THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 8, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)
Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: My name is Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from Montreal, Quebec, and I am the Deputy Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I’m replacing Senator Dean — he’s not available today.
Before we begin, I wish to invite the committee members who are participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves.
Senator Oh: Senator Oh, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Welcome. Marty Deacon, senator for Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba, Quebec, replacing Senator Anderson.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, dear colleagues. At the table, we also have Senator Kutcher, Senator Yussuff and Senator Dasko. For those of you tuning in live across Canada, we are continuing our study of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). Today, we will be hearing from two panels of witnesses representing Indigenous organizations and governments.
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome, via video conference, Mr. Paul Irngaut, Vice President of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
Good morning and welcome. We are ready to hear your opening statement. Afterwards, senators will ask you their questions. You have five minutes for your opening remarks. Mr. Irngaut, please go ahead.
[English]
Paul Irngaut, Vice President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.: Good morning, honourable chairperson and members. My name is Paul Irngaut. I’m the Vice President of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., commonly known as NTI.
NTI represents Nunavut Inuit under the Nunavut Agreement. Our mandate is to ensure the constitutionally protected rights of Nunavut Inuit are respected and that governments live up to their responsibilities under the agreement. NTI’s mission is to advance the economic, social and cultural well-being of Nunavut Inuit through the full implementation of the Nunavut Agreement. The Nunavut Agreement is the largest treaty in Canada, covering one fifth of Canada’s land mass.
Our concerns about Bill C-21 are as follows: In May, the government announced a revised amendment package of Bill C-21 that largely preserved the problematic definition of “assault-style” firearms that includes any semi-automatic manner with a detachable cartridge magazine that has a capacity of six cartridges or more. The definition is overly broad and covers many semi-automatic rifles used for hunting or defence against predators in Nunavut.
Inuit have treaty rights to hunt under the Nunavut Agreement. Hunting is a necessity for survival for a lot of Inuit in Nunavut. In isolated communities in Nunavut that are only connected to the south by air, store-bought food is extremely expensive and tends to have poor nutritional value. Hunting puts nutritious food on the table and is the essential means to feed our families and maintain basic food security in Nunavut communities.
In addition, the hunting environment in Nunavut is unique and isolated from search and rescue services other Canadians access. Semi-automatic rifles are effective and necessary as a humane method to quickly dispatch animals and as defence against polar bears, grizzly bears and wolves. Inuit hunters are taught to prevent dangerous encounters and to scare away these predators, but that is not enough. It could mean life or death when one or more aggressive bears are breaking into your cabin or tent. You would need to be able to scare them away quickly, and you might not have the time to reload. If this bill is passed with the ban on semi-automatic firearms, we will have to shoot to kill, resulting in increased fatalities of wildlife.
The broad ban on many hunting rifles, with such negative impacts on our ability to exercise our treaty rights and to feed and protect our families, is very concerning to us.
There has not been sufficient consultation on the bill. We understand that Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national Inuit organization commonly known as ITK, had received a briefing of the most recent version of the bill shortly before it was tabled in May. However, neither ITK nor NTI has been fully consulted on the language and impacts of the bill.
NTI believes that the definition of the assault-style firearms is overly broad and would like to see the deletion of the definition from the bill. Deleting the definition would not affect the government’s initial objectives or the integrity of the bill.
Thank you for your consideration.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you so much, Mr. Irngaut, for your presentation.
[Translation]
Mr. Irngaut is with us today for one hour. In order for every committee member to have time to participate, I will limit each question, including the answer, to four minutes. Please be concise when asking your questions, and Mr. Irngaut, please be brief when answering.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you, Mr. Irngaut, for joining us today.
We have heard from several witnesses that one major problem with this bill is the one-size-fits-all approach for the entire country. Certainly, the country is so big. The lifestyle in one part is different from another. We have people, like you, whose livelihood depends on guns up there for protection and for food.
My question to you is this: Do you feel that you are being listened to in the North?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you for your question.
We feel that adequate consultations have not taken place. As you know, the bill was introduced in May, and it went through the first and second readings — or maybe it was the third reading. I’m not sure of the exact definition of that, but it went very quickly. Therefore, there was no time to consult Inuit. We feel that this bill has not adequately consulted Inuit, even though under our agreement is a constitutionally protected agreement. Inuit are supposed to be consulted on anything that affects them.
We feel we have not been adequately consulted on this. Thank you.
Senator Oh: My second question is this: Are there any amendments you might suggest to this bill that might address some of your concerns for people in the North?
Mr. Irngaut: Like I said, we would have to look at this carefully. We are not so much against handguns, and we don’t use handguns when we harvest. We have no problem with that clause. I would have to look at this more carefully. I can provide a written response to you later on this.
Senator Oh: Yes, please. We would like to listen to you about the semi-automatic long-gun issue.
Mr. Irngaut: Yes. As you know, we do use semi-automatic rifles when we’re hunting animals, whether they be whales or polar bears. We need those in order to secure our food sources, especially when it comes to whales, walrus or seals. We need to do a quick reaction to secure our food sources. We need semi-automatic rifles to harvest in our territory.
As you know, it’s much different up here. Everything is so expense, as I indicated; store-bought food is so expensive that we need to harvest animals using any means that we can. We need to have these semi-automatic rifles — not the assault rifles that you see on TV, like the AR-15 — not those kinds of rifles, no. These are more hunting-style of rifles that we need.
I hope I answered your question.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Irngaut.
Senator Yussuff: I want to thank Mr. Irngaut for taking the time to be with us here this morning. It’s very important for us to hear from you in regard to your concerns in the North. The realities are very different from ours in the urban parts of the country.
