THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 2, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to consider Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).
Senator Tony Dean (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting on the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I’m Tony Dean, representing Ontario, the chair of the committee. I’m joined by fellow committee members, whom I now invite to introduce themselves, starting with our deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais, from Quebec.
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Senator Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: To my left is the committee’s clerk, Ms. Ericka Dupont.
We are continuing our study of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), all respecting the regulation of firearms in Canada. Today, we’re hearing from two panels of wildlife federations and firearm owners’ associations. In our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming by video conference, on behalf of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, Marc Renaud, President; on behalf of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, Gilbert White, Chairperson, Recreational Firearm Community; and on behalf of the Yukon Fish and Game Association, Eric Schroff, Executive Director.
Thank you all for joining us today. We invite you to provide your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from our members. I remind you that you each have five minutes for your testimony. We will begin today with Mr. Marc Renaud.
[Translation]
Marc Renaud, President, Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs: Mr. Chair and ladies and gentlemen members of the Standing Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, I am speaking to you as president of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, a non-profit organization dedicated to representing hunters and anglers and promoting safe practices. Our educational arm, Sécurité nature, has a contract with the government to deliver introductory hunter education courses and the Canadian Firearms Safety Course.
Each year, about 60,000 participants take our training. Ever since we started teaching firearms safety in 1994, the year the course was created, we have always focused on education and prevention rather than gun control. We are doing our part by going above and beyond our training obligations. We carry out firearms safety awareness campaigns, and we provide hunters with a website about safe firearm transportation and storage, along with other one-off initiatives like distributing trigger locks.
Our overall position on gun control is that there should be limited constraints for legitimate gun owners, hunters or sport shooters who have taken training and who hold a possession and acquisition licence.
During the backlash caused by the amendments proposed in November to Bill C-21, we identified key issues. The first is that the amendments, as drafted, were not clear enough. The confusion created by the definition of an assault weapon and the list of prohibited weapons shows that this control measure missed the mark. Law-abiding hunters and sport shooters felt justifiably worried about this ban, which could have captured guns that they had been using for years to carry out safe, legal activities.
The second issue is the public’s lack of knowledge about firearms, which colours political decision-making. We see that firearms are being placed on the list of prohibited weapons on the basis of aesthetic and ergonomic criteria, rather than objective criteria based on the firearm’s capacity.
Also, some people view semi-automatic rifles as military weapons, but this mechanism is necessary for certain types of hunting. Let me remind you that magazine capacity is already regulated in Canada. Generally speaking, the limit is five cartridges, and in the specific case of migratory bird hunting, the limit is three cartridges.
We would like the Canadian regulations to focus on the real criminals instead of criminalizing legitimate gun owners.
First, a definition of assault weapon that is based on objective criteria, not the style of the gun, should be created. If the definition is accepted by the majority of the hunting and sport shooting community, it should then be applied retroactively to all the schedules of prohibited firearms. Then it would finally be possible to stop working off lists that are constantly being updated, creating concern and confusion.
In summary, we strongly believe in the power of education and prevention for promoting firearms safety. Our members want to feel safe, too, and they hope new laws intended to improve public safety focus on the right targets. Hunters and sport shooters who comply with the training requirements and get the right licences are the wrong target.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Renaud.
[English]
We will now hear from Mr. Gilbert White.
Gilbert White, Chairperson, Recreational Firearm Community, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity and privilege to address this committee and present concerns of the organizations I am associated regarding Bill C-21.
My heritage is and continues to be one of hunting, trapping, sports shooting and angling. The first firearm I owned, from when I was 9 years of age, was a bolt action .303 British “Jungle Carbine,” which I still have. I’m concerned about it being confiscated in the future because it’s a carbine — a short rifle.
As a veteran, I’m concerned that, little by little, the freedoms our veterans have fought for are being legislated away while the real problems of crime, mental health, poverty, illegal firearms and gangs fail to be addressed.
The Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation is a non-profit, non-government, charitable organization with over 33,000 members in 123 branches across Saskatchewan, representing every walk of life. Through various educational programs, fisheries-enhancement projects and land acquisitions through our Habitat Trust Fund, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation has enhanced fish and wildlife habitats since 1929 and become a recognized national leader in the field of conservation.
As a Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation member, former director and current chairperson of the recreational firearms community, I am concerned that Bill C-21, if enacted in its current form, will have a detrimental impact, not only on shooting sports but also wildlife organizations, hunters and wildlife itself. Wildlife federation branches within the province of Saskatchewan and across Canada provide a variety of community services, including Scouts Canada, Girl Guides of Canada, school and youth programs, which can include firearm and safety training. My particular branch, the Regina Wildlife Federation, provides ranges and training facilities for the RCMP “F” Division, the RCMP Depot Division, the RCMP Emergency Response Team, the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, the Saskatchewan Police College, the Regina Sheriff’s Office, CP rail police, the Ministry of Environment, the Legislative District Security Unit, the Saskatchewan Highway Patrol, Brink’s and GardaWorld. We are only one branch of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation providing such services, and the loss of our facility would have a detrimental impact on these organizations.
With the implementation of Bill C-21, sports shooting clubs will begin to lose their members, who are also represented in the wildlife federations, resulting in a loss of membership revenue for the federations, not only through lost membership fees but also fundraising events and donations.
In addition, these clubs support our local firearms retailers, who have informed me that since this freeze, they have lost in the neighbourhood of 30% of their business and found it extremely difficult to acquire replacement parts, further negatively impacting them. That, coupled with the inventory they are currently holding due to the May 2020 order-in-council, has some on the brink of closing their doors. Losing these businesses will have a direct impact on hunting organizations and wildlife, as they are one of the major sponsors of our fundraising initiatives and heavily relied on by the hunting community.
The sports shooting community holds matches throughout the year, which add a financial contribution to individual wildlife clubs and local economies across Canada. Bill C-21 will inevitably and eventually result in the elimination of shooting sports in Canada and negatively impact many clubs and communities across our nation.
While we understand and appreciate the need for strong firearms regulations and training, we believe that, due to the demographics of Canada, a one-size-fits-all solution may not be the best approach. It’s apparent that there are disconnects between the federal and provincial governments, specifically Saskatchewan and Alberta, who feel it’s necessary to implement their own firearms legislation. Our current laws are among the most restrictive in the world. Proper funding and resources are required in order to regularly and effectively enforce them. Additional restrictions, including prohibition, are not required.
Since the creation of Bill C-68 in 1995, more and more restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners have been introduced, yet violent crime has continued to increase. This should prove that it’s not working, and doing more of the same is not the answer. Maybe it’s time to try something else.
In conclusion, the hunting community that I am associated with is against Bill C-21 and any further restrictions on law-abiding firearm owners. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. White. We now move to our third witness, Mr. Schroff. Please proceed whenever you are ready.
Eric Schroff, Executive Director, Yukon Fish and Game Association: Thank you very much. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
We feel that many Canadians have little or no knowledge of the realities of rural and northern lifestyles and the importance of firearms to them — firearms which are used for hunting, subsistence harvesting and personal safety in wilderness situations. The implications of Bill C-21 may seem to be of little consequence to many Canadians and so just become part of the legislative wallpaper.
To those of us who live in rural and northern environments, the measures and approach of the bill are destructive to our way of life and may severely impact our ability to sustain ourselves in our rural and wilderness settings. We wonder how the architects of this bill got so far down the wrong path. Where is there any significant and meaningful commitment to the implementation of a public health approach to dealing with violence in our communities?
The Mass Casualty Commission report recommendations are very clear in identifying the need for more mental wellness support, access to education assistance and structural changes to the way violence is addressed from a public and personal health perspective. Violence of all kinds, including stabbings, vehicular homicide, use of syringes to threaten and harm and airplanes, as were used in the 9/11 attacks, needs to be addressed effectively in our society to truly make Canada a safer place. Where are the commitments to meet these real needs and reduce violence within our society? The firearm control measures within Bill C-21 will not make Canadians safer. They will not prevent or likely even reduce the frequency or severity of tragic acts of violence in Canada today or tomorrow.
Please examine the impact of the ban on handguns and other firearms under the order-in-council passed two years ago and consider if this has had any effect on reducing violent crime. We present that it has not made a difference and Bill C-21 will not have any positive, significant or measurable effect on reducing violent crime or the activities of criminals either. All this bill does is stigmatize and punish law-abiding firearm owners in this country.
There is an urgent and compelling need to crack down on criminals and the violence that’s perpetrated by organized crime, gangs and gang members and individual criminals. We need to see details on how government is cracking down on crime and taking aim at those who use firearms illegally. What are the solutions proposed and actions that will be taken to reduce crimes involving violence?
There are no dangerous guns in our communities; there are individuals and groups who use firearms dangerously. We need to deal with the underpinnings of violence in all forms. We also need to ensure that firearms licensing, training and storage requirements are complied with. In many instances, violence is done by those who are not legally licensed or allowed to own firearms.
