Public Safety Committee on Feb. 17th, 2023

[Martin Bourget]

I agree on the kind of comparison that is made to show the totally decentralized way in which the issue of firearms is handled.

I agree on the comparison, which comes from a very specific saying, which is:

“There is nothing better than a good man with a gun to defend against a bad man with a gun.”

That saying comes directly from the United States. I agree on the use of this comparison in connection with the theory that is applied to gun control, which, in our view, does not protect lives in the street.

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

I'm going to turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Chiang.

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

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I want to bring your attention to a website in the U.S.A. called Gun Violence Archive, which states that, to date, there have been 71 mass shootings in the U.S., as a result of which 106 people have been killed.

As far as I can see, the last mass shooting we had in Canada was in York Region, Vaughan, in December 2022, when five people were killed in Canada.

I want to bring that to your attention as a comparison between the U.S. and Canada. In my background as a police officer for 28 years, when I worked on the front line as an officer, I worked on homicides, suicides and many shootings.

As far as I'm concerned, every loss of life is a huge loss. I understand that we respect the rights of hunters, sport shooters and indigenous people for hunting and the airsoft community, but what we're looking at doing is preventing further deaths of innocent people, and I think we should be looking at this more clearly. I understand your rights as hunters and sport shooters, but we also have to look at the rights of average Canadians like myself and my family. We want to make sure we keep all of us safe.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You can give a quick response if you wish.

[Martin Bourget]

I totally agree.

What worries me is that you have invited experts, in consultation with whom you could have obtained a lot of tools to help you as this matter moves forward. However, you have just spent half that time confronting and discrediting the experts.

You call that working to keep Canadians safe. You have wasted your time with expert witnesses here who could have provided you with tools. I don't know how to answer you except to say that I completely agree with you, Mr. Chiang.

That said, we are not going in the right direction if that is how the expert witnesses and the tools that might be important for continuing to protect Canadian citizens get treated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Ms. Michaud, the floor is yours for two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect, Mr. Bourget, the committee's plan for this study is to have four additional meetings to allow the witnesses, the people, the groups who would be affected by amendments G‑4 and G‑46, to be heard here. We want to question them to find out what they are afraid of. Some fears have been spread all over social media and everywhere in society. We want to know what people are afraid of, what should be changed, and how to do better next time.

When I asked you the question just now, that is, whether you had identified firearms in the list of firearms that are reasonably used for hunting, you were not able to name a single one for me.

[Martin Bourget]

I answered you very clearly; I named the firearms made by Parker Bros, Browning-BAR and...

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

You are talking to me about hunting bears and polar bears in northern Canada.

[Martin Bourget]

That is when you cite 10,000 joules and over.

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

To my knowledge, those people use a Lee-Enfield with 3,000 joules of energy. That is far from 10,000 joules.

[Martin Bourget]

This firearm that...

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

I would like to invite you, here, and have the benefit of your expertise, but you are using kind of the same technique.

[Martin Bourget]

I think you are going to have to watch the video of my testimony again.

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

You persist with the definition of what a spokesperson is, and yet you adopt the positions of an association that is against gun control. It is hard to get anything substantial from this and do better next time.

Basically, what we understand from listening to you is that we should take Bill C‑21and the amendments to ban assault weapons and throw it all in the garbage. Nothing good can be done with it.

[Martin Bourget]

I think you should watch the video of this meeting again when it is available online. You will see that when you asked me the question, I answered clearly by naming firearm models. When we talked about firearms with 10,000 joules and over, I answered your question about firearms with 10,000 joules and over very clearly.

We still have a huge number of firearm models on the list. Obviously, when we talk about creating categories and about this list, I point out that there is a pressing, glaring need for a lot of experts. There is a very obvious lack of knowledge when it comes to implementing and proposing ways to protect Canadians.

It isn't firearms that I am mostly afraid of; it is the feasibility and sustainability of the methods that are being put in place to genuinely protect Canadians in the streets. We see weapons coming from the criminal world...

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

I think my speaking time is up, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Boulerice now has the floor for two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to note a certain degree of frustration and hostility on the part of the witness Mr. Bourget toward certain members of this committee. I find that quite deplorable.

Mr. Hipwell, if amendment G‑4 had been adopted, how many types of firearm would now be banned, out of your merchandise?

[Matthew Hipwell]

Which level of ban are you talking about? If we go back to the order in council, starting there, quantity-wise we're talking about hundreds of firearms in total and many different models across the board. The government said at the time that you can dispose of them. Well, there are lots of other complications with that. Once they're imported into a country, they can't simply be exported back to the originating country. There are a lot of other rules that the government obviously overlooked and felt it was simple to pass on to the businesses.

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

Mr. Hipwell, you would have lost the opportunity to sell dozens or even hundreds of types of firearm since they would have been banned. So those are hundreds of customers and hundreds of sales, since you are a firearms dealer.

When a bill is introduced to limit access to semi-automatic firearms and assault weapons, are you not, in a way, in a financial conflict of interest, since your job is selling those weapons?

[Matthew Hipwell]

It would be a huge cost for my business. We're talking about—

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

Are you not in a conflict of interest?

[Matthew Hipwell]

How am I in a position of conflict of interest?

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

When we talk about banning certain types of firearms that you have in stock, and your job is selling those firearms to your customers, you have a financial interest in the law being as minimal as possible.