Public Safety Committee on May 31st, 2018

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I will leave you to take it up with the clerk.

[Vice-Chief Heather Bear]

Okay. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

From the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, we have Mr. DeMille or Mr. McRae.

[Matt DeMille, Manager, Fish and Wildlife Services, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, our 100,000 members, supporters, and subscribers, and our 740 clubs across Ontario, thank you for inviting us to talk about Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

My name is Matt DeMille, and I'm the manager of fish and wildlife services with OFAH. With me is Brian McRae, who is responsible for looking at the technical aspects of firearms policy for the OFAH.

The OFAH is the largest conservation-based organization in Ontario, but we also represent all possible firearms interests, including hunting, trapping, and recreational shooting. Additionally, we represent 56 shooting clubs that operate 80 licensed firearms ranges approved by the chief firearms officer.

We are the only fishing and hunting organization appearing before this committee, but our submitted brief that you have in front of you has been endorsed by our affiliates from coast to coast to coast. This includes the Yukon Fish and Game Association, Northwest Territories Wildlife Federation, British Columbia Wildlife Federation, Alberta Fish and Game Association, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, Manitoba Wildlife Federation, Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, Prince Edward Island Wildlife Federation, Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation. In total, our organizations represent approximately 345,000 Canadians.

In our time today, we will only be able to touch on a few highlights of Bill C-71. In our submitted brief, you will find a thorough analysis of each clause of the bill including background context, outstanding questions and concerns, as well as results from a survey conducted by the OFAH in April on Bill C-71, of more than 3,500 firearms users. We have copies of the full survey report if anyone is interested.

Bill C-71 was tabled as public safety legislation that would respect the firearms community. We don't believe this bill accomplishes either of those stated intentions and, as a result, we cannot support the bill as written.

Unfortunately, Bill C-71 is far too light on sound rationale and far too heavy on uncertainty to convince us it will truly enhance public safety. The paper-thin rationale has further undermined an already strained relationship between firearms owners and government when it comes to firearms policy.

To start, the government has overstated and misrepresented statistics to create a post-2013 Canadian firearms crisis that simply isn't true. In fact, long-term trends actually show overall firearms-related crime is on the decline. Whether deliberate or not, this tactic has sown skepticism in the need for such sweeping changes to firearms legislation. It's not off to a good start.

Next, the bill is intended to enhance public safety as part of a much larger policy initiative to tackle gangs and gun violence. On this, Bill C-71 is silent. A quick scan of the bill shows no direct reference to gangs, gun violence, organized crime, and illegal cross-border smuggling of firearms.

That quick scan also reveals that the bill is entirely focused on the law-abiding firearms community. It's not hard to see why 97% of respondents to our survey felt it is too focused on law-abiding citizens to provide any net gains for public safety. Firearms owners obviously feel unjustifiably targeted before even looking under the hood of this legislation.

Let's take a look at the specific elements of the bill, starting with enhanced background checks. The OFAH is not opposed to background checks that look back more than five years, but the government needs to convince us that this will actually increase public safety. Firearms owners are already one of the most vetted segments of Canada's population. Right now existing firearms owners undergo continuous eligibility screening through the Canadian Police Information Centre to verify there has been no criminal activity since acquiring their licence. It is our understanding in Ontario that the chief firearms officer is not limited right now in how far they look back for the criteria they use during eligibility assessments for licence applicants. It begs the question, are the proposals actually enhanced background checks?

Next, let's look at licence verification. Right now, responsible firearms sellers check to make sure buyers have a licence, and they already have the ability to call the Canadian firearms program to verify, if necessary. The OFAH supports the intent of licence verification as it protects the seller and ensures a legal transaction, but our support for the proposed change is dependent on a user-friendly process that incorporates an accessible, timely, and effective appeal system if verification is not granted. We also think it should end there. We have yet to see evidence that clearly shows any issues, such as illegal firearms sales, under the current process, or that the proposed reference number database could effectively assist police. How much will a reference number database cost, and will it actually enhance public safety?

