Public Safety Committee on Feb. 17th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

We will carry on with our study. If technical difficulties make it impossible to continue, we will have to consider suspending and possibly rescheduling this particular witness.

Today we have two panels of witnesses. We will probably have time for about 45 minutes per panel. For our first hour, our witness Madam Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control, is having trouble connecting. Online we have, as an individual, Mr. Francis Langlois, professor and associate researcher, Observatoire sur les États-Unis of the Raoul-Dandurand chair of strategic and diplomatic studies.

Monsieur Langlois, let's start with your five-minute statement.

[Francis Langlois, Professor and Associate Researcher, Observatoire sur les États-Unis of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies, As an Individual]

I'd like to thank the committee members for having invited me. I don't know whether the document that contains my recommendations was distributed, but in any event, I will now present them to the committee.

I have two recommendations to make. The classification of firearms needs to be changed to avoid semantic debates over whether a gun is an assault weapon or a hunting gun.

To accomplish that, I am proposing a new way to classify firearms based on how they are handled, by which I mean how they are held, and on the type of firing mechanism. I assume that I could go into details about this classification a little later.

I propose broadening the definition of a firearm to prevent the proliferation of ghost weapons. At the moment, weapons are identified by a serial number on the gun stock. Unfortunately, that component of the firearm is relatively easy to print or engrave. If the definition of a "firearm" is extended to other components of the weapon, like the breech or the barrel, then it would be possible to limit the spread of ghost weapons, particularly those from the Polymer 80 company, which are widely sold in the United States.

That's what I'd like to present this morning. I also have pictures for those who might be interested. Essentially, my intent here is to present the committee with a new way of classifying firearms. That gets me back to my first point. This classification is based on two criteria.

The first is handling. If a firearm is held with one hand, or with two hands on the stock in the same location, we are talking about a handgun. If a weapon he is held with two hands, one holding the stock and the other generally placed on the forward portion of the weapon to stabilize it, it's a long gun. That's the first way to classify them.

The second criterion is the firing mechanism.

Some weapons have a manual reloading mechanism. With long guns, this could be either lever action or pump action. For revolvers, it's a cylinder activated by the user.

Other weapons have an automatic reloading system. In weapons like these, the firing cycle occurs automatically for as long as you hold the trigger down, or semi-automatically, every time you pull the trigger.

If firearms were classified in this manner, the act would firstly be more consistent, and secondly, would avoid semantic debates of the kind we've heard in recent weeks, and which have undermined Bill C‑21.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll start our round of questions now.

I believe we'll start with Mr. Lloyd for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Langlois, you retweeted a New York Times article recently. The title was “A Smarter Way to Reduce Gun Deaths”. I took a read through the article, and the thesis seemed to be that governments need to focus less on the firearms themselves and more on the people using them. Liberals—in the case in the United States—are focused too much on banning certain kinds of firearms and less on a “panoply” of other interventions that could be more effective at reducing gun violence.

Do you agree broadly with the thesis of this essay?

[Francis Langlois]

Yes. The main thing is that prevention is more efficient.

That being said, it depends on the objective of the government. If the objective is to reduce mass shootings and perhaps terrorism too.... I would say that what the government calls at the moment “military-style assault rifles” are the preferred weapons used by mass shooters. If you prefer, self-loading weapons like semi-automatic pistols or rifles are the most used weapons to do mass shootings. If the government wants to reduce mass shootings, reducing the accessibility of those weapons is a way.

That being said, I think you are right. As a society, we have to address the causes of violence in Canadian cities and issues of mental health. I agree. However, again, it depends on the objective of the government.

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

Thank you for that.

I'll quote from the article, and this is for the committee. This is in the American context. It said, “What we call assault rifles probably account for fewer than 7 percent of guns used in crimes and only a small share of suicides, and they have repeatedly proved difficult to define.”

Mr. Langlois, you might be aware that a recent Statistics Canada report that came out in December, a couple of months ago, said that in violent crimes in Canada, a rifle or shotgun—a long gun—was present in only 0.47% of all violent crimes.

Would you agree that long guns in the Canadian context are far less involved in violent crimes than in the American context, and that they form a small minority of crimes committed in Canada where they're present?

[Francis Langlois]

I think you are right. Long guns are not usually used to commit crime. Again, it depends on what the government wants to do first.

Also, what I propose here is classifying weapons differently. You used the expression “assault weapon”. It's very difficult to define an assault weapon. I think the law should categorize weapons or firearms by the way they are handled or manipulated, if you want, and the way they shoot. Semi-automatic weapons and self-loading weapons with detachable magazines are way more dangerous in the case of mass shootings.

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

If a government were trying to create as much political blowback as possible, would that government go after hunting guns and long guns? Is that something you agree would create the most political division in a country like Canada?

[Francis Langlois]

I think you are the politicians. I'm not, so I'm giving you my opinion on how we should categorize the weapons.

Of course, I think a lot of people will not be happy. That being said, with the current law and categorization, a lot of people are not happy, so it's up to you to decide. I think politics is the art of choice.

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

On the choice to go after long guns, which could include hunting guns, do you think this choice is more of a political choice, or would this actually have a significant impact on public safety?

