THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 1, 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).
Senator Tony Dean (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting on Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I’m Tony Dean, representing the province of Ontario, the chair of the committee. I’m joined today by my fellow committee members who I ask to introduce themselves, beginning with Senator Dasko.
Senator Dasko: Senator Donna Dasko and I’m a senator from Ontario.
Senator Oh: Senator Oh from Ontario.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishnaabe. Welcome.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator R. Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you. To my left is the clerk of our committee, 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).
I’m going to start by saying that during this meeting we are going to be discussing topics related to gun violence. This might be disturbing to some people in the room as well as some who are watching and listening at home. If you require support, there are services available 24-7, toll-free through Wellness Together Canada. The phone number to call is 1-866-585-0445. Senators and parliamentary employees are also reminded that the Senate’s Employee and Family Assistance Program is available to them and offers short-term counselling for both short-term and work-related concerns as well as crisis counselling.
Today we are going to hear from two panels of anti-violence and women’s organizations. In our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming by video conference Suzanne Zaccour, Director, Legal Affairs, National Association of Women and the Law. With us in the room today, from PolyRemembers, PolySeSouvient, Heidi Rathjen, Coordinator, and Nathalie Provost, Spokesperson. From the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, Boufeldja Benabdallah, Spokesman of the Quebec City mosque, CCIQ.
Thank you all for joining us today. We invite you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members and I remind you that you each have five minutes for your testimony. We start today with Ms. Suzanne Zaccour. Please begin when you are ready.
Suzanne Zaccour, Director, Legal Affairs, National Association of Women and the Law: Thank you. I’m here for the National Association of Women and the Law, NAWL, and to speak for victims who are threatened, intimidated, controlled, terrorized and even killed through the use of firearms.
I’m here for the women for whom Bill C-21 will help clear a path to safety. We have been advocating for laws to better protect women’s rights for the last 50 years. We studied this bill closely, provided input to the House of Commons committee and collaborated with other women’s rights organizations. We are grateful for the opportunity to share our thoughts with the honourable members of this committee.
Thanks to this bill, chief firearms officers, also known as CFOs, will have to promptly revoke licences in situations of domestic violence and people subject to protection orders will immediately become ineligible to have a firearms licence for the duration of the order. We are happy to report that the House of Commons committee adopted virtually all the proposals listed in our brief to improve the domestic violence provisions in this bill. Yet, some commentators will have you believe that this bill will not protect women because it focuses on, “law-abiding citizens.”
There is a rhetoric that if someone has been background checked, they are not a threat; that if someone is a legal gun owner, they are not violent; that the problem is only gangs, street violence and loose borders. That’s a dangerous rhetoric. Domestic violence is not exceptional. Unfortunately, abusers don’t walk around with “I’m violent,” written on their forehead. The idea that people who appear law-abiding, who pass a background check or have a particular hobby cannot be abusers is a domestic violence myth.
I hope the honourable senators will be impervious to sexist myths and will base their analysis on what the violence against women experts are saying.
Over 30 feminist organizations endorse our briefs or our women for gun control coalition. We believe in this bill and we want it passed. But we fear losing it due to harmful rhetoric that attempts to trivialize women’s safety concerns by suggesting that it’s a consideration that should somehow receive the same weight as or even less weight than not being able to participate in a particular re-enactment with a real working weapon or having to alter a collectible or one’s hobby losing in popularity or shooting clubs making less profit.
Before the House, we supported conditional licences for people who, despite having committed domestic violence, would be allowed continued access to firearms for their subsistence. Subsistence in the face of hunger and safety in the face of violence are two important concerns. But the same cannot be said of some of the supposedly dramatic consequences that you have been hearing about. Hobbies and enjoyment are important, but recreation can never trump safety.
So far, conversations about this bill have been insufficiently focused on women. Women’s groups were under-represented as witnesses before the House of Commons. Thankfully, this committee has seen fit to invite more experts to speak on violence against women, and some of the honourable senators have chosen to direct witnesses’ attention to this issue when it’s been ignored.
It is your job to listen to all viewpoints, but you don’t have to give them all the same weight. For the population I represent here today, the stakes are high, the interests are serious and legitimate and the time for action is now. So please don’t let women become an afterthought. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Zaccour.
We’re going to hear from representatives from PolySeSouvient, and I understand that Ms. Provost will deliver the opening remarks today. We invite you to begin whenever you are ready.
[Translation]
Nathalie Provost, Spokesperson, PolyRemembers: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and all the committee members, for inviting us to appear before you today.
[English]
Due to time limitations, I will deliver my remarks in English and deliver them in French outside the room afterwards.
Since the mass shooting at École Polytechnique on December 16, 1989, where 14 women were murdered and 14 more women and men were injured, I have travelled to Ottawa more times than I can count to meet with ministers, MPs, senators, and bureaucrats and to testify before committees like this one today. I have done this as the spokesperson for PolySeSouvient, a volunteer-based, gun control, advocacy organization, founded by witnesses, survivors and families of victims of the femicide at my school. Because I was shot four times that night, I am a survivor of this mass shooting.
I am sure every senator in this room shares our goals. We seek to prevent more homicides, suicides, threats, femicides and injuries caused by guns. We especially want to ensure that no one else has to grieve the violent murder of their mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, husband, wife, classmate or colleague. Yet, 34 years have passed since my blood mingled with that of my classmates as they died at my side, and during those years, there have been many more mass shootings.
In Moncton, in 2014, where three RCMP officers were murdered and two were injured; in Penticton, B.C., in 2015, where four people were murdered; in Fredericton, in 2018, where two police and two civilians were murdered; in Vaughan, Ontario, in 2022, in a condo complex were five were murdered and one was injured. These are only a few examples, and they are in addition to the one at the Quebec mosque as well as those mentioned by previous witnesses related to the Danforth shooting, the Portapique massacre and the school shooting at Dawson College. In fact, nothing has really changed in a tangible way with respect to legal access to weapons and accessories designed for maximum casualties, which should be banned. Nothing has really changed.
This sad situation underlies the predictability of future mass shootings unless something is done, and today we urge you to pass Bill C-21 without amendments as quickly as possible. It is a good bill. It is not perfect and not complete, but it freezes handgun sales and helps protect women from domestic murders. It will save lives.
However, we urge you to advocate for the government to proceed rapidly with new regulations to ban existing assault-style weapons, namely, the hundreds of models that were arbitrarily exempted under the 2020 prohibitions. Third, we urge to advocate to strengthen the regulations on magazines in order to eliminate all loopholes and exemptions that allow them to hold more than five rounds.
Finally, as you work to fulfill one of your greatest responsibilities, which is to protect the safety of the citizens you are nominated to represent, we hope you will consider the following: One, that countless surveys demonstrate that the majority of Canadians support the key measures in Bill C-21; two, that the Mass Casualty Commission in Nova Scotia recommended prohibiting all semi-automatic firearms that discharge centre-fire ammunition and that are designed to accept detachable magazines with capacities of more than five rounds, not only illusive future ones, and to limit magazine capacity to five rounds for all guns; three, that the claims and statistics coming from gun rights groups should never be taken at face value. Their twisting of the facts distorts the debate and their disinformation succeeded in thwarting an evergreen ban on assault weapons in the bill. Dig a little deeper, please, and most times you will find a very different set of facts.
Consider that your work today and in the coming weeks is nothing less than seeking to save lives. Please, remember Angie Sweeney and her three young children, ages six, seven and twelve, who were all shot and killed in a case of intimate partner violence just last week in Sault Ste. Marie. Among other things, this is what Bill C-21 is aiming to prevent. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Provost. Our third witness today on this panel is Boufeldja Benabdallah, Co-Founder and Spokesperson, Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City.