Next, let's look at retailer record-keeping. Record-keeping is something many businesses already perform as a best practice. The OFAH is not opposed to mandatory retailer record-keeping, but many firearms owners are concerned about the safekeeping and privacy of records as well as how records will be accessed by police.

To mitigate these concerns, we would like to see specific provisions added to establish security standards and penalties for non-compliance to ensure the privacy and security of personal information. Additionally, there must be strict guidelines for police accessing records to ensure that it is not used inappropriately.

Next, let's look at automatic authorization to transport. The OFAH cannot support the proposed removal of automatic ATTs. Bill C-71 should be amended to rescind this proposal.

During testimony to this committee on May 8, 2018, the RCMP indicated the number of ATTs issued for gun shows, 250, and gunsmiths, 131, in 2015, was an extremely small percentage of the overall 143,000 issued across Canada. That's only slightly more than a quarter of 1%. It's a different proposal but the same question: how can this possibly enhance public safety?

Next let's look at classification. The focus should not be on who is responsible. Rather, it should be on how firearms are classified. Form and function should determine classification, and not emotional responses to the appearance or perception of a firearm. One of our survey respondents stated, “Assault is the act of inflicting harm or threatening to do so. Assault is not a synthetic stock with a curved magazine and a semi automatic action.” Arbitrary classification of firearms is a significant concern.

Government should establish and adhere to a standardized process for classifying or reclassifying that is consistent, transparent, evidence-based, has full consultation with firearms users, and also has an effective appeals system. Bill C-71 should establish this requirement.

Lastly, let's look at the long gun registry records. A lot of confusion remains about the long gun registry records that exist today. Although we are being told that only the Quebec records still exist, the firearms community wants clear public statements on what records remain, how they can be used, and why the government is handing them over to Quebec after the Supreme Court decision. Transparency in this will help build trust.

In conclusion, it is becoming increasingly clear that Bill C-71, as written, is not likely to achieve the lofty goals presented for this proposed legislation. We are imploring this committee to ask tough questions and seriously consider meaningful amendments. Our opposition to Bill C-71 is not partisan. It is not emotional. It was not predetermined on principle. It was only after a thorough critical analysis that we arrived at the same conclusion for almost every proposal; it won't enhance public safety. The evidence simply doesn't support it.

Licensed firearms owners care about public safety as much as other Canadians. The firearms community is not against firearms legislation. If evidence shows a change is required to enhance public safety, then we will look at it objectively. First we need to ask ourselves, do we need more restrictions on law-abiding Canadians, or will that simply pull the easiest policy lever to say we are doing something for public safety? More red tape on an already highly regulated firearms community won't provide any appreciable benefit for public safety.

We applaud the government's commitment of $327.6 million over the next five years to combat gangs and gun violence, with the intent to spend $100 million per year once the first five years are up, but why is Bill C-71 silent on increased penalties for serious firearms crimes? Targeted legislated action toward gangs, not guns, would be a true complement to the funding committed by the government in 2017. This can be achieved with amendments to Bill C-71.

In the end, Bill C-71 has created confusion, concern, and eroded confidence in the government's approach to firearms policy. There has been very little convincing evidence to demonstrate a need for most of the proposed changes, and this has left the majority of the firearms community in opposition to the bill. If the government is serious about respecting the firearms community, then it can't move forward with Bill C-71 without significant amendments, amendments not only to help minimize the unnecessary scope of its impact on law-abiding firearms owners but also to introduce tangible provisions that directly tackle the stated intent of addressing gun violence. If nothing else, meaningful amendments would signal that government is listening to help rebuild some of the trust lost in this process.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. DeMille.

Finally, we have John Hipwell or Matthew Hipwell for 10 minutes.

