Public Safety Committee on Nov. 24th, 2022

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

There was some concern about the Ruger No. 1 single-shot being on the list. I think it's important to note that this single-shot is on the high-energy list but is prohibited only in circumstances where it's been chambered for a cartridge capable of generating 10,000 joules of muzzle energy. If it's chambered for a standard calibre, a standard-calibre rifle is not restricted.

I decided I would speak to one of my friends who is a hunter. I ask what would happen if you were to hunt a moose or a deer using this—which is, effectively, a long-range sniper rifle—if you were to take a shot at a deer or a moose. I asked what would actually happen to that deer or moose if you were to use something that generated 10,000 joules of muzzle energy. The response was that there wouldn't be very much deer or moose left. I fail to see why that would be needed for hunters for the purpose of hunting, other than if one wanted to obliterate an animal.

It's important to note that other versions that do not generate 10,000 joules are not banned.

I just want us to be very clear about what, in fact, is banned and what, in fact, is not. There are weapons that were banned in the United States in the 1990s that are on this list finally being banned. There are items that were on this list from the 1990s that a decade of Conservative governments saw fit not to reverse. There must have been a reason for that.

I want to go back to the principle here. If there is a list that we are all working from—which there is—what would be extremely helpful, Mr. Chair, is for the opposition to acknowledge that there are weapons on this list that should be banned. If they are concerned, then let's talk about those that are concerns, and let's understand why. That's why we have the officials here. Let's go through that in detail.

However, we were subjected to the gun lobby, the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, making a statement today that says, “If you think they are not coming after ALL of your shotguns or [rifles and] they're not going to come after your bolt-actions, you're wrong.... If you think you will be left with anything, when the Liberal, the NDP and the Bloc are done with you, you're wrong. THEY WILL LEAVE YOU WITH NOTHING.”

I think it's really important for us, all of us here, to clarify that misinformation. At no point does a list that allows 19,000 to 20,000 guns that could be used for hunting, as the officials said today..... That should give us no reason to believe we are “coming after all of your shotguns”. We have gone through a list of what is available on the open market today that will continue to be available.

There will be those who will say that those should be banned. It's their right to say that, but that's not what we're doing. I think it's important for us to take the step to understand that on this list, indeed, are weapons that should be banned because they have been responsible for taking life, for killing human beings. However, there are a lot on here that are not. Fearmongering and trying to vilify is not the answer. Nobody is trying to vilify hunters.

I know Ms. Dancho feels this is funny, but it's actually not. It's really important. Trying to vilify hunters is not what anybody is trying to do. What we are trying to do is make sure that there is a comprehensive list of weapons that should be taken off our streets. Because this is a process in committee where we have the right to debate amendments, if there are items on this list that the Conservatives feel strongly about, there is a process. There is a group of people here who are looking to work together to ask what should be taken off this list. Let's have a good discussion about it. Let's all, among parties, agree. Let's move forward.

To get in front of cameras and say that we are coming after every single hunter, that we're coming after every shotgun and every rifle in this country, is both incorrect and inaccurate. All it really does, frankly, is stir up unnecessary conflict where that's not necessary.

We've gone through a number of guns that we know are going to continue to be available. The officials have told us that there are close to 20,000 options available to folks. We know that there are guns that are on this list that have been banned in the United States in decades past that we are now getting to. We also know that there are many that were referred to in committee by others that have been on this list for many, many years and that are not new.

I would encourage us to go back to what this committee has done so well in the past, which is to find where we agree and disagree based on fact. Let's go through this list together. If there are areas of debate, let's debate those, but let's not make blanket statements that we are coming after every single shotgun and every single rifle, that we are trying to take away people's right to hunt and that we are taking away indigenous communities' right to hunt. That's not what this is about.

Mr. Chair, I just want to be on the record saying that, as we continue debate today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

We go now to Mr. Shipley.

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to Mr. Noormohamed for those leading remarks.

I can commit to him and promise him there will be no fearmongering from me today. There will be no vilifying.

Believe it or not, most things I'm going to say today aren't even going to be my words. I have a lot of words from other people because, as I have said here many times, I am not a hunter, I am not a firearms owner, and I don't know a lot about firearms. I've learned a lot more over the last while.

