Evidence of meeting #65 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was licence.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Leif-Erik Aune
Wendy Cukier  President, Coalition for Gun Control
Greg Illerbrun  Firearms Chairman, Past-President, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation
Tony Rodgers  Executive Director, Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Benoît Laganière  Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient
Heidi Rathjen  Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient
Pierre Latraverse  President, Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much.

Now, for five minutes to close off the first round, Mr. Hayes.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Cukier, what is your position on creating a mandatory weapons prohibition for those convicted of serious domestic violence offences?

9:40 a.m.

President, Coalition for Gun Control

Wendy Cukier

There already is prohibition for people convicted of a range of offences where there is considered to be a risk to public safety, so it was not clear to us how this was different from what already exists in the law. We know, based on recent Supreme Court decisions, that mandatory anything often presents legal challenges.

As we said in our brief, we don't understand how this is different from what already exists, because people convicted of serious offences are supposed to be prohibited from owning firearms.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

I had a look at your website. On your website there was one bullet that states:

The Bill introduces supplementary sanctions that are meant to protect children and women who are victims of domestic violence, such as broadening the definition of “intimate partner” in the Criminal Code and adding to mandatory and discretionary prohibition orders. However, these elements are ex post facto and do nothing to protect the 70 percent of women who are unable or unwilling to report domestic violence or threats.

I'm really having trouble here. How do you amend this legislation to somehow think that we can influence those women who are unable or unwilling to report domestic violence threats? I don't understand that statement on your website.

9:45 a.m.

President, Coalition for Gun Control

Wendy Cukier

I apologize because I don't have what you're referring to in front of me. The intent is simply to say that mandatory prohibitions are not a panacea and will not solve the problem. Our focus is on screening and prevention.

Unfortunately, we have too many cases where.... In fact, we have cases where a prohibition order was issued in the court because someone was convicted of domestic violence. The firearms were not, however, confiscated and the man left court, got his gun, and killed his ex-wife. Our focus is on prevention and that's why the screening processes are so critically important.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much, colleagues.

On behalf of the entire committee, I'd like to thank Ms. Cukier, Mr. Rodgers, and Mr. Illerbrun, not only for your time but for your commitment to present before this committee. It certainly gives us some thought, some considerations, that we all have to bear in mind regardless of where we sit around the table. I can assure you that your time spent here is important and valued. Thank you very much.

We will suspend now while we change witnesses.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Colleagues, we're back in session. We have three witnesses for this panel. We're still hooking up our video conference, so we'll go ahead with our other witnesses. We will then introduce them, and as we come on line, we will carry on.

For the second hour, on behalf of PolySeSouvient, we have Mr. Benoît Laganière, spokesperson, and also Ms. Heidi Rathjen.

Shortly, by way of video conference from Longueuil, we will have from the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, Mr. Pierre Latraverse, president.

We will start off now with opening statements, up to 10 minutes per organization. We would appreciate it, as always, if you're able to make your remarks even more brief, as it gives us more opportunity to have a little Q and A with our witnesses.

We will start off with the representative from PolySeSouvient.

9:45 a.m.

Benoît Laganière Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning.

For the survivors, the witnesses and the many families of the victims of the Polytechnique massacre in 1989, our main objective was and remains the avoidance of loss of life and the prevention of the enormous suffering caused by violence committed by firearms. The fight against violence requires interventions at all levels.

Since its election, the Conservative government has destroyed or weakened most of the measures that had been implemented at the request of victims of firearms, but also at the request of police officers, women's groups, suicide prevention workers and public health groups. In 2012, the government destroyed the long-gun registry. Since then, a long gun can no longer be traced to its owner. The Harper government also eliminated the requirement to check the validity of the permit of a potential purchaser, as well as the sales records of firearms merchants. Today, Bill C-42 will further weaken the controls that remain.

By definition, a firearm is designed to kill. It is a dangerous object that deserves the greatest attention and the greatest respect. Using a firearm is a privilege, not a right. This privilege should be governed by strong rules and should result in a series of responsibilities. Strict controls are the norm in most developed countries. However, the Harper government, always ready to please the firearms lobby, has made it so that Canada is today in a situation in which there are fewer controls than at the time of the Polytechnique tragedy, 25 years ago.

You know, when someone is attacked in such a violent way using a firearm, the only thing that they can cling to is hope and comfort. The hope that governments will take action and take all of the means possible to prevent this type of extreme violence, and comfort in the idea that the brutal death of our sisters was not in vain because other lives will be saved.

