Public Safety Committee on Feb. 14th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shockey. Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

It will now be Ms. Bendayan's turn.

Ms. Bendayan, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses.

It is a pleasure to see you again, Mr. Benabdallah. Thank you for the warm welcome you gave me at the mosque in Quebec City two weeks ago, at the commemoration of the attack.

Ms. Rathjen and Ms. Provost, from PolySeSouvient, we have been talking since the meeting started about a fact that you actually referred to in your opening statement: that several parties have committed to prohibiting assault weapons in the past.

It's a pleasure to see Mr. Julian and Ms. Michaud asking excellent questions during this committee meeting.

Personally, I'm very hopeful. I am a fighter, but I am also someone who thinks we can change the world.

I am pleased and truly relieved to have heard the leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, say in an interview yesterday outside the House that he was in favour of the amendments that would incorporate a definition of prohibited assault-style weapons into Bill C‑21.

More specifically, I thought it very important that Mr. Singh said he was [Translation] "always open to finding ways to have amendments that really will protect the community and respond to the needs and concerns of organizations like PolySeSouvient."

Ms. Rathjen and Ms. Provost, what message do you want to send the three progressive parties that share this intention and conviction?

What's the rush?

Why do we have to do this by proposing amendments to Bill C‑21?

[Nathalie Provost]

Preparing, tabling, analyzing and studying a bill is a lengthy and painstaking process. At present, we can't take advantage of the favourable circumstances brought about by Bill C‑21.

We have appeared before the committee on several occasions, and we are well aware that the process is very lengthy. If we let the opportunity to propose a definition pass by, we don't know whether we are going to be able to do it later or whether there will also be the political will to do it.

We think it is essential that all parties who agree that assault weapons must be banned in Canada get to work.

As well, I think it is essential that we concentrate on the facts, the data, and the objective analysis of an amendment. It has to be a strong amendment.

My grandfather and my uncles are hunters. Personally, I don't live in a rural area, but that is where I come from, and I recognize the importance of hunting for some Canadians, for communities, and for the First Nations of Canada. It is part of our history and our foundations.

PolySeSouvient has never called for an end to hunting or a ban on all firearms. What we want is to find a way to clearly define what an assault weapon is, based on firm, scientific criteria. That is how to ensure that this type of weapon will no longer be in the hands of Canadians. There is certainly a rational approach that is not based on emotions, that would allow hunters to feel respected and all Canadians, who want to live in a safe country, to have the protection of a firearms law that respects that fundamental need.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Provost.

I think disinformation plays an enormous role in this tale.

I would like to thank PolySeSouvient for the work it does, both on social media and with the media, to clarify things and answer Canadians' questions.

Mr. Chair, I leave the rest of my speaking time to my colleague Ms. Damoff.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You have 20 seconds.

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

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.

I just want to clarify something that Mr. Shockey mentioned.

If the amendments had been passed, there would have been 19,000 models with over 100,000 variations of firearms available. My understanding is there are 20 million AR-15s in the United States. They've been restricted since 1977 and banned since 2020 in Canada, so the doom and gloom for the industry seems quite misplaced.

I just want to say that guns commonly used for hunting are very different from trophy hunting in Africa to bring home trophies for your trophy wall, or bringing Americans to the north to get trophies for their trophy walls.

I'll leave it there, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Shockey, if you wish to respond, go ahead.

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

Chair, it wasn't a question. My time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I think, in fairness, he should get to respond.

[Jim Shockey]

I think that's an untruth.

The firearms they use in Africa and the firearms we use here are virtually the same. There's no distinction, and it's not trophy.... It's about hunting. It's the process, the journey, not a kill, so trophy hunting is a little bit of a derogatory comment when it's used like that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Ms. Michaud, the floor is now yours for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to what my colleague Ms. Bendayan was saying. I thank her for her kind words.

To be honest with her, if my colleague wants the NDP or the Bloc Québécois to support what the government is going to present, it would have to present something else. At the moment, we are taking four meetings to hear the witnesses again, and that leaves very little time for the government to rework anything. I am concerned about that, even if our intention is the same, that being to ban assault weapons.

Ms. Rathjen and Ms. Provost, you certainly recall that when you testified the first time, I told you that if the government did not keep its promise, the Bloc Québécois would do it by introducing an amendment to ban assault weapons.