Ensure that firearms regulations as they now exist are enforced before making any novel, substantive changes to them, such as those presented in Bill C-21. Insist that those working on Bill C-21 find the time to take a firearms course to obtain a Possession and Acquisition Licence. The course is rigorous and effective, and may change the way people look at the firearms question.
We ask this committee to send Bill C-21 back, as it’s ill informed, ineffectual and damaging to the fabric of rural and northern cultures. We ask that you encourage the government to commit and deliver sufficient resources to fully implement a public health approach to violence, dedicate resources and financial support to effectively address crime and gang violence and stop the flow of illegal firearms across our borders, truly listen to the many legitimate concerns of law-abiding firearm owners and users in Canada and walk back this convenient but wrong-headed approach to reducing violence in our communities. We recommend inclusive, comprehensive consultation with Canadians across this diverse and varied land on how to reduce all types of violence and unlawful behaviours.
If time allows later on in this discussion, I would like to talk about a conversation I had with an on-duty police officer yesterday and input I received from a psychologist who works privately for a correctional institution.
I will close by noting that I appreciate the time taken by this committee to seek input and study Bill C-21. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this perspective to you today.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Schroff, Mr. Renaud and Mr. White.
We will now proceed to questions. Before proceeding, just a health and safety tip. I would like to ask participants in the room to please refrain from leaning in too closely to the microphone or to remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any harmful sound feedback that could negatively impact committee staff in the room.
Our guests are with us today until 10:00 a.m. We’re going to do our best to allow time for each member to ask a question. With this in mind, four minutes is allotted to each question, including the answer, and I will hold up this card to indicate that 30 seconds remain in your time. I ask that you keep your questions succinct and to identify the witness you are addressing.
I offer the first question to our deputy chair, Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My first question is for Mr. Renaud and Mr. White. The assault weapons ban is a key part of Bill C-21, but it is hard to understand because the definition of these firearms appears to be ambiguous. I would like both of you to tell me what these firearms are used for, who buys them and why they want to own them.
Mr. Renaud: Shall I begin?
Senator Dagenais: Go ahead, Mr. Renaud.
Mr. Renaud: You want to know the purpose of the firearms that we use that are considered assault weapons.
What we are seeing is that they are being categorized as assault weapons because of ergonomics and not for any objective reason. Our firearms, if we take for example the semi-automatic rifles that are often used for hunting migratory birds, are designed that way out of concern for efficiency, to remove the requirement of having to load one bullet a time because we have just a few seconds to hit our target effectively and lethally. It was regulated to three cartridges at first. We get three consecutive, rapid shots to make a clean shot and hit our target.
On the other hand, our hunting rifles are also being considered assault weapons because it is said that they are designed to take large magazines, whereas if they were manufactured to take a magazine that is legal in Canada, or with fewer than five cartridges, they would not be considered assault weapons.
When we look at the list in amendment G-46, an endless list where time after time associations might be made and firearms are included in a non-objective manner. Our fear is the assault weapons. We do not use assault weapons. We use hunting rifles.
Senator Dagenais: Mr. White, what do you think?
[English]
I ask you the same question, Mr. White.
Mr. White: Thank you for your question, senator. First of all, I would like to address the term “assault-style.” A style is something my wife wears. She might be stylish one day and not the next. A style is nothing more than an appearance. We need to focus on the action of the firearm. That being said, there are reasons to have semi-automatic firearms. In my opinion, a semi-automatic firearm is not an assault firearm. An assault firearm is a fully automatic firearm; it is a rocket launcher, which has been prohibited in Canada for decades. I use semi-automatic rifles on my trapline. I could be attacked by wolves or bears while I’m out there. If you have ever watched the hunting of a wild boar, you will definitely understand why someone would want a semi-automatic rifle. They charge you and they can no doubt kill you.
Senator Dagenais: Second round? Do I have time for another question?
The Chair: We’ll put you on for the second round. Thank you.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and raising important issues related to this bill. I have received correspondence containing very thoughtful critiques of Bill C-21, and you have echoed some of those concerns.
My question is for Mr. Renaud. We know that 80% or more of all firearm-related deaths in Canada are from suicide, intimate partner family violence or accidents. The firearms involved are very unlikely to have been smuggled, and these acts aren’t carried out by career criminals. Of the remaining firearm-related deaths, gangs and criminals are the major causes, and smuggled guns are involved in about half to two thirds of those deaths, so about 5% to 10% of the total number of gun deaths in Canada. I agree that these deaths are tragic, and Canada must do a much better job of dealing with gun smuggling and gang-related violence. Yet many organizations focus only on that 5% to 10% of deaths and argue that since Bill C-21 does not focus on gangs and criminals and smuggled guns, it misses the mark. The vast majority of gun deaths in Canada are not from smuggled guns used by gangs and criminals. My question to you is this: Should reputable organizations such as yours, which focus on responsible gun ownership, help address this kind of disinformation about gun deaths in Canada, and if so, how should they do so?
The Chair: Did you hear the question, Mr. Renaud?
[Translation]
Mr. Renaud: If I understand correctly, the question is: how do we get rid of gangs?
[English]
The Chair: Could you clarify?
Senator Kutcher: Thank you so much. I was pointing out that, according to all the data that we have, over 80% of all firearm-related deaths are not from gangs or criminal behaviour — they are from suicide, intimate partner family violence and accidents. We keep hearing that we have to focus only on gangs and smuggled guns and criminals, but the vast majority of gun deaths do not stem from these. So I’m asking you, as the leader of a reputable organization focusing on responsible gun ownership, this question: How can you and your organization help address this kind of disinformation so that people better understand where most firearm-related deaths actually come from?
[Translation]
Mr. Renaud: There are organizations that specialize in mental health. It is not by drafting a bill like Bill C-21, by criminalizing hunters and sport shooters that we will achieve this goal.
There are people who have mental health needs. We strongly recommend investing money in this area to help the relevant organizations, to help detect the problems, whether through the health network or in another way.
It is not by keeping hunters and sport shooters caught in a bill that we are going to achieve the very important goal of helping people who are in psychological distress. When it is a suicide, it is not just a hunting rifle that can cause the suicide, there is much more to it than that. The objective is to help these people by providing them with psychological help. There are organizations that are dedicated to this work. We need to support them.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Renaud. I will note that I added some time, given the need for clarity. Thank you for the response.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have two questions. I thank the witnesses for being here. To my first question I would like you to respond with yes or no. When he came to the committee, the minister said the following:
We engaged with First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations, rural and northern communities, victims’ groups, and with the firearms community and sportspersons and sports shooters across Canada to hear their perspectives and to ensure that we respect their traditions and way of life. These consultations have informed our path forward.
My question is for all three witnesses. Were you consulted on this bill?
Mr. Renaud: For the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, Minister Mendicino’s team visited us, yes.
Senator Boisvenu: Okay, thank you; and you, Mr. Schroff?
[English]
Mr. Schroff: Yes, we received a visit after the amendments were made in November of last year. We did not receive a visit after those amendments were dropped and changes were made to the bill.
Mr. White: The Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation was not consulted.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Next question: were your recommendations taken into account? I will start with Mr. Renaud.
Mr. Renaud: Some amendments were explained to us. We raised some questions and were given answers. Were our recommendations taken into account? I would say no because the amendments made were not changed.
[English]
Mr. Schroff: I agree with the previous testimony.
Mr. White: Like I said, we weren’t consulted. So, I have no comment.
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair, and thank you to all the witnesses here. My question as well is to each of the witnesses, and please be as succinct as you were with Senator Boisvenu, and then maybe I can get my next one in. To any of the witnesses, when Minister of Public Safety Dominic LeBlanc appeared before the committee, he also said, “. . . I don’t think hunters or sports groups oppose this legislation.” My question for the witnesses: Do you know of any hunting or sports groups in Canada that support the legislation? Further to that, is there a disconnect between your organization and your members? Is there any evidence that most hunters or sports shooters support any part of Bill C-21? Mr. Schroff, why don’t you start? Then we’ll ask the other two witnesses.
Mr. Schroff: I do not know of any sporting organizations that support this legislation. No, I do not believe we are disconnected from our membership. We have about 1,500 members. We also reach, through our communications and our education outreach, many, many of our Yukon folks who are outside of our membership. I’m sorry, but you’ll have to refresh me on the third question, sir.
Senator Plett: I think you answered it. Are there any hunters or sports shooters that support the legislation, in your opinion?
Mr. Schroff: Not that I’m aware of, sir.
Senator Plett: Thank you. Let’s continue with the other two witnesses, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Renaud: In Quebec, our federation is not aware of any organization that supports this bill restrictive bill, from our sport shooters to our shooting clubs, our members or our hunters. There is even a lot of pressure to keep speaking against the bill as it is currently worded.
[English]
Mr. White: From my perspective, we don’t know of any hunters or organizations that are in support of Bill C-21. We are definitely not disconnected from our 33,000 members; we are regularly in communication with them in multiple ways.
Senator Plett: It sounds to me like you’re all pretty much on the same page there.
I have another question. The minister further said that the premise that this affects law-abiding gun owners who pursue sports activities, such as hunting or sports shooting, is a phrase that is often used. We have been explicit and careful to ensure that these measures do not target those people. Farmers or people in rural communities, sportspersons, people using firearms in northern and Indigenous communities — they are not targeted, affected or included in these measures that they’re trying to have adopted.