[Translation]
Boufeldja Benabdallah, Co-Founder and Spokesperson, Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dear senators and guests, we are always excited and somewhat bitter, or rather fearful, when we appear before parliamentary committees, as we have done about ten times already, in order to make our case and convince all of you that those weapons circulating in the population should be banned forever, to bring safety and joy to our society. Our children’s lives are at stake. We see bullets flying just about everywhere and so-called failed shots hitting school-aged children.
I am a child of war born in Algeria. When I was young, soldiers came in our house and beat up our parents in front of me. They did not come in with sticks but with guns. I saw what a gun can do in the hands of a soldier. He feels a titanic strength and absolute power with a weapon in his hands. That is exactly what gun, war weapon and handgun lobbyists are looking for. When people hold a weapon, they feel strong. We say, “Do not feel strong, because weapons take lives.”
This bill is attracting a lot of attention in our community. We want the bill to pass.
In Quebec City, I am also a member of the advisory board for inclusivity, and I talk to people. I tell them that the government and the senators are looking at a bill, and we are part of that process too. Everyone is happy with this approach. Nobody thinks that we should sit on the sidelines. It will soon be seven years since the tragedy at the Quebec City mosque, but the wound has yet to heal. Today, I am not here to lament but to appeal to you in a positive way, from the bottom of my heart.
I am pleased to say, Mr. Chair, that we are once again before you and we are pleased to see that Bill C-21 contains provisions for a freeze on handguns. That is a step forward. We would like to see these weapons banned, but the bill is nevertheless acceptable to us. We are pleased such progress. We want this bill to prevent the proliferation of weapons.
We must not fail society. People want the bill to be passed. Today I am not going to speak from a technical point of view. My friends here can do that. I am here to make a heartfelt appeal. Let us not betray the hopes of our fellow citizens. The passage of the bill will make them feel like they live in a unique country, where safety exists, where children, adults, workers come and go without having to fear for their lives.
Do not send Bill C-21 back to the House of Commons for further debate. Please adopt it. You only have one small step to take.
We know that this bill does not include assault weapons. We have advocated for the banning of assault weapons, but we have also learned that regulations will limit the use of these weapons. We are not against such regulations. We are waiting for the minister to go ahead and make regulations that will properly restrict assault weapons.
In closing, Mr. Chair, today is all about an appeal from the bottom of our hearts, not about discussing the technical aspects or the statistics, because I think you already have tons of that.
All I would like to say to you, honourable senators, is that you represent our hope. You are the hope of the people, for millions of Canadians. One also has to be a philosopher in life. Wisdom is needed. So we appeal to your wisdom, to gratitude, because we know you have this country at heart. I would even say that you would take a historical step for Canada, security-wise, by passing this legislation. I hope you do. Future generations will always remember you and thank you. However, I am a little selfish and I want to be the first one to thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you so much, Mr. Benabdallah.
Colleagues, we’ll do our best to allow each member to ask a question. We will allot four minutes per question, including the answer, and I will hold up this card to indicate that 30 seconds remain in your time. I ask that you keep your questions succinct and to identify the witness whom you are addressing.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for being with us and for sharing those challenging and difficult stories. It’s not easy.
I have two questions, one for PolySeSouvient and one for Ms. Zaccour, and I’ll ask them consecutively. Ms. Zaccour, if we don’t have time to hear from you, a written response would be appreciated.
For my first question, in previous witness testimony, we heard about substantial amounts of disinformation being spread about gun violence and gun ownership, much of which seems to mirror similar rhetoric from the United States. I have recently received many letters and e-mails urging me to view a Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights video, which I did, and I could not help but notice the images that evoked the myth of the American frontier. Have you seen that video? If so, what are your thoughts about it?
Ms. Zaccour, thank you for drawing our attention to the logical fallacy of false moral equivalencies that we hear in the rhetoric on this bill. A study just published in the journal, Epidemiology, once again confirmed the validity of your remarks:
We find strong, consistent evidence supporting the hypothesis that restrictive state gun policies reduce overall gun deaths, homicides committed with a gun, and suicides committed with a gun.
Could you please comment on the disinformation that you have seen that denies that relationship?
Heidi Rathjen, Coordinator, PolyRemembers: Thank you, senator. I have seen the video, and I think three main points strike me in terms of what disinformation or difference of opinion it contains.
The representative of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, or CCFR, says, for example, that the freeze on handguns renders current handguns worthless because at the end of one’s life, one can’t leave it to be inherited by kids, and so it eliminates the monetary worth of all these weapons. Our opinion is that the value of handguns for people who purchase handguns is not in their resale value, it’s in their use. To demonstrate that, we can look at the number of handguns that were purchased in the three months following the announcement of the freeze. About 200,000 handguns were purchased in a matter of three months, knowing that the freeze would be in effect. People wouldn’t have purchased them had they shared the opinion that they would be worthless after the freeze.
Another point was when they said that a freeze on handguns, because it affects the legal market, would have no impact on handgun-related crime and homicide. That’s just not true. There have been a number of cases where legal gun owners have used their handguns to shoot and kill people, including mass shootings and including owners who were members of gun clubs. Alexandre Bissonnette, who was the author of the mosque shooting, was a member of a gun club, and he used a legal Glock and five 10-round magazines to commit his crime. There have been many others, including the Dawson shooter and the Concordia University shooter.
The third point used all these clips from police representatives who were talking about the sources of crime guns. The gun lobby says that 99% or 90% — it’s always a high number — of crime guns are illegally sourced through the United States and smuggled into Canada. That’s just not true. What a lot of these police chiefs were saying is that many guns that are used in crime are stolen, so they are illegally acquired. For example, on the Prairies, most of the crime guns are long guns, and most of those are stolen from legal gun owners. We don’t have comprehensive —
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, Ms. Rathjen. We must move on. We have a number of senators in the lineup, and we are over time.
Senator M. Deacon: I have a question that I will direct to Ms. Zaccour, but Ms. Rathjen, did you want to finish the last sentence of Senator Kutcher’s question? Would you like to do that?
Ms. Rathjen: Sure, thank you. For sure, the gun lobby often cites that 90% or 86% of crime guns are smuggled from the United States. That’s true for handguns in Toronto, but it’s not true for all of Canada. We don’t have comprehensive data for all of Canada, but what we do have is RCMP numbers. They gave an answer to such a question before the House of Commons committee, and they said that about 70% of crime guns that are traced are domestically sourced. And that’s 60% for handguns.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that.
Welcome to all of you today. We all around the table have great empathy for your fatigue on this topic and for your continued work to try to get this right. We do appreciate all of you being here today.
Ms. Zaccour, in your submission — in the brief you presented — you mentioned that you do not agree with the red flag laws, stating that it puts the guns on the onus of the victim. However, in your input, you also said that the bill needs to be passed as quickly as possible. My question is this: Am I right to assume that you don’t want the red flag law provisions removed or changed in this bill if it means delaying its passage, since we would have to send it back to the house? I’ll ask that question first and then come back.