Getting back to his words a little bit, if I may, this weekend I received in our office over 2,500 emails. That's a lot of emails. Thankfully we have good staff to go through a bunch of them. I'll be referring to a bunch of them here today, which I'm sure you'll enjoy hearing, Mr. Noormohamed.

The fact is, I think what has people concerned is that this was originally.... We had some great witnesses in here, and we were talking about Bill C-21. It was all about handguns. Then it came here, and it turned into an issue of long guns or, more precisely, a lot of hunting rifles, a lot of firearms.

As I said, it's not going to affect me. I don't own a gun. I don't have even the slight inclination to want to have one. I don't hunt, but a lot of my friends do. A tremendous number of people in Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte do own hunting firearms and do hunt.

I have a split riding, where Barrie is obviously a very urban area, and Springwater—Oro-Medonte is very rural. It's all farms, quite frankly, a beautiful area. Come up and visit us sometime, Mr. Noormohamed. We'll show you a nice area.

A lot of them do hunt. A lot of them also own firearms for the protection of their livestock. I have heard a lot from them, more so than I even thought we were going to hear, but it has resonated, and this has concerned many residents.

One thing that was mentioned by you is that you're not banning all firearms. I don't think we've ever said that you're banning all long guns, but you're banning perhaps all the long guns that someone owns. Are you saying, “It's okay. Right now you own those two or three or four hunting rifles. You can't own those anymore. Give them up. Go to the store”? As you said, some of them are on sale. Some of the people right now are struggling. Some of the people feed their families with hunting. Are you saying, “Get rid of those ones you have now and go buy some more firearms because they're on sale”?

I don't think that's fair, and I don't think it's going to do anything for crime that's going on. That's really what we're talking about here—crime. No one wants to see anybody getting hurt, especially with a firearm.

I have done a little bit of research. Actually, I didn't do it. I am going to give some credit to my great staff, my new staff especially. She deserves a round of applause. She has gone through and found a lot of quotes from a lot of members of your party, Mr. Noormohamed, who have discussed what this bill is supposed to be about. I am going to read a few of these now, and I'm sure we'll all enjoy these, so I'll take a drink, and we'll sit back and have some fun.

The first few are from Minister Mendicino:

I spoke directly with municipal leaders and mayors, who represent rural Canada. And it is important we come up with gun policy that does reflect the varying experiences of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I've had some conversations with hunters and recreational sport shooters, who indicate as you did that they use long rifles to keep some of the wildlife away from their properties.

I quote Mr. Mendicino again, at our own committee:

We're listening very carefully to indigenous leaders to make sure that for those who hunt as part of their tradition or who hunt to eat, this bill will be consistent with those principles of reconciliation. I assure you that those conversations are ongoing.

All those were discussed before all these long rifles and hunting rifles were put into place.

I have some quotes here from Mr. Scarpaleggia from when we were debating it in Parliament:

Mr. Speaker, I left off by acknowledging that I recognize the cultural value of hunting in many communities and for many Canadians. Having visited a community during moose hunting season in particular, I understand and have seen first-hand the value that local citizens attach to that time of year.

I also understand the sentimental value, if we want to call it that, attached to certain heirloom firearms. I believe it was the member for Kildonan—St. Paul who had, at one point in her speech, talked about a rifle, a shotgun, that had been handed down from generation to generation in her family. In a sense, it represented the efforts of the family, going way back, to carve out a living in a harsh environment in Manitoba.

When I hear it like that, maybe I do want to take up hunting. That sounds nice, doesn't it, Mr. Chair?

It continues:

I understand the sentimental value of that heirloom firearm, but what I do not understand is the sentimental value of, for example, a Saturday night special or an AK-47. The rifle the member for Kildonan—St. Paul was talking about was used to carve out a space in the wilderness, I presume, but some of these weapons are used to carve up neighbourhoods through gun violence.

This bill is not about the cultural value of hunting. It is not about persecuting duck hunters or deer hunters, who do not use handguns to hunt their prey, in any event.

I would like to know if they still feel the same after this amendment—if it isn't going after hunters and prey.

During second reading,Mr. Gerretsen, on June 22, says:

As I said, all those in my family and extended family who I know have hunted for generations, have never once, during our own individual discussions about this issue around the dinner table, talked about the need for a handgun. Yes, there are concerns from time to time about weapons, and in particular those used for hunting. I can respect that, but I just do not think handguns fall into that category, nor has any hunter I have ever spoken with agreed with that sentiment.

