Public Safety Committee on Nov. 24th, 2022

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I thought the witnesses were here to answer technical questions, not to speculate on other items.

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

That is a technical question, Chair. I'm asking, out of the list that was provided—

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

The number of people—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

It is true that the witnesses are here to answer technical questions. They're not here to speculate or conjecture on policy matters.

Mr. Ruff, the question you asked the minister would not necessarily be in their purview.

I know that both sides have been pushing the limit a bit here, but out of respect for the witnesses, let's keep it in their proper lane.

Thank you.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

That's why I asked the question, and it was a specific question. Out of the list of firearms that has been brought forward, one of the criteria the government has continued to use in the discussion is that these are military firearms.

As somebody with past experience on this, who has been involved in reviewing and helping draft statements of requirements and specifications for firearms in the Canadian Armed Forces, I would not support many of them here, nor would I support their purchase by the Canadian Armed Forces because they're not appropriate for military use. There are a couple on the list that are. Well, there is at least one, from what I can determine in trying to read through it. It's one of the sniper rifles the Canadian military is currently using. That doesn't get into the specifics around the definition aspect, but there is a sniper rifle—a bolt-action sniper rifle—listed here. Again, I will point out that it's not one of the firearms that meet the semi-automatic criteria.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

If the member could specify which weapon he's talking about, that would be helpful to the debate.

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

It's the Prairie Gun Works Timberwolf. It's on the list.

Mr. Chair, I'll just leave my comments here. I want to get back to them, but unfortunately I have another commitment to get to.

I want to state that I really think, going forward, it would be beneficial for this committee, on this specific amendment, to hear from law enforcement, from the RCMP's Canadian firearms program, from the experts and from stakeholders in the industry, because fundamentally, this amendment changes what the purpose of this bill was interested in. It would be to everybody's value that we get this right going forward.

I'll leave my comments at that, Mr. Chair.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, before the honourable member leaves, I'll clarify—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry. Wait a minute.

Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

Go ahead, Mr. Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before the honourable member leaves, I'll clarify that the weapon he's talking about has been prohibited for two and a half years, since 2020, so he shouldn't be concerned about it being on this list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's a point of debate.

We'll go now to Mr. Melillo, followed by Madame Michaud.

Mr. Melillo, go ahead, please.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure for me to be back at this committee. It's been some time since I've had the honour to sub in. It's an honour to see members from all sides whom I have had the honour of working with on a number of matters, not least of whom is Mr. Shipley, of course.

Like everyone else here today, I'm concerned about the amendments we are presently debating. More important than that, many constituents in my riding of Kenora, in northwestern Ontario, have expressed their concerns to me.

My region is home to many hunters and trappers. For a long time, this has been a major industry and a major way of life for people across the Kenora district, and that's why today we continue to be home to many sport shooters and many hunters and trappers who are continuing with this way of life.

Frankly, the proposed amendment, in my opinion and in the opinion of folks I've been talking to in the Kenora riding, may be one of the most out-of-touch amendments that has been proposed by this government, and it is currently being entertained by the committee. I question whether there has been consultation on it.

We heard some comments from Minister Mendicino, which were read out by the member beside me, indicating that there had been some consultation, especially with people across the north and indigenous communities. I represent 42 first nations in the Kenora riding, which crosses three different treaty territories as well as the Métis homeland, where hunting, fishing and trapping really are a way of life. I haven't spoken to anybody who feels they were consulted on this amendment specifically. I think that is a great cause of concern. I feel that if the government had actually consulted on this, they would not have put it forward because they would have heard the concern expressed by those individuals, particularly indigenous leaders and indigenous people across the country, that this will impact them and their right to hunt. I will get back to that in just a bit.

I want to talk about trapping first, because that's something we often lose in the discussion when we're talking about firearms.

Obviously firearms are used for hunting, but trappers need firearms as well. I don't trap, but many people I know do. I know that many trappers carry a firearm when they're checking their lines just in case they encounter a predator. Having that firearm means they're able to defend themselves if necessary, especially when they have, in some cases, semi-automatic firearms to fire off rounds more quickly. For many people, this could be the difference between life and death when they're out on their traplines.

