THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 22, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to consider 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.
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. My name is Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais, the deputy chair of the committee.
I am joined today by my fellow committee members, whom I welcome to introduce themselves now.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Richards: Senator Dave Richards from New Brunswick.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. We will have Senator Dasko soon.
For those watching this meeting, we are continuing our study of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).
[Translation]
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome, via video conference, Dr. Mark Sinyor, Associate Professor and Psychiatrist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto. On site, we have Ms. Lucie Léonard, Director of the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics at Statistics Canada. We also welcome on site Ms. Josée Bégin, Assistant Chief Statistician, Social, Health and Labour Statistics at Statistics Canada.
Welcome to our committee. We are ready to hear your opening statements. A question and answer period will follow. I remind you that you have five minutes for your opening statements.
[English]
We will begin today with Mr. Mark Sinyor.
Dr. Mark Sinyor, Associate Professor and Psychiatrist, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, as an individual: Good morning, committee members. It’s an honour to be with you today.
I am a suicide prevention researcher and have published more than 100 scientific papers on suicide, mainly focused on population-level strategies for preventing suicide, such as means restriction. I am a former vice-president of the board of the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention. I am lead author of the Canadian Psychiatric Association’s guidelines for responsible media reporting. I am also the Americas’ lead for the International Association for Suicide Prevention’s Partnerships for Life initiative, which aims to promote national suicide prevention strategies.
I am here today to tell you that legislative efforts aimed at reducing access to firearms are a necessary component of comprehensive suicide prevention in Canada.
Suicidal behaviours are complex by their very nature and are influenced by a myriad of factors. In many cases, decisions to die by suicide are made impulsively, often with ambivalence about dying and/or following a short-term crisis that transiently alters a vulnerable person’s sense of perspective and ability to think rationally.
One of the most reproducible findings in suicide research is that having lethal means at hand in the home confers greater risk of death in these situations. As clinicians and researchers, we work tirelessly to remove such means to buy precious time for the crisis to pass and to allow a person to reflect, reconsider and seek help.
Some of the earliest work in suicide research showed that detoxification of household gases and automobile emissions had the fortuitous effect of reducing overall suicide rates in multiple countries. The notion that restricting access to the means of suicide saves lives is not controversial among suicide prevention experts, and countries all around the world are implementing means restriction interventions.
Arguably, the most important review of suicide prevention studies in the past decade concluded that:
There is now strong evidence that restricting access to lethal means is associated with a decrease in suicide and that substitution to other methods appears to be limited.
The World Health Organization’s LIVE LIFE implementation guide for suicide prevention in countries lists means restriction, including restriction of access to firearms, as the first of four key interventions, describing it as “. . . a universal evidence-based intervention for suicide prevention. . . .”
The notion that means-restriction strategies “don’t work” is myth number 6 in the Mayo Clinic’s list of myths about suicide.
One of the problems of population-based research is that it involves large uncontrolled experiments. I know this intimately. The first suicide-related study I published showed that a means-restriction intervention in Toronto apparently did not work because people substituted one suicide location for another. I have spent the past two decades examining the data more closely and proving that the intervention did work but that this was initially obscured by other factors.
The complex uncontrolled nature of these observations is why we must be very cautious in interpreting findings from analyses focused on firearm legislation and suicide in Canada. Some researchers have concluded that a reduction in firearm suicides with no change in overall suicide rates is an indication that legislation does not work, but this conclusion is only correct if suicide rates would otherwise have been stable in recent decades, and that is not a good assumption.
Let’s not miss the forest for the trees. From 1981 to 2008, the age-standardized suicide rate in Canada fell by about 33% — a huge change that has been roughly stable since. This coincided with a precipitous decline in firearm suicides. In the U.S., the overall suicide rate has increased by 37% over the past two decades. What accounts for the difference? Clearly, differences in firearm legislation and availability between our countries have played a major role.
This conclusion is further supported by evidence from controlled trials, for example, where U.S. states that restrict access to firearms are compared to those without restrictions — 48 out of 49, or 98%, of such studies found that restricting access to firearms led to fewer suicides overall. The authors concluded:
Restricting access to the most available and lethal means for suicide, such as firearms lowered suicide rates using the restricted method, and lowered overall suicide rates when the method was sufficiently widely used. . . .
In conclusion, there is broad evidence from multiple sources that means restriction, including restricting access to firearms, is an effective component of an evidence-based strategy for prevention.
Thank you for your time.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you so much, Dr. Sinyor.
[Translation]
We now turn to the next witness, from Statistics Canada. Ms. Josée Bégin will make her opening statement. Madam, the floor is yours.
Josée Bégin, Assistant Chief Statistician, Social, Health and Labour Statistics, Statistics Canada: Honourable chair and members of the committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present our most recent statistics on firearm-related violent crime in Canada.
The information that I will be focusing on today is based on data from two surveys. The first is the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, which collects detailed information on criminal offences that come to the attention of police from more than 600 police services across Canada. The second source is the Homicide Survey; it collects more detailed information specifically regarding homicides.
In 2022, police-reported crime including violent crime increased for a second consecutive year after a decrease during the first year of the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, violent crime had been on the rise for five years.
The violent Crime Severity Index in 2022 was the highest since 2007.
[English]
In 2022, firearm-related violent crime accounted for less than 3% of police-reported violent crime. The rate of firearm-related crime per 100,000 population increased from 2013 through 2019. Between 2009 and 2013, the national rate had actually decreased. In 2022, according to police-reported data, young men between the ages of 12 and 17 were most often the accused person involved in firearm violent crime, with 111 accused youth per 100,000 population. This rate was 47% higher than 10 years earlier. Young men aged 18 to 24 followed with a rate of 101 per 100,000 population, an increase of 4% from 2012.
We are aware of the concern of about the use of firearms in cases of domestic violence. According to our most recent data, about 1.2% of victims of intimate partner violent crime were involved in firearm-related incidents. When considering intimate partner violence incidents involving female victims, the proportion of firearm-related violence was higher at 1.3%, relative to male victims at 0.6%.
In 2022, there were about 14,000 incidents of firearm-related violent crimes, or 36.7 incidents per 100,000 population. This rate was 9% higher than in 2021, and this increase was mainly driven by increases in Ontario at 24%, New Brunswick at 24% and British Columbia at 12%.
Overall, firearm-related violent crime rates were higher in northern areas of the provinces, especially rural areas in the North and in the territories. Rates were also higher in the Prairie provinces, with the highest provincial rate occurring in Saskatchewan. In 2022, 62% of the firearm-related violent crime in urban areas in the South involved handguns. In rural areas in the South, one third of firearm violent crimes involved a rifle or shotgun. However, 36% involved a firearm-like weapon or an unknown type of firearm. In 2022, handguns were the most common firearm present in Toronto at 83% of firearm-related violent crime, with Ottawa at 70% and Hamilton at 70%.