Ms. Sgro, on June 21, says:

This is certainly not about hunters, God bless them, who can go right ahead and do their hunting. I have family who hunt deer, moose, and all of that, as well. That is not what we are talking about with this bill. We are talking about gun violence, handguns. That is what is doing the killing in my riding and throughout the city of Toronto.

Again, all those quotes were before the amendment. We'll get into some quotes regarding the amendment after this.

Mr. Gerretsen, again, on June 22, says:

I guess it really comes down to what they determine to be an impact on somebody. Would it have an impact to tell people that we do not think it is appropriate to be carrying a firearm? If that negatively impacts them because they have a passion for doing that, then I guess it would impact them. However, I do not think it would impact those who are using a firearm for the purpose of hunting, in particular, which is the example I have been using.

Mr. Turnbull, on June 20, says:

Bill C-21 is targeting handguns, not firearms used for hunting or sport shooting. However, as the Prime Minister has said, there is no reason other than these activities that the general public should need guns in their everyday lives....

Firearms owners can rest assured that, as always, we will consult with Canadians before finalizing and implementing regulations.

Mr. Fragiskatos, on June 9, says, “Hunting, as I said before, is a fundamental Canadian tradition. I do not dispute that at all. I have hunted.”

Again, Mr. Fragiskatos, on June 9, says:

Canadians who have a registered handgun, for target shooting, for example, could still use it. I emphasize that. I also emphasize that hunters are not the focus. Hunting is a Canadian tradition. People practice it, particularly in rural communities, but I have a number of constituents in my community of London, an urban area, who hunt....

In case there is any confusion, and I know that if there is confusion...let me just reassure Conservative colleagues that Bill C-21 is not about hunters.

Patty Hajdu, on June 9, says:

Madam Speaker, our government has been very clear that this is legislation that does not target hunters and sport shooters. In fact, in my own riding, I have a community of both hunters and sport shooters that are thriving and that are honoured by many of their neighbours, friends and colleagues.

This is about creating safer communities for all Canadians. Sport shooters can rest assured that we would not eliminate sport shooting nor prohibit new sport shooting enthusiasts from using business-owned handguns. In my riding, hunting has a long tradition amongst many families. The hunters I know do not use handguns to shoot a deer. Today's announcement will not affect hunters and farmers.

Well, I think the new announcement and the amendment definitely will.

Once again, Ms. Hajdu, on June 9, says:

In my riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North many people own firearms for hunting and sport shooting. The proposed legislation that was introduced last week would not restrict guns used for these purposes.

As we all know now, it does.

On June 1, MP Irek Kusmierczyk said to the Windsor Star, “We are not seeking to prevent hunting or law-abiding sportsmen”.

Those are all quotes that were taken before the amendment—before this came out. I'm sure some of those would have changed now, because if I have received 2,500 emails over the weekend, I will guarantee you that some of those rural ridings especially have received many. I know the riding of my colleague beside me is very rural, northern Ontario. I'm sure he has received many. Mr. Noormohamed says he has received them too.

Something has changed, and I think it's the amendment we are all here to talk about.

I received, as I said, a lot of emails from hunters. I'm going to read some of their emails because I don't hunt, and I don't own a gun. I'm not here to vilify. I'm not here to fearmonger. I'm here to do my job, which is to speak for our residents and to speak for Canadians.

I received this, and I'll say the first name. This is Steve's email: “Yesterday, the Liberals tabled an amendment to C-21 that would prohibit hundreds of thousands of common hunting rifles that have detachable magazines. The rifle that just a week ago I used to shoot a deer will now be the subject of a forced confiscation scheme. I just want to touch base with you about how ludicrous this is, nothing more than a punitive move against lawful owners and hunters, also a complete joke in the law enforcement community, as was the handgun freeze. The federal government has now frozen more than $35,000 of my lawfully owned assets. I can no longer use my now prohibited rifles, and my handgun collection is now worthless. If this amendment passes, that amount only increases. Thank you.”

That's one. I have another, from Andre:

I'm writing to you today as a Canadian, firearm owner, and hunter, as I am extremely concerned about the last-minute amendment the government is seeking to Bill C-21; the handgun freeze.

