Bill to Amend Certain Acts and Regulations in Relation to Firearms
Motion in Amendment--Vote Deferred
May 16, 2019
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That Bill C-71 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 2, on page 2,
(a)by replacing lines 4 to 10 with the following:
“2 (1) Subsection 5(2) of the Act is amended by strik-”; and
(b)by replacing line 32 with the following:
“(2) Section 5 of the Act is amended by adding the”.
This is a very important issue regarding background checks, so I would like to make a couple of points on debate, please, Your Honour.
First of all, you will remember that I mentioned a poll that was commissioned by The Canadian Press, conducted by Leger, which was published last month. One of the specific questions that was asked was whether or not people agreed with the possibility of extending the length of time the RCMP can check into a person’s background, when applying for a gun permit, from the last five years to that person’s full life.
According to that poll, 82 per cent of Canadians agreed with this policy, including, I might highlight, 80 per cent of Conservative voters. I’m just saying.
A political poll or a gun control poll?
The Canadian Press poll, so it’s a valid poll, in my view.
The honourable senator mentioned that one of the concerns — and certainly it was a concern expressed by many in committee and in public debate — was that applicants for a firearms licence could be prevented from receiving this licence because of a mistake they would have made decades ago, but the bill and the Firearms Act are very clear that what firearms officers are looking for is violent or threatening behaviour versus another person or the applicant himself.
The issue is whether something that happened more than five years ago can be an indicator of something that could happen in the future. Testimony on this point was very clear in committee by many experts, for instance, on the issue of suicide. Brian Mishara, who is a professor at L’Université du Québec à Montréal and a renowned expert on suicide, said that a suicide attempt that happened more than five years ago could be an indicator of a future suicide attempt.
Now, this doesn’t mean that a person who attempted suicide 25 years ago would necessarily be prevented from getting a gun licence. It would be the decision of the Chief Firearms Officer, considering all the other factors, including the present situation of the person.
I know of a case where a person who attempted to commit suicide many years ago applied for a gun licence, and the reply from the Chief Firearms Officer was. “Okay, but we would like to have a certificate from your doctor, considering the medicines that you are taking,” and so on.
That’s prudent behaviour from the Chief Firearms Officer to prevent someone who can have mental health issues or a past marked by violent or threatening behaviour. I don’t think that something that happened seven years ago, whether it’s a suicide attempt or whether it’s an incident of domestic violence, is as relevant as something that happened three years ago.
The honourable senator mentioned that the Chief Firearms Officer can already verify more than five years ago in certain cases. In fact, one of the reasons for the amendment brought forward by Bill C-71 is that there was confusion on that point. Some people thought, including the Chief Firearms Officer and some judges, that going back more than five years, considering what is written in the act at present, was not possible. Others thought that it was possible.
What happened is in the end, the B.C. Court of Appeal and others decided that, in fact, the Chief Firearms Officer could consider anything that happened, whether it’s five years ago or more than five years ago, in a whole lifetime, if they believed that it raises a safety issue either for the person or for others.
Therefore, what the bill does is simply codify jurisprudence. It doesn’t add any new power. It just codifies what the courts have said when they interpreted the Firearms Act.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of people who want to get a firearms licence want to do it for legitimate purposes, and they will have no difficulty whatsoever, even with this strengthening, this deepening, of the background checks. They will have no difficulty whatsoever receiving a gun licence.
In my opinion, running a background check on someone who wants to acquire a firearm is the prudent thing to do. In the vast majority of cases, this will change absolutely nothing, but in the rare cases where the Commissioner of Firearms might have some concerns, he will be able, under established law, to do what jurisprudence already allows him to do, namely ask questions and run additional background checks on the person before issuing a firearms licence. I think this is simply the wise and prudent thing to do. Thank you.
I have a question. In the poll that was done, the people who were being questioned, did you get information as to whether they owned firearms? Did they know that you could do a lifetime check now?
No, we don’t know who owned firearms or not. That question wasn’t asked in the poll. Gun ownership rates vary across the country. In all regions, there was a strong majority in favour of these deepened background checks.