I’m trying to appreciate the concerns you’re raising. You’re very specific about this. You’re saying that the ban is overly broad on semi-automatics. In the context of that, I am trying to appreciate the challenge you see here.
If the legislation were passed, regarding new weapons on the market, anything that would have more than a five-bullet capacity would be banned. Do you currently use weapons that have more than five rounds for hunting and harvesting for your community?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator.
For harvesting birds like geese, which we harvest in the springtime, there are rifles that some hunters use that have more than five rounds. In that instance, if you don’t have a shotgun, then you have to use semi-automatic rifles, whether they’re a .22, a .22 magnum or a little higher than that, like .223.
For harvesting whales, walruses or polar bears, I haven’t seen any that use more than five rounds. For those kinds of animals, we don’t use over five rounds per magazine.
For birds that come up seasonally, some do use more than five rounds, yes.
Senator Yussuff: If the legislation were to pass as is, you would see this as a problem. The restriction will be on anything over five rounds. Do you think that will create a significant problem in regard to harvesting and hunting in the North?
Mr. Irngaut: Yes.
Like I indicated, when it comes to hunting birds, you need more than five rounds in the magazine just so you can secure food for your family. When it comes to bigger animals, you take more time to harvest them.
This bill would be problematic if it were passed just due to the fact that when you’re hunting birds, it can become a problem. Even though the calibre might be smaller — not like the big guns that we use some sometimes — these are smaller rifles that have more than five rounds in a magazine.
So yes, if this bill were to pass, then that would be problematic for some hunters, yes.
Senator Yussuff: As you understand, this is in regard to the future. Those who currently own or use semi-automatic weapons right now, that exceed that capacity, that won’t be in dispute; it’s about the future when this will create a significant problem in the community.
Mr. Irngaut: Yes, it would.
It’s very hard to get your firearms certificate, especially up here in the North. If you look at the firearms officers, we don’t have one in the territory, I don’t believe. We used to. We can’t access training if it’s private.
So it’s very hard for people to get those firearms certificates in order to purchase rifles. I can see huge problems in the bill regarding that. Thanks.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you so much, Mr. Irngaut.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, Mr. Irngaut, for being here today.
I just have one question, and that stems from testimony from some other leaders of Indigenous communities. We’ve had some express concern about the yellow flag and red flag laws. I just wanted to confirm that you have no concerns about — sorry, I meant the provisions in Bill C-21 with respect to the red flag and yellow flag provisions and also the authorization for licences to be revoked in cases of domestic violence or criminal harassment.
I don’t think you said anything about that in your opening remarks. I just want to confirm that you have no concerns with those. Thank you.
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question.
We do not have any concerns when it comes to domestic violence. We have no issues with those provisions under the bill. We don’t want Inuit to be broad-brush-stroked, because a lot of these are law-abiding hunters. You’re right: We don’t condone any violence, domestic or otherwise, when it comes to using firearms.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. That’s really what I wanted to know; I wanted to confirm that you had no concerns about what’s in the bill. Thank you very much.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much, Mr. Irngaut, for being with us today. I appreciate it, and it’s very good to hear your thoughts and concerns. My question will be slightly different. We know that suicide rates are sadly much higher in Inuit populations, particularly with men and boys.
Mr. Irngaut: Yes.
Senator Kutcher: Do you know if any suicide prevention or the identification issues related to suicide are provided in gun safety training to members of your community?
Mr. Irngaut: No, they’re not provided, as far as I know. I’ve taken a few gun courses myself, and suicide prevention was not provided during the training. I know our government has programs for suicide prevention, but it’s very broad. When it comes to means, you’re right, suicide happens a lot up here. There’s no training, as far as I know, when it comes to firearms with regard to suicide.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that. I just want to unpack that a little bit. I am somewhat familiar, though not as familiar as I should be and I apologize, with some of the suicide prevention programs available in your area, and to my knowledge, they don’t focus on gun safety. Do you think it would be worthwhile for those programs to actually ensure that they do focus on gun safety, things like storage or other aspects, and also having suicide prevention training or awareness embedded into the training programs that your community receives when they do get gun safety training?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question. As I indicated earlier, we don’t have a lot of training available to us in the North — just the fact that we don’t have a firearms officer in our territory. Training is very sporadic up here. If you go to smaller communities, it is non-existent. It’s very hard to get these programs in place, but definitely suicide prevention should be part of that training, for sure. I totally agree with you. Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Great. Thank you very much for that.
Senator Plett: To the witness, you have noted how important semi-automatic rifles are for your way of life, and that it may, as a matter of fact, be a matter of life or death for hunters in the North. The government has said it will use the regulatory process to further define what the term “assault rifle” means. Through regulation, they will pick and choose guns to be banned, as they did in 2020.
Since you were not at all consulted on this legislation before it was introduced, can you tell me how confident you are that you will, in fact, be consulted at all as the regulations are drafted? Does it concern you at all that you were not consulted and may not be consulted?
Mr. Irngaut: I’m very concerned because, as you know, consultation up here can be very expensive. Even though under our agreement, we have to be consulted when it comes to issues that affect Inuit. I really don’t have a lot of confidence if it’s passed very quickly, as we’ve seen in the past.
To elaborate a little more, just a few years ago, two people from Arviat died when they were attacked by a polar bear. Just last summer, two teenagers were very lucky that they managed to shoot a bear when it came into their tent. That’s a reality that we have up here. We need to be consulted on this firearms bill so that people are aware and can voice their concerns. Even though I’m voicing my concerns, there are people out there who really need to hear this and have confidence in this act.