Since firearm-related violent crime reached a low in 2013, the rate of handgun crime increased by 50%, while crimes involving a shotgun or rifle increased by 45% and crimes involving a sawed-off or fully automatic gun increased by 35%. However, the largest increase, at 76%, was seen in the firearm-like weapon or type unknown category, and this category includes, for example, pellet guns, flare guns, BB guns, starter pistols and 3-D guns. It also includes incidents where the police could not identify the type of gun that was present.
The national homicide rate increased by 8% in 2022, marking the fourth consecutive annual increase. In 2022, police reported 874 homicides, 343 of which were committed with a firearm, 45 more than in 2021. The rate of firearm-related homicides has generally been increasing over the last nine years. Since the mid-1980s, the proportion of homicides perpetrated with a firearm was relatively smaller to those perpetrated with a knife or other cutting instrument. Since 2016, firearms are the most common method to commit a homicide. In 2022, almost half of firearm-related homicides were related to gang activity, compared to 7% of homicides that did not involve a firearm.
In closing, Statistics Canada recognizes there are information gaps and continues to work with a broad range of Justice and Public Safety partners to identify and address information needs and priorities. Thank you for your attention today. We would be happy to answer any questions.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Bégin, for your presentation.
Before moving on to our question period, I would like to acknowledge the presence of Senator Plett, who has joined us.
[English]
Our guests are with us today until 12:30 p.m. We will do our best to allow time for each member to ask a question. With this in mind, four minutes will be allocated for each question, including the answer.
[Translation]
I’ll hold up this card to let you know you have 30 seconds left. I ask that you ask succinct questions and identify the witness you wish to address.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Thank you to our witnesses for being here. My question is directed to Ms. Bégin, but the other witnesses may wish to respond as well.
In the brief that Statistics Canada presented to us, you indicated that the rate of firearm-related violence has generally increased over the past several years, and you mentioned that in your statement just now as well.
While firearm-related violent crime typically represents less than 3% of police-reported violent crime in the country, you have indicated that it has a significant emotional and physical impact on victims’ families and communities.
To what extent do you think — and if it is statistically possible even to do a projection — would the implementation of Bill C-21 help to reduce the physical and emotional impacts of firearm-related violence in Canada? I’d also be very interested to know how StatCan defines “emotional impact.”
Lucie Léonard, Director, Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics, Statistics Canada: Thank you for the question. I understood two parts. In terms of the overall increase in firearm-related violent crime, we’ve seen since 2013, with the large increase, that there has been some fluctuation over one year of firearm-related violence, but overall, we also mention a large increase in firearm incidents. The largest increase we see is for firearm-like weapons or unknown types of firearms — we’re not sure if that’s ghost guns. That is where the largest increase is at 76%.
This could partially be a result of the increase in those incidents of firearm-like weapons or unknown types of firearm. It could also be the result of the increase in the rate of youth accused of firearm-related violent crime, where we have seen a major increase over the past decade of more than 40% for youth under the age of 18.
It could also be accounting for those unknown firearm-like weapons for a relatively large proportion of these crimes, which was not there before, namely, the ghost guns that have been discussed on this committee as well.
The issue that we have in terms of some of the limitations of the data on this increase of firearms is that the UCR — the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey where all police services in Canada report — does not allow for a distinction between all of these firearm-like weapons, whether it’s the pellet gun, the ghost gun or the 3-D gun. Given the largest increase in this category, that’s why it is unlikely that this type of weapon is contributing to most of the increase.
Again, we cannot in all certainty mention from where the increase comes, but in terms of this type of firearm, this is the largest increase we’ve seen since 2013.
Senator Boehm: Thank you. I’m sorry to interrupt you because I know the clock is ticking, but do you have a definition or what is the threshold of emotional impact?
Ms. Léonard: I don’t think that’s something we measure in terms of the data. What we see with this bill, for example, is better protection of victims, especially in the escalation of violence. I think it’s in the protection order.
In terms of the emotional impact, ideally it’s to stop harm to the victim — that is, if this bill is able to limit the access of firearms for individuals who are demonstrating instability or who are at risk of causing harm to victims. By having us work with victims and by doing victimization surveys at Statistics Canada — having worked closely with many victim organizations — the additional protection that the bill can add to incidents of domestic violence is where it could deal with some of the emotional impact, if it reduces the harm and the violence against the victims, especially victims of intimate partner violence.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Léonard.
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome, witnesses.
Indeed, it’s relatively worrying to see that from 1980 to 2010, there was a steady decline in the number of homicides committed with firearms, while since the early 2000s, we’ve seen a fairly marked upsurge.
Have you looked at the main factors linked to the increase in gun crime over the past 10 years?
Ms. Léonard: You’re talking about the main factors that would be linked to gun crime, correct?
Senator Boisvenu: You will understand that if the bill plans to reduce crime, we need to know the factors related to that.
Ms. Léonard: Yes, that’s what was raised at this committee, that we don’t pretend to understand all the rational side around the causality of this violence, but one of the elements that was mentioned was better gun control. In the context of data collection, if we’re talking about a strict gun control regime in Canada, the information isn’t necessarily available.
Senator Boisvenu: Barely 3% of crimes are committed with firearms and barely 1.5% of crimes related to domestic violence are committed with firearms. Can we say we have gun control?
Ms. Léonard: We say we have gun control, but if we look at the situation in recent years, the statistics show an increase. Witnesses who appeared before this committee, including representatives from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency, said that the situation is rather alarming, particularly with regard to the circulation of 3D-printed weapons.
Senator Boisvenu: Representatives from the Toronto Police Service came before the committee and told us that, since Bill C-75 came into effect — and because of this government’s overall drug legalization policies — there’s a link between drug deregulation and Bill C-75. Almost 20% of murders in Toronto were committed by people who were released as a result of Bill C-75.
Do you have any data on this to correlate government policies with the increase in crime?
Ms. Léonard: These are the issues we raise as part of our work. We’re talking about traceability, the origin of firearms. You mentioned some factors, but all this requires better data to establish links, which we don’t necessarily have at present.
That’s the work we want to do with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. We want to be able to better identify police incident data, as well as personal data. At Statistics Canada, we have other socio-economic data to integrate these data and track people who acquire firearms and use them to injure people or —
Senator Boisvenu: Do you have data on the use of unregistered or illegal firearms in relation to crime?
