THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 25, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms); and to examine and report on issues relating to Veterans Affairs, including services and benefits provided, commemorative activities, and the continuing implementation of the Veteran’s Well-being Act.
Senator Tony Dean (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs.
I’m Tony Dean, a senator representing Ontario and the chair of the committee. I’m joined today by fellow committee members who will introduce themselves now, beginning with our deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I am Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I am Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Richards: Dave Richards from New Brunswick.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator M. Deacon: Welcome. Senator Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, a senator from Ontario.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Plett: Senator Donald Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I am Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, and I represent the senatorial division of La Salle, in Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. On my left is the committee’s clerk, Ms. Ericka Dupont.
For those watching the session, we are continuing our study of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), all related to the regulation of firearms in Canada. Today, we will hear from two panels of academics, researchers and legal experts.
In our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming Noah S. Schwartz, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of the Fraser Valley; and Mr. Tim Thurley, Firearms Researcher and Policy Specialist. Thank you both for joining us today. We invite you to provide your opening remarks to be followed by questions from our members. I remind you that you each have five minutes for your testimony. We begin today with Mr. Schwartz.
Noah S. Schwartz, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of the Fraser Valley, as an individual: Hello everyone, and thank you so much for having me today. I have come here today all the way from Abbotsford, British Columbia, the traditional territory of the Stó:lō people, to talk about Bill C-21.
I’ll be frank and honest. I do not think that Bill C-21 in its present form will achieve its goal of improving public safety. My research documents the harm that this bill will cause to communities across Canada. I would like to focus my comments on two important areas of the bill.
First is the prohibition on what the government has labelled assault-style firearms. The evidence from the scholarly literature, which I encourage you to review in the brief that my colleagues and I submitted to the committee, speaks fairly clearly. There is very little support in the literature for a ban on assault-style weapons. Bans in other jurisdictions have failed to achieve their intended goals of reducing mass shootings and homicides. The simple fact is that these firearms are rarely used in crimes and easily substituted for other weapons.
Second, the freeze on handgun ownership is also unlikely to have an impact on gun crime in Canada. Handguns have been tightly regulated here since the 1930s. A variety of data sources, from police data to academic studies to government reports, has consistently shown that the vast majority of handguns showing up at crime scenes in this country are being smuggled in illegally from the United States. For example, data recently released by the Toronto Police Service shows that only 3% of crime guns in Ontario were legally owned in Canada before showing up at a crime scene. Only 3%.
There are clear economic incentives for gun smugglers. Handguns can be purchased easily in the United States and sold for a large markup on the Canadian black market. Combined with the very concerning rise of 3D-printed firearms, criminals and gangs in Canada will continue to have access to these illegal firearms.
I believe the freeze is also overly broad. Even if the assumption were accurate that freezing some handguns might reduce crime — which I don’t believe it is — the freeze targets firearms that could not conceivably pose a major risk to public safety, such as lower-powered, .22-calibre handguns used by Olympic athletes. The freeze would make Canada an outlier amongst our allies. Of 38 OECD countries, 33 allow licensed and vetted citizens to own handguns.
My research also speaks to the harm that Bill C-21 will cause. Over the course of my research, I have surveyed over 16,000 Canadian gun owners from coast to coast and done longer interviews with almost 100 others. The people I have spoken to are not extremists. Most actually express their support for the strict gun control laws that Canada already has in place. When asked what values they associate with gun ownership, responsibility and community were the two most common. They do, however, feel cheated by legislation like Bill C-21 and expressed a serious loss of faith in the institutions of government as a result of recent policy decisions. I want to share a few of the stories that they were brave enough to share with me with you today.
Jim is a young man living in rural Ontario. After a car accident, he became a C6 quadriplegic. Target shooting is one of the only hobbies he has been able to carry over from his pre-injury life. His rifles may not look like grandpa’s hunting rifle, but it’s exactly the ergonomic features of these firearms that make them accessible and even possible for him to use.
Ava is a cowboy action shooter in her 60s who spends most of her time volunteering at her local range to organize competitions. Western enthusiasts like Ava dress up in cowboy clothes and compete in shooting competitions with low-powered, single action six-shot revolvers. The effects of Bill C-21 will result in the slow death of the community that she has worked so hard to build. After all, any community that cannot welcome new members is living on borrowed time.
Finally, Kane is a young Chinese-Canadian man in his early 20s living in B.C. He is a re-enactor, and his deep love of preserving the past connects him to a community of living history enthusiasts. He mostly shoots single-shot, black powder, muzzle-loading firearms, including some handguns, that are now frozen.
As your study of Bill C-21 progresses, you’ll undoubtedly hear from many people like this, and I want to emphasize that the choices made in this room are not without consequence to real people who have shared their stories with me.
Creating good policy is about balancing the possible benefits of a policy with the potential harms. In the case of Bill C-21, my research suggests that the benefits are highly uncertain and the harms are very real.
Thank you very much for your time. I really look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Schwartz.
Tim Thurley, Firearms Researcher and Policy Specialist, as an individual: Good morning, senators, and thank you for the honour of testifying here today. I am proud to live and work in Yellowknife on the traditional territory of the Dene people. I have come straight from there, so please excuse my jet lag.
My 2017 MSc thesis attempted to make sense of firearm policy by examining the relationship between homicide trends and the long-gun registry. My firearm publications on topics from classification criteria to Bill C-21 have appeared in The Line and the National Post, and at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute with my colleague Noah.
When the long-gun registry was introduced, many warned of huge expenditures with few prospects for gains. Similar patterns are emerging now. I believe the legislation before us will be regressive, harmful and profoundly unjust. It will introduce great costs without realizing the anticipated benefits we all desire.
The societal costs are substantial, and I want to give additional voice to their impact on rural, northern and Indigenous lives. The assistant deputy minister acknowledged on Monday that Indigenous Canadians will suffer the most from the punitive and mandatory permanent licence revocations that remove discretion and undermine the principles of rehabilitation. Those who take a plea instead of fighting their case will lose their guns permanently, with no questions, no appeal and no consideration.
The ill-considered red flag proposals are also problematic. Under Canada’s existing licensing system, police and judges already have the power to remove guns and revoke licences from those who pose a threat. The new provisions have no requirements to consider Indigenous hunting rights, for the complainant to have any relationship to the accused or for the accused to be heard in court. Indigenous people are disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system and are also the most reliant on firearms for subsistence. We will undermine the built-in safeguards of the existing red flag law. Where people hunt to feed families, this has real consequences.
Considering feeding families, sports shooters contributed $2.6 billion to the Canadian economy in 2018. The slow, uncompensated phaseout of handguns will eventually remove 650,000 restricted licence holders from sports shooting. The government has freely admitted this is the purpose. The closure of family businesses and ranges will result. Where does this leave hunters and exempted individuals such as trappers and Olympians?
Despite these regressive outcomes, some maintain the benefits brought by bans will be worth it. They won’t. The research is clear. If we care about saving lives, the smart place to spend our time and energy is on literally almost anything else.
Canada’s low but tragic homicide rate is not driven by legally owned handguns. The proportion of seized and traced handguns cited by Canadian police regularly approaches 90% foreign origin. Further corroboration is that we have not seen corresponding increases in crime committed with legal handguns, despite recent increases in legal ownership and a record number of PAL holders.
Data is sparse. We need to make some assumptions, and this is imperfect, but I want to give you an illustration of scale as an overview. Of 874 total homicides in 2022 — this is all Statistics Canada data — 216 involved handguns. If 90% of those were smuggled from abroad, as police services regularly claim, that would imply around 22 homicides with domestically sourced handguns. That’s 2.5% of all homicides and 10% of all handgun homicides before we account for method or source substitution, as we have in our briefs. The legislation cannot touch and cannot reduce the remaining 97.5% overall, nor the remaining 90% of handgun homicides.
