Public Safety Committee on Oct. 18th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You are talking too fast for me. Can you repeat that?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I said we agreed to continue the meeting despite the vote, and that it was the NDP's time and my time that was getting cut off. We already don't have much time. Given that it was the Conservatives who proposed going to the House to vote, could we not cut into their time rather than ours?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

They've already had their slot. You can't cut their time.

I was trying to fit in a full round within 15 minutes. Mr. Noormohamed actually ended up with six minutes.

I'm going to propose that we stop at the agreed-upon 15 minutes and invite our guests to come back after the vote if they are able to do so, and then we will continue wherever we left off.

I don't know if our witnesses are going to be able to stay, but perhaps we shall proceed on that basis, and in that case, please go ahead for six minutes.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

I thank the witnesses for their attendance.

I will first address the representatives of Airsoft in Canada. Earlier, my colleague from the Liberal Party said that the purpose of the bill was not to put you out of business. However, if I understand correctly, you were not consulted before this bill was introduced. Is that correct?

[Brian A. McIlmoyle]

Thank you for your question. It's a very good one, and the answer to that question is no. The government did not consult the industry or the player associations that exist in various provinces before this bill was tabled.

I think the volume of the response from our community, including direct submissions to this committee, perhaps made it clear to the honourable members that this is a serious issue, that many people are engaged in it and that when looking at legislating an industry away, consultation should be part of that process. In this case, it was not. We were not consulted in any way.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I tend to agree with you. I find it peculiar that my colleagues in the Liberal Party say they don't want to shut you down and they want to find common ground, but they didn't consult you.

In my opinion, the approach of the Fédération sportive d'airsoft du Québec, with whom you probably work, is very constructive and reasonable, since your industry, the airsoft pellet shooting industry, is extremely affected by the bill. Instead of removing all the sections that affect your industry, you are proposing amendments. To find a compromise, you have based yourselves in particular on what is done in California and in British legislation.

I imagine that you agree with the recommendations of the Quebec federation, but I would like you to tell us more about them. How far do you think the bill should go to further regulate your industry, without completely shutting it down?

[Brian A. McIlmoyle]

That's another very good question.

The airsoft community and industry have been operating in an absence of regulation for a very long time, and one of the things we want to achieve by this process is to bring clear regulations into place so that not only players but importers and retailers all know the lay of the land and can predict outcomes. This is one of the biggest issues with airsoft in general, because it operates within the spaces between regulations. It has been a successful community for a very long time and has been built to the size that I mentioned earlier, but it's very true that this bill is an opportunity to clear away this landscape of unsure circumstances and put in place clear regulations.

What we propose—and our colleagues in the Quebec federation agree as well—is a clear 18-plus requirement for purchase, a waiver at point of sale indicating clearly the potential responsibilities and dangers in the possession of these things and, in addition to that, clear markings and labelling on these devices so that people who purchase them know their responsibilities and know that they are responsible to ensure they're used safely and according to the law.

In addition, the application of clear regulations allows us to clearly provide that information to end-users, importers, exporters, purchasers and retailers. What we're really hoping to achieve here is to remove the fog, so to speak, and provide clear regulation and a clear path forward for our industry.

The esteemed members have said they don't want to destroy our industry, but this bill does, completely and finally, and without clear regulation, it's devastating for these things to happen to the many people who have invested their life savings in businesses and purchased properties—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry, sir. I have to cut you off there.

[Brian A. McIlmoyle]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Madame Michaud, you have one minute left.

I'm going to invite all of the witnesses to come back after the vote. I'm not exactly sure how long that will be. It will probably be half an hour. We'll then finish one minute with Madame Michaud and then six minutes with Mr. MacGregor. I apologize to you all, but the votes happen when they happen.

Thank you.

We are now suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting back to order.

I apologize to the witnesses. Thank you for sticking around. It's the way of life on the Hill, and these things happen.

We will continue with Madame Michaud.

You have the floor for one minute.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Winkel, we often hear your association or its members say that arresting an honest citizen gun owner is not going to stop a criminal from shooting someone. We tend to agree with you on that. We also agree with you that there is a problem with the trafficking of illegal weapons. That is what is causing deaths and injuries in cities like Montreal right now. We see it a lot in the media.

However, we must not forget that legal weapons remain dangerous and that it is normal and necessary to continue to supervise them. We are not saying that they should be removed everywhere and always, but it is normal to regulate an object that can kill someone, because it is not trivial.

It should be remembered that shootings have been perpetrated by legitimate gun owners. One need only think of Polytechnique, Dawson College or the Quebec City mosque. There have also been shootings in Fredericton, Moncton and Vernon.

Are you aware that militant groups fear that this could happen again and that another legitimate gun owner could do something irreparable?

[Wesley Allan Winkel]

Of course I am aware that there are groups against this.

Respectfully, we are talking about completely shutting down the handgun industry. You said that we weren't looking to do that, but we are. We're completely restricting the sale of handguns to all vetted owners.

I'd also like to say that we have a situation in which these items are severely restricted, and all of these owners are vetted by the RCMP. Is there any situation in which you have 100% safety with any item? No. That's not the case. It's our job to do the best we can to limit the number of these items getting into criminal hands, and I think the industry has done a very good job of that.