Ms. Léonard: We know that in 88% of domestic violence cases, people didn’t have a licence. The weapon was legal. This data is in the briefing notes, but the person —
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Léonard, I’m sorry to interrupt. Your time is up.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you, Ms. Léonard.
The Deputy Chair: If you have any additional data, we’d like to receive it in writing.
Ms. Léonard: Absolutely.
The Deputy Chair: If it’s possible to get them to us by Friday, it would be appreciated.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: My first question is for Mr. Sinyor. Could you give us any more information about some of these details? I think you might have covered it.
When we’re looking at suicides, could you tell us the percentage of suicides that involves firearms versus those that do not involve firearms? I’m not interested in the detail of those, but just if you have firearms versus non-firearms.
Do you have information on people using handguns, or long guns, or if you know whether they are legal guns or illegal guns?
Dr. Sinyor: Thank you, senator. In terms of the proportion by firearm, it has dropped substantially. In 1980, about a third of all deaths in Canada that were by firearms. The latest statistic that I’ve seen is 16%, so it’s about half of what it was.
In terms of which sorts of guns are used, I don’t have that information; forgive me.
Senator Cardozo: Okay. No, that’s fine. Thank you.
To our other witnesses, Ms. Bégin and Ms. Léonard, do you have information on domestic assaults? We have had some compelling testimony from women’s groups and organizations that deal with domestic and intimate partner violence who are very supportive of this bill. They talked about domestic violence happening just as much in rural areas as it does in urban areas.
Do you have any information or any stats in terms of the degree to which firearms are used in domestic violence in urban centres versus the rural areas?
Ms. Léonard: In terms of the exact split, we could come back with that. The data on intimate partner violence that we collect from the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey has shown that usually it’s not an isolated incident; there’s a progression. That is what the data has shown.
Some of the suggestions in this bill, for example, are to bring a civil or emergency protection order in the case of intimate partner violence. The data from the calls for service that the police receive could be collected perhaps to prevent the escalation.
In the case of homicide — whether it’s Sault Ste. Marie or other cases that we’ve seen recently — the offenders often had prior and domestic violence but the information is not collected in a timely manner. That’s why the civil or emergency protection order, if the information is well integrated, would prevent the escalation and maybe some of the lethal violence that has been there. Many of the witnesses here have raised the fact that on the firearm-related issue, we need to have better information and better sharing of information to prevent escalation.
Senator Cardozo: In that context of the escalation, the use of the firearm is also a threat as opposed to just necessarily being used and shot. The very presence of a firearm becomes an object of a threat.
Ms. Léonard: Absolutely. As has been mentioned here as well, there is the statistic that when there is a firearm in the household, women are five times more likely to experience lethal violence. However, that statistic is from the U.S. Here in Canada, it has been often said that the presence of a firearm does increase lethal violence, but in terms of the exact statistic, we don’t have the same assessment that it is five times. However, we know that when there is the presence of a firearm in the household, it’s more likely that there will be a fatality in the situation.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. My first question is to Dr. Sinyor in regard to suicide prevention and the challenge we face as a society in general around suicide. Just in the context of education around the use of firearms and people getting licences, is there anything in terms of your research and knowledge that you think we could do to better enhance how we could prevent suicide in the context of trying to educate those who are trying to obtain a firearm or gain a licence?
Dr. Sinyor: Thank you so much for that question, senator. It is actually quite a complicated question. The reason is that if you think of what are probably the two biggest population-level strategies for suicide prevention, one is restricting access to means — limiting access to things like firearms. The other one is decreasing cognitive availability — not educating people about how to end their lives. We want to educate people about how to seek help if they’re in a crisis and how to manage that situation.
Therefore, it is very tricky when you’re educating someone about a suicide method. You might have very good intentions, saying that this is a common suicide method and here is how to avoid it. That might have some benefits, but you are also telling the person that they are obtaining something that can be used for suicide when that might not be on their mind. That actually confers a bit of harm. That would have to be done very cautiously.
Probably the best advice I could give is to focus on just having fewer firearms — that’s probably the most important thing — but for those people who have it, working hard on safety. The thing that really confers risk is having an easily accessible method of death in the home. Therefore, it’s important to take any steps to decrease the accessibility of it. Because of that concern, you might want to focus on accidental deaths by saying that if a child — heaven forbid — or someone should get access to this, we have to make sure that it’s absolutely carefully protected. Of course, that would have the ancillary benefit of being harder to access for someone for the use of suicide.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you. Ms. Léonard and Ms. Bégin, data collection is very important for us to understand what we’re dealing with but, more importantly, how we use the data to better shape public policy. In that regard, without presupposing what better method we should be using but just based on what you have presented, how can we better assist you in the context of the data that you collect and are disseminating that will help us in terms of crafting better public policy? I ask because there seems to be a big gap between what you are presenting and the granular detail that could better assist us specifically. Because this is at the source. If the police are not collecting it, police chiefs don’t have a consistent way of knowing how to approach this across the country.
We are not learning very much. We are learning some things, but there is a big gap in between, and public policy is to try to figure out how to fill those gaps. Maybe you can share some thoughts with us that might help us reflect as we deal with this bill at the committee stage.
Ms. Léonard: That’s a very good question. Also, I like the premise at the end of your question that we do have great collaboration and also the recognition that it is complex to measure firearms in Canada and beyond.
In terms of the work we’ve done today, especially with Public Safety and the RCMP, it’s really at the point of collaboration to try to establish a better framework for the collection of this firearm enforcement via horizontal coordination. With funding from Public Safety Canada, we’ve been involved in piloting a feasibility study on assessing how to collect the origin of gun crimes. So we have done this work, it was piloted and recommendations were made about how to better capture the data. How this would be done would be to, again, standardize some definitions.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Léonard, I’m sorry. We’ll continue with questions.
[English]
Senator Richards: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. My question and observation are to Dr. Sinyor. The last four people I knew who took their own lives — two were from asphyxiation and two from medical assistance, because suicide is now legal.
Most of the people I know who hunt are extremely safety conscious and extremely aware of the potential harm that rifles can do. I haven’t been to a house yet of a person with a rifle who doesn’t have a locked and contained gun cabinet. I am wondering how this bill would help prevent suicides better than that.
Since we don’t know the temperament or when someone will become depressed and so utterly devastated by life that they are going to take their own life, how do we know when this will happen? We don’t know when this will happen. I’m not sure that regulating firearms is going to help any more than finally banning all firearms.
Could you answer that for me?
Dr. Sinyor: I see. Thank you so much, senator. It’s a good question. My condolences on your losses.
