Public Safety Committee on Dec. 8th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, once again. I welcome you all to meeting number 53 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms.

The committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration, but before we resume debate, I will now welcome, once again, our officials who are with us today. From the Department of Justice, we have Paula Clarke, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; and Murray Smith, technical specialist, Canadian firearms program.

These names are starting to roll off my tongue very easily. Practice makes perfect.

Thank you for joining us today once again. Your participation is very important for the committee members.

(On clause 1)

We are resuming debate on amendment G-4. At the time of adjournment, Mr. Noormohamed had the floor, and he will continue. Following Mr. Noormohamed, we will have Ms. Dancho, followed by Ms. Damoff, and there's another long list coming.

Mr. Noormohamed, if you please, the floor is yours.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our officials for coming back.

Before I pick up where we left off last night, I just want to take a minute to set the stage a little bit.

I think, as I said last time, that all of us are keen to put forward measures to make our communities safe. I don't think there's any disagreement about that. I think that there are different perspectives. We've made it very clear that there are different perspectives on how to approach the topic of gun safety, gun violence and getting guns off our streets. We've all heard from our constituents. We've all heard from folks who are not our constituents. We've heard from Canadians in general.

I have stated, as have my colleagues on this committee, as has the Prime Minister, that there is a willingness, a desire for openness and an intention to make sure that this is the best possible legislation it can be and that we take the time to hear the voices of folks who have either not had clarity as to what this bill contains or have concerns about what this bill does contain.

Part of what I am hoping we can accomplish today with our witnesses is to get some clarity around areas of concern and to, frankly, try to break down some of the myths that may exist around this bill. If we are speaking candidly, we should also find areas where there could be potential room for opportunity. I think this is something from which we would all benefit, and I think all Canadians would benefit.

There has been a lot of work that has gone on to try to do that, but we can always do more.

We've all been very clear that Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities, but we also need to respect hunters, other law-abiding gun owners, farmers who use appropriate guns to protect livestock and protect their farms and, of course, indigenous communities.

As we take the time to clarify any misinformation regarding the amendment that was presented at this committee on November 22, I want to make sure we do whatever we can. We are all committed to taking down the temperature wherever we can, to listening to whatever perspectives are out there and to having a healthy discussion based on facts.

Today, Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, along with the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party, requested two urgent meetings.

I'd like to thank our colleague from the Bloc for having this idea.

Frankly, we have to get in the habit of working together on the committee. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank Ms. Michaud. This will allow us to invite new witnesses to testify before the committee and will allow Canadians to hear from other experts.

Those two meetings will hopefully allow us to hear from witnesses to address any of the outstanding issues that exist, to improve the proposed law where appropriate, to give Canadians the confidence that their government is listening and to give opposition and other parties the opportunity to ensure we are doing our part together to do what was intended in this bill, which was to ban assault-style weapons—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

—not those commonly used for hunting.

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

Mr. Noormohamed is mentioning two additional meetings for witness testimony. I'm not clear on what he's talking about. We have not agreed to two meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

There has been a 106(4) distributed.

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

Has it been agreed to?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Standing Order 106(4) compels the chair to call a meeting.

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

Right, but has it been discussed as a committee, sir?

He's talking as if this is established.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

He can talk about it in whatever manner he likes.

It's public information that a meeting to discuss that has been requested and—

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

Right, but just to be clear, it has not been agreed to as a committee that we would have only two additional meetings of witness testimony external to the witnesses we have here today. Is that correct? That has not been agreed to...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's correct. That will be the subject of the 106(4) meeting.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Just to clarify, it is certainly my hope that we can do that.

Let me be very clear about what the goal is. The goal is for us to have the time to hear from witnesses. The goal is for us to then, in an efficient manner, not hold up good legislation but to improve it and to do it in a way.... I know that it may seem funny to others on the other side but it's an important piece of legislation, and we need to do our part.

If the effort to hear from other witnesses is something that others wish to partake in, I think that's an important step. I know that others have been asking for it, and we hope this step will take us to that place. We want to make sure that we work collaboratively to make sure that there are no guns that are commonly used for hunting captured within these proposed amendments.

