THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Monday, April 1, 2019

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, met this day at 11 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Gwen Boniface (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Before I begin, I ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu, Quebec.

Senator Richards: David Richards, New Brunswick.

Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, New Brunswick.

Senator Plett: Donald Plett, Manitoba.

Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island.

Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.

[Translation]

Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Busson: Bev Busson, British Columbia.

The Chair: I am your chair, Gwen Boniface, Ontario.

We are continuing our study of Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms.

This morning we begin by welcoming, from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Dr. Alan Drummond, Co-chair, Public Affairs Committee, accompanied via video conference by Dr. Howard Ovens, Member, Public Affairs Committee, and from the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, Linda Silas, President.

Dr. Drummond, I understand you have some words you would like to open with.

Dr. Alan Drummond, Co-chair, Public Affairs Committee, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians: The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians is the national specialty society of emergency medicine with over 2,200 members. I live in rural Perth, Ontario, and I am a Conservative gun owner. With me via video link is Dr. Howard Ovens, an urban emergency physician at Mount Sinai in Toronto, an academic professor of emergency medicine, and one of the lead authors of our last position paper on gun control.

I know that you have had a lot of meetings with respect to this issue. I also know that you know Canada has a gun problem. You are aware that in the OECD, Canada ranks as the fifth highest nation for gun deaths per capita. Our members and Canadians don’t need more studies before we act on the strong evidence currently available. Canadian hospitals now routinely practise active shooter protocols. Our trainees no longer have to travel to large American cities to learn how to manage penetrating trauma from handguns. This is now a Canadian reality.

While the political and media focus seems to be on gangs and guns, it is important to remember that 80 per cent of all our firearm deaths are secondary to suicide. Though we are not oblivious to the problem and are deeply concerned about these presentations to our emergency department, we tend to see gun control through the lens of public health, suicide prevention and a reduction in intimate partner violence.

There are two major issues for us. For many of the things that come with mass shootings and urban crime, the solutions lie beyond the trauma bay. They lie with our sociologists, our politicians and our police in terms of developing upstream criminological solutions to these problems. On a daily basis in the emergency department, we are faced with those who would threaten suicide or those who are exposed to intimate partner violence. This is something that could potentially have a direct impact for us.

Canada has one of the highest suicide rates by firearms in the developed world. There are 500 Canadians who commit suicide with guns on an annual basis. Many of these are rural Canadians using perfectly legal and accessible long guns. It’s important to emphasize that these are preventable deaths. There is strong and robust scientific evidence that a gun in the home is associated with a higher risk of suicide. It has been shown that for every 10 per cent decline in gun ownership in a home, firearm suicide rates dropped by 4.2 per cent and overall suicide rates dropped by 2.5 per cent.

It is clear that suicides are impulsive and that the suicidal crisis is largely temporary. Most people who attempt to commit suicide never repeat it. More than 90 per cent of those who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. There is often no substitution of method when guns are removed from the home. In some, and regrettably so, substitution of method can occur. I am not saying it doesn’t, but the effect is not as much as one would think, with a good number of studies showing relatively little substitution effect.

Study after study in the international literature has conclusively shown that access to firearms increases the risk of suicide and that a reduction in such access reduces both the risk of suicide by firearm and overall suicide rate. Any legislation aimed at reducing access to firearms, particularly for those at risk, can reasonably expect a reduction in the number of suicides.

Turning to intimate partner violence, every six days in Canada, a woman is murdered by her current or former partner, many by gun but all of whom had a past history of domestic violence. The risk of death to a victim of intimate partner violence is significantly higher when there is access to a firearm in the home. It may, in fact, increase the woman’s risk of death in that circumstance fivefold. It is an important point of questioning when we look at the danger assessment of those who present to our emergency department.

Rural women are particularly vulnerable to suicide by firearm. Rifles and shotguns, not handguns, appear to be the weapon of choice and are used in 62 per cent of such spousal homicides.

Firearms are not only used for homicide in intimate partner violence. Study has shown that the perpetrators of intimate partner violence will often intimidate their partners by threatening to shoot them, a pet or someone, or by cleaning or holding a gun while involved in an argument. Again, this is an issue for us of keeping guns out of the hands of individuals at risk.

Our response to the proposed legislative changes in Bill C-71 is one of overall support, recognizing that it is just a first step and that what is needed is a more comprehensive approach to gun control.

The Chair: Dr. Drummond, could I ask you to slow down for the purpose of translation?

Dr. Drummond: With respect to Bill C-71, the enhanced screening provisions and background checks and the expansion of the timeline for seeking clinical red flags resonate with us. We agree entirely that there must be rigorous screening and restriction of licensing for those individuals deemed to be at risk.

We have encouraged the government, however, to take one step further and suggest that there be mandatory reporting by physicians of those individuals at risk by virtue of untreated severe mental illness and of those identified at risk of intimate partner violence. This would allow for identification of individuals at temporary risk and limit access to firearms until the mental health or social crisis has been deemed to have been resolved.

This would be a very small step in the right direction, but it has the potential for saving lives. In our view, any Canadian life saved is worth the effort. Thank you. Thank you.

Linda Silas, President, Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions: Thank you very much, senators, for inviting me to attend on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions. We represent nearly 200,000 nurses and students from across the country. I am also a registered nurse from New Brunswick.

CFNU is the largest nursing organization in Canada. Our members work in hospitals, long-term care, community and home care. Over 90 per cent of our members are women. Our membership runs from downtown urban nurses to rural and remote nursing. Many of our urban nurses treat gunshot wounds on a daily basis. Many of our rural nurses live in communities that enjoy hunting. Our position on gun legislation is informed by this diversity of experience among our membership.

We know that gun violence is very costly. Whether it is someone suffering after a suicide attempt, a woman injured by a firearm during a violent domestic dispute, a child wounded accidentally, a gang-related shooting or the aftermath of a mass shooting, nurses, doctors and the rest of the health care team will be there waiting in emergency rooms to witness the outcome.

Senators know these statistics, but as a nurse I feel it’s important to repeat those that relate to health care. In 2011, the cost of treating a single gunshot wound was put at nearly $500,000. That’s for one gunshot wound. Between 2008 and 2015, nearly 6,000 Canadians died from firearms-related injuries. That’s just in seven years. There were 223 reported firearm-related homicides in 2016. That’s an increase of 44 from the year before; 2016 was the third consecutive year of increases in numbers and the rate of firearm-related homicides in Canada.

This data tells two stories. First, firearm-related violent crimes have a costly impact on our health care system and on our community. Second, stricter gun control laws reduce the frequency of violent crime committed with firearms.

In the wake of the Polytechnique massacre in 1989, I testified before a parliamentary committee on behalf of the then National Federation of Nurses Union calling on stricter gun control laws, and 30 years later here I am again.