Would you agree that sportspersons and firearm clubs are not impacted by this bill? I pose this question to Mr. Schroff first.
Mr. Schroff: We absolutely do not agree with that statement, sir.
Senator Plett: Thank you. How about you, Mr. Renaud?
[Translation]
Mr. Renaud: We do not agree at all. Sport shooters are very affected by this regulation. We need sport shooters and gun clubs if we absolutely want firearms users and hunters to practice safely. They need to practice, they need shooting ranges. We do not agree.
[English]
Senator Plett: I pose the same question to Mr. White.
Mr. White: No, we don’t agree at all. In fact, it only targets law-abiding firearm owners. It doesn’t target criminals whatsoever.
Senator Plett: Senator Kutcher is citing disinformation here quite often. I would suggest the height of disinformation here is what the minister has been telling us. Thank you, witnesses.
Senator Kutcher: Excuse me, chair. I don’t know how common it is in the Senate, having not been here as long as Senator Plett, to erroneously call out your colleagues. Senator Plett, I think that is below what we would do as honourable colleagues.
It was very clear that — and I’ll restate it — 80% or more of all firearm-related deaths are not from smuggled guns or criminals. That is what I said. Senator Plett, I wish you would either apologize for your comments or at least acknowledge that statement was not disinformation.
Senator Plett: First of all, I will apologize only if I have hurt your feelings, but I was not necessarily referring to today. The other day, senator, you clearly talked about disinformation. If we check Hansard — check the records — that will be there.
I did not imply that you were wrong; I simply implied that you had referred to disinformation. That’s all I did. Let the record show I did not accuse you, sir, of anything, but if you took that wrong, I do apologize for that.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that apology, Senator Plett. I would —
The Chair: Senator Kutcher, we have to get back to our witnesses. I don’t want to take any more of our witnesses’ time.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to the three of you for being here. I’m going to direct this question initially to Mr. White but offer up time for others to respond.
Mr. White, you’re quoted, like many others, as saying this legislation targets legal gun owners. At the outset of these hearings, and after reading 1,100 letters and responding to many very good letters, this argument is shifting a little bit for me.
I’m thinking about some of the comments that were made this morning by several witnesses as to why some of the banned weapons are needed by hunters. You had some very specific examples this morning about boar.
I’m also trying to balance that ergonomic benefit of those guns — the same guns that can kill a good number of people in a short amount of time. Laws become trade-offs of risks and harms. Many would argue that the risks these weapons pose to people may outweigh their benefits. I’m not disputing or disrespecting the importance of hunting, but they may outweigh the benefits of that particular gun.
Where do you think that proper balance needs to be? Mr. White, please go first.
Mr. White: First of all, they’re not a weapon until they’re used as a weapon. Until then, they are a firearm.
We all seem to focus on the firearm in any crisis. We never seem to focus on the person behind the firearm or what brought them to that point in their life. I would definitely like to see that focus changed.
I also own a couple of handguns that I purchased when I worked for GardaWorld. I purchased them because I wanted to get proficient at using them, because GardaWorld, as a company, only allowed me to go to the range once a year. Here I am, walking around in high schools, behind airport security, in banks or wherever — in public areas — carrying this firearm. I wanted to be proficient with it. I bought a couple so I could go to the range and practice on my own time.
Those firearms are worthless right now because they’re in my safe. I can still use them, yes, but they are in my safe and will probably eventually be destroyed unless there is some financial gain when I pass away due to the recent Saskatchewan firearms legislation. But until that happens, I really don’t know.
Senator M. Deacon: I will ask the other two witnesses to comment on that balance.
Mr. Schroff: Of course, all legislation is a balancing act in some way or form. It’s a challenge.
The biggest thing for us is that we need to look at Canada as a whole when we’re talking about legislation and the effects upon people within Canada. We need to ask ourselves if we apply this uniformly, one size fits everyone across Canada, is that the right choice? Will that achieve the objectives we have set out and our responsibilities to society?
I would say, in this particular instance, that I don’t think Bill C-21 is a balance. I believe we have to get to the root cause of some of these issues, as was mentioned by one of my colleagues here this morning. What is behind the violence? What is behind the decision to take the tool — the firearm, in this instance — and do something that is illegal with it? Most of the acts that have been cited here this morning and the tragedies that we have seen occur in our society are illegal acts. Whether they’re done with a legal firearm or not, they’re illegal acts. In many cases — and I will take exception to some of the statistics that have been cited — they’re done with illegal firearms. Now, an illegal firearm doesn’t mean it has to be imported illegally; it can be obtained illegally or used for a purpose for which it was not intended.
Handguns have been on the restricted list for decades in Canada and yet they still appear when crimes of violence occur.
I would say there needs to be a balance. I don’t think Bill C-21 is a balance. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’re over time, I’m afraid.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. My question is directed to Mr. Schroff and also the others.
I would like to dig a little deeper into the question of what Bill C-21 says about hunting. When I read Bill C-21, I don’t see any measure in it that affects hunters. Can you point to something in Bill C-21 that limits hunters, specifically? We know it’s illegal to use handguns in hunting. Are you here to support handgun owners? I want to hear about the hunters. Witnesses, can you point out to me where it is that hunting is affected in this bill? Thank you.
Mr. Schroff: Thank you very much, senator, for the question.
I cannot cite chapter and verse nor page and paragraph number of Bill C-21. I apologize for that. What I can say is that the measures included in Bill C-21 will place some firearms that are used by the hunting community onto a prohibited or restricted list. That is a direct effect on the opportunity and ability of hunters to conduct that activity.
Also, I will say, from our northern perspective, we have many trappers and subsistence hunters in our communities. Those groups will also be adversely affected by the implementation of Bill C-21 as it exists today.
Senator Dasko: They’re hunters. It’s illegal to use handguns. How is it that they’re impacted? I don’t understand.
Mr. Schroff: Some of the firearms that are encompassed within the bill are currently being used for hunting, and those firearms will no longer be allowed to be used for hunting, so that is a direct effect.
Also, a number of people in northern and rural Canada use some of the firearms that are currently captured in the definition of assault-style weapons in Bill C-21. Those are actually and actively being used for hunting with appropriately sized magazines that are legal in Canada today.
Senator Dasko: I ask this question of the other witnesses: Can you point to anything in Bill C-21 that limits hunters, please?
[Translation]
Mr. Renaud: If I may, look at the proposed definition in amendment G-4. It has to do with semi-automatic weapons.
In hunting, we do not use automatic weapons, but semi-automatic ones that are designed to take magazines. Many firearms are designed by manufacturers for other places, other countries in the world where they can use large capacity magazines.
In Canada, the maximum capacity is five. To make it more accessible, there would have to be a label indicating that it was manufactured with a legal magazine made in Canada.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Excuse me, sir. No existing guns are affected by Bill C-21.
[Translation]
Mr. Renaud: Yes, there are firearms — I will not go through the list because it is quite extensive — throughout Canada that hunters use that are subject to C-21 because they might use larger capacity magazines. In Canada, we cannot use magazines with more than five cartridges.
So yes, inside, the list of firearms is very long.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Thank you to our witnesses for being here. This is certainly a fascinating bill because, as legislators, we get to hear a lot of differing views on a bill that is very important to people.
I want to pursue the discussion that Senator Deacon started a few minutes ago regarding balance. Sometimes this debate is portrayed as urban versus rural or Saskatchewan versus downtown Toronto or things like that. Over the last few days, we heard from women’s groups that issues of domestic violence take place across the country — in rural settings as much as in urban ones.
Gentlemen, do you have any concerns about the issues that we’ve heard about from women’s groups over the last few days regarding violence that women face in homes where there may be guns?
Mr. Schroff: Thank you, senator. I deplore intimate partner violence, and the thought of it is not something I even like to contemplate. However, I will say that I agree with you: it occurs across Canada, north to south and east to west, and it’s truly unfortunate.
Our premise is based on talking about violence, its root cause, the need for mental wellness and family counselling support — and the need to follow up when issues have been identified. We’re not seeing investments in those areas or attention being directed to them. It’s directed at the tools, when really, we need to have places where people can go to get help, and we need to have that help follow through when there are issues identified. If there is a real or perceived threat to someone, whether to an individual or a group, if necessary, firearms can be confiscated — and the legislation to do so exists today. We need to take firearms out of a home where a domestic dispute may potentially occur. We need to follow up and do those things.
It’s a real challenge to take that sort of approach and determine whether we have done the right thing. Have we helped minimize domestic violence and reduce its effects? It’s a lot easier to take aim at firearms and say we’re going to take firearms off the street and out of the gun cabinets. Look, we’ve got 150,000 firearms that we have confiscated or bought back or whatever the term is. That’s a good scorecard, but it’s not necessarily going to make one person safer. If we can get proper counselling, support and access to the resources needed to reduce violence, we can make a real difference.
