Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I'm trying to find ways to eliminate the risk that people see these weapons presenting, outside of your theatre, I guess.

There were a number of items that I think you agreed on together with Scott, and there were some you didn't agree on. For example, you mentioned that you would support safe transportation and safe storage regulations.

[Matt Wasilewicz]

Absolutely.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Okay. Is that held throughout the industry?

My concern here is if you wish to be self-regulated, how could we ensure that everybody's interpretation of what is acceptable for safe storage, maintenance and transportation of the unit...? How could that be accomplished without it being regulated nationally?

[Matt Wasilewicz]

That's where we want to be able to adopt a standardized waiver, if you will, that has to be signed at point of sale by users, and that would be standardized across the industry, so everyone is made aware of, at point of sale, what they are required to do to own such a device. Being standardized, everyone is working off the same framework.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

What are your thoughts around individuals being required to be licensed to purchase an airsoft gun?

[Matt Wasilewicz]

It depends how far you're talking about when it comes to a licence. If you're talking about a full PAL, that might be a bit of overkill for a BB gun. For licensing, what I think would be more appropriate would be something like the two-tier model that's used in the U.K., where you're educating and vetting that person ahead of time, before they purchase, by having them join the association and having to, more or less, complete a test so they know the rules of what they're supposed to do.

If that would be considered a form of licensing, and you'd get an airsoft licence after that so you could purchase normal airsoft equipment, I think that would probably be more in tune with—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you. I'm going to have to cut you off there.

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

Ms. Michaud, you now have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to what my colleague, Mr. Van Bynen was saying. He mentioned that the police association has suggested that airsoft guns should be banned because they look too much like real firearms. We have also heard the story of a person who was stopped and arrested by the police because they seemed to be carrying a firearm, when in fact it was a camera on a tripod.

According to the officials from the Fédération sportive d'airsoft du Québec, there seems to be a gray area in Bill C‑21, which targets airsoft guns, but not flare guns or starter pistols that are used at sporting competitions, although they look like real firearms.

Do you think there is a problem in the bill and that the government really wanted to target the airsoft industry?

[Matt Wasilewicz]

I'm not sure I can comment on whether the bill was intended to target the airsoft industry in particular. I really don't have any way of knowing that. There definitely is a lot of grey zone as far as what looks exactly like a real firearm. It is very difficult to draw a line there, especially because things advance over time, looks change and styles change, so that's definitely difficult to do.

I'm not really sure what else to say on that.

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

Mr. Hackenbruch, do you wish to add something?

[Scott Hackenbruch]

Yes, I would say that the example you've given of a camera being mistaken.... At range, anything in a dark alley or whatever could be mistaken for an airsoft pistol, rifle or whatever.

What I will say is that the Criminal Code of Canada right now clearly states that if you are misusing an airsoft pistol, you'll be charged as though it were a real firearm. Cases where that happens and someone is prosecuted accordingly would go a long way towards being a deterrent. On our end, in the community, educating people about what these devices will be treated like in the public is a huge part of the solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We now go to Mr. MacGregor for two and half minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On that last point, exactly: If you were to use an airsoft gun in the commission of a robbery, it would be treated as an armed robbery, because the person being robbed has really no idea, in the heat of the moment, as to whether it's a real firearm. If you are going to be using an airsoft gun in the commission of an offence, I think any reasonable person would expect the police to respond as if it were a real firearm.

The problematic things are when we see teenaged children accidentally bringing something to school, and they may not know better. We know children don't always think ahead. The idea is putting in that age requirement and strongly educating responsible adults on how they need to keep their guns secure from young children, so they're not accidentally bringing them out in public and having the police respond to what was an accidental incident, which they then have to treat very seriously.

Mr. Hackenbruch, I'd like to turn to you. You mentioned that your association was created to work with government and law enforcement. You've heard the testimony we've received from law enforcement on their concerns. In your conversations with law enforcement, how have they received some of your proposals? Can you maybe inform us a bit on your work in that respect?

[Scott Hackenbruch]

Many of the individuals we've spoken with are amiable to a number of our suggestions. I know that here in British Columbia we have some provincial-based legislation that is going a long way towards restricting the age at which these sorts of things can be sold and participants can engage in the sport.

There is some work being done. It's a big conversation, though, and there are still lots of other people we need to speak with to get their understanding of how the industry works and is perceived, and also to get our side of things out there more.