We're listening to Canadians and we're going to get this right. I have been saying that, and my colleagues have been saying that, since the beginning of this. Again, we may have different approaches, but I think the intention is the same.

That said, I would like to try to do a bit of what we were doing last time, which is to just get some clarity for folks out there who are watching this and have been bombarded by messages that the government is coming.... I believe there was some narrative out there that the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals are coming for every single hunting rifle and shotgun out there, and we've made it clear time and again that we are not. That is not the intention.

We've all spent time discussing these amendments, this amendment, with our friends and our families, in this committee and with constituents. I have heard from my constituents, who have said that it is very important for them to make sure that we get this right so that we don't lose the opportunity to make once-in-a-generation advances in protecting Canadians. We've heard from farmers who have expressed concerns that they have not had the opportunity to understand whether or not the guns they have would indeed be affected.

We've also heard from extreme views, from those who have chosen to turn this into a culture war, bringing racism, misogyny and all kinds of other vitriol and hate into this conversation. The emails that some of them send are a reminder of why some people frankly should not have firearms, but it does not mean that they represent the vast majority of gun owners in this country, and I want to make that very clear. I think that those who choose to use racism, misogyny, calls to violence and these types of tropes actually do not advance the cause that many people who have reached out to us with good intentions and goodwill seek to do.

As I said last week, I think it's really important for everyone on this committee, regardless of their political party, to denounce those views, to denounce the misogyny, the racism and the hate that has come from a lot of folks on the extreme right who are using the work of others to be able to carry legal firearms to promote some other sort of rhetoric of hate. I hope we'll all be able to do that together.

We have heard from folks who have expressed real concerns about the content and the context, so what I'd like to be able to do is.... We've been asking a lot of very specific and very technical questions about specific makes and models. Today, Mr. Smith, if I can, I would like us to try to break down the complex concepts to make sure we all understand the very foundation of what it is that we're proposing.

While we can answer the highly technical questions, we could also break down—and I hope you can help us with this—the technical concepts and make them digestible for average Canadians who might not know as much about hunting, shooting or firearms generally. With that in mind, perhaps we can establish a few key principles.

What is the range of firearms that are available in Canada for purchase?

[Murray Smith, Technical Specialist, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I presume you mean purchase by individuals.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

By individuals, yes.

[Murray Smith]

In that case, the kinds of firearms that are available for purchase include rifles, shotguns, carbines and handguns. Those are the broad categories. There are some specialty firearms, as well, that would be available to members of the public.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Okay.

How many makes and models does that involve or entail?

[Murray Smith]

I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that. The firearms reference table has over 200,000 makes and models listed, so it's at least that many and we're sure there are more, but no one really knows how many for sure.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

To be clear, that's 200,000 makes and models that are available for purchase?

[Murray Smith]

No, that's a slightly different question. The firearms are categorized by whether they are prohibited, restricted or non-restricted.

If you look at all possible combinations of firearms, you wind up with something just over 200,000 specific types. That breaks it right down to calibre, barrel length and magazine capacity.

You can also look at it from a higher level, and look at it from the standpoint of makes and models, which is the way it's organized in the schedules. That gives you a smaller number because the make and model would include many firearms that have different barrel lengths and different magazine capacities and so on. In that case, if you look at it from the standpoint of makes and models, there's something on the order of 25,000 makes and models that have been manufactured over the years.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

That's 25,000 makes and models, approximately, and over 200,000 individuals on the table.

[Murray Smith]

Yes, to avoid confusion, it depends on how you divide the pie here because there are around 25,000 makes and models, but those makes and models can be broken down into further subcategories based on the barrel length. A model might be available in two barrel lengths, for example, or it might be available in two calibres or more. Looking at it from a higher-level standpoint on makes and models, it's around 25,000. If you look at it from the standpoint of the number of combinations possible of make and model, barrel length, calibre and so on, then it's over 200,000. That includes all categories.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Would you know, for a reference point, what that stat would look like for, say, the U.K. or Australia?

[Murray Smith]

The firearms reference table is international in scope. It represents all firearms as best we can catalogue made anywhere on the planet. The list of firearms is going to be the same no matter what nation you're in.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

You and others have referred to the firearms reference table. Can you describe to us what that actually is?