Let’s go back to the 2022 figure. Twelve times that number die needlessly due to nutritional deficiencies every year in Canada. Twenty-one times that number sadly drown. Six times as many people are unspeakably beaten to death. It’s outstripped by homicides caused by unknown methods. Homicide is a substantial problem in Canada, but it’s rarely the legal owners of legal handguns doing it.
Risk is never a flat zero; I’ll acknowledge that. We can mitigate it, but we cannot eliminate it. While every single premature death is tragic, public policy is about making choices with finite resources, and smart homicide reduction policy would not focus on squeezing out just a few more decimals from rigorously screened licensed owners when we can talk about the larger part of the problem. It’s an exercise in diminishing returns, especially when illegal firearms are so prolific and most homicides in this country are not committed with firearms.
I won’t speculate today why the government chose a narrow focus — that’s not my place — but Canada could spend funds and energy on far better outcomes by addressing the determinants of crime. There are more impactful and less harmful paths to take if homicide reduction is the goal. We have detailed many alternatives in our submitted briefs and open letters. The government has, nevertheless, chosen to plow on with a freeze they didn’t even have in their platform. This policy-making style is dangerous. Honourable senators will remember it from Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. Poorly considered legislation was put forward, consequences were identified, and senators made changes to mitigate them. The governmentrejected key changes, and we’re now beginning to see the predicted consequences come to life.
I encourage senators to treat Bill C-21 in the same way. Even its most well-intentioned provisions will hurt law-abiding citizens. It has damaged trust and undermined confidence in our existing gun-control compromise. It deserves to be scrutinized, examined and heavily amended or rejected outright. As the chamber of sober second thought, I firmly believe it is not just the Senate’s right but its duty.
Thank you for your time. I’ll be pleased to answer questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Thurley.
We’ll now proceed to questions, colleagues.
Before proceeding, just the regular warning about being careful not to lean in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid harm from feedback that could otherwise materialize.
Our guests are with us until 12:30 today. I’m looking at the clock. We’ll do our best to allow time for each member to ask a question, but with this in mind for this session, three minutes, initially, will be allotted for each question, including the answer, so we really need to keep those questions succinct and identify the witnesses that you are addressing. Today, I’m going to be flagging a 30-second warning with this appropriately titled card, “Best Practices for Committee Meetings.”
I’ll now offer the first question to our deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to the witnesses. My first question is for Mr. Thurley.
Mr. Thurley, you wrote a piece for the National Post back in March, and in it, you say — and correct me if I’m wrong — that gun control advocates are manipulating public opinion in Canada and that it’s wrong to believe that new gun control legislation saves lives.
Why do you think this and past Liberal governments have bowed to the pressure of the gun control lobby, without takingmeaningful measures to crack down on the smuggling of the firearms criminals tend to use, as you said in your presentation?
Why do you say that these gun control laws would deprive the government of enough tax revenue to fund the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, and the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, combined?
[English]
Mr. Thurley: Thank you. There were some pauses in interpretation, so I want to be sure I got it all.
I don’t have inside knowledge into the government’s perspective on this, any more than senators do. My belief, ultimately, is that a lot of this legislation wasn’t terribly well considered. There are aspects of this legislation which I think are, undoubtedly, political in nature.
In terms of why the government would remove tax revenue, I genuinely don’t know, but I think that will come back to the ill-considered aspect. Certainly, sport shooters do contribute a substantial amount not just to tax revenue — and I think my colleague, Dr. Schwartz, will elaborate on this — but to enforcement of firearms regulation, which itself helps groups like the RCMP and the CBSA. At the risk of going on too long, as law enforcement officers know, enforcement really requires two components, and these are trust and voluntary compliance. Ensuring voluntary compliance requires maintaining trust.
I’m getting a time signal, but I will come back to that later.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Thurley.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for travelling such long journeys to come here.
As you may know, earlier this week we had the minister and the officials before the committee, and one argument that was made by the officials was as follows. Matthew Taylor, General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada, said that:
Gang-related homicides involving firearms increased by 27% in 2021. Also, if you look at the number of firearms that we have traced through various tracing efforts, 69% of those firearms were deemed to have been illegally imported into or manufactured in Canada.
… legal firearms that are in Canada are likely contributing to the pool of firearms that are being used in gang-related and organized crime homicides.
That is the government’s argument, and I cannot see how they still make that case. The witness is saying 69% of crime guns are either illegally imported or are manufactured in Canada. Perhaps the witness meant to say “legally imported.” Either way, I’m not sure what that statistic tells us. Am I understanding this correctly? What are your thoughts on this statistic, and what is your interpretation of that? Both of you, please.
The Chair: I’m afraid I have to interrupt.
Senators, it is with extraordinary sadness that we have learned this morning of the passing of our colleague, Senator Ian Shugart. This has been communicated by our Speaker. On behalf of the Senate of Canada, we extend our sincere condolences to the Shugart family. Honourable senators and witnesses, please join me now in observing a minute of silence in honour of our lost colleague.
(Those present then stood in silent tribute.)
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. It’s a very sad moment for all of us, so I appreciate it. I thank you for participating in this today.
Mr. Thurley was about to answer. Please proceed.
Mr. Thurley: Thank you for the question. I’m very sorry for the loss to his family and to all senators who knew him.
Regarding the statistics presented by the RCMP, I was watching that committee meeting. There were a few pieces that I noticed. One was that of about I believe it was 5,000 firearms, they were using that 69% figure as the percentage of the 1,800 or so that they actually traced. Firearms are generally easier to trace, from my understanding, when they have a domestic origin, so that would naturally bias the numbers in that direction.
Additionally, my understanding is also that they didn’t separate out long guns and handguns. Since we’re talking about largely a handgun freeze, that is an important distinction to make, and my colleague Dr. Schwartz has a large collection of sources on this subject as well.
Mr. Schwartz: If I can jump in, handguns, by their very nature, are easier to smuggle across the border. They are much easier to conceal in a car or on a person.
We have lots of data from police sources in large cities, such as Toronto and Vancouver, where a lot of the surge in gang crime is happening. The data from those cities show overwhelmingly that these guns are coming from the United States. I have a few examples. In Montreal, 95% of handguns used were illegal, and 79% of traced handguns in Ontario were foreign-sourced, largely coming from the United States. Ontario is the only province with a comprehensive tracing program. The rest of Canada traces only about 6% to 10% of firearms. The Ontario numbers fairly consistently show a large majority of guns being smuggled from the United States, which makes sense when you consider the fact that we share the world’s largest demilitarized border with a country that has more guns than people.
Senator Oh: Okay. You mentioned earlier —
The Chair: Senator Oh, I’m afraid you have run out of time. We will come back to you if we can.
Senator Plett: I want to echo your comments, chair, about the sadness of the passing of a very dear friend.
My question is for either or both of the witnesses. I will say both of my questions for the sake of time.
In a letter sent by witnesses to senators, it has been argued that the red flag and nondiscretionary licence-revocation provisions in the legislation will, in fact, not increase public safety and are vulnerable to abuses, especially against Indigenous and other marginalized populations. Could you elaborate as to how Indigenous and other marginalized populations might be impacted by those provisions?
Further, it has been suggested that these provisions should be struck from the bill. If the majority in this committee do not support striking them from the bill, do you see any other viable amendments — very briefly — that might make the provisions more reasonable? Dr. Schwartz and then Mr. Thurley, please.