Senator Plett: Well, thank you very much for that. I spent a good part of my life in many of your northern communities, and I’ve seen firsthand the movement of polar bears and, thankfully, haven’t been in a position where I needed a gun to defend myself, but I can certainly appreciate that. I would hope that the government would take a bit of a different approach.
When the minister was before our committee, he said they had consulted. As a matter of fact, he almost said that he didn’t know of anybody who was opposed to this legislation, and I’m assuming you would not be considered as part of one of those groups who are not opposed to the legislation.
Mr. Irngaut: No. Thank you, senator, for that question. There are some provisions in the act that we are not opposed to, but the broad definition of “assault rifles” is quite concerning to us. That’s why I think we asked that the definition be deleted in the act because it affects a lot of the Inuit up here. In order to protect life and property, we have that right under our claim. We need to be able to exercise that right to protect ourselves.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you to our witness for being here today.
Clause 70.3 of the bill allows the chief firearms officer to issue a conditional firearms licence under certain conditions, such as the need for a firearm to hunt and to provide for oneself.
As you know, the chief firearms officer of the Northwest Territories is based in Alberta, the chief firearms officer of Nunavut in Manitoba, and the chief firearms officer of the Yukon in British Columbia. Given that the Indigenous territories do not have resident chief firearms officers, I would like to know if this is a problem.
To be more specific, are the officers able to properly determine whether or not to issue licences?
[English]
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question. As you know, and as I indicated, we don’t have a firearms officer in our territory. Even getting a temporary permit to use a firearm is out of the question up here because, first of all, you need to be trained for safety reasons when you get your firearms certificate. Even getting that is a problem, so getting trained in smaller communities is non-existent. We have RCMP officers in our communities, but they’re so busy. Maybe they will take it upon themselves to do the training. We need a recognized firearms officer in our territory, but we don’t have that access right now.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here with us today. I greatly appreciate it. You’re talking to a committee where many of whom had the privilege of visiting sections of the Arctic in the past year. We’re especially grateful.
I wanted to ask you something about prior testimony that we heard last week.
Dr. Ivan Zinger, Correctional Investigator of Canada, released his annual report, which found that 32% of all federal inmates in Canada and 50% of female inmates are Indigenous compared to 25% ten years ago.
This is clearly a serious issue that we all care about, which has to be tackled from many different angles.
As far as this bill is concerned, is there a worry that Indigenous hunters will be targeted by new restrictions to a greater degree than the general population?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question.
The government has to understand that we’re law-abiding citizens who have been using firearms for quite a long time. We are a small population. We are trying our best to secure food in our territories for our families.
This bill, if it is passed the way it is, will target hunters in our territory. That is a concern for us.
You are right. The majority of the inmates are Aboriginal. We have no issues with the bill when it comes to domestic violence. We have no issues with that.
It is just that the definition of assault rifles may target our hunters. I agree with you that it might target our hunters — Sorry, English is my second language. I am trying to figure out the definitions of what you said. They might be targeted, you are right. Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Great job. Thank you very much.
Senator Boehm: Thank you, Vice President Irngaut, for being a witness today.
I want to follow up on a few questions that were asked earlier with respect to your expectation that your community would be involved in the regulatory phase as the regulations are developed after this bill passes in whatever form. Would you be looking at being deeply involved, given that some of the solutions and regulations might have to be customized or bespoke to your community?
Would you also be considering informal arrangements, such as those which exist today in terms of voluntary relinquishment of firearms in cases where there have been instances of domestic violence, but then also receiving the firearms again for hunting purposes? Thank you.
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator.
When we look at this, we can definitely help to some extent. We would have to look at this thoroughly, if it is passed; we would have to look at it very carefully.
As for your question, we are willing to help our hunters. We are willing to explain to our hunters what this bill means to them. When it comes to domestic violence, we have absolutely no issue with the bill.
As for accessing firearms through hunting, if an individual committed those crimes, that is something we would really have to look into. Violence in our communities is quite common, and it is not good when firearms are involved.
We would have to look at this provision in the bill. Inuit have the right to hunt for food. We would definitely have to look at that carefully. Thank you.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: First of all, I would like to thank our witness for being here this morning. The minister made the following statement when he appeared before the committee:
…other hunters, sport shooters and people using firearms in northern and Indigenous communities are not targeted by, affected by or included in the measures that we are trying to have adopted…
Do you agree that this bill will have no effect on your communities?
[English]
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question.
It will have an effect on us — the way it is written. Most of our hunters use firearms that are semi-automatic. The definition of that term is concerning to us. Of course, it will have an effect on Inuit hunters if it is passed. That is all I can say at this time. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Many witnesses have told us that this bill does not distinguish between the South and the North, between the countryside and the city. Do you think this bill should have been designed in two ways — taking into account people who live in remote regions, where hunting is a livelihood and a tradition, as opposed to the South? Should the bill have drawn a distinction between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities?
[English]
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question.
Yes, the bill should have made that distinction. As you know, it is very different up here even than in rural Canada — Southern Canada — with regard to the way we harvest. It is a daily way of life for a lot of these hunters. It is a daily occurrence where hunting is happening every day. As we now speak, it is happening, and it is in order to provide food for their families.
It is so easy for a non-Indigenous person living in the South to say, “Oh, I think I’ll go have a hamburger.” You can go to the restaurant. In small communities, we do not have that. It is very difficult for Inuit hunters to provide food that is nutritious.