Senator Cardozo: What are your thoughts about the red flag provisions in the bill in terms of removing guns from a home where there is the potential for domestic violence?
Mr. Schroff: Again, if we can reduce violence and approach that by looking at the root causes, I think it’s good. If we have mental wellness and family supports indicating there may be a problem somewhere and one of the things to do is remove firearms from the equation, I think that could be appropriate. But those provisions already exist in the licensing requirement when you get a Possession and Acquisition Licence. When you apply, there is an opportunity for your spouse to make a comment about whether he or she feels that it’s appropriate for the individual to own firearms or have a licence. The opportunities already exist to do that. We just don’t have those mental wellness supports to the level that we need to have them.
Senator Cardozo: [Technical difficulties] in the rural areas to have those supports. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Schroff. Bill C-21 upholds the rights of Indigenous people with respect to the possession of firearms. Do you think that in the Yukon and in the territories, the bill will affect both classes of hunters? If so, what will be the impact?
[English]
Mr. Schroff: Thank you very much for your question.
I believe it sets up a dichotomy that doesn’t need to exist. There are already differences between the hunting that is associated with Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, mainly based — and I’m speaking from the Yukon — around sustenance hunting, which is allowed year-round for First Nations and Indigenous people, whereas non-Indigenous licensed hunters have specific hunting seasons.
To make a differentiation based on access to a class or type of firearm is unnecessary, and I don’t believe it will help move the safety of the Canadian public forward one bit.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I have a question for Mr. Renaud, to allow him to finish his explanation from earlier.
You talked about the famous firearms that will be prohibited because they cannot have magazines with more than five bullets. If I understand your reasoning correctly, you are saying that these magazines are already regulated in Canada. You cannot have more than five bullets, but since the firearm is made in the United States and can take magazines with more than five bullets, the government has decided to ban it in Bill C-21. Did I understand that correctly?
Mr. Renaud: You said: the Canadian law is clear. These are magazines that do not have more than five cartridges. They say “designed”, but it should be “made”.
There are some places in the world where it is allowed, but in Canada, it is already regulated. Hunters and sport shooters have long been aware of this. They put a lot of emphasis on education, raising awareness of using firearms properly.
Senator Boisvenu: If the firearm were made in Canada and could not take magazines of more than five bullets, would it be legal?
Mr. Renaud: Under the bill currently, no matter where it’s manufactured, if it’s designed for no more than five bullets, it’s legal. However, there’s a cartridge magazine. Whether it’s manufactured to accommodate five bullets or more, in Canada, you can’t have a cartridge magazine with more than five cartridges.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.
Mr. Renaud: My pleasure.
[English]
Senator Plett: I’ll start with Mr. White and then go to Mr. Schroff if there is time.
Many witnesses who have appeared before our committee this past week have been supportive of a ban on assault weapons, but it is the definition of that which is, in large part, the problem. In Canada, we have many semi-automatic rifles that are used for hunting. Mr. White has suggested that — when he hunts wild boar, for example. Certainly, well over a million semi-automatic rifles are in legal hands, and they are non-restricted firearms.
How does one pick and choose some of these guns and classify them as assault weapons but leave in circulation likely non-restricted semi-automatic firearms that might shoot exactly the same ammunition, then claim that some of these guns are safer than others? I would like your thoughts on how doing that makes Canadians any safer.
Mr. White: I don’t believe it actually makes Canadians any safer. Again, we’re focusing on the firearm and not the person behind it. There are several semi-automatic rifles of different calibres. I might have a semi-automatic .22 or a semi-automatic SKS, let’s say. What I’m hunting will determine the rifle I choose to hunt with.
Hunting is being affected by Bill C-21 because of the restrictions put on sports shooters. When we lose these sports shooters — and we will, if this continues to go forward — it’s going to affect hunters, because it’s going to affect retailers and wildlife organizations through decreases in membership and participation.
I’m not sure how you would classify that, again, by focusing on the firearm instead of the person.
Mr. Schroff: I agree — I’m not sure how you’d do that, sir.
I have a semi-automatic centrefire rifle that belonged to my grandfather. It would not be captured by the current regulation because it does not have a separate clip. That firearm went to my father, then my sister and then I ended up with it. It’s a perfectly valid hunting firearm. It’s ideally suited for things like wild boar, charging bison or a grizzly bear that is intent on doing you grievous bodily harm.
One of the challenges we have here as a society is the idea that there are assault-style rifles that, in many people’s view, are “black rifles”; they are rifles that don’t have wood stocks and have shorter barrel lengths but which are still within the legal barrel length range for non-restricted firearms in Canada. Some of those have shown up as weapons that were used in crimes or to inflict bodily harm on people.
We really need to have a look at it and determine which firearms are suitable for hunting — and most or all of them are — and quit focusing on the tool or the firearm and look at the intention people have and why they are using firearms of any sort or description to do bad things.
Some firearms that were on the initial list were not semi-automatic firearms but single-shot firearms: the Ruger No. 1 single-shot and the .460 Weatherby Magnum. Why those are on anyone’s restricted list, I have no idea. I have a Ruger single-shot that I use for hunting. I know how long it takes to discharge a cartridge, cycle and put another one in. Even the .460 Weatherby Magnum is not a weapon that people would be using for nefarious purposes.
The Chair: We have two senators remaining and a short span of time. You will have three minutes each for questions and answers.
Senator M. Deacon: I have a follow-up to my colleague.
We continue to hear from other witnesses who state that the bill does not change the status of a single long gun in Canada. The only long guns that will be affected by this legislation would be those designed and manufactured after a bill like this comes into force. It doesn’t, perhaps, affect hunters as badly as some may think because of this long gun piece.
At the same time, we’re hearing that about 60% of gun owners in this country would actually support action to ban assault weapons.
We’ve gone around this a few different ways today, but I would just like to hear your responses to that. Mr. Schroff, please go first, followed by our other guests, if you don’t mind.
Mr. Schroff: Thank you for that.
I don’t know. I have not seen the statistic of 60% of gun owners supporting this legislation.
I still maintain that it will have an effect on hunters, the firearm-owning community, the firearm-using community, retailers and small communities. The Yukon is a whole territory but it’s 44,000 people, so the revenue generated by the small retailers in towns like Whitehorse — the money that flows through the sporting goods stores — is important to our local economy.
In terms of the opportunities for people to go hunting, people come from all over the world to hire guides and outfitters to take them hunting. It’s a significant contributor to our economy.
We need to look at the implications of this bill in that full context of rural and Northern Canada, including the economic impacts.
I go back to asking this: What are we trying to achieve here? We’re trying to achieve a reduction in violence caused by firearms. But there are all kinds of violence out there, and we need to address all of them. If we do, we’ll capture the portion of violence where people use firearms. I really think we need to spend our money and point our efforts that way. Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: I just want to come back to the issue of balance again in terms of reducing violence.
We’ve heard from organizations that assist women who have faced domestic violence, and their prescription is to reduce some of those guns, especially semi-automatic and assault-style weapons.
As a committee, we have to balance those views against the views you put forward.
Mr. White or Mr. Renaud, do you think there is a case for banning any types of semi-automatic or assault-style weapons, or should that not be done at all?
[Translation]
Mr. Renaud: Could you please repeat your question a little more clearly?
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Is there a case for banning any types of semi-automatic or assault-style weapons?
[Translation]
Mr. Renaud: Certainly not. With respect to the issue you’re talking about, domestic violence, the people responsible are in need of a different type of support. Semi-automatic firearms won’t do anything to fix that problem, because when violence occurs, the problem lies behind the weapon, not with the weapon, itself. Psychological support and assistance would do more to solve the problem. The semi-automatic provisions in the bill won’t fix anything.
[English]
Mr. White: No, I don’t think there is. I’ll go back to my opening statement: I believe we need to regularly and effectively enforce the rules and regulations that we already have. When it comes to domestic violence, there are already red flag laws, if you want to call them that. Those exist today. A lot of them exist in our current legislation, but we’re not enforcing it. Let’s do that, at the very least.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Colleagues, this brings us to the end of the panel. Yes, senator?
Senator Plett: A point of order, please, if I could. I would like to set the record straight on something that happened earlier in this committee, and it’ll only take a minute.
I don’t know whether Senator Kutcher misunderstood the comment that I made or not. I feel that he thought I was accusing him of possibly spreading disinformation. That is certainly not what I said and certainly it was not my intent. I was referring to his preoccupation in a couple of other committee meetings when he referred to disinformation that was being spread in his questions — he wasn’t accusing anybody, but he was asking questions about disinformation — on October 30, seven times in his question, and on November 1, twice in his question.
My question was dealing with Senator Kutcher’s preoccupation with that and not anything he said here today. I hope Senator Kutcher understands that and accepts that as an explanation. It was not an accusation on my part; I was simply referring to questions he had asked.
Senator Kutcher: I thank Senator Plett for that clarification. I appreciate that very much.
Senator Plett, I think both of us would completely agree with each other that disinformation, whoever spreads it and wherever it comes from, is not helpful to any of us. So thank you, Senator Plett.
The Chair: Thank you, both.
For those just tuning into today’s meeting, we are exploring Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, all relating to the regulation of firearms.