Trapping isn't something new, of course. It's one of the longest-standing activities in Ontario. Commercial trapping dates back in the Kenora riding to the 16th century and maybe even before, with subsistence trapping dating back even further. Many indigenous people across the Kenora riding continue to do that primarily. I'm worried that if we're going to ask trappers to give up their firearms, as proposed by some of the members opposite, and purchase new firearms, it could be to their detriment. It could be a risk to their safety, especially in the northern parts of my riding.

Mr. Chair, if you don't know, I come from Kenora, which is a big city of 15,000 people in the southern portion of my riding near the U.S. border. However, my riding does extend up to Hudson Bay and includes many remote first nations, as I mentioned, and communities like Fort Severn. Fort Severn is one of the few communities—and maybe the only—in Ontario where you will frequently encounter a polar bear. When people are out, whether hunting, trapping or just in their community, this is something they need to be cognizant of. These bears can be very dangerous. Not having the proper weapon to defend yourself would be very problematic and very concerning.

That's what I've heard from the people of Fort Severn and Weagamow Lake, in my riding. I was speaking about it this morning with an individual from Grassy Narrows First Nation. All are concerned about how this is going to impact not only their ability to hunt but their ability to protect themselves when they are doing so.

In that regard, my office was recently contacted by an avid hunter, someone from my riding who was out hunting relatively recently and who encountered a number of wolves. I've never gone toe to toe with a wolf. I'm not sure if you have, Mr. Chair, but it's definitely not a situation any of us would like to find ourselves in. We would want to make sure we have the tools at our disposal to deal with that properly and to fend for ourselves. This constituent is legitimately concerned because the firearms he uses are on this proposed prohibition list. As alluded to by the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, it's not necessarily as easy as just buying new firearms. This individual is very concerned for his safety.

I recognize that this might seem a bit far-fetched for members from larger urban centres, but that truly is the reality many people across northern Ontario and many other northern and rural parts of the country face. They're not necessarily day-to-day concerns, but definitely concerns that are very real and very probable.

I'll just go back to the point, if I can, about northern Ontario being a hub for hunting and fishing. It's not just the individuals who rely on them to provide for their families, which is important, especially in the north, where there may be one store in many communities, like the Northern store, and where there are inflated prices. Even with nutrition north subsidies and different things like that, which are attempting to bring costs down, many people still can't afford to go to the grocery store, and they rely on their firearms to hunt and provide for themselves.

It's not just that. There's also a major economic component of this across the Kenora riding. Tourism is one of our biggest economic drivers in northwestern Ontario, as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the depths of the pandemic, we saw just how valuable that industry is, because it was lacking and we weren't seeing those visitors and dollars coming into our region. Hunting is at the forefront of our tourism. Most of our tourism is made up of people coming in from the northern states—Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Illinois and others. They come to stay at camps, to go fishing, to go hunting and to enjoy the beautiful scenery we have in northern Ontario. If this amendment were to move forward, it would impact the overall economy of my riding and of many others across northern Ontario.

The concern with this, of course, comes back to public safety. It's not just about the impact this is having on people in my riding, the very real impacts and challenges they will face. It comes back to the question of public safety. After all, that's why we're here. We're at the public safety committee.

We have a government under whose watch violent crime has increased. They've also taken many steps to remove mandatory minimum sentences in a number of cases for a number of crimes, including violent crimes. We're in a situation where they are so focused—perhaps for political reasons; I'm not sure—on restricting firearm rights for a lot of hunters and sport shooters when we're seeing a rise in crime and lesser penalties for those crimes.

With all due respect to my colleagues across the way, I think there are some misguided priorities there, and moving forward on an amendment like this is not actually going to address the issues they're hoping to address. I truly don't.

My comment to folks in the larger cities—places like Toronto and Vancouver—would be that taking guns away from hunters and sport shooters, and the indigenous people in my riding who are hunting just to put food on the table and provide for their families, is not going to make cities any safer. It is not going to address the issues we're seeing of guns, which are being primarily smuggled in or otherwise illegally obtained, coming into our cities. I think that's where the focus should be. I want to put that point on the record.

I'll wrap up here shortly. I know many people have comments.

As I alluded to, there are 42 first nations in my riding. The Treaties 3, 5, and 9 that are encompassed in my riding guarantee indigenous hunting and fishing rights. I won't reiterate it, but I have heard from many indigenous people and indigenous leaders from my riding who are concerned that this proposed amendment will infringe on those rights.

