Public Safety Committee on March 7th, 2023

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Renaud and Ms. Vallée, thank you for accepting our invitation to join us today. I know Quebec's hunting community has been looking forward to your testimony.

Mr. Renaud, in your speech, you clearly stated that the bill has two main issues, namely that government amendments G‑4 and G‑46 weren't clear and that the public may lack knowledge about how firearms are classified. You think it would be better to use objective criteria or principles instead of criteria related to ergonomics, for example. That's something I've been thinking about too, and I'm wondering if there's another way to classify firearms.

Researcher Francis Langlois, a professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal, has made a very interesting suggestion, which is that firearms should be classified based on two criteria: first, the way they're handled, and second, their firing mechanism. I don't know if you've heard about this suggestion. In terms of handling, firearms could be divided into two categories, namely handguns and long guns. In terms of the firing mechanism, they would be divided into manual reloading versus semi-automatic loading. Just doing that would make the whole issue a bit clearer and could help the public tell the difference between prohibited firearms and exempt firearms. Do you have an opinion on that suggestion?

I advised the government to review Mr. Langlois' suggestion. Even if the bill is drafted differently, this could be an interesting solution for straightening it all out and making sure that a firearm that's commonly used for hunting in Quebec, or elsewhere in Canada, doesn't get banned. Take the SKS rifle, which was designed for military use. It would be obsolete in today's military context, so it could be used for hunting. It's not too expensive, and it's widely available. This classification would enable us to avoid lumping it in with firearms that are used for military purposes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the SKS should be exempt. I'm just wondering if there's a better way to classify these firearms and avoid lumping them all together.

I would love to hear what Mr. Renaud or Ms. Vallée has to say about that.

[Marc Renaud]

I will start and I'm sure Ms. Vallée will have comments to add.

The notions of prohibited weapons, restricted weapons and long guns already exist. Is it necessary to go that far? Would that make the amendments clearer? We can already clarify what the amendment says about firearms designed as military or large-capacity firearms. Those things are already regulated here. There are semi-automatic weapons that can hold almost five cartridges. If more objective criteria were adopted, without the need for making a list, it would give hunters a better understanding of the situation. It would reassure them. If the proposed amendments become too complicated, all of our hunters will be worried. Laws already exist regarding cartridge capacity. The semi-automatic weapons sold in Canada cannot have a greater cartridge capacity.

Ms. Vallée can address the rest of what you said because I likely did not elaborate enough on Mr. Langlois's proposal.

[Emily Vallée]

I would not go as far as to say that I fully support Mr. Langlois's classification approach, but it is based on objective criteria. These are the types of criteria that we are asking for, criteria regarding the loading mechanism, whether it be semi-automatic or manual. That makes things very clear. Everyone can figure out what class a firearm belongs in just by looking at it.

These are the types of criteria that we support for the classification of firearms. That is an approach worth exploring.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Renaud, we agree on one thing. You are saying that it might be simpler not to have a list. I told the government the same thing. If we are trying to come up with an evolving definition, then it should be good for firearms that already exist and for those that could arrive on the market in the future. We would not need to put everything on a list.

I also understand that the only list that will actually be continually updated is the RCMP's list and not necessarily the list set out in the Criminal Code. Having more than one list will also not help people to understand, in my opinion.

If we look a little closer at amendment G‑4, it is easy to see that the first two parts of it target firearms that are already prohibited: firearms that are capable of discharging a projectile with muzzle energy exceeding 10,000 joules and firearms that have a bore diameter of 20 millimetres or greater—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Madame Michaud, that's your time.

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

Thank you. I'll come back to that later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

To the witness, go ahead and answer, please. You get to answer.

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

I did not have time to ask my question, Mr. Chair. I will come back to it later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry. I have this horrible task of cutting people off when their time is up.

We'll go now to Mr. Julian.

Mr. Julian, go ahead please, for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. You are doing a great job. The time difference does not always make things easy.

Mr. Renaud, Ms. Vallée and Ms. Kiejko, thank you for your important testimony today.

I would like to speak first to Mr. Renaud and Ms. Vallée.

First, I commend you for the work you do to educate. Your website provides an enormous amount of information.

Earlier, you said that 60,000 participants take your training every year. Is that correct?

[Marc Renaud]

That's correct.

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

That is impressive.

Given the important role that your organization plays in terms of education in Quebec, were you consulted when the bill was drafted or before amendments G‑4 and G‑46 were brought forward?

Were you consulted after the amendments were presented?

[Marc Renaud]

We were not consulted before the amendments were presented. When we saw the amendments, we asked to be heard and consulted. That is why we are saying that, even if the amendments come back in another form in the future, all of our members must be consulted.

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

How was the consultation conducted?

After these amendments were presented, you said that they were problematic. As you probably know, the NDP worked hard to get those amendments withdrawn.

How did the government follow up with you when you indicated that the amendments were problematic?

[Marc Renaud]

The best person to answer that question is Ms. Vallée since she is part of the communications team.

[Emily Vallée]

We were contacted by Minister Mendicino's team and met with them in mid-January.

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

At that meeting in mid-January, did you talk about the two concerns that you raised in your testimony, namely, that the list of weapons is confusing and that objective criteria should be implemented to address that issue?

In answer to Ms. Michaud's question, you talked about criteria that could be used. Did you discuss that at your meeting?

[Emily Vallée]

Yes, we did address that issue.

That being said, we had to ask a lot of questions first in order to be able to understand the amendments and the impacts of the definition, as well as to find out what part of the list was added in November 2022. The main purpose of the meeting was to gain a better understanding of things. Hunters and sport shooters did not have access to that information. If we put ourselves in their shoes, it is easy to see that it was basically impossible for them to feel reassured by such amendments.

We had the opportunity to get answers to our questions and to talk about the fact that the definition of an assault weapon must be clear and must not cause confusion.

We also addressed that fact that, if such a definition is accepted by the community following consultations, then it should be applied to the whole schedule of prohibited firearms. If we agree on what constitutes an assault weapon, then we would not have to work from a list.

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

Did you get the impression that the government was trying to convince you that the amendments had merit?

Is that why you spent the first part of your meeting discussing how the amendments would work?

[Emily Vallée]

The purpose of the meeting was not to convince us. I think it was really to clarify things and to ask us our opinion so that we could have an open discussion on what the definition of an assault weapon should be.

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

Did the government promise, either during or after the meeting, that it would consult you at a later stage?

[Emily Vallée]

Later, the government answered some remaining questions in writing, but there was no further consultation apart from the invitation to appear before the committee.

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

Okay.

How many members do you have?

[Marc Renaud]

We have 125,000 members and there are 220 member associations in Quebec, not counting all of the community partners. We therefore have a large group of members.

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

Of those members, how many have a firearms possession and acquisition licence?