Mr. Schwartz: My understanding is that a variety of organizations have also commented on this, saying that Canada’s existing laws surrounding the removal of firearms from the hands of a licensed owner who poses a danger or a threat to themselves or others are already robust. This new change would allow for ex parte revocations, which means that an accusation could be made by someone who doesn’t even know the person they are accusing. They might not have ever met them in real life. There would be no way for the accused to know who is making that accusation. We know that Indigenous people in Canada and other marginalized groups are disproportionately targeted by the legal system and have a tougher time navigating it. That is why we believe these provisions could propose a threat to marginalized groups like Indigenous Canadians.
Senator Plett: Is there another amendment that could possibly be put in?
Mr. Thurley: I would strike that entirely. I don’t believe it’s necessary. The CFO already has the power to revoke licenses and remove firearms. That can be done without going through the judicial process. It also doesn’t need to be through local police; it can be through a simple call to the Canadian Firearms Program. They have a 1-800 hotline that can be immediately accessed. I think these are a really problematic series of amendments. The Mohawk Council has detailed this as well in their brief.
To provide context, 60% of people in the Northwest Territories have eaten country food, meaning hunted or fished, in the past seven days, so even if they end up getting their guns back after one of these ex parte applications is made, they might not have food for the year. This is a very serious thing in small and rural communities.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here today and for your empathy. Our colleague would want us to continue doing this work, so we will carry on. Thank you for your responses thus far. Our time is tight.
I’m going to come back to something we have heard little about, which is the ghost guns, and particularly those that can be downloaded and printed. While there is no doubt there might be some difficulty in enforcing the law in this regard, I never found that to be a particularly compelling argument. Laws discourage people from doing something. It makes sense to me that we would make illegal the owning and distribution of the data that can be used to create an untraceable and, in some cases undetectable, firearm. I can’t envision any legitimate reason why someone would have that. You mentioned in your letter that while you don’t necessarily disagree with this provision, you do have reservations. I’m hoping that either one of you are able to expand upon that today.
Mr. Schwartz: I personally think it is important that we face the serious threat posed by 3D-printed ghost guns. I actually don’t have a serious problem with that part of the legislation. It is sensible, because we are seeing a rise in them. Police are reporting, year over year, a higher proportion of those guns. This was a non-issue in 2019, and now officers are reporting hundreds across the country. I think stepping in to do something about that is prudent.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Mr. Thurley: Was the main component of the question regarding the possession of the actual data files?
Senator M. Deacon: Yes.
Mr. Thurley: Okay. I could potentially think of some scenarios in which a firearms manufacturer might want to possess a data file, but by and large, I think the way it’s phrased right now, from memory, is probably okay on that front. My issue was more when it came to possession of a firearm that was potentially manufactured unlawfully because it can be quite difficult to prove, especially with older guns, what exactly the provenance of it was. Some very old firearms won’t necessarily have serial numbers or a manufacturer name, make or a model. If you go through old long gun registry data, there are a lot of entries — I have a redacted 2012 copy — that are just marked “unknown” for make and model. That would be my potential concern, but I don’t have a large concern with it overall. It’s mostly regarding enforcement where my concern might come in.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you both very much for coming such a long distance. It’s very appreciated.
The question is for Mr. Thurley, but, Mr. Schwartz, if there is time, you can jump in because you have also written on this topic.
In the National Post, Mr. Thurley, you addressed an important issue of economic impact. Others have raised it, too. For the question, if you don’t have an answer on hand, you could send us the information. In that op-ed, you provided an overview of the cost as being about $6 billion, but you reported cost estimates were based on “a total ban on civilian firearm ownership.” So that isn’t Bill C-21 — taking it out of the article. But it’s a very important point.
Could you help us understand two things regarding the economics of this? First, could you give us a comprehensive economic analysis of the projected negative economic impact of Bill C-21 — who, how much, over what period of time? I’m looking at the negative side of the ledger. Could you also, as part of that economic analysis, help us understand the other side of the ledger, which is the cost of homicide and suicide, the life survival analysis from the life survival tables and the health care cost estimates? That would help us get a better understanding of this very important economic argument.
Mr. Thurley: Yes.
There are a few components to that question. First, from my recollection, I didn’t predicate my stats from the article in the National Post on a total ban. That was more regarding what the groups I was citing had said. I was quoting two figures. The first was the estimates for the buyback, and the second was the economic benefits brought by hunting and sports shooting from the Conference Board of Canada study in 2018.
In terms of data offsetting the net costs — when we’re talking about the positives and negatives of the balance sheet — that would be an extremely complex undertaking. It’s something that I am seeking to work on, and I hope to in the future, but I have not had the resources to do so myself at the moment.
I believe Dr. Schwartz might have some additions there as well.
Mr. Schwartz: As a political scientist and not an economist, from the literature, we know with firearms and suicide, for example, which you spoke about, that method substitution is often a serious problem. There is no guarantee that removing a gun from that situation will mean, unfortunately, that the individual won’t —
Senator Kutcher: My question is more on the economic modelling. I appreciate the answer, but that’s not what the question was about.
Mr. Schwartz: Right.
Senator Kutcher: Do neither of you have that data?
Mr. Thurley: Sorry. I do think that question is rather —
The Chair: We are out of time. We must move on.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I would like to take a moment to extend my deepest sympathies to Senator Shugart’s family.
The government has always claimed that Bill C-21 was a response to organized criminals and gangs. Yesterday, the minister was reported in the media as saying that Bill C-21 wasn’t necessarily a response to organized crime.
Between 1979 and 1994, so 15 years after the infamous gun registry was brought in, firearm homicide rates were supposed to come down by 30%. Between 1995 and 2010, when a very strict registry was in place, the rate of homicides involving a firearm was just 25%. After the government spent $2 billion, it became clear that the registry had no impact on homicides.
You say in your brief that one of the effects would be a huge reduction in the number of shooting ranges, which police officers often use for shooting practice because they have to undergo annual firearms testing, so they can maintain their certification in order to carry a firearm.
Could you describe how this bill would negatively impact police firearms training?
Mr. Schwartz: Thank you. That’s a very good question. From speaking with sports shooters and range owners, I’ve come to understand that people who shoot handguns make up most of their business, because they have to keep up their qualifications and belong to a shooting range. They have to be members of a shooting range by law, and that helps range operators survive economically. The legislation governing the operation of a shooting range is increasingly stringent.
[English]
There are strict zoning restrictions. As cities increase, they are sort of being pushed out and are having a tough time surviving. They really rely on those memberships from restricted handgun owners.
As we know, for example, the Stittsville range in Ottawa is where the Ottawa police do their handgun training. Where I’m from in Abbotsford, the Abbotsford Fish and Game Club is where Abbotsford PD goes to do their handgun training. If these ranges are impacted severely financially, it could have an impact on the spaces that police use for training.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: We are all very saddened by the passing of our fellow senator, the Honourable Ian Shugart.
I think there will always be agreement on the importance of tackling intimate partner violence, especially when a firearm is involved. The committee received a brief co-written by you and a group of academics. In it, you criticize the bill, especially the emergency prohibition orders, known as red flag laws.
Could you explain why adding the emergency prohibition orders to the Criminal Code has the potential to be harmful and how the existing provisions of section 117 of the Criminal Code deal with this very serious problem?
[English]
Mr. Thurley: That’s an excellent question, senator. Thank you very much.
In my view, first of all, I think it’s important to note that these orders are effectively redundant. Right now, police have the authority to confiscate firearms from an individual who could pose a threat. They don’t need a warrant. They can do it without a warrant. All an individual needs to do is call the hotline, their local police service, explain their concern, and the police can then investigate and come to their own conclusion.