For the next hour, we have the pleasure of welcoming, on behalf of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, or CCFR, Rod Giltaca, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director; on behalf of the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, Wes Winkel, President; and on behalf of the National Firearms Association, Rick Igercich, President. Thank you all for joining us today. We now invite you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members.
I remind you that we have five minutes each for your testimony, and we begin today with Mr. Rod Giltaca. Please proceed whenever you are ready.
Rod Giltaca, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights: Thank you. Good morning, senators. I want to add for the record that I spent 10 years as an instructor for the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program. That’s the licensing system here in Canada.
In preparation for my appearance this morning, I circulated an 18-minute video outlining the reasons for our opposition to, specifically, the handgun ban in Bill C-21. It’s my understanding that some of you did take that 18 minutes to hear our position and the 100,000 licensed gun owners that I’m speaking directly on behalf of today.
Last week, I heard an official from Public Safety Canada reveal that the government carried out some kind of formal analysis suggesting that the handgun ban would effectively end private firearm ownership of handguns in Canada in around 50 years. I guess they figured that, at that point, people like me will have all died off, our property will have been seized with no compensation and that will be the end of us. That is a targeted destruction of an entire culture involving 650,000 Canadians, including 450,000 who are actively involved in sports shooting.
Some might wonder how you justify something like that. We heard the justification from Minister LeBlanc — last week, I believe — and it was, to be honest, the usual rhetoric that we heard from Marco Mendicino and Bill Blair before him. We also heard from the RCMP. They offered that gang-related firearm violence is increasing. They chose to trace some number of guns, and some portion of those were legally imported into Canada. And, of course, we heard about misinformation as a recurring theme.
I would like to introduce some indisputable, self-evident truth to the conversation. The handgun ban in Bill C-21 will eliminate 100% of the legally held handguns in Canada and some number of crime guns. We don’t know exactly what that number is, but in the case of the Toronto Police Service, Inspector Norm Proctor of their Integrated Gun and Gang Task Force said that 97% of the firearms that they took from crimes, actual crime guns — and that’s important, actual crime guns — came from the United States. So what you’re telling me — the proverbial “you” — is that to address that 3%, at least in this case, to be fair, that we’re okay with the loss of, I don’t know, 700 clubs out of the 1,400 that exist across the country, maybe more, and billions in real estate acquired, maintained and developed by millions of Canadians over generations — using their after-tax money, I might add.
Do we know what the value of that is, even just the monetary value? Was that in the RCMP’s 50-year assessment? Do we know the value of the handguns that they are apparently looking to seize for free? We do know that the Conference Board of Canada tells us that destroying sports shooting in Canada will cost the economy somewhere around $2 billion annually. I think a really important question is this: Are we all okay with the generational anger that will result in a Canada that has never been more divided than it is right now? The government is just walking in and extinguishing an entire culture that was created over generations — but maybe these things are worth it. Today, I’m certainly willing to have that conversation.
But for that to be true — this is important — have the RCMP, the Canadian Firearms Program, the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc, have any of these organizations shown us any evidence that criminals won’t be able to replace that 3% of handguns that they are apparently getting from the legal market?
Might criminals just increase their smuggling operations? They have plenty of money. Are they just going to fly in more handguns across the border on drones? They have been doing that lately. Will they ramp up their manufacturing operations? That is literally easy for them to do. What assurances have the government or the RCMP given us that these criminals cannot make up that 3% any other way?
So, on the contrary, I would suggest that this is not a reasonable approach to addressing firearm-related violence, certainly not with handguns.
To close, the government has a real evidence problem here. It has a real credibility problem here. This is an embattled bill. It’s been dragging on for two years. I urge you to think very carefully about this in the study of your bill; I know that many Canadians would really appreciate that. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Giltaca. Next is Mr. Wes Winkel. Please proceed when you are ready.
Wes Winkel, President, Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association: Thank you. I am Wes Winkel, President of the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, or CSAAA, and the owner of Ellwood Epps Sporting Goods. Today, I come before you to address the pressing concerns of our association and industry regarding Bill C-21. The CSAAA represents over 4,500 businesses in Canada that operate within the hunting and firearms sector. Our industry plays a pivotal role in the Canadian economy. We contribute over $8 billion annually to our nation’s gross domestic product while providing employment for over 45,000 individuals in Canada. However, we are currently weighed down by a regulatory environment that has become a substantial burden and source of anxiety for our industry. One of the most disconcerting aspects of Bill C-21 is the prohibition on handgun transfers. Handgun sales account for more than 30% of revenue for many businesses, and for some, this percentage is much higher. As a result of this ban on transferring handguns, our businesses are suffering financial losses and/or closures.
Executors and families are being forced to destroy heirloom collections, some of which have significant historical, financial and sentimental value. These measures not only harm our industry but also create a situation where cherished collections become valueless. Furthermore, the prohibition of semi-automatic firearms designated after the enactment of Bill C-21 and the initiative that will have random selection of existing firearms targeted for prohibition have caused great concern among our members. These actions will result in yet another substantial financial loss with no solid evidence that they will increase public safety. Such provisions generate considerable unease for manufacturers who invest in creating new models of modern sporting and hunting rifles to meet the market demand. Dealers must place orders at least six months in advance without any clarity on when these regulations will come into force or how they will be enacted. Businesses must also invest in these sales with marketing, staff training, displays and signage throughout their facilities. It is crucial to recognize that firearms in Canada are already subject to stringent regulations, and our business members diligently work to ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations, guaranteeing that only licensed Canadians obtain legal firearms.
Air guns are also impacted by these regulations. Our government must acknowledge that there are over 8 million air guns in circulation in Canada. Taking such a broad, general approach to regulating air guns significantly impacts recreational shooting and shooting sports, directly and immediately threatening the existence of many businesses and jobs.
Bill C-21, as it stands, is a deeply flawed piece of legislation that necessitates either total abandonment or significant amendments. Failure to do so could jeopardize an entire industry that Canada cannot afford to lose. Our industry makes a significant contribution to the Canadian economy, conservation efforts and employment. We understand that rigorous regulations are already in place for firearms in Canada, and we are cognizant of the fact that our customers statistically do not contribute to the violence witnessed on our streets. The provisions in bill C-21 are touted as measures to enhance public safety, but we view them as a significant misallocation of resources and a threat to our already delicate economy.
We address the concerns of our industry. We urgently need an avenue to reopen for legal handgun transfers, and we must reconsider such a broad approach to future prohibitions on modern sporting and hunting rifles or semi-automatic firearms. Attention must be bolstered on policing efforts, rectifying the laws in our catch-and-release bail system and fortifying our border services. In closing, I encourage the Senate to carefully consider the impact of Bill C-21 on our industry and work toward a more balanced approach to firearms regulations that prioritize public safety without crippling businesses and eradicating jobs. Thank you very much for your attention. I will be able to answer any questions or concerns you have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Winkel. Finally, we go to Mr. Rick Igercich. Mr. Igercich, please proceed when you’re ready.
Rick Igercich, President, National Firearms Association: Honourable chair, senators, good morning. My name is Rick Igercich. I’m the president of Canada’s National Firearms Association, or NFA. I am here today representing the members of my organization and other law-abiding Canadians. I want to speak specifically about two parts of this bill: first, the handgun freeze that will eventually lead to confiscation of personal property; and second, the government’s creation of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, or CFAC. I am not an academic, bureaucrat or lawyer. I am simply one of the many Canadians that Bill C-21 will directly affect. As a third-generation firearm owner, I have several family heirlooms, including handguns that have been passed from my grandfather to my father and finally to me. My grandfather, a First World War veteran, was a farmer who legally carried a handgun in his daily activities on the farm, whether for predator control, to dispatch injured or wounded livestock or just to do plinking at a tin can under a shady tree while eating his lunch, which was a common practice at that time. My father was a competitive shooter in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, and a Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, or DCRA, marksman who competed in the Olympic trials in his youth. I have followed in his footsteps, becoming a competitive handgun, IPC rifle and shotgun competitor. I’m also an avid collector, and passionate about pieces that hold significance in Canadian history and heritage.
If Bill C-21 becomes law, I will be the final chapter in that book. Upon my passing, regardless of age or sentiment, my firearms will be slated for destruction. The history, time-honoured traditions, national pride and legacy of countless Canadian icons will come to an end. This saddens me deeply, along with countless law-abiding firearm owners who share my position. Despite proven statistics that we are one of the most vetted and law-abiding demographics in Canadian history, and despite our hope that the government would treat us fairly, we will unfortunately bear the brunt of these measures. It has been stated that hunters, sports shooters, collectors and firearms businesses across Canada support this bill. I can tell you now without hesitation that I’m a prominent member of the firearms community from coast to coast, and I have not yet come across a single firearm owner in this country who does. In terms of firearms businesses, it has already had an impact, forcing many small, family-owned businesses to close, with more on the brink daily. It has already decreased tax revenues substantially. This bill has essentially already been in effect for nearly a year with no discernible impact on public safety whatsoever. Bill C-21 does nothing to address gangs, organized crime or smuggled firearms. This explicitly and intentionally targets only law-abiding Canadians who have passed examinations, undergone training and are vetted by the RCMP daily. It directly affects historians, recreational shooters, sportsmen and future generations of Canadians who will no longer be able to participate in this part of our Canadian heritage. Collectors, Indigenous hunters and Olympians are not the societal problem. Our time-honoured tradition of marksmen will never represent our country again internationally.
