Public Safety Committee on March 10th, 2023

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you so much.

How would you feel about a possible exemption for indigenous communities related to prohibited firearms? Do you have any concerns with potential exemptions for indigenous communities?

[Suzanne Zaccour]

I'm not able to take a position on that on behalf of the coalition because that's not the viewpoint that we're here to represent.

If guns are identified as not reasonably used for hunting, then they're not reasonably used for hunting. However, whether there should be an exemption and whether it would work in practice is something I'm not able to take a position on right now.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Price, I'd like to come back to you.

Since you have participated in this committee a few times, I just want you to wrap up by telling us what you feel our government should do to keep Canadians safe in the cities and in the rural areas. What do you think we should do?

[Ken Price]

It's a big question. I think Bill C-21 captures a number of topics, and it is worthwhile that the committee is looking at that and trying to figure out how we can improve it.

Maybe one comment I'll make is there's still, I think, an open discussion with respect to the handgun freeze, exemptions for that handgun freeze and exemptions particularly for elite sport shooters and whether that will be expanded to continue a handgun market that I think we're intending to freeze. That's an open discussion, one that we have taken a position on and one that we're concerned about.

When we look back at what Bill C-21 has in it overall, it talks about borders. It talks about punishment for abusers. It talks about resources for underserved communities. It talks about gun control, and it's starting to address, I think, issues around ghost guns and replica weapons. Those are the topics. It's the breadth of Bill C-21 that we admire, and we would say that we want to support it because, imperfect even as it is today, it would be a far cry better than where we are right now.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chiang.

I forgot to say that we will have to end this panel after Mr. MacGregor.

It is now Ms. Michaud's turn.

Ms. Michaud, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Bryant, the Government of Alberta appointed you as the Chief Firearms Officer to defend the rights of law-abiding gun owners. In an article published by Radio-Canada in November 2022, you said that the G‑4 amendment would have an impact on hunters and recreational gun owners and that nearly all firearms could be used for hunting.

To your knowledge, right now in Canada, how many makes and models of firearms can be used for hunting? Is it about a hundred, several hundred, thousands? Do you have any idea of the number of firearms on the market that could be used for hunting?

[Dr. Teri Bryant]

I think there are thousands of models.

There is a firearms reference table that shows the classifications, and it includes thousands of firearms. Many models could be used for hunting even though their use is prohibited by law.

It is difficult to say exactly, but there are certainly thousands.

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

I understand. Thank you. That gives us a good idea.

After they were presented, the amendments caused a lot of surprises and everyone was talking about them. In my riding, hunters were concerned that their firearm might end up on the list of prohibited weapons. Some of them said that, if the gun they use for hunting ended up on the list, then they would simply buy a different one. They were not too worried about it.

What we finally understood from the amendments, because they were rather difficult to comprehend, is that some 480 makes and models of firearms would be classified as prohibited. Only about a dozen of those are commonly used for hunting.

Even without those 480 models, don't you think that there will still be some firearms left on the market that can be used for hunting? Is that your understanding given the number you provided earlier?

[Dr. Teri Bryant]

There will certainly be some models that can be used for hunting, but not all firearms are created equal. Every person has specific needs. Quite often, a person's specific requirements can be met by one gun and not another. That is why there are thousands of models out there.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We'll go to Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. MacGregor, please bring it home in two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll devote this last section to the National Association of Women and the Law.

First of all, I want to recognize your work on this bill. We've had some fantastic conversations about possible amendments to strengthen it. One unfortunate thing about amendments G-4 and G-46 is that they suck all the oxygen out of the room when we talk about Bill C-21, in general. When you look at the middle clauses of this bill—especially the ones empowering chief firearms officers to be much more vigilant in revoking licences, if there is ever any suspected domestic abuse or violence going on—they are, in fact, probably much more effective, in my view, in terms of public safety.

I was also very interested in Dr. Bryant's opening suggestion of a half measure, perhaps: the possibility of using the classification of “restricted” so that the firearms in question have to be registered. There's a need for a restricted possession and authorization licence, with much more stringent requirements put in place. I think that, in a home where domestic violence is present, any firearm in the hands of the wrong person will be dangerous, no matter its make or model.

I know we can't talk in detail about the amendments in place for other clauses of the bill, but I would like to invite the National Association of Women and the Law to talk about the submissions they made to committee members that attempt to strengthen those particular clauses of the bill, so that chief firearms officers have even more authority to target individuals when a firearm is present, so we can address violence going on in a domestic situation.