I had already come to testify as the witness to a massacre, but mainly as an ordinary citizen, before the parliamentary and Senate committees, about Bill C-19, which scrapped the long-gun registry.

Despite the plentiful testimony from many pro-control groups, not a single line or a single comma was changed in the wording of the bill. This morning, I have no hope that things will be different this time around, but we are here because it is important to highlight some of the effects of this bill and to express our opposition to it, especially in light of all of the misinformation being disseminated by this government.

Bill C-42 will put us in the awful situation that we observe daily south of the border. Its adoption will result in easier access to firearms and will increase the chances that they fall into the wrong hands. MPs who vote in favour of this bill will have to assume responsibility for this.

Our position is the outright rejection of Bill C-42.

9:55 a.m.

Heidi Rathjen Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Bill C-42 is a complex bill and includes many measures, and we won't be able to address them all. This morning I would like to address two specific ones.

The first one concerns the ability of the RCMP to classify certain types of weapons. As you know, about a year ago, the RCMP ruled that thousands of semi-automatic weapons that had entered the country as non-restricted long guns were in fact prohibited, given their ability to be converted to fully automatic firearms.

These weapons included the full range of Swiss Arms models and various versions of the CZ858 family, one of which was used in September 2012 during the election celebrations of the Parti Québécois. One man was killed and another one was injured, but the toll could have been much higher had the gun not jammed after the first shot. The shooter, Richard Bain, was a member of a gun club and was a legal owner of that weapon, amongst many others.

We would have hoped that the public safety implications of having thousands of prohibited weapons circulating across the country would be obvious to all, but that was not the case. As soon as the decision was rendered, public safety minister Steven Blaney echoed the complaints of the gun lobby, criticized the RCMP for their arbitrary decision, and announced a two-year amnesty for the owners of these weapons, accompanied by a public address specifically to gun owners stating, “Our Conservative Government is on your side” and that they will always defend the rights of honest gun owners, followed, of course, by an email directing supporters to a fundraising site.

Bill C-42 authorizes the Minister of Public Safety—a partisan political position—to override any and all classifications, even those clearly defined by law. The minister could literally reclassify as non-restricted any weapon, no matter how dangerous, at any time, for any reason, thus extracting it from any significant controls.

Bill C-42 was tabled only months after the murders of three RCMP officers in Moncton. Justin Bourque used an M305 semi-automatic Winchester rifle, which is a Chinese-made semi-automatic version of the American M14 service rifle, a favourite of military firearms collectors.

Only a few months before the tragedy, the RCMP, echoing other police organizations, had raised concerns with the minister regarding the inherent risks of the legal availability of such weapons. These include, for example, .50 calibre rifles that can pierce military aircraft and light armoured vehicles, not to mention bulletproof vests of police. This picture shows the Steyr Mannlicher, which is unrestricted. You can buy it over the Internet without the buyer being obligated to verify the validity of the possession permit.

Instead of properly classifying these types of weapons according to their risks, this government chose instead, with Bill C-42, to make that kind of political interference at the expense of public safety official and permanent.

The second issue is the discretionary powers of chief firearms officers, which are a core element of their work. Every day, chief firearms officers use their discretion while making decisions on whether or not to issue a variety of licences and authorizations. CFOs may further use their discretion to determine whether or not it is desirable in the interest of public safety to attach special conditions to authorizations or a licence.

For example, a CFO may decide to require a medical report stating that the previous mental illness of an applicant has been successfully treated as a condition of the issuance of a permit. A CFO may require that a business reconfigure its service counter to make sure that the display of the guns is far enough away from clients.

Some conditions can be more comprehensive. For example, Quebec does not allow prohibited weapons to be on the premises of gun clubs, even if they are grandfathered or subject to an amnesty. In Alberta, the CFO requires sellers in gun shows to have trigger locks on their guns, as opposed to putting plastic or wire tie wraps around the triggers.

It is this ability—attaching conditions to licences—that will be subject to new regulations under Bill C-42.

What these regulations will be is impossible to know; however, given that the government has presented this bill as a way to rein in broad and often discretionary authority of unelected bureaucrats, and that it follows from the gun lobby, we are pretty confident the regulations are meant to have detrimental effects on these kinds of public safety decisions.

