Bill to Amend Certain Acts and Regulations in Relation to Firearms
Second Reading—Debate Continued
November 20, 2018
The Honorable Senator Marc Gold:
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms.
I support this bill. I think it is a reasonable and pragmatic step toward reducing the number of violent acts committed with firearms in Canada. However, I know that many senators are strongly opposed to this bill, as are many Canadians, or so I gather from the deluge of emails we have received. We need to take their concerns seriously. That is what I am doing, so let us look then at the main arguments put forward by those who oppose the bill.
Canadians are hearing that Bill C-71 infringes on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, that it is based on government lies and manipulated statistics, that it reinstates the long-gun registry and that it will do nothing to resolve the real problem of gun violence in Canada.
From my perspective, with all due respect to Canadians, those claims are false. The bill is not an attack on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. It does not impose an unreasonable burden on them. As Senator Dalphond pointed out, the Supreme Court ruled that owning and using a gun is a privilege, not a right. Furthermore, it is a strictly regulated privilege and has been for a very long time.
As lawmakers, we know that all regulations impose a burden on those who must abide by them. The real question we have to ask ourselves is whether that burden is justified considering the positive impact the bill seeks to produce. In my opinion, the burden is minimal and amply justified.
[English]
Opponents have argued that the bill unfairly burdens law-abiding gun owners by changing the rules governing authorizations to transport firearms, or ATTs. The facts suggest otherwise. No authorization is required to transport non-restricted firearms. That is the current law and Bill C-71 does not change that.
(1510)
Furthermore, the renewal of a Possession and Acquisition Licence, or PAL, for a restricted firearm will include an automatic authorization to transport it between the owner’s residence and any authorized shooting range in the province. As others have pointed out in this chamber, this covers the vast majority of owners’ transportation needs.
It is the case that Bill C-71 would require owners to obtain a special ATT for the transportation of restricted or prohibited firearms to places other than their firing range, such as a gun show, a border station or a gunsmith. In such cases they can easily contact the Canadian Firearms Program by telephone or email, and the process will be quick and easy. Indeed, Senator Dean’s own experience, which he shared with us in this chamber, was very illuminating in this regard.
The government defends these changes as providing an important tool for law enforcement. As was stated by a representative of the Canadian Firearms Program within the RCMP, if law enforcement stopped a vehicle, this change would give the driver fewer reasons or excuses for having a restricted or prohibited firearm in their vehicle. This makes sense, especially with respect to persons seeking to bring a firearm across borders or to attend gun shows where firearms are bought and sold. However, one might fairly ask why Bill C-71 does not automatically issue an ATT to take firearms for maintenance or repair. A case can be made on public safety grounds that the law should facilitate firearms maintenance and repairs. I would encourage the committee to consider this when it studies the bill.
Opponents also argue that Bill C-71 reintroduces the long-gun registry. The short answer is the bill does no such thing, as Senator Pratte has pointed out both in this chamber and in his patient responses to the massive email campaign directed against the bill.
Opponents of the bill also object to the expanded scope of the background checks for acquiring a Possession and Acquisition Licence. Rather than addressing a person’s criminal history, history of mental illness associated with violence, and history of violence within the previous five years, Bill C-71 would require a chief firearms officer to consider the presence of those factors for the person’s entire lifetime. In addition, they will also have to consider whether the person has a history of threatening conduct, including cyberbullying; or was under a restraining order and is presently a safety risk; was previously subject to a weapon or firearms prohibition order in respect of intimate-partner violence; or for any other reason poses a risk of harm to any person.
Opponents claim this unfairly burdens someone who might have done something stupid in their youth or might have suffered from mild depression 20 years earlier. But the presence of these factors does not necessarily mean the person will be ineligible for a PAL. The significance of these factors will be contextual, determined in light of the person’s whole history. Surely it is a sensible step in the right direction for background checks to examine whether applicants had a violent past or problems of mental illness that could be linked to violent propensities.
The central claim of the bill’s opponents is it will not solve the problem of gun violence in Canada because it fails to address the real problem: the use of handguns by criminals and street gangs. Background checks don’t stop criminals from getting guns. Either they smuggle them in from the United States or buy or steal them from licensed owners in Canada.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, no one is denying the existence of a problem involving violent criminals and their use of firearms. Indeed, the number of gang-related homicides practically doubled between 2013 and 2016.
However, as we have discussed in this place, the same is true of homicides not related to street gangs. According to Statistics Canada, 94 homicides committed with firearms but not related to street gangs were committed in 2016, which is the highest number recorded in 10 years.
Similarly, no one would deny that the illegal importation of firearms is a problem, and the government recently announced additional funding for the Canada Border Services Agency to deal with that. However, as Senators Pratte and Omidvar both reminded us, many firearms used to commit crimes are domestically sourced.
In addition, all levels of government in Canada are dedicating hundreds of millions of dollars to the fight against gun violence committed by street gangs and organized crime. We also know that the federal government is currently consulting with Canadians on a possible ban of handguns and assault weapons. I see that as a reasonable and responsible way forward.