Could you talk about the rationale behind what brought you to that, and your experience and expertise in this area?

[Suzanne Zaccour]

I appreciate the question.

I want to add a little pre-answer: Every time we take a position on anything, we're always asked, “Is there not another, better way, and is that going to be sufficient?” Every time, we say we want to reach full equality and will take every necessary step. We don't believe in choosing between two partial ways to make women safe.

That being said, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the other proposals we've made regarding Bill C-21. When there is danger, it's important to act quickly. Guns need to be removed quickly and not returned to the gun owner to dispose of them where they see fit—to give them to their brother or roommate. We proposed solutions to make these yellow flags—I think they've been called that—quicker and more effective.

We also made suggestions regarding protection orders. People currently subject to one should be ineligible to have guns. We understand this would have limited use for public officers, who are not subject to the same regime, but it would be useful to target some gun owners engaging in family violence.

I also want to respond to your idea that the air has been sucked out of the rest of the discussion. That is certainly true. There's been an escalation in the debate. I believe disinformation is part of the reason. We hear questions about automatic weapons, which are not part of the debate. We hear questions about the way a gun looks. I've read the amendments, and there's nothing about colour, so there's some kind of disinformation going on. We felt compelled to re-enter this debate, in order to recentre the conversation on what it's really about, because most people don't read laws for a living and might be very confused by the debate currently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

That brings our questioning to an end for this panel. I would like to thank all the witnesses for their time today and for sharing their expertise. It is most helpful to our study.

With that, we will suspend and bring in the next panel. Thank you, all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting back to order.

I would like to welcome our second panel of witnesses.

With us by video conference we have, as an individual, Dr. John Kortbeek, professor emeritus of the Cumming school of medicine at the University of Calgary. From Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, we have Dr. Najma Ahmed, doctor, and Dr. Anna Dare, general surgeon. From the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, we have Mr. Joe Savikataaq, president.

Welcome to you all. Thank you for being here.

I will give each group an opportunity for up to five minutes of opening statements, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions. I will invite Dr. Kortbeek to make an opening statement.

Please go ahead, sir. You have five minutes.

[Dr. John B. Kortbeek, Professor Emeritus, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee. I appreciate the privilege of presenting this morning.

My name is John Kortbeek. I'm a recently retired physician. I practised trauma, general surgery and critical care in Calgary for over three decades. I also held a number of leadership positions, including head of trauma services in Calgary. I was chairman of the department of surgery at the University of Calgary and the Calgary zone for 10 years. I served as president of the Trauma Association of Canada and as a governor for the American College of Surgeons. I also recently served as a director for Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns until my retirement.

I had an early introduction to the effectiveness and power of policy and legislation. When I completed my surgery and critical critical training in Canada, I travelled to the southern United States to pursue a trauma fellowship. I resuscitated and operated on six gunshot wounds that first night. That was more than I had seen in my entire residency at that time in Calgary. When I returned to Canada, I was fortunate to bear witness to significant improvements in our trauma systems and trauma care over the subsequent decades.

Today, in Canada, if you arrive at a trauma centre following a gunshot wound, you don't have a head injury and you have a blood pressure, you have a reasonable chance of surviving. That comes at a cost. That cost may be prolonged stays in the intensive care unit on a ventilator; days, weeks or months in hospital; multiple operations by multiple specialists; and prolonged rehab.

After discharge, we follow these patients for weeks, months and, in some cases, years to manage their complications. Often, they need reoperations for correction of their bowel stomas, reoperations for bowel obstructions, debridement of ulcers, referrals to chronic pain specialists, etc. There also exists a significant mental health cost to this. Many of them cannot return to their former work and pursue a living. As you can imagine, it also has a tremendous effect on their families.

My engagement on this issue was precipitated by several things. One was that I was on call in 2011 when the Claresholm massacre occurred. That involved four young college students who were returning from Lethbridge to Calgary. They were pursued by a gunman and shot near Claresholm. Three died at the scene and one presented to our hospital alive. The gunman subsequently died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

I have seen a lot in my career, but I find that episode particularly troublesome to this day.

The other event that was occurring was my colleagues in the trauma service and I—and in the ICU—were noticing what we thought was an increase in the number of gunshot wounds we were admitting to our hospital. That was the impetus to do a full literature review, retrieve our trauma registry data and present city-wide critical care rounds at the University of Calgary. Some of that was subsequently reviewed in a podcast on CJS, the Canadian Journal of Surgery's Cold Steel.

