Evidence of meeting #51 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was firearms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Chair, I thought we invited these experts in for technical advice. If we want to have some political commentary, we could do that another time. Our time is better spent asking the experts on firearms the technical questions that they were invited here for.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.
Mr. Zimmer, maybe just debating.... That would not be a question that you could really address to these witnesses, but you can certainly bring up these matters as a matter of debate.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Yes. I'll continue.
As I said, Toronto Deputy Chief Myron Demkiw testified that 86% of crime guns were smuggled into Canada.
I will continue from the National Post:
Blandford said facing the nearly insurmountable task of securing Canada's porous borders and coastlines, it's not surprising Ottawa went after low-hanging fruit of punishing gun owners.
That's why I'm bringing it up today. It's because that's what we're talking about.
From the National Post:
“Legal gun owners go through a rigorous process to be vetted to own a firearm,” he said.
“Legitimate gun owners, whether they're handgun or long-rifle, are probably amongst your most law-abiding citizens in the country.”
“They're not the problem.”
The reason I bring that up today is that this is why we're here today. We're talking about Bill C-21, a bill that's supposed to make us more safe by, again, tackling the wrong element. It's going after law-abiding firearms owners and their firearms, their hunting firearms.
Let me go on to talk about what the problem is. It's very relevant to this conversation because, again, Bill C-21 is meant to address this very question: “What is the problem?”
As I have just laid out, illegal guns coming across the border are the problem. According to Toronto Deputy Chief Myron Demkiw, 86% of those firearms that are killing our kids on the streets of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are coming from across the border.
What can we do about it? I'm going to talk about how many firearms were seized at the border.
This is another article, from CTV in July 2022, and it speaks to these guns that are coming across: “The number of firearms Canada seized at the border more than doubled last year to 1,110 from 495 in 2020—the highest total since at least 2016, according to the numbers provided to Reuters by Canada's Border Services Agency.”
These are the only ones that they have seized: How many guns pour across our border and end up in criminals' hands and are, again, killing our kids?
It goes on:
Gun violence in Toronto, Canada's most populous city, reached a 15-year high in 2019, with 492 incidents involving firearms, according to police data. That number fell the following two years but 2022 is on track to rise once again.
That's the problem, and yet this government brings in Bill C-21 and brings in even a further amendment to punish law-abiding firearms owners even more.
On what Bill C-21 is going to cost Canadians, I think it's going to be relevant in my final point, because we know that even on the previous long-gun registry, which once again targeted law-abiding firearms owners, it was promised that it was going to cost $2 million and it ended up costing $2 billion.
Then what is the estimate? Well, I will read from an article from an expert. He's a Simon Fraser professor and said that the “Trudeau government 'buy back' firearms plan may cost up to $6.7 billion”.
That's prior to this latest G-46 amendment being laid on this committee's table.
I'll quote—
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Just as a point of reference, G-46 has not yet been laid on the committee's table.
This is good commentary, but it really doesn't pertain to G-4—
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
It's relevant to Bill C-21, I know, Mr. Chair. It's completely relevant.
On the $6.7 billion, it says, “This range—
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Are the questions not to be germane to the specific clause up for discussion?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The debate is supposed to be on G-4, and it's very.... Mr. Zimmer can bring it back at some point—
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Absolutely. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
—and render that concern satisfied. I'm just encouraging him to do so.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
It absolutely is, because when G-4 and Bill C-21will be implemented, that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's what the cost is going to be to Canadians. I'm going to get not just to the cost, because I think people would say they're willing to pay a price as long as it makes them safe, but what I'm arguing is that this isn't making them more safe.
The range estimate rises between $2.6 billion and $6.7 billion after you include compensation costs to owners. Then this same author has said that the addition of this potential new amendment adds another billion dollars, so it's between—and Ms. Dancho knows this too well—$5 billion and $10 billion, pretty easily, by the time it's all said and done.
For those moms of kids in our inner cities.... I'm a father of four and I want to see our streets more safe. We know that violent crime has increased by 33% under this Prime Minister and government. We know that gang crime has increased by 92% since this government took office. What they're doing isn't working. This is another bill put forward that has the image or certainly the facade that it will do something when it really won't.
We know that the cost is going to be between $5 billion and $10 billion. What could $5 billion to $10 billion do in a positive way, instead of going after law-abiding firearms owners and hunters in Canada?