For some hunters, it is very difficult even to find the right hunting rifles because it is so difficult to get training, and it is also difficult to get a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, or FAC, in some communities.
Yes. I want to point out that it is very different up here, and I am sure you understand that. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Should Indigenous people in the North, in particular, have been excluded from this bill?
[English]
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question. Well, we are Canadians. We are law-abiding Canadians and try to follow the law. Some of the provisions in the law we are not against. I do not know if Inuit should be excluded from this bill. I would have to look into that and give you a written response. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: This concludes the first round of questions.
Before we move on to the next round, I have two questions for Mr. Irngaut.
I have a supplementary question related to your answer to Senator Dasko’s question. One of the objectives of Bill C-21 is to better protect women against domestic violence, which could be committed using a firearm. I would be curious to know if any women in your community have spoken out on this subject.
[English]
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you for that question, senator.
Some women have spoken in terms of the experiences that they have gone through.
When it comes to domestic violence, we do not want it happening in our communities. We do not want women to be assaulted in any way, using any means. On this topic about domestic violence, we’re totally in agreement with the bill. I cannot empathize enough that we do not want violence against our women in our territory using any means.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I have one last question, since there is still time.
Mr. Irngaut, you talked about the lack of consultation and the lack of time to properly assess the consequences of the bill.
Do you think that we could make amendments that would satisfy your community? If so, what amendments would you propose? I invite you to send us your answer in writing.
Having said that, we will move on to the second round.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: I wish to thank the witness again for his elaboration, reminding us again that the North is very different and of the challenges that communities face in the North. More specifically, that hunting is an integral part of life in the North. It is not just about the culture; it is also about the basic necessities of life, of having food and providing for one’s family.
I want to come back to this question around the assault rifle provisions in the legislation. Bear with me in the context.
Using a .22 rimfire gun, which is one that is used in hunting, there are those that can hold more than five rounds; they have 10 rounds, too. My understanding of the legislation is that those guns are not affected by provisions that will ban firearms. They are a different type of round used in those types of guns.
Recognizing the point you were making about hunting birds and other wildlife, I want to be clear that those guns will not be impacted if this legislation is passed.
I am not sure if you understand that, but I wanted to double-check to ensure that we are on the same page with regard to the statement that you have made.
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator.
I agree. I understand now that those provisions are there for the smaller firearms. I want to empathize that sometimes there are wolf hunters in our territory. As you know, hunting wolves can happen very fast. With the higher-calibre rifles, you sometimes need more than five rounds. I totally understand what you were saying. Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: I appreciate that. Again, thank you very much for reminding us. I did have the opportunity to visit the North. We were doing our study on Arctic security. I very much appreciate the welcome we received in your community and the hospitality and the generosity that people bestowed upon us when we visited. Again, thank you so much for appearing before us today.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. It is fantastic that we get a chance to listen to you today and get greater perspective.
I hear the words “lack of consultation, lack of collaboration, lack of listening.” We hear it readily. We would love to be in the same room as you today, but we are thankful that we can see you.
If you were to think about this committee. We are hearing from a number of speakers and witnesses. We care so much about the North. We need to demonstrate that. Whom have we missed? Is there someone in your professional circles that you think we should be listening to whom but perhaps we have not?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question.
As you know, in each community, and under our claim, there are bodies in our claim that exist in each community. These are hunters’ and trappers’ organizations. They administer and can create bylaws for their members where all beneficiaries of the Nunavut agreement are under them. They deal with everyday hunting in our territory. They are the ones who should be consulted on this.
All the chairs of those organizations have what we call the Regional Wildlife Organizations, whether it be Qikiqtaaluk, Kivalliq, or Kitikmeot. They hold annual general meetings. That is an opportunity to inform them of any bills that may affect Inuit.
Also, our organization, NTI, has a body that is called the Nunavut Inuit Wildlife Environment Advisory Committee, which I chair. We advise our board about certain things that affect Inuit harvesting. There are opportunities out there to inform Inuit.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you, sir, for being here today. I am sorry I was late. I had another meeting.
Mr. Irngaut, a few minutes ago, we spoke about rimfire rifles. You certainly wouldn’t want to hunt big game with rimfire rifles, would you? You would not really be able to hunt a polar bear or defend yourself against a polar bear with a .22 rimfire very well.
You would need a 30-odd-6, or a .308, or some form of weapon that has the hitting power that you need. Isn’t that right, sir?
Mr. Irngaut: That is totally correct. Also under the Canada Wildlife Act, I believe there are regulations that clearly state that you cannot shoot a bear with certain calibre lower than, I think it is a .243, lower than that.
Senator Richards: Of course there is, sir, yes.
I have a rifle acquisition card on me which allows me to buy a rifle at a hunting store. Do the Inuit need one of those to buy a rifle? Are they exempt from that? If so, will they be exempt from that with this bill? I am not sure how that works. Maybe you know. Perhaps if you don’t know, we can find out. What do you think about that, sir?
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you for that question, senator.
As you know, we don’t have firearms officers up here in our territory. Yes, you do need a Firearms Acquisition Certificate to purchase firearms in our territory. Those certificates are only good for a number of years; I believe it is five or ten years. After that, you have to renew them. You have to go through training again, I do believe, for safety reasons. Thank you.
Senator Richards: Is the training given, for instance, by the Rangers or the RCMP, or is it given within the local community by the elders? I just wonder if it works the same as it works in rural New Brunswick.
Mr. Irngaut: It’s given by a person who is trained to give these courses. I would have to give you a written response to that, but I believe some of the RCMP members provide training, but it’s very sporadic. It doesn’t happen all the time. It’s very hard to get the certificate that is required to purchase firearms, especially in rural or smaller communities in our territory. Thank you.