During the rounds, we were able to substantiate the significant increase in admissions to our hospitals for gunshot wounds. We pulled Edmonton and Calgary data. It more than doubled in 10 years, despite a 20% increase in the population. Today, gunshot wound admissions are a weekly event in both Edmonton and Calgary, with about 100 a year.

Through the literature review, we were also able to substantiate good evidence in the literature that there is an association between the number of guns in a community or a society—particularly handguns—and endemic gun violence, and an association with the presence and access to semi-automatic weapons with large-capacity magazines and multiple mass shooting events.

On a personal note, I don't own a gun, but I grew up hunting with my father. My family hunts. They own guns. I accompany them on hunts because I like the walk and the venison. I own land in southern Alberta where we allow friends and family to hunt. I've spoken to many of my friends who hunt. None of them own semi-automatic weapons or use them for hunting. None of them have large-capacity magazines. At least for sport and recreation hunting, they're not necessary in the view of my friends, my family and the people who hunt on my land.

In summary, there's clear evidence on the association between access to handguns and endemic gun violence, and access to semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines and multiple mass shooting events. There is good evidence that the restriction of access to these weapons reduces endemic gun violence and reduces the number of victims of multiple mass shooting events.

Ultimately, it's a choice society has to make. What guns are permissible? What should we allow access to? What level of gun violence are we willing to accept in our community?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Doctor.

We go now to Dr. Ahmed and Dr. Dare for an opening statement of up to five minutes.

Please, go ahead.

[Dr. Anna Dare, General Surgeon, Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns]

Thank you.

I am here today as a scientist, physician, Canadian citizen and mother. I am a surgeon and epidemiologist at the University of Toronto.

I did not set out to study firearms deaths or policy. During my post-doctoral fellowship I examined the major causes of death in the Americas. I was surprised to find that firearm injury was an important cause of premature death, including in Canada, and one that could be addressed with a public health science approach.

Legislation is widely considered to be the foundation on which effective public health responses to firearm harms are built. Amendments G-4 and G-46 specifically address assault weapons. The public health intent of prohibiting these weapons is to remove from public circulation those firearms that can quickly and efficiently inflict maximal harm on the human body.

Assault weapon bans reduce mass shootings. This has been studied in several peer nations that have introduced them. The highest-quality studies demonstrate that legislation prohibiting assault weapons and restricting magazine capacity has led to the reduction in, one, the number of mass shootings, and two, the number of fatalities per event.

Australia's national Firearms Act, which was introduced in 1996 after the country's largest mass shooting, closely resembles Bill C-21. Its definition of assault weapons is similar to the G-4 and G-46 amendments. Many scholars have analyzed the impact of these laws over the past 25 years since they were introduced. There is strong evidence that the laws caused reductions in mass shootings in Australia. No public mass shootings have occurred in Australia for 23 years after the legislation was adopted. The chance of that happening, in the absence of the law change, is one in 200,000. There's also consistent evidence that rates of firearm suicides decreased after the law was introduced, by 74%, on average.

Prohibitions must be comprehensive, restrictive, national and durable. Definitions are critical. Legislation prohibiting assault weapons must outline a specific set of characteristics of a firearm and its ammunition that make it lethal and inappropriate for civilian ownership. Loopholes and limitations can substantially weaken the public health impact. A definition must cover both current and future variants.

I would like to speak now to my experience as a surgeon and as a Canadian.

I wish I could bring you into our trauma bay to show you the harms firearms do every week in our community. It is shocking how quickly someone can lose their entire blood volume after a gunshot wound. The heart looks like a deflated balloon—still trying to beat but with nothing to pump out. Making your way to the quiet room after never gets easier. You are telling someone's mother, partner or child that they have been shot and have died.

Mass shootings leave an outsized imprint on the national psyche. They strike at the heart of our belief that we live in a safe, tolerant and peaceful country. The political responses that mass shooting engender also define countries on the international stage. “Tough on crime” is not the answer here. Nine out of the last 10 mass shootings in Canada were reportedly committed by Canadians without a criminal record.

Canada is not exceptional in its need to balance firearms ownership and use with public safety. Other countries, including New Zealand, have all been through similar national reckonings. In 2019, following a mass shooting, New Zealand banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and further restricted magazine capacity and firearm caliber. Just like in Canada, emotions ran high as the legislation was being crafted, but the conversation has moved on. When the public was polled a year later, 81% supported the law change. Three years later, my family members in New Zealand and many others still go hunting with legally owned firearms.