It's simple math. Let's pick the lower amount, $5 billion, as the amount that we're going to calculate this on. Based on an average salary and training for the average police officer or CBSA agent of $150,000, we could put 10,000 officers on the streets for about four years. Imagine those containers. We hear that one in every 100 actually gets inspected at the border, where we know the problem is. Imagine putting another 5,000 CBSA agents at the borders to capture these guns before they get across to gang members in our inner cities. Just imagine that—or, as my colleague Mr. Calkins has informed me, with the equipment we could give those border agents to completely scan every container, we could easily pay for the manpower and this equipment to up our game at the borders dramatically to reduce the number of guns coming across. Why aren't we doing that? It's something that will have a real impact, and I guess in a positive way too.
Ultimately this ends up on the streets, and we see crime and firearms that are hurting our kids. We see the crime rates spiking and getting worse. The list that I read out earlier today is not comprehensive. As Mr. Smith acknowledged, proposed paragraph 84(1.2)(g) really opens it up to a whole bunch of other hunting firearms, potentially, and it's all for an almost zero effect, when we know that 86% of those firearms that are killing our kids are coming across the border. They're not coming from law-abiding hunters in my community. That's for sure.
My final point is we know that hunters are not the problem. We know what the problem is. Knowing what the problem is, how about our putting that huge amount of money in a place where it will actually work and keep our communities safe?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Zimmer.
We go now to Mr. Calkins. He represents my hometown, by the way, so welcome.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I said you have the floor, but I just mentioned that you represent my hometown.
Noon
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Yes, I do. We've had that conversation before. Thank you, Chair.
I'm going to make some introductory remarks as the shadow minister for hunting, fishing and conservation in His Majesty's loyal opposition. Then I'll get to some of the questions I have for our esteemed witnesses.
Canada was once a refuge for a rugged individual, and we would be hard-pressed to make a case for that in Canada today. Since 1850, urbanization has swept the country, practically inverting the population of urban dwellers and rural residents. Today, nearly 80% of Canadians live in an urban area. As noted by one of the members opposite, Canada has changed.
Although he's not entirely wrong in his assessment, in this process of change, many aspects of this country have been improved; however, blind nostalgia does us no favours.
As different as the country looks today compared to the one the traveller would have found in 1850, this does not mean that all traces of this old Canada ought to be erased. For those Canadians and first nations who live in remote areas or participate in the outdoor way of life, their lived reality is different from that of those who live in the most populated parts of our nation.
As you can imagine, life in places like Pond Inlet in Nunavut; Ignace, Ontario; Sept-Îles, Quebec; Corner Brook, Newfoundland; or Prince Rupert, British Columbia, resemble nothing of the urban experience in downtown Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal. One should note that the prevalence of firearms licences per 100 people is the highest in Yukon, with a rate of 19.17%. One in five Yukoners has a firearm. This compares to the national average of just under 6%, thus indicating a wide swing in licence ownership in certain parts of the country.
It may come as a surprise to the members opposite, but those participating in the hunting lifestyle are surprisingly diverse. The hunters of today are not your trappers of the early fur trade, which, by the way, is an essential part of our history and the basis of modern commerce in our nation. Hunting is a genuine family-oriented activity, enjoyed by those of all creeds and ethnic backgrounds, and in it the wisdom of past generations is passed down to the new.
I am here at committee today because, with Bill C-21, the federal government has, whether it wants to admit it or not, basically said to hunters that their way of life is going to be no more.
Guns are not weapons of war, as some politicians would like to have you believe, but an essential harvesting tool used for hunters to feed their families. It provides food security in our northern and remote communities. I've heard scoffing and other rhetoric from other politicians indicating that this way of life is not even needed in a modern Canada.
I take particular offence to what appears to be the carelessness of the drafting of not only this bill but of the proposed amendments that are before it. It is clear to me that Bill C-21 is not based on science at all. It is not based on any evidence at all; it is a simple, political decision. The problem with this is that it tarnishes the time-honoured traditions of firearms owners and sport shooters in this country, hunters included. It sullies the reputations of these good, honest, law-abiding, patriotic Canadians.
The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a proponent of naturalism, once stated that the only true freedom was found in nature alone and that one must remain close to nature and its inherent liberty and equality. It is Rousseau who created the concept of the social contract to counter the loss of freedom brought on by man's move away from the inherent freedom of nature. He believed that a man's participation in what he called unnatural collective activities infringed on his liberty and, as such, a bargain called a social contract had to be struck.