Members of this committee should listen to the thoughtful and decisive action of the Prime Minister of New Zealand taken in the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attack two weeks ago. The scale of the horrific terrorist attack is difficult to comprehend. I am here to remind us of the massive cost this attack had on the health care system and its workers.

The CEO of the Canterbury District Health Board gave us a sense of the impact, as we can imagine, of 49 gunshot wounds. They just didn’t trickle in. They came en masse. The emergency department was already full of sick people, and their operating theatres were already full and underway.

The New Zealand health minister recently stated that the mental health needs resulting from the Christchurch attack were expected to last years.

After introducing new laws to ban semi-automatic guns and assault rifles, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told the media that they had guns in New Zealand that were used by responsible owners, including rural communities. She was steadfast in her belief that the vast majority of those gun owners would support what they were doing because it is about all of them, their national interests and safety. Bill C-71 is the same.

Day in and day out, nurses treat and care for victims of smaller scale tragedies involving individual victims of gunshot wounds. Yet it seems only huge tragedies galvanize public attention and motivate political action.

Do we need another Polytechnique, an Ottawa shooting, a Quebec City mosque or a Danforth shooting where nursing student Reese Fallon was killed on July 22, 2018? A mother, RN and one of Reese’s friends who was dragged to safety, wrote to me recently and reminded CFNU that we have to show leadership in addressing gun violence.

This cycle needs to end with Bill C-71. It must be adopted and maintained. While we believe that Bill C-71 is an important start, Canada’s nurses also want to see more done in gun control beyond this legislation.

As Dr. Drummond said, this is only a beginning. In our brief to the House of Commons, we presented recommendations that were adopted. The first adopted was that background checks include the history of domestic violence and mental health issues. We also need to include that health care professionals report individuals who are threats to themselves and others. We need to increase data collection. We need to say no to military-style assault rifles. Lastly, we need to increase education on preventing accidents.

Let’s not wait for another horrific terrorist attack to shake Canada into taking action on guns. Let’s create a healthier and safer society. It is clearly a public health issue.

The Chair: Dr. Ovens, I understand you are available to answer questions.

Dr. Howard Ovens, Member, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians: Yes. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our witnesses for being here. My questions are for Dr. Drummond. You know, as I do, that firearms are not the only weapons that can injure or kill people. Knives are weapons that are also frequently used in conflicts that are not connected to organized crime. What proportion of deaths are caused here by edged weapons, as compared to firearms?

[English]

Dr. Drummond: Senator, thank you for your question. As an association we have studiously avoided discussions of crime and homicide. We are not criminologists. We are nto sociologists. We treat injuries. Speaking as an emergency physician, we are here specifically to address the issues with respect to Bill C-71, which does not address knives. It addresses guns, as you well know.

A knife attack will not cross a Toronto school ground and kill a 4-year-old. A knife attack will not kill 49 people in a mosque in New Zealand. I am not going to engage in a debate about crime because that’s not where we’re coming from. We’re coming from the positions of suicide prevention and intimate partner violence. Although I understand the intent of your question, we’re going to restrict ourselves to firearms, suicide prevention and intimate partner violence. We are not going to talk about crime.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: You referred to interventions or disclosure to police when there are mental health issues. This could have an impact on the rate of crimes committed with legally owned firearms. To what extent is there intervention or disclosure to police, with a distinction being made between incidents that involve knives or firearms? Do you report these to police?

[English]

Dr. Drummond: Yes, I can. My colleague Dr. Ovens wrote a paper with respect to the mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds in emergency departments. The first of such legislation was passed in Ontario and became almost a pan-national project. I believe there are seven provinces now that have mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds. I am going to leave that question for Dr. Ovens.

Dr. Ovens: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. I believe we are up to nine provinces in Canada having mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds. There is a rationale for requiring mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds. It is completely analogous to our rationale for wanting to report people who are at risk for misusing firearms and have access to them.

When you employ a gun, either in an attempt to harm yourself or in an attempt to intimidate or harm a loved one in your family, whether it’s an accident or whether it’s in some other venue, the gun is highly lethal. Many people will survive attacks using knives or bare hands. There is an opportunity for recovery and healing. With guns, the lethality is very high. Some 90 per cent of suicide attempts employing a gun lead to death. If you overdose on drugs, far less than one in a hundred or perhaps a couple in a thousand will lead to death of the person.

As Dr. Drummond mentioned, there is the risk to people who are nearby. It is the lethality at a distance concept and is a significant public health factor. When guns are fired, bullets can go long distances and injure people who are what you might call “collateral damage.”

For those reasons, we believe guns occupy a special place. We would like the ability for physicians who are aware of suicidal thinking and of domestic strife in the home where firearms are present, to be able to violate our oath of privacy and our legislated requirements in that regard and notify the police that a danger exists.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: I have a question for Ms. Silas. Why did the House of Commons committee not adopt your recommendations to improve Bill C-71?

Ms. Silas: That is a very good question, senator.

I am not here today because I carried out a research project, like the physician who is appearing by video conference today, nor because I work directly on suicide prevention or family violence. Those who lobby for more flexibility with respect to gun ownership have far more resources and money than those who lobby against firearms or for stricter control of them. That is why since 1991 there have been so many presentations before provincial and federal government committees.

The firearms industry does a lot of lobbying. It’s important to hear from organizations, emergency physicians and nurses who can tell you that guns are really dangerous. Guns kill. A gun in the hands of a sick person is dangerous. It is the government’s responsibility to take all possible precautions to protect the public. The point is not to make this industry even richer than it already is.

Senator Dagenais: You say that a sick person may own a gun. A person who has a mental illness, permanent or temporary, may have a legal licence or use a borrowed weapon. Can you determine whether or not that person has a legal licence?

Ms. Silas: There are two aspects to consider in today’s society, with regard to public health. A health professional, particularly a physician, must report any dangerous incident to police or social services. For instance, all health professionals must report any violent incident involving children, whatever the motives. If an elderly person can no longer drive, whatever the relationship between a physician and his or her patient, the physician must report this so that the patient’s driving licence is withdrawn.

Regarding drivers’ licences or having firearms at home — not everyone who has a licence will commit a criminal act — why should health professionals not report a potential problem to the RCMP?

Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, madam.

Senator Boisvenu: I’d like to welcome our witnesses. Personally, I think the real safety issues are much more related to organized crime than to small and major criminals. In British Columbia and Edmonton, they invested in police forces and this led to a marked decrease in the number of firearms-related homicides.

Since the end of 1979, there have been firearms acquisition certificates and training for hunters. Between 1979 and 1995, Canada invested $2 billion in a national firearms registry. Firearms-related homicides and suicides declined by 40 per cent. From 1995 to 2010, when very strict firearms regulations were put in place, the reduction was only 35 per cent.