To practice science is to ask questions. I leave you with these: How do we balance public safety with legitimate firearm use? What are the core values of our society? What trade-offs are we willing to make for fewer deaths and for safer communities? When the next mass shooting happens, will we regret failing to act today? Would we be able to say to someone's family member, “I did everything I could”?

The physicians represented in our organization and the patients and families across Canada ask that you permanently remove firearms that are designed to kill people efficiently and quickly from our communities.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Doctor.

I now invite Mr. Savikataaq to make an opening statement for five minutes, please.

Go ahead, sir.

[Joe Savikataaq, President, Nunavut Association of Municipalities]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank you for the invitation to present to this committee.

I would also like to express our appreciation to our member of Parliament, Lori Idlout, for her work in representing the issues of Nunavut with respect to the proposed amendments to Bill C-21.

Finally, thank you to all those who agreed to withdraw the amendments. By doing so, you have recognized that hunting is an important part of Inuit identity, culture and survival. Had this proceeded, it would have had a devastating effect on Nunavummiut.

This morning I'm representing 25 communities and 25 mayors, as I'm the president of all the municipalities here in Nunavut. The Nunavut Association of Municipalities, representing the 25 municipalities across Nunavut, have openly opposed the recent amendments to Bill C-21. If the amendments were passed, the use of firearms that are critical for hunting and for safety on the land would have made us criminals in our own land and our own country.

Many of the proposed firearms—there are approximately 1,500 of them listed in the amendments—have become a necessary part of our culture. They provide protection from aggressive wildlife and allow us to harvest for our families and for our community members where we're living. With the cost of living in Nunavut being approximately 44% higher than the national average, we need to hunt to offset the cost of food. The other factor is the potential for human-animal conflicts that we may encounter on the land. The legal firearms that we are currently using allow us to maintain our own food security and personal safety.

To provide you with an example, a hunter would use a firearm to deter an aggressive bear. Most often it takes more than several shots to ward them off. If a bear cannot be scared off and continues to charge a hunter, the amendments would not allow the peace of mind and the ability of the hunter to return to their loved ones. If this bill were passed, there would have been more shoot-to-kill situations rather than deterring. This legislation, if amended, would have increased fatalities for both wildlife and people.

Trying to reduce gun violence by including the firearms used by law-abiding gun owners for survival would have caused hardship to Nunavummiut. Inuit respect their firearms. They are a tool for survival. Gun owners in Nunavut are licensed with a background check and a renewal every five years. A national ban on hunting rifles that allow us to maintain our own food security by hunting and personal security while maintaining a cultural lifestyle on the land is continued colonialism and does not respect our way of life. Nunavut was created so that our culture and lifestyle would survive.

If the intention of these amendments was to improve the safety of humans living in urban areas, that would make total sense. It does not make sense to include the firearms that Inuit hunters need to harvest their food from the land and the water. Life is hard enough as it is for Nunavummiut. Nunavut has the highest rate of indigenous low-income households, with 22% of the population living below the poverty line in Canada.

If these amendments were passed, a hunter providing for his family, the elders and the community by using the right piece of equipment to maintain the safety of the hunter against aggressive animals would have unknowingly committed a crime. They would have a prison sentence of possibly up to 10 years. People who take other people's lives often receive less time than this. To counteract gun violence, the policy to do so should not affect law-abiding Nunavummiut trying to survive, make a living, get by and provide for their families.

If there are further amendments to Bill C-21, we request that Inuit be consulted so that we can inform you of the impact the amendments will have on our culture and traditional lifestyle. Thank you very much for that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Savikataaq.

We'll start our first round of questions. I will have to shorten these rounds. Instead of six minutes, they will be five minutes. The following round will be reduced somewhat as well in order for us to get through this. We have a fairly short time.

We'll go now to Ms. Dancho, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for being with us today.

I have a few questions for Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns. Thank you for being here.

Dr. Kortbeek, I believe you were also associated with the Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns as well, but you're appearing separately. Is that correct?

[Dr. John B. Kortbeek]

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. I appreciated the physician testimony we received today.

It's my understanding that you as a group have been to committee a few times now. Is that correct?

I see nodding.

You have met with the Liberal government on several occasions over the last number of years. Is that correct?