Public Safety Committee on Feb. 14th, 2023

[Jim Shockey]

Yes, that's correct. I wouldn't be speaking here right now if I hadn't reacted properly in all three situations.

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

Thank you very much for sharing this information. I'm out of time, but I appreciate your providing some understanding to the committee regarding the realities of northern Canada and the benefits, certainly the economic benefits, to indigenous communities and to the outfitter industry in Canada as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Shockey.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

We'll go now to Mr. Noormohamed for six minutes, please.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to begin by thanking you for being here. It's clear that the experiences and the tragedy that you've described force you to relive difficult moments. It's impossible for us to understand the scale of the hardships and sorrow that you relive every time you appear before us.

Nevertheless, it's very important for us to give consideration to your experience in our deliberations. Thank you once again for being here.

I just want to begin by thanking you for sharing with us and putting the time in to be here with us on what I know can only be extremely difficult.

I have said this many times, and we've heard this. The intention of this law was not to take away indigenous peoples' rights to hunt, and it was not to adversely impact hunters and farmers. One thing that I think is very important for us to talk about at the outset is how we ensure that, in that conversation, we are not losing the memory of victims and that we are not moving forward in a way that does not address the need to ensure that there are no more massacres like at the mosque in Quebec City and École Polytechnique. We have to figure out how to achieve this together, and I'm so grateful that it's the approach we're all taking today.

Perhaps I could ask Heidi—Ms. Rathjen, you and I have spoken about this before—how we best think about the issue of the rights of indigenous peoples and make sure that whatever legislation comes forward continues to afford them their right to hunt and does not make this unnecessarily difficult for them.

[Heidi Rathjen]

For sure the indigenous question needs to be addressed. We've been favourable to exemptions or special considerations for aboriginal people in the past, even under the Firearms Act that was adopted in the 1990s.

We did not oppose the exemptions for indigenous subsistence hunters to keep using the firearms prohibited under the May 2020 OICs, and we've communicated in different ways to the government and to opposition parties that we wouldn't oppose the same type of exemption for these 482 new models of assault weapons, as long as it's a well-conscribed process, as long as these weapons are grandfathered and it's not a blanket exemption where they can keep buying new assault weapons, but it's to keep those they have. In that circumstance, we'd be open to it.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Benabdallah, a couple of weeks ago we commemorated the sixth anniversary of the massacre of six people at the mosque in Quebec City. As you mentioned, less than a couple of months ago we remembered the women killed at École Polytechnique. I'm always struck by the fact that in both of those circumstances a legal firearm, owned by a so-called lawful gun owner, was responsible for those massacres.

Many years after École Polytechnique, for someone to have obtained a gun legally, to come into the mosque and to commit that type of an act, what message did that send to you and what message has that left with the community?

[Boufeldja Benabdallah]

It's a memory that continues to haunt us, year after year.

The killer who went to the mosque had an arsenal, including several handguns and an assault rifle. When the assault rifle jammed, he used the handguns. The 48 bullets fired killed six people. One victim, who is still in a wheelchair, was shot six times in the neck and once more in another area that still causes pain.

If his assault weapon hadn't jammed, he would have killed at least 50 people. Everyone was at the back of the mosque. It was fortunate that the gun stopped working. He threw it onto the floor and pulled out his handguns.

The friends and families of those who were there can only imagine what would have happened if the assault weapon had worked and what would have happened to them. They know that they wouldn't be there commemorating the event, but rather buried in coffins. That's what we want to emphasize.

Do we want things like that to continue?

Do we want to be like the United States?

We have nothing against hunters, and have said so. We have nothing against indigenous people and have said so. You're an inveterate Hunter who has a great deal of experience. Never in our discussions have we said anything against hunters. It would be defamation to say otherwise. It's as if we, who suffered the consequences of the attack, were against the hunters. What impression does that give to people? We've never been against hunters, we have never been against indigenous people, on this land that we all share.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry, Mr. Benabdallah, but that's all the time we have.

We'll move on to Ms. Michaud now.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. We are very grateful for their willingness to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Here you are again, even though you've already said several times just how important it is to legislate on firearms in general, and on handguns and assault weapons in particular

You're here once again because I suggested to my committee colleagues that we should rehear witnesses following the introduction of the amendments tabled by the government in its firearms legislation.

The committee was not necessarily making any progress after these amendments were tabled, because they had changed the bill in all kinds of ways. As you know, at the outset, Bill C‑21 had mainly been about handguns. The government proposed new amendments in November, after the bill had been tabled in May, with substantial amendments applicable to assault weapons added on.

You are in favour of a ban on assault weapons. So is the Bloc Québecois, and we've said so repeatedly. But here we are in what amounts to a deadlock. That's why we proposed hearing other witnesses. In the meantime, the government withdrew amendments G‑4 and G‑46 a few days ago, saying that it had not sufficiently consulted the groups involved and the population.

My understanding is that when the bill was tabled, there was media coverage. The government appeared to have promised certain groups that it would include the assault weapons ban in the act. The government had approximately five months to put together a well-structured bill, but unfortunately, that's not what we got in the end.

