

With my remaining time, Mr. Ryckman, I did want to ask you about the trust factor with hunters. What I'm hearing a lot is that they've seen a number of their commonly used firearms being banned under these two amendments that have temporarily been withdrawn.

You were very eloquent in your opening remarks about the hunting culture in Canada. There's a bit of a debate that goes on, I know, and criticism of the hunting culture around trophy hunting, but I want to share something with you. Feel free to share with me what you've heard from your 100,000 members.

I grew up hunting with my dad. There's a record book for your trophy buck, and it's a huge honour to get in there. My dad hunted for many years and finally, to the great pride of my family, he got a 165 typical. It was a really big moment for us. I'll never forget it. It's pretty impressive. When I was in high school, I got a special award from the local hunting association. They gave me a plaque for the biggest buck for my age category. It was a proud moment for my dad.

I know that your association does a lot of that work encouraging young people. It's just very natural when you're going hunting. Everyone wants the biggest buck—or the biggest fish when they're fishing. It's a very important part of the culture. Would you agree?

[Mark Ryckman]

Yes, absolutely.

The concern about trophy hunting is that nowadays simply the use of the term can be somewhat misleading. We don't really have a huge culture of trophy hunting in Canada, by any means, at least not the way that some people tend to interpret that term. Generally that is restricted to travelling on African big game safaris, for instance, where the meat is left with the local communities and the hunter, the person who harvests it, takes part of that home with him, the trophy if you will.

When it comes to trophy hunting or even trophy fishing here in Ontario, in Canada, it's very different.

The trophy fish in my family is my daughter's first fish. It was a small fish.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Wow. I got a master angler carp when I was a young girl. That was a proud moment too.

I appreciate that and I think it really brings a sense of competition and encouragement. I know that your association does a lot of that Canadian work and that there's a huge pride element to that.

With my concluding minute, can you speak to the trust factor? Again, there has to be a lot of trust between the government in charge of the Firearms Act, which is the federal government, and the 100,000 members and subscribers that you have. I'm very concerned. Trust in government is very important. We need to be law-abiding citizens. I am very concerned about this. This is what I'm hearing.

Can you speak in the remaining 30 seconds about what you're hearing from your members? Again, that's 100,000 members and subscribers.

[Mark Ryckman]

Yes, from the hunting community at large, we're hearing very much the same thing, in that a bill that originally started as a handgun ban very quickly and unexpectedly was expanded to include some hunting rifles and shotguns. That moment alone was enough to.... I wouldn't say it completely eroded trust in the government from the hunting community, but it certainly did make them pause and wonder what exactly they are trying to do here and what the government's ultimate goal is.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much.

I believe I'm out of time. Again, thank you both for coming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

We go now to Ms. Damoff.

Ms. Damoff, please go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

Obviously, we're here having these additional meetings because we acknowledge that there were organizations like the hunters and anglers of Ontario who were not heard on what was in the bill. I very much appreciate your being here today and offering your testimony and your expertise. It does mean a lot to us to hear the perspective of hunters. It was never our intention to ban the rifles that are commonly used in hunting, so your appearance here today is very much appreciated.

I do have a question, though. There has been a lot of misinformation that has permeated the hunting community, such that many people feel that the guns they own will now be banned. We have to take some responsibility for that, because the list was not easy to understand or interpret.

Do you know how many models would have still been available in the Canadian market if amendment G-46 had actually passed?

[Mark Ryckman]

I don't actually know the number of units or even the number of different models that would still be available. I can certainly say the amendment, at least as it's written now, would not ban every single commonly used rifle or shotgun right now.

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

I had a few people reach out to me and I checked with Minister Mendicino's office because I personally couldn't interpret the list. For every one that I checked, even though they thought it was banned, it was not. My understanding is that there are about 19,000 models that will still be available.

Do you know or have you heard from your members about ones that were on the list that you feel should be excluded? Did people contact you about them?

[Mark Ryckman]

Sure. I suppose my response would be in two parts.

A direct answer to your query is that the SKS is probably one of the more ubiquitous hunting rifles, and it is clearly on the list. I think everybody missed that at this point. That is a rifle that is perfectly legitimate for the purpose of hunting in Ontario, in Canada, and that is on the list. It would have been prohibited if amendments G-4 and G-46 had passed and had not been withdrawn.

The broader concern is that at some point, if the government has to create a laundry list of exempted guns, it starts to make us question whether the legislation was crafted properly in the first place. It's one thing to present a single model or two of firearms, but if you start having to exempt 15, 20, 30 or 50 models because the hunting community is concerned about their being prohibited, then perhaps that's more of an indication about the wording of the legislation.

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

Thank you.

Certainly we have heard about the SKS. I would say, though, it's been used in 11 shootings of police officers over the last six years, most recently here in Ontario. It was originally designed for the military. I do understand, but there are models other than the SKS that could be used. The intent was to take a look at how these have been used and how they were designed, and that was one that was originally designed for the military.

I understand that you have quite a large membership in your organization and I applaud you for that. There's been a pretty big increase in PAL owners over the last two years. Have you seen your membership increase over the last few years as more people have obtained their PAL?