I think the new system is more difficult to use. This has been generally acknowledged by the government as they keep discussing how they want NGOs to be involved to help people navigate these. I note that the Canadian Bar Association has called the existing laws “sufficient and preferable to the proposed changes.”
I think because the complaints are anonymous and the court records are sealed, the system could be pretty vulnerable to false, trivial or vexatious complaints made against high-profile individuals, even police officers and members of the military. Indigenous Canadians, who are already disproportionately involved in the justice system, will have an especially difficult time navigating this process and attempting to get firearms back if they are unjustly taken.
That’s not to say that most complaints are vexatious. However, I am saying that there is already a mechanism to deal with the investigation process and remove firearms from dangerous individuals, and I think the new additions will be problematic.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
Mr. Thurley, you threw in a critique of Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, so I’m wondering if perhaps you actually object to government regulation in the lives of Canadians. Would that be your main motivation for throwing that into the discussion? Is that where your main objection is, that you don’t think governments should take tough action in many areas of social and economic life?
Mr. Thurley: No. On the contrary, I think there is a role for government. My critique was more focused on perhaps both the scope and the consideration that was given and then the government’s response to the consideration that was given.
In terms of the principle, sometimes it’s appropriate for the state to regulate, and sometimes it isn’t. I’m no anarchist, that’s for sure, but in this case, I think what we are trying to show is not that this is an unregulated area, but rather that this is an appropriately regulated area. While there are some changes that could perhaps be made to the Firearms Act, in general, I think we’re trying to get the balance right in this country, and I think this perhaps oversteps that mark a little bit.
Senator Dasko: I want to keep pursuing the topic of domestic violence. Both of you have placed your objections to the provisions here, especially with respect to Indigenous communities. What about Indigenous women? They are to be considered as well. I haven’t heard any concern on your part about the situation of Indigenous women and how their concerns might be met in this provision.
Mr. Schwartz: I think that’s a really important question. As we have seen, the Canadian Bar Association, as well as women’s groups, have raised their concerns about these red flag laws. It’s not just our concern; it’s been coming from groups, including women’s groups, who have spoken out against these red flag provisions. I think it is certainly important, but there are a lot of tools in place to tackle an issue as complex as intimate partner violence, and I don’t think this is the best tool to tackle it.
Senator Dasko: Some want these provisions to be tougher, in fact, not to remove them. Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you for being here. Of course, it is a sad day for you to come here today, but thank you very much for making the time and being here.
Very quickly, following up on two of my colleagues’ questions on red flag laws, the opinion you offer is not on evidence because there is no evidence yet in regard to the impact about prejudice in the judicial system against First Nations. These are just your thoughts that this could happen. We don’t have any evidence of that. We have a fairly robust court system in this country that has the capacity to discern prejudice and rancour among individuals. In terms of what you are offering, you don’t offer any evidence in regard to how these red flag laws might work because we don’t know that. Is that fair for me to say?
Mr. Schwartz: Yes. It’s impossible to offer evidence about a law that hasn’t passed yet.
Senator Yussuff: We can all speculate. The reality is that domestic violence is a real thing. If one life is saved, it’s one life we don’t have to worry about what might be. However, I do agree with you that there is ample evidence on the books that the laws that are there right now could, if effectively enforced by the police, provide security for women in this country to a large extent.
There is a lot of confusion and disinformation in the public on the issue of firearms. This bill does not confiscate or take away the guns of anybody who currently owns a gun legally in the country. Am I right in my assumption and my understanding on that?
Mr. Schwartz: As far as I understand it, yes.
Senator Yussuff: There has been a lot of false information about how they are going to take away people’s guns.
In the context of the survival of ranges where people go to practise their craft, we don’t have any evidence yet on record to suggest they will demise overnight. I recognize they may not grow because their membership may not expand, but we don’t have any evidence of that reality.
Mr. Thurley: I have some issues with that approach. By the time that particular evidence exists, it’s too late. It’s over. It’s done. There is no coming back at that point. I think we can go with the data we have. Handgun owners, especially, disproportionately contribute, in terms of fees and purchases, to the maintenance and operation of ranges and to the firearm industry in Canada. They tend to purchase more and, in doing so, almost subsidize the ranges for everybody else. The government has made its intent quite clear. It says that it’s aiming to eliminate all of this within 50 years. That was the quote from Monday. By the time that’s all gone, it’s too late.
Senator Richards: I, too, give my condolences to the family and friends of the late Senator Shugart. I only spoke to him once or twice. I found him a remarkable man.
I thank the witnesses for being here. I don’t think this is just prejudicial toward the First Nations. I had moose meat in the last seven days. I’ve been hunting since I was 14. It’s a hard bill when we’re dealing with firearms and domestic violence and everything.
On second reading, I spoke against the oppressive nature of the red flag law — the idea of a company of unknown snitchers. This has been talked about, I know, by Senator Gerba and others. Could you comment on how this is a dangerous and redundant policy fashioned by politicians who might not have had any experiences with hunters or rifles and why this level of authority is now unneeded? I ask because we have things in place that do contribute to the confiscation of dangerous weapons by people who may be dangerous. Could either or both of you comment on that for a second?
Mr. Thurley: I absolutely could.
My first criticism, of course, is the redundancy of these provisions. Another criticism would be access to courts, especially in rural and northern areas. Since that was discussed during the Monday meeting, I’ll skip over that. The lack of safeguards and the lack of investigatory capability — I think of the court in an ex parte hearing — is the largest problem here in addition to the mandatory revocation, but that’s another aside.
When it comes to the individual not being able to offer a defence and the court not having that immediate investigatory tool, which the police do have, it is very difficult to dismiss vexatious complaints. An individual could target somebody, and we do know that Indigenous people, unfortunately, are disproportionately impacted by the justice system. Between 2019 and 2020, 10% of all Indigenous men between 24 and 35 were in prison at some point. We know there is a disproportionate impact here. Therefore, it’s absolutely critical to be aware that individuals cannot offer a defence, may lose important tools that are critical to their immediate livelihoods and, given the nature of the system, might not be able to have tools to appeal those mechanisms.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, we go to round two.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for you, Mr. Schwartz. When a bill like this garners such little positive feedback, I get worried. Can you tell us what drives politicians who come up with legislation like Bill C-21? Have they succumbed to lobbyists — at least for certain aspects of the bill — or are they just looking for support in the next election?
Mr. Schwartz: It’s hard to say. I wouldn’t want to put words in politicians’ mouths, but as a political scientist, I study the motivation behind this kind of thing. I try to figure out how measures like these can benefit political parties.
[English]
There are electoral incentives to passing legislation that is sweeping and appears to be strong at face value. A lot of good sound bites can come from this policy. At first glance, it can appear that we are doing something to save lives and doing something to make the lives of Canadian better, but really, upon closer inspection and closer observation, I don’t think this is going to help reduce crime. I don’t think it’s going to help save lives in Canada. I think we should be spending our money on community-based programs that will improve the lives of marginalized people so that young people in Canada, especially young people from marginalized communities, aren’t looking to turn to life in a gang as a way to solve their problems. They won’t see that as a way of getting respect or earning a living at a time when rent is increasing and food is more expensive than ever.
The Chair: Thank you.
Colleagues, I was misreading the clock. We’re rapidly running out of time. We have three senators wishing to ask questions, so we will have one minute each for a very quick question and answer.
Senator Oh: I have a simple question for Mr. Schwartz. You interviewed 16,000 gun owners across the country. What was their response? What was their reaction? What is the impact and harms to them?