The amendment in the proposed bill that the Liberal government is trying to pass will ban all commercially available semi-automatic rifles and many semi-automatic shotguns, as well as currently owned and used firearms used by Canadian hunters and sport shooters.

As a hunter I want to explain the importance of this style of firearm for hunting in Canada. Semi automatic firearms including shotguns and rifles, are especially important for accessibility of those with disabilities in Canada who currently or intend to participate in hunting. These firearms are especially useful for hunters (including those with disabilities) because they allow for easier second shots if the animal is wounded, and their actions also reduce recoil significantly, which makes them especially useful when a larger, heavier-recoiling calibre is required. This is important when hunting big, or dangerous game—of which, Canada is home to. Additionally they are also easier to operate for those with disabilities and thus, safer.

Another important consideration to note is that there are millions of currently non-restricted individual firearms that meet the proposed definition of a prohibited firearm based on this amendment, and likely over a million licensed gun owners in possession of a firearm that would be prohibited by this legislation. Over a million people will see their property rendered worthless, unable to be inherited or passed down to remind future generations of past traditions; their owners having done nothing more heinous than passing the RCMP-mandated training and testing to obtain a gun license and purchasing a firearm legally.

This new proposed bill unjustly targets hunters who are made up of law abiding citizens from various walks of life including the First Nations (Indigenous) who have long participated in the lifestyle of hunting. Many of these individuals and families rely on hunting to sustain their food supply, and heading into a global recession is only going to put undue stress on these Canadians.

Bill C-21 is clearly wrong and should be stopped, even if only so as to allow proper debate through the proper democratic process. So please examine Bill C-21, the amendments being sought by the government, and please consider myself and the thousands of other constituents this legislation unfairly impacts and oppose these changes.

I look forward to hearing a response and having a discussion on this matter.

Well, he got more than a response. He got his letter read into the record, so that's nice.

We have another one here from Gordon:

I am not feeling very well today because my country, Canada will be calling me a criminal because of the firearm that I own. I have been a hunter before 1980. I was gifted the firearm in 2007 and our Uncle relived all the stories of the Moose and Deer harvested with it. I to have taken Deer with it and my son has used it with me sighting it in and always referred to the firearm as the “Heritage Gun”. But my government wants our History to stop. My government does not want him to pass it along to his Son and Daughter. Why does our government feel this 42 year old firearm and other large bore bolt action rifles that my fellow hunters use are a threat to society?

Do you have heirlooms to pass along to family members? A side table, a chair, a picture or a tea pot. Well when they get destroyed or taken from you their history is gone. Even if replaced with another the history can not be replaced, as the new one was not held in the hands of your ancestors.

If we go away for a vacation, will an American style SWAT TEAM show up at our home or will the RCMP break into our home like they did in High River Alberta. The magnitude of this amendment and its late introduction at such a late stage lacks transparency and seems under handed. Does someone have a vendetta against firearms or firearm owners? Because there is no opportunity for individuals or groups to submit evidence about the amendments.

To the Senators, the chamber of 2nd thought. Consider what they just want you to rubber stamp. Please confer with your colleagues and consider the ramifications of this law, how it was crafted and the impact on the families of all involved.

I won't read all 2,500. In case you want me to, Mr. Noormohamed, I have a few more, but not 2,500; I promise.

This one's from Corey:

As a long standing hunter I am concerned about these changes to Bill C-21. I learned to hunt as a teenager and enjoy time in the outdoors with family and friends who hunt. We all have shotguns that are maintained and stored properly. None are automatic or have magazines that store more shells than what migratory bird or other hunting regulations allow. We eat what we harvest. However, the direction of gun restrictions in Canada is going down a path that will soon impact the average safe hunter. Please do not allow this to happen. I would not want this part of our heritage of Canada to be destroyed.

Moreover the potential impact of adding hundreds of models adds significant cost to the proposed buyback program already in place for more restricted firearms.

This Bill impacts many hunters, as many of these firearms are used by hunters across the country.

Finally where is the transparency—there is no opportunity for individuals or groups to submit concern for or evidence about the amendments.