The statistics are clear and undeniable. Crimes involving legally possessed, registered handguns make up less than 1% of handgun crime. These numbers have been proven to be skewed, with statistics in Canada including air guns, replica firearms, power tools and, in some instances, even written threats in the official definition of a gun crime, causing data to be significantly higher.
The formation of a firearms advisory committee allows a small, one-sided group of individuals to form opinions and make decisions without review or due process. This leaves new legislation open for the government to continue to ban all firearms at will, and will continue to make law-abiding Canadians criminals overnight with the stroke of a pen. That is the very definition of government overreach. This committee has questioned witnesses as to how they would improve this bill. We must shift our focus from law-abiding Canadians to where the problem truly lies. The government must focus on organized crime, smuggled and illegally manufactured ghost guns if they hope to make any impact at all.
Its goal is far from where the actual problems in Canadian society lie. The bill simply erodes our trust in the government and punishes a community of proud, law-abiding Canadians.
If this bill becomes law and all the historical pieces, heirlooms and sport pistols are destroyed forever, and with no discernible change in public safety, you can all come back to the table and try another approach, but the irreversible damage to our community will already have been done.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Igercich. We will now proceed to questions. Our panel finishes today at 1:30 p.m. As with the last panel, I will limit each question, including the answer, to four minutes. I will hold up this card to indicate that 30 seconds remain of your time. Please keep your questions succinct and identify the person to whom you are addressing the question. I offer the first question to our deputy chair, Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Giltaca. This is a question I’ve asked other witnesses. The way assault weapons are defined in the bill seems very ambiguous to me, especially when we see the weapons that are usually in the hands of Armed Forces members or police officers trained for high-risk operations.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on those weapons, which certainly don’t look like guns or hunting rifles. What are those weapons used for? Who buys them? Why would someone want to own one of those instead of buying the more conventional hunting rifle?
[English]
Mr. Giltaca: Thank you for your question. The firearms community in Canada is not all about hunting. There are a lot of hunters but also a lot of target shooters. There are around 650,000 Canadians who are licensed to own handguns and rifles like AR-15s. That is far more Canadians than play organized hockey in Canada. It’s a very big community, but one that keeps to itself because it doesn’t want situations like the one that’s happening right now to happen to them.
So people own firearms for a variety of reasons. Sports shooting is a big passion. That’s why you would own certain firearms, including those that might look more military than others, but at the end of the day, a semi-automatic rifle, whether it’s used for hunting or has plastic on it, or a sling or what have you for target shooting, it’s the same rifle. This is what keeps getting lost: They’re exactly the same rifle and can be used for interchangeable purposes. AR-15s are used for hunting all the time in jurisdictions where it is legal to use them for hunting. It’s just another semi-automatic rifle. There’s a myth we need to dispel in terms of semi-automatics that have plastic or other accessories on them.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Are there alternatives to these weapons for hunters and sports shooters?
You sometimes talk about firearms that have what are known as cartridge magazines. You know that simply unscrewing a screw allows someone to add more than five bullets. Do hunters have alternatives to these weapons?
[English]
Mr. Giltaca: This goes back to the problem of trying to regulate magazine capacity. You can 3-D print a magazine; you just need a spring. Criminals will circumvent these laws no matter what.
I will give you a great example, and I’ll try to make it quick. Let us take the Danforth shooting. It was terrible — one of the darkest days in Canadian history. The Danforth shooter had a handgun that was stolen, apparently, from a gun store in Saskatchewan. What people are saying is that it was a legal gun, and that’s true. But he got that gun from his brother who was in organized crime. When his brother was arrested — well, he was in a coma — but when he was taken into custody, he had possession of an AK-47, a semi-automatic rifle that had been banned for 30 years in this country.
The point is this: Can we justify doing this to 650,000 Canadians? What public safety benefits are we at least likely to get out of it? Those are the real questions, in my opinion.
The Chair: I have a brief clarification: While I would love to be here with you until 1:30 p.m., we finish at 11:00 a.m. this morning.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming here today. Some of you had a chance to follow our hearings. We appreciate that.
My sense is that your three organizations are perhaps the three most pre-eminent organizations in the field of firearms rights, sports, and arms and ammunition associations. You have been working on these issues for many years, so we thank you for coming here today.
Could you give me a sense of the similarities and differences between the three organizations in terms of what your focuses are? Do you share some members? Do you focus on different types of members? Certainly with Canadian sporting, you would be more sports-oriented, but please provide a bit of background on how you are similar and different.
Mr. Igercich: I can begin that answer. Thank you for the question, senator.
My organization and Mr. Giltaca’s organization are aligned and moving in the same direction as far as firearms go; they are both end-user groups. Mr. Winkel’s group is an industry group. That’s where the difference lies.
As far as our organizations go, we’re moving in the same direction and have the same thoughts and aspirations for our organizations.
Senator Cardozo: Could you clarify “industry” versus “end-user”? Who are we talking about? Is that producers versus purchasers?
Mr. Igercich: The CCFR and the NFA are end-user groups. Our members are shooters, hunters, collectors and sports shooters. Mr. Winkel’s organization represents industry, such as gun shops, wholesalers, retailers, et cetera.
Senator Cardozo: Do the other witnesses have anything else to add?
Mr. Giltaca: I think that Mr. Igercich explained it correctly.
Our organization is a big tent. We have hunters, handgun owners and competitive rifle shooters. The reason why we have grown dramatically is because being able to legally own and use firearms in Canada has been going on since before Canada was a country, and it’s something that is very highly valued. People who have a firearms licence are very proud of their status as trusted citizens. They don’t want to be held responsible for the acts of criminals. That’s why organizations like ours exist.
Senator Cardozo: You mentioned earlier that there are 650,000 licensed handgun owners. Would they be members of your organization, or would they be members of various —
Mr. Giltaca: It’s not compulsory that they be members. It’s all voluntary.
Mr. Igercich: And just to follow up on that, a lot of people have cross-memberships. They belong to our organization and Mr. Giltaca’s organization. There is also another smaller organization in Canada. A lot of people have memberships to all three organizations.
Senator Cardozo: Are there provincial organizations?
Mr. Igercich: No, they are national organizations.
Senator Cardozo: Do you have provincial members?
Mr. Igercich: No. Canada’s National Firearms Association is a national organization. Our members are spread out across the country, in every province, and we have directors in every province.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. Mr. Winkel, did you have anything to add?
Mr. Winkel: Yes. We also represent the manufacturers in Canada; we represent people who are only employed in the industry. Those are 45,000 taxpaying folks who are employed by and whose direct livelihoods depend upon this industry.
Senator Cardozo: To what extent are guns in Canada manufactured in Canada?
Mr. Winkel: We have manufactured firearms in Canada in every category, but the largest manufacturer is Savage Arms. That is in a rural area outside of Peterborough. That’s the largest manufacturer, but we have manufacturing all across Canada.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for being here, gentlemen.
I have two questions, and both are for everyone. There seems to be a fair amount of confusion about this bill. I have frequently heard that Bill C-21 will take away long guns from law-abiding Canadians — yet amendments in the House of Commons on this issue were withdrawn.
Could you please clarify this for us: Are there any parts of this bill, to your knowledge, that would take away legally owned long guns from law-abiding Canadians?
Mr. Igercich: There are amendments to this bill that do address long guns. The evergreen amendment, for one, is a definition that the government put on a long gun to call it an assault-type weapon.
I will say a couple of things about that. First, a firearm is not a weapon. It’s only a weapon when it’s used as a weapon. Second, the definitions and the open-endedness of this bill, especially with the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, could add any firearm after the fact and it does significantly affect some firearms that are out there at the present time.
I could provide a list of these firearms to the Senate, but I don’t have a list at hand right now.
Mr. Giltaca: Some firearms are prohibited by the 10,000-joule limitation. That’s in the bill. It would also apply to all future firearms that fit that definition.
As the government continually bans firearms that already exist, there is no way for the industry to respond by saying, “Okay, maybe this one will meet the definition,” or, “Maybe this one will substitute for sports shooting or for hunting where a semi-automatic is appropriate.” It limits the future viability of sports shooting, and at some level hunting, but it is more targeted at sports shooting.
Mr. Winkel: I think it’s important to reiterate that the creation of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee may be another tool that the government may use in the future to prohibit long arms. With the amendment that was withdrawn, the government clearly showed their intent with this bill initially. That amendment was withdrawn but the creation of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee could be very dangerous to the industry, as many long arms could be prohibited in future.
