Public Safety Committee on Feb. 17th, 2023

[Francis Langlois]

I agree with Professor Cukier. It should be clear that there is no intent to infringe on first nations' hunting rights.

That being said, it should also be clear that military-style assault rifles should be more regulated if they are not, and should at least be registered in the name of the owner if, at the end of this process, they are still available in Canada. This is not an issue of discrimination. Australia doesn't have a special regime concerning firearm regulations for their first nations. I think it is important to apply the law to everyone.

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

Thank you.

This is for both of you again, and I'll start with you this time, Professor Langlois. Do you think the government should have what we call an “evergreen definition” of these military-style assault weapons, or whatever you want to call them, in the Criminal Code?

[Francis Langlois]

I think so, yes.

I wouldn't call them military-style assault weapons. I would call them self-loading semi-automatic or automatic weapons. I would use the way they work, the mechanics of the weapons, to classify them instead of using the length of the barrel. It would be clearer and easier to amend and to work with, because to define “military-style assault weapons” is a bit elastic for some and too restrictive for others. The law should be amended.

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

Go ahead, Professor.

[Dr. Wendy Cukier]

There is, as other witnesses have mentioned, less clarity around semi-automatic military-style weapons than there is, for example, around fully automatic weapons, although there have been court cases indicating that even this term is subject to interpretation, and the courts have interpreted the ban on fully automatic weapons as including firearms capable of fully automatic fire.

These definitional issues are not new, and my caution is to ensure precision. That's why we like the language about “not reasonably used for hunting”. We know there are semi-automatic firearms that are widely used for hunting, that were designed as hunting rifles and that don't have large-capacity magazines associated with them and so on. Our concern is to not spread too wide a net but at the same time fulfill the obligation to the Canadian people to protect them from firearms that serve no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to turn my remaining time over to Mr. Chiang.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, MP Damoff.

Good morning. I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us here today.

My question is directed to both of you, if you can answer me.

When creating a definition for “assault weapon” here in Canada, we have heard concerns about guns reasonably used for hunting getting caught up in the amendments. How do you propose we address firearms that seem to be on the wrong side of whatever definition we create moving forward?

Professor Cukier, would you start?

[Dr. Wendy Cukier]

Sure.

As I mentioned, we reviewed the list of the new firearms that will be affected by this definition and identified about 115 or 117 that are currently unrestricted. That means those 117 firearms are perhaps currently used for hunting, because they have not been restricted or prohibited in the past. Certainly those firearms require some additional scrutiny.

We've observed with sniper rifles—for example, the Ruger Mini-14—that there are unrestricted firearms not reasonably used for hunting that have been unrestricted simply because of failures to address gaps in the legislation. I think the only legitimate arguments that can be brought forward relate to that set of firearms. There may be a different approach required for them.

I want to underscore that we have seen, as you heard from other witnesses, many cases of people posing with their hunting rifles and saying, “This law is impeding my livelihood” or whatever, and on further investigation it's clear that the firearm is not in fact caught up in this definition or on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for having accepted our invitation and taken the time to come here and testify.

Mr. Langlois, the first time I heard you speak about a different way of classifying firearms, I found it compelling. I'll come back to that.

On February 4, following the withdrawal of amendments G‑4 and G‑46 by the government, you wrote, in an article published in La Presse, that you were not surprised by the withdrawal of these amendments and that you felt the government had made two mistakes.

Can you tell us more about the mistakes you mentioned?

[Francis Langlois]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Michaud.

The first mistake was how the government introduced its amendments, I believe on second reading of the bill. It was as if a magician had pulled a rabbit out of a hat. The public was clearly surprised, as were perhaps the committee members, and lots of other people.

I think it was ham-fisted, even though, in the government's defence, it had been announced in 2020 following the Portapique tragedy, when the government decided by an order in council to withdraw access to 1,500 models of military-style assault rifles, to use the nomenclature of the day. So it was expected, but perhaps not the way it was actually done.