Mr. Schwartz: I think that many of the people I spoke to and surveyed are very dedicated to their passion. The average person in my survey had spent several thousand dollars that year on accessories, firearms, ammunition or hunting trips — things like that. These people are very dedicated to their sport and to their hobby. Some, as we know in northern regions — the Indigenous people — are relying on this to put food on the table. I don’t think calling that into question and potentially harming those communities on fairly shaky ground with regard to public safety is worth it.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Picking up on my fellow senator’s question, I’d like to know how Bill C-21 can be improved so that it addresses the needs of the northern territories?
[English]
Mr. Thurley: Thank you, senator. I really appreciate that question. I think it means a lot to the people in the territories.
Our brief with recommended amendments to Bill C-21 does engage in Indigenous-specific issues. Quite a few changes have been detailed there. I believe our document is about 14 pages long and available on the Senate site. I would very strongly recommend reading the Mohawk council brief. I think they did an excellent job of relating how this could apply to hunting rights, freezing rights in time and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. I would strongly recommend reading that brief. I’m sorry I don’t have time to give a fuller answer and can only refer you to other documents.
Senator Plett: I will be very brief, and it can be a very brief answer. Witnesses have argued that one of the implications of this bill is the elimination of an entire sports community in Canada. It has been said that, in this regard, Olympic athletes will be no exception. Can you explain what the impact is likely to be? For example, is it viable for the government to say that we are banning the sale and purchase of all pistols in Canada but somehow assert that we can credibly exempt only Olympic shooting?
Mr. Schwartz: I think this is going to have an impact. We have heard from Olympians saying that this will impact them in terms of recruiting people into the sport to sustain the program, in terms of having competitors to practise against before the Olympics and in terms of sourcing their equipment. This will have a significant impact, from what I have heard, on Olympic athletes.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Thurley, we thank you sincerely for the evidence and advice you have brought to us today. It has been very helpful. You have seen the interest around the room in the work that you do and the writing and research you have done. We especially thank you for making effort to travel large distances to do this with us today. It’s great to see you in person. We’re grateful for that, and we wish you both safe travels home.
We will continue with our next panel. For this next hour, we have the pleasure of welcoming, both by video conference, Mr. Christian Leuprecht, Professor, Department of Political Science and Economics, Royal Military College of Canada; and Dr. Caillin Langmann, Assistant Program Director and Competence Committee Chair at the Department of Medicine, McMaster University. Thank you both for joining us today. We now invite you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. I remind you that you each have five minutes for your testimony and we will begin with Mr. Leuprecht.
[Translation]
Christian Leuprecht, Professor, Department of Political Science and Economics, Royal Military College of Canada, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to appear before the committee today.
[English]
I live and work in Kingston, which is situated on the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe, Huron-Wendat and Haudenosaunee peoples. I direct a large empirical research program on global illicit flows, I have published on firearms policy, and I’m a member of the Kingston Police Services Board, although I do not speak for the board. I do not have a firearms license or certificate.
The proposed legislation amounts to a creeping total ban on handguns. In effect, it replicates section 12(6.1) of the Firearms Act. Introduced by a previous Liberal government, this section prohibited previously restricted firearms with a barrel length of 105 millimetres or less that shoot certain types of calibres or ammunition. In April 2005, that amendment imposed a prohibition on firearms that had previously only been restricted, so we have a track record of its impact over the past 18.5 years. Firearms that fall under 12(6) can no longer be sold. They cannot even be passed down as an inheritance. This has had the following effect: It depressed the value of collector firearms, because there is no longer a market for these firearms, and it has amounted to imposing a slow-moving outright ban on firearms under 12(6.1).
The draft legislation before you applies the same logic to all handguns. In reality, it imposes an eventual ban on all private lawful ownership of handguns. Current owners will be grandfathered, but under this legislation handguns could no longer be acquired by or sold to individuals or inherited by a licensed heir. But what problem is this legislation meant to solve?
The data is unequivocal: Well over 90% of firearms seized in the commission of a crime or that are possessed unlawfully in Canada have been smuggled by organized crime from the United States. That should come as no surprise since Canada adjoins the largest and most permissive gun market in the world. Almost anyone can acquire an array of handguns at a U.S. gun show.
This Liberal government came to power claiming it would engage in evidence-based decision making. Instead, this bill amounts to decision-based evidence seeking. Show me the data that supports this bill. There is none.
Instead of being honest with Canadians and devising constructive policies that will actually curb the northbound torrent of crime guns from the United States, this bill constructs a false narrative against 4 million lawful, licensed and background-checked firearms owners. With the exception of sensible new powers in the case of intimate partner violence or CBSA, this bill will do just about nothing to curb the rampant gun crime in Canada. However, it does ensure that only criminals will possess handguns. This is hardly reassuring for a government that has made it largely impossible to hold criminals on bail, even after multiple breaches of conditions, free once again to re-victimize law-abiding citizens.
This legislation is a cynical ploy to polarize Canadian society by leveraging firearms as a wedge issue ahead of the next federal election. But that is par for the course for this government, with its robust track record of putting boutique electoral priorities ahead of the national interest.
In over 20 years of studying public safety and national security across democratic countries, I have never seen a bill with this great a disconnect between its supposed means and ends. Any parliamentarian who votes in favour of this bill is going on record as disdaining evidence, supporting derision, fanning polarization, encouraging disinformation and wasting scarce public resources on policy measures that missed their intended target. This bill does next to nothing to make the Canadian public any safer. It will neither solve nor prevent a single crime.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leuprecht.
Dr. Caillin Langmann, Assistant Clinical Professor, Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, McMaster University: Thank you for letting me present my research regarding Canadian firearms legislation and its association with homicides, spousal homicide, mass homicide and suicide in Canada.
I am an assistant professor of medicine and an emergency physician as well. I serve as an academic peer reviewer in the area of firearms control and have four peer-reviewed publications regarding legislation on the effects of homicide and suicide in Canada.
The relevance of my research regarding C-21: I demonstrated that previous bans in the 1990s of a large number of semi-automatic rifles and handguns had no effect on homicide or suicide rates. Since 2003, the number of owned restricted firearms has doubled from 572,000 to 1.2 million. However, the rate of overall firearm homicide has not increased, nor has the rate of homicide by handguns.
In the 1990s, legislation prohibited over 550,000 firearms, including military-style firearms and handguns. However, research has demonstrated that there was no statistically significant benefit on homicide, spousal homicide or mass homicide rates. Restrictions on magazine capacity in 1994 were not associated with decreases in homicide or mass homicide rates, and red flag laws in the 1990s also had no associated benefit in terms of spousal homicide rates.
Other jurisdictions, such as Australia and England, have also applied significant controls on handguns and semi-automatic rifles with no statistically significant changes in homicide rates. Studies from the United States examining assault weapon bans also reveal no significant benefit: Lowenthal 2016 and Siegel 2020 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 2020 used a similar quasi-experimental methodology as myself and did not find an association between assault weapon bans and mass homicide incidents or deaths. In summary, the evidence so far demonstrates that the proposed handgun and semi-automatic rifle bans will 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 firearms prevalence in criminal activity. As demonstrated by StatsCan, a significant percentage of firearms homicide involves gang violence — up to 50% that we know of. The evidence suggests that you need to act early to reduce youth involvement in gangs. A research report by Public Safety Canada in 2012 gathered evidence from programs operating in Canada to reduce youth gang participation and demonstrated beneficial effects in the ranges of 50% reduction in participation in gangs.
The likely billions of dollars spent to confiscate firearms from legal firearms owners would probably be better spent on youth diversion and gang reduction programs, as well as programs in terms of suicide reduction and women’s programs for leaving homes at risk. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Chair, I would also like to add that I’m not speaking as the director of the emergency medicine program here at McMaster University, and I don’t know how that got on the Senate information, but I am speaking as an assistant clinical professor of medicine at McMaster.