[John Hipwell, Past President, Wolverine Supplies]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, Matt and I would like to thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

We believe that matters of public safety and national security should be above party politics. We should endeavour to work on common ground. We speak from practical experience, and everything we present to you in our brief is fully supported by the 12 annexes that are included. We will always support improvements to our firearms control system if they improve public safety and national security, and are fair and practical. Sadly, Bill C-71 fails to achieve this.

Based on our practical experience, we present to you our brief on firearms classification. Here is a short summary.

[Matthew Hipwell, Owner, Wolverine Supplies]

Good morning. I'm Matt Hipwell, and I've spent nearly the past 17 years as a front-line RCMP officer.

When the RCMP specialized firearms support services classify a firearm, it is issued an FRT, a reference number. The FRT is not law. I've seen this statement from several members of the RCMP, including Murray Smith. I quote Murray Smith as saying, “the Firearms Reference Table has no standing in law. It's simply the...viewpoint of the firearms program on classification and description of any particular item.” It is the perceived policy of police departments, the CFC, CBSA, EXCOL, and others that the FRT is law. Many organizations, both government and civilian, believe the FRT is law. As the FRT is only the opinion of the RCMP, it has no legal standing and we have no formal appeal process to challenge any decision they make.

The FRT is not available to the general public, so most legal firearm owners are normally unaware of any changes made to the FRT. The FRT is a tool developed by the RCMP. The FRT information is used during the process of firearms identification, classification, tracing, importation, registration, transfers, and public agency recording, along with a few others. As there is no legal requirement for the firearms classification and the FRT, it has no statutory authority. There are no time requirements for replies to questions from the members of the firearms industry concerning firearm classification and the issuing of the FRT.

We are told that all requests from law enforcement departments take priority, that the section is understaffed and underfunded, and decisions on firearm classification can take up to five years to be made.

[John Hipwell]

Incorrect firearms classification and consequently the issuing of incorrect FRT by the RCMP is a serious problem. One example here is a Turkish-manufactured MKA 1919 semi-automatic shotgun, manufactured by several Turkish manufacturers and marketed by even more Turkish exporters under several different model designations and names, the most common name being the BR-99. Although these shotguns differ in details such as butt stocks, sights, and colour, they are the same original design.

This shotgun was submitted to the RCMP in 2010 by CanadaAmmo, a Canadian importer. In 2013 Wolverine Supplies imported a shotgun of the same design manufactured by Alpharms; we were advised it was restricted. In 2013, I submitted my technical requirement as to why these shotguns were incorrectly classified as restricted. The RCMP reviewed these shotguns and in 2016 the classification was corrected to non-restricted and a new FRT issued. This delay of six years for a correction translates into several million dollars in lost sales, which has a direct impact on small businesses' employment. We employ over 20 full-time staff.

[Matthew Hipwell]

I have been advised by the RCMP that the only way I can legally challenge the FRT ruling is to put myself in the position where I face Criminal Code charges. It is not reasonable that to implement change I must face criminal charges. In my position as an owner of a firearm business that is an impossibility. It would give the RCMP reason to close me down. Even if I defeated the charges later in court it would effectively bankrupt me, destroying my business and a lifetime of hard work, and 20 staff would be unemployed. We would currently have to risk everything to challenge the FRT, which is not a legal requirement, has no legal authority, and is created by civilian employees of the RCMP.

The problem of correctly classifying firearms is further complicated, as a lot of vitally important definitions are neither clearly nor legally defined. They are open to different interpretation and opinion.

[John Hipwell]

For example, the use of the word “variant”. When some previous firearms were classified by order in council, the phrase “and variants” was added. There is no legal definition of “variant”.

In the past, as with the MKA 1919 and Alpharms shotgun, if it looked like an M-16, it was reasonable to assume that it was considered a variant. After protests from us, the FRT on these shotguns was changed from restricted to non-restricted.

The RCMP claims to be forensic firearms specialists. How can they classify a firearm simply because it resembles, in outward appearance, another firearm and still maintain any kind of professional credibility?