We don't have to look very far for similar, recent examples of this type of interference. For example, sales records in gun stores had existed in the law since 1978 and were never controversial. The firearms registry rendered them not necessary, because it took up that role. But following the abolition of the gun registry, chief firearms officers required gun businesses to keep inventories and sales ledgers. However, following complaints from the gun lobby regarding this, this government tabled regulations prohibiting chief firearms officers from requiring such a rule even though they said that this could facilitate illegal diversion of guns by gun businesses to the black market.

Another example concerns gun shows. Up until 2012 all sales at these events were first cleared by the registrar, since it automatically verified the licence of each buyer before issuing a new registration certificate. Since the elimination of the registry, there is no way to ensure that sales that take place in these huge gun shows are legal. In order to compensate for the loss of this oversight, every chief firearms office in the country said it was necessary for the government to enact existing gun show regulations, which would allow them to act in an enforcement capacity and ensure minimum safety standards at these shows. According to the firearms investigative and enforcement services directorate, which is tasked to combat illegal smuggling, without proper controls gun shows may become a focal point for the purchase and subsequent stockpiling of non-restricted firearms for criminal use.

As you know, in the United States about one-third to 40% of guns sold at gun shows are sold illegally to people who otherwise wouldn't pass a background check. This was a totally reasonable request by the chief firearms officers, aimed at ensuring the safety of gun shows and preventing illegal sales. But the gun lobby complained, and of course, the government axed the regulations.

In conclusion, discretion regarding the classification of guns and certain parts of the implementation of the Firearms Act should be left in the hands of the RCMP and the chief firearms officers, who are objective, knowledgeable, and mandated to protect the public. It should not be overruled by political interests. Subjecting discretionary powers of public safety officials to political interference places partisan politics over good governance, ideology over expertise, and gun interests over public safety.

Bill C-42 should be opposed and rejected.

Thank you.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much.

We will now hear from Mr. Pierre Latraverse who is the president of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs.

You have the floor, sir.

10:05 a.m.

Pierre Latraverse President, Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs

Good morning to all committee members.

I will now give a presentation on behalf of the federation and its branches.

The Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs is a not-for-profit organization that was created in 1946. Its mandate is to contribute to the management, development and continuation of hunting and fishing as traditional, heritage and sporting activities, while respecting wildlife in their habitat.

Its objectives are to represent the interests of hunters and anglers; defend and protect the practice of hunting and fishing activities, and promote them in order to ensure the sustainability of the sport; promote the adoption of responsible behaviour by hunters and anglers; cooperate with public authorities to establish conservation and wildlife habitat development programs; cooperate with public authorities to establish wildlife management plans which help governments reach their biological, social and economic objectives.

The federation today comprises some 200 associations which themselves comprise over 125,000 members spread out across all regions of Quebec. It counts on the support of its two foundations, Héritage faune and Sécurité nature, to reach its objectives.

Héritage faune is the official foundation of the federation. It was established in 1980. Its mandate is to offer various sources of funding that allow for the completion of wildlife, aquatic and land development projects, renewal programs and wildlife scholarships for university graduates. It is involved in many projects with organizations in the wildlife and environmental sectors in Quebec.

Sécurité nature was created in 1995. It is the architect of the federation in terms of education. It ensures the delivery of our education program courses on safety and wildlife coordination, and also the coordination of 450 volunteer monitors responsible for giving courses in all regions of Quebec. It also develops education programs on nature interpretation, protection and the enhancement of wildlife and its habitat, in addition to the safety of individuals practising outdoor activities. It also edits educational materials on the knowledge, conservation, and enhancement of fauna and habitat development, and outdoor leisure activities.

According to statistics from Sécurité nature, the training course Initiation to Hunting with a Firearm is becoming more popular in Quebec. The number of individuals trained by this course was 5,703 in 1994, 10,750 in 1999, 14,000 in 2006 and 20,000 in 2014. According to statistics from Sécurité nature, registrations for the Canadian Firearms Safety Course is also on the rise in Quebec. The number of individuals trained was 10,681 in 1994, 11,968 in 1999, 15,088 in 2006 and 23,910 in 2014.

Concerning Bill C-42, an Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other acts, the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs is very pleased about this initiative. This bill very much targets the needs of Quebec hunters because it simplifies the procedures for awarding a permit for users who follow the law, while strengthening safety and education.

Some aspects of the bill, such as the fusion of the possession only licence and the possession and acquisition licence, and the establishment of a six-month grace period for the renewal of this permit, will allow hunters to avoid criminal charges due to simple administrative errors. These components will make the lives of hunters easier.

The Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs has always been a proponent of education and safety in terms of firearms use.

Removing the obligation to take the Firearms Safety Course is excellent news. In Quebec, a person already has to take and pass the course if he or she wants to obtain a hunting certificate.

Since 2013, the cost of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course exam was increased following a request by the Chief Firearms Officer, and it then cost the same as the Firearms Safety Course, to encourage people to take the training. So in 2014, 33 people took the Firearms Safety Course, as compared to over 200 in 2012.

The federation supports prohibiting firearms ownership by people who have been found guilty of domestic violence. The changes made to the legislation will make it easier for hunters to carry on their activities in Quebec, while strengthening security, which is essential for the federation.

Thank you for listening, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much, Mr. Latraverse.

We will now go to the first round of questions for seven minutes.

Mr. Leef, please.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Do you consider yourself and the members of your federation to be the gun lobby?

10:10 a.m.

President, Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs

Pierre Latraverse

We are not a gun lobby. First, our federation promotes hunting and fishing activities, and ensures that these activities respect nature, the animals and users.

Firearms are only part of our activities. Our activities involve hunting animals while respecting them. We are not a gun lobby. We also use bows and crossbows, which are projectile weapons. They are not firearms. We also look at those things to ensure that hunting is done well and is good for all of society.

Quebec benefits to the tune of $1.6 billion through hunting activities on its territory.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

You've listed 125,000 members of your association and there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who belong to fish and wildlife federations and groups across Canada. Part of hunting of course involves the lawful, ethical use of firearms and of course the courses that come with that, be it the Canadian firearms safety course or provincial hunter education training programs.

From your experience, as I'm sure you've worked with all those groups and associations across Canada, do you and your colleagues in those associations believe it is reasonable that, the moment a firearms licence expires, Canadian citizens would be subject to firearms seizures and immediate criminal sanctions?

10:15 a.m.

President, Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs

Pierre Latraverse

I did not quite understand the question. The voice of the interpreter was a little weak.

In Quebec, you have to take the Firearms Safety Course to get a hunting certificate, which then allows you to purchase a permit. It's a very basic course to ensure that people know how to safely handle firearms. You already have to take two courses to hunt with a firearm in Quebec.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Thank you.

There's interpretation but that was well said anyway.

Maybe I'll pose that question to you, Ms. Rathjen.

Currently, present day, when a licence expires and when a person has taken the Canadian firearms safety course, many of whom are federation members who take additional courses for hunter education and ethics development programs, immediately they're subject to criminal sanctions and the seizure of their firearms.

Do you believe it to be reasonable that a Canadian would face criminal sanctions the moment a licence expires?

10:15 a.m.

Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient

Heidi Rathjen

I think it's important to ask that question in a larger context. This is not just about hunters and their licences expiring. First, there's police discretion in laying charges or not in various cases.

Second, the reason we have licences is to make sure, as this government has said many times, that those who own guns are authorized, are able, and are safe to own guns. This is important in initial screening, but it's also important on an ongoing basis, especially if you look at specific cases of....

This government has often said, as an argument supporting the abolition of the registry, that you don't need to know exactly what guns are on the premises when you're called for a domestic violence incident or something like that. You just check and see if the people who live in the house own guns and that should be enough for them to take preventive actions. To know if an owner or person in a home owns a gun, the licence has to be up to date. That's the only thing now that can tell police if this is a gun owner, because if you own guns you at least need to have a licence.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

I'm sorry, I have limited time.

I was wondering specifically if you thought it was reasonable that a Canadian would face criminal sanctions.

Maybe I could help you a little. I did like the line you said, that we need to focus on ideology over...or you suggested that our government is focusing on ideology over expertise. Of course I have longitudinal, peer-reviewed studies that clearly show that licensed Canadian firearms are less likely to be used to commit murder, if we're talking about the most extreme end of violence.

But I couldn't help but miss.... I'm coming at this from the perspective of a former Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer, a former conservation officer, who on a daily basis dealt with law-abiding Canadian firearms owners. I never had access to that registry. I never had access to that information you're talking about. I wouldn't have had access to any of the ATT information that's being highlighted in this bill, so I think you're overemphasizing some of the information that you believe police and conservation officers or any other law enforcement officer in this country would have had. That just simply wasn't available and that's not about to change under this piece of legislation.