Ms. Zaccour: Thank you for the question. That’s correct. We believe that for most women, it will be much easier to get a protection order that will trigger loss of licence rather than going through the courts and through this red flag ex parte measure, which will be exceptional and hard to access. However, after 16 months of study of this bill and the way it went in the House of Commons, our recommendation is to adopt the bill without amendments even though we think this measure will be less effective than the yellow flags, a change we proposed to the House of Commons.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. With that in mind, then, you also mentioned that a violent spouse could reapply for a licence shortly after losing it and retaliate, frankly, against their partner or ex-partner. For example, a person could become ineligible to hold a licence for a month due to a 30-day protection order and apply for a new licence on that thirty-first day. Is this a reference to the 30-day period in that proposed red flag law? How does that system currently work if police or a chief firearms officer makes the application? What is the timeline there?
Ms. Zaccour: The comment you are referring to was more about the yellow flag. The ineligibility is for the duration of the protection order, and in some provinces, it’s common to have protection orders that last 30 days. That means that after the expiry, the person could reapply for a firearms licence. We hope that chief firearms officers will take this into account and take it seriously and not necessarily approve reapplications if the person is dangerous. That’s the issue we were alluding to.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses for being here. First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for all of you who are appearing here and my sympathies for the terrible events that you have experienced. I was very honoured to travel last year with the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights to the mosque, and I want to thank [Technical difficulties] for showing me around and telling me about what happened in the mosque.
My question is this: We may disagree on the impact of Bill C-21, but I want to get your thoughts about what has happened to the individual who murdered six innocent people and gravely wounded five others in Quebec City? This individual would originally have been given a life sentence with no parole for 40 years for his horrific attack. However, our Supreme Court unjustly determined that the individual must be eligible for parole. So it struck down this sentence, which was actually already on the lenient side, given what this individual did. In my view, this decision sends the completely wrong message about how seriously we as a society should take a crime like this, which not only involved the murder of six people but was an attack on a house of worship. I would like to ask our witnesses how concerned they are about this decision, which, to me, clearly demonstrates how broken our justice system is.
Bill C-21 is not going to stop illegal guns smuggled over the border. We have got to do something, otherwise Bill C-21 is not good enough. Can you express your view?
[Translation]
Mr. Benabdallah: Senator, thank you for your question, which picks up on the vast debate we have in our community and in Canada at large.
It is true that Canada gives offenders a chance, in the sense that anyone can be rehabilitated and start over.
We have said that justice must be uniform and exemplary. When Mr. Bissonnette was sentenced to life without parole for 40 years, as the first judge had decided, we thought that at least it was fair. However, I must say that when the Supreme Court overturned that decision, we were not happy, and not just for our community. We were not happy because it sends the wrong message to others who might want to take such action while counting on justice to favour rehabilitation.
We were very disappointed that no part of that judgment was meant for the affected families, the children, the 17 orphans and the wounded. One man is still in a wheelchair. He does not feel his body from the sternum down and he can use only one arm. That is why we hope for all these weapons to be put away, so that no such drama will impact society again. We do not want these weapons in the country anymore. We want people to be safe. We do not want such drama to occur again and again over time.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you so much, Mr. Benabdallah. We have completed the time for that question. Hopefully, we can get back to it later.
Senator Anderson: Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. My question is for Ms. Zaccour.
I note your association is classified as a national association. Upon reviewing your website, it is noted that there appears to be no direct representation from any of the three territories, the N.W.T., Nunavut and the Yukon. I also note that the letter you submitted to this committee in October is endorsed by 17 organizations, none of which are situated in any of the three territories.
Given the absence of clear representation from the three territories, can you elaborate on how your findings represent and are inclusive of any of the three territories and their realities? Thank you.
Ms. Zaccour: Thank you, senator, for your question.
We do not represent the viewpoint of the territories; they are, as you there, under-represented in our organization. We have worked to build partners in Yukon, in particular. We’re not a membership-based organization. We collaborate with various organizations that are either national in scope or regional, depending upon the issue.
Senator Anderson: Okay. Thank you.
In light of what you just said, you referred to guns as for hobbies and enjoyment. I am from the Arctic. I’m from Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories. I would like to say that hunting is a lifestyle for us. It’s subsistence hunting. It provides food security, it addresses high cost of living and it allows us to survive in our harsh environment.
Can you elaborate on what you based your opinion on when you spoke about guns as hobbies and enjoyment?
Ms. Zaccour: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my statement.
What I said is that there are two different levels of interest. In some cases, there is the use of firearms for subsistence, especially in Indigenous communities, which we supported by supporting the conditional exemption, which means allowing Indigenous people to have their firearms licence even in cases of domestic violence or other people who need it to sustain themselves and their family. This is something we were supportive of.
I invited the senators to see that these are important factors that can be considered, factored or balanced versus some of the witnesses who have come before the Senate and talked about shooting clubs making fewer profits, or them knowing someone who has a valuable collectible or who likes to do re-enactments and won’t be able to have a weapon or will have to alter it to be able to participate.
I invite senators to see the hierarchy of importance and needs. Someone who needs a firearm to survive has a valuable and important need. Someone whose life is at stake due to domestic violence — that’s a legitimate interest and important need. However, someone who comes to the Senate and says, “I use firearms for recreation; it’s my hobby,” as some witnesses have referred to these specific populations, those are still interests but they are less important.
That is the kind of testimony I was referring to.
Senator Anderson: Nakurmiik.
Senator Boehm: I’ll like to thank our witnesses for being here. My question is for Ms. Provost and is on the topic of a handgun ban impacting sport shooters.
One of the concerns that has been raised by various gun-control groups, including PolySeSouvient, is the potential for the Olympic exception to be used as a loophole by bad actors. Witnesses from whom we heard during Monday’s hearings referred to their feeling that this really comes down to an argument between a hobby and safe communities.
How would you weigh the valid concerns of sport shooters — there are many groups and clubs across the country — against the valid fears of victims and women’s groups?
[Translation]
Ms. Provost: I am going to ask my colleague Heidi to respond, because she has more details than I do.
[English]
Ms. Rathjen: Senator, 70% of Canadians want to ban all handguns; they want a total ban on all handguns. This is a freeze on handguns with an exception for Olympic competition, which includes coaches, athletes and so on for the Olympics.
Right now, if you want, most of the owners of handguns are target shooters. That’s the reason why they can have handguns. We want to ban handguns, so obviously that’s going to impact the sport that uses handguns. We fear that the Olympic exemption, because it doesn’t specify which guns or the type of guns — and in the bill, it only requires a letter from the shooting federation to the CFO — could be exploited by the handgun community to allow people who are not genuine Olympic athletes to claim they want to be. Good luck proving the difference between somebody who is genuinely involved and wants to become an Olympic handgun shooter compared to somebody who says they want to. You can’t tell the difference.
One of the gun groups, the B.C. chapter of the International Practical Shooting Confederation, which also wanted an exemption but didn’t get it at the level of the House, wrote in one of their bulletins that if they were to get an exemption like that, they would become the pathway to handgun ownership in Canada and they can expect a huge increase in membership.
The fear there is that this exemption will be exploited. That’s why we’re hoping that regulations will make tight restrictions on who will be exempted.
I think previous witnesses said that there were very few handgun athletes at the Olympics; there have been about an average of five per year over 30 years. In our opinion, it is not worth undermining the freeze on handguns to maintain that specific sport.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
Do you think we could learn something from other jurisdictions in countries where there are stricter laws but still have sport shooters?
Ms. Rathjen: I’m not familiar. I know in the U.K., they do have a handful of permits for elite Olympic sport shooters who use handguns. I don’t think that’s comparable to what we are potentially facing with the exemption that is in this bill.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. You mentioned the voices of women; that was mentioned earlier. I’m so pleased that we have had some extraordinary women testifying at this committee so far. Today is no exception.
