Public Safety Committee on Feb. 14th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 57 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We'll 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 Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee has commenced its study on the effects of the withdrawn amendments G-4 and G-46 to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms.

Today we have two panels of witnesses. We'll delve into the first one right now.

In the first hour, we have the Centre culturel islamique de Québec and PolySeSouvient. Also, as an individual, we have Mr. Jim Shockey, who is a guide and outfitter. Each witness group has five minutes for a statement.

I understand that Centre culturel islamique and PolySeSouvient will share their time. You'll have 10 minutes among the group of you. I'll let you allocate that as you please, and we'll drop the hammer at 10 minutes. We'll start with you, and then we'll go to Mr. Shockey later.

Go ahead, please, for 10 minutes.

[Boufeldja Benabdallah, Spokesman, Centre culturel islamique de Québec]

Good afternoon.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I'd like to begin by mentioning that we have here today a representative of the Polytechnique community, Mr. Serge St‑Arneault. I represent the Quebec City Muslim community and the mosque in Quebec City.

Here we are before you once again. We agree that it's important to have these consultations, because the debate over the ban on assault weapons appears, and there's no point in trying to hide the fact, to have descended into purely political issues instead of focusing on the importance of eliminating weapons of war from society. I chose my words carefully when I used the term weapons of war.

Allow me to remind you once again—it's very important to do so—that barely two months ago, in the presence of the people from the Polytechnique here with us today, and just two weeks ago for the people from the mosque I represent, we were once again commemorating the 20 people killed in the attack. These were 14 young women who today might have been engineers working on our behalf building bridges, working in aviation or other fields, and six fathers who could otherwise have been enjoying watching their children go calmly off to school. We're talking here about 20 dead, not to mention those who were injured, and the survivors with whom we share the pain, sadness and broken hearts caused by inhuman gunfire.

The victims of mass killings committed with these weapons have been fighting for a ban like this for three decades now. It's been 33 years for the Polytechnique. I feel ashamed when I think about the fact that in a country like this, after 33 years of struggle, we have still not managed to agree on this issue. We and they have been fighting for one thing only, and that is to stop the circulation of weapons to prevent incidents like the one at the Polytechnique, with all the pain that was caused, from ever happening again. We're talking about 16 years for Dawson College and six years for the mosque.

However, even though all our efforts are supported by the vast majority of Canadians who don't want these weapons in circulation, I'm sure we'll be back before you in Parliament again to emphasize the importance of banning assault weapons. This is lamentable from the standpoint of victims like us and ordinary citizens, who are still asking themselves why these weapons were not immediately prohibited following the massacres. New Zealand and Australia, on the other hand, have taken exemplary action. They banned these weapons right after the tragedies in Christchurch and Port Arthur, which you are aware of.

And yet Canada borders a country I won't name that has clearly demonstrated the inevitable outcomes and disastrous impacts of ready access to weapons, including assault weapons. In 2020, 647 mass killings were committed with weapons, including assault weapons, in the United States. That's almost two every day. Do we want the same thing here in Canada? No.

School children and teachers are murdered in their schools, people at their places of worship and others where they work. I need to emphasize what follows because, yet again, we need to wake up and understand that we are not an advocacy group. We are not lobbyists, but rather people who are demanding, in a heartfelt way, that these weapons should never circulate in our streets, that our children not be killed and that workers not be killed. We are doing this while respecting hunters and others. My friends here with us today will provide you with more details.

That's what we want to avoid in Canada, so that our children can have a better future. I'm convinced that if every political party did its share, we could happily see this bill being adopted; it's our only chance to ban assault weapons on behalf of everyone's welfare.

Please get to work on this. Let's all get to work on it. That's all I really wanted to say to you, in the hope that you would help us achieve the desired result.

I will now give the rest of my speaking time to my PolySeSouvient colleagues, Nathalie Provost and Heidi Rathjen, who are here with us today.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Benabdallah.

Ms. Provost and Ms. Rathjen, you have six minutes left.

[Nathalie Provost, Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient]

Good afternoon, and thank you Mr. Chair.