The purpose of the social contract made by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection and co-operative benefits lays out the obligations of government towards its subjects.
Although we could argue about what these consist of, John Locke, another contributor to the theory of social contracts, explained it best when he said, “...being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty or Possessions”.
Bill C-21 is a piece of legislation that breaks this social contract. Beyond the obvious point of liberty, it also infringes on both the right to possess guns themselves and a right to personal health and freedom.
This may all seem academic, but fear not. I'm about to present some real-world, concrete examples of what the infringement on the Canadian social contract means for the hunting community.
Canadians have a reasonable right to own their possessions. One of the foundational pillars of the social contract, private property, lies at the heart of many democratic systems.
We know this to be true, as even though it is not enshrined in our legislation, Canada is a signatory to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes that everyone “has the right to own property” and provides that no one shall be “arbitrarily deprived” of his or her property. “Arbitrarily” is an important word in this context, as Bill C-21 does it exactly this way.
Not only is the classification of firearms in amendments G-4 and G-46 arbitrary, but the lack of buyback or any provisions hinting at a buyback is also proof of how little the government regards the concept of property rights.
It is also striking to me that many of these guns included on the list of firearms are not solely semi-automatic, as intended by the legislation and as advertised by the Prime Minister; many are bolt-action rifles and shotguns, including the likes of the Winchester model 54, the Weatherby Mark V, the Kimber 89 African and the Montana Rifle 1999. These are not military rifles that later became popular as hunting arms; they were designed explicitly for the purpose of hunting.
A separate point I would like to make is the availability of both firearms and ammunition in northern communities. Access to firearms in northern communities is already limited, and they can be hard to come by in the make and model desired by hunters. Notwithstanding COVID-19 supply chain issues, there has been a long-running difficulty in supplying the north with these items. In fact, Canada Post will no longer ship ammunition. Now, with this proposed ban, if it comes into force, replacing these banned firearms will be difficult for first nations and Inuit in an already stretched market.
By instituting such a wide-ranging ban, the Liberal government will make if difficult for these hunters to replace their firearms, yet these people are the most likely to perform sustenance hunting. This ban will endanger a critical method of ensuring food security in a harsh environment, where groceries come at an irregular pace and with high prices.
Lastly, I would like to focus on how our new gun laws will affect the tourism sector. Hunters inbound from abroad, especially the United States, contribute significantly to our hunting sector and keep our lodges and outfitters busy. I might add that for the last two years of COVID-19, guides and outfitters in lodges have been some of the hardest hit in the tourism sector.
I can tell you, as a hunter, that these tourists often prefer to take their own firearms, as they will not only be more ergonomic but also have the added safety benefit of the hunter knowing his own firearm. Depriving foreign tourists of their reasonable hunting rifles, as proposed—I can assure you it will happen with the evergreen clause, as it's referred to—with the scheduled list of firearms will result in yet another blow to the guides, outfitters and lodges across our country.
As for the health component of the social contract, it is clearly violated by Bill C-21. Those closest to the natural world—for example, our rural Canadians and hunters—are the most impacted by the loss of liberty engendered by an increasingly urbanized society. They are also the ones most vulnerable to the loss of their physical well-being due to the prohibition of their tools and property.
As previously mentioned, this bill may, in fact, affect food security. There is also a physical health component to the firearms debate that is not often discussed, which is that of workers in remote areas. In some parts of our country and in some industries, firearms are vital to one's physical safety. In this scenario, firearms are used for self-defence. Tour operators operating in the north need to ensure that their guests are protected from polar bears and other wildlife. They have a duty of care to protect their guests.
When beekeepers go out into remote areas to collect honey from their hives, it is not at all uncommon for a beekeeper to be caught unaware by a lingering bear. This is a completely different scenario from a hunter who is walking through the woods, carrying his or her firearm, ready at a moment's notice to pursue the hunt. These are people who find themselves in a defensive position. These are people who need to be able to react and respond quickly, because their primary focus and objective while they're working is not the same as the primary focus of somebody who is hunting.
I can tell you without any hesitation whatsoever that the ability to have a shotgun that would be caught up in the evergreening clause or on the schedule that is proposed in these amendments to Bill C-21 would take a vast number of firearms away from people who are just trying to defend themselves. I know beekeepers who carry with them a Tavor because it is compact, it has five rounds, it is chambered in .308 and it will stop a bear.
