Public Safety Committee on Feb. 14th, 2023

[Mark Ryckman]

Our membership fluctuates all the time. Sometimes it fluctuates greatly. There are some nuances about the insurances we provide to member clubs that actually dictate that sometimes. Some of our member clubs are four-person hunt camps that have incorporated. Others have several hundred people.

Just speaking hypothetically, if we were to lose one of those clubs, that could make a big difference in our membership from month to month.

We certainly haven't seen a linear increase along with the increase in the number of PAL holders in Canada. Obviously, the possession and acquisition licence is required, not just for hunting, for instance, but even for handgun owners or target shooters, competitors. You wouldn't necessarily expect every PAL holder to be a hunter. You certainly wouldn't expect every member of a conservation organization like the OFAH to be, because they're not necessarily hunters.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I only have about 30 seconds left, but I would ask a favour. We could probably.... I think everyone would appreciate it if your organization and those like yours helped disseminate factual information and tried to dispel some of the misinformation that did get out there. We would be very grateful for your assistance in making sure that people are dealing with facts and not misinformation when they're looking at this really important legislation.

Thank you for what you're doing and for being here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

We go now to Ms. Michaud.

The floor is yours for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

I have invited the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs myself to testify a little later, in the next few days, but I'm very pleased we are hearing from the Ontario federation. I'm sure you speak to each other and you have substantially the same positions, but it is still interesting to hear your views.

If we scroll through your website a bit, we see that there was a call to action concerning Bill C‑21. You described the reasons why you disagreed with the amendments proposed by the government. You said you were worried about the impact they would have on hunters, because many of these firearms were used by hunters in Canada.

I'm going to reiterate what my colleague Ms. Damoff said before me. Obviously, you are talking about the SKS, which we have heard a lot about.

You say that many of the firearms in question are used by hunters. Can you give us examples of firearms that are commonly used for hunting that appear on this list? Have your members let you know what firearm they use that is on the list, for example?

[Mark Ryckman]

Yes, certainly some did. I don't have a list in front of me, unfortunately. I will call back to a report that a colleague of mine authored. It was actually in response to the May 2020 OIC, so it's a little bit further back than the amendments and the new firearm models that are in G-46.

We surveyed a large number of hunters across Canada and asked them, “Of these newly prohibited firearms, which were non-restricted a day ago, which models are you currently using or were you using for legitimate hunting purposes in Canada?” At that time, the survey respondents identified, I believe, about 64 models.

Of course, the currency date is a little bit different. The impact of the amendment and, obviously, whatever final wording would be imposed or would be adopted would dramatically affect what is actually on that list. A Plinkster, for instance.... You know, we can go through model by model. The concern and some of the uncertainty, I will admit, is in your interpretation of some of those proposed amendments.

I listened to hours of standing committee testimony and the experts from the RCMP and Public Safety Canada and the Canadian firearms program and so on and so forth, and they were very forthcoming about what they intended the interpretation of those amendments and those provisions to be. They're not the final arbiters of the legal interpretation of those amendments. The final arbiter is a court of law. If there is that much confusion in the interpretation of an amendment, at a bare minimum it needs to be looked at again and almost certainly reworded. If it's that bad, it needs to be withdrawn. That is, ultimately, what is going to drive the makes and models that are in G-46.

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

If I understand correctly, you are disappointed with how the government has gone about this. Understanding what models were or were not banned was complicated.

I'm going to let you answer. I think the answer is yes.

[Mark Ryckman]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

We received a detailed explanation, which is very short.

At a committee meeting, we heard from some officials and we asked them to provide us with an explanation in writing of the proposed amendments.

It's fairly easy to understand, but we had a lot of trouble understanding the explanation, which is still not entirely clear.

It's interesting to see that Schedule 1 to amendment G‑46 deals with firearms that have been banned since the 1990s, since the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2020).

Then, in Schedule 2 to amendment G‑46, the focus is on paragraphs 97 to 232, which deal with firearms that would be banned by adding these amendments. It talked about approximately 480 makes and models of firearms that are currently not banned, which added only a small number.

I agree with my colleagues about the enormous amount of disinformation that has circulated. For example, if you pressed Ctrl+F to do a search in the document and came to a model, you immediately got the impression it was banned, when it was talking about a model with a totally different power. On top of that, if you had not read the introductory paragraph first, you missed the information that said "with the exception of these models". That created a huge amount of confusion.

To try to unravel it all, I tried to see what is being done elsewhere. Sometimes, it's a good idea to compare ourselves to other countries to see what they have done and how they went about things.

The analysts at the committee and the library were kind enough to quickly prepare a little document for me.

I'm going to give you the example of New Zealand.

The way New Zealand went about it is fairly similar to what the government proposed with amendments G‑4 and G‑46 to Bill C‑21. However, one passage particularly caught my attention, in which it says that the bill was also intended to preserve access to lower-capacity semi-automatic firearms recognized as being used by hunters and farmers.

We see that New Zealand went about this in a similar way, but paying attention to farmers, hunters and maybe even indigenous people, who use certain models.

We understand that the government is going to start over from zero with its examination of the issue and is going to try to propose something.

In this new proposal, do you think the government should give the same attention to hunters, farmers and indigenous people as New Zealand does?