In 1991 and 1995, the Conservative and Liberal governments, respectively, banned a list of assault weapons. However, owing to the absence of a comprehensive evergreen definition in the act, new models of assault weapons began to flood into the Canadian market.

Please listen carefully. Without a definition in the act, manufacturers will continue to produce new models, and backsliding would be much easier for a government that did not share the same public safety values. What we want is something permanent. We're tired of repeatedly reliving this ordeal.

Since 2015, the Liberal Party has been elected three times, having promised to prohibit assault weapons. The Bloc and the NDP shared this commitment, but progress has been slow. It's only now, in its third term, that the government is attempting to keep its promise. Amendments G‑4 and G‑46 in Bill C‑21 have kept Canada from coming even close to a complete and permanent ban on assault weapons.

I'd like to remind you that this measure is the first demand by the students of Polytechnique Montréal and victims' families since January 1990. Heidi and I were at the first press conference when the initial demand was made. We supported the government's overall strategy announced in May 2022, because it included the compulsory buyback, the promise of a permanent ban and a tightening up of the regulatory framework for high-capacity magazines.

We have had the full support of the Bloc Québecois since 1990, and we now understand that the leader of the NDP has also supported what we've been asking for. Please, in committee, we are asking you to respond to Canadians demanding a ban on assault weapons, to rework the withdrawn amendments in a way that would enable Canadians to actually understand them and the impact they would have. New clear and improved amendments, if they are developed around sound, scientific, rational and accurate fact-based information, could be adopted. That's what we really want.

[Heidi Rathjen, Coordinator, PolySeSouvient]

Good afternoon.

Our hope today is that these special consultations will, first and foremost, seek to clarify the true impacts of amendments G-4 and G-46, since any new amendments should be based on real and legitimate concerns.

While we are open to the possibility that the proposed amendments may have included legitimate hunting rifles, we have not seen any evidence of this as of yet. On the contrary, a detailed analysis of the claims made by one of the loudest gun lobby groups—an analysis that has been validated by the RCMP—shows that all of their claims about hunting rifles being banned are either false or misleading.

Indeed, of all the models they showcased in their memes, videos and posters, only one would be affected by an amended Bill C-21, and that is the SKS, which is clearly a military weapon. It was exempted from the 2020 orders in council because it was not of a modern design.

For all of the other models that you have seen on social media and in videos, etc., their classification would not change. That's because amendment G-46 incorporated the 2020 orders in council, including variants, for greater clarity, meaning models whose military calibre versions have been prohibited for almost three years now, and whose hunting calibre versions continue to be used for hunting and will remain legal and non-restricted. Government experts have testified before this committee to that effect and, as I said, our assessment has been validated by the RCMP.

We believe that such widespread misinformation has provoked massive and unfounded fear among hunters, who then inundated members of Parliament with emails, calls and letters. We believe this has likely led to the withdrawal of these amendments. I hope this committee will seek to debunk this disinformation to the benefit of all.

That being said, we recognize that a key challenge is the lack of clarity surrounding these amendments. The legislative proposals were particularly difficult to understand. Many believe that if a model is listed in amendment G-46, it means that all versions would be prohibited, even though government officials have testified to the contrary. We, therefore, fully support reviewing the language in both amendments to make it simpler and easier to understand.

We also remain convinced that the intent of the amendments was not to prohibit firearms reasonably used for hunting. We have publicly supported the idea of exempting specific models if some fell on the wrong side of that line. However, it should be noted that just because a gun is used by some for hunting, that does not make it a hunting firearm. As a case in point, the gun lobby considers the AR-15 and even handguns firearms fit for hunting. That is why the expression, “reasonably used” is key, and why it also exists in the Criminal Code.

We recognize that specific issues related to indigenous people's hunting rights must be addressed—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Would you wrap it up, please?

[Heidi Rathjen]

At the same time, it should be noted that there is a distinction between the right to hunt and the right to hunt with an assault weapon, yet in that spirit, we were not opposed to the exemption for indigenous subsistence hunters that is part of the 2020 orders in council. We would accept similar exemptions in the case of a comprehensive and permanent ban on assault weapons.