[English]
Honourable senators, let’s acknowledge that Bill C-71 will not keep a determined criminal from finding a way to obtain a firearm. But by requiring gun sellers to keep records of their sales, the bill will help law enforcement track firearms that may have been used in crime. As I stated earlier, requiring gun owners to request an ATT if they travel to a gun show or cross a border will also assist law enforcement to distinguish between legitimate owners and others. These are practical, reasonable and effective measures to combat the illegal use of firearms.
It is not only street gangs and criminals who are responsible for firearm-related violence. This leads me to the fundamental weakness in the arguments advanced against Bill C-71.
The opponents of Bill C-71 divide the world into two neat groups. On the one side are ordinary, law-abiding Canadians who happen to own firearms. On the other side are violent criminals and gang members. Bill C-71 supposedly targets the former and ignores the latter.
If life were so simple. The world is not so cut and dried as they would have us believe. All of us are subject to the daily stresses of our lives but some cope better than others. Some know when they are at risk to themselves and to others but some may not. Ordinary good people can get overwhelmed by their circumstances, feeling trapped and helpless. Others may get triggered and temporarily lose control of themselves.
The expanded background checks proposed in Bill C-71 may keep a gun out of the hands of someone who in the heat of the moment or because of a breakdown of their normal defence mechanisms turns to a gun believing it will solve their problem, a problem with their partner or friend or with their own life. Because firearms can be, and too often are, turned on oneself. As Senator Cormier movingly attested, hundreds of Canadians kill themselves with a firearm every year.
Because, as the speeches of Senators Gagné, Miville-Dechêne and Omidvar so powerfully reminded us, guns can be, and too often are, turned on spouses and domestic partners.
Statistics Canada reports in 2017, police across Canada reported 582 incidents of firearm-related intimate partner violence, the highest number since Statistics Canada started evaluating this. This did not even include data from Quebec. Add to this over 400 cases involving parents, children, siblings and members of the extended family, and there you have 1,000 cases of firearm-related family violence. These are only the ones reported to the police.
It is important to note the problem is not only, or even predominantly, illegal handguns. We know there are regional differences and that handguns are more of a problem in urban than rural areas. But as Senator Miville-Dechêne pointed out, taking Canada as a whole, the most common firearms involved in intimate-partner violence are rifles and shotguns. In the last three years, rifles and shotguns accounted for 37 per cent of such incidents; whereas handguns accounted for 30 per cent. Now, 7 per cent may not sound like a huge difference but the difference is this: over three years rifles or shotguns have victimized 100 more intimate partners than have handguns.
Senator Patterson noted that in Northern Canada, firearms are important for hunting healthy, natural food and for protection against wild animals. But shotguns and rifles are also an overwhelmingly popular firearm for intimate-partner violence. In the past three years in the Northwest Territories, 88 per cent of firearm-related violent incidents against intimate partners were committed with a rifle or shotgun. In Nunavut it was 82 per cent. In the Yukon it was 57 per cent. But the problem is not exclusive to the North. In Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, the percentages of firearm-related intimate-partner violence where the firearm was a rifle or a shotgun range between 49 and 52 per cent.
(1520)
Bill C-71 will help keep firearms out of the hands of those whose violent past and mental instability put them at risk of using a firearm to harm others, and it will assist law enforcement in the detection and prosecution of those who use firearms illegally.
In other words, Bill C-71 will help save lives.
Let me conclude with a word about the impact of Bill C-71 on Indigenous communities. There are two issues. The first one is around process: Was there appropriate consultation in the period leading up to the tabling of the bill? In a word, no, there was not. I know that many in this chamber are actively seized with this issue, and I fully expect and hope it will be pursued seriously as we proceed in our study of this bill.
The second issue is one of substance: Does the bill infringe upon the constitutionally protected rights of Indigenous peoples to use firearms for harvesting purposes, as guaranteed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982? The Firearms Act purports to protect such rights by including a non-derogation clause. However, the clause in the Firearms Act is narrow in scope and less protective of rights than the non-derogation clauses used in more recent federal legislation. Here again, I assume this will be examined in committee.
But including a reference to the Constitution in the act is not the only nor necessarily the most effective way to respect Aboriginal rights. Senator Patterson spoke of the importance of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptations Regulations, APCAR, that were enacted pursuant to the Firearms Act. It’s important the committee review what changes, if any, would be appropriate to these regulations in light of Bill C-71 and in light of our evolving understanding of the scope of Aboriginal rights. In that regard, I support Senator Patterson’s call for witnesses to speak to this at committee.
As Senator Omidvar said, this bill will not fix all the problems of gun violence in this country. Honourable senators, no law can keep all guns out of the hands of criminals determined to use them for nefarious ends, but that does not mean that this bill is unworthy of our support. As a wise person once said, “Let not the best be the enemy of the good.” And Bill C-71 is a good bill. It will help save Canadian lives. Please support sending it to committee to receive the attention and scrutiny it deserves. Thank you for your kind attention.