I have two questions. The first one is for Ms. Provost. Mr. Leblanc was here last week. My question is with respect to the issue of assault weapons that are still out there. He commented with respect to his intentions going forward in terms of how to deal with it, such as setting up a council and so on. I would like to ask what your expectations are of that process. What are you looking for? What are you hoping to achieve from that process?
Second, Ms. Zaccour, I wonder if you could speculate on something for me. There was a court decision this past Monday regarding assault weapons. I wonder if you might provide your analysis of the importance of that and how it might impact Bill C-21. Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Provost: In short, we were very pleased with Mr. LeBlanc’s speech before you last week.
In our view, it was a response to the disappointment we had felt in May. Our first expectation is now that the current definition in the bill will be completed through regulations. However, we feel that the bill must be passed for Canada to move forward. We value the bill very much and we are pleased to see that there is understanding and support from the minister regarding the historic claims of PolyRemembers.
We are calling for a comprehensive definition that will address the gaps in the case of some weapons. At this time, given the 2020 Order in Council, a series of weapons are not recognized in spite of being assault-style weapons available on the market right now. This is unfortunate. The issue has not been fully resolved.
There is also the whole issue of high-capacity magazines, which is fundamental. As we said in our testimony, there are still too many loopholes. It is very important to make it impossible to obtain high-capacity magazines for all types of weapons. Hunters would not suffer any prejudice, and it would be an important step forward.
[English]
Ms. Rathjen: To complete the intent expressed by the minister to do a second order-in-council to complete those from 2020, we welcome that intent. Of course, we have to see it happen. But what is relevant to Bill C-21 is that it will reverse previous measures implemented under the Harper Government that allow the cabinet or the minister to reverse prohibitions. So, Bill C-21, once passed, will protect the orders-in-council, in the sense that a government, unless it goes through legislation — so a vote in the House and in the Senate — won’t be able, from one day to the next, to declassify all the weapons that have been prohibited. So, that’s why we support the orders-in-council, reinforced by what is going to be in the bill once it has passed.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I want to extend my welcome to our guests. Everyone around the table agrees that this type of event with firearms — or any other form of violence — is unacceptable in our society. We have to stop it. Since 1976, it will be the ninth gun control bill passed by successive governments.
Ms. Provost, have you become less angry about the bill since the month of May? I was reading the article in La Presse last May, and you were very angry with the government. Are you less angry now?
Ms. Provost: We heard Minister LeBlanc as you did, since he made his statement in your presence. He clearly expressed his desire to go further. He wants to completely ban assault-style weapons. In my letter to Mr. Trudeau last May, I did not say that the bill was bad; I said that it was incomplete. I was disappointed on behalf of PolyRemembers, but we understand that—
Senator Boisvenu: When we say that we are “betrayed” by a government, that is a pretty strong word. Overall, is your philosophy of action, which I have followed for years, to ensure that firearms cannot be sold in Canada and are outright abolished?
Ms. Provost: PolyRemembers has always fought for the prohibition of assault-style weapons. To my knowledge, a hunting weapon is not an assault weapon. A handgun is not a hunting weapon either.
Senator Boisvenu: If we were to ban all legal weapons currently listed, do you think the bill would have an impact on illegal weapons entering Canada and falling into the hands of street gangs?
Ms. Provost: Overall, if we reduce the mass of weapons that are legally in circulation — I can only imagine since I am not a member of any police force — we will make it easier to spot the weapons that are illegal, since the volume will be reduced. As Ms. Rathjen said, there is a lot of misinformation about crime related to illegal weapons. What happened to me, what happened at the mosque in Quebec City, are many mass killings perpetrated with legal weapons.
Senator Boisvenu: Since 1979, homicides in Canada have steadily declined, except for two categories: family crimes, femicides, which have increased by almost 50% over the past four years, and gang-related crimes, especially among young people. Otherwise, homicides have dropped by about 40% since 1979, whether there was a registry or not, because there is no distinction in our data.
Homicides committed with firearms are mostly linked to street gangs. Firearms are rarely used in femicides, which are often committed by strangulation or stabbing. How will we manage to prevent the weapons to end up in the hands of young people, who are often 17 or 18 years old? How will the bill successfully prevent these crimes?
Ms. Rathjen: It is not true that the bill does not address the illegal market. It contains measures—
Senator Boisvenu: He said it last week.
Ms. Rathjen: It is not the main objective, but the bill contains measures that target the illegal market. Some maximum penalties are increased. There are provisions about ghost weapons and weapon parts that are used—
Senator Boisvenu: At the same time, the government is passing Bill C-5, where people are sent home—
[English]
The Chair: Excuse me, colleagues. Senator Boisvenu and the witness, I’m sorry to interrupt, but we have gone past our time. We now move to Senator Cardozo.
[Translation]
Senator Cardozo: Ms. Provost, thank you so much for being here. I know that, as a survivor, it is very difficult to come and give this sort of testimony, and so I thank you for that.
Mr. Benabdallah, I also thank you for being here. What happened at the Quebec City mosque was tragic. I thank you for helping us to improve the Government of Canada’s policies.
[English]
Ms. Zaccour, I just want to thank you for your presentation. I note the range of people who have supported your brief. I also note the absence of organizations from the North, as was pointed out by my colleague, Senator Anderson. I urge you to connect with people there, although I know you’re a non-profit group, so you don’t have a lot of resources. But that’s an important part of the country.
I am impressed — I know of the National Association of Women and the Law, or NAWL, and have had the good fortunate to work with your organization over many years. I won’t talk about how many years, but the organization is certainly a venerable organization that has defended and advanced women’s rights, and I have a great deal of respect for the organization. I thank you for the work you have done.
I also note that the people you have consulted with, and who support your brief, come from across the country. There is Calgary Legal Guidance, or CLG, Fédération des femmes du Québec, Network of Women with Disabilities, or NWD, South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, or SALCO, and the Women’s Centre for Social Justice, also known as WomenatthecentrE.
So, I want to thank you for bringing to us the views that many organizations have supported.
I would like your thoughts, briefly, and if you get a chance, Ms. Provost and Ms. Rathjen, about how you go about keeping in touch with your members or the people you speak for. I ask this in the sense of: How much do you consult with them? How legitimate — I want to give you the opportunity to talk about the legitimacy of whom you represent because that is sometimes challenged. I want you to take the opportunity to reassure us of the approach you take. Maybe Ms. Provost first and then Ms. Zaccour.
[Translation]
Ms. Provost: I am very surprised to be asked whether I have the right to speak on behalf of the Polytechnique victims.
As you know, senator, on December 8, 1989, I was in my hospital bed speaking not only as a victim, because I had been wounded, but also on behalf of the entire Polytechnique community in order to get people to take a stand and do something.
Again yesterday, I was talking to my classmate Josée Martin, who was wounded like me. The families are friends. We are all very connected. Our former classmates support us and we stay in contact through social media. We are a free and open organization. We are an association and we are in contact with our classmates. They talk to us and write to us. They support us and our demands. I am very involved in my community as a professional and that is the reason that I am here speaking to you today. I also get messages from them regularly.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Thank you for putting that on the record for us. Ms. Zaccour?
The Chair: I’m afraid we have to move on.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our witnesses. Mr. Benabdallah, we are dealing with rather irreconcilable positions on this bill. On one hand, we have hunters, sport shooters and farmers, as well as the traditional rights of Indigenous peoples. On the other hand, we have organizations that want the government to indiscriminately ban, without restrictions, the sale and ownership of firearms. That is not easy, especially since we want to avoid politicizing the debate, because there is a political aspect to Bill C-21. Is there a way that we could make people safer without penalizing Canadians who have guns that they bought and registered and that they use safely?
