Public Safety Committee on Dec. 1st, 2022

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

They would need an authorization to carry from each jurisdiction, correct?

[Phaedra Glushek]

Correct.

That meets the objective of the government in banning all assault-style firearms, as they said in May 2020 and continue to say. Definitely, yes, any prohibited firearm would not be able to be used or possessed.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Okay.

It's clear to me, Mr. Chair, that this law has a lot of problems in terms of its practicability for people who live and work in rural and remote communities. As well, it is going to make life less safe for hunters, for indigenous people living in remote and rural areas, and for people who are employed not necessarily by an organization such as Brink's but are self-employed as lodge owners and outfitters and so on.

Let's go to lodges and outfitters. As I said in my opening statement, lodges and outfitters, particularly hunting lodges, have basically been decimated by two years of COVID and closures and border restrictions. It's not your fault, and I'm not blaming you. I'm not blaming any of you for anything. I'm just asking for clarification.

We know from talking to the folks in this industry that whether it's a Canadian going to another country or others coming to Canada for the purpose of hunting, most will bring or will want to bring their own firearms with them. When I say most, 95% of hunters prefer to take their own firearms with them. That would be a Canadian going to the United States or Spain or wherever they happen to be hunting, and it's no different for people who are coming here from other countries.

If a firearm is now moved to the prohibited list, will that mean that any hunter from outside of Canada can no longer bring any of these prohibited firearms into the country for the purpose of short-term hunting at a guided or outfitted lodge or on a hunting excursion?

[Paula Clarke]

Classifying a firearm as “prohibited” means it is prohibited for everybody within Canada, including, for instance, those coming in from the U.S. to hunt as a form of tourism. It applies to any group that uses these firearms as part of a business. It applies to everybody in Canada. There are no exceptions.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Then I guess it's the duty of a hunter coming to Canada from another country to know what the laws are if the laws change.

How would that be handled by our border agents if somebody was en route to their destination for hunting?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

When an individual enters Canada, they are asked if they have any firearms to declare. Again, I am speaking a little bit outside of my lane. This would be for my colleagues at the CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency. People entering Canada are asked to declare any firearms they have, and if they declare that they have any firearms and those are prohibited, then the process that CBSA applies in cases of prohibited firearms would apply.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I can assume, then, Mr. Chair, that numerous people who have come to hunt in Canada before, who in the past have brought with them firearms that are for hunting or that could be used for hunting, will be denied entry into Canada.

I am very concerned, Mr. Chair, about what that will do to our lodges and outfitters in this country, particularly those that offer northern hunting excursions for large moose, for example, in the Yukon or for bison or other large terrestrial mammals.

[Phaedra Glushek]

Could we just clarify one point?

It would be the firearm that would be prohibited from coming into Canada, and not the individuals.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I understand, but 95% of people want to use their own guns, and if they're not allowed to bring their gun, they're not coming, ma'am. That's just the way it is, and that will definitely have an adverse impact on our lodges and outfitters.

My question to the officials who are here is this: Does the department have any information about what the impact will be on our guides and outfitters across this country should this law come to pass with respect to all of the firearms that are currently on the list and that are scheduled to be prohibited? What will be the net economic consequence to our lodges and outfitters?

[Phaedra Glushek]

No, we do not have that information before us.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I could keep going, but I'm pretty sure I see the writing on the wall. This is a political exercise. It's not an economic exercise. It's not a hunting exercise. It's not a public safety exercise.

I will give up my time until I think of some other questions, but I'm sure I know what the answer is going to be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins, for your interventions today.

We are at the end of our time. I propose that we adjourn and resume in the next meeting from the point where we left off.

We'll adjourn. Suspending messes up all kinds of things.

We'll adjourn and we will resume the next meeting from the point where we left off. This means the next speaker will be Madame Michaud, followed by Mr. Noormohamed, Mr. Ruff, Mr.—

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

I have a quick point of order. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

I know that you suspended when Mr. Noormohamed was making his comments. Can you explain why that is different from today? Why were we able to suspend then and not today on Mr. Calkins' remarks?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I could suspend, but it messes up scheduling, giving notices and all kinds of stuff. I've been advised by my very capable clerk that it's better for the organization and for the administration if we adjourn as we did last time, and adjourn with the understanding that we will commence where we left off in the next meeting.

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

There will be no more suspensions, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

There may be, but we're going to try to avoid them because it messed up the administration. The effect for us is the same; the effect for them is better.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

For everyone's benefit, as we adjourn, the understanding is that we'll have the speakers list exactly as it stands right now. It will be Madame Michaud—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's exactly right. The motion will remain moved. The speakers list will carry on from where we are now.

Mr. Calkins has finished. The next on the list is Madame Michaud. If that's the understanding and everybody's good with that—

Go ahead, Mr. Ruff.

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

I want some clarity, because I do have more questions that are very specific and unfortunately I didn't get to address Mr. Smith. I'm assuming Mr. Daly's with him as well. It would be beneficial to have them there as the experts.

I know they're busy people as well, and I'm not trying to cause them.... I want to make sure they'll be invited back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We will continue to invite all of these wonderful witnesses and we certainly appreciate all of the input. I recognize that it's sometimes difficult to answer your questions.

That being the case, we are now....

You're on the list, sir, after Mr. Noormohamed.

We are now adjourned.