Whether people who answered this question are aware of all the details of the current regime, probably not. But then polls presently are showing that the Conservative party is ahead of the Liberal party. Do all people who answer in favour of the Conservative party know all the positions of the Conservative party? I don’t know. A poll is a poll. It’s one indicator. It’s not determinative, but it’s one indicator that shows answering other questions to this poll that are very clear that Canadians in a large majority favour a strengthened gun control regime.
I have another question on suicide. You mentioned that there was strong evidence that showed that people who may have exhibited some tendency towards suicide in the past are more prone to do it again. Was that background evidence given on the basis that they tried to kill themselves with a gun or they used poison or as they do in large majority of suicides did they attempt to hang themselves? Do you prevent them from having rope? I don’t quite understand what the correlation is between that and another option because they may choose another option. It has nothing to do with a gun. It’s got to do with convenience. Most men kill themselves by gun, but women don’t.
That allows me to discuss briefly the issue of suicides. I won’t do it as convincingly as Senator Kutcher did yesterday.
I could send the references to the honourable senator, but certainly it’s been demonstrated clearly by research that there is little or no substitution effect. Of course you can ask will you prevent people from getting a rope? We all know that’s not possible. What is possible, however, is to prevent people who have mental health issues and have attempted suicide before, we can prevent them from getting a gun. We know, and research shows that has a positive effect on the suicide rate.
Honourable senators, I will be brief. I don’t really want to wade into this because I really don’t know all the ins and outs of gun control.
I do know I worked for years as an emergency room nurse. I worked in Baltimore at Johns Hopkins for three years. I saw gun violence that was an epidemic. It was drugs, alcohol, gangs, and a way of life.
Here at home, I see much less, but I do agree, I see more gun violence.
With bills like this, we tinker on the outside because we really want to do something to help. We want to make it better, and we find this is a good way to make it better. I don’t think it does. I think we have to look more at root causes, alcohol, drugs especially, those are major factors.
I also think we should allow for the way humans are. If someone wants to commit suicide, they will do it if they really want to. I agree, it’s convenience if there’s a gun there.
I hate to get into this whole area where we blame guns and we blame people who have guns when we’re actually not dealing with what’s really happening, which is the violence. Domestic violence, gang violence, we’re not getting anywhere near them. It’s too easy to get a gun. If you buy it legally, that’s great, but it’s too easy to get illegal guns.
One big factor is the violence we see on television and in movies. A few years ago, I would never have thought of picking up a gun and shooting somebody if they made me mad, but after a while you get used to it. I don’t think people have the same abhorrence of shooting someone as they used to. I think it’s the progression of society.
I would urge you perhaps to look at other things that would be causing this. It’s not so much gun violence. We’re not going to solve the problem with that. Thank you, senators.
I’ve been called a lot of things in my life. Today I was called a gun senator; not because I own a gun, because I don’t; not because I do any sport shooting, because I don’t; not because I go hunting, because I don’t. But because I support law-abiding citizens who own guns and law-abiding sport shooters who want to sport shoot and law-abiding hunters who want to hunt. I now have the title of a gun senator. Thank you very much.
Excuse me, Senator Plett, when Senator Martin raised this issue earlier and I believe Senator McPhedran addressed it and said it was an unfortunate phraseology to use “gun senators” and it was changed, just for your information.
Thank you, Your Honour. I was in the reading room watching it. I think to call myself a gun senator certainly is not out of order and I was referring to myself.
Quite honestly, Senator Plett, I don’t think you were calling yourself a gun senator as much as you were referring to the comments made by Senator McPhedran. That’s the difference.
Fair enough, thank you.
Let me take a few minutes to speak to this. I know there is probably little point. There are probably those who are sitting there thinking that if there is a little point, sit down. I won’t do that. I will speak for a few minutes and hopefully some people will take note and maybe consider the relevance of this good amendment that Senator Tkachuk brought forward.
Senator Pratte talked about a poll. I talked about that poll earlier this week. It’s strange how two people can look at the same poll and come to absolutely differing opinions. Since I used it the other day, I won’t use it again.
I support Senator Tkachuk’s amendment. Just last weekend, I was speaking at an event in Calgary about Bill C-71 and the government’s agenda on gun control. There were a lot of people there; young, middle age, old, grandmothers, grandfathers, kids, gun enthusiasts, hunters, gun collectors.