The Chair: Thanks very much for that clarification, Dr. Langmann, and thank you for your statement today.
Colleagues, we will now proceed to questions. We have to finish at 1:30 p.m. As with the last panel, we will limit each question, including the answer, to four minutes. Please keep questions succinct and identify the person to whom you’re addressing the question. For the first question, we turn to our deputy chair, Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My first question is for Dr. Langmann.
Dr. Langmann, Canadian politicians tend to bring in gun control measures in response to public pressure following high-profile incidents such as the Polytechnique massacre or the mass shooting in Nova Scotia.
In your research, you found that the decline in the rate of mass homicides involving a firearm in Canada over the past 50 years was definitely not attributable to gun control laws, the screening of firearms owners or restrictions on military firearms.
Do you think misguided laws are to blame, or is it impossible to significantly reduce this type of crime no matter what legislation the government passes?
[English]
Dr. Langmann: I would say that it’s probably multifactorial.
Number one, there is a high amount of substitution in terms of firearms acquisition. As my colleague mentioned, a lot of firearms are obtained from the United States or from illegal sources, and, more and more, we’re seeing them produced at home or in many factories illegally.
In terms of background checks and screening, there may be some work there in terms of making it more rigorous, and that includes ensuring that it’s actually being done. It may be that some people are slipping through because their background references are not checked. There is no way of performing studies in that regard, as that kind of data is unavailable. That may be an area of focus, though it’s probable that there will be no benefit in regard to that as people can simply choose a reference or lie on their application, if they need to.
It’s very difficult to predict who is going to commit an illegal act. You can use some background behaviour as a prediction, but I do psychiatry all the time, and even predicting this is extremely difficult. There are no models to use. There are no clinical decision tools to use that will accurately predict this.
The best we can probably use are the already existing prohibitions on ownership, and the question is whether those are actually followed up on by the people placing the restrictions. Are probation officers following up on these prohibitions? It is going to be very difficult to follow up on that, of course. That’s probably where you could get most of your benefit.
The other place you can probably get most of your benefit is by reducing the number of youths that are getting involved in gangs early on, before they get deeply involved and you’re unable to get them out of that situation and they are using these firearms to commit these types of crimes.
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt. We have to move on.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My question is for Mr. Leuprecht.
You made a rather blunt statement at the beginning of your presentation — the bill basically hides the government’s true intention, which is a creeping total ban on handguns in Canada.
I agree, but could you explain your rationale?
Mr. Leuprecht: This is my rationale. The amendments to section 12, which came into force in 2005, sought to prohibit certain types of firearms over time. Building on that logic and approach, this measure will lead to a ban on firearms and firearms possession over time. You won’t have the right to even inherit a firearm. If this bill is passed, within a certain period of time, these firearms will be banned.
Senator Boisvenu: Dr. Langmann, you said that none of the measures taken by Canada in the past 30 years had reduced homicide rates at all. The gun registry introduced in 1995 is one measure that comes to mind. As I mentioned earlier, homicide rates dropped more without the registry than with it. The government is about to spend $1 billion, on top of the $2 billion it spent in 1995 to no avail. Will the government’s $1-billioninvestment to buy firearms be largely to blame for the concentration of firearms in the hands of criminals in Canada?
[English]
Dr. Langmann: I’m not sure about the translation, but the $1 billion spent will not go towards reducing any homicides or suicides in this country that will be measurable. It’s not just my research that demonstrates that. It’s research from Australia as well. Australia went through a process where they banned a significant number of firearms — 600,000 semi-automatic guns and pistols — and they saw, in all the studies, that it has shown no benefit in terms of reductions in terms of overall suicide rates and homicide.
I think that $1 billion would be better spent on programs that will have a benefit. I mentioned one of those, which is targeting youth at risk. It may also benefit in terms of getting help for people with suicidal ideation. This is something I see every day as an emergency physician. I see people coming in with suicidal ideation from issues they have in terms of depression, and it’s extremely difficult to get them help. We look at wait times of over six months for some people. We have a shortage of physicians who are working in this area. I would strongly suggest that the government does a redirect and looks at those areas instead of confiscating firearms from people who are generally safe in the first place. They are screened already and have a very low risk of criminal behaviour.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you, Dr. Langmann.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today with two very important perspectives.
I am thinking about that joint letter that was referred to earlier this afternoon. In that letter, you expressed concerns around variants and suggested that we consider enshrining a definition in law using the definition proposed by Bill C-230, that a variant in respect of a firearm means firearm that has an unmodified frame or receiver of another firearm. I had a look at this bill and the debates in the House where it was defeated in an earlier Parliament. Some of the concerns around defining a variant through legislation were that it could actually end up resulting in reclassifying thousands of firearms and that many firearms would move unnecessarily from their present classification to a more controlled class. In other cases, it could put more dangerous guns on the market. I’m wondering why, in fact, through this letter you do not share these concerns.
Dr. Langmann: Who are you addressing your question to?
Senator M. Deacon: Both of you. If you would like to go ahead first, sir, that would be great.
Dr. Langmann: In terms of firearm variants, this is an extremely difficult area to determine, to classify a firearm. You have three types of firearms. Basically, you have an automatic firearm; a semi-automatic firearm, which reloads itself after a single pull of the trigger; and you have manual-action firearms like a bolt-action rifle. Bolt-action rifles are prevalent in this country and are probably the most powerful firearm available. They are not being looked at being restricted at this point. As an emergency physician, they are important to me because they fire a projectile travelling at a very high speed, and it often does more damage than a projectile fired from a handgun or even most semi-automatic rifles, which tend to use smaller calibres.
For me, it’s rather irrelevant. All firearms are dangerous. I don’t see one particular type of firearm any more dangerous than another. As I said to you already, other studies, such as Blau et al., showed that shotguns are associated with a higher rate of victims in terms of mass shootings than other types of firearms, as handguns can be.
It’s an area of semantics, and it’s relatively an area of irrelevance. You’re talking about technical details, whether someone with any skills could modify these firearms and change it from one category to another. We have seen firearms that have absolutely no mechanisms that function as fully automatic being classified as fully automatic. We have firearms that have no mechanisms that function the same as AR-15s that are being classified the same as AR-15s. You’re arguing over tiny little details when the really important stuff is going unnoticed.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses.
Professor Christian Leuprecht, you have made a powerful statement. For licensed people who own a gun in their house, it curbs nothing on the handgun. I am wondering what happens. If this bill is passed, what happens to the value of the gun, and how can you get rid of it? Can you still sell it to someone, or can you sell it overseas? Who is going to bear the loss of the value of this property? Can you tell us that?
Mr. Leuprecht: It will have the same effect that 12(6) had, which is it will vastly diminish the value of any of these firearms because the transactions will effectively be prohibited. You have essentially reduced the market for these firearms. There are many collectors, for instance, of handguns that would be captured under this that, for instance, have significant value. That is one consideration to keep in mind.
Senator Oh: Can you say to the government, “You buy all my property, all my collection”?
Mr. Leuprecht: Well, I suppose government could try to put a value on this, but as with many things that people collect, they collect them not primarily for the value that a collection has but because people collect things for sentimental and a whole host of other reasons. You are essentially telling people that because they like particular types of firearms, many of which are never actually even fired because they are too old and precious, they have to give them up and can’t collect these anymore because we don’t value what you cherish in terms of collecting. Do we do this in other areas where people collect mementos?