In conclusion, our last point is that we continue to support the proposed evergreen definition in G-4. However, because of the importance of ensuring that manufacturers do not circumvent the intent of a ban on military-style, semi-automatic weapons, we respectfully request that the committee look into ways to adjust the evergreen definition in a way that minimizes such potential circumventions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

In my haste to get started, I was remiss in failing to introduce you as individuals.

With the Centre culturel islamique de Québec, we have Mr. Benabdallah, spokesman. From PolySeSouvient, we have Heidi Rathjen, coordinator, and Nathalie Provost, spokesperson. I am sorry for that oversight.

We will carry on now with Mr. Shockey.

Please go ahead for five minutes.

[Jim Shockey, Guide Outfitter, As an Individual]

I was introduced as a guide outfitter, but in fact I'm a hunter.

To give you an idea of where I sit in the hunting world, I was given the Professional Hunter of the Year award in 2009, the International Hunter of the Year and World Conservation and Hunting awards in 2012, the Conklin award in 2016 for highest standards and ethical fair chase, and the Ovis award for fair chase and total integrity in 2018. I was also the winner of the Weatherby award in 2018, and I'm only the second Canadian in seven years to be given that award. I'm a hunter.

I've also produced over 500 episodes of outdoor television and work closely with first nations and Inuit communities in the north. I've written over a thousand articles and outdoor publications. On a personal note, I've been married for 38 years to my soulmate, and I have two children and four grandchildren. Most importantly for this committee, I have a great and growing concern for the public safety of my family, here in Canada, and for that of my fellow Canadians.

However, speaking as a hunter, I want to make it clear to this committee that, although people like me live the field-to-table lifestyle—we go into the field and hunt what we eat—we're not your enemy. Hunters are not the enemy, in this case, and our firearms are not a threat to the security of Canada and safety of Canadians.

I'll address some of the Bill C‑21 issues that concern us, as hunters.

Are semi-automatic rifles popular? Yes, they are. They're commonly used for hunting many different species of animals, in many different conditions. To get a hunting licence, hunters have to pass tests and be vetted. They're the best at knowing the proper firearm to use. I don't use a weapon, because that's not what these are. I don't think they qualify as weapons in the Canadian Criminal Code. You can confirm that. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are commonly used.

Most of the outfitting I look after takes place in remote communities—mostly indigenous first nations or Inuit territories. The economic benefits from hunters who come in, mostly from the States.... Often, they use their semi-automatic firearms. My fear is that, if Bill C-21 goes through, you're going to see a boycott from down south. That will have a catastrophic effect on these remote communities, which require this input of foreign American dollars.

By the way, the meat from the animals taken in these communities goes to those communities—to the elders. In Rogue River outfitting territory, we donate several tons of meat to elders who can't go hunting. We provide them with traditional pieces of the animals—the nose, the caul fat, pieces they can't get yet rely on.

There are dangerous animals and other reasons why semi-automatic guns are the best defence. The Yukon government actually for AR‑10s.... I think that's what they're called. I'm a hunter, not a gun guy, but I think they selected those for their conservation officers, after studies proved they were the best to use. They are in dangerous situations.

I don't want to take up a pile of your time. Again, I'm a hunter and obviously out of place among all of you here. Those are not elephant tusks, on that side, by the way. Those are woolly mammoth tusks. You mentioned respect for hunters. I think that's important. Everybody understands hunters are not a threat to your safety or the national security of this country. However, we feel vilified and marginalized. Recently, we've felt attacked. We're not the enemy. We love our country. The taking away of life is obviously a terrible and fundamentally wrong thing, but the taking away of a way of life is also wrong.

I'll go back to respect for hunters. I'm here because I would like respect. I'm speaking for hunters across Canada. We just feel like we've been turned into criminals with this. I think there are some serious flaws in Bill C-21. I recognize and I appreciate what the previous speakers have said, but there are some untruths in this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Could you wrap up, sir?

[Jim Shockey]

Speaking as a hunter and for the hunting community, as you saw when you tried to pass the amendments, we're fearful and we're not the problem here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll go to the first round of questioning. We'll start with Ms. Dancho for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Thank you, Mr. Shockey, for being online.