In a way, you answered the question at the end there, which is that we don’t know. To contrast Canada with the United States, that’s one of the main problems we run into when I speak to colleagues in the United States. They can’t restrict or prevent access to firearms there, so they focus on trying to detect when someone is depressed and might be at risk. That strategy has some success, but it is much less successful than to just have no guns. The way to protect against suicide is to have the minimum number of guns available.
The best answer I can give you is that within the parameters of what is acceptable to our society, we should just do our best to have the fewest guns. To your point, we don’t know when someone will become depressed or when someone who becomes depressed will be at the point that they will think about ending their life. The thing we really want to do is make sure there isn’t something in their vicinity that could be used to end their life at that time, to buy precious moments so they can seek help.
Also, most suicidal crises are really fleeting. If you look at the point of real danger, it is sometimes minutes — maybe a half hour. I have dealt with so many situations where you can see that if the person could just have had a moment to think about the situation and reconsider, that would have been all that was needed. Having a firearm there is an interruption to that and is fatal in many cases.
Senator Richards: So is a car when they want to commit suicide by asphyxiation, and so are many other means. What I am saying is that reducing clip capacity wouldn’t stop a person from taking a .303 and shooting himself. It would only take one bullet. What I am saying is that a lot of the proposals in this bill wouldn’t help the potential suicide. That’s my concern with your observation, sir.
I’ll end it at that. Thank you.
Senator Plett: My question is also for Dr. Sinyor. I will follow up on what Senator Richards said. If we take all the cars off the street, we would have no car accidents. But my question, as it relates to the study, is that your comment on comparing suicide by firearm in Toronto with the five largest metropolitan areas in the United States — something you co-authored with several colleagues in 2019 — found that suicide rates by firearms were highest in centres where there was a high prevalence of firearms. And although Toronto had the highest rate of suicides by means other than firearms, I think you would argue that the presence of firearms makes it more likely, which you already did.
This is interesting, but you need to consider this in the context of the bill. That’s what we are talking about here: Bill C-21. This bill does not actually reduce legal firearms in circulation in Canada. The bill will certainly ban the purchase and sale of legal handguns, but it doesn’t actually take any handguns out of circulation, at least not until someone dies when the estate loses that handgun. Nothing prevents handgun owners or anyone else from owning or buying another firearm. The bill also confirms a ban on so-called assault rifles, but it doesn’t reduce any other guns in circulation, including semi-automatic firearms. In fact, the government will actually pay gun owners to hand in the firearms that have been prohibited, and then permits those firearms owners to use that money to go out and simply buy other firearms if they choose to do so.
So, sir, if the presence of firearms is raising the risk that suicides will be successful, then what impact will Bill C-21 have when it is actually not reducing the legal firearms that are now in circulation?
Dr. Sinyor: Thank you, senator.
Senator Plett: I am asking specifically about Bill C-21.
Dr. Sinyor: Yes, thank you. There are different ways to answer the question. First, I might quibble very slightly with what you said at the beginning about cars versus firearms. Actually, it was one of the major findings that when cars were detoxified in the 1990s, it had a dramatic impact. It is much harder these days to end a person’s life with a car than it used to be in the past. The rates of it are very low. There are a handful of people who do it every year in Toronto, whereas a firearm is a much easier —
Senator Plett: Let me interject. I didn’t say that people were killing themselves by suicide in cars; I simply said that if there were no cars on the streets, there would be no car accidents, period.
Dr. Sinyor: Yes, that’s true. A fair point. The question is: Do we need cars? Do we need firearms? The answers to those questions may differ.
I agree with you that, essentially, any effort to reduce access or availability to firearms will be the most effective strategy in reducing suicide. For example, to the previous senator’s last comment about clip numbers, that could be helpful in homicide prevention or mass homicide prevention, but I don’t believe that specific finding will impact suicide. You have to decide which elements of the bill might work for different elements of harm that are caused by firearms.
Senator Plett: But the bill doesn’t take any guns off the street.
Dr. Sinyor: That would be better. From a suicide prevention standpoint, it would be good to do more of that.
Senator Plett: Fair enough, but then we need something other than Bill C-21. We are dealing with Bill C-21. It does not do what you are suggesting that you would like done. That’s my point. I fully support doing anything we can to prevent people from committing suicide. There is no argument. The argument I have is that Bill C-21 doesn’t do that, so why don’t we find a different mechanism than this, because this isn’t the answer to what you are suggesting.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here. My question is for Dr. Sinyor as well. Thank you very much for your work and also, being a Torontonian, I very much value the presence of the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in my community. It is a great institution. I am pleased that you are associated with it. You are a population specialist on population suicide issues and prevention. Your theory, based on data, is that by reducing the means for suicide — guns being one of them — we can anticipate lower suicide rates. Let me ask you a few questions. First of all, somewhat related to what Senator Plett just asked you, with respect to the bill and your understanding of it, should there be greater restrictions on firearms than what we are contemplating in this bill? Would it help suicide rates if we had greater restrictions in Bill C-21?
Second, help me to understand something that has come up a couple of times in this committee about availability. Some people have said that every household has knives. So, why is it — or is it the case — that people don’t try to commit suicide with knives? Or perhaps they do. I just want to explore that issue or topic for a moment, just to understand that.
Third, with respect to your comments about suicide being impulsive, there being transitory factors that many people have, is it the fact that most people who commit suicide try it once and then don’t try it again? Do you have data on that? That is a lot of questions for you, and thank you very much.
Dr. Sinyor: Thank you, senator. It is truly an honour to work at Sunnybrook. With respect to the bill, there are three different ways firearms can cause harm. One is an unintentional injury, and there are two intentional versions, which are homicide and suicide. There should be elements in any bill on firearms to deal with all three of those issues. To your specific question, it would absolutely be helpful to do anything that would reduce the number of firearms. If we could add that to the bill, it would help in reducing suicides across Canada.
That goes to the second question you asked about knives. People do try to end their lives with knives; we see them clinically in the hospital sometimes. It is a much harder way to end a person’s life, and most frequently, the action is non-fatal. Then someone will show up at the emergency room, and it offers us the opportunity to intervene. It is very rare. I can think of dozens of cases of people who have used a knife to try to end their life who I have seen in the hospital, but I can think of no cases of firearms because they are so lethal.
In terms of your question about the number of attempts, it is variable. It is true that the majority of people who die by suicide do so on their first attempt. It is roughly 50-50, but a bit more on the first attempt. But what you really want is for that first attempt to be non-lethal so that it gets someone into attention and care, allowing an intervention to be done.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: My question is for Ms. Léonard. Criminologists always say that you have to analyze murder statistics over an 8-to-10-year period to draw valid conclusions. Often, the curves are episodic, like gang wars, among others, in organized crime.