A direct relationship between government regulation and a drop in the number of murders and suicides has never been established. My question is simple. How will this bill impact public safety and cause a decline in the number of homicides and suicides, when we invested $2 billion in 1995 in a registry that caused no reduction in the number of homicides? That decline was even smaller than when we were not monitoring firearms through a registry.

[English]

The Chair: Senator Boisvenu, to whom are you directing your question?

[Translation]

Senator Boisvenu: My question is addressed to the three witnesses.

[English]

Dr. Drummond: Thank you very much. I’ll try to answer your question.

I think there was some debate about the impact of the gun control registry. Apparently, our professional colleagues in Quebec would disagree with you. In fact, they reinstituted the registry after the Harper government disbanded it. I know there was a presentation from the Quebec Public Health Association to the Quebec government committee that was looking at reinstitution of the registry. In their view, which may not be the view of those you have been reading, there was a substantial impact in reduction particularly with respect to suicides. The Quebec Public Health Association believed, courtesy of the registry in 1996, there had been a reduction of at least 300, 400 or 500 deaths per year on the basis of suicide.

I understand that there’s conflict and disagreement about the —

[Translation]

Senator Boisvenu: I’m looking at the statistics we have here. Between 1974 and 2015 when there was no gun registry in Canada, there was a 40 per cent decline. Between 1995 and 2010, when we put in place very strict gun control, the decline was only 35 per cent.

In what way will the bill you are defending today cause a reduction in homicides and suicides? My question is clear. What element of the bill will have an impact on that?

[English]

Dr. Drummond: Well, if you’d let me finish my answer, I’d be happy to provide that.

When I first became involved in the discussion around Bill C-68, there were 1,400 firearm suicide deaths per year in Canada. There are now about 500, so something seems to be working with respect to suicide reduction. That’s the first thing.

Specifically with respect to Bill C-71, this is largely a crime control bill. We freely admit that. We are not criminologists. We know nothing about prevention of crime. However, there is the concept of prolonged or extended review of one’s history, looking for clinical red flags with respect to psychosis, suicidal depression or intimate partner violence. We believe that’s a very good first step in pushing forward our concept, which is that of mandatory reporting.

[Translation]

Ms. Silas: I totally agree with Dr. Drummond. The percentages you mentioned are all declining. From the public health perspective, if we want to reduce firearms-related incidents, this is a step in the right direction. The bill that is before us will take us even further.

[English]

Senator McIntyre: Thank you all for your presentations. I draw your attention to the collection of data analyses of firearms deaths, injuries and crimes.

Is there a link between the mandatory reporting of firearm injuries and better tracking and analysis of this data? If so, would it allow for better tracking and analysis of this data?

Dr. Drummond: Do you want to take that, Dr. Ovens?

Dr. Ovens: Yes. Thank you.

If I understood the question correctly, it was: Would mandatory reporting of gunshot injuries improve our knowledge and ability to analyze data in the country? Did I get it correct?

Senator McIntyre: You have it correct.

Dr. Ovens: In Ontario, when we called for mandatory gunshot wound reporting, we asked for a public registry of anonymized data that would be available for data analysis as you’ve described. We think it would be a very helpful tool. Unfortunately, for mainly privacy reasons, the registry was never completed.

It remains part of our position as the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians that there should be, along with mandatory reporting, a registry of these injuries which should do its best to protect people’s privacy. It should be available for researchers of all kinds to analyze patterns in gun injury in our communities.

Senator McIntyre: Does the mandatory reporting of firearm injuries by physicians or health care professionals exist in some provinces? If so, which ones?

Dr. Drummond: I believed there were seven, but Dr. Ovens has now corrected me and told me that nine provinces have adopted the Ontario model of mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds to the emergency department. Which ones are deficient, I do not know.

To add to Dr. Ovens’ comment, we have been clear that we need more Canadian-made research on gun-related injury and its prevention. We tend to rely on international studies, particularly from America, believing that some phenomena are universal. Since the beginning, we have called for better funding of Canadian-made firearms research.

Senator McIntyre: I take it that you both want to extend the mandatory reporting to a national level.

Dr. Drummond: You may misunderstand me, and I apologize if that’s the case. Dr. Ovens was talking about someone showing up in an emergency room with a gunshot wound. We would like to see a linkage between this bill and others, and mental health.

People come to our emergency department who express suicidal thoughts. We don’t send everybody off under a mandatory review order or a Form 1. Sometimes we have to make the clinical decision about sending them home. We do not know if they have an arsenal in their home. We do not know if they have access to guns. There is no mandated requirement for them to tell us, so sometimes we send people back with questionable concern for their suicidal ideation who do have access to firearms.

We believe it would be in everybody’s best interests if we could report to the police from the emergency department asking for a temporary removal of firearms from the home until the mental health crisis passes.

It is not a crime to be psychotic in Canada, but if someone comes in with a psychosis and paranoid thinking wanting to shoot the Senate of Canada, we don’t know if they have an arsenal of firearms or the ability to do that. It would be nice in those circumstances to be able to say to the police, “We’re not sure what’s going on here, but we would like to be sure that the firearms are removed until we can get this resolved.”

Similarly, if a wife shows up who is the victim of domestic assault or there are concerns about domestic violence in the home, we have no idea if there are firearms in the home until that social crisis can be resolved to our satisfaction. When we talk about mandatory reporting, that’s what we are talking about specifically.

Senator Plett: Let me start off by making a comment. Dr. Drummond, you wouldn’t or maybe couldn’t answer Senator Dagenais’ question about stats. You said it wasn’t your job or your position to deal with the criminal aspect of the bill. I am paraphrasing here. Yet, in your opening comments you’ve talked a few times about spousal abuse and intimate spousal violence. That is a crime.

Dr. Drummond: Yes, I understand.

Senator Plett: If you are dealing with that, you are dealing with a crime. Let’s throw suicide in there, too, although you clearly said that suicide prevention was obviously working.

I am assuming that’s working for all methods of suicide, not just one. If the suicide rate has gone down by 50 per cent in the last —

Dr. Drummond: Firearms suicide.

Senator Plett: It’s the only one that has gone down. Is that correct?

Dr. Drummond: Again, referring back to our original involvement, you can use a percentage per 100,000, but on average there have been about 4,000 deaths per year by suicide in Canada for the last 20 years or so.

Senator Plett: There are 4,000 deaths per year.

Dr. Drummond: About that.

Senator Plett: How many by firearms?

Dr. Drummond: It’s 80 per cent.

Senator Plett: How about spousal and intimate violence?

Dr. Drummond: I am not so familiar.

