Public Safety Committee on March 10th, 2023

[Dr. Teri Bryant]

We currently have an initiative, headed by one of my staff members, that will be doing additional outreach to indigenous communities, but many of the events that I attend are held in areas that are close to indigenous communities and are heavily attended by indigenous people. I do speak frequently with indigenous firearms owners at those events, although not as organized groups.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you. That leads to my next question.

In the previous Parliament we passed Bill C-15, which essentially is requiring the Government of Canada, through consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada, the laws passed in our federal Parliament, are consistent with the declaration.

I believe it was in December that the Assembly of First Nations passed an emergency resolution by consensus. They specifically identified article 5, article 18, article 34 and article 39, where they felt Bill C-21 was contravening those parts of the declaration. I've spoken to the indigenous members of my caucus who have said that to have an emergency resolution at the AFN pass by consensus is virtually unheard of.

Obviously, that consultation had not taken place before the amendments to Bill C-21 were introduced. I don't think we get enough indigenous voices heard here in Ottawa. That is a disservice. It goes against the principle of a nation-to-nation relationship. It goes against the principle of Bill C-15, which was passed into law.

I want to hear from you, Dr. Bryant, because the indigenous members of my caucus and indigenous communities across Canada have repeatedly said that these amendments affect firearms that are tools. Particularly in the north, my colleague Lori Idlout—she's the member for Nunavut—said that when you're face to face with a polar bear, you can't be equipped with a bolt-action rifle. There is an absolute need for a rifle that can discharge in a semi-automatic manner.

Are you hearing the same thing from indigenous communities? Can you report back to this committee on what some of their concerns have been over this process? I think that's an important voice that needs to be added to this conversation to provide that important context.

[Dr. Teri Bryant]

I would certainly agree that not only indigenous but also non-indigenous individuals who may confront dangerous, predatory animals in the wilderness may have a need for rapid follow-up shots. In fact, there are quite a number of other situations where rapid follow-up shots are required. For example, in the control of feral pigs, which is an increasing problem in agricultural areas of Alberta, there definitely is a need for that capacity.

I would also point out that one example of many of the firearms that would have been affected is the SKS rifle, which has been used for hunting in a great many situations, particularly by hunters on a budget. The reason why that particular firearm has been very popular is that it was very cheap. At one point, you could get one for $89. The ability to have a hunting rifle capable of taking deer reasonably and to have multiple follow-up shots if they're necessary for the control of a dangerous animal, for that low a price, led to its very widespread sale across Canada.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

I only have approximately one minute left, so I want to get one last question to you, Dr. Bryant.

In your opening remarks you made some suggestions about amendments that could be proposed to Bill C-21. You did make mention of the possibility of using the firearms that were listed in amendment G-46, but also codified by amendment G-4, as moving that classification to a restricted category. I know you had a little bit of an exchange on this with Mr. Lloyd, but could you add a little bit to that?

By having a restricted category, what does that mean to the firearm owner? What additional safety steps are in place for the classification of a restricted firearm? I'm also assuming that an exemption might be needed to allow some of those firearms to be used for hunting purposes. Currently, restricted firearms can only legally travel between your home and the range, or a special authorization is needed if you're moving places of residence.

[Dr. Teri Bryant]

Yes. If they were restricted firearms, then first of all they would be registered. Currently, many but not all of the firearms that are under discussion here are registered. This would ensure that they would all be registered. That would mean that chief firearms officers would have some greater degree of control over who was allowed to possess them in particular jurisdictions.

It also means that you would have to have a restricted firearms licence in order to own them. That involves an additional step. For example, in the case of situations where there are allegations of spousal violence, those firearms could be removed from the home. I would hasten to point out, actually, that we take a very aggressive stance on spousal violence issues in Alberta, particularly since I took over.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry, Dr. Bryant, but I have to cut you off there.

[Dr. Teri Bryant]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We'll start our second round of questions now with Mr. Motz.

Mr. Motz, please go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

We have heard a lot of statements repeatedly about assault-style firearms and about large-capacity magazines. We know that magazines that are pinned higher than five rounds are already prohibited in this country and have been for a while. We had a witness at our committee this past Tuesday who mentioned automatic assault-style rifles. We've heard it again today: We have assault-style rifles being mentioned. I'm really concerned about the use of that terminology consistently, leaving Canadians to believe that we have automatic rifles legal in this country, and there's no clear definition. What is an assault-style rifle?

What's even more troubling is that this same nonsensical undefined terminology has been repeated by this government when it refers to the military-style assault weapons they want to prohibit in the May 2020 order in council.

Now G-4, which included semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns, was in my opinion a failed attempt to redefine what makes a firearm prohibited. As my colleague Mr. Lloyd has said, a gun should be classified by what it does, what it's capable of, not by what it looks like.

Dr. Bryant, with your expertise in this area, can you set the record straight for us? For Canadians who don't know, what is an automatic firearm? Are they legal in Canada? When were they prohibited? What is a “military-style assault weapon”? Do you think it's ludicrous that a government would invent a term, and then try to find a definition for it, including firearms that might fit into that definition?

