Public Safety Committee on March 7th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian. That wraps up our first round.

We will go now to our second round. We will start with Mr. Lloyd.

Mr. Lloyd, please go ahead for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for the Quebec hunters and anglers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry, Mr. Lloyd, before you carry on, this will be a shortened round as well. There will be one slot for each party, as last time.

Go ahead.

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

To the Quebec hunters and anglers, Minister Mendicino noted in a previous meeting that he's very concerned with the number of Canadians who are taking safety courses and becoming licensed firearm owners.

Do you share Minister Mendicino's concerns that people who are taking your courses and becoming licensed firearm owners pose a threat to public safety?

[Emily Vallée]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

[Marc Renaud]

If I understand correctly, you are asking us whether, like the federal Minister of Public Safety, we are concerned about the number of people who are taking firearms safety courses.

That is not the case. I am not concerned. That is a sign that Canadians care about using firearms safely. On the contrary, people think education is important—

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

Thank you. I have a short time here.

It might surprise folks at the committee to learn that I think there is already an evergreen definition of assault firearms in this country, and that definition has been in place for a number of decades. Firearms that are fully automatic and that carry high-capacity magazines of more than five rounds are already illegal in this country.

Are you aware of that? Is that something that you and Quebec hunters are aware of?

[Marc Renaud]

Yes, we know that there are classes of prohibited weapons. Large-capacity assault weapons are already prohibited in Canada. That is why—

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

Hunters and sport shooters do not have access to these kinds of firearms—assault weapons—today. Is that correct?

[Emily Vallée]

That is correct. They are illegal weapons.

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

Going into the evergreen definition that the government proposed, it said, “a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed”.

I think you and I can agree that we already know that in Canada it is illegal to have a magazine that carries more than five rounds, but when this amendment says it's any firearm that is capable of taking a magazine over five rounds, we're talking about a lot of semi-automatics here. Are we talking about a lot of hunting rifles and shotguns that would be banned by this amendment? Do you agree with that conclusion?

[Emily Vallée]

I could not give an exact number.

[Marc Renaud]

The amendments do not refer to semi-automatic weapons with a cartridge magazine that can hold more than five cartridges because they are already prohibited. However, they do talk about weapons designed to hold such cartridge magazines. There is a risk that many hunting weapons that are already regulated in terms of magazine cartridge capacity will be included, while military weapons will be excluded. That is why we are asking that you make the amendments more specific and that you remove certain parts of them.

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

Yes. That's my concern about the evergreen definition the Liberals proposed. It's that it would capture a lot of hunting rifles and shotguns, because even though magazines that carry over five rounds or cartridges are illegal in Canada, many of these firearms are designed in other countries without these restrictions to take magazines that would have over five rounds. Many commonly used hunting rifles and shotguns would have been banned if this amendment had gone forward.

That is a concern we have when writing an evergreen definition, and it's why I don't think it's necessary, because we already have an evergreen definition in this country that bans fully automatic select-fire firearms and that bans firearms with high-capacity magazines. This is an evergreen definition that has largely worked and that is politically not divisive in this country overall.

Now we're talking about going after semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that are widely used by hunters, as we've seen from a wide array of testimony. How does the government try to come back and narrow this evergreen definition? I just don't think they are capable of doing it, because any definition is going to be redundant. It's already going to capture the existing evergreen bans or it's going to capture a lot of legitimately and commonly used hunting rifles and shotguns.

This is going to impact the way of life of so many people. Is this going to impact the way of life for folks who go through your courses and folks who are part of your association? Is it going to impact your way of life should these amendments go through again?

[Marc Renaud]

I wholeheartedly agree. We were surprised by these amendments because laws already exist. That is why this should be very clear if the government is going to propose new amendments.

I completely agree with you. This already exists. Is it necessary? It remains to be seen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you for your testimony.

I will continue in English, because in this technical category I'm not as fluent, so forgive me.

For Monsieur Renaud, I've been engaging quite extensively with Yukon hunters. Many of the themes that you relate have been expressed in Yukon as well.

At the same time, I think everyone I've talked to has agreed that gun violence in Canada is an increasing problem, and that there is more to do in addressing gun violence in this country. It's a question of which of the avenues that remain incomplete we need to complete.

You made the point that you and others who are members—who have done the training and who have done the PAL—are among the most safe users of firearms in the country. I think we have to respect that.