Would you agree that we should avoid, perhaps, hasty conclusions or concerns that may be fuelled by emotions, especially when it comes to changing laws?
Ms. Léonard: That’s a good question. Absolutely; that’s why we’d like to know how this bill can help us better measure what is being analyzed, in this case, firearms in circulation in Canada. Some will say that, when it comes to legal weapons, we don’t seem to have systematic data across the country. Some will say that there is a mix with the illegal market. This is the case, for example, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, whose Firearms Tracing Centre has shown that some legal weapons are never found. Witnesses have also mentioned this here.
In that context, we’re here to support public safety partners, justice partners, and as a national statistical agency, we have the legal mandate to get legal and community safety statistics that are adequate.
In that sense, this bill can help us, for example, to develop better standards and more systematic collection so that we can have, again, a better picture of legal and illegal weapons in Canada. I think that’s how we can support or improve bills.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Léonard.
Senator Boisvenu: My question is for the Statistics Canada representatives.
Do you have any comparative studies concerning the use of firearms in crimes committed by 16-to-24-year-olds? Do you have any comparative data between the use of a handgun and the use of a shotgun?
Ms. Léonard: No. Thank you, Senator Boisvenu, that’s a very good question. We’re currently working on a more detailed request on firearms and the profile of gun owners. We could try to give you more details by age group, because let’s face it, it’s not the same system for adults and juveniles. However, one of the sources —
Senator Boisvenu: The statistics you provided earlier are very worrisome regarding young people aged 16 to 18, where the percentage increase in crime with the use of a firearm exceeds almost all other age categories.
We know that when a crime is committed by a minor — this is the case in Quebec in particular — when he or she becomes of age and commits another crime, the data concerning him or her when he or she was a minor is erased from the system; it no longer appears there.
The entire bill before us, Bill C-21, is based on the increase in crime. However, if the increase in crime affects young people aged 16 to 18, it’s not a bill like this one that will solve the crime problem. It’s social programs, support programs, prevention, don’t you think?
Ms. Léonard: Yes, indeed. Even Minister LeBlanc has opened discussions like this here —
Senator Boisvenu: Minister LeBlanc, a week after coming here, said in the media that Bill C-21 will have little impact on organized crime. So there will be little impact on young minors who get guns, especially handguns, and commit crimes on the street.
What impact will this bill have on minors?
Ms. Léonard: I don’t think we’re in a situation where we can —
Senator Boisvenu: Very well. That was my question, thank you.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: I want to come back, Ms. Léonard and Ms. Bégin, to the answer you were providing on the pilot you are doing. I didn’t get the conclusion of that.
I am very interested in terms of how this pilot might help us collect better data that can help the understanding of gun crimes across the country.
Ms. Léonard: Yes, this pilot that was started in 2018 and it is at the stage of data collection. This work was done with the recommendation and endorsement of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which is basically to add new variables to the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, or UCR, to better capture firearm characteristics that were not there before.
It started in 2019, but that is why this pilot has now received money with Public Safety Canada for the next five years to do this data collection around firearm characteristics, to count the number of firearms that are either seized, recovered or stolen as part of a criminal incident and their origins. This work with Public Safety Canada in adding those new variables in the existing Uniform Crime Reporting Survey from all police services on those police-reported criminal incidents will ensure or, at least, advance more consistency in firearms-related definitions across police services in Canada.
Senator Yussuff: In the context of Statistics Canada, when can we start getting this new data that will better inform us about the granularity of how and which guns — legal — and, more importantly, that can be of much help in regard to understanding the crimes and firearms-related use?
Ms. Léonard: We are working with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Special Purpose Committee and the Police Information and Statistics Committee, and the Special Purpose Committee members were here to do their representation as well.
We are looking at data collection next year, and so most likely it will be 2025. Again, given the situation, we can always see if there are some preliminary findings, data, around advancing this data collection, especially on the origin of firearms in Canada, to better capture those incidents as well.
As we move in with the training, and some of the challenges, though, which have been raised on this committee in terms of even police and prosecutors not understanding the laws sometimes, that too is a challenge in terms of capturing the information in a valid manner as well in all of these files for police officers and even prosecutors.
Training is important while capturing the data quality and validity of this information. That’s new for everyone.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much. I’m going back to the psychiatrist again, please. I’m not trying to beat up on you or anything.
My children were at Sunnybrook Hospital. We took them there when I lived in Toronto. There was a bridge across Bloor Street near the Don Valley that had a number of suicides when I was there, and there was a bridge on the Miramichi that had a number of suicides as well.
My only thing about this regulation is that you cannot determine action or reaction of human nature through governmental legislation. I’m very concerned with the positive attitude towards this, which will really have a negative impact, I think, sooner or later on ordinary people who have rifles for target shooting or hunting. I think it is a targeting of them while not solving the problem.
Perhaps you could comment on that, sir.
Dr. Sinyor: Thank you so much, senator. Don’t worry; I don’t feel beaten up.
I think the answer to your question might be what you raised with the Bloor Street Viaduct. That’s actually my research. That was the study I was mentioning in my opening remarks.
Originally, it appeared that the barrier didn’t change suicide rates because of increases at other places. I later did research, which identified that the media in Canada — like The Globe and Mail — had an article two months after the barrier came up identifying other bridges that people could jump from. That was a huge violation of media guidelines; although, at the time, we didn’t actually have any in Canada. That is why I spend most of my career these days working on public messaging, although I also do means restriction and other kinds of suicide prevention.
Once the media stopped talking about it, the more recent literature really shows that, in an enduring way over the course of decades, the barrier does appear to have lowered suicide rates by about the ten people who had died at that location. There was a transient finding that it didn’t initially, probably due to a media effect. Even though that was the poster for “means restrictions don’t work,” in the long run, it did.
Senator Richards: One last question, sir. Do you own a firearm or know people who own firearms? Have you spoken to people who actually use them for recreation or hunting and have used them safely?
Because, as I said, 95% of the people I know are extremely conscientious people when it comes to firearms. They were taught from the time they were children to be so.
Dr. Sinyor: That may be so. Even if you are conscientious, if you are in a suicidal crisis, it may override the conscientiousness.
But to answer the specific question, I do not own a firearm. I do know many people, actually, who own firearms, although most of them are American colleagues.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Before we conclude our first panel, I’ll allow myself a comment.
I was a police officer for 40 years, and for 25 years I worked on the road where I had to cover many suicide calls. In places where people didn’t have guns, they were suicides by hanging — I can tell you that I unfortunately picked up a few. Where there were guns, people shot themselves with their guns — and I’ll spare you the details.