One person I had the opportunity to chat with for quite some time told me how much he enjoyed being an avid sport shooter, gun collector and hunter. What made it such a rewarding experience was the fact that he was able to enjoy these sports with his wife and his son. His wife was there as well and agreed with that. This gentleman is an amazing, upstanding citizen working in the construction industry in Alberta.
Yet, due to an unfortunate event in his past, he would have never qualified for a gun licence if lifetime background checks were required and he was the honest person that I certainly deem him to be.
Colleagues, the intention behind extending a five-year background check to cover a lifetime is a noble one. No one wants to be issued a firearms licence if doing so would pose a threat to public safety. Let’s settle the discussion that no one is debating that point. The question is how, with limited resources, do you most effectively achieve that goal?
I would propose to you that increasing the current five-year window to cover a lifetime is not the right approach. In fact, until we are satisfied that we are doing a good job with the current five-year window, it would be foolish to expand it to a larger time frame.
I’m sure everyone in this room knows the name Alexandre Bissonnette. On January 29, 2017, he opened fire at a Quebec City mosque, killing 6 and wounding 19. He was a licensed gun owner. In September 2014, having completed the Canadian firearms safety course, Mr. Bissonnette applied for his Possession and Acquisition Licence. Like all applicants, he was required to fill out a four-page form that includes the following question:
During the past five (5) years, have you threatened or attempted suicide, or have you suffered from or been diagnosed or treated by a medical practitioner for: depression; alcohol, drug or substance abuse; behavioural problems; or emotional problems?
The response is yes or no.
Mr. Bissonnette answered, “no.” The problem was that he was lying. Under the existing background screening, he should have never been granted a licence. Three times over a period of two years, Mr. Bissonnette had sought treatment for panic attacks, anxiety disorders, suicidal thoughts and depression. He was on two different medications in order to treat these issues, but as reported last year by Le Devoir an applicant’s answers to these questions are not verified by the RCMP. Not verified by the RCMP. If they tick the box that says “no,” that’s as far as it goes.
Each applicant is also required to provide two references that the RCMP can contact in order to verify information included on the application form. Once again, as reported by Le Devoir, these references are not checked unless there is a clear reason to do so. This situation isn’t new.
In 2014 “Global News” reported that, according to RCMP Sgt. Greg Cox:
Personal references are contacted on a case-by-case basis, with priority normally given to first-time applications for licences with restricted privileges.
In other words, the so-called background checks involve very little checking.
These shortcomings are compounded by the fact that the ongoing eligibility of a licence holder is continuously assessed while the individual is a licence holder, and every five years when the individual applies to renew their licence.
In February 2018, the RCMP released a report which examined the effectiveness of this ongoing eligibility screening. The report found that there were significant delays into investigations about whether a gun licence should be revoked due to violent incidents or mental illness. The report noted these delays could have a negative impact on public safety.
To understand the scope of what the RCMP is being asked to do in conducting background checks, it is important to note that as of December 31, 2017, there were 2,109,531 licence holders in Canada. In 2017 alone, the RCMP issued 401,884 individual licences, including 270,067 renewals.
Colleagues, even with a five-year window for background checks, this is a mammoth task. It is difficult to see how extending the time frame to cover a lifetime will do anything but decrease public safety by stretching an already limited resource. I would argue that Canadians would be better served by doing a better job of background checks under the existing five-year time frame rather than increasing it and diminishing the quality of the checks even further. Expanding the window to cover a lifetime may be well-intentioned, but it is the perfect example of trying to run a marathon before you can crawl across the room.
Are honourable senators ready for the question?
In amendment it was moved by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator MacDonald that Bill C-71 be not now read a third time but that it be amended in clause 2. May I dispense?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
All those in favour of the motion will please say, “yea.”
All those opposed to the motion will please say, “nay.”
In my opinion the nays have it.
We’ll defer the vote to the start of the next sitting of the Senate.
The vote is deferred to the next sitting of the Senate at the start of Orders of the Day with the bells to ring for 15 minutes.