At the same time, I know that when I was last on this committee I had a chance to talk with your Ontario counterpart, and I asked about the willingness to engage in the question of how we collaboratively address firearm safety and gun violence in the country. Even though you expressed that you haven't been consulted enough so far, are you willing to be a partner as we move ahead and try to fill in the gaps in gun safety in this country by working with groups that are working on all sides of this issue?

[Marc Renaud]

Obviously, we feel it is very important that we be consulted. We will always be concerned about crime, both as individuals and as an association. However, what is the real objective or target of these amendments and Bill C‑21? Clearly, legitimate gun owners are not the target. That is likely not the problem.

Do we need to be more specific? Does the government want to consult us and all the other federations as partners? The Canadian federation includes all of the provincial federations. We want to support the cause and help address crime as much as possible. That being said, part of that is up to police officers, who are also involved in this issue. There is a lot of education that needs to be done among all users, even though one has to wonder whether some of them are actually able to be educated.

In short, we are concerned about this as a federation. That is why we are saying that it is very important to consult hunting communities across Canada.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Just in following up, I believe that in your opening comments you said you were open to a permanent definition, as Madame Michaud has followed up on. I also want to follow up on the concept of assault-style weapons. We know automatic weapons are covered, but there are concerns about trying to arrive at some conclusion around how we define firearms that are potential weapons and that are not yet included.

You said that you're open to a definition, even though you yourself didn't have criteria to offer. Are there some criteria you would suggest for how we would arrive at an evergreen definition?

[Emily Vallée]

Indeed, we are suggesting certain criteria. First of all, we are open to the idea of creating a definition in order to remove the famous lists of prohibited firearms, which are added to, multiplied or extended from one bill to the next.

This is what we want to avoid by creating a definition on which everyone can agree. This definition could be based, among other things, on criteria such as those proposed by Francis Langlois, which were mentioned earlier. For example, there is the loading mechanism, the capacity of the firearm, that is, the number of cartridges it can hold, or the weapon's handling, which makes it possible to differentiate between long guns and handguns. These are all examples of very objective criteria that could be used.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Hanley.

We turn again to Ms. Michaud.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Renaud and Ms. Vallée, what I was trying to do earlier, in dissecting amendment G‑4, which sought to amend Bill C‑21, was to read it to you, because I suspect that you do not have it in front of you.

What I have heard from the Quebec hunting community in general is that there is a problem with paragraph (1.2)(g) proposed in amendment G‑4.

Paragraphs (1.2)(e) and (1.2)(f) proposed in this amendment refer to weapons that are already prohibited by the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, as amended in 2020.

Paragraph (1.2)(h) refers to ghost or illegally manufactured firearms. I am sure we all agree that it is important to legislate on this.

As for paragraph (1.2)(i), it refers to the schedule.

If I refer to what Ms. Vallée has just said, ideally, there would be no list of firearms. So it could simply be deleted.

To return to paragraph (1.2)(g) of amendment G‑4, which referred to “une arme à feu qui est un fusil semi-automatique ou un fusil de chasse semi-automatique”, or “a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun”, I believe that it contributed to people's confusion, at least in French. People understood that we wanted to ban “fusils de chasse”, when that was not necessarily the case.

If, in a new definition that the government would propose, we simply removed the reference to “fusil de chasse” in French—I know that it is not the same thing in English—do you think that would help the general understanding of what prohibited firearms are?

[Marc Renaud]

I would say that yes, we could remove the notion of “fusil de chasse”, but also the word “conçu”, because that word leads to interpretation problems. We could add “certaines armes”, that are used for hunting by certain people.

I agree that the terms “fusil de chasse” and “est conçu” are not very clear.

Ms. Vallée, you may have a comment to add.

[Emily Vallée]

To complete your idea in relation to the definition of a prohibited firearm, it is the fact of saying that the rifle “est conçu”, is designed, in a certain way that causes problems. It forces you to go and check the original blueprints of the firearm to find out which firearm is prohibited or not, which is impossible for ordinary citizens. This creates a lot of confusion. This is something that was pointed out to Minister Mendicino.

To come back to your question, the use of the term “fusil de chasse” was confusing from the start.

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

I don't know if I have any time left, Mr. Chair, but the term “conçu” that you mention—