Mr. Benabdallah: There is no safe way. We want these guns off the market. However, we are not against hunters. We are against the fact that some hunters buy prohibited firearms that have not been classified, firearms that kill and that are not hunting rifles.
The SKS is one of them. It is a Russian assault rifle that was declassified in Russia and that is sold here in Canada. It is an assault weapon. It is really too bad that there are hunters who are using it to hunt game. However, we are not opposed to other hunting rifles that have been used for a long time. I do not follow the classification, senator. You saw that some of my colleagues have been going through the registers for 30 years. In this case, they are saying that there are firearms that should not be allowed on Canadian territory. We are not opposed to traditional hunting rights with appropriate hunting rifles. We do not have any problem with that and we do not object to them continuing to use such firearms. We are not opposed to that.
Senator Dagenais: Canada is a big country with a lot of unpopulated areas. In this debate, is there a social or safety distinction to be made between urban and rural areas? Some Canadians in rural areas want to own firearms for hunting and protecting themselves from dangerous animals like bears, but they are not criminals. Should a distinction be made between urban and rural areas?
Ms. Rathjen: More gun homicides occur in rural areas than in big cities. Such crimes are more commonly committed with long guns in rural areas and with handguns in cities. Regina is the city with the highest rate of firearm homicides. The other thing is that handguns and assault weapons that are not used for hunting are being used in both rural and urban areas. Gun clubs where these firearms can be used are found everywhere.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you very much to all of the witnesses for being here. I would like to ask questions of Ms. Provost and Ms. Zaccour, but anyone else can comment as well. I find it incredibly frustrating that we have the kind of rhetoric and discussion that is happening right now around this bill at the same time as violence against women, in particular, is being ignored or being used to buttress the development of other kinds of legislation, whether it’s longer, more punitive sentences or other changes to the criminal law.
I’m curious as to what appetite you have seen from any of the governments since 1989, in particular, and beyond, to implement the types of recommendations — whether it’s the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls inquiry or the mass casualty — that repeatedly call upon the need for resources to be put in place to address, at a fundamental level, violence against women, in particular. Obviously, it applies to other folks as well. In particular, however, that issue hasn’t been dealt with.
Do you have any recommendations for us as to any observations or any other areas where we could be making recommendations at this committee?
Ms. Rathjen: For sure, we support all efforts to reduce intimate partner violence. The shooting at Ecole Polytechnique was an attack against women. It was a femicide.
In terms of gun violence, it has been a constant challenge to have domestic murders, murders of women by guns and threats taken seriously. If I look back on all the years that we worked on this file, with Bill C-21 and the consultations we had with Minister Marco Mendicino, I feel it was the first time that we were listened to in terms of that aspect of gun control. That is reflected in the bill with these strong measures on domestic violence.
At the same time, one of the big problems is the application of the law. There is way too much discretion in terms of what the police and what the CFOs do. That’s why the bill tightens that discretion and makes some preventative measures mandatory. That ongoing problem must be addressed. We have called for more funding and more education to make the enforcement more sensitive to issues surrounding intimate partner violence.
Police have to take the warnings, the complaints of women, much more seriously. I think the tragedy in Nova Scotia and the recent case in Sault Ste. Marie clearly demonstrates how risk factors surrounding intimate partner violence are not factored into decisions with respect to revoking licenses, removing guns rapidly, and so on.
Senator Pate: Thank you. Ms. Zaccour, would you like to comment on any of the quality measures you feel that need to be — I don’t know where to look, sorry.
Ms. Zaccour: Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question. We have such a list of priorities. We want guaranteed minimum income. We want free legal representation for women. We want family law reform to enable women to leave abusers.
We have very long agenda. I think we’ll need many years to continue advocating for these changes. Every time there is a bill, we will try to get whatever improvement we can get, knowing that it’s never going to be the full solution.
We believe that for a woman who is threatened with a gun, it makes it difficult for her to leave the situation. We believe that the measures in Bill C-21 will provide real help and safety for women, but there is always so much more to be done. That’s why we intervene in so many of these bills. We’ll continue to do so. A wholistic response to intimate partner violence is absolutely crucial.
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, I’m afraid this brings us to the end of our panel. The time has passed very quickly. I would like to extend our sincere thanks to Ms. Zaccour, Ms. Rathjen, Ms. Provost and Mr. Benabdallah.
We greatly appreciate the time you have spent with us today and the many contributions you have made in sharing your experiences with us. Some of those have been painful, some of those have been tragic, and I know that you carry those things into this room, and it’s important that we hear about them. On behalf of all members of this committee and the Senate of Canada as a whole for the work that each of you does every day, thank you. It’s important. It’s difficult. You have been doing it for a long time. It’s a long haul, and you are not stopping, and we appreciate that. We encourage you to continue that work on behalf of our colleagues and communities out there, so thank you very much.
We will now turn to our second panel. For this next hour, we have the pleasure of welcoming here in the room from Women’s Shelters Canada, Lise Martin, Executive Director; and from Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, Louise Riendeau, Co-lead, Political Issues.
Thank you 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. We will begin with Ms. Lise Martin. Please proceed when you are ready.
Lise Martin, Executive Director, Women’s Shelters Canada: Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee. Women’s Shelters Canada is a national, non-profit organization representing 16 provincial and territorial shelter associations and the more than 600 violence against women’s shelters and transition houses across the country. Bill C-21 is an important bill for those of us concerned with gender-based violence. Many of the measures contained within it have long been demanded by women’s organizations. While it is not perfect, we support this bill and believe it should be implemented quickly.
Bill C-21 contains many of the recommendations from the Mass Casualty Commission, which called upon the Government of Canada to strengthen gun control measures, to improve protections for survivors of gender-based violence and to ensure better tracking and reporting of assault weapons.
Violence against women is a public health crisis. Firearms increase risk and likelihood of fatality for women and children who are experiencing violence. Guns are used to terrorize, injure and kill women and their children in urban as well as rural settings. We know that the risks are higher in rural communities where there are more guns and more opposition to gun control and fewer supports for women living with violence. From 2009 to 2020, 25% of female victims of firearm-related violent crime were victimized by a current or former intimate partner. Additionally, the presence of firearms in the home made women more fearful for their safety and less likely to seek help for the abuse they were facing.
Most women in Canada are killed with legal guns and by legal gun owners. The 2022 Renfrew County inquest specifically addressed the additional risks with respect to femicide and suicide posed by gaps in the application of risk assessment and gun licensing laws and regulations particular to the rural context. The amendments requiring the delivery of a firearm to a peace officer and the revocation of an individual’s licence, if they have engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking, or become subject to a protection order, responds to concerns raised through the inquest and the Mass Casualty Commission.
We previously were concerned about the lack of measures for the swift removal of firearms and licences. It has been documented numerous times that women are at the highest levels of danger of lethality when they make it known to their abuser that they are leaving the situation. The addition of a 24-hour timeline for revoking firearms and licences is important for ensuring the safety of victims.
While we appreciate this amendment, we also want to underscore that revocations need to be enforced and resourced to ensure that they are completed.
In our last submission on this bill, we raised the concern about the lack of definition of domestic and family violence within the bill.
Without a clear and holistic definition of violence, chief firearms officers may have considered more limited definitions that only address direct injury. The adoption of the definition of family violence recently adopted in the Divorce Act within Bill C-21 ensures that a wide range of violence is considered, including coercive control.