Senator Kutcher: Correct me if I am wrong but it seems you’re concerned about things that might happen in the future. I hear that. But I haven’t heard from you about whether there are specifics in the bill that will clearly take away long guns from law-abiding Canadians now. There are so many things in the bill, so if nothing immediately comes to mind, would you be willing to jot down and send to the committee any specific concerns about the bill you have concerning long guns being taken away from law-abiding Canadians? Thank you very much.
Mr. Igercich: Certainly.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome to the witnesses, and thank you for your relatively clear explanations. My question is for you, Mr. Giltaca.
I supervised peace officers in Quebec for 15 years or so. The peace officers I was in charge of were wildlife conservation officers, so they had peace officer designations. They worked in the forest, and they carried weapons for protection. They had to undergo annual testing and demonstrate a certain level of proficiency in order to carry a firearm. Otherwise, they weren’t allowed to carry one. That means that 400 to 500 officers in every region of Quebec would frequent private shooting ranges for the purposes of certification.
I was shocked by what one witness told us: the very existence of these ranges would be in question, since the bill would deprive them of clientele. Surely, shooting ranges can’t rely solely on peace officers and police officers.
Is it true that, if the bill is passed as is, unamended, shooting ranges would be at risk of closing their doors, leaving peace officers with nowhere to do their testing and jeopardizing their ability to carry a firearm for their job? Is that a fair statement?
[English]
Mr. Giltaca: That is absolutely a real concern. Right now, if you are licensed to own a handgun, if you have a handgun or an AR-15 or another restricted rifle or shotgun, you must be a member of a shooting club.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Whether it’s a police officer or a private citizen — since police are authorized to carry a weapon — the bill would capture police officers just as much as the weapons of merchants who are authorized to carry a weapon.
[English]
Mr. Giltaca: An authorization to carry does exist in Canada, but it’s my understanding that there is one private citizen who has an authorization to carry. That’s something that is not given out to basically anyone.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I see. There is a risk that peace officers would no longer have a place where they could obtain their certification. Is that the reality?
[English]
Mr. Giltaca: Absolutely. Clubs across the country rely on handgun owners and owners of AR-15s and other restricted rifles as compulsory members of these clubs to keep them alive. That’s where their main income comes from. That’s why I say it will probably be more than 700 clubs that will be dissolved because of this over time.
Senator Plett: There is a distinct possibility that Senator Kutcher and I might vote differently on this bill at the end. But we do agree on one thing: There is a lot of confusion.
In 2020, the government arbitrarily decided to ban about 1,500 styles of firearms and said it will pay compensation to people for losing their guns. We have yet to see any of that money, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated the cost to be about $750 million.
I would like your perspectives on this, gentlemen. Clearly, if you are one of the people who lose a firearm because of that and you get paid whatever, $1,500 or $2,000 — I have no idea how much a gun costs — you can simply take that money and go out and buy another firearm that is also a semi-automatic and may, in fact, shoot the same ammunition.
I would like your perspective on the consistency of the government’s plan to eradicate all of our firearms. That seems to be their long-range goal, yet they’re buying something from you, then giving you money in order to buy another gun.
Mr. Giltaca: Why would a firearm owner replace a firearm? When that ban happened, I bought a replacement firearm because the Attorney General of Canada was saying, “We’re only banning this group; you can buy an acceptable one.”
Two weeks later, I spent $1,400 to replace my AR-15s that were —
Senator Plett: So it was close to my estimate of $1,500.
Mr. Giltaca: Yes, and guess what? The RCMP banned that gun while it was in transit to me. I guess they think that’s funny, right?
Mr. Igercich: To delve deeper into that, senator, the fact of the matter is that you can replace that firearm with basically the exact same one. The only difference is that instead of plastic furniture, it has wood furniture on it. You’re basically replacing one firearm with the exact same firearm that looks different and, in Ms. Freeland’s opinion, it doesn’t look scary. That’s the big difference, right there.
Senator Plett: This might be good for Mr. Winkel because he’s selling a lot more guns because of the bans.
Mr. Winkel: In theory, that’s the thought process, but as Mr. Giltaca mentioned, there is a lot of consumer apprehension at this point about whether the Government of Canada is going to allow them to keep any of their firearms. It’s hard for them to continue to invest money in things that continually get prohibited. It’s hard to get our manufacturers to get on board to get compliant models designed and manufactured for our country when six months down the road, a committee goes ahead and prohibits them. So, yes, in theory, people would like to replace them, and may be able to at that exact time, but consumers only have so much hard-earned money to spend and are concerned about their investment in the future.
Senator Plett: Fair enough. I’m sorry for picking on Senator Kutcher here today but it’s one of those days.
Senator Kutcher did quote a recent American study at a different committee meeting, where he said:
We find strong, consistent evidence supporting the hypothesis that restrictive state gun policies reduce overall gun deaths, homicides committed with a gun, and suicides committed with a gun.
What he didn’t read from that same study is the following:
Results show that background checks and waiting periods for gun purchase are strongly associated with lower gun death rates; background checks, prohibited possessor laws, and waiting periods are all associated with lower gun homicide rates; and background checks, waiting periods, and safety training requirements are associated with lower gun suicide rates.
Can you confirm for me that Canada already has all of these controls in place, including background checks, waiting periods, prohibited possessor laws and safety training requirements?
Mr. Igercich: Yes, they do.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I’d like to thank the three of you for your insightful perspectives.
My first question is for Mr. Giltaca. You said that you were disappointed by the lack of assurances, the lack of “evidence,” as you put it, from the government and the RCMP showing that this bill would really make the public safer.
If you were the minister or the person in charge of the RCMP, what more real evidence would you be able to provide? In practical terms, what do you want to see from the minister and the RCMP?
[English]
Mr. Giltaca: That is a great question. Thank you.
If you want to make thoughtful policy, you first have to figure out what the problem is. The problem is violence. A good question for the RCMP and the government would be this: How many licensed gun owners who possess the firearms we’re all talking about are involved in violent crime at any level? That is a very easy thing for them to find out, because we’re tracked more than any other private citizens in the country. They would easily know that.
I sat here during the hearings for Bill C-71. No one had that number. Today, they still don’t have that number.
How many licensed gun owners are accused of murder? How many of the 260 murders a year involve a licensed gun owner using a firearm? We don’t have that number.
So you first have to figure out who is doing the shooting, how they’re incentivized and how you can stop them.
If 10% of crime is committed by licensed gun owners, as a citizen, I want to know that. If it is 10%, then 10% of this bill should be looking at the licensing system; if it’s 90% unlicensed people, 90% of the bill should be looking at the unlicensed.
All we’re asking for is a reasonable approach.
Senator Saint-Germain: So you want more evidence-based data.
Mr. Giltaca: Absolutely.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I have a question for Mr. Winkel.
You are in favour of an approach that does more to balance the industry’s needs and interests with public safety interests. You don’t think the bill balances those two things.
I would like you to talk more about what you would find satisfactory, what you think would achieve a better balance between the interests and requirements of the industry versus public safety. Mr. Igercich brought up organized crime and efforts to address that issue, but I’m talking about beyond that aspect. What is the bill missing to achieve the balance you’re looking for?
[English]
Mr. Winkel: What’s missing is a strategy to deal with crime guns. What’s in the bill is a strategy to destroy our industry. Our industry, as has been stated before, represents less than 3% of firearms that are used in crime in Canada, and 100% of the bill attacks our industry and not the other 97% of firearms. We need an approach that attacks crime in Canada and does not destroy the jobs of our employees.
Senator Boehm: I’d like to thank our witnesses for being here. It’s been very interesting testimony.
My question is for you, Mr. Giltaca. Your website prominently promotes a letter submitted to this committee by a group of academics that calls itself “the Magnificent 7” — it was a great movie in its day, by the way — members of which we heard from last week. My question is really based on that letter.
Regarding the provisions in Bill C-21 on the emergency prohibition orders, the letter, which the CCFR evidently agrees with, refers to such orders as “redundant,” because law enforcement can already confiscate firearms from individuals who pose a threat; “more difficult to use,” due to the implementation of anonymous complaints to the courts; and “dangerous,” because of the perceived threat of abuse.
Women’s and victims’ groups from which we’ve also heard in this committee, including PolySeSouvient, are opposed to the ex parte provision, which would provide victims and potential victims the option to make an application to a court for an emergency weapons prohibition order, because they feel that it puts the onus on the victims to do the job of enforcing the law. However, these groups are also strongly supportive of the automatic prohibition on gun ownership for any individual subject to a protection order related to domestic violence or stalking, in addition to mandatory licence revocation for anyone perpetrating domestic violence.
We’ve all talked about balance here, and trying to hear from everyone. My question is this: What does the CCFR say to victims of gun violence — several of whom we’ve heard from, as I mentioned — especially victims of domestic and family violence who believe that the measures in this bill, aside from the anonymous court petitions, are a step in the right direction toward protecting victims of gun violence, and domestic and family violence?
Mr. Giltaca: As an organization, we don’t oppose any measure that protects victims of domestic violence. It’s completely unacceptable. No one is arguing against that whatsoever. I’m not an expert in protection orders or domestic violence, but we are in favour of any measure that helps protect people from domestic violence.