Senator Richards: That must be very difficult when you rely on hunting and weapons for your food and for your safety. Thank you, sir.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Before we conclude, I have one last question for Mr. Irngaut. At what age do members of your community start handling firearms? Do they have access right away to what we call assault weapons?
[English]
Mr. Irngaut: Thank you, senator, for that question.
From experience, I was trained at a very young age to hunt. I started with just a .22 when I was 10, 11, 12, with the supervision of my father. He was very strict. You don’t just play with guns. You had to be very aware of your surroundings. That was taught to us at a very young age — gun safety. Even if there’s no ammunition in the gun, you don’t point it at another person. No way. Sorry, excuse my language, but that’s how it is up here. Safety is very predominant in our culture when it comes to firearms.
The younger generation now see all these videos, and they see other people being shot on the news. It is very hard for the younger people, and also for older people, to really understand why it’s happening. We were taught at a very young age to be very careful about our own firearms. Thank you.
Senator Plett: I have a short follow-up to your question, deputy chair.
The deputy chair used the terminology “assault-style rifle.” Can you tell me, in your opinion, what is an assault-style rifle, or do you have an opinion on that?
Mr. Irngaut: From my understanding, listening to the news, I know what an assault-style rifle is. It is, what do you call it, an AK-15 or something like that, with that big huge clip that can hold more than five rounds, for sure.
Senator Plett: In your community, you need some guns that have more than five rounds. I think you said that. You would not consider that an assault rifle? You would consider that a hunting rifle? Am I correct?
Mr. Irngaut: That’s correct. When you’re hunting, yes.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: That brings us to the end of our first witness panel. I’d like to thank Mr. Irngaut. We greatly appreciate your contribution and the time you took to share your experience with us.
We’ll now move on to our second witness panel. For those joining us live, this meeting is on Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). For this second panel, we are pleased to welcome representatives of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke. Chief Jessica Lazare is accompanied by Ms. Katie Spillane, Lawyer, Legal Services.
Good morning and welcome. We are ready to hear your opening statement, which will be followed by questions from the senators. As a reminder, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. Chief Lazare, the floor is yours.
[English]
Jessica Lazare, Chief, Mohawk Council of Kahnawàke: Good morning, honourable chairperson and members.
Hunting and harvesting practices are integral to our cultural identity and worldview as Onkwehon:we, as we call the original people. We have hunted and harvested since time immemorial and these practices are deeply engrained in our way of being. As hunters and harvesters, we are glad to see some of the amendments that have been made to Bill C-21 since the last time I was in attendance to the standing committee, but none of them address our concerns as Onkwehon:we explicitly.
Today, I want to focus on the non-derogation clause set out in the very last provision of the bill. It offers no substantive protection of our rights and may actually be harmful. Section 72.1(1) reads:
The provisions enacted by this Act are to be construed as upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.
Let us be clear: section 35 applies of its own force and effect, period. Consequently, while so-called non-derogation clauses like this may be useful reminders to officers on the ground, they offer no added legal protection for our hunters. At best, such clauses are like Post-it notes pointing to the Constitution.
Unfortunately, section 72.1(1) is unlikely to do even that limited job.
First, the clause is not set out in any of the primary or coordinating amendments and will not be reproduced in the relevant laws. Instead, this related provision will be tucked away in a drawer to collect dust. Parliament wrote the Post-it note, but forgot to attach it to the laws ordinary people see.
Second, the wording will likely cause confusion. As drafted, section 72.1(1) will apply only to the new provisions put in place by Bill C-21. So, a warden, a firearms officer or a hunter who takes the time to read the bill and stumbles upon this Post-it note could not be faulted for asking whether it means that section 35 protections do not apply to the rest of the Firearms Act, which already has a non-derogation clause or the Criminal Code.
Of course, they do; section 35 applies of its own force and effect. But if the point of the Post-it note is to point to the Constitution, this clause could have the opposite effect, turning eyes the other way. Finally, if Bill S-13 is adopted and my colleague can explain why we oppose that bill during the question and answer period, section 72.1(1) will be immediately abrogated.
What a carve out should look like: There are better ways of recognizing Indigenous rights and ensuring they are protected. Take, for example, the sustenance exceptions to firearms prohibition orders. Its relevance to Indigenous hunters is clear, but case law reveals few cases of application. If Parliament were serious about protecting our rights, they would be tabling amendments that explicitly direct decision makers not to issue prohibition orders that impact section 35 hunting, harvesting and cultural rights, or, better yet, recognizing that this decision making belongs to Indigenous peoples themselves.
In closing, it’s clear that while concessions have been made in Bill C-21 that will benefit Indigenous hunters, this is because they are benefiting all hunters, not Indigenous hunters.
Ultimately it will be for the Kanien’kehá:ka of Kahnawà:ke, not for Canada to decide how to keep our community safe, including determining what firearms we will and will not allow our people to carry.
In the meantime, we urge you to address the underlying social problems that are the root cause of firearm violence and investigate genuine ways to remove barriers preventing Indigenous peoples from carrying out their lives in a sustainable, ceremonial and generational way.
[Indigenous language spoken]
Those are the words that I have.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Lazare, for your presentation. We will now open the floor to questions. I’d like to remind committee members that we have until 1:30 p.m. for this panel. Each question, including the answer, will therefore be limited to four minutes. Please be brief and identify the person to whom you are addressing your question. I would ask Chief Lazare to keep the answers succinct.