Last, the bill previously authorized the issuance in certain circumstances of a conditional licence for the purposes of sustenance or employment. While the removal of this item is appreciated, we continue to remain concerned about the remaining exemption for police officers.
Although there is limited research in Canada, research done in the United States suggests that officers are actually more likely to abuse their domestic partners than the general public. In Nova Scotia alone, as reported in 2020, 14 police officers from across the province have been charged with crimes connected to domestic violence since 2012.
In closing, I would like to stress the importance of the need to improve the processes associated with screening gun owners and removing firearms from people who are at risk to themselves or others.
The federal government uses its power to make decisions about who can have firearm licences. Important measures like spousal notification and reference checks as well as continuous eligibility were introduced to help ensure this power was used to refuse applicants and remove licences from people who, in the position of the firearms officer, are a threat to themselves or any other person. Multiple inquests, inquiries and incidents of domestic violence have shown that this is not being done.
Greater resources, commitments and accountability measures are needed to ensure this responsibility is being exercised. The need for greater resources, commitments and accountability measures goes far beyond this bill. This is one of the many reasons why Women’s Shelters Canada has been advocating for a national action plan on gender-based violence for over a decade.
Also important in our call for a national action plan is the need for consistency across and within jurisdictions in policies and legislation that address gender-based violence and violence against women. It will be important that this be an integral part of the implementation of this bill. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Martin.
Colleagues, our final witness today is Ms. Louise Riendeau.
[Translation]
Louise Riendeau, Co-Lead, Political Issues, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale: Hello.
Thank you to the Senate committee members for giving us the opportunity to share our perspective on firearms based on our experience with thousands of women who are the victims of domestic violence.
The Regroupement represents 46 shelters across Quebec that help women who are experiencing domestic violence. They house more than 2,000 women a year and just as many children. They also provide more than 25,000 services to women and children who are not being sheltered.
The Regroupement shared its position on Bill C-21 with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security a year ago. We also supported the brief submitted to you by the National Association of Women and the Law.
We are of the opinion that Bill C-21 will enhance the safety of Canadians. Our testimony will focus specifically on the safety of women and children who are the victims of domestic violence, since that is our area of expertise.
We believe that Bill C-21 sets out important measures pertaining to domestic violence. Women and children often experience violence at home. Abusers do not fit a specific profile. They often seem like normal, well-adjusted, law-abiding individuals. Domestic violence can be committed by legal firearms owners, and the presence of guns in the home significantly increases the likelihood that an abuser will kill his partner.
In fact, abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser when he owns a gun, and assaults committed with a firearm are far more likely to be fatal than those committed with other weapons. What we are seeing is that women who seek help from shelters in rural areas are afraid of being killed with the guns found in their home.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security made a lot of amendments to strengthen the domestic violence-related provisions of Bill C-21. That is why we think that the Senate should pass this bill quickly.
The bill now contains important provisions to protect victims of domestic violence, including the following: the automatic prohibition from possessing a firearm for anyone who is subject to a protection order related to domestic violence or harassment; the obligation for the chief firearms officer to revoke an individual’s firearms licence within 24 hours when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that that individual has engaged in an act of family violence or stalking; the addition of a broader definition of “domestic violence” to include all domestic and family violence, as well as non-physical forms of violence, such as coercive control, which plays a role in many domestic homicides; the addition of a broader definition of “protection order” to cover all relevant types of protection orders, which may vary by jurisdiction; the possibility for prohibition orders to be made against people who cohabit with someone who is prohibited from possessing firearms; and the exclusion of employment as a justification for exempting a person from having their licence revoked in connection with a protection order. Although the latter does not cover police officers, it is still a step forward.
Finally, the bill also does away with the provision that enabled those who are subject to a prohibition order to dispose of their firearms as they see fit.
Of course, we are still concerned about some of the measures set out in the bill. We continue to be opposed to the ex parte or red flag measure that enables a person to go before the court to have a licence revoked. Since victims or other concerned individuals can already bring their concerns to the police or the chief firearms officer, we think that this measure is not only ineffectual but also counterproductive. We are worried that the police will not take the necessary steps to have an abuser’s licence revoked and will instead ask the victims to do it themselves, which seems far more burdensome to us than just going to the police.
We will monitor how this measure is applied and if we see that the police or the chief firearms officer are shirking their responsibility to the detriment of victims, then we will make representations to the legislator.
Another shortcoming of the bill is that it does not ban the assault weapons that are currently on the market. We would invite senators to support strong regulations to ban all military-style weapons not reasonably used for hunting that are currently in circulation.
In closing, although Bill C-21 is not perfect, it provides important protections for victims of domestic violence. Given that the debates surrounding Bill C-21 have been going on for months, we do not believe that sending the bill back to the House of Commons with amendments will do anything to further improve it. That is why we are asking the Senate to pass the bill without amendment so that these measures can finally come into force.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Riendeau.
[English]
Colleagues, we will now proceed to questions.
Our panel today finishes at 1:30 p.m. As with the last panel, I will limit each question, including the answer, to four minutes. I will hold up this card to indicate that 30 seconds remains in your time.
Please endeavour to keep your questions short and identify the person you are addressing the question to.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Riendeau. I would like to hear your thoughts on a specific issue and that is the sentences imposed in cases involving the illegal possession and use of firearms in Canada.
Do you think that the sentences are harsh enough to act as a deterrent or should the government ensure that such offenders stay behind bars longer?
Ms. Riendeau: We could talk at length about sentencing. Those sentences could be considered insufficient in some cases. However, we believe that we need to focus more on prevention. That is why we were pleased to see that the bill contains measures to better protect victims and to ensure that the possession of firearms is prohibited when a protection order is in place and domestic violence is suspected. The victims, who are afraid, always find prevention to be more important than sentencing, even though they still expect that there will be consequences for those who break the law.
Senator Dagenais: When domestic violence occurs, it can be reported to the police. Those involved go to court, and the court will often issue a firearms prohibition order. The police will go to the offender’s home and seize the weapons. What makes you worry that the police will shirk their responsibilities, since they often get orders from the court that they have to execute?
Ms. Riendeau: It’s one thing when there’s a court order, but at the moment, a victim who fears for their safety or has concerns because a loved one has mental health problems can go to police services or the Chief Firearms Officer — without there having already been a court order — to ask them to investigate and apply to have the weapons seized. This seems to us a much easier and less burdensome measure than having to go to court and report it.
Of course, when those reports are made, we’re very happy to see that weapons seizure orders are issued, but we believe it’s important for women, even if they haven’t filed a complaint, to be able to confide their fears to these authorities and that they take action. What’s more, under the bill, victims themselves will be able to go directly to the court… The police are very busy, they have a lot of things to do, and we’re afraid that people who are less sensitive to the issue of violence and to all the difficulties experienced by victims of domestic violence will offload their responsibilities a little by saying, “Ma’am, go to the court; you’ll be able to get such an order.”
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Ms. Riendeau.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. We interviewed Dr. Caillin Langmann, assistant clinical professor at McMaster University, who said that this will be a waste of money. He told our committee the following:
I think that $1 billion will be better spent on programs that will have a benefit. . . . 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.
The reality is that government has a very limited amount of money, and in the years ahead, available money will become even tighter. Are you not concerned that wasting $750 million or more on a bill that many argue will not work and is not going to contribute to making the funding problem for important initiatives like the women’s shelter is an issue?