I was the one who found my best friend, who was a policeman, with his gun in his mouth. He had committed suicide. Unfortunately, there are too many suicides among police officers; they use their firearms. I don’t have statistics, I’m not a professional, but during my career, most of the suicides I’ve covered where there were firearms — I kind of agree with Dr. Sinyor, it’s a form of suicide that happens quickly.
Unfortunately, the people who do it don’t tell us about it. My best friend, who committed suicide...I had dinner with him the night before and the next day I found him dead with his service weapon. Unfortunately, police officers use their service weapons. I’m not a professional; I’m just telling you what I saw.
Thank you Dr. Sinyor, Ms. Bégin and Ms. Léonard. We are grateful for your contributions. Thank you for taking the time to share your experience with us. We will now suspend the session and prepare for our second panel.
[English]
We will now continue with our next panel.
[Translation]
For those listening live, this meeting is about 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 Doug Chiasson, Executive Director, Fur Institute of Canada.
Welcome to our committee. We are ready to hear your opening statement. A question period with the senators will follow.
[English]
Mr. Chiasson, please proceed when you are ready.
Doug Chiasson, Executive Director, Fur Institute of Canada: Good afternoon, senators. My name is Doug Chiasson, and I’m the executive director of the Fur Institute of Canada.
The Fur Institute of Canada, created by Canada’s wildlife ministers in 1983, is the national voice for Canada’s fur sector. Responsible for Canada’s trap testing and certification program in accordance with the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards, the institute advocates for a sustainable, well-managed fur sector and furbearer conservation on behalf of Canada’s 50,000 trappers. The FIC’s work supports not only the commercial fur trade but also wildlife research, predator management, human-wildlife conflict work and livestock protection.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before you today on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-21, regardless of whatever good intentions may be behind it, will have dire impacts on Canada’s trappers if passed in its current form.
The important role of handguns in trapping was recognized explicitly by the government of the day in the authorizations to carry restricted firearms and certain handgun regulations. Trappers are identified explicitly in section 3(c) of the regulations as individuals who need “restricted firearms or prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation . . . .”
Unfortunately, many trappers have not been able to access ATCs due to red tape and Byzantine regulations. This situation leaves trappers at an increased risk without the necessary safety equipment for their work.
Trappers use handguns and other restricted firearms for two primary purposes — humane dispatch of trapped animals and for self-defence from large predators.
For many trappers who use restraining traps, a handgun chambered in a small rimfire calibre like a .22 long rifle is the ideal tool to provide a quick and humane death while minimizing damage to the fur of a trapped animal.
As well, bears, mountain lions and wolves are all large predators that are regularly attracted to trappers setting or checking their trapping. As trappers often have their hands full with dead animals, lures or other attractants while handling traps, tools and other items, a handgun worn on their person can be much more easily carried and quickly brought to bear for defence than a long-gun.
A trapper hunting in a predator-heavy area may be inclined to carry both a .22 for dispatch and a larger calibre handgun for self-defence. Carrying two long-guns, in addition to the other tools of the trade, is not a workable solution for trappers in the bush.
Therefore, Bill C-21 will put certain trappers in a position of having to choose between their own safety and maintaining the value of the fur they’ve harvested.
Bill C-21’s centralization of the issuance of authorizations to carry with the Commissioner of Firearms has the potential to slow an already slow process to a near halt. Disconnects between the timelines for issuance of provincial trapping licences and issuance of ATCs already create situations where trappers are unable to attain ATCs for the start of the trapping season. Further centralizing this process will functionally eliminate the ability for trappers to obtain ATCs in a timely manner.
The committee has heard testimony from firearms businesses that report extreme challenges in dealing with the Canadian Firearms Program, including repeated phone outages. Adding another task to the CFP’s plate will make the service provided even worse.
We recommend that clause 28 be removed from the bill to leave ATCs in the hands of the Chief Firearms Officers. If the committee is intent on centralizing the issuance power for ATCs, we would request that the legislation be amended to establish service standards that are aligned with provincial licensing. These standards must also have meaningful teeth to provide accountability.
As you’ve heard from many other witnesses, Bill C-21 in its current form would significantly decrease the number of people eligible to purchase handguns, which will lead to a decrease of availability in the firearms retail space and corresponding increases in price. We are already seeing this with the closure of many firearms and outdoor retailers. This will add to the financial burden on trappers who are already suffering from the impacts of a sagging international fur market, inflation and increased cost of living.
A new trapper already needs to pay for a trapping course, trapping licence, RPAL course and RPAL license fees all before applying for an ATC, which may or may not come in time for the start of the trapping season.
Given that trappers primarily live in rural and remote communities, further restricted retail presence could add hundreds of kilometres of travel to procure a firearm or an RPAL course. Increasing the costs of any of these constituent pieces will put trapping even further out of reach, particularly for low-income and Indigenous individuals in communities where this can be one of the few reliable sources of income.
These fundamental flaws must be addressed before Bill C-21 is passed into law. Amendments are necessary. Trappers, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, deserve to be safe while pursuing their livelihood.
Lastly, and I want to be clear, the passage of Bill C-21 as it stands will make trappers in Canada less safe in the pursuit of their outdoor heritage, culture and livelihoods. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chiasson.
We will now proceed to questions. 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 remains in your time. Please keep your questions succinct.
Senator Plett: Thank you for being here and for your testimony.
When the minister appeared before our committee, he stated:
We engaged with . . . the firearms community and sportspersons . . . 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.
Was your organization, your association, consulted on this bill before it was introduced?
Mr. Chiasson: No, we were not.
Senator Plett: Thank you. How many trappers across Canada are impacted by this bill? How many of your members would you say are Indigenous?
Mr. Chiasson: In real numbers, in terms of the number of authorizations to carry that are issued and active right now, there are 200 ATCs that are issued under 3(c) of the regulations for trappers, and 252 ATCs, active authorizations to carry, issued under 3(a), which is for individuals in areas where wildlife may present a risk to safety. It’s difficult to parse how many of those 3(a) authorizations are issued to trappers.
Senator Plett: How long is the wait to get an ATC issued for a trapper?
Mr. Chiasson: Reliable numbers on the wait for ATCs, particularly for trappers, are hard to come by, as you may sympathize, senator.
One thing I can say is that there are certain provinces in which the Chief Firearms Officers avail themselves of the wide latitude that CFOs have and choose not to issue authorizations to carry to trappers.
Senator Plett: What would you argue is a reasonable service standard in this regard?
Mr. Chiasson: I think the ideal service standard would be ensuring that the ATCs would be issued before provincial trapping seasons open.