The other problem, in my view, was that both amendments introduced by the government were difficult to enforce, challengeable and rather complex. The purpose of the first amendment was to provide a definition of what a military-style assault rifle was, and the second consisted of all long list of several hundred pages, which I found, by the way, to be extraordinarily exhaustive and impressive. It was obvious that a lot of work had been put into this. However, the problem with this kind of list is that the industry is always looking for ways to get around it while sticking to the letter of the law. New models could be introduced to get around the classification and the list would have to be continually updated, which of course amounts to a lot of work.

Those were my two main criticisms with respect to these two amendments.

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

Thank you.

I more or less agree with you on the list. By asking the officials who appeared before this committee some questions, I understood that every time a new model was introduced, it would have required an amendment to the Criminal Code. The purpose of the exercise is to include this list in the Criminal Code.

According to what I was told, this was not necessarily the case because whenever the police have to deal with a new firearm, in order to determine whether it's legal or not, they have to update the RCMP list, and that's the list that has to be relied on.

I wondered about why one would include a list in the Criminal Code unless it was up to date and whether the RCMP list was the one that would be updated. Why waste time making a list when you're going to end up with several of them? There were also criticisms of the fact that some exempted weapons were on the same list as the weapons that had already been prohibited since the 1990s, or since the 2020 order in council.

If there are several lists, it will only confuse people, and that's understandable. If I were to compare the reaction of people to the introduction of these amendments to their reaction when the 2020 order in council was announced, it was very different. The reason is that firearms owners did not consult the list in 2020.

If the government is going to propose new amendments, should it continue to use a list or should there be a better definition that would cover not only existing weapons, but others that might enter the market in future?

[Francis Langlois]

Thank you for your question.

I was going to talk about that. You're right in saying that the government should create a way of classifying weapons that would include not only those that are currently available, but also new models that will enter the marketplace. The industry always has all kinds of workarounds, and we need an instrument that would make it possible to classify everything.

I'm not saying that everything needs to be banned. I'm just saying that once it's possible to classify weapons in a certain way, exceptions could be made or they could be considered from different standpoints, such as whether they are restricted or non-restricted, depending on the definition. As Professor Cukier was saying earlier, it would then be possible to see whether certain weapons would be exempt from a specific status, even though they might fall into a particular class. When that happens, it would be possible to decide. But first, weapons have to be classified.

The second thing is the extremely important problem that you put your finger on: the proliferation of lists like the RCMP list and the Criminal Code list. There could be others. This only creates confusion about the act and also opens the door to measures like the one taken by Mr. Harper's government. I believe that in 2015, after seeing the RCMP list, the government more or less unilaterally removed weapons models produced by Swiss Army or SIG SAUER, I think. I can't remember which. In short, he put them back in the non-restricted weapons class.

The proliferation of lists opens the door to this kind of manipulation. If there has to be a list, there should be only one for everyone. That would eliminate ambiguity and confusion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Langlois.

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor now for six minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be here with the committee today to discuss this important question, particularly as I am a Quebecker and an MP from Montreal. We've had tragedies in the past, and even within the past few months. There's a lot of violence in some Montreal neighbourhoods. There are shootings, some near schools; parents are extremely worried. We must never forget that we're talking about the health and safety of our communities and our fellow citizens.

I mostly agree with Mr. Langlois when he says that the amendments came out of left field, at the last minute. From a procedural point of view, it was not very skilful and caused a lot of doubt and confusion, particularly among first nations and legitimate hunters. Unfortunately, they felt somewhat targeted by it all. Given how extremely serious this matter is, it wasn't handled very well.

Mr. Langlois, I'd like to get back to your two proposals. The first was to change the classification of firearms as a function of how they are handled and fired. I'd like to know how the new classification you are proposing would yield results that are different from the existing ones.

[Francis Langlois]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Boulerice.