Senator Plett: I am assuming you support the five-year background check being extended to a lifetime background check.

Dr. Drummond: Yes.

Senator Plett: Maybe all three of you do. If you support this measure, do you know of any incidents of firearm crime in Canada that having a lifetime background check in place would have prevented? Are there stats on what would have been prevented if we had that?

Second, I know Dr. Ovens spoke about having a lifetime background check. You both said that you would like to be able to have more interaction in reporting incidents. Is there not doctor-client privilege in this country? If I go to see a psychiatrist and he believes that I have issues and might be a danger to myself or others, is he prevented by that privilege from reporting it?

Dr. Drummond: In some circumstances, yes, but there are also circumstances where the greater societal good transcends the individual doctor-patient relationship. Let’s say you come in with signs and symptoms of dementia. You may be 85 and really like driving your car in rural Manitoba, but at the end of the day you’re probably not safe to be driving on the roads of rural Manitoba in your big truck.

Even though you have presented to your physician with signs and symptoms of dementia, at the end of day, we want to prevent you from hitting a school bus and killing 35 children. It has been very clear that there are certain circumstances in Canadian law where the individual right to privacy in relationship to their physician can be transcended by the greater societal good.

Dr. Ovens may have something more to say, but that’s fairly well established for drinking and driving, for a pilot who is unable to fly because of medical issues, or for child abuse or geriatric abuse. These things have existed for many decades.

Do you have any comments to make, Dr. Ovens?

Dr. Ovens: Yes. Perhaps I could go back. First, I want to correct what I believe is one of the errors in the data. It’s not 80 per cent of suicides that are conducted by firearms. It’s 80 per cent of firearm deaths in Canada are suicide.

Dr. Drummond: Thank you. I made a mistake in the heat of the moment, senator.

Dr. Ovens: Second, there was a question about background checks. Although I don’t have a paper at my fingertips on background checks beyond five years, we have provided it in our materials. It is an annotated resource list. It clearly shows the restrictions on firearms and other policies related to background checks in a number of countries that have shown significant decreases in suicide and other deaths by firearms.

We have papers from Switzerland, Austria and Australia. There is a lot of analysis by state in the U.S., where most of the relevant legislation is enacted by individual states.

Overall, there is good evidence that background checks can be a very effective tool in protecting people from firearm death and injury.

In terms of the doctor-patient relationship, it is because of our ethical requirements as well as legal requirements that we require mandatory reporting where the public has an overwhelming interest in knowing about medical illness related to driving and even communicable diseases.

What could be more private than a sexually transmitted disease? Yet, if you are a danger to others because your disease is contagious, we are obligated to report that in the public interest. It has been well shown that the most effective way to get physicians to comply with these sorts of reporting requirements is to make it mandatory so that they can’t be questioned on the judgment they applied in deciding whom to report and whom not to report.

We believe the presence of a firearm in a family where someone is having suicidal thoughts or in which there is domestic violence or a high risk of that meets that standard, and that physicians should be relieved of their obligations to maintain privacy with their patients in the public interest.

Senator Plett: I do not believe that I have any disagreement with you or your colleagues about mandatory reporting. Bill C-71 does not do that. I don’t see where your concerns are being addressed by Bill C-71.

While we were talking about the rate of suicides that I asked Dr. Drummond about, I checked and in fact only 16 per cent of all suicides are by firearms.

Dr. Drummond: I did stand corrected, and I apologized.

Senator Plett: I understand that, and I have the stat here.

Dr. Drummond: Let me just answer that. That’s a 16 per cent national average. You know and I know, because we are both rural Canadians, that they tend to be higher in rural environments. You know that to be true. You have heard it here before.

I live in rural Lanark County. Practically every home in the county has a firearm. I can tell you the latest data for rural Lanark County where everyone has venison in their fridge is 25 per cent.

Senator Plett: I can tell you about where I live in rural Manitoba. This will be my last comment, chair, at least in the first round. I have shared information here. In one way or another by personally knowing or by personally being involved in at least seven suicides, one of those suicides was by firearm. They were all in rural Manitoba. One was by a firearm, and that was one 45 years ago.

Dr. Drummond: You are a very lucky man.

Senator Plett: I don’t know that I am lucky. The other six people are just as dead.

Dr. Drummond: I am a coroner in rural Lanark County, and I can tell you that I see more than my share of people with their heads blown off.

Senator Pratte: Regarding background checks, it’s important to note that Bill C-71 actually codifies what the courts have ruled. Chief Firearms Officers can go beyond the five-year limit if they wish to do so.

You mentioned trainees, Dr. Drummond. I suppose you meant young doctors who train to become emergency physicians. Is that it?

Dr. Drummond: Until fairly recently the history of trauma care in Canada has been blunt trauma: car accidents, falls and that kind of thing.

In training special emergency physicians to work in our urban cores, we had to send them to Baltimore, Chicago, L.A. and New York to be exposed to penetrating trauma such as that with guns.

Senator Pratte: I am sorry to interrupt, but that is where I would like to go. Sometimes a lot of people think, if you better control guns, people will find another way to either commit suicide or homicide. They will use a knife or some other tool.

Would you care to describe the difference between the injuries from the use of guns compared to knives or other means by which people might commit suicide?

Dr. Drummond: With respect to attacks and assaults, my only exposure has been with firearms, high-velocity rifles.

As a coroner, I don’t see them in the emergency department. I see them on back roads in their cars. I see them in their basements in pools of blood. I see them in their backyards.

In the emergency department, I have to say that when I first started as an emergency physician back in 1979, we used to see not a lot of firearms-related injuries in rural Canada but some. Now I rarely see that. I mostly see people who have killed themselves with weapons. There has been a change in the culture.

In our urban environments, however, a high-velocity weapon destroys a lot of tissue. The surgeons have to go in and try to find the source of the bleeding and salvage whatever organs have been damaged. There’s no doubt that a knife is a very localized phenomenon. A high-powered rifle or a shotgun is something completely different.

Senator Pratte: We heard testimony from Professor Mauser, a researcher, and a medical doctor, Dr. Langmann. They presented data which, first, apparently showed there was no relationship between the number of guns in circulation and homicides or suicides and, second, that the gun-control measures that have been taken in Canada since the 1970s have not achieved their goal.

You seem to say otherwise, that in fact the research done shows some gun control measures work and that there is a link between the number of guns in circulation, the availability of guns, and the number of homicides or domestic situations.

Would you care to elaborate? Who is right? We are presented with two sets of data here.

Dr. Drummond: No, you are not really. You are presented with disparate views. I don’t know Dr. Mauser. I believe he is an economist at Simon Fraser University. I don’t know if he is a criminologist.