If the Canadian Firearms Program came back and said we can do them in five months, that would be great. We can inform members that to get your ATCs, you need five months; you need to have your application in five months ahead of time. Certainly, the shorter the better in terms of a reasonable service standard.
Senator Plett: The bill will incrementally close shooting ranges in Canada. In general, it will create an environment where it will become more difficult to safely require handguns.
How would closing shooting ranges in Canada impact trappers? You don’t really want to have a person out there with a handgun that can hit the hind leg of a fox that he has trapped instead of the head.
Mr. Chiasson: It absolutely would affect trappers, both in being able to provide a quick and humane kill to an animal that’s in a restraining trap, and also being able to effectively defend themselves.
If trappers aren’t comfortable using their weapon, or are not experienced using a firearm — using their particular firearm — that’s certainly a less-than-ideal situation.
For certain provinces where there is a requirement to complete annual or regular firearms training with a handgun in order to receive provincial permission to use that handgun in pursuit of trapping, closing of shooting ranges would make that much more difficult to obtain.
Senator Plett: Thank you. I must be running close to my time.
The Deputy Chair: Yes. You have two seconds.
Senator Plett: I will use those two seconds to say thank you.
Senator Boehm: Thank you, Mr. Chiasson, for being with us today. Your brief and your statement was very clear. I’m going to follow in the direction of where Senator Plett was a moment ago.
On the issue of humanely killing trapped animals, in your remarks you mentioned this is usually done with a handgun and sometimes with a .22 short rifle; I used to have one of those, and it’s still a bit of an ungainly weapon if you’re pulling it out as you’re trying to get a wounded animal out of a trap, or dispatch it in some way.
My question is very simple. For trappers, is there any alternative other than the handgun or a .22 to dispatch an animal?
Mr. Chiasson: Thank you, senator, for the question.
Certainly, some trappers do use long rifles, particularly for trappers who aren’t necessarily in the thickest of bush while they are doing their trapping. Trappers who are operating in open country in the prairies who are trapping field edges, they do use long rifles.
Senator Boehm: There’s no other alternative that would be an easy method?
Mr. Chiasson: There certainly are other potential ways to provide for safe and humane dispatch. The option that provides the safest environment for a trapper is to be able to stay at a reasonable distance and use a firearm.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Chiasson, welcome to the Senate. I’ve been trapping for almost 20 years. My father-in-law introduced me to it when I lived in Abitibi. I’d like you to talk to me about trapper safety. It’s an activity that’s usually practised alone, in the forest, without any means of communication, often in winter, and therefore in difficult conditions. On a snowmobile, trappers can easily get lost.
There are a lot of professional trappers, but there are weekend trappers, because there are recreational permits that are granted for trapping. It’s a very popular activity, in Quebec among other places.
How will this bill affect the safety of trappers, and how will it also affect the next generation, whether in terms of hunting or trapping? These are issues unique to Canada.
Mr. Chiasson: Thank you, senator. This is a very important point and I thank you for the opportunity to talk a little more about it.
As you say, trappers practise an activity that presents a safety risk. Trappers are usually alone in the woods, in environments that are quite remote from other people. They interact with wild animals, which have claws and teeth. Animals — bears in particular — whether in traps or not, present a huge risk to a trapper’s safety.
We already know that there are only 200 licensed trappers; that’s a percentage, out of 250, who choose their protection and safety. We know that there are 200 licensed trappers.
However, I talk a lot with trappers who say they used to have a permit for a handgun, but the government required them to fill out several forms and take training.
There are changing regulations and licences and permits that never arrive or arrive when the trapper is already in the woods. For these reasons, many trappers have made a choice between their safety and the possibility of enriching their heritage or ensuring their succession. Trapping is something so important to them.
Senator Boisvenu: We know that trappers are managers. They have quotas and manage square kilometres of territory. They harvest for government programs. They’re also people who work on road safety.
Let’s think about beavers: If there were no traps in Quebec or Canada, many access roads for cottages or vacationing would not be accessible, because beavers do a lot of damage. Will this bill have an impact on the next generation? My main concern is the lack of new trappers.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you Senator Boisvenu; I apologize. Mr. Chiasson, you may respond in writing or during the second round of questions.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, Mr. Chiasson, for being here today. Your position is a pretty specific niche in this whole area when we look at Bill C-21. We heard a little bit about trapping from a previous witness, but not too much. In an effort to prepare, in an effort to do our homework and meet folks where they are at, we have to go to the woods. I’m thinking about that today from the handgun perspective. I will go through an example particularly about something that we read recently.
I’m looking at the true effectiveness of a handgun for a grizzly bear that, for example, was attacking you. You’re out trapping, here you are and you have a handgun.
I saw one blog post from an outdoor equipment company that said only if you’re lucky will this handgun help you. It said that since your bullet must stop in its tracks, you must hit it in the spine to render it immobile — didn’t know that — and if you’re exceedingly lucky, if you put a bullet between the eyes or in the brain, you might be successful, but anything else, in the heart, in the chest, they will still have an adrenaline surge and you could be in trouble.
I bring this up because I see your request about clause 23 and when we look at amendments, we have to look at them pretty comprehensively. I worry about people carrying these weapons for self-defence when statistically they are so much more likely to injure themselves or others, or loved ones, instead of an accident with a firearm.
So if we’re going to consider voting to amend this bill, we want to know about these exceptions regarding handguns. If you could provide the committee with any data around the stats about trappers that use a handgun specifically to fend off an attacking animal — some may not be here to tell the tale, but you must have some data — rather than the types of firearms that would be permitted. I would kind of like to know what these numbers are.
Mr. Chiasson: Right. Senator, this is actually something that I’ve worked to try and procure before this meeting, the reality being there isn’t much in the way of centralized reporting for avoided conflict.
Senator M. Deacon: Right.
Mr. Chiasson: Certainly provincial natural resource departments or forestry departments would have some degree of data on fatalities, but not necessarily a situation where a trapper, hunter or backwoods surveyor used a firearm in self-defence where it didn’t trigger some other reporting requirement. Certainly less relevant to trappers, but a defence kill of a polar bear in Nunavut requires very particular reporting to the Department of Environment in Nunavut.
The killing of a grizzly bear in particular would require significant reporting, but using a firearm to defend oneself against a pack of coyotes or a particularly angry lynx or a black bear where the bear thought better of the encounter after being engaged with a firearm, I’m not aware of any provinces that actually require reporting that incident.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. With the earlier comment, the data there is scant. It’s spread out. There are probably some stories, those pieces, but you’re very clear that this bill as it is, not being amended, puts risk on our trappers.
Mr. Chiasson: Yes.
Senator M. Deacon: And you have the data for that?