Senator Oh: Yes. Do you believe that the government should put more funds and money into youth gang violence and make better laws and do more enforcement on gang violence?
Mr. Leuprecht: It turns out, senator, today my new book with the University of Michigan Press on the Canada-U.S. border is being published: Security. Cooperation. Governance. There are many opportunities here for us to work very closely with our colleagues in the United States. In many cases, ATF is our closest partner in identifying key sourcing of firearms into Canada.
A lot of guns are around culture. Essentially, this is what the legislation is about. The legislation says that we don’t want any sort of a culture associated with guns in Canada. In the same way, we can put money into reducing the gun culture in certain subcommunities within Canada where simply owning a gun, or what is known as packing, is simply part of the culture.
Senator Oh: I have seen a CBC documentary where people are walking across the Quebec border between the U.S. and Canada with bags full of handguns. Do you think we should tighten up more on the border crossings?
Mr. Leuprecht: Given the length of the border, any enforcement at the border is not going to be particularly useful. We ultimately need intelligence. We need to reduce the demand side within this country, particularly in communities that are at high-risk, such as those communities that gravitate towards gangs. I don’t think we should be putting more money into enforcement at the actual border, but I think significant opportunities exist for intelligence cooperation, in particular with our partners in the United States, that are not actively being harnessed.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: This question is to Dr. Langmann. I apologize that it’s quite long and complicated. I’m going to read it because it’s about precision and research.
As you are aware, a recent Ontario study has shown that two thirds of firearm-related deaths are from suicide and that 70% of all gun-related deaths Canada are suicides. Clearly, this is not from criminal activity. From 2016 to 2020, about 2,700 men in Canada died from firearm suicide. A prospective U.S. study of 26 million people showed that males who owned handguns were 8 times more likely to die by suicide; females, 35 times more likely. Public health axiom is having access to lethal means as the primary cause for death by suicide.
Harvard University School of Public Health, in their summary of evidence, disagrees with your testimony:
… states with more key firearm laws had fewer firearm homicides and fewer firearms suicides, after controlling for poverty, unemployment, education, race and non-firearm violence-related deaths.
That’s like hanging, for example.
They noted:
Some gun policy evaluations are designed to ensure that no effect will be found.
They also noted that “the results of a flawed study should not affect policy. ”
The Rand Institute report What Science Tells Us About the Effects of Gun Policies of January 2023 noted that different types of legislation had different types of effects. They stated:
The absence of evidence about a law can result from the law not having been studied or studied well …
They further noted that poor methodology results in erroneous conclusions.
In your brief, you stated that your conclusions were “based on sound statistical analysis and information.”
I read your PLOS ONE paper, “Effect of firearms legislation on suicide and homicide in Canada from 1981 to 2016,” which your testimony is based upon. Because I didn’t want to review it myself for the committee, I asked experts to review it for me. This is what they said in part. There were numerous problems with the methodology. I’ll just cite some of them. The application of the statistical difference in difference methodology is improperly applied. Another was that the parallel transassumption that you use is not met in the dataset. Another was that the state of unit treatment value assumption is also violated.
They do point out — and senators will see this because I will circulate this information to them — in figure one in your paper, that you show a clear decrease in suicide by firearms for both males and females from 1980 to 2016. Also in your paper, in figure 2, you show a clear decrease in homicide by firearms for both females and males. They say:
The conclusion that increased firearm legislation does not decrease suicide nor homicide is not supported by the evidence presented by the author.
They then say:
The trends don’t lie, but the author engaged in complex analyses and questionable assumptions to build a model to arrive at his desired conclusion.
Could you respond to these concerns?
Dr. Langmann: There are two different things. Number one, there is no effect on homicide rates in terms of the legislation that’s been passed. I invite you to come and talk to me either by phone or by e-mail and discuss these issues. You are presenting something that I can’t really respond to because I haven’t seen it. However, it’s not just me that shows that the legislation has had no beneficial effect. I submitted a brief looking at other Canadian studies which also show the same thing as I did. When you use the highest-quality methodology — my studies have been included in a Canadian Medical Association Journal analysis and rated as the highest quality studies above all the other studies that have been done on this country. When you look at those studies, there is no association using time-series analysis in terms of homicide reduction and firearms legislation. Now, why do we use —
The Chair: I’m sorry to interrupt. I have given you an extra piece of time to respond. If you want to come back to this later, we can, but we have to move on.
Dr. Langmann: Mr. Chair, basically, I have just been slurred, and I can’t respond.
The Chair: Well, you may have an opportunity to do that with subsequent questions, but we have to move on.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: My question is for Mr. Leuprecht. You said in your opening statement that about 90% of the firearms seized in Canada came from the United States. Bill C-21 misses the mark by focusing on the situation in Canada, not what’s happening south of the border. What measures or provisions could remedy that? Do you have any solutions or recommendations to propose?
That’s my first question. In other words, what can we do to improve Bill C-21 to address this problem?
Mr. Leuprecht: Thank you for your question. It’s an important one. We all want to reduce the harm caused by the use of firearms, including the issue that was just raised, but a bill can’t reduce the current harm. As for the situation south of the border, the individual dynamics of suicide can’t be addressed through laws. Strong policy and a strong investment in available resources will fix the problem.
I think that better co-operation with the RCMP, in particular, and a federal intelligence agency with more firearms capacity would do a lot more to curb the serious problem caused by individuals, groups and even gun dealers, which I have documented extensively in my research and articles. That would be more effective than going after legal gun owners.
I fear this bill will lead to even greater division and polarization among the public, and cause a segment of the population that already has significant reservations about the federal government to question the credibility of our democratic institutions. I especially fear the bill will be weaponized to challenge the credibility of not just the federal government, but also institutions like our intelligence agencies, law enforcement and police. If we consider the RCMP’s experience with firearms, I think investing in reforming the RCMP would be a lot more effective than this bill.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for that response.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
Dr. Langmann, I’m not sure if any of your research and data might shed light on the question I’m about to ask, but I want to ask whether your research says anything about stolen legal handguns. I read a statistic that almost 9,000 handguns were stolen between 2001 and 2006, most of which were never recovered. Does your research have any indication where these guns might have ended up in Canadian society?
Dr. Langmann: That’s an extremely difficult question since we don’t really have all that data. A lot of those firearms are missing.
The question is, has the legislation that has been presented in the past — and is similar to the legislation going forwards — reduced firearms homicide in any way, or spousal homicide, or even mass homicide? The answer is no. The restrictions on the ownership of semi-automatic firearms, many of which were banned in the 1990s, and the restriction on the ownership of certain handguns, many banned in the 1990s, had no beneficial association in terms of firearm homicide. The current legislation is proposing the same sort of ban. I don’t see how that’s going to have an effect going forward.
Senator Yussuff: My question wasn’t about homicide. I just wanted to know if you had any data regarding where these stolen handguns may have ended up.
I have one quick follow-up, Dr. Langmann. In regard to Bill C-21, are there any provisions in the bill that you see worthy of public policy in regard to its objective?
Dr. Langmann: Perhaps only the legislation about so-called ghost guns.
I don’t think that there is anything in this legislation that’s going to have any benefit. The red flag laws, which I use myself occasionally — out of all the people that you have had present here, I’m probably one of the only people who actually uses this legislation as an emergency physician. I see this all the time. Currently, the legislation as exists is easy to use. There may be a benefit to inserting into the legislation some protection for physicians, nurses or health care workers that report a patient. However, the red flag laws, in my studies, show no benefit. It was studied by Dr. Wintermute in California, and their red flag laws have shown no benefit either.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: I want to add to the condolences to the family of Senator Ian Shugart. In addition to being a colleague in the Senate, he served Canada with distinction as a senior public servant, which is where I first met him at HRSDC. Clearly, we have lost a stellar public servant today.