Since 1994-1995, when I first became involved in the original Bill C-68, his name was used a lot in terms of being a contrarian view to the world literature. I have no comment to make.

With respect to my colleague Dr. Langmann, he is my colleague. He is an emergency physician. I may be wrong, and I will accept if I am wrong, that he has published one paper in an obscure journal called the Journal of Violence Prevention or something, back in 2011.

In that one paper he presented data where he did not discuss suicide, which for us is the major issue, but rather the more minimalist issue of homicide. It’s important but not as important as suicide in terms of numbers. He made the comment that there was no relationship whatsoever and there has been no value to the gun laws. Interestingly, researchers from the University of Montreal that same year took his same data and came to the exact opposite conclusion.

With respect to Dr. Langmann and his one paper, let’s state the obvious. The position with respect to reduction of access to firearms in the home or in the community, in relationship to suicide, homicide and intimate partner violence, has been very, very clear. We’re talking about The New England Journal of Medicine, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, The British Medical Journal, annals of internal medicine and massive amounts of scientific study from world-class researchers that have not published one paper but thousands.

We are talking about the likes of David Hemenway, Matthew Miller, Garen Wintemute and Arthur Kellermann, world-class, well-funded researchers who have been very clear that there is robust scientific evidence that access to firearms leads to increased risk of suicide, homicide and intimate partner homicide.

Senator Kutcher: Thank you for the clarity of your presentation and for not getting caught up in non sequiturs, red herrings and other arguments. I appreciate your bringing to our attention the public health focus on the issue of firearms mortality, which is different from a lot of the other discussions. You were discussing mortality from firearms and not crime.

A paper has just come out or will come out in The American Journal of Medicine. I would like you to comment on a metaphor in it that discusses the public health issues around firearms mortality. It says that combatting the mortality of firearms without addressing firearms is analogous to combatting the mortality from lung cancer without addressing cigarettes.

Could I get everyone’s commentary on that from a public health perspective?

Dr. Ovens: I think that’s an excellent analogy. Just as cigarettes are not only the number one risk factor for lung cancer, they also cause risk to those around them through second-hand smoke. I think the analogy to guns, no matter how good we get at trauma care and making our trauma systems, about 80 per cent of people who die from gunshot wounds are pronounced at the scene and never have any opportunity to have access to treatment. This is a highly lethal thing that really requires attention to the prevalence of firearms.

With your indulgence, I wonder if I could make one other comment going back to something Senator Plett said. He talked about the tragedy of seven suicides, only one of which was conducted by a gun in his community.

The real important question: What is the denominator of attempted suicides which relates to this analogy? How many people does he know who took overdoses or cut their wrists or indulged in other forms of self-harm who survived it and went on to hopefully productive lives versus how many people tried to kill themselves with a gunshot wound and survived it?

That’s the important question because 249 out of 250 people who overdose will survive that attempt, and 90 per cent of them will not die by suicide. Whereas about 90 per cent of the people who take a gun to themselves will in fact die of that injury. It’s more of a question of what is preventable. If we can take guns out of the hands of depressed individuals, it has been proven that we can save lives just as if we decrease smoking we can save lives.

Dr. Drummond: From a scientific point of view and an injury prevention point of view, we talk about the triad of the host, the environment and the agent or the vector. With respect to firearms control, the vector or the agent must be the gun to have a full understanding.

There is no doubt about it, as Dr. Ovens has alluded to, that if you put a gun to your head, chances are you are dead. You take a handful of pills, chances are you are not. There is a particular lethality to this particular agent that does need to be addressed.

Ms. Silas: To answer the question, when you look at precautionary safeguards in the name of public health, you have heard from doctors, nurses and other public health experts in the past when we’ve nationally debated laws on seat belts, asbestos, drinking and driving, and most recently cannabis.

There is nothing different with gun control. We are talking about a public health safety issue where we have to look at precaution and we have to listen to the public health debate first and foremost.

Senator Griffin: I have a question relating to a 2008 position statement by the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. One of the recommendations is expansion of programs focused on the prevention of suicide, intimate partner violence and gang-related violence.

Has there been any substantial increase or establishment of programs of which you are aware? I think that’s a very important recommendation.

Dr. Drummond: Since Howard Ovens wrote the paper, I will defer to him.

Dr. Ovens: The right answer is a mixed one because when it comes to suicide prevention, most of these programs are regional or provincial in nature. Gang-related violence programs tend to be more community based and municipal in nature.

As a generalization, I could say that there have been some good programs undertaken since that time in some communities and some provinces, but we could do more.

Senator Griffin: My last question is for Ms. Silas. You indicated that education was very important in preventing accidents. Could you give me some specifics? What kind of education?

Ms. Silas: If we look at domestic violence, in the last three to four years we have seen five provinces and the federal government address domestic violence in helping families and victims. One key aspect around that is education. We look at how to provide education to gang-related traumas. Toronto is famous for what they are doing in some of its school districts.

Those programs are not well funded. One of our recommendations is similar to that of the emergency physicians. We need to not only fund the data aspect. It can’t be done at the end of your desk. It has to be funded properly. Education programs also need to be funded properly. With prevention we will be able to reduce assaults and deaths.

Dr. Drummond: I think education is important. Everybody loves paediatricians. The Canadian Paediatric Society has been very clear. If there is a gun in a home with children, then that child has to be safeguarded. Safe storage has to be part of the discussion, as it is with car seats when discussing your child’s welfare.

We also have to get our own house in order. The discussion about firearms should happen in the family physician’s office. It should happen in the emergency department. We have to train both physicians and nurses to make that part of the discussion in terms of the overall maintenance of health. We talk about cigarettes, alcohol and all those other things. We have to educate our own members to involve themselves in that discussion.

Senator Richards: Thank you very much for your presentations. I keep going over this. I know I sound like a broken record, but you haven’t heard this record yet. I don’t think you can get there from here.

I’ve known a lot of violent people in my life, coming from an area in New Brunswick that had a lot of violence in the 1970s and 1980s. I lived through it. There were a lot of murders. Of the 11 murders I know and the people I know, 9 of them were by other means besides guns. I think no one just chooses the idea that “I am going to commit suicide with a gun. No, that doesn’t work. I’ll do it with pills.” There has to be some psychological temperament toward one or the other method.

I don’t think, if you put away guns, someone will say, “I am going to do it by hanging.” I think they have a pre-determined attitude as to what they will do anyway. I don’t know if this is a moot point or not, but you are talking here about registered firearms. There is the whole deal of physician and psychiatric speculation about who might do what to whom.

A lot of this talk about safety and guns is taken care of in the family. I have rifles in my house. They’re certainly kept care of and they are certainly put away. The children are grown men now. They know where there are. They both had hunting courses, and I have taken hunting courses.