I am indeed suggesting that the classification be based on handling, which makes it possible to begin by distinguishing handguns from long guns. What I proposed in the document I sent is essentially that all handguns, if the Canadian government decides that they are to remain admissible, or let's say available in Canada, would continue to be included in the restricted weapons class, and checks on their use would continue. Irrespective of firing mechanism, all handguns would remain in this class.

The problematic area at the moment is long guns. Long guns are indeed weapons generally used for hunting. At the moment, weapons that might be called civilian versions of military assault guns are available. These are the ones causing the problems, in part because they are the preferred weapons of mass murderers and also because they can provide any individual with a huge amount of firepower, given the ergonomics, and generally the calibre, of these weapons.

Thus long guns held with two hands and generally placed against the shoulder should generally be classified by firing system. Weapons with a manual system, like rifles or shotguns that require action by the user—there are several, such as pump action and lever action—should remain in the non-restricted class. They contain fewer rounds and it takes more time to fire several rounds. Weapons with a semi-automatic or automatic mechanism should all be classified by the government into the restricted weapons class. If it wanted to prohibit them afterwards, it could do so. That remains to be seen.

There is of course the whole issue—Ms. Cukier explained it very well—of weapons frequently used by hunters, which are semi-automatics, hence automatic loading. Once all of these firearms are classified, the government could then determine that those whose firing system allowed for a specified number of rounds are legal, and those exceeding that number of rounds are illegal.

The government could also decide to prohibit the sale of automatic loading weapons in Canada with a detachable magazine, because they are too easy to modify, and can be readily 3D printed or otherwise obtained illegally.

Once the new classification has been established, it could be used as a way of prohibiting or allowing certain models of weapons by mechanism. This makes much more sense than barrel length.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Okay.

If there's enough time, I'll ask you a final question.

Are you concerned about 3D printed homemade handguns or revolvers? It would appear that this changes everything. Or are these simply not a part of our legislative and regulatory traditions.

[Francis Langlois]

Yes, it's a growing problem in North America. The problem is not the objects themselves, but their regulation, given that they leave no traces. For the time being, Canadian and American legislation identifies firearms on the basis of the stock. The serial number is printed on the stock. As it's possible to print or make these parts, it's possible to circumvent the legislation. The solution might be to identify all components of a firearm, whether a handgun, a rifle or anything else. The definition of what constitutes a firearm should thus be expanded and perhaps include the barrel, the breech and other components unique to firearms. That, to some extent, is what's being done in Germany.

It is of course difficult to prevent everything, but it would reduce their proliferation and, most importantly, make the importation of Polymer 80 products completely illegal. These are weapons that are not complete. Under American law, they are not considered firearms, but rather scale models. They are legal in the United States. They can therefore be carried and made there. They seem to be very popular here among people who want to obtain unmarked guns.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, gentlemen.

We have time now for an abbreviated second round. We'll do four minutes each for the Liberals and the Conservatives, and two minutes each for the Bloc and the NDP.

Go ahead, please, Ms. Dancho. You have four minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Ms. Cukier, I have a few questions regarding some of the remarks you made. I appreciate your testimony. I recognize and appreciate the work you've done throughout your life regarding these issues.

You mentioned that most mass killings, police officer murders and spousal homicides are by legal gun owners. Can you provide where that data is from?

[Dr. Wendy Cukier]

Yes. It's legal gun owners or legal firearms. If you look at the police officers killed over the last 40 years, you will find that most of them were actually killed in contexts where the guns were legally held—

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

I don't mean to interrupt you. I'm just having a hard time hearing you.

I can hear you now with my headphones.

I'm sorry. I didn't hear the beginning of what you said.

[Dr. Wendy Cukier]

I'm sorry.

I can provide the information. If you look at the incidents of police officers shot and killed in Canada over the last 50 years, you will find that most of them were killed with guns that were either legally owned or that originated with legal owners. For example—

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

You mentioned police officers, but what you said was that legal gun owners were the primary source of murders—

[Dr. Wendy Cukier]

It was either legal gun owners or with guns that were legally owned.