Ms. Martin: I definitely don’t think it’s a waste of resources. I think, in general, our society needs to have greater investment in social justice, so in the health system, but it’s not an either/or situation. I think we are talking about saving human lives, and we’re specifically talking in terms of incidents of domestic violence. Therefore, I think that the removal of guns from the system will decrease the number of femicides across the country and just that fear from women and their children.
[Translation]
Ms. Riendeau: I would add that the fact that women and children are terrorized by the presence of weapons in their homes — legal weapons, I would say, generally speaking, when we’re talking about domestic violence — also has very significant social costs. Basically, this causes various physical or mental health problems, because of the terror experienced on a daily basis. They have to seek justice. Like my colleague, I think we have to think about investing in several areas if we want to eliminate or significantly reduce the problem of violence against women.
Ms. Martin spoke of a national action plan to combat violence against women that has been presented. This includes prevention measures, control measures such as these and support measures for victims. If Canada is a society that, as it claims, fights violence against women, I think the necessary measures must be taken.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: I’m going to pass my time at this moment.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. I’d like to ask you to help us with an issue, or at least help me with an issue. You talked about the high rate of domestic violence in rural areas. You have talked about fewer supports for women and that there are a higher number of firearms sometimes. Yet, in the overall debate that we have, this is portrayed somehow as a rural versus urban issue, North versus South, even West versus East. Help me with the debate of understanding more about the presence of violence in the rural areas and that it’s not just a downtown Toronto or a downtown Montréal issue. What is it that we’re not hearing enough of?
I have one other piece. There is a certain argument on the use of guns for hunters and farmers and sometimes hunting in the Far North as a subsistence issue. How do you square this with us? How can you make the argument more clearly? How can we all make the argument more clearly?
[Translation]
Ms. Riendeau: We aren’t asking to restrict the rights of hunters or to restrict the rights of people who need weapons for their livelihood, but these are control measures that need to be imposed when people become threatening. Our association has a few homes in major cities such as Montreal and Quebec City, but most of them are in areas where hunting is indeed common and where there are a lot of weapons.
When women in these communities turn to our members, we see that they fear for their lives, for their pets, for their children. That’s why we say that we need measures to ensure that weapons that aren’t necessarily intended for hunting, when we’re talking about assault weapons or military weapons…. I have nephews who go hunting, and they certainly don’t go deer hunting with these types of weapons. The measures we’re calling for are specific protection measures. Bill C-21 contains measures to help us to better protect women and children who are faced with this problem, and that’s why we want it passed.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
[English]
Do you have time for a quick comment, Ms. Martin?
Ms. Martin: I think the issue is that it is often perceived that guns are more present in urban areas, whereas in the rural areas, there are more guns. Then in terms of the services, there are fewer services available for women there. We were talking about responses from police forces, for example. In many of those rural areas, the services are few and far between. For example, in the territories there are many communities that don’t have shelters or those resources. I think that’s where we’re highlighting the specific issues in rural areas and the particularities of this bill and the presence of guns in those areas.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses today. I would like to drill down on what both of our witnesses have said about the importance and need for a definition of domestic violence. I am certainly familiar with the Divorce Act; it was the one of the first acts I worked on when I was appointed to the Senate. I’m not a lawyer, so I was drowning in it. Can both of you tell me why this is needed or why this would be important? What is the problem with the way it is now?
Ms. Martin: My understanding is that the bill will use the definition from the Divorce Act, which is a comprehensive definition of domestic violence, to make it clear to all the different actors that are involved in the issues, from police officers to service providers, that domestic violence goes far beyond bruises and what one can see. Coercive control is a big part of it, fear, and in this particular case, even the use or presence of guns in the house as an element to instigate that fear of the potential of killing a person. That’s why it’s important that we all get this wider interpretation and understanding of domestic violence.
Senator Dasko: Do you feel it is fine, the way it is? Or are you looking for something —
Ms. Martin: My sense is, yes.
Senator Dasko: It’s dealt with in a satisfactory way.
Ms. Martin: Yes.
Senator Dasko: I’ll ask Ms. Riendeau that question as well. If you could elaborate, that would be great.
[Translation]
Ms. Riendeau: Absolutely, and even judicial actors make that mistake. When you don’t know what domestic violence is, everything it means on a day-to-day basis for women, you often think it’s incidents of physical violence, and you don’t see the full continuum of violence that women experience, and all the coercive control they see on a daily basis. That’s why it is important to have a broad definition.
Studies carried out in the United States have shown that in a third of the homicides studied, there had never been any physical violence prior to the homicide or the femicide. Another study carried out in England showed that, in 97% of the cases of domestic homicides studied, there was coercive control. All stakeholders need to be educated about what domestic violence is, and about the fears it poses for oneself or for another member of their family. The original definition in the Divorce Act gives us a fairly broad vision of what domestic violence is.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you to our witnesses for your lifelong work and your appearance today.
I would like to allow you an opportunity to elaborate on some of the other ways that, in addition to this bill, other policy approaches need to be implemented. I’m thinking in particular of the issues that both of you have touched on, which is when women aren’t believed when they go forward. That’s partly definition, but it seems to me that it’s also much more often about the believability of women. I often think of when men first started coming forward with histories of abuse by religious orders. It was homophobia that meant men were being believed, but women were coming forward and they weren’t being believed. I’m curious as to whether there are other measures you think we should be adding, or any observations or suggesting the government should act on.
Ms. Martin: There are a number of measures out there. More recently, the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, for example. In all of these measures — and there are a lot of good laws that exist — it’s the implementation that is often lacking. From our perspective, it is also the resources, in terms of accountability. We feel a responsibility to follow up and to ensure that these laws are actually providing the services or the protection that it is meant to be. For example, the recent passing of Keira’s Law. In a year’s time, how are we going to measure that it is actually making a difference in women’s lives? That’s what we really want to see.
We feel it’s important that this accountability not just be internal and that external actors and organizations that have been working in this area for decades need to be involved in this accountability.
[Translation]
Ms. Riendeau: I would add that, among the elements we’ve mentioned, training is an essential one. My colleague talked about accountability. I’ll take Quebec as an example. The Act to create a court specialized in sexual violence and domestic violence states that there must be an annual report on the training given to all the players who will be associated with that court. That’s important to us.
There must also be political will. We think it’s normal for police officers to spend several hours documenting a drinking-and-driving situation, whereas 30 minutes spent with a victim of domestic violence so that she can make a statement and explain everything she’s been through, seems like a long time, particularly in areas where police services are understaffed. If we want to combat this violence, we need to give the players the conditions they need to work well with victims, to take the time to understand everything they’ve been through and to process this information properly.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome to our witnesses. Good afternoon, Ms. Riendeau. It’s a pleasure to see you again.
I was looking through the statistics on gun crime affecting women, and I was surprised to see that between 1974 and 2004, so in 30 years, 87 women had been murdered in Canada with a firearm in 1974, and 32 had been murdered in 2004. If I look at recent statistics, there are fewer than 20 women murdered. If we compare the statistics in urban areas, five out of six women will be murdered in urban areas by some other means, such as strangulation, stabbing and blows, compared to the country, where two out of three women will be murdered by means other than a firearm.
Will all the publicity surrounding this bill leave women with a false sense of security, believing that by passing this bill, we’ve just solved the problem of homicides with firearms?
Ms. Riendeau: No single measure can solve the whole problem. Obviously, when there’s a desire to kill someone, when there’s an attempted murder and a firearm is used, it’s much more likely that it will be lethal than if, for example, a bladed weapon or another weapon is used. It’s a way of dealing with, of preventing some of the deaths we have. Of course, a whole series of measures need to be put in place to curb this problem.