[Mark Ryckman]

That's an excellent question, and thank you for that detail.

I would have to think about that a little bit harder. I will say, though, that going back to the trust concerns that Ms. Dancho echoed, even if something like that were written into this legislation, the government has lost the trust of many people in the hunting community so those people might not trust the government to actually say, “You know what? You've identified this as a legitimate hunting rifle so as promised, we will not prohibit it.”

That trust is gone and it's going to take a long time to rebuild that trust. While on paper it seems like a very logical compromise, I'm not sure it would go nearly far enough to assuage the concerns of the hunting community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We go now to Mr. Julian.

Go ahead, please, for six minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much to our witnesses. This is all part of the feedback we need to get as a committee as we look to next steps after the withdrawal of the amendments.

Dr. Langmann, I would like to start with you. You have stated that, even with the increase in firearms, the rate of homicides and suicides did not change between 2003 and the last year of the study.

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

Yes. There's a fluctuation that appears, but statistically there isn't an increase associated with an increase in the rates of firearm ownership.

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

Okay. As part of your study, or as part of your work in analyzing other countries, you referenced Australia and England, and Ms. Michaud just referenced New Zealand. Have you also done analysis in terms of the rise of untraceable ghost guns—firearms that we're not able to register or trace? Has that been part of the study work that you have done?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

All firearm homicides are included in the research. Unfortunately, Statistics Canada doesn't label guns as ghost guns. They'll label them as “other” sometimes, if it's difficult to identify or they just were not identified in the report. Currently, there's no real record of specifically ghost gun homicides or ghost guns used in crimes.

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

As Statistics Canada treats ghost guns, it's kind of a ghost in terms of the statistical follow-up.

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

It's a new era. It's a new thing we're starting to see. It is going to have to catch up with its methods, and so will the police services that report these to Statistics Canada.

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

Anecdotally, in terms of the news in the United States, I understand there has been a 1,000% increase in the use of ghost guns. I understand the statistical problem, given that it's not actually something that is tracked by law enforcement on this side of the border as much, or by Statistics Canada.

Moving forward, is this part of something that you would like to study or quantify? It appears to be an increasing problem. Obviously, as you point out, it's something we have to catch up on.

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

It's definitely something I would like to look at. Unfortunately, right now, the data doesn't exist.

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

You referenced gang violence. I know you have provided recommendations on anti-gang strategies, which has been really important.

Do you see a link between the use of ghost guns and gang violence. Though I understand that you can't quantify that, is this something that should be of increasing concern to all of us who are looking at public safety?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

Anecdotally, it is. The rates have increased. Of course, as measures are taken to restrict firearm ownership, a black market will exist. We're starting to see that. These things are being printed, and 3D printers are also becoming a lot more common across North America.

It's one of those things where you're going to start needing to target the demand side of the equation. You're trying to control the supply side right now by banning firearms based on spurious definitions. Really, if you don't start targeting the demand side, you're not going to see any benefit.

You're usually targeting legal gun owners who are going to comply with the regulations. They are the least most likely to be involved in criminal activity in this country. They have already gone through screening. It's no wonder that, when I look at this legislation, I don't see any benefit, because you wouldn't expect to get any marginal benefit on a group that is already such a low risk.

That's probably where you should start directing your work. It should be towards the demand side.

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

Given that, do you have recommendations that you would make to this committee on the demand side, and specifically—understanding the difficulty in quantifying the extent of the ghost gun problem—how as a committee we should be looking at that issue as well?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

The difficulty is that, for many criminals, they just need the gun for one purpose at one time and then they can throw it away. Even a printed polycarbonate barrel would be for one use, and then it's done.

The recommendations I would give you would be to start targeting youth at risk, very early at risk, who are starting to get involved in criminal activity. I would recommend to start youth diversion programs, diverting them away from that activity, and cognitive behavioural therapy. We should start work on the significant methamphetamine problem we're seeing in all our communities across the country. Apparently, my emergency department, right now, behind me is full of patients who are intoxicated or suffering from psychosis from methamphetamine abuse.

This focus on a small segment of society that uses firearms for generally legitimate purposes is maybe diverting your attention from a significant need right now, which is to start looking at diversion right away and funding those areas.

As I said, there was a 2012 report by Public Safety Canada—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Langmann, but I'm going to have to cut you off there.

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We will start our second round now with Mr. Lloyd for five minutes.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The whole premise of why we're here today is because it was believed a group put forward the argument that we needed an evergreen definition of what an assault-style weapon would be. The argument was made that gun manufacturing companies are attempting to circumvent Canadian laws by introducing new models into Canada that are not covered by our existing laws.

Mr. Ryckman, you are well versed in firearms. Is there any evidence that gun manufacturing companies are attempting to do this as has been claimed?

[Mark Ryckman]

Unfortunately, I can't speak intelligently on behalf of the gun manufacturers, although I will say that, generally speaking, any business responds to the market.

Generally speaking, the concern that we have with the evergreen definition in general.... Our position is that any attempt to adopt an evergreen definition of a prohibited firearm—expanded in such a way that it tackles or includes semi-automatic, centrefire rifles and shotguns—will impact the hunting community, plain and simple.