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

Thanks to both of you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

That wraps up our questions for this panel. I thank both witnesses for being here today. I thank you for sharing with us your time, your experience and your expertise, and for helping us with our inquiries.

With that, I would invite the witnesses to leave, if they wish.

The committee has a couple of things to talk about, and perhaps committee members would stick around.

The matter before us, of course, is that at this time we have an option to sit on Wednesday evening.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

It's Thursday evening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I stand corrected—Thursday evening.

That came about because I was trying to make sure we didn't lose time on this bill while we accommodated the meeting with the minister and the commissioner. When I thought they were available to us this coming Thursday, in the morning, I was looking for another meeting slot in order to do Bill C-21, and that was as of last Thursday. That's what I believed. We nailed down that meeting on Thursday night. We have witnesses lined up. The clerk had to go through whatever gyrations and administration to get it done. It's there. It's available. It's locked down.

When I discovered that the minister was not going to be available on Wednesday morning, or the commissioner, I kept it so that we would have options. For example, perhaps the minister would have been available for this meeting. When I found out that the minister was available on Monday, and we heard through the grapevine that AGRI were not going to be using their meeting slot, we were able to nail that down. That's how we came to this situation.

It's not cast in stone. It's an option. It seems to me a waste if we throw it away. We have an opportunity, as the witnesses are all lined up to go forward with it, but it's really a decision for the committee to make.

Mr. Shipley, do you have a comment?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Yes. I gave you great praise last week about fitting in meetings. You are going above and beyond now in fitting in meetings, so it's good work, I think.

For full disclosure, I have a funeral Friday morning that I have to be back home for, so I will be travelling Thursday night. I'd have to find a replacement on Thursday night, and that may not be the easiest. I've sat in for the rest of Bill C-21, so I'd like to be here. It's unfortunate, obviously. I can't change those plans, so I'll take the will of the room and see what happens. Unfortunately, I would not be able to attend personally on Thursday evening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I understand. Consolations, of course.

Thursday night is a terrible time for a meeting. I hate it. The only thing worse is a Friday meeting. The only thing worse than that is a constituency week meeting. For people like myself and Mr. MacGregor, who of course are trying to get to the west coast, it's really nasty. I understand that.

I'm certainly willing to put up with that, because I would like to get this work done so we can move on to other things as well.

Ms. Dancho, please.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of things.

My understanding, when we were attempting to schedule an additional meeting for our committee yesterday, was that the point was made by certain members of the committee that the interpreters are having a difficult time. There were a lot of comments made about the additional strain we would be putting on interpreters by having another meeting in addition to the two we already have.

I'm just wondering if that issue has been resolved and our interpreters are no longer dealing with health consequences in the last few days since that point was made.

Is that no longer a concern?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We're not adding to the overall workload of the interpreters. For example, for yesterday, AGRI committee was scheduled for them. They had that slot, but they weren't going to do that.

I'm sorry?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Four meetings for us in one week is completely fine for the interpreters, rather than two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes. That's one of the things, of course, when we try to get an extra meeting slot, you know. Our poor clerk has to work overtime to try to organize that. It has to go through channels; we have to get the interpreters on board, and everybody else.

That's where we're coming from. We got it all nailed down. If it's the will of the committee to not meet on Thursday, we don't have to. I certainly would encourage us to do so.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

My second concern is that I feel a bit of the goodwill that we put forward in the motion.... I think it's fair to say and I think it's acceptable that we put forward a motion to have options if the meeting yesterday were to take away from Bill C-21. I feel that goodwill has been taken advantage of, Mr. Chair.

The goodwill we put forward to work together on that has now been manoeuvred so there's a new meeting. That's not what the work plan is that we agreed to. We agreed as a committee to a very specific work plan. We're preparing our amendments. We have members of our committee who are flying home for funerals and others who are flying to be home with their families.

I'm just quite concerned that the goodwill we established now seems to not be a consideration in this regard. The first I heard about that was yesterday, but it sounds like this has been worked on since Friday. I'm not sure why, as the vice-chair, I was not informed of this until I heard it from a staff member. I didn't hear it from you. I didn't hear from the clerk.

I'm just a bit disappointed in the process of this, given that this committee has worked very hard for a whole year to come together on issues that I would say we normally don't agree on. We found a way to work together, so I'm just concerned that perhaps there's a new tone that we're setting by doing this. I'm concerned about what that means for our working together moving forward.

Perhaps you can explain to us why we weren't informed of this—why I wasn't informed of this—until late yesterday?