I have a question for the witnesses from PolySeSouvient, and then for Mr. Benabdallah.

Given that the government had promised to prohibit assault weapons, do you see the withdrawal of amendments G‑4 and G‑6 as a broken promise?

[Heidi Rathjen]

Our understanding of it is that on the day the amendments were withdrawn, the government, or at least Mr. Trudeau and the minister, were committed to trying again. The manner in which it was done was problematic, which doesn't bother us, because they still wanted to work with the other two parties that had also, in the three previous elections, promised to support or adopt a ban on assault weapons. We believe that the willpower is still there and that it's still being worked on.

We are now relying on the committee, particularly to get an understanding of why the amendments were withdrawn. I think it's largely because of the disinformation that got the hunters worried. What we heard was that the bill was going way too far, but that's only according to certain members and certain groups. We analyzed it all ourselves, and we now know, after getting corroboration from the RCMP, that all the information out there to the effect that hunting firearms would be prohibited in the amendments is false. The hunting firearms category mentioned by those who were opposed to the amendments would not change.

So the amendments were misunderstood, and the time has come to stand back in order to figure out how it happened, so that they can perhaps be improved where appropriate and reintroduced into the bill. They certainly need clarification and simplification. I'm thinking in particular of amendment G‑46, because when hunters saw the model number of the gun they owned on the lists, they thought that all versions of the model were prohibited, which was not the case. It was only applicable to models with muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules. These are firearms that can pierce military vehicles. For comparison, the muzzle energy for projectiles fired from an AK‑47 is 2000 joules. The purpose of the amendments was to limit this energy to 10,000 joules. It is in fact a criterion that is already there and that doesn't affect hunting firearms at all.

Unfortunately, because the bill was 309 pages long and you couldn't see the top of the paragraph, people did not understand that only military grade models were being prohibited. As it turns out, that was already covered by the current regulations. Models designed for hunting are allowed and nothing changes. And yet those were the weapons they mentioned in their campaign.

[Nathalie Provost]

A definition is required. It's essential for the bill, because once adopted, it will be evergreen.

Since 1990, there have been many lists, but the market is huge and corporate innovations are endless. Without a clear definition, we'll be chasing our own tail again. It makes no sense for us to still be in the same position after 33 years, discussing a legitimate demand supported by the majority of Canadians.

I hope that the Liberals will table a new amendment and that it will be looked at objectively, based on the facts. We are no longer doing an emotional analysis because of the harm caused at the Polytechnique. We are analyzing a proposal on the basis of scientific evidence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thanks you, Ms. Provost and Ms. Rathjen.

Mr. Julian, you have six minutes, if you please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Shockey, Ms. Provost and Ms. Rathjen, thank you for being here. I was a student at the University of Sherbrooke when the misogynistic massacre happened at the Polytechnique. It's burned into my memory, and there is no doubt about it.

Mr. Benabdallah, a few weeks ago on Parliament Hill, we commemorated the Islamophobic massacre at the Centre culturel islamique de Québec, another incident that we simply can't forget.

My first question is for you. You raised the issue of weapons of war and hunting weapons. I'm new to the committee. It's my first meeting. Needless to say, all these matters of definition are extremely important.

Please excuse me if you've already answered this question, but do you have any recommendations to make about how to make a distinction between weapons of war and hunting weapons?

[Boufeldja Benabdallah]

The Mr. Benabdallah before you comes from a mosque; the Mr. Benabdallah before you Is saying that we don't want the tragedy that occurred to ever happen again. However, Mr. Benabdallah is not a technical expert in this area.

If you were to ask me questions about forestry, I could probably hold my own if we were arguing over some point.

We are arguing over the weapons issue. They have 33 years of experience, Mr. Julian. They've now decided to say that if we need to redefine things to make them more precise, more structured and more understandable to everyone, that they can do that. I'm with them. I don't want to sidestep the issue, but I'm not a technician. My colleagues here today are the technicians.

I don't want to see any more weapons of war in circulation. There was one weapon of war at the mosque. If it hadn't jammed, there would have been at least 45 or 50 people dead in our mosque. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you. You speak very eloquently on the subject.

I'm going to address Ms. Provost.

You raised the question of the manufacturers that are using loopholes at present. We know that PolySeSouvient has often had to inform the government about new models coming on the market. The manufacturers have found a way to circumvent the existing list. PolySeSouvient has often had to inform the RCMP. There's something disorganized about it.

Do you have recommendations to make to us about the responsibilities of the manufacturers and the process we have now?

[Nathalie Provost]

If we have a definition, the manufacturers will not be able to lie about what they are proposing to Canadians. Today, there is just a list; the manufacturers put a new firearm on the market and they include in the description of the firearm the characteristics that mean it can be sold in Canada. They explain whether the firearm has the characteristics of a non-restricted firearm, a restricted firearm, and so on.

By having a definition, we pull the rug out from under the feet of the ones who want to use that strategy. The list that accompanies the definition might be imperfect and may have to be adjusted, because a list will never be complete and perfect, but there can at least be exemptions for less dangerous firearms. Today, we have to go chasing after the danger, because there is always someone who adds something riskier or more powerful that we do not want to allow in Canada. We have to chase after the merchants. I think we have to be tougher.