[English]
Senator Plett: Thank you for being here, witnesses. It is very much appreciated.
I’ve asked this question to many of the witnesses in one form or another. When the minister appeared before our committee on October 23, I asked him about the assertion made in your letter to the former minister that:
There is no carve out in Bill C-21 for the exercise of our inherent jurisdiction rights, nor was any consultation carried out to solicit our input.
The minister stated that the bill is, in fact, respectful of Indigenous rights and his deputy minister said this:
There were extensive consultations with Indigenous communities across the country when it was introduced for the first time.
That is the sort of sleight of hand that they engage in, by referring to a previous bill rather than this one. My question is this: Just to be sure, did the government consult with you before this bill was introduced?
Ms. Lazare: No.
Senator Plett: Thank you. Are you aware of any extensive consultations held with Indigenous communities across the country before this specific Bill C-21 was introduced?
Ms. Lazare: No. We only had one meeting and that wasn’t necessarily an adequate consultation, so I wouldn’t consider it consultation whatsoever.
Senator Plett: Thank you. That seems to be very consistent with what other witnesses have said. I thank you for being explicit and for being here.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. My question to you is about the rights of Indigenous peoples. During this study of Bill C-21, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security amended Bill C-21 to clarify that the bill’s provision would not abrogate or derogate from the rights of Indigenous peoples as affirmed in the Constitution Act, 1982. What are some potential impacts of Bill C-21 on Indigenous people? Would the potential impact defer across First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people? Recognizing that Indigenous people reside in communities of different signs and characteristics, would the potential impact differ between urban communities and rural communities?
Ms. Lazare: A lot of Indigenous peoples across Canada do use firearms for sustenance hunting and harvesting. The one-size-fits-all approach is not the greatest approach. The way that the bill will be implemented will definitely not complement any non-derogation clauses because in reality there are non-derogation clauses that do exist. Our communities, our peoples are inflicted regardless of those clauses.
Senator Oh: Do the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people get together and express concern about this Bill C-21, as you say, one size fits all?
Ms. Lazare: Well, this is something that’s similar to a lot of other bills that get tabled in Canada, so I can say with confidence, without getting together to explicitly say that, that this bill, in particular, is not fitting for us because of the non-derogation clause. We have to ensure that we share the fact that we are not all the same. Despite having similar concerns that could be the same, we are not all the same.
I’m sorry. Am I speaking clear enough for you?
Senator Oh: I’m okay.
Ms. Lazare: We cannot be regarded as all the same, because we have different needs, we have different capacities, we have different beliefs, different cultures and different ways of being. So pan-Indigenous approaches do not work for legislation at all.
Senator Oh: What would be your most concerning amendment to this bill?
Ms. Lazare: Currently, we’re okay with the amendments. We’re more concerned about the implementation.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you both for being here with us today. We greatly appreciate it.
To start off, we heard testimony on Tuesday about the concern with Bill C-21 infringing on treaty rights, and I would like to dive deeper into that today, if I could.
As it is written now, this bill does not ban hunting rifles. It will affect and impact handguns, and this new definition of “prohibited firearms” will only apply to firearms created with a new design after the coming into force of the amended definition. I realize that’s a mouthful. Those guns owned today will remain untouched.
On the face of it, I’m challenged with the concept of the threat to hunting rights, but I’d like to really try to understand that from your point of view, and I hope you can assist me with this today.
I’ll open it up to either one of you.
Ms. Lazare: Hunting evolves over time. You can’t limit our rights to hunt for the future generations. Firearms evolve, hunting evolves, migration patterns evolve and our hunting needs evolve. The way we hunted 10, 15 or 20 years ago is not the same as we hunt now, and it will not be the same way that we hunt 10, 15 or 20 years from now.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. Let me just slide a little bit to follow up on my colleague Senator Oh’s questions to you. You’ve defined that. You’ve explained that, and you have said that, “This bill, the amendments, I can live with, but the implementation is our bigger concern.”
Can you just take a moment to expand on that a little, please? What concerns you most about implementation?
Ms. Lazare: Currently, we understand that over-policing is an issue for Indigenous communities and for First Nations communities. We also have concerns about meaningful consultation for regulations, because it will deeply affect how our people can carry themselves and carry their firearms, so we would like to have a closer look at what that looks like.
Let me try and find the word. I’m trying to be as concise as possible, but I lost my train of thought with that one. Sorry. Can you repeat?
Senator M. Deacon: I’m just trying to make sure that I understand your concerns as to the highest priority when it comes to the implementation piece.
Ms. Lazare: Yes, we would really like to emphasize that we would like to be consulted on the implementation parts. As I said before, there is the over-policing aspect and, as was mentioned before, the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in the courts and in the justice system. It’s very unfortunate and unfair, and there is obviously some racial discrimination. All of those implementation pieces don’t account for that.
Like I mentioned in my opening speech, there is a “Post-it note,” non-derogation clause, that does not impede on the rights, so when there is a Post-it note, it is easy to disregard the boots on the ground kind of situation.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much to our witness. Welcome to our committee.
Chief Lazare, my first question refers to a letter that you or your band council sent to the former minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs to highlight the potential impacts of Bill C-21 on the police forces of Indigenous reserves.
We know that Kahnawà:ke has what are called Peacekeepers. I will quote your letter, which states that Bill C-21 will place an unfair burden on the Peacekeepers who protect your territory, and will increase the risk of discrimination and excessive police intervention against your fellow citizens. Can you explain this comment in your letter?