[Francis Langlois]

It would have a significant impact on public security, even if the weapons we are talking about are not used very often in crime. Mass shootings are lower-frequency but high-intensity events. That's the main problem with those weapons.

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

You're an expert in American gun culture. We've had some witnesses who say that if we don't pass these amendments, we're going to become just like the United States. We know at this committee and Canadians know, as gun owners know, that Canada has a far more robust and restrictive firearms policy than the United States does. Wouldn't you agree with that?

[Francis Langlois]

You're absolutely right. The law is way stronger here than it is in the United States.

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

Would you agree that there's really no risk of us becoming similar to the United States just because of the amendments this committee didn't pass?

[Francis Langlois]

I think you're probably right. That being said, the industry is pushing for new models of weapons to be sold here and everywhere in the world, and those weapons may be quite dangerous. We know what happens south of the border, and a lot of those weapons are going to Mexico and South America. We see what is happening over there. Let's not permit the industry to distribute those semi-automatic long rifles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

Ms. Cukier is online. However, I'm going to suggest to her—we can't get hold of her by phone—that she join the next panel, because we've started this one.

I see assent there. Good. We'll move Madam Cukier to the next panel.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's because you guys had your question slot already.

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

We're fine with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

In that case, since everyone's okay with that, Madame Cukier, if you would like to give your five-minute presentation, go ahead.

[Dr. Wendy Cukier, President, Coalition for Gun Control]

Thank you very much.

My apologies. The test went perfectly and the real performance did not.

I represent the Coalition for Gun Control, which, as many of you know, is a network of 200 health care, violence prevention and community organizations that's been working for more than 30 years to advance stronger gun control. I'm also a professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, formerly known as Ryerson. I've published a book called The Global Gun Epidemic and a number of articles focused on the public health perspective.

I want to start by saying that in our view, the proposed legislation, Bill C-21, is groundbreaking and addresses gaps in Canadian gun laws. It's an important step in bringing our legislation in line with that of other industrialized countries by reducing the chances that people who are dangerous to themselves or others get access to guns. That's the strengthening of the licensing provisions. It will also stem the proliferation of handguns, which is critically important, and it supports the ban on military-style semi-automatic firearms.

We note that in Canada and around the world, most mass shootings, killings of police officers, domestic violence incidents and suicides are typically done by legal gun owners or with firearms that were at one time legally owned. The question about long guns is important because we see that long guns are typically used to kill women in domestic violence situations and are more common in suicides and certain other kinds of crime. You don't see them as often, for example, in gang-related violence.

The first point I really wanted to make to the committee is that this legislation is critically important. We really feel that most Canadians are expecting it to be passed as quickly as possible. The proposed amendments, which are the focus of the discussion here, are really intended to fill some gaps that were identified in the use of orders in council to prohibit firearms.

I'll reference a report we did that compared legislation around the world. There are three basic approaches to prohibiting military weapons, which most industrialized countries do. I think comparing us to the United States is a mistake. We need to set our standards higher and compare ourselves to Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Most industrialized countries do prohibit military-style semi-automatic firearms.

They do it in one of three ways or in combination. They define specific characteristics—centrefire, accepts a large-capacity magazine or other military characteristics—and/or they define a list of specific makes and models.

The challenge with the first approach is that often the interpretation varies. That's why having the specificity of lists like in the orders in council is helpful. The limitation of relying on orders in council is that manufacturers are very innovative in coming up with new makes and models to circumvent the lists, so some countries use both. That's partly the reason why I believe the amendment was introduced—to help fill some of those gaps.

Some countries also flip this entirely and put the onus on the manufacturers to get approval. They publish lists of guns that are allowed and legal, and anything else is assumed to be illegal until it's formally approved.

We think the proposed amendments are helpful, and we hope the committee will find a way to address the misinformation by making clear that these are not intended to affect firearms that are reasonably used in hunting. In fact, only about 150 of the firearms on the new list are currently unrestricted weapons and likely to be used for hunting.

Also, remember that just because a firearm is used for hunting doesn't make it a hunting firearm. We have lots of evidence over the last 30 years of people saying that a firearm is used for hunting, and then on further investigation it's clear that it has characteristics that would classify it as a military-style firearm.

The final point I want to make is simply that indigenous peoples do have a right to hunt. There are non-derogation clauses, but there may need to be some special considerations with respect to the application of the amendment, as there were with the OICs, and I would ask the committee to make public safety the priority.

It's true that military-style semi-automatic firearms are not often used in crime, but when they are used, the impacts are devastating. Most Canadians, most experts and, in fact, most industrialized countries around the world recognize that these firearms serve no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Cukier.

We'll go now to Madam Damoff for six minutes.

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you.

My question is for both of you.

Professor Cukier, you brought up indigenous peoples. The 2020 order in council prohibiting assault-style firearms included an exemption for indigenous people exercising their section 35 hunting rights. I'm just wondering if both of you could comment on whether you think it would be a good idea for us to include something similar in Bill C-21.

[Dr. Wendy Cukier]

Yes.

I think there has been some misinformation. I think indigenous peoples, unlike other segments of the population, obviously have a right to hunt. One might question whether they have a right to hunt with semi-automatic military-style firearms, but I think it would be prudent to make clear that this is not intended to infringe upon their rights.

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

Go ahead, Professor Langlois.