Now we're using an extreme amount of resources to try to limit the less than 10% of firearms that are acquired legally and we are not using our resources to attack the 90% that are not acquired legally. In the meantime, we're shutting down an industry that represents $8.5 billion to our economy and many jobs, and we can't minimize that. That's a great deal of cost to our overall economy and to these people in this industry who have participated in it legally for their whole lives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. MacGregor for six minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for helping to guide our committee through this study.

I'd like to start with Airsoft in Canada.

This summer, my constituent Jon Bell took me out to the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association and put me in some referee garb. I got to watch one of your competitions. You're right. I agree with your opening statement. There were people, young and old, all kinds of demographics, who had come to enjoy a good time in the outdoors. I'm very sympathetic to your sport.

It's obvious that people who engage with it are very passionate. As evidenced by the campaign thus far, they are very motivated to engage with this committee, so I salute you in your efforts for that political engagement.

In the way Bill C-21 is currently written, an airsoft gun is suddenly deemed a prohibited device. I know it's for the purposes of sections of the Criminal Code—weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, and so on, so it's specific sections—but what effect does it have on an owner to know that suddenly your device is now going to be deemed prohibited? What's that chill effect?

[Brian A. McIlmoyle]

Thank you for the question.

I'll put that question over to my colleague Nicholas Martin, who is our community liaison. He can answer that question.

[Nicholas James Martin, Member, Airsoft in Canada]

Alistair, thank you for the question.

A few of the issues we get right now are concerns about what happens after the bill is passed. What will happen if they decide to sell it? Obviously that will be illegal under the Criminal Code, because they will be considered prohibited firearms under the Criminal Code.

The immediate chilling effect is that we have been told that we can keep the ones we have and we get to keep using them, but as Bill C-21 is currently written, section 117.03 of the Criminal Code will empower police officers to take airsoft guns on sight. There is no reason required; they don't have to have to have a reason or probable cause. They need nothing.

The fear is that if they were to go to a paintball field and play an airsoft game, a police officer could show up and take their property, and there is no way to get it back.

The fear is that we—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

May I interrupt? I'm sorry about that. I have limited time.

You made some helpful suggestions for our committee in your opening statement. You recommended restricting purchasing to those 18 or older, and the risk waiver that would make a person who's purchasing understand the responsibility that comes with owning such a device.

However, when I look at how Bill C-21 is written, I'm trying to figure out how we are going to fit your amendments in, given how Bill C-21 is currently written, because we'd be adding a new subsection to the Criminal Code—specifically, a subsection 3.2 after the existing subsection 3.1 of section 84.

Have you figured out some of the wording for the technical pieces? Do you believe this existing clause can be amended properly to take into account what you're hoping to achieve? I guess what I'm asking is whether you can help guide our committee through how you would ultimately like to see this clause rewritten.

[Nicholas James Martin]

Some of the difficulty, right now, is that we haven't had consultation until this point. The process of discussing the amendments we'd be open to, or how to achieve them, hasn't even begun, because the government hasn't spoken with us.

We would be more than happy to talk and explore options about how this can be fitted into the bill and what amendments are and are not possible within our community.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

I heard you state, in your opening statement and in answer to one of my colleagues, that you are also looking for some more specifics through regulatory power. Perhaps this bill could authorize the government to make specific regulations on how the guns are marked, etc.

[Nicholas James Martin]

I'll hand it back to Brian.

[Brian A. McIlmoyle]

Thank you.

Specifically, we're seeking to empower the government to make regulations in the context of this bill, because regulations are where the rubber hits the road. We're looking for regulations that clearly define what a replica is, rather than the broad definition we have now, and hopefully define, specifically and exactly, what an airsoft gun is and how it fits within the context of the regulations.

This would clear the field for everybody and allow importers to import articles that meet those requirements, retailers to sell articles that meet those requirements and end-users to confidently know that the objects they have in their possession are not illegal and don't represent a risk for any sort of prosecution just from having them.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you. I'm sorry for rushing you through this. I only have one minute left and I want to get a question in to the Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns.

I appreciate your opening statement regarding the red flag laws portion of Bill C-21. As you may be aware, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians was quite critical of the previous version of Bill C-21. They were quite concerned about the onus placed on family members. I know this current version of Bill C-21 has built in a lot of added protections, such as making sure a cloak of anonymity can be brought down on the person bringing forward the complaint.

Are you happy with the existing provisions in Bill C-21 as they've been reworked, as they are in their current state?

[Dr. Najma Ahmed]

I'll start, then Dr. Maggi can add to it.

As we said, we are supportive of the red flag laws because they have been shown to decrease rates of suicide and mass shootings in jurisdictions where they have been properly implemented to protect confidentiality, and with the assistance of a safety plan to make sure that women and children are safe during the process of those firearms being removed. If we could educate the public, our police forces and women, we would look forward to building legislation that could protect women in these circumstances.

Dr. Maggi, perhaps you have further comment.

[Dr. Julie Maggi]

I'll add quickly to that.

I may be mistaken, but I don't see a provision within this document to allow for physicians to make a report based on their interaction with a patient. That, to me, would be something important to discuss, because there's nothing in there about being able to breach confidentiality, essentially.

Second, I think important components for effective red flag laws include being able to access a judge urgently, and the training of judges.

Third, I think they should ensure there's no increased stigma for mental illness and that it's based on risk factors and not diagnosis of mental illness, which I understand is not in there. That's part of the training that needs to happen.