[English]
Ms. Lazare: For Kahnawà:ke, it’s very difficult to explain the unique circumstances that we are in. We are in a First Nations community that cannot be, I guess, codified as either rural or urban. We are right next to Montréal. We are about 15 or 20 minutes away from Montréal. We do have hunting on what we call the North Wall, and we also have a territory that’s in the Laurentians called Tioweró:ton, and that territory is mainly for our hunting and harvesting practices. There are individuals from our community that do hunt elsewhere in other Indigenous communities and in other First Nations communities.
When it comes to firearms safety, of course, the Kahnawà:ke peacekeepers have jurisdiction over Kahnawà:ke, but that jurisdiction, unfortunately, ends at the end of each of the entrances to our community and does not further extend to other Indigenous communities, does not further extend to being on the road with your firearms and does not extend to being able to prohibit discrimination and the systemic racism that happens with outside police enforcement.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My second question is to clarify something that I may have misunderstood. It pertains to a statement you made at the beginning of your presentation. Did you say that it will be up to Kahnawà:ke to determine which weapons will or will not be used in Canada?
[English]
Ms. Lazare: Yes, it’s very important for the Canadian government to understand that we can govern ourselves. It’s our inherent right.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I’m trying to understand the scope of that statement. Does it mean that Bill C-21 will be enforced on your territory exclusively by Peacekeepers, and not by other police forces?
Ms. Lazare: Yes.
Senator Boisvenu: If there are parts of Bill C-21 that do not suit your customs and lifestyle, does that mean that Peacekeepers would not enforce Bill C-21 in its entirety?
[English]
Ms. Lazare: This is one of the issues in implementation that we have, respecting the jurisdiction of the Kahnawà:ke peacekeepers and the enforcement that we have in our community, and that’s something that we would like to work out.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for being with us today.
My question will be somewhat different from the previous ones you’ve responded to and similar to one I posed to our earlier witness related to suicide and firearms.
We know that suicide rates are higher in Indigenous populations and, specifically, in men and boys. Many of them involve firearms. Do you know whether any of the firearms safety training programs that are available in your community actually address the risk of suicide risk and firearms?
Ms. Lazare: I have taken the course in my own community. We did address this to a certain extent. For the most part, it was the basic firearm safety course. You don’t store your firearm with the bullets in the same case and what have you.
In Kahnawà:ke, we have what we call, Kahnawà:ke Shakotiia’takehnhas Community Services, or KSCS. They do suicide prevention programs. We have programs that address the root causes of suicide. There are programs in the community that address those issues.
From my personal experience, I was an Ambassador of Hope for the We Matter campaign, which addresses Indigenous youth suicide across Canada in a more positive way — although suicide is not positive — where we encourage the use of culture, family and hope. We use those kinds of mechanisms to encourage youth to reconsider their purpose in life and their reasons for attempting suicide.
Through those teachings and understandings, and in my personal experience, it’s unfortunate to say, but if someone were to attempt suicide, they will find a way, despite having firearms or access to firearms.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for your interest and for your work on this topic. There are specific interventions related to firearms and suicide prevention programs, but many of those programs don’t have those specific components.
Thank you for all the work you’ve done. It sounds fantastic. Are you aware of any suicide prevention programs that are currently available in your community that specifically — through means restriction or other types of intervention — address firearm-related suicide?
Ms. Lazare: Not in combination, no. I do know there are conversations that having firearms safely stored in homes is one of the ways you can prevent suicide by firearms. Those conversations are taking place, but there is no explicit training. Thank you for that idea. It is something I will bring to our KSCS organization.
Senator Kutcher: Would you be supportive of having something like that in an observation in the bill? Would that be useful for your community?
Ms. Lazare: I think it would be useful for all communities, not just Indigenous communities.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you so much.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, Chief Lazare, for being here. I very much appreciate your testimony and your elaboration on the specifics.
Like any legislation, implementation is a critical component to its success — recognizing, of course, the uniqueness in terms of how your territory is currently governed and the self-government agreement with both the federal and provincial governments in terms of how you do many things.
I can understand some of the concerns you’re raising, such as that the approach shouldn’t impede on the way in which your community has evolved and how you apply legislation. We recognize their importance in dealing with the challenges we face.
With regard to implementation, we don’t yet know what the regulations may look like. I hear you loud and clear that you want to be very much engaged in that process because, as you said, it is important for you to have a clear understanding. Firearms officers apply the law differently from coast to coast, and that may have a detrimental impact that you’re trying to avoid.
In the context of implementation and regulations, the federal government would need to consult broadly with you to appreciate some of the concerns you would like addressed, especially when it comes to the derogation clause and how that should apply with regard to your territory. Am I right in assuming that these are the points you’re making in a clear and defined way?
Ms. Lazare: Yes.
Senator Yussuff: There is another issue that has been highlighted in the bill and hasn’t come up yet, which I’d like your perspective on.
As you know, domestic violence is a serious matter, not just in your community but right across the country. In the bill, there is a reference to the red flag and yellow flag provisions. Red flag provisions currently exist for law enforcement officers to do their duty with regard to dealing with domestic violence. Of course, violence against women is something that we want to address.
Do you have any concerns with regard to how domestic violence is dealt with in your community, especially when it comes to red flag or yellow flag laws?
Ms. Lazare: That’s a twofold question. Domestic violence is taken care of by the Kahnawà:ke peacekeepers. They are the enforcement in and around Kahnawà:ke. They have training in domestic violence. They have a specialized task force that addresses domestic violence cases. I feel that their training and their ability to address those situations are adequate.