Please note in the above examples, that both the first and later corrected FRT have the same number, despite being given a different classification. The FRT is not available to individual owners, and no one in the firearms industry was ever notified by the RCMP of any changes to the FRT. These changes could result in criminal charges to unknowing firearms owners. We do not believe this is a desirable situation for anyone as it can catch an innocent person.

[Matthew Hipwell]

Another problem is the increased use by the RCMP of what is known as the R. v. Hasselwander case. This is where a judge ruled that, if a firearm could be readily and easily converted to discharge shots in rapid succession with a single pressure of the trigger in a relatively short period of time and with relative ease, it is in fact prohibited. This is a very general statement, and key areas are not defined like “readily and easily”, “relatively short period of time”, and “relative ease”. All of this is open to interpretation. In the original court case, an experienced Ontario Provincial Police armourer used a file to modify a semi-automatic Thompson submachine gun back to fully automatic in less than 15 minutes.

The RCMP are using this judgment in order to classify many firearms as prohibited, despite needing major machining, design, and the manufacturing of missing parts. In a recent conversation with Mr. William Etter, the chief firearms technologist, he said that they sourced missing parts from their own stores and that this was not counted in the decision. These parts are not commercially available to civilian firearms owners.

With advanced technical knowledge and tools, it is theoretically possible, although illegal, to alter firearms so that they are capable of being fully automatic. However, it is certainly beyond the capabilities of most ordinary hunters and sport shooters. That is why we feel it is so important to have clear definitions in this area.

There must be the ability to appeal firearm classification decisions to a review board of subject matter experts, including industry and legal experts, engineers, and designers, as we require a decision based on mechanics and law, not personal opinion. If we continue to allow the RCMP SFSS to dictate FRT classification based on their opinion of what the intent of the law is and their interpretation of court decisions, there must be an appeal process in place before it is assumed to be law.

In summary, our understanding of Bill C-71 is that the RCMP will be given the authority to classify firearms with no appeal process and without government interference. The RCMP SFSS has made errors in the past, and there is no reason to believe that this will change.

Clear, accurately defined definitions of the criteria used to classify firearms need to be established. This area is too important to be left to personal interpretations and opinions. There's a need to establish an appeal process for firearm classifications to an independent board of subject matter experts. This would be, in effect, an impartial technical committee. Reasonable time limits for the classification of firearms and appeals need to be established with compensation paid if these times are not met.

With that, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to speak this afternoon.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Messrs. Hipwell.

Colleagues, we have roughly 70 minutes left.

With that, I'll ask Mr. Fraser for seven minutes, please.

Just for the purposes of the witnesses, it's the member's seven minutes, but it is a hard stop at seven minutes, whether we're in the middle of a question or the middle of an answer.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for joining us today. I'll start with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

I had the opportunity to sit down with your Nova Scotia counterparts before Bill C-71 was tabled and hear some of the same thoughts that you expressed today.

One of the items that you mentioned was that you don't necessarily have opposition to the record-keeping by vendors, provided that there are certain protections put in place for personal information. Right now the bill would require, before police can access the record, that they have judicial authorization in the form of a warrant.

Is this kind of protection from the police gaining access to that information enough?

You also mentioned that we should consider penalties for non-compliance of the vendors.

[Matt DeMille]

Yes. Just for clarification, I think the point that we're trying to make is.... There are kind of two points there. There's the police access, but there's also the vendors themselves and how they keep and maintain their records, making sure that the information is confidential and is not open in plain sight, and that it's not accessible by anyone else.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Just to break the two up, with respect to police access, to me the gold standard is having a judge authorize access ahead of time in all cases. For just the police access issue, is that enough to satisfy you that the police wouldn't be abusing that, or are there other measures we could be considering? I don't want the police to just give this information for personal interest, for example.