Firearms can be exempted when we have been too tough. I would feel much safer as a Canadian if it were done this way.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Ms. Rathjen, do you want to answer the two questions?

[Heidi Rathjen]

You asked about providing a definition. I don't want to go into detail, but essentially, we're talking about firearms that can fire in rapid bursts, semi-automatic firearms.

However, I would like to correct a false impression that some people have, including the witness beside us. We are not targeting all semi-automatic firearms. We are targeting only military-style semi-automatic firearms that are designed with magazines that hold more than five bullets and are not used for hunting. They have military characteristics, including extremely powerful initial energy that is too high for the purpose that an ordinary person would use a firearm for.

As Ms. Provost explained, it requires a permanent definition in order to include new models that might subsequently come on the market.

At the same time, we think it is important to have a list, because a permanent definition may not include all assault weapons. There are assault weapons that have different mechanisms and can only be identified using a case by case process in which the military characteristics are examined. In the criteria in the 2020 orders in council, a factor was added to the description that shows the intent of Parliament. It talks about firearms designed for military purposes that are not acceptable for civilian use.

So it takes both things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

That brings our first round to a close. We'll start our second round. The second round is going to have to be abbreviated. We'll have to end this with Mr. Julian at the end of the day.

We go now to Mr. Calkins.

Go ahead, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses who are here today. It is a very important discussion that we're having.

I'll ask questions to Mr. Shockey. I too am a hunter, but I have produced zero television shows. I have not had near the success in the hunting world that our guest and witness here, Mr. Shockey, has had. I would be the individual who watches Mr. Shockey's shows.

I want to thank you for coming here and testifying today with respect to the impact that it has.

I have been a guide in the north. I have been a conservation officer and a national park warden. I have been issued firearms as a matter of my duties in that capacity.

Mr. Shockey, you did allude to this in your opening statement. Rogue River Outfitters is located in the Yukon. For their conservation officers, the Liberal government of the Yukon implemented the AR-10. An AR-10 is a .308-calibre semi-automatic rifle. That's for their conservation officers. They did this, actually, after the order in council in May of 2020, which moved the AR-10 from the non-restricted to the prohibited category. The Yukon Liberal government at the time said that this was the best option available for the protection of their conservation officers in dealing with human-wildlife conflict and interactions, and to protect the general public in a situation of dangerous wildlife.

This is my question to you, Mr. Shockey, given the fact that you've hired numerous indigenous guides as part of your operation and you've worked with folks in those communities. Is the life of a conservation officer more or less on par with the life of a hunter, guide or anybody else working in these dangerous situations? Should they have access to the same type of stopping power that a conservation officer does, since conservation officers can't be everywhere?

[Jim Shockey]

All lives are equal.

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

I'm sorry, but I didn't hear the answer.

Could you repeat that, Mr. Shockey?

[Jim Shockey]

All lives are equal.

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

Thank you very much.

Now, you said in your opening remarks that there would be a significant impact on the indigenous communities should the tone.... Could you give us an indication of what tone this debate and discussion are creating in the hunting community right now?

Your fear is that the tone would actually keep the vast number of guests who are from outside of the country from coming to northern Canada. What would the economic impact be? Who are the communities and what are the job opportunities in these northern remote communities, if lodges and outfitters that offer hunting opportunities lose a significant portion of their clientele because of the confusion that's being caused by this debate?

[Jim Shockey]

On the first part of your question, the feeling or the sense from hunters, we feel fear that we're being attacked. As I said earlier, we feel vilified, marginalized. We feel that we're not respected, and there's a measure of distrust.

I keep hearing “weapon, weapon, weapon”. I don't have a weapon. That's a subjective opinion based on every situation where a firearm is used. I don't have a weapon, but I keep hearing that I have these weapons. I don't.

I keep hearing that they are firearms for military purposes. My classic English double rifle, break action, two bullets in, close it up, shoot it, Turkish walnut engraved, is worth $90,000. It's on this list. It's going to be prohibited. It has never been used in any type of a crime and certainly not in any military application.

As a hunter, I hear this—I'm listening—and I appreciate the emotions involved. It's a terrible tragedy. That can never be understated. On the other hand, like I said earlier, a way of life is also important to many people, especially us. I feel like, from The Hunger Games, I'm from District 12. I'm a tribute and you guys are the Capitols. You don't understand us.

In the communities in the north, if there is a ban or there is a protest against coming to Canada—a boycott—it would be catastrophic. Where will the money come from to these communities—from tourism? That's not realistic. It doesn't happen in most remote communities. Most of the money that comes into the communities from outside sources is from hunting and outfitting—the jobs that are there. Our television show on the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, Yukon Harvest, has all first nations people and Métis.

Like I say, a boycott would be catastrophic. That's just the passing of Bill C-21 and not getting into the individual amendments and whatnot. You cannot underestimate the effect and the lives it would cost. They are already struggling in these communities, and to throw this on top of it...?

It's well intentioned, but I have a feeling that there are going to be unintended consequences because of it.