A lot of families do this responsibly, so the idea of a doctor or a psychiatrist deciding who can or cannot have guns, I am not sure it will work. I wish it would work, but I just don’t think it will.

Dr. Drummond: Is that actually a comment or a question?

Senator Richards: It is a comment and a question.

Dr. Drummond: I am trying to get the sense of this, so I will do my best to respond.

I agree that most firearms owners are responsible. I live in a community where people hunt and sports shoot. I have no real interest in getting involved in their pursuits. They enjoy them.

Men disappear in November for two weeks to go deer hunting and hang out, drink beer and watch the lowly Ottawa Senators on television. I get all of that. We’re not talking about them. We’re not talking about the rank and file gun rural owner.

We’re talking about those who have expressed a desire to commit suicide, thinking about suicide, paranoid psychotics or people who are beating up their wives. That is who we are talking about.

I am sorry, senator, I am going to finish my response to your non-question.

Senator Richards: I am not interrupting you.

Dr. Drummond: Here’s the deal. Bill C-71 is a modest first effort in our view. There needs to be a much more comprehensive approach to changing the culture of the gun in Canada. Frankly, gun control evokes different things for different people. If we’re talking about a mass shooting, we are talking about something different from a paediatric injury. If we’re talking about crime control and gangs in downtown Toronto or Edmonton, we are talking about something different from a farmer blowing his head off in his back field. They are totally different things. We have to start somewhere.

This would not have been the bill we would have chosen. We would have liked something much more robust and comprehensive, but that is the bill on the table. From the perspective that we have taken, which is suicidal prevention or prevention of intimate partner violence or preventing a psychotic from blowing up half of city hall, we think the idea of the expanded purview of their past psychiatric, emotional or social history is of value. On that basis alone, it should be passed.

The Chair: I am going to close it off. I take the opportunity to thank the three witnesses for appearing this morning and participating in what has been a robust discussion. We appreciate your contribution to our studies.

For our next panel today, we are happy to welcome Robert Henderson, Owner, Access Heritage; Ross Falkner, Owner, The Gun Dealer; and from the Association of Women Shooters of P.E.I., Kate MacQuarrie. Welcome to all of you.

Kate MacQuarrie, Association of Women Shooters of P.E.I.: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today as a law-abiding firearms owner, one of 2.1 million men and women in Canada. I have been a certified instructor for both the restricted and non-restricted firearm safety courses for almost 30 years. I am a hunter. I am a trapper. I am a target shooter. I also have an organization on P.E.I. that works to remove barriers to women’s participation in the shooting sports.

Last year, we had 70 women participate in our programs throughout the year. In the first three months of this year, we have seen more than 80 enrolled. Perhaps I can offer a different perspective from those whom you have heard to date. I will certainly be happy to answer questions on that, including issues of firearms and domestic violence, which may differ from the last speakers you heard.

First, I want to speak briefly about Bill C-71, why it’s bad legislation, and to highlight what I feel is the most egregious component.

In introducing Bill C-71 on March 26, 2018, the Honourable Ralph Goodale summarized the perceived need for this legislation in this way:

Hard evidence shows a gun violence issue that is serious, appears to be worsening and is not confined to big cities or to particular weapons.

I remind you that Stats Canada data show that less than one-half of one per cent of police-reported crime in Canada involves a firearm, that firearm homicides have shown a declining trend for at least three decades, and that the increase in homicides observed since 2013 was driven by a substantive increase in gang-related homicides over that period.

Indeed, almost half of the national increase since 2013 was due to more victims in Toronto. Additionally, we have seen that past changes to firearms laws have had no correlating effect on crime in Canada.

There is a well-known quote commonly paraphrased as “complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong solutions.” Gang violence is unquestionably a complex problem, but increased restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners and their legally owned property, is simple, easy to understand and is the wrong answer.

Bill C-71 misidentifies a need, proposes a solution that has been shown will not change societal outcomes and is based on emotion, not evidence.

While Bill C-71 is bad legislation, some parts are worse than others, specifically sections 23 and 58. On March 20, 2018, the Honourable Ralph Goodale said:

. . . it’s simply not a federal long-gun registry, full stop, period.

With respect to the requirement of private retailers keeping records, he said that those records would not be accessible to government. They would be accessible to police when they are investigating gun crimes with the proper basis of reasonable cause and judicial authorization through a warrant.

Further, the act itself states that nothing in it shall be construed to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms. Yet Bill C-71 quite clearly recreates a registry.

Section 23 requires those transferring non-restricted firearms to provide their licence numbers to the registrar and receive a reference number to transferring that firearm.

The purported need being addressed is to ensure that those acquiring firearms are properly licensed, but section 23 of the Firearms Act already explicitly requires, when acquiring a non-restricted firearm, to have a proper licence. The proposed revisions to section 23 do nothing other than create a registry of transfers of non-restricted firearms.

The proposed amendments to section 58 complete the recreation of a long-gun registry, albeit decentralized. Businesses would be required to record and maintain for a period of at least 20 years the buyer’s firearms licence number, reference number from the registrar, date of the transaction, and make, model, type and serial number of the firearm.

Not only is that a registration. It’s a registration with records held by nearly 4,500 different businesses across Canada. Security of and access to these records is absolutely a concern. Minister Goodale’s statement that these records would only be available to law enforcement under warrant is contrary to section 102 of the Firearms Act, which requires businesses to produce any records that an inspector believes contain information relevant to the enforcement of the act or regulations.

Under that section, an inspector is defined as a firearms officer, which is essentially anyone appointed by the provincial or federal minister. That is a far cry from law enforcement under warrant.

I began my remarks by telling you that I am a firearms owner. As such, I’ve passed background checks that are almost certainly more detailed than many of you here who do not have a firearms licence. Every day my name is checked with the Canadian Police Information Centre to confirm that I haven’t been the subject of an incident report.

I must notify government if I move. I want to point out that’s something those who have been prohibited from owning firearms are not required to do.

In short, further regulating me and the other 2.1 million law-abiding gun owners in Canada will in no way address gun violence, but it will cost a great deal of tax dollars that should instead be directed at crime prevention. Thank you.

Ross Faulkner, Owner, The Gun Dealer: I have been an independent business owner for 42 years. I am also a member of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I am here today to speak about the effects of Bill C-71 on my business and its 20 employees and to share the challenges my business faces as we stride toward a Bill C-71 world.

The Gun Dealer is a family owned and operated firearms and gunsmithing operation, which I started in 1977. In those 42 years, little has put as much economic strain on my business as the looming Bill C-71.

First, I would like to discuss the potential impact of the provision in the bill which limits the transportation of restricted firearms to our gunsmith. Currently, approximately 20 to 25 per cent of firearms brought to our on-site, full-time gunsmith is restricted and currently do not require an ATT. Obtaining an ATT to bring restricted firearms to my store will only accomplish a significant loss of business for us. It will not enhance public safety.