I consulted legislative counsel and she told me that it would be out of order because it went beyond the scope of Bill C‑21, that the bill dealt with handguns, and that it would be extremely surprising if the chair of the committee brought it forward. Ultimately, the chair did bring it forward. My amendment was rejected, but there was the Liberals' amendment.

This is all to say that I believe that behind the fact that the government has withdrawn its amendments there is a fear that the Speaker of the House of Commons would then decide that the amendments were out of order. That fear is still present.

How should we do this, do you think?

Should the government propose something different in a bill separate from Bill C‑21? Should it do it directly in Bill C‑21?

You talked about a definition, and I agree that we should have a good definition that includes weapons before, during and after.

We should therefore not do it by using a list. The lists that were in the orders in council showed that there were holes and that it didn't work. The definition should therefore take in all of the weapons, including future weapons.

What do you propose? What should the government do, going forward, considering that the committee only has a few weeks before resuming clause by clause study of the bill?

[Heidi Rathjen]

We are obviously not experts on parliamentary procedure, so I can't express an opinion on what is in order or out of order.

Nonetheless, one thing is certain. We believe that the government must consult the two opposition parties that support it, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party, and work with them.

We encourage the government to work with you so the amendments can be introduced again and have the approval of all parties that are in favour of banning assault weapons.

I reiterate, looking from the outside, our impression is that big steps backwards are being taken. What we see is that there have been three elections in which these three parties have promised to ban assault weapons.

You are talking about procedure and technical things here, when that is not our field. We are members of the public who have experienced mass killings; we bring the message from the 80% of Canadians who want to ban these weapons and we are asking you to do what you can to achieve that objective.

There must be special procedures, but we don't know what they are. It is up to the committee and the government to find them.

Certainly, at the end of the day, we are asking and we hope to see a bill adopted that will include a permanent definition, a permanent and complete ban on assault weapons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, madam.

Mr. Julian, if you please, go ahead for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You have delivered a very clear message today. Nonetheless, we have to say that what Ms. Michaud said is extremely important.

The government should have sent this bill to committee before second reading. The fact that this was not done meant that these amendments were not in order. That is one of the problems the committee is currently examining.

It is the committee's job to do it, not yours. We will do it as best we can, of course. We have understood your message today. It is very clear.

Mr. Shockey, I have a question for you. Again, I apologize if this is something you've already answered. I believe you have appeared before the committee before. I'm the new guy on the block, so I will ask this question even if you've answered it.

You mentioned that your estimate was that 97% of Americans were clients of outfitters. I wasn't sure whether you were talking about your business or, in a broader sense, the regional businesses.

Can you quantify what you feel would be the impacts of these two amendments and what that would mean in terms of either your business or the impact on outfitters generally?

[Jim Shockey]

I didn't hear that you were speaking to me, but I assume that because I'm the expert in those areas, you asked me.

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

Yes. I was directing it to you.

[Jim Shockey]

The amendments were, from what I understood, and again, I'm a hunter. I'm not a gun guy and I'm certainly not a politician. The firearms that were banned or that at least were on that list were.... I mean, it was the majority of the guns. People say it wasn't, but if you know firearms.... I hear a lot of people talking here who don't know a lot about firearms, honestly. They know that firearms cause great pain and, as I said before, that's a terrible tragedy. The firearms that were on the amendments are why I'm here—

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

Yes, and I apologize. I only have a few seconds left. I just wanted to know if you could quantify. You talked about 97%, but you hadn't quantified what you believe to be the impacts. I wanted to know if you had figures that you could share with the committee.

[Jim Shockey]

Well, for instance, in my outfitting territory in the Yukon, we probably have a gross revenue of $1.2 million. From what I understand of the studies that have been done—and these are polls, so I don't know if they're scientific, peer-reviewed studies—when outfitters in British Columbia years ago were being attacked as well, they found that the multiplier effect was about 25 times the revenue from each outfitting operation.

There are 217 outfitting operations in B.C. and 19 up in the Yukon, so you could probably use that study, I would imagine. I'm not a pollster.

As I said, I'm not a politician. I'm a hunter. I can tell you from my side as an outfitter that it would be catastrophic, and it would be for the community as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Thank you as well, Mr. Shockey.

That brings this panel to a close.