My question is for either of our witnesses. I hear your strong objection to the bill. This is partly following up on Senator Yussuff’s question. Are there any parts of the legislation that you feel are useful, especially in regard to intimate partner violence? It is a problem that continues to grow even though we have become so much more aware of it and are willing to talk about it in recent years and decades. We don’t seem able to get a real handle on it or reduce it substantially. Are there any parts of this you feel assist in that area?
Mr. Leuprecht: This is a very important topic. Of course, I’m not aware of all the submissions that might have been made, but I am not aware of a police service in this country that is asking for this legislation in order to reduce intimate partner violence. Intimate partner violence is a serious problem, but when it comes to firearms, as the previous panel already went through, the instruments at the disposal of law enforcement are already plentiful and seem to be working just fine. I would say that if you want to reduce intimate partner violence, maybe we should be looking at the loosening of bail restrictions and people coming to reoffend on previous victims. That might have a much greater impact than having these superficial conversations abouthow we could tweak the mechanics of firearms legislation and, in the process, demonize four million law-abiding Canadians.
Senator Cardozo: I don’t think you meant to say that the current situation works just fine.
Dr. Langmann: The issue is that firearms are used in less than 1% of intimate partner violence. The partner who is at risk faces the biggest danger at the time they are about to leave. In terms of what I see on the ground, we have a very low and limited supply of women’s shelters and places for people to go.
The second issue, as my colleague mentioned, is what is being done about people who have weapons prohibitions. It is very easy for the police to confiscate these firearms. I see it happen. I’ve called it in myself to the CFO. But what is actually being done to ensure that someone is not going out and acquiring weapons or stalking that person?
You may want to look at actual on-the-ground approaches to what you can do rather than these high-minded legislations that mostly are going to affect people who have already had a background screen. You are talking about a population in Canada that has been background screened and has a very low risk of violence. You are trying to squeak out a little benefit in that group, and you are not focusing on the group that is causing the problem, who are already prohibited from owning firearms and having a firearms licence. Yes, every now and then there is a rare event that happens where a firearm owner does commit a crime, but it is extremely difficult to predict and is extremely rare.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have a few questions for Mr. Leuprecht.
Mr. Leuprecht, I’d like to hear what you think, good or bad, about the provisions in Bill C-21. Don’t we really need legislation or investments in police capacity to combat illegal firearms? I don’t think Bill C-21 will deter organized crime in any way.
Mr. Leuprecht: Thank you, Senator Dagenais. In response to Senator Cardozo’s question, I just want to clarify that the tools currently available to law enforcement seem to be working in terms of meeting the objectives. However, when it comes to the consequences my fellow witness mentioned, the federal government could invest in a number of options to keep the public safe.
As for Bill C-21, Senator Dagenais, the presence of the RCMP, especially in Ontario and Quebec, seems to be missing on the gun control front. There is a major gap when it comes to the border, including for firearms. The Sûreté du Québec and the Ontario Provincial Police do all the work, since the RCMP is virtually absent. Those are the two most populous provinces and the closest to big American cities where it’s easy for people to access weapons and bring them in.
Having the RCMP systematically involved in coordinating intelligence would be helpful. Provincial police can only do so much. They can work with U.S. state police, but not with their federal counterparts. The RCMP should play a much larger role when it comes to Ontario and Quebec, especially, and the major cities in those provinces. That would yield more results than the discussion we’re having about Bill C-21.
Senator Boisvenu: My question is for Mr. Leuprecht as well.
Yesterday, Quebec’s public security minister, Mr. Bonnardel, announced that the government was investing $28 million in Quebec’s prisons to combat the plague of drones. He called the Bordeaux prison Montreal’s second airport. That says it all.
For eight years, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has been calling for effective and reliable tools to keep illegal weapons out of penitentiaries, and now the government is about to spend $1 billion to buy legal weapons. Wouldn’t you say the government has its priorities all wrong?
Mr. Leuprecht: As you know, honourable senators, the current government is dealing with a very difficult fiscal situation, so it needs to proceed carefully when investing public funds. It seems to me the government could find more productive and cost-effective ways to spend that $1 billion — measures that would have a much greater impact than buying firearms from legal gun owners in Canada.
[English]
Senator Dasko: I will follow up on the comments in response to Senator Cardozo’s question about domestic violence and the comment that was made about police not requesting the provisions under the red flag laws in Bill C-21. Both witnesses, certainly, should be aware — or you might be aware — of many cases that we hear about where police disregard warnings and allow individuals to keep their guns, despite clear risk factors that are known to police, including cases where the perpetrator might be subject to a restraining order. I would suggest that this is why gun control advocates want less discretion on the part of police and are looking for the type of measures that we see in Bill C-21. I would appreciate comments from either of the witnesses about that. Thank you.
Mr. Leuprecht: Senator Dasko, as a member of a police services board, let me say that this government has already downloaded significant costs in terms of public safety onto local communities. You can look at the police budget in Kingston just to help us keep doing what the Kingston Police is doing. This legislation will impose further requirements that effectively are being paid for by local communities with relatively little effect, and the reason our police forces cannot achieve the objectives that you have laid out is because our police services are already overstretched, overtasked and underfunded for what we are expecting them to do.
If the government is prepared to also provide a cost equalization to the provinces to ensure that the costs on justice decisions, such as this bill, are being properly capitalized by provinces so that local municipalities can recover these costs from the federal government, then I’m happy, senator, for you to support any law that you choose, provided my community does not have to pay for it out of our local tax dollars.
Senator Dasko: So you don’t disagree with the premise of my question, then; correct?
Mr. Leuprecht: We live in a democracy, and you have the right to decide.
Senator Dasko: No, in terms of the fact that there are many cases where police disregard the warnings and do not take action. I would understand that you are agreeing with the premise, and you are pointing to, perhaps, a reason why they don’t. But you do agree, then, with what I’m suggesting?
Mr. Leuprecht: Why don’t we ask the Canadian chiefs of police whether they would agree with the assertion that you are making and whether they believe that the proposition that you have put forward is an effective measure to deal with the particular challenges faced around these particular circumstances?
I would submit that this is, perhaps, not the appropriate instrument and to impose yet further expectations on police and to demonize police for not applying legislation that they have, Senator Dasko — all the police officers that I know do their absolute best every day under the most difficult circumstances, and this government has made it more difficult for them to do their job. To say that police are not doing their job is not acceptable, Senator Dasko.
Senator Dasko: I am not demonizing police. Thank you.
The Chair: We will leave it at that. Colleagues, this brings us to the end of our panel.
I would like to extend our sincere thanks to Mr. Leuprecht and Dr. Langmann. We greatly appreciate your contributions here today. This is an important issue, and you have helped us considerably as we move forward. Thank you for that. We wish you both well, and we appreciate your work.
Colleagues, before we adjourn, I would like to turn your attention to the most recent report of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs that we discussed at last Monday’s meeting. You should have all received a revised copy. Taking that into consideration, with the version before you, are you prepared to adopt the report?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the interim report of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs be adopted in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the chair be authorized to table the report in the Senate or with the Clerk of the Senate in both official languages at the earliest opportunity and to request a complete and detailed response from the government?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Is it agreed that 24 hours prior to the release of the report, the report will be provided to targeted reporters under embargo?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Colleagues, thank you. That brings us to end of today’s meeting.
We will continue our examination of this bill on Monday, October 30, at 3 p.m. EST in Room C128. Thank you again for your participation. I wish you all a good afternoon in these very difficult circumstances today.
(The committee adjourned.)