There's another one from Zachary:

My name is Zachary Peck, I am a 22-year-old wildlife biologist and a lifelong hunter. I have been hunting since I was 13 years old and it has been a long-standing yearly tradition that I have taken part in with 3 generations of my family and hopefully more to come, as well I have met some of my best friends through the sport. Since I started hunting I have also come to supplement my diet with purely game meat that I harvest. So naturally, you can see my concern when I read about the amendments to bill C-21 which included several firearms used for lawful hunting every year in our country. Further, this bill was originally put forth as an action against handgun violence and was said to have no effect on hunting or firearms used for hunting. These amendments show an extreme lack of transparency on behalf of the government and have shown that this bill is a means to an end for legal firearm owners, sportsmen, sportswomen, and other outdoor enthusiasts alike. I urge you to oppose this bill as it would be detrimental not only to me and my lifestyle but would have deleterious effects on Legal Law-abiding gun owners across this country.

This one's from Cindy:

I write to you today in response to the egregious introduction of the recent amendment to BillC21, and its subsequent impact on the country, provinces, communities, individuals and my family. From the beginning the whole BillC21 has been a disastrous piece of legislation that will do nothing to stop actual gun crimes, which has already been proven by the continuing amount of hand gun crimes currently happening after the handgun freeze came into effect. And now, you have decided, on a whim, to add in the property that my family and I have worked extremely hard for, have procured the proper certifications for, take great care and respect for, and most importantly use it as a tool to educate ourselves about many aspects of life. We have a strong relationship with the history of Canada, our Heritage and our environment due to our relationship with our property. And now, the government wants to forcibly take this from myself and my family? With no opportunities for individuals or groups to submit evidence about the amendments? What kind of Transparency is this? The introduction of an amendment of this magnitude at such a late stage reeks of deceitfulness. Although, based on the track record of this government, I am not surprised.

I would also ask if anyone within this government has questioned what kind of impact this Bill will have? What is the impact to law enforcement who will be diverted from actual crime, to confiscating law abiding citizens property? What is the added cost of these buybacks? I am sure you will have zero people who will hand over hard earned property for free. What about the economic impacts? Gun Ranges? Outfitters? Hunting Stores? Gun Shops? What are you planning to do with all the people you force out of work with this Bill?

Why are you potentially putting law abiding citizens who have never been on the wrong side of the law into a position where they have to give up their passions? Their life's work?

I expect these questions to be answered for such a strong piece of legislation to even be considered, with the vast amount of lives and livelihoods this will affect.

Thank you in advance for your efforts in putting together answers to my questions above for such a serious matter.

Sincerely,

Cindy.

I have one more:

My name is Cade.... I am 16 years old and a third generation hunter. I would first like to thank you for reading my message, it means a lot. Now that you know who I am, I'd like to explain why I'm writing to you. I am a third generation hunter from Ontario and like many Ontarians, hunting and shooting is a very important part of my life. Bill c-21 would completely put a stop to hunting and sports shooting with their illogical and senseless laws being proposed, that will prohibit ownership of semi auto shotguns and rifles with detachable magazines. Most if not all responsible gun owners here in Canada and around the world own semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines. With bill c-21, these hunting and big game sporting rifles will be illegal (as stated before) and will not only upset Canadian firearms owners but will cause poverty stricken gun owners to give up hunting completely due to not having money for a new rifle/shotgun. These laws are discriminatory not only to the poor gun owners of canada, but to the rest of the owners. Imagine, if you will, a world where you spend a substantial amount of money, an amount that you had to save up for years, for a new car only for it to be taken away because of someone who stole a car which happened to be the same make and model and went on a rampage with it. That's how we felt when we heard the news of this new bill being proposed. Due to the system's own shortcomings, criminals running loose with illegal firearms, either stolen from the United States or Canadian homes, we will lose our hobby, source of food, source of employment, source of joy, our sense of community and way of life in Northern Ontario.

Statistically, this bill will not stop shootings, In fact, they will most likely increase. The stats show that murderous shootings happen more with illegal firearms than legal ones. Firearms and handguns that are already prohibited, like the Glock 42 which could fit in one's pocket, and restricted in Canada are smuggled into our Country. To put a stop to firearm related death we must drop this bill and instead put our resources into tighter border security and much stricter sentencing for firearms related crime instead of loosening the sentencing times....

In 2021, we had 297 deaths due to gun violence. The year prior, 2020, Trudeau banned over 1500 firearms due to the Nova Scotia massacre which claimed 22 lives. I think it's important to note in 2020 we had 278 deaths from firearm related incidents. So even though he banned over 1500 firearms, we had an increase of almost 20 deaths due to firearms. If that bill did nothing to stop criminals from committing these terrible crimes, why would this new bill work?

