Public Safety Committee on May 31st, 2018

[John Hipwell]

If the definitions that were used to classify firearms were clearly defined, I would have no objection to anybody's classifying a firearm. Anybody in this room could classify a firearm, if they were given certain criteria.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Okay. That would be such things as barrel length, rimfire, centrefire, and so on.

[John Hipwell]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

If the RCMP were the sole proprietors of technical information and were whispering in the ear of the minister, recommending that all semi-automatic firearms in Canada be restricted or prohibited, would that be something you would agree with?

[John Hipwell]

No, because you've changed things. There's nothing in the regulations to say that we have to determine whether a firearm is semi-automatic or non-semi-automatic to move it from one class to another. That determination is the job of Parliament. That is the purpose of government.

If you want to prohibit all semi-automatic firearms in Canada, go for it. Put it in the bill. Let us debate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Calkins, that will have to do.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Right now they could, couldn't they, if they wanted to?

[John Hipwell]

The way this is set up, yes, they could.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you both.

Mr. Dubé, you have seven minutes, please.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to follow up on the replies you just gave to Mr. Calkins.

According to what I understood, even before Bill C-71 was tabled, everyone, no matter which side of the debate they were on, agreed that because of the evolution of what is available on the market, the definitions needed to be reviewed in order to allow the RCMP to be better equipped to do the classification work.

Is that conclusion correct, in your opinion?

[John Hipwell]

Technology evolves. When I started shooting, I wanted a blued steel and a walnut stock. Then it shifted to stainless steel and synthetic. Now everybody wants polymer, black Parkerized finish, sniper stocks, and ventilated handguards, because this is what people see on the video games and in the movies. It's the way things have naturally developed.

Underneath, though, a gun is a gun. You can dress a sheep up as a wolf, but it's still a sheep. It doesn't matter what colour it is or anything else. We have the basic criteria laid down with magazine capacity, barrel lengths, calibre restrictions. That's how you control firearms.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

This leads me to my next question and you will have to forgive me because I am not an expert.

Regarding the modification of firearms, you mentioned a case that is before the courts. In your comments, you said that someone from the Ontario Provincial Police was able to modify a firearm in less than 15 minutes. You did specify, however, that the parts needed to modify a firearm were not available to the public.

This is not a trick question; my interest is sincere. How is it that modified firearms are used in various events that are broadcast on the news?

[John Hipwell]

Okay, there are two different scenarios here. With the Thompson, the OPP armourer, who was a very experienced individual, was able to sit in court with a couple of hand tools and modify the gun and make it go fully automatic. The judge ruled this was a prohibitive firearm. I think that was quite a reasonable decision, but in his decision he used the phrases “easily convertible” and “with reasonable ease”. Those definitions were not defined. He didn't say, if an experienced man can modify it in 15 minutes, it's prohibited. Now it goes to the RCMP lab and they have told me they'll modify the gun and then they have access to their own sources for the missing parts, which they can put in.

Guns are very different. Some can be modified simply with a few hand tools. Others are manufactured specifically for the civilian market so that the military full-auto parts are not put in and the receiver is machined in such a manner that even if you had the parts you couldn't put them in, plus there is no availability of these parts. For the average sportsman, it is impossible to do, plus there's the fact that it's a Criminal Code offence and somebody would lose his PAL. He'd lose all his firearms rights after that.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

With your permission, I will ask my next question, since my speaking time is limited.

The question is addressed to the representatives of both organizations. I will begin with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

What could transparency on the part of the RCMP look like? Are we talking about a report that would be tabled when the classification of a firearm is changed?

[Matt DeMille]

As you said, transparency is number one, and that just means, as we talked about earlier, having the information that's used in determinations up front and making sure there is information collected from people from all interests, including indigenous peoples, about how they use those firearms, what they are, what they mean, so that we can make good decisions.

It is having that upfront process where we have good information to make good decisions that is the most important thing.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Have you anything to add?

[John Hipwell]

Yes. We cannot get detailed reports from the RCMP on how they manage to convert a firearm. In the early days we could. We could apply under access to information and get a full forensics report detailing what they did. That is now blocked. We can no longer get a detailed report. They will tell us that they were able to convert it to fully automatic fire, and therefore, it is a prohibited firearm. They don't tell us how long it took, how much machining, or anything else.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thanks very much.

My final question, again for both of you, concerns record-keeping. Record-keeping was in place from the 1970s until about the mid-1990s. I'm just wondering how in its previous iteration it affected, in one way or another, your members, or in your case, your business.

[Matthew Hipwell]

Regarding the business, I'll put a different slant on it. As a police officer, if I went before a judge with 20-year-old information and an application for a search warrant, the judge would politely laugh at me and ask me to do my investigation and come back. I don't see how 20-year-old information is going to enhance—

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Sure, but I'm just wondering, under the law previously when record-keeping was required prior to the long gun registry, how that affected the operation of your business. It's the green book, as they called it.

[Matthew Hipwell]

That's the physical registers back in earlier days.

[John Hipwell]

We have to keep records as a responsible business for Canada Customs, for the CFC, for GST, for PST. There is no end of reasons why we keep records, not just specifically to trace firearms.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Barring the form that this will take, it wouldn't be a drastic change for—

[John Hipwell]

It depends on the format, but, as Matt was also saying, if the RCMP didn't have a search warrant, they would have to produce a production order before we would hand over information.

I was unaware of that until Matt joined us. Prior to that, if the RCMP contacted us on whether we had such-and-such a gun in our possession, who we sold it to, when we sold it, in the spirit of co-operation—I'm sticking my neck out here—we would have given them the information. When Matt joined us he said, whoa, you can tell the RCMP that you have the information but they cannot demand it without a search warrant or a production order.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Picard, you have seven minutes.