Senator Boisvenu: When you look at the statistics, especially in urban areas, five out of six women are murdered with bladed weapons; it’s very lethal. Conversely, murders with handguns almost doubled during the same period in Canada.
Basically, the purchase of handguns will be banned. However, no measures are being applied to all handguns in circulation. I wonder if this bill will have any real impact on the murder of women who are killed with firearms.
Ms. Riendeau: We can take into account the number of murders, but we can also — and this is what we see in the homes — look at the terror that women experience. The fact that there are weapons in the house means that they can be threatened or killed. It also means that this threat is very real for the women and keeps them in a state of terror. I don’t think that aspect should be overlooked either.
Senator Boisvenu: In Canada, if we compare the years 1974 and 2004, in 1974, there were about 100 firearm seizures following complaints filed by police officers. In 2004, according to recent statistics, nearly 20,000 guns were seized in Canada after complaints were filed, either because of domestic violence or mental illness. Those are the two main reasons. A woman who fears for her safety can still get police support to have those weapons seized, right?
Ms. Riendeau: Of course. You’re comparing it to 1974, when there were virtually no measures to combat violence against women. Domestic violence was seen as a private problem. The fact that there are no more interventions and there’s no more action proves to us that our country was right to take various measures, some legislative, some preventive, others to support victims. I believe that Bill C-21 is one more step towards providing greater security for women and children.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you, Ms. Riendeau.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Martin.
Bill C-21 recognizes the aboriginal rights of Indigenous peoples to possess firearms. In Canada, there are shelters reserved for Indigenous women, some of whom are victims of violence. There are even 12 or 13 in Quebec alone. As you just said, violence against women is very often linked to a spouse.
Since violence against women is committed within the communities themselves, I’d like to hear your views on the constitutionally accepted presence of firearms in these communities.
[English]
Ms. Martin: We are in agreement in terms of the inherent rights of Indigenous populations for hunting. I think that’s what you’re asking.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Yes, but the fact remains that violent crimes are also committed with firearms.
How acceptable are firearms when we know acts of violence can occur in the communities?
Ms. Martin: Indeed, adequate services and prevention measures are essential. When the service is adequate, if women feel at risk, they will know that there is a possibility that they will be welcomed into shelters to help them in these situations.
Senator Dagenais: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Martin.
[English]
The Chair: We have come to the end of our questions, but I’m going to add one. It’s unusual for me to do this, but it’s also unusual that we conclude a meeting early.
I’m going to ask each of our witnesses briefly if there is anything you would like to say by way of closing remarks that hasn’t already been prompted by a previous question. Is there any closing piece of advice you would like to leave with us today?
Let me start with Ms. Riendeau.
[Translation]
Ms. Riendeau: As I said earlier, we really hope that the bill will be passed quickly. We hope that, the day there are regulations to better regulate assault weapons, the Senate will support them because, in our opinion, these are protective measures for women. I think these things have already been said.
I might add one thing. When it comes to balancing different rights, you have to look at what’s most important. Let me draw a parallel. In Quebec, about 20 years ago, we had debates on the protection of privacy rights. Our National Assembly felt that when it came to choosing between the right to security and the right to privacy, which is still very important, it had to choose the right to security. It’s this kind of principle that governs the requests we’re making to you today and to the various members of Parliament.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Riendeau.
[English]
I see that Senator Pate has been prompted to have another question, but please, over to you first, Ms. Martin.
Ms. Martin: I would underscore the importance of recognizing violence against women as an epidemic. It’s a social issue. Society at large is responsible. It is not just governments. All actors of society are responsible to act on it.
I think we need to recognize it. We need to name it. This is one measure that will help address the situation of violence against women — the epidemic that it is in our society. That’s why we would ask senators to approve the bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Martin. Senator Pate, over to you for the last question.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much. Yes, it did prompt me, Ms. Riendeau, when you talked about regulations. Regulations won’t come before us unless it’s another bill and we’re looking at how the regulations were promulgated that relate to this. Therefore, I want to provide you both with an opportunity to talk about what sorts of regulations you think need to happen. Perhaps this could be something that the committee could comment upon.
Building on your last comment, Ms. Martin, it’s one thing to call something an epidemic. It strikes me that we keep coming up with new ways to try and say that this is a really important issue when, really, what is happening is that it is not being taken seriously yet. We continue to see the social, health and economic inequality that women experience. I was struck last week by the fact that the women in Iceland — where they have been number one in equality for a long time — went on strike because they are still not equal because of pay gaps and violence against women. We’re a long way from that.
I don’t mean to diminish calling it an epidemic in any way, but it also strikes me that we need to do much more work to ensure that the equality provisions exist and are passed. They didn’t come into effect until 1985 because we recognized in 1982 with the repatriation of the Constitution that we weren’t equal yet. It took three years. But it’s almost like we aren’t still challenging the fact that legal equality has not been matched by financial, health, race and, certainly, gender equality.
I want to provide one last opportunity for anything else you would like to add — particularly around the regulations for this bill, but please add any other commentary you think you want to make sure is on the record as we’re considering this issue, which has been fuelled by the issue of violence against women.
Ms. Martin: Let Louise speak to the regulations part.
The Chair: We will give you a minute each to respond to this. Ms. Riendeau?
[Translation]
Ms. Riendeau: As far as the regulations are concerned, we were talking specifically about the regulations that the minister has promised, which would prohibit military-style weapons, assault weapons that are not good for hunting. However, I would like to address the issue of equality.
You’re right, Senator Pate. We’ve taken a number of steps, but to date, there have been no comprehensive measures to combat violence against women. Because of this violence, equality is still not being achieved, and vice versa, the fact that equality is still not achieved means that women continue to be abused. I think Ms. Martin can speak to that better than I can. When we talk about a national action plan to combat violence against women, it’s a way of saying that we need to work on this issue in every possible way, and that we need to stop piecemeal measures that aren’t always consistent with each other.
[English]
Ms. Martin: Part of what you’re saying in terms of the use of different language — “epidemic” — is that, for some people, there is fatigue almost, but the reality is that there has been a lot of backlash. In terms of violence against women, the numbers of femicide have increased dramatically over the years. That’s why we continue to come and to try to convey how pervasive this is in society.
Violence against women doesn’t discriminate. Anyone can face it from their intimate partner, although there are certain groups of women who are more disadvantaged in terms of how violence against women affects them: racialized women, women with disabilities and Indigenous women.
Therefore, I can’t stress how important it is that this be factored in. If a woman is living in violence, it’s impossible for her to achieve equality. With violence against women so pervasive in our society, we will never achieve equality, which is something we are all aiming for.
Again, with this issue, I have always said that violence against women is a non-partisan issue. That is something that is really important to remind ourselves about. The context of the national action plan is not, again, about levels of government. We all need to work together to address this.
The Chair: Thank you.
Colleagues, that brings us to the end of today’s meeting. On behalf of this committee and, in fact, on behalf of the Senate of Canada as a whole, I extend our deep gratitude to Ms. Martin and Ms. Riendeau for sharing your expertise and experience with us. Thank you also for the crucially important work that you do. Every day, on many nights and on weekends, I know you do this. It’s important that you hear that; I’m sure you do, but you probably don’t hear it enough. On behalf of all of us here, we want you to know that we join the many people who appreciate you and your work. Thank you.
Colleagues, we will continue our examination of the bill tomorrow, Thursday, November 2 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern in room 128. Thank you for your participation here today, and I wish you all a good afternoon. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)