Public Safety Committee on May 31st, 2018

[Hugh Nielsen]

I want to touch on a point Ms. Bear made, which is that on the application form for aboriginal hunters, it says, “Are you a sustenance hunter?” Most people who are processing that think of sustenance as only providing food for indigenous people. Sustenance means to sustain. It's like she said. It's for hides, and it's for purposes of ceremony. They should not have to pay the $60 because there's a McDonald's close by. This is the interpretation by the RCMP, but I know in British Columbia I've had many people apply for sustenance, and they've been denied because they live in a city.

Getting back to the other, it's very important. Take Blueberry River First Nations, and Homalco in Campbell River up at Bute Inlet, for example. They need firearms there for protection against the grizzlies that come walking through the camp.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Nielsen, thank you for that. That's very helpful.

I'm running out of time. I want to get to my second question. I want to put on the record that the government did consult with the first nations chiefs of police in formulating the bill. In that context, I want to ask you about something that has not been raised yet in our discussion this afternoon, even though it has been raised in other panels, and that is the incidence of suicide and its connection to the availability of firearms. Do either of you have comments on that and particularly on how this bill may help us to move into different territory on this issue?

Please just be very brief.

[Hugh Nielsen]

Because there was a lack of training in the past, the biggest concentration of firearms in first nations communities.... A lot of the elders have not transferred the knowledge down to the youngers. It's only on storage. The storage is a very important thing for a firearm because if it gets into the hands of somebody who could inadvertently shoot themselves...and they don't know this.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Be very brief. There is 20 seconds for you on that issue, and then I'm out of time.

[Vice-Chief Heather Bear]

There needs to be secure storage.

[Hugh Nielsen]

It's about storage.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Apparently storage is important.

Mr. Motz, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back and clarify some things.

Mr. Fragiskatos is trying to stir water that he's already muddied with respect not only to classifications but also to gunsmiths.

If you look at the Firearms Act it says you authorize transport “to and from a business that holds a licence authorizing it to repair or appraise prohibited firearms or restricted firearms.” If you want to know more about that, Peter, you can go have a look at the Firearms Act. It's already in legislation.

Number two is the classification. We've heard from many witnesses, and I've received huge amounts of correspondence in regard to the concern with the RCMP being the final arbiter on the classification of firearms, given the enormous errors that have been made in the past, and with regard to the fact that the RCMP has that role, and in this act, the sole role, without parliamentary oversight. It's not that parliamentarians need to be the individuals who classify firearms, but they need to be the final authority on what that looks like, and those who have that final authority should be accountable to somebody and that is to the Canadian public. I know that you might have some comments about that, and if you can work them in, that would be great.

Mr. DeMille, you indicated that your organization has conducted a survey of your members. When asked whether Bill C-71 would make communities safer, how many people, would you say, responded to that particular survey out of your hundreds of thousands of members?

[Matt DeMille]

We had 3,500 people who responded to the survey and we had many comments related to that. I think the question wasn't phrased exactly like that, but I think we had a question—maybe Brian could pull that up quickly— related to whether they thought this legislation was going to enhance public safety. Ninety-seven per cent thought there wouldn't be any net gains to public safety.

To your previous question about the classification process, a third of our supporters actually come from urban or mixed urban-rural ridings. I think it's important to note that we're not a northern group. Our members and supporters come from all walks of life and from every riding and background you can imagine.

I think it's not about having a sympathetic response or a popularity contest. I think what we're looking for is an open and transparent dialogue on this. It's not about getting the answer we want. It's about having a good informed discussion that we can make decisions on. That's what we want for classification.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Would you consider having more people involved in that besides the RCMP, as well as other experts who might have even more expertise than the RCMP as part of that process, to be a wise decision?

[Matt DeMille]

Yes. I think having transparency in the way we look at the information to make the decisions but also transparency in the decision-making as to why it was done and the evidence that was used to support it, at both the front and back ends, is important.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I believe you said as part of your conversation, at the front end, that the lack of parliamentary oversight and responsibility on classifications is a problem.

[Matt DeMille]

I think both the lack of oversight and having it up to an individual group is a problem.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you.

Do you have any further comments from your organization or from your perspective?

[John Hipwell]

We're all on the same page here. We're talking the same language.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

We are...or these guys are. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.

[John Hipwell]

I think there's a lot more common ground in this room than a lot of people would give credit to. I don't have a problem with firearms classification, but let's have the definitions clearly defined so that I can go to a designer or a manufacturer and say, “This is what we have to have in Canada. This is approved; this isn't.”

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

In line with that, having more involved in it, having those experts besides just the RCMP—

[John Hipwell]

Absolutely.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

—is valuable for the public safety of Canadians.

[John Hipwell]

Yes, because we'll get a much more informed decision. We'll get a better decision.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you.

Have the members of your organization indicated any economic impact that might be...? I know that gun owners and gun-shops might have some...but have you gotten back anything in your surveys or had any comments suggesting that this Bill C-71 might have some negative economic impact on your membership?

[Matt DeMille]

I think I would maybe pass that off to those guys. They might be—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I know the answer from those guys already.