I want to point to a study. I won't table it of course, but it's a first nations food, nutrition and environment study that was released in October of last year, 2021. It found that access to traditional food for indigenous people is better than access to non-traditional food, and many barriers to traditional food sources continue to exist.

I worry that moving forward with this amendment we're debating will create yet another barrier that stops indigenous people from having access to traditional foods. For example, someone from Weagamow Lake in my riding emailed me expressing his frustration with the amendment. He knows, which was alluded to by the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, that many hunters, particularly in the north, have to go out and get more than one animal to feed their family or their community. They are worried that a single-action firearm may not be enough to give them the ability to take down two animals.

There is also the welfare aspect that my esteemed colleague beside me mentioned. He took a lot of my talking points, actually. Although they strive to, hunters don't always take down an animal with the first shot. Having the ability to ensure that it does not suffer and does not continue to run through the woods is an important aspect of this. That's what I heard from the constituent from Weagamow who wrote to me to say this was a concern.

I want to share a few more comments that people wrote to me.

With regard to this amendment, Aaron wrote that he's tired of seeing policies being passed when every single expert in the room says they're a bad idea. In fairness, I don't know if every single expert has said this is a bad idea. I'm sure if you get enough experts on any single topic in a room together, you'll find some disagreement.

The point I take from this is that we've heard from the RCMP, from police associations and from experts from across the country for a number of years now, not just with regard to this amendment but with regard to the original Bill C-21, if I can put it that way, and with regard to the order in council. There are many experts lining up to say that the issue is not long guns. It's not hunters or rifles. It's the smuggled firearms that need to be addressed.

Tim wrote in on that note, saying this bill and amendment will do nothing to deal with the criminals committing gun crimes. I would agree.

Mark wrote, “Please stop Bill C-21. It will take my hunting rifle and shotgun from me.”

Pam reached out about the impact of hunting and the ability to feed her family, saying “People hunt to put food on the table and feed their family, and they want to take that away.”

Mr. Chair, that's the human aspect that I'm hoping to get across, from people in northern Ontario. It's not just necessarily for sport; it's a way of life. It's about providing for their families.

Gordon from Sioux Lookout also asked how banning the sale of handguns in Canada stops criminals who do not acquire them from the local sporting goods store. He believes that this is the equivalent of banning Ford Taurus sedans to stop DUIs, Mr. Chair.

Again, these are misguided priorities. I would agree that this really is a misguided amendment and something I believe is out of touch, perhaps one of the most out-of-touch proposals that the government has brought forward.

I know there are many members who aren't from rural ridings here, but I can assure them that if they ever came to visit—I hope they do, because Kenora's a beautiful area—if they came to the gun range, or if they came to an indigenous community with me and met with some of the countless hunters, trappers and sport shooters, they would understand just how off base this current proposal is and how important it is that we—back to the first point that we heard from the Liberal member—get this right, that we have a wholesome discussion about it. I hope he and his colleagues will be faithful to those comments and work with us on this side to ensure that the proper legislation can be put in place rather than continuing down the road we're currently on.

Again, Mr. Chair, the government knows that violent crime has been on the rise. It knows that action needs to be taken, but this is not it. Maybe I'll close with that. I believe hunters, sport shooters and indigenous people across the country need to be consulted. Their voices need to be heard. I urge the government to withdraw this proposal and to go back to the drawing board and back to the consultations that very clearly need to happen.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Melillo.

Ms. Michaud, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you again.

I was unable to attend a few meetings last week. As my colleagues know, I was on a diplomatic mission abroad, so I missed some of the discussion on G‑4. I do have several things to say about it.

But first I'd like to know what time the meeting will end today, Mr. Chair. Are we going to have to finish at 5:30 p.m., or will we be able to finish later?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Because of the vote, we started at 52 minutes past the hour, so we will end at 5:52.

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

That's perfect. Thank you.

I'd like to pick up on my colleague Mr. Melillo's comment. Coming from a rural riding as well, I don't need to go to a shooting club or hold a gun in my hands to understand how important it can be for some people.

I don't hunt, but I know more and more about firearms. I didn't know much about them until I was given that responsibility. We learn more every day. I don't think you have to be a hunter or a sports shooter to understand that this issue can be very important to a lot of people and that the amendment in question can therefore affect many people in all ridings, in Quebec and in Canada.