I'd like to thank all of you for your time here today and for your testimony. It is all enormously helpful. It will help us in our work. I appreciate all of you being here and sharing with us your expertise and your perspectives.

With that, we will suspend and bring in a new panel. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting back to order.

In person in this panel today we have Mr. Mark Ryckman, manager of policy for the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. By video conference, we have, as an individual, Dr. Caillin Langmann, assistant clinical professor, department of medicine, McMaster University.

Welcome, gentlemen.

When we commence, each of you will have up to five minutes for an opening statement.

We will start with Mr. Ryckman for five minutes, please.

[Mark Ryckman, Manager of Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. On behalf of the OFAH, thank you for the invitation to appear at this committee.

The OFAH is the largest non-profit, conservation-based fish and wildlife organization in Ontario, with 100,000 members, supporters and subscribers and 725 member clubs, with 55 of those clubs operating 122 CFO-approved licensed ranges. Our organization is 95 years old so we have a long history of advocating for the hunting community in Ontario.

While there are provisions in Bill C-21 we have concerns about, I will keep my comments scoped to the impact of the amendments G-4 and G-46 on the hunting community.

Hunting is an ancient tradition passed down through generations and remains a way of life for many indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians. Hunting today makes important social, cultural and economic contributions to our country. It remains an important way to put food on the table, connect to nature, create and foster relationships, relax in the outdoors and contribute to the conservation movement. Indeed, some take offence when hunting is referred to as a sport or hobby, because it is so much more than that.

Hunting isn't just for rural Canadians. Hunters come from urban, suburban and rural Canada. They are judges, lawyers, teachers, dentists, plumbers, mechanics and even politicians. Hunting provides information and funding for wildlife management, can help control populations and address human-wildlife conflict, and can foster a sense of obligation to give back to nature with conservation activities.

In 2018, hunting spending totalled $5.9 billion and the resulting contribution to Canada's GDP was $4.1 billion. Hunting supported 33,000 jobs and generated almost $2 billion in labour income. The importance of our hunting heritage is even recognized in federal legislation.

There is no such thing as a hunting firearm type. Firearms primarily used for hunting are also frequently used for plinking, shooting at the range or even competition. There are no hard line thresholds for labelling firearms as hunting or non-hunting, particularly when only looking at the appearance or overall design of the firearm itself. It requires the comprehensive examination of multiple features and functions of a firearm, like the action and calibre, but will also be influenced by non-firearm considerations like the cartridge, the user, environment, target species and jurisdiction.

We are pleased that the amendments have been withdrawn and I applaud this committee for studying their impact. In addition to the nature of the amendments, we were also troubled by their unexpected introduction and the lack of consultation. In proposing amendment G-4, the government jumped directly to prohibition, skipping over less extreme alternatives that would have helped achieve its goal without the infringement on hunters and other legal gun owners.

A stepwise and adaptive approach creates better policy and is much fairer for Canadians than the unnecessarily blunt prohibition of guns by make and model. Take the attachable magazines as an example. The Criminal Code already prohibits the possession of any magazine that holds more than five shots for a semi-automatic centrefire long gun. If it can hold more than five rounds, it must be pinned so that it can't.

Bill C-21 proposes to go further and make unpinning a specific offence as opposed to a lesser included offence. We had a proposed new offence that hasn't even been enacted yet, let alone being given a chance to work, when the amendments were introduced. Even if the government felt compelled to go further, they could take targeted measures like banning the import and sale of new magazines that have the potential to exceed five rounds.

Our opposition to the amendments is not partisan or emotional or predetermined on principle. It was only after a thorough, critical analysis that we arrived at this conclusion. It won't enhance public safety. The evidence simply doesn't support it.

Firearms are not the disease, particularly in a nation like Canada with robust gun laws. Gun violence is often symptomatic of much bigger societal issues. Taking firearms away from law-abiding Canadians will not reduce the upstream issues that fuel criminal activity and the demand for illicit firearms. Therefore, model-based firearm prohibitions will continue to fail as they won't be able to have a detectable impact on reducing gun violence or enhancing public safety.

If political discourse remains fixated on finding the firearms that should be banned or saved, then we will continue to underinvest in the resources and time we need to address the critical issues we have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Ryckman.

We go now to Dr. Langmann.

Go ahead, please, for five minutes.