Being from a family of hunters the ban would affect my family, community and myself more than anyone since the Bill will be banning semi auto external magazine fed rifles and shotguns and some single shot rifles. When hunting for game we are taught to make a clean shot to decrease pain and eliminate suffering for the animal. At times a clean shot is not made, but with a semi automatic the hunter can get off another round quickly to alleviate their suffering. With the banning of these types of guns, the time it would take to reload the gun, the game could have fled. If you have ever been hunting you know a fleeing wounded animal is very dangerous not only for the hunter but other people in the area and other game. I feel a fleeing wounded animal poses more of a safety risk than the guns being banned in the Bill c-21.

Thank you for your time and please support us 642,000 Ontarian hunters in this fight for our firearm rights.

It's signed “Cade”.

As I said, that's just a little snippet of the emails we've received. Everybody's nodding their head. I'm sure everyone around this table received as many as I did over the weekend, or more. As I said, we received 2,500, and that was over the weekend. I'm sure it's more now. We're hearing from regular Canadians. Again, we're hearing from people who use these hunting rifles to feed their families, to support their lifestyle.

The heirloom thing, I didn't know much about that. I'm understanding that now. As I said, not being a firearms owner, I didn't understand it all. I'm beginning to understand it a lot. These are real people. These are messages from Canadians. I think, around this table, this is what we need to think about more often. This is what we need to hear.

I'll leave it there for now, and I'll allow my colleagues to carry on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

We go now to Mr. Ruff, then Mr. Melillo, and Madame Michaud after that.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to clarify. Mr. Zimmer made the comment in that there was misleading information provided to the committee. I just want to be very clear. If he were to refer to page 7 and page 75, the weapon that he spoke to, saying it was banned, is specifically exempted. I would encourage him to check the record, correct the record and indicate it as such so that we can move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed. I believe that is debate and not a point of order, but thank you for the intervention.

We go now to Mr. Ruff.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks for allowing me to participate today in this important discussion. It really should be centred around public safety and making Canada a safer place versus, in my opinion, measures and in particular the amendment that has been table-dropped at the last moment for Bill C-21. It was focused on a handgun freeze but has now turned into a bill focused on arguably the most law-abiding demographic in Canada.

In fact, the statistics show that firearms owners are three times less likely to commit a crime than the average Canadian. In particular, I am here to defend people from my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. This is a huge issue in my neck of the woods. My own brothers and friends of mine, not many of whom, as far as I know, have had a speeding ticket in their life, harvested three deer during hunting season, just a few weeks ago. Every single one of them will be impacted by this ban because they all own hunting rifles that are semi-automatic with detachable magazines.

I'm here speaking not just on their behalf but also on behalf of the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I've had so many law enforcement officers reach out to me and critique this bill. The fact is, they do not believe that anything within Bill C-21, especially with the amendment, is going to actually reduce gun crime and gun violence in this country. It's focused on the wrong aspects.

I'm also hearing from veterans and even current members of the Canadian Armed Forces who feel the same way. I would challenge every member, as I have done in previous interjections, to talk to some of the PPS workers who protect us so well and keep us secure here in Parliament. They feel the same way, so this isn't just me.

I will offer a point of appreciation. I think we need to have a discussion around proper definitions and around the classification of firearms. For decades, the gun community has been calling for a complete review, a proper review with all proper consultation.

We heard Minister Mendicino speak during a media scrum just a couple of days ago, and he said he's been consulting with everybody. I'm going to get to that, because to me we should be basing every discussion and every decision around firearms in this country on data and evidence, not political science. It has to be based on the facts.

There is something else I'd like to point out. My predecessor, the Honourable Larry Miller, former member of Parliament for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for 15 years, actually tried to solve some of this. In the 42nd Parliament, he introduced Bill C-230, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firearm—definition of variant), to try to get some clarity around this. Unfortunately, it did not get past second reading. With the exception of one Liberal MP, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc all voted it down. It didn't even get a chance to be studied at committee and get through. Again, for decades we've been calling for the proper classification of firearms, so we're going to get into that here, right now.

I've been asking questions literally since a few months after being elected in 2019, at that time to then minister Blair and since then to Minister Mendicino. I have submitted written questions to try to get some clarity on the data, especially around the clause that speaks about military-style assault rifles.