I have concerns about this particular amendment. I won't reveal what was said in my private discussions with my Liberal colleagues, but this amendment was presented to me as a provision that would prohibit ghost guns, guns that can be made from parts. They wanted to include some of these parts in the bill or even in the Criminal Code to ensure that this new practice, which seems to be becoming very popular, would be eliminated. I fully agree and find it regrettable that the original wording of the bill didn't already provide for the prohibition of these firearm parts. I agree wholeheartedly that this ban is a good idea.

However, I think that G‑4 went further than what the client was asking for. It really goes very far and proposes a list containing hundreds of firearms that would be banned. However, as I understand it—and I'm having trouble understanding this—some of the weapons on this list would already be prohibited since the coming into force of regulation SOR/2020‑96 of May 1, 2020.

My first question is perhaps easy, since I'd like to know why these weapons are on this list.

Mr. Chair, can I ask questions of the person who moved the amendment and continue my questions once they have answered me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It might be better to ask the officials how the list was put together.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the officials, are any of the weapons already prohibited under the May 1 order in the list we're talking about?

[Paula Clarke]

Yes.

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

May I ask why?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Some weapons were banned by regulation in the 1990s. What is changing with this amendment is that the weapons prohibited by regulation will now be in the Criminal Code, which will also include weapons prohibited by regulation in May 2020.

Instead of listing these 1,500 weapons in regulations, they will be listed in the Criminal Code. The place they're listed changes, but the effect is the same: these weapons are prohibited.

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

Thank you for your response.

It gets a bit confusing to determine which weapon was already prohibited and which would become prohibited if G‑4 were adopted in its current form.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the analysts, who have done an extraordinary job, a painstaking job. They worked over the weekend to try to distinguish the weapons that were already in the May 1, 2020, order from the new weapons to be prohibited. It's not easy to navigate, even for a firearms expert.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Excuse me, Ms. Michaud.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I would like to clarify that the list itself is under amendment G-46, which hasn't been moved yet; however, the mover, Mr. Chiang, has revealed it publicly, so that we can talk about it. You weren't here for that discussion, so that's just to clarify the situation here.

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

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Chair. It's just that these lists of firearms are in amendment G‑4. I don't see myself voting in favour of that amendment knowing that it's going to have an impact a little later. I certainly have some questions about it, and I think everyone does.

First, I'd like to know why the Liberals chose to proceed in this way.

The Bloc Québécois has long been calling for a ban on military-style assault weapons. Horrific killings have occurred in the past with legally acquired military weapons. We're not talking about weapons that are used to kill a deer or a duck. I think it's reasonable to take military-style assault weapons out of the hands and homes of civilians.

We have asked the government to define in the Criminal Code what a military-style assault weapon is, so that it's clear which model should be banned and which should not. We also told the government not to proceed by lists, as the government had done in the May 1, 2020, order, because it isn't clear. There could be a dishwasher model in these lists that I wouldn't even know it. These are numbers and words that we don't necessarily recognize if we're not a firearms expert. How can we make sense of it and reassure our constituents?

I did a little survey on my Facebook page to find out which guns Quebec hunters use. I don't know, and I want to know, to make sure they aren't on the lists referred to in G‑4. I received several responses in just a few hours. Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation out there, and people are really concerned and affected by this issue. They are following the work of the committee, the progress of the bill and G‑4, so it's legitimate to ask questions.

It would have been much simpler not to proceed by model lists, because some guns might fall through the cracks with that approach. I agree that all guns are dangerous, but some are less so, such as those used specifically for deer hunting. If we ban weapons that shouldn't be banned, we won't achieve the goal. So it's much more the approach that I'm questioning today.

This issue affects a lot of people. I have people around me who are more knowledgeable than I am and who help me navigate this.

Let's move quickly to what may or may not be in these lists. Amendment G‑4 proposes to add the following:

(1.2) The definition “prohibited firearm” in subsection 84(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (d):

(e) a firearm that is capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy exceeding 10 000 Joules…

The schedule in G‑46 could include firearms whose power of up to 10,000 Joules. My question is, what are these weapons doing in this schedule?

Amendment G‑4 then proposes adding the following definition element:

(f) a firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater…

Once again, it could be in the schedule of weapons with a diameter of less than 20 millimetres.

So I don't know how we can get answers to these questions. In order to get to the bottom of this before we vote on G‑4, are we going to have to go through all the weapons in the schedule one by one? I don't know why that was done. It's kind of a shame, because if the bill—