For example, a customer could have a live round jammed in his chamber. Obtaining an ATT on a weekend or a holiday is next to impossible. Leaving a firearm jammed with a live cartridge in it is unsafe and a threat to public safety. Any impact or loss of business in our service department will no longer make it feasible to maintain a full-time position.

The second is the cost related to maintaining reference records for a 20-year period. The burden, both in man hours and storage capacity, puts an unnecessary financial load on my existing business. Revenue Canada only requires record keeping for seven years. This is unrealistic and could result in businesses giving up and closing their doors.

Third, the responsibility of obtaining a government-issued reference number for each sale will dramatically impact our current hours of operation. The Gun Dealer is open seven days per week until 9 p.m. several evenings. Should the ability to obtain said reference numbers be limited to current government hours of operation, our ability to maintain our current hours will be impacted. In so doing, my ability to earn a living and provide employment is severely and negatively impacted.

It is uncertain if reference numbers will even be provided in a timely fashion. If not, customers who have travelled long distances will not want to wait around our store while we try to obtain reference numbers. I see a loss of sales, the result of which will be job losses, job losses, and more job losses.

Fourth, I remind the Senate that jobs in rural Canada, like in McAdam, can be scarce at the best of times. Should Bill C-71 proceed as written, it may not be at the cost of my business on a whole, but it will certainly be at the cost of those I currently employ. Bill C-71 is unlikely to have any impact on the reduction of crime rates, but it most certainly will have an impact on my current staff by layoffs and permanent loss of full-time positions.

The inventory of The Gun Dealer includes both restricted and non-restricted firearms and only those legal for sale in Canada. At present, the value of my inventory sits at the $2 million mark. I am able to employ 20 people in the economically depressed area of McAdam, New Brunswick.

Bill C-71 allows in its provisions the handing over of firearms classifications to the RCMP. This is one of my greatest concerns because it seems to give them the ability to change classifications any time they deem necessary. Should the RCMP deem a firearms classification be changed from non-restricted to prohibit, all variations of said firearm will be prohibited as well. The result is tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars of inventory made worthless.

I’ve spent my adult life working to make this business a success, one I can pass on to my son and my grandsons. Bill C-71 threatens these plans, jeopardizing the value of my inventory, giving the RCMP power to change classifications without warning, creating uncertainty in the value of my inventory and rendering that planned future an uncertain one.

If I take a hit on the value of my inventory, the outcome will be the loss of many of the 20 positions I provide in that community. This bill not only misses the mark on controlling crime but robs hard-working Canadians of their livelihoods.

The points I have made are the potential effects of Bill C-71. I cannot stress enough the importance of their being carefully reviewed by the Senate. Also, the provisions in the bill must be carefully considered. If the effects are felt in my store, I feel secure in stating that they will be felt by dealers and businesses all across the country. Please consider carefully Bill C-71 and its ramifications prior to proceeding with the bill as it stands and when making amendments.

I thank you for your time and consideration. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Robert Henderson, Owner, Access Heritage: My business experience includes the application of the existing firearms legislation and offers insight into the unintended consequences on arts, culture and tourism. First, I will address the need to declassify or downgrade devices that pose no risk to public safety. Second, I will demonstrate the importance of an appeal process to the decisions made by the Canadian Firearms Program.

If you have seen the musical Les Misérables or have watched a movie like Pirates of the Caribbean, you have seen my products. They are on display at numerous Indigenous heritage sites, the Smithsonian and at other world-class museums in Paris, London, Berlin and Stockholm. In Canada, my products help tell the national story from Signal Hill in Newfoundland to des Fortifications-de-Québec to Fort Langley, B.C.

I provide non-firing, historic, flintlock reproductions. Flintlock firearms are muzzle-loading devices generally manufactured before the 1840s, based on technology going back to the 16th century. These mechanisms have a special place in the firearms legislation. Even if they were firing, reproduction flintlock muskets would be categorized as antique, meaning that they were essentially unregulated. They were not considered a threat to public safety and were downgraded in the legislation. It is likely that the last crime committed by a flintlock happened before Confederation.

Declassification has been a boon to museums, historic sites and the entertainment industry. I can tell you with certainty that a number of large film productions would never have been possible had flintlocks been classified otherwise.

In the 1990s, I was involved in the discussions and decision to deregulate long flintlocks. Unfortunately, short flintlocks were kept as restricted even though everyone agreed they had not presented a public safety issue since before 1867. Yet, to this day, enforcement resources are needlessly expended searching and seizing restricted flintlock devices.

My own business provides a case in point. In the last 18 years, I have been importing non-firing flintlocks from India. By removing a small connecting flash hole in the design, the technology was deemed deactivated and the flintlocks were allowed by customs. This decision was consistent with our major trading partners, including France, United Kingdom and United States that also classify these products as deactivated or inert.

At the Ottawa port of entry, even though my compliance was 100 per cent, most of my shipments were ripped apart and inspected continually for the past two decades, causing delays and damage not experienced by my international competitors. Ironically, I then exported 90 per cent of these devices with ease to other parts of the world.

Last December, at the very height of the retail season, a key shipment was stopped by the CBSA. At that time, they arbitrarily decided to revisit whether to continue allowing deactivated flintlocks without any forewarning to me and without any relevant change in legislation. The Canadian Firearms Program was asked to investigate. I co-operated with the investigation and a timely decision was promised. It never happened. Even though they were dealing with very basic 400-year-old technology, the final report was completed two months after the initial promised date from the program. My business essentially stopped during that time.

Their new decision was that the products were not non-firing enough and that the short flintlocks were restricted devices. To me, this investigation was devoid of transparency and flawed. Even though it was standard police practice, I was not questioned. Along with other errors, they misrepresented information previously published on my website and never sought context from me.

The program’s decision put Canada out of sync with our major trading partners, many of whom have stricter firearms laws. The fact of the matter is that thousands of these devices have been purchased by movie and history enthusiasts, by people dressing up as pirates, and for decorations on pub walls. For tactile learning, these devices are part of museum education kits to explain flint and steel technology. All the people who own non-firing devices are now de facto in illegal possession of a restricted firearm due to the program’s change in opinion.

I think this is unjust, and I would like to suggest two amendments. First, in my view Bill C-71 should allow the declassification of devices that have been proven to have no public safety concerns. Bill C-71 does not now seem to permit either firearms or other devices to be classified in a less restrictive direction. This is a flaw in the legislation.