For the record—and I think everybody in this room knows—I spent 25 and a half years in the Canadian Armed Forces as an infantry officer. I have carried fully automatic firearms and handguns pretty much my whole career. I slept with a fully automatic firearm as a pillow—fully loaded with a 30-round magazine on it and a round up the spout—in Afghanistan, and the gun never went off. Guns do not kill people. People kill people, not the firearms themselves.

I have a question for the officials here. I asked a question shortly after the OIC came out—which is what this amendment is now adding to legislation—on the firearms that were banned, the over 1,500 models. At that time, I asked specifically what the formal technical definition of an assault-style firearm was and when the government had first used it.

They referred to—and I just want to verify this—the consultation process and the report that was provided to the government. Was that the Hill+Knowlton Strategies report “Reducing Violent Crime: A Dialogue on Handguns and Assault-Style Firearms”? Is that the report being referred to?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Thank you for the question. The consultation report is available on Public Safety's website, and if you prefer, we can send a link to the clerk.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Is that a different report from this one?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I'm sorry, but I don't know the title of the report offhand.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

That's all right.

Anyway, that's the report Public Safety and the parliamentary secretary at the time, Joël Lightbound, signed off on, and it referred to the government choosing to use that principle. I just wanted to share that with the committee.

I'm sure everybody who's been studying this has gone through some of it, but there was actually a fairly significant and detailed consultation process. I'm going to cover a bit of the executive summary and some of the key themes that were received based on the submissions from a number of Canadians right across the base. In fact, there were over 1,200 written submissions. That's a lot of information and a lot of data and evidence that we should be taking into consideration. Also, they did an online questionnaire, and over 134,000 Canadians participated and provided data.

Here are the key themes that came out of those written submissions. Rightly so, there was a mixed reaction to the potential of banning or limiting access to firearms. However, there was broad consensus about the need to collect relevant data on crime involving firearms, to address the risk factors underlying firearms violence, to focus on the illicit firearms trafficking, to enhance enforcement capacity, to consult with the firearms community and industry, to provide more mental health supports and screening, to provide more education—

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, has this report been submitted to the committee or are we just reading off any old article we want to read off?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's his debate. He can read basically whatever he likes.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I'm more than willing to table this if it's not already before the committee, Chair. I can do that after the fact. I can even leave the printed hard copy here for the clerks.

I'll continue.

There was also broad consensus to provide more education on safe and secure storage, to address the impact of gun violence on women and to provide clarity—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, is evidence on this not closed? Is it acceptable for the member to table a report in clause-by-clause?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We're past that stage. However, the member may use the information he wants. As long as he stays pertinent to the amendment at hand—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

That's what I'm talking about, Chair, and again, I'm not too worried. It was Mr. Van Bynen who was asking about the report. If you don't want me to give it to the committee or if that's somehow against the rules, I'm more than willing to email it to every single member of the committee so they can read it for their own viewing pleasure.

I want to continue on here, in particular about some of the key things on the relevant data and the classifications, because one of my questions to the minister, back when I asked about the definition, was where this was defined. That points to this report. If you read the report, it states quite clearly that the government really needs to define this. Now here we are, two and a half years later, bringing forth a definition at the last minute with no feedback or consultation. In fact, we're doing it here at a clause-by-clause review versus by hearing evidence and testimony from all the relevant stakeholders.

Again—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the member made a statement in respect of consultation. Did we not hear from the firearms lobby? Did we not hear from the police? Did we not hear from victims?

I just want to be clear that we are all being honest about information that's been provided.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I believe that's debate, not a point of order.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I guess as a rebuttal there, I believe we likely did hear from them in reference to the original Bill C-21, which was about a handgun freeze, not about this amendment.

The government has now tabled an amendment that would significantly change the scope of the bill. That was debated in the first committee meeting. I don't want to get into a debate about the scope, but my point is that it's relevant information about the fact that the government has now introduced, through a table-drop amendment, a fundamental change to what the bill is about, and we haven't had the appropriate consultation on that.

Regardless, let's go—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, were these amendments not submitted in accordance with process? Did we not meet the guidelines and requirements for these amendments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

All amendments were in fact submitted appropriately.

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

So it's not just a table-drop amendment, as is being referred to.