[Dr. Teri Bryant]

Thank you.

First of all, fully automatic firearms are ones that continue to discharge when one pulls the trigger. The firearm continues to discharge as long as there's ammunition, so they are basically what most people would call a “machine gun”. Those have been illegal for private individuals to have since 1977-78 approximately. There are a tiny number of people who still own them because these were grandfathered at the time, but those people are now extremely old. Well, they are even older than me, so I call that “extremely old”.

Then to your question about what would be an assault-style firearm, it would be a fully automatic firearm that fires an intermediate power cartridge. Hence, the original assault rifles like the German Sturmgewehr or the original fully automatic AK-47s are assault firearms.

Now “assault-style” takes it a step back. Basically, they're suggesting it is anything that looks like that. Because some people have different tastes, you can buy a kit that will make a rifle made 150 years ago look like one of those military-style assault firearms simply by changing the stock and putting some accessories on it.

I'm not sure I got all of your questions. They were fairly long.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

We've heard, Dr. Bryant, the government speak about “military-style assault weapons”. Is that what you're referring to when you defined these guns as ones where a single pull of the trigger results in continuous fire until it's out of ammunition? That's what the government says they're trying to prohibit. Have they hit the mark with their proposed prohibitions in this country, so that they would be banning military-style assault weapons that really don't exist anyway legally?

[Dr. Teri Bryant]

What I defined was an assault weapon. As I suggested with the term “military-style”, is that a modern style of suit or a modern style of car? It is much in the eye of the beholder. It's pretty much a meaningless term. It is, as you've suggested before, somewhat ludicrous to create a term and then create a definition to try to match that term.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

In your opinion, Dr. Bryant, will prohibiting hunting rifles and shotguns, as was previously planned in G-4—the firearms the government wants to prohibit that were listed in G-46 and is still trying to find a definition for, even with the full list they had proposed initially—have any measurable positive impact on public safety in this country?

[Dr. Teri Bryant]

The short answer is no. The slightly longer answer is this: What's important is not what kind of a gun someone has. It's whether they're allowed to have a gun at all.

That's why, in Alberta, we have focused on improving our screening process, including having subject matter experts on spousal violence and having greater training on a wide range of factors to ensure that anyone who gets a firearms licence deserves to have one. That is why we are ramping up our staffing to ensure prompter attention to any cases—those rare cases—where someone who has a licence becomes a person who shouldn't have a licence, and we can follow up on that promptly in order to ensure public safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

We will go now to Mr. Chiang.

Mr. Chiang, go ahead please for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses this morning for joining us. I appreciate your time and support on this.

My question is for Mr. Ken Price and for Danforth Families.

Personally, my niece was on the same synchronized swimming team as Julianna Kozis, so there is some connection for me. It may be indirect, but there is some connection for me in regard to what happened on Danforth that night.

Mr. Price, I'm confirming that the Danforth Families support the creation and enshrinement into law of the definition of what an assault-style firearm is. Is that correct? Do you support that?

[Ken Price]

Yes, we do.

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

Do you support the definition of the government's creation of the G-4 amendment?

[Ken Price]

Yes, we do. I think it's focused on the right things, like how powerful the gun is and what the capacity of that gun and the firearm is. It's focused on the semi-automatic weapons that are commonly referred to as assault-style rifles and have been since the 1970s, including in advertising by the industry.

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

Thank you so much.

The gun used that night on the Danforth was a handgun. Why are you speaking out about assault-style rifles to this committee?

[Ken Price]

When that happened to us, it was in the summer, and it took us months to decide what we were going to do, to even find each other and to come together. I think we took some time to look at the broader landscape and picture. We decided we would speak from our experience but also acknowledge what's happened to other people.

We've been very consistent. Right from the February 1 news conference in 2019, we said we are against these kinds of guns: handguns and semi-automatic assault-style rifles. It's very consistent with our position that we would be here today to comment on this.

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

Thank you so much.

My next question is directed to Dr. Whitmore. In the past, I was a police officer for 28 years, and in my previous career I investigated a lot of domestics and a lot of femicides where weapons were used—different styles of weapons.

In your view, what steps can our government take to ensure that hunting rights of indigenous communities are protected, while simultaneously taking dangerous assault weapons off our streets?

[Dr. Erin Whitmore]

Thank you for that question. I'm going to pass that to my colleague, Suzanne Zaccour.

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

Thank you.

[Suzanne Zaccour]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

There are a lot of stakeholders in this debate and everyone recognizes that indigenous people should be consulted in this debate, and I might add indigenous women and indigenous women's associations. There's been a divide between the hunters and the intimate partner violence in the indigenous, as if there's no overlap between some of these categories. We support continued consultations with first nations, Métis and Inuit people, and indigenous women's associations.

We also, as has been said, support the amendments and support both the list and a permanent or evergreen definition of guns that are not reasonably used for hunting, for anyone, in a view to protect public safety.