Now this beekeeper is going to have his property rendered valueless and he has to go and search for another firearm or shotgun that would have similar capabilities to the Tavor, not knowing if amendment G-4 to this proposed legislation, the amendment coming through, would in fact would eventually get that new firearm caught up in the prohibited list.
This violates the social contract between Canadians and their government, and it also potentially harms the health, safety and well-being of Canadians.
I remember very vividly, because I have worked most of my life prior to coming to Parliament in the outdoor industry. I was a conservation officer with the Province of Alberta and I was a national park warden in Jasper National Park. I'm also a hunter.
There are numerous reasons people would have a semi-automatic firearm. Anybody working in the forestry industry, anybody who has done the job of timber cruising where you are going down a cut line determining whether or not a cut block is going to be productive or not for your forestry company, would carry with them a shotgun likely advertised by the manufacturer as a defender. It could be semi-automatic. It could be pump action. It would likely have a pistol grip and it would likely be polymer plastic or made out of polymer and it would be black.
It would look to the untrained eye like a scary gun, but it is the firearm that would be best used and best positioned to provide the safety benefit to somebody's son or daughter, to somebody's brother or sister, to somebody's mom or dad who is working in the outdoor environment in a situation where they could be put at risk, not to mention all of the hunters in this land.
Not everybody who hunts does so with a firearm. There are bowhunters. If you don't have the knowledge or experience of what it's like to sit in a tree stand and call or bugle for an elk or for a buck or for a bull moose, what you are also doing in that act is letting every predator in the woods know that you are there as well. It is not unreasonable at all for a bow hunter to have a safety firearm with them. It needs to be small and compact; otherwise, it does not work in that scenario.
Numerous firearms that are newly added to the list in the proposed amendments will now render firearms that were bought specifically for the purpose of personal protection by people, either through their work or through their enjoyment of hunting, useless if not worthless. Their property will be rendered useless if not worthless.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
We have witnesses here, and I haven't heard a question yet. I'm wondering if we could—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I haven't heard a question by Mr. Van Bynen either. If he wants the floor, he can ask for it.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Chair, I haven't asked for time to ask questions, but I'm here to have the benefit of the witnesses' information, particularly from a technical point of view, and if and when I do have a question, I will let the chair know.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen; however, there is no obligation for the member to ask questions. The officials are here to provide answers if asked, but the member may certainly carry on his debate.
It is related to amendment G-4, I believe. Please carry on.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Before I get to the officials for questions, I would like to remind my colleagues opposite of two things that are often forgotten when talking about firearm bans—the opportunity costs of these excessive and ineffective gun control measures being put in place and the small risk of being victimized by law-abiding firearms owners that actually exists.
I ask my colleagues what kind of cost-benefit analysis has been conducted for this project in terms of the cost of the buyback, the last part of which was not even completed yet. A host of measures could be purchased to actually improve public safety, as my colleague Mr. Zimmer has said, with the high estimate, or even just with a medium-term estimate of $5 billion, which is what the Fraser Institute said for the last buyback before we even included new firearms through the proposed amendments.
We could make quick work of many outstanding needs at a cost of $3 million U.S. That is how much Grand Cayman just spent this year for a modern shipping container scanning system. It finds not just firearms but all contraband, including drugs. In the nation of Canada where, I believe, we have 119 ports of entry, if we convert $5 billion Canadian into U.S. dollars, we could literally buy 10 of these scanning devices for every port of entry, rather than buying five billion dollars' worth of firearms from law-abiding Canadians.
Now, you tell me and the Canadians who are watching which is likely to have a larger impact on public safety—being able to scan virtually every vehicle and every container that comes into our country or taking property away that's sitting there idly in the lockers and vaults of everyday Canadians? I already know what the answer to that question is. Only one per cent of containers currently passing through our ports of entry are scanned. That's it—one per cent. We obviously need to improve this if we're going to stem the tide of illegal firearms moving north from our southern neighbour—speaking of which, a large number of border patrol officers could also be hired to ensure a further reduction in cross-border smuggling. After all, most of the guns used in urban gang shootings— a staggering 85%—are smuggled in illegally, according to the Toronto police.
On the social services side of things, we could surely throw in that $875 million that the Liberals promised in their last election campaign for mental health, which I would argue is probably at the root of most of the gun violence that we have in this country, if somebody from the law-abiding community were to do this.
How many times could we fund the mental health strategy that the Liberals haven't allocated a single dollar for, instead of potentially— and I don't even know—