Public Safety Committee on Dec. 1st, 2022

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

On a point of order, Chair, I'm looking for relevance here with respect to the technical expertise we've invited to this meeting. I still haven't heard any.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen. Again, the technical expertise is there for the member to call upon if needed, but as long as the remarks are addressed to the bill and particularly to the motion, he's free to speak on whatever he likes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Alternatively, if not invested in mental health, if not invested in purchasing scanners at our ports of entry.... It would be surprising for Canadians to know that in Miramichi, New Brunswick, only 10% of the required background checks are conducted in the renewal of or the application for a current firearms licence because it's not properly or adequately funded, Mr. Chair.

These are all tangible, concrete things that would actually improve safety for Canadians and public safety for our country with five billion dollars' worth of funding, which is what the Fraser Institute estimates it would cost if the Government of Canada were to provide compensation to firearms owners should Bill C-21 and its amendments come to pass.

With regard to the perception of legal gun ownership contributing to crime, we know that simply isn't true. Under this government, the prevalence of violent crime is up 32%, and there is a fear that it will only get worse. In fact, the banning of certain firearms seems to be a political exercise, and there is a legitimate fear that the crime issue will be used by the government to ban even more lawful firearms.

As we see from some of the amendments brought forth by the government, the list is not simply semi-automatics but a wide swath of firearms. Despite the fact that handguns are used to commit the vast majority of violent crimes in Canada, long guns and shotguns are bearing the full brunt of this government's policies.

Furthermore, firearm-related violent crimes typically represent less than 3% of of police-reported violent crime in Canada, a country where individuals own more than 20 million guns. Canadians have little to fear from law-abiding gun owners.

Ironically, in the U.K. during 2019 and 2020, nearly 16,000 knife crimes were committed in a nation with strict gun control. I will add that in comparison to Canada, the U.K. reported 33% more robberies, 22% more assaults, 30% more homicides and 28% more hate crimes. Ironically, many of the European nations that are held up against Canada due to their tight gun controls, including France, Belgium, Greece and Sweden, fare much worse in their crime rate, and Germany is also comparable.

Canada is not the United States, and it is not healthy to import their cultural issues for political gains. Every loss of life is a tragedy, but it does have to be put into perspective. A 2011 study from McMaster University found no significant association between gun laws passed and firearm homicide rates in Canada from 1974 to 2008, proving that the introduction of such laws within the Canadian context has been nothing more than a political exercise.

While homicide-related deaths get much more attention within the context of firearms' being used, many of the excess deaths are tied to suicide, yet this is still a very minimal number.

On the accident front, firearms have also attracted unwanted attention, yet accidents account for 0.3% of total accident incidents, ranking well below 37% for car accidents, 18% for people falling off roofs or falling from distances and 11% for poisoning. However, nobody here is arguing that we should not drive cars.

We are focusing so much time, so much effort and so much money on something that is so insignificant that it's not even funny.

To recapitulate, this is a bad law, as it breaks the social contract that Canadians have struck with their government; comes at a great expense, potentially, for taxpayers of Canada; and fails to improve public safety.

Now that I'm done with my rant, Mr. Van Bynen, you'll be very happy to know that I have some questions.

My question for our panel of experts is this: Is there any province or territory in Canada that prohibits, through its provincial wildlife rules, laws or regulations, a hunter from hunting with a firearm that has a force of over 10,000 joules?

[Paula Clarke]

Not that I'm aware of.

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

Until this order in council and these proposed amendments were made, it was completely legal to hunt in Canada with a rifle that produced a force greater than 10,000 joules. Is that correct?

[Paula Clarke]

If that firearm had been unrestricted prior to May 1, 2020, or was not previously restricted in the classification regulations, then it would have been legal to use that firearm for hunting.

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

Weatherby also makes much of its own ammunition. On its site, Weatherby says explicitly in its marketing that the .460 and other large ammunition—powerful ammunition, I will call it, even if it's in .30 calibre—is only good for animals up to about 2,000 pounds. Are there any animals in North America that are hunted lawfully, harvested lawfully, that are greater than 2,000 pounds?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale, Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you for the question.

I think this is outside the scope that we as officials can provide answers to.

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

Let me ask the officials this: Had they conducted any research? Had they met with any hunting groups? Had they met with any northern hunting groups—for example, Inuit who hunt bowhead whales, narwhals and belugas—or anybody in the Yukon or northern Alberta where bison hunting is legal?

Has the department reached out to any of these organizations to find out the impact of limiting hunting to calibres that produce joules of less than 10,000 and what that might do for those people who are hunting large terrestrial or aquatic animals?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Chiang, go ahead on a point of order.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, the officials are here to answer technical questions, not questions about animals in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Chiang.

The point is taken. Certainly our officials are here today to answer technical questions on the bill and on the amendment before us. I would certainly encourage the member to—

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

I simply asked, Mr. Chair, if any of our technical experts are aware of any information that the Government of Canada has from consultations with anybody who hunts large terrestrial or aquatic mammals in this country. It has a bearing on the 10,000 joules, part of the order in council from a few years ago, and it is wrapped up specifically in Bill C-21.

As the witnesses have already said, hunting with those calibres and that ammunition was perfectly legal, and now it is not. I'm wondering if anybody knows what the impact of that will be on the first nations communities of this country or on other people who hunt large terrestrial land animals.

That's a perfectly legitimate question, Mr. Chair. I would like to know the answer, if the officials have it.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Thank you for the question.

In terms of the proposed amendments and in terms of your question with regard to 10,000 joules, those are already prohibited through the OIC. Therefore, there would be no change in what was prohibited if this motion were to pass.

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

My question was actually this: Does the department have any information that it can table with this committee of any scientific rationale as to why, for the purpose of hunting, a 10,000-joule rifle should not be allowed to be used in Canada? Has any consultation been done with any of the groups that might be impacted?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

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

I just want to know if that information exists or if this was just an arbitrary decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Noormohamed has a point of order.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it is clear that Mr. Calkins is aware of what happens when you shoot something with 10,000 joules. You obliterate the animal. You know that belugas and narwhals are hunted using regular hunting firearms, not 10,000-joule things, and with bowhead whales we usually see explosive devices.

The questions we are asking witnesses here are outside the scope of their expertise. They do not represent the entirety of the Government of Canada.

I would really encourage you, Mr. Chair, to ensure that the questions are focused on the areas of expertise with which these witnesses have presented themselves and have been willing to offer their time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed. I think there was a bit of debate there, but I take your point.

The officials here can't comment on policy and on conjecture about what's going on behind the scenes, I believe.

At any rate, carry on, Mr. Calkins.

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

Well, as Mr.—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead on your point of order, Madame Michaud.

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

Mr. Calkins' questions are relevant. If the officials here cannot answer them, they could be put to the mover of the amendment.

If I were the mover of the amendment, I would have to explain on what basis I chose 10,000 joules, for example. Mr. Chiang could answer these questions. In fact, I have the same questions. Normally, these questions are put to the mover of the amendment.

I will let Mr. Calkins speak, but I think the government members could very well answer those questions.