My only reservation is that we have to make sure that, for example, you and I don’t get into an argument someday, where you make an anonymous call to I don’t know where and, the next thing I know, an ERT is at my door with me wondering what’s going on. Then I don’t even get to talk to a judge or whatever, and my firearms are taken and my home is searched. The abuse aspect of that is real.
It’s up to your committee to figure out how to strike that balance. But, yes, I agree that we should do everything we possibly can while considering the abuse part, because that can destroy lives too.
Senator Boehm: Would you agree that this bill is a step in the right direction?
Mr. Giltaca: As I said, I’m not an expert in protection orders or domestic violence, so it’s very hard for me to comment on that, but I’m looking at having a safer Canada, because I want a safer Canada, too. I have a daughter; I don’t want her to fall victim to these things either. But it has to strike the right balance, and I can’t tell you what that balance is.
Mr. Igercich: The way the bill is written, I don’t think it gets to the root cause. The shift should be made more toward domestic violence. In my opinion, this bill does nothing to prevent domestic violence.
We have heard from several witnesses on this committee, and guns always come up, but the statistics show that other items are used for domestic violence besides firearms. I heard several witnesses say that people feel threatened in their household because their spouse has a gun. Are they less threatened because there is a big, sharp, pointed knife in the kitchen?
This bill does not address domestic violence. In my opinion, this bill only takes firearms out of the hands of law-abiding Canadians.
Senator Dasko: Mr. Giltaca, I have a question for you. I watched your video and found it very interesting. I probably received about 300 emails with your video.
I want to ask you about some of the material on your website. Do you believe that Canadians have the right to own guns? What do you have to say about the success of Supreme Court rulings that say the opposite?
Mr. Giltaca: This comes up a lot. Obviously, I came here to talk about Bill C-21, not about the CCFR, so I’ll try to keep it brief. But I hear that a lot. I didn’t name our organization; I came in after.
The Supreme Court has determined, in some cases, that there are no actual rights to own firearms. As an organization, we think that there is a significant problem in our legal structure in Canada where you can’t have a right to own private property. That’s where we really focus. Handguns, which is what I’m really here to talk about most, are private property. They were legally obtained, and used safely and legally every day across the country. This bill aims to take that property away by force, with no compensation or demonstrable benefit to public safety. That’s what I’m concerned with.
Senator Dasko: Another thing I want to mention is that the list of your policies on your website states that the concealed or open carrying of firearms would be a significant benefit to society.
I have to ask you about this. If that is the direction we would be going, do you think Canadians would agree with that? Do you think that’s a direction this country should be going in?
Mr. Giltaca: Again, I don’t think our website is the topic of the discussion around Bill C-21, but I’ll address your question.
The policies on our website are opinions that we’ve looked into based on research. As an organization, are we actively lobbying for concealed carrying? That’s not a reality to anyone. We don’t think it’s a reality. But gun owners, before becoming part of our organization, will want to know our position on this. We’ll say, “Well, research says the concealed carry is a benefit to public safety.” That’s not actually controversial. It is in Canada, in the national conversation, but, yes, we’re actively trying to save our hand guns from being prohibited right now.
Senator Dasko: Yes, but do you think this is the direction we should be going in?
Mr. Giltaca: We don’t have a position on that other than just our position on the idea of it. That’s not what we’re asking for.
Senator Dasko: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of you for being here. I have one specific question and then a general question. The first question is for you, Mr. Giltaca.
This bill focuses on, among other areas, the possession and accessing of computer data that would allow the illegal manufacturing of ghost guns or the distribution or publishing of data to manufacture ghost guns.
I won’t ask you about your group’s position because you say you’re here talking about Bill C-21. Are you opposed to that particular provision of this bill?
Mr. Giltaca: That’s hard to say because, as a licensed gun owner, I’m opposed to ghost guns existing altogether. It’s a real problem. They’re untraceable. They’re fully functional. They’re durable.
Senator Pate: Do you support this provision?
Mr. Giltaca: To be honest, I don’t know enough. A lot of people, in discussing this topic, have compared it to our laws dealing with child pornography. What kind of investigation does it take to find out what’s on someone’s computer? I’m not an expert in those matters, but I will say I’m absolutely in favour of any reasonable, rational measure to deal with ghost guns because those are a threat to public safety. I just don’t know enough about it.
Senator Pate: I’ll leave that then. All of you have talked about your membership. What kind of screening do you do of your members?
The issue of violence against women, intimate partner violence, domestic violence — whatever name you want to use, we know what the issue is. We know it’s been characterized as an epidemic in this country. We know the majority of those cases don’t go reported. I heard your concern about false reporting, which was a bit disturbing to me. The facts are quite the opposite: There is not a lot of false reporting. There is a lot of diminishing of victims’ voices when they do come forward.
I’m curious what each of your organizations does to screen members. We know that criminalization is the last step for those who engage in intimate partner violence. What screening do you do to ensure you don’t have people coming in who may be waving guns around or threatening their partners? How do you assess that?
Mr. Igercich: As far as screening, Canada is a free and open country. We’re a not-for-profit organization. We offer memberships. Most of our members are firearm owners who have a Possession and Acquisition Licence. They are screened and vetted by the RCMP on a daily basis. But we do have some members who aren’t firearm owners. Some members are concerned with personal property rights. According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, anyone can join an organization. We don’t hand out firearms. We don’t give people the means to carry out any kind of criminal act. We’re a lobby group. Our members are entitled to join any organization they want, according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Senator Pate: Maybe I can add to that for all of you then. Do you support other measures like the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and other inquests looking into the deaths of women through intimate partner violence and looking for better social, economic and health supports?
Mr. Igercich: Yes, for public safety, absolutely.
Senator Pate: Could you send us copies of your organizations’ positions so we can have them for the committee?
Mr. Igercich: We don’t have one.
Mr. Giltaca: We don’t have a position on topics other than firearm-related issues. We’re a firearms group.
Mr. Igercich: Yes, we are firearms lobby groups. We don’t take positions on those items or on any other items as far as what else goes on in Canada. We’re a firearms organization. Our focus stays on firearms and firearms rights in Canada.
Senator Pate: Would that be true for all of you?
Mr. Winkel: Yes, with the exception of ours. We only represent licensed businesses which, again, are all licensed and vetted by the RCMP. Our focus is defending the employment of our industry.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: For the record, the bromance between Senator Plett and me continues.
To be clear, Senator Plett, that study showed that the United States is moving in the right direction. The gun suicide rate in the United States is second only to Greenland globally. Your staff can look up Raifman, 2020, to see that if the U.S. and Canada had similar rates of firearm ownership, there would be 64% fewer firearm-related suicides in the U.S.
We heard concerns about the lack of solid data to answer many of the questions we have about guns and gun violence. Do you have specific recommendations — if not right now, you can send us your written responses — to improve the quality and quantity of gun-related data in Canada?
Mr. Igercich: I do, absolutely. I have three papers that I can put in for the record.
Senator Kutcher: Could you revise them into one paper?
Mr. Igercich: They’re three independent, peer-reviewed studies, and I would like to add them to the record.
Senator Kutcher: That would be great. If the rest of you have specific recommendations, we’d really love to see them, please. Thank you.
Senator Plett: Very briefly, my question relates to the impact of this bill on the future of gun control in Canada. I think we are safe in saying that if gun control in Canada is going to be effective, it must have the support of legal firearm owners; otherwise, it will simply just never be effective. It is obvious that legal firearm owners are opposed to this iteration of this bill.
How concerned are you that bills like this, which are so widely viewed as flawed, risk undermining the support for gun control? For the sake of time, I’ll quickly add this: How concerned are you that provisions in this bill, specifically the freeze on the sale and purchase of otherwise legal handguns, will drive some of these otherwise legal firearms underground? Mr. Giltaca, I ask you first.
Mr. Giltaca: I addressed this in my opening statement. This is a culture of exceptionally responsible individuals in our society. It has existed for a hundred years when it comes to handguns. It’s a generational culture, and one of safety and compliance. I personally instructed over 3,000 people in the Canadian Firearms Safety Course over a 10-year period. I spent a lot of time teaching people the importance of responsible firearm ownership and how they are obligated as representatives of our community to abide by the law, no matter how ridiculous some of the laws — not all of them but some of them — might be.
This bill is very ill received by our community. Again, at the end of the day, we’re being blamed for the actions of criminals in downtown Toronto or downtown Vancouver.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Mr. Igercich: I agree with Mr. Giltaca. It’s very ill received in our community, also. It doesn’t make any sense. The logic behind it is not sensible. The focus is going in the wrong direction with this bill, like a lot of other firearms acts that were put into place, the order-in-council being another one.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, this brings us to the end of today’s meeting. I extend our sincere thanks to Mr. Giltaca, Mr. Igercich and Mr. Winkel for sharing your expertise with us. You are strong advocates for your communities. I’m sure that’s very much appreciated by your communities.
Colleagues, we will continue our examination of this bill on Monday, November 6, at 3 p.m. in room C-128. Thank you again for your participation, all your questions and your conciliatory style here today. I wish you all a good afternoon.
(The committee adjourned.)