The one piece I do find a little disconcerting is that I think it's important we have a logical, rational discussion on this, because I haven't missed some of the sensationalization of the firearms that you've presented. When you focused on the .50 calibre that could pierce bulletproof vests, this may seem like semantics to you but this helps us lead to a rational discussion on this. There's no such thing as a bulletproof vest; there are only bullet-resistant vests and they're designed for law enforcement officers to protect themselves from the firearms they carry on their own hip, not against any others. There isn't a hunting rifle that can't pierce a bullet-resistant vest on a police officer.

You build these things in to sensationalize something, to make Canadians fear that a .50 calibre is out there and suggest that's going to create a risk for law enforcement officers. I can tell you as a law enforcement officer that's not the case.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much. Your time has expired.

We will now go to Madam Doré Lefebvre.

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the three witnesses who are appearing at our meeting, namely Mr. Latraverse via video conference, Ms. Rathjen and Mr. Laganière, on the important subject of Bill C-42. Allow me to first address the members of PolyRemembers and ask them a few questions.

Just before you spoke, we heard from the Coalition for Gun Control. Representatives for that group said that there had been a lack of consultation about the provisions contained in Bill C-42 with regard to violence against women.

I know that you represent an organization which plainly highlights all the acts of gun violence committed against women. If possible, I would like you to speak more to that aspect.

10:20 a.m.

Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient

Heidi Rathjen

I would like to specify that we are not a women's group specialized in preventing domestic violence. We are simple citizens who represent witnesses to and victims of gun violence.

The issue of domestic violence is absolutely critical. Firearms are often an important factor in domestic violence. I believe that the changes made under Bill C-42 are not significant in that regard. As far as I know, no women's group has been consulted and no group fighting domestic violence have asked for these types of changes.

The coalition clearly explained that an indefinite prohibition order, as opposed to one limited to 10 years, will change nothing. In fact, it won't change very much. This was added to the bill so that the government can claim that the bill will strengthen gun control, when all other significant measures will be watered down. Controls at every level will be weakened, except for one provision on imports.

All of the measures we are discussing today, and which have been debated by the media and in the House of Commons, will weaken gun control. These measures were not introduced in the interest of public safety, but rather to respond to the complaints of groups representing gun owners and the gun lobby.

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

You have led me to where I wanted to go with my second question, which has to do with the classification of firearms.

The power to classify firearms will lie with cabinet instead of with groups of experts, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP has experts who understand what is happening on the market, and who classify firearms within a reasonable timeframe, among other things.

What do you think of the changes being made to the current system and to the weakening of the classification system?

10:20 a.m.

Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient

Heidi Rathjen

It's extremely worrying. We want assault weapons to be prohibited, or at the very least, restricted, because they are extremely dangerous. They are designed to kill human beings in war situations. There are different models of firearms. They have to be assessed and experts need to be able to review the criteria and the different military features of weapons in order to classify them.

The current government has done nothing to classify new models entering the market. These models are often labelled as being unrestricted, and so they are not subject to any kind of control. It's only later on that the RCMP is able to find the models which clearly have been misclassified under the law. The criteria still have not been updated. The list of prohibited models has not been updated, but at least the police is trying to apply certain criteria in reclassifying misclassified firearms. The reaction of the current government is to reverse these decisions, to complain and to declare amnesties.

Last summer, regulations were very quietly adopted. Under these regulations, the RCMP cannot reclassify a firearm for one year after the date the firearm was initially classified. This was done for the benefit of companies with commercial interests. Bill C-42 builds on those regulations to subject the law to future regulations which we know nothing of yet. That way, it will be possible to completely overturn this decisions made at the discretion of the RCMP.

We know very well that this government really doesn't care about who owns this type of firearm. None of the three investigations which followed the shooting of three police officers in Moncton asked how someone like Justin Bourque could have obtained assault weapons, nor why that was allowed to happen. On the contrary, the investigations tried to determine how to better arm police officers, instead of preventing people from owning assault weapons.

Everything indicates that these new regulations will go against public safety and will make it easier for firearm owners to access weapons designed for military purposes which, in our view, should never end up in the hands of ordinary citizens.

10:25 a.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Several police forces across the country have expressed their concerns with regard to the transportation of firearms and the changes being made to provisions which will allow prohibited or restricted weapons to be transported. In their view, it will be extremely difficult to enforce this and they are very concerned.

Do you share the concerns voiced by the various police forces regarding these types of weapons and the changes which will be made to provisions governing the transportation of prohibited firearms?