In terms of red flag and yellow flag provisions, we do have concerns regarding the anonymous tip kind of approach, where this could be a potential for racial discrimination.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you very much.
Senator Cardozo: Chief Lazare, thank you very much for being here and for explaining the concerns you have about this bill, which are certainly complex and worthy of much consideration by us.
I wanted to look at where we go from here. You note the reference to section 35 of the Constitution in clause 72 of the bill. You say that maybe it wasn’t necessary, since it applies all the same. You note that UNDRIP should apply to this bill, as it is now to apply to all bills passed by Parliament.
Is there a way we can take those two aspects and be more specific in terms of a carve-out in the regulations, which will be the next step of this whole process?
Ms. Lazare: There definitely is a way to create a carve-out, but we would need to have further consultation to find out what that carve-out looks like.
Senator Cardozo: Tell me what you would like to see in terms of consultation. How would that go and who would that be with?
Ms. Lazare: We have a consultation committee that discusses different projects that are happening in the community. The majority of it has to do with development projects, but we have the means to consult on different land issues and rights issues.
We would set up a meeting initially with our consultation committee and team to discuss how we could approach that. I am one person from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke, and I don’t do things unilaterally. I do things with a team and with my council, making sure they are backing me. We would need to have that initial conversation.
Senator Cardozo: This is very helpful. I’m not sure, but the way I understand it is that if this bill passes, the department in charge — public security, PSPC — would then be in charge of developing the regulations. What we could consider doing is to be fairly specific in terms of what we suggest to them about how to go about those consultations, recognizing that they didn’t take place earlier on when the government was developing the bill.
Would that be the way to go?
Ms. Lazare: Yes, the way to go would be to set up an initial meeting that would have to consist of a plan. For meaningful engagement, you need to have a plan to ensure that you cover all sectors and all the needs of both parties. In order to do that, we need to have that initial meeting.
Senator Cardozo: How would you suggest doing the consultations with other First Nations as well, or with the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN?
Ms. Lazare: I would suggest setting up a meeting with the leaders of the AFN and do consultation that way as well.
Senator Cardozo: As distinct from the negotiations with the Kahnawà:ke Nation?
Ms. Lazare: Yes.
Senator Cardozo: Can you tell me more about the role of the Kahnawà:ke peacekeepers? Are they similar to a police force in an urban setting?
Ms. Lazare: Yes.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
My question is very similar to the one asked by Senator Yussuff with respect to the red flag and yellow flag provisions in Bill C-21. I will not go over exactly the same territory that he asked, but I would like to probe a little deeper into the way your community deals with enforcement around domestic violence, specifically with respect to firearms in your community.
Do your enforcement officials confiscate guns in situations where there have been domestic violence or threats with firearms? Is there anything in your procedures and in your enforcement that specifically speaks to the issue of the use of firearms and the threat of firearms in domestic violence situations?
Ms. Lazare: Simply put, yes. There are procedures. There are ways of seizing the firearms and de-escalating the situation. That is a part of it. They have a full procedure from the task force, and they implement it as best as they can.
Senator Dasko: That is part of the program that your community has.
Ms. Lazare: Yes.
Senator Dasko: Practices and policies involve confiscation.
Would it involve sanctions as well to the perpetrators? Is that a part of what the community does with respect to guns in these situations?
Ms. Lazare: Yes.
Senator Dasko: If you would not mind elaborating, again as a follow-up on what Senator Yussuff asked you about. What is the concern you have with respect to the red flag provisions in Bill C-21? Could you elaborate more on that please?
Ms. Lazare: Yes. I did mention my concerns were with racial discrimination. In my letter, I also agreed with the Canadian Bar Association regarding the clear potential for fraudulent and discriminatory application.
Senator Dasko: Can you describe that a little more? If the complaint is coming from a family member, is that a concern?
Ms. Lazare: I won’t get into specifics, but in general, the complaints, no matter where they come from, my concerns remain as they could be fraudulent, discriminatory in nature. Family members do have disputes, as you probably would know, so whether or not they could be based upon something factual is something that I have concerns about in terms of having fraudulent accusations.
Senator Dasko: Even if it is from a family member, you would be concerned about that?
Ms. Lazare: Yes.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Before concluding our second panel of witnesses, I would like to ask Ms. Lazare two questions.
My question is related to the question you asked Senator Boisvenu. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’ve just made it clear that it is not up to the Government of Canada to decide what kind of weapons the members of your community can own.
If I’ve understood correctly, your community members are claiming the right to travel anywhere in Canada with weapons — and municipal, provincial or RCMP police officers would not have the right to arrest them for illegal possession of a firearm?
[English]
Ms. Lazare: No.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: That was a very short answer. So, you maintain that the members of your community can travel all around Canada with illegal weapons. That’s your answer, and I appreciate your frankness and honesty.
Can you tell us what percentage of your community members owns firearms? Do all Kahnawà:ke households own guns?
[English]
Ms. Lazare: No. I cannot say that there are firearms in every single house. I myself do not have a firearm in my own house. Definitely not in every household. As a proportion, I know there are quite a number of Kahnawa’kehró:non people who do use firearms for harvesting purposes, for sustenance for their families as we move away from buying grocery store meats to a more culturally appropriate way of feeding ourselves.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
That brings us to the end of our meeting.
Thank you, Ms. Lazare and Ms. Spillane.
I’d like to thank our witnesses today for taking the time to appear before our committee. Your insights and knowledge are greatly appreciated.
Our next meeting will be on Monday, November 20, at 3 p.m. Eastern time, in room C128.
On that note, I wish you all a very good day.
(The committee adjourned.)