I'd just like to say that I appreciate the honesty. I feel that everyone is speaking from their hearts. I appreciate the very raw sentiments that are being brought forward.

I can certainly speak for our team that we are looking to have a very respectful dialogue and consultation today and in the coming meetings. I very much appreciate the tone put forward by all of you to start this consultation process today.

Mr. Shockey, I have a few questions for you to start off.

You mentioned the economic impact of hunting in the north. I'm not overly familiar. I'm not from the north. I'm from rural Manitoba, but my understanding is that a large part of the indigenous diet—tens of thousands of pounds of meat that they are provided—in northern Canada, particularly where your outfitter is, are in fact from the American hunters that your outfitter guides. Is that correct?

[Jim Shockey]

Yes.

What the Americans do for us up in the north in the remote communities is a very positive thing. The one fellow mentioned a name he doesn't want to mention, but I'll mention it. The Americans coming up are spending their dollars. The economic benefits are huge in the communities. The vast majority of Americans who come up donate the meat to the elders in those communities.

In my case, in the Rogue River outfitting territory in the Yukon, the elders of the band in Mayo receive the meat. As I said earlier, it's not just the meat as we know meat, like steaks and whatnot. They get the caul fat, the kidneys, the diaphragm, the nose.... The American hunters donate all these pieces to the elders. It allows them to maintain their traditional lifestyles, even though they're too old to go out.

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

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that information. I think it's a very important part. There was no economic assessment done with these amendments. I think an important part, if there should be an impact on any band like this going forward, is to recognize what that might be and how to mitigate it.

What is the percentage of American hunters that your outfitter has? I know there are thousands of outfitters. I know very well that the outfitters in rural northern Manitoba, for example, are greatly benefited by American hunters. Certainly when the border was closed for COVID, they took a huge hit, as did the indigenous guides they employ.

Can you give me a ballpark percentage of the American hunters that you have?

[Jim Shockey]

I'd say it's 97%, as a ballpark. It's certainly over 95%

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

As you mentioned—and I have been hearing this from others—in the event this ban moves forward, we may see a complete decline or drop-off of American hunters coming up to Canada.

I just want to confirm that you mentioned that in your opening remarks.

[Jim Shockey]

Yes, absolutely.

I know most of the American players. If they got on the bandwagon to boycott Canada as a hunting destination, I think it would be catastrophic to the industry and to the northern communities.

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

Thank you.

Of course, Canadian hunters—and many of my family members—engage in northern outfitters as well.

You mentioned semi-automatics. I previously shared with you the specific definition of those that would be banned by amendment G-4.

How common would you say those are? You mentioned it in your opening remarks, but it's just to reiterate.

[Jim Shockey]

They're common.

It's the personal choice of each hunter. If you put 10 hunters together, there will be 10 different opinions on what the proper firearm is for a given situation. As an outfitter for the last 30 years, I've seen many semi-automatics come up.

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

It's not just popular with Americans but also with Canadians. Is that correct?

[Jim Shockey]

It's 100% true.

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

You work a lot with indigenous hunters in particular. I do think this is a very important piece because we have heard from the Inuit community that there is the issue of polar bears and protection against wild animals.

Would a semi-automatic of the definition in amendment G-4 be the best tool currently available in Canada should a northern individual come across, for example, a polar bear? Can you explain that for the committee? Can you break that down?

[Jim Shockey]

Yes. It is the choice, and it's the choice in Africa of professional hunters going after dangerous game. For the average hunter, as well, there's no such thing as overkill in a situation when your life is in danger. In the Inuit communities, they'll even take the trigger guard off their firearms so that they can, in cold weather, hit the trigger with their mitt when they can't work a bolt because it's cold. Semi-automatic, to me, would be the choice that I would recommend if I was asked as a professional and, as I said, I'm considered to be one of the top hunters in the world.

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

Right, and of course I know that you're a very gifted hunter and that you're a very good shot, but not all hunters are necessarily capable of taking out a predator that is coming at them. My understanding is that, given the structure of a semi-automatic long gun, particularly a rifle, it just ensures the best-case scenario for you in the event that you come across a polar bear.

I think you've come across situations where you were under attack by a cougar as well as two bear encounters. Is that correct?