Mr. Chiasson: We certainly have plenty of trappers in our organization and in provincial affiliates that can speak to their personal experiences in using their handguns in self-defence.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much for being here. I have problems with this because I think it is an arrogant law and it parents people who are ever bit as moral and conscientious as the people passing the bill, and I don’t think it will help reduce crime.
But most of the trappers I know no longer trap. Well, a lot of them who are my age, but even the younger guys didn’t take it up because it isn’t an easy life, is it?
Mr. Chiasson: No.
Senator Richards: I mean, even before this draconian measure, you have your line, your territory, your traps, and an increasingly limited market because of the bad publicity trappers get and that the idea of trapping animals get. Could this be the death knell for a number of trappers you know?
Mr. Chiasson: I think there certainly would be trappers who, if they find themselves in a position where they are no longer able to feel safe in the backwoods, will not go. They will hang up their traps and say this is the end of the line for me.
And really, that is the key here. This comes down to a safety issue for trappers, and certainly we have had the regulations on authorizations to carry on the books for over 20 years now. Trappers do not represent tens of thousands of firearms on the landscape. They represent a very particular use case and a very tightly controlled one who, unfortunately, are going to end up being caught up in a much larger issue that’s far beyond their control.
Senator Richards: Yes. What is the market like? How pinched is the market now for fur?
Mr. Chiasson: There are some bright spots on the horizon when it comes to the fur market. We’ve seen some fairly significant increases in the beaver market in recent years, but compared to the fur market of 35 years ago, it certainly is a much declined industry. But beyond the simple dollars and cents of the fur trade, trapping is a very important cultural and heritage activity for people living in remote and rural communities, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, Mr. Chiasson, for being here.
One of the things I’m struck by that you raised — which may require some reflection — is the time it takes to get an ATC. Is there generally inconsistency across the country because of how permits are issued or does it just vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it might be a little bit better in one place but terrible in other places because of staffing issues?
Mr. Chiasson: It certainly varies across the country where currently the ATCs are issued by the Chief Firearms Officers. There is variability across provinces and territories, and as I mentioned earlier, there are provinces where you simply will not get one. The CFOs have refused to issue ATCs for the purposes of trapping.
Senator Yussuff: Do we know why that is?
Mr. Chiasson: I think that would be a very good question for the CFOs. I won’t speculate as to their motivations.
Senator Yussuff: Because there’s nothing preventing them. Legally, if you have one, you could renew it and it shouldn’t be an issue.
Mr. Chiasson: Yes.
Senator Yussuff: There are biases in the system with regard to doing that.
Mr. Chiasson: Yes.
Senator Yussuff: You mentioned a point that I wanted to focus on. You’re suggesting that five months is a reasonable time frame?
Mr. Chiasson: I used five months purely because I needed a number for my example. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
The primary concern for trappers who are currently availing themselves of the ability to obtain an ATC is that, regardless of when the timeline would be, in certain provinces, they are waiting to go out on the trapline and still don’t have their ATC in hand. In some cases, these are individuals who have obtained an ATC every year. They find themselves in the deeply unfortunate situation of asking themselves, “Do I pack the handgun and go to the trapping camp? I know that by the time I come back, it will be here.”
What would be beneficial would be to set what the timelines are. Certainly, I would hope that timeline is not a year for folks who may be renewing or getting new trapping licences. I hope there would be greater collaboration and cooperation between the CFOs and the provincial licensing agencies that issue trapping licences. Have them come together and say, “It takes us X number of months to issue a trapping licence. Can you issue an ATC in the same period?” Or, because you will need your trapping licence to get your ATC, to say, “If you are not able to issue trapping licences before X date, we won’t have time to issue ATCs before the beginning of trapping season.”
Senator Yussuff: From your experience, do these folks ever talk to each other?
Mr. Chiasson: I don’t think they talk to each other as much as we would like.
Senator Yussuff: It is like “the cheque is in the mail” kind of attitude.
Mr. Chiasson: Yes.
Senator Yussuff: I appreciate the points you’re making. Thank you for sharing them with us.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Before we move on to the second round, I’m going to allow myself a question, as we have a little time. I’d like to come back to trappers as individuals. What proportion of trappers are First Nations? Do you feel that Indigenous trappers will be favoured by the provisions of Bill C-21 in terms of safety and the ability to carry their weapon?
Mr. Chiasson: Today, what we say at the institute is that there are about 50,000 trappers in Canada. I’d say about half of our trappers are Indigenous. It’s a bit difficult to give a precise number, because in some regions, Indigenous trappers don’t have permits. So we don’t have a table showing an exact number. We estimate that about 25,000 trappers in Canada are Indigenous.
I don’t think Indigenous trappers will be favoured by Bill C-21. I would say that many of the problems we see are trapper problems. They’re not problems specific to Indigenous people, but they are problems specific to trappers.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Boisvenu: I’ll continue on the same topic.
As I said earlier, trappers are at the heart of wildlife management in Canada. Most of this trapping is done on Crown land, which means it belongs to the state. These lands are used for logging, vacationing, hunting and fishing. Trappers have a kind of responsibility to secure these territories; they maintain them.
What impact will this bill have on the next generation, which is already under threat? Will it exacerbate the decline in the number of trappers in Canada, leaving the government with problems on these territories?
Mr. Chiasson: This is certainly a problem that we foresee, if there are changes relative to Bill C-21; and this is in combination with the issues that Senator Richards mentioned earlier. Now, we see that the number of trappers is fairly stable. However, we are seeing a generational change in trapping.
Senator Boisvenu: If we were to accept one of your proposed amendments to this bill, which one should it be?
Mr. Chiasson: I would say that the most important one is amendment 28, so that the authorization to carry and transport is not centralized under the Canadian Firearms Program and that this responsibility remains with the provincial chief firearms officers. If this power is centralized, we’d like to see very specific service standards, directly in the bill.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you. We’ll try to amend it for you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: This brings us to the end of today’s meeting. I would like to extend our sincere thanks to Mr. Chiasson. We greatly appreciate your contributions and the time you took to share your insights with us.
[Translation]
Our next meeting will be held on Monday, November 27, at 3 p.m. Eastern time, in room C-128. I remind members that we intend to begin clause-by-clause consideration of this bill at that time.
[English]
Members are encouraged to contact the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel should they wish to bring forward amendments, and to share the amendments with the clerk as soon as possible.
[Translation]
If you would like your amendments to be consolidated and distributed prior to the meeting, please submit them to the clerk by Friday morning. Otherwise, please bring sufficient copies of your amendments to the November 30 meeting. On that note, I wish you all a good day.
[English]
I will see you in the Senate Chamber. Thank you so much.
(The committee adjourned.)