[Matt DeMille]

Yes. I think judicial authorization is the main part of that, but if we unpack that a little bit, I think some of the things that we were thinking are related to making sure that the judicial authorization is specific to an investigation and that they're looking at only one thing. There's a lot of concern within the firearms community about what are referred to as “fishing trips”, the concern that police may go and look for more than they need. It's really about targeting.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

In terms of the penalties for non-compliance, if the vendor violates the privacy and trust of the firearms owner, what kind of a penalty scheme are you contemplating that would actually satisfy you that this is going to be dealt with in a responsible way?

[Matt DeMille]

I don't really have a specific answer.

I think at this stage, it's more about ensuring that in the legislation there's something that enables the ability to do that. I think that's more for the drafters and probably legal counsel. It's not for us to determine penalties.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

One of the other items that you mentioned was with respect to background checks. You said that you didn't necessarily have opposition to going beyond five years, but you wanted to make sure it was enhanced.

My understanding of what the bill aims to do is to look at criminal or mental health history that would make the person more prone to committing a violent act going forward. Are there other features we could add to ensure that we're actually targeting the right people, in the right way, with these enhanced background checks?

[Matt DeMille]

I think that our comments were mostly focused on our understanding of how the process works in Ontario.

It's our understanding that the chief firearms officer can already go and look beyond five years. They can look for a lifetime. They're not necessarily limited in the criteria. When they do the risk assessments, they're actually looking at much more than what's narrowly defined in the current legislation.

I think that change in the legislation may not actually turn into a functional difference in what the chief firearms officer can do now.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

On the same topic, going to Ms. Bear with the AFN, you mentioned that for a whole host of reasons, which you quite rightly didn't have the time to get into, systemic discrimination and so on, first nations people more often have criminal records than other Canadians.

One of the issues that I just raised was the fact that these background checks are only meant to target people who are more likely to commit a violent act.

Do you think that if we ensured that the background checks weren't targeting those, maybe, who possessed a beer when they were 18 years old and the age of majority was 19, but targeted somebody who, seven years ago, was in a violent relationship, for example.... Would that be enough to satisfy you, as long as it's targeting the people who are actually more prone to commit violent acts?

[Vice-Chief Heather Bear]

I think that is a possibility.

The fact of the matter is that many of our aboriginal or first nations people plead out guilty, and many times they're not. Poverty is another issue. The inability to seek proper legal counsel [Technical difficulty—Editor] courthouse. The word just swings back and forth—guilty, guilty, guilty. I've seen it and witnessed it many times. Not all of our people are guilty of the crimes they have been charged with.

Like I say, for those known violent offenders, yes, I think there should be harsher laws or mechanisms in place to ensure the safety of everyone.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I probably have enough time for one more question, if both OFAH and perhaps Wolverine Supplies, have time to offer comments.

One of the issues I have heard about in my community is that there are some people who think parliamentarians, as opposed to the RCMP, should be making the classification. For a few reasons, I'm a little bit nervous about putting it directly in the hands of people who are subject to political pressure, who are both prone to knee-jerk reactions when they see something happen in a different part of the world but are also subject to lobbying efforts by well-funded lobby organizations on the other side.

To me, the salve for this is likely one of transparency. Do you think that things could be made better if the classification decisions by the RCMP required them to put forward reasons as to why they were classifying a particular firearm?

[John Hipwell]

If the definitions were clearly defined, anybody could classify a firearm. We have no problem in Canada in classifying handguns. We just have to check. Is it centrefire or rimfire? Is it 32 or nine millimetres? We check the calibre, and we check the barrel length. If the barrel is 105 or shorter, it's prohibited. If it's 106 or more, it's restricted. It's a done deal. I can have a firearm verified over the phone or emailed in a report. There's no question.

It's when we get into other firearms that the definitions are not clearly defined. When they're open to interpretation and opinion, we have no appeal process. The experts have made a lot of errors, as we have pointed out. There's—