My second concern with Bill C-71 is the need for an appeal process of the Canadian Firearms Program decisions. My recent experience with this organization shows the necessity of holding the CFP to basic transparency standards. There must be a mechanism to hold the firearms program accountable for what may otherwise be arbitrary decisions. The CFP’s recent overstepping of their bounds with regard to Swiss Arms only reinforces this necessity.

At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions you might ask.

The Chair: We will now move to questions. I will remind senators to get to their questions so that everyone has an opportunity to ask their questions.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our guests for being here. Ms. MacQuarrie, you are from Prince Edward Island. It’s a very interesting province; its territory is a bit smaller than some others. I’d like to know how you think this bill will affect delays for transportation authorizations in your province.

[English]

Ms. MacQuarrie: That’s absolutely a concern for firearm owners on Prince Edward Island. Some of the other speakers this morning mentioned delays in getting permits with respect to after hours and trying to get authorization to ATTs. If I am at a range with one of my restricted firearms, if a problem arises and if I need to take it to a gunsmith, I cannot immediately do that under the proposed changes. There are safety concerns around that for me and for other firearms owners. That is absolutely a concern.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: The private information of firearms owners may be shared among dozens of firearms merchants. Does the transmission of this information from one vendor to another present a danger with regard to those who have licensed firearms?

[English]

Ms. MacQuarrie: Absolutely. For me, as a firearms owner, security of and access to those data are significant concerns. In recent years identity theft and data security have been growing as issues. I think of my time working in retail back in the early 1990s when it was common to require a social insurance number to validate a cheque. We certainly would not be sharing that kind of personal information anymore. The issues around data security and who has access are perhaps more significant for those of us in the firearm community as well.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: Mr. Faulkner, you have been in the firearms industry for a certain number of years; tell us what you are going to have to do to secure your clients’ personal information. Do you get the impression that you are going to have to do the work of the police, among others? If one day you had to close your business, who would be responsible for your clients’ archived information?

[English]

Mr. Faulkner: That’s certainly a good question. Information will be collected under Bill C-71. If I understand your question right, you’re asking how we are to secure this information so that we do not get hacked and people’s information does not get out to the public or to a criminal element. I really don’t know.

I have purchased a computer system now to try to come up with legislation so that we are able to record the information for Bill C-71 and for government. I have regular firewalls on my computer. If there is an advanced attack on my computer, the information is there. I am not so sure that it’s as secure as it should be.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: According to Minister Goodale, people could obtain their transportation authorizations faster through the Internet. Do you think this will be possible using a central database? It’s being called a “central database”. They refuse to call it a “registry”. It’s not a central database , it’s going to be a gun registry. Do you think people will be able to get a transport permit faster through the central file?

[English]

Mr. Faulkner: I didn’t quite get all of the question.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: I will repeat my question. According to Minister Goodale, if I own a firearm and I want to take it from one location to another and use the central database — the government refuses to call it a gun registry — it will be easier to obtain a transportation permit. In other words, with the new classification, people will be able to obtain a transport permit faster. Do you think that will be possible?

[English]

Mr. Faulkner: The past is always a good thing to look at. We have had ATTs in the past, and they just have not worked. They overwhelmed our provincial firearms offices. It just didn’t work.

Right now, you can transport your restricted firearm as a condition on your firearms licence. This system works and works very well. To even be talking about ATTs is a step backward; it is going back 25 years. It is just simply wrong. We’ve got it right.

Look at your firearms licence. It’s like a driver’s licence. My driver’s licence could be a class 5A or a class 6A, which allows me to drive a motorcycle or a commercial vehicle. This is how it works today on your firearms licence. If you get stopped, the RCMP looks at your firearms licence. If it doesn’t have class 5R and you have a restricted firearm, then you are in violation.

What you can do with that firearm is now listed on your firearms licence. We have this right. You’ll never convince me that talking about ATTs is right. It is definitely wrong and a step backward.

Senator Plett: I will try to be quick rather than brief because I have a question for each of our witnesses.

My first two questions are for Mr. Faulkner. This bill proposes requiring retailers to verify that purchasers of non-restricted firearms have a valid firearms licence before selling them a firearm. Despite the fact that it’s already a Criminal Code offence to buy a firearm without a licence, the retailer has to have no reason to believe that purchaser does not have one. According to Minister Goodale’s own testimony in the House of Commons, vendors often check anyway but they are not in fact required to do so.

How often does someone try to buy a long gun without a licence from you? Do you know of an incident where a person without a PAL purchased a long gun?

Mr. Faulkner: I can only talk to you about my business. We check on the RCMP system every firearms licence that comes into our store. Especially, as we are a regional dealer that ships across Canada, every licence is checked on the RCMP system. You would be quite surprised what information comes up on that system. We know quite a bit about you when you present your licence.

Senator Plett: You would have never sold someone a gun if they didn’t have a licence.

Mr. Faulkner: Never. At present, your licence is being checked at store level. We are already checking licences.

When you come to my store, I punch you into the computer. Let me tell you, I am seeing a lot of information. It tells me, “Yes, you can buy that gun or no, you cannot purchase that firearm. We need to call the CFO.”

Senator Plett: Has a person without a PAL ever purchased a long gun from you?

Mr. Faulkner: No.

Senator Plett: Ms. MacQuarrie, thank you for being here. Minster Goodale has tried to tell Canadian gun owners — and you have alluded to this — that Bill C-71 does not create a registry. My good friend opposite has also said that in the chamber a number of times.

Yet, when the previous Conservative government eliminated the need to collect this information, they did so by regulation. Then Justice Minister Vic Toews, now a judge in Manitoba, appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to explain the regulation was necessary to ensure that such information not be collected.

This is what he said:

The real purpose of this regulation is simply to clarify the effect of Bill C-19, that is, to prevent the establishment of another long-gun registry through other means, whether it is through information collected through CFOs or otherwise.

Do you agree with Minister Toews or do your organizations believe that the forcing firearms vendors to keep these kinds of records is a clear attempt to maintain another long-gun registry?

Ms. MacQuarrie: As I alluded to in my opening remarks, to our organization it is a clear attempt to recreate the long-gun registry. The only difference in this case is that rather than being in a central location, the records would be stored in 4,500 businesses across Canada.

It is a long-gun registry with less security of information than we had previously.

Senator Plett: Mr. Henderson, you explained how your business has been caught up in classification changes related to firearms, even though your firearms are non-firing antiques. I found that quite interesting when I read this information.

The government has argued that politicians should stay out of the business of firearms or device classification. Have you tried to raise this issue with the minister? If so, what has been his response? How important are viable appeal provisions enshrined in legislation for a business such as yours?

Mr. Henderson: Thank you for this excellent question. Yes, I have approached the minister’s office on this particular situation. Surprisingly, I had not heard anything from the minister’s office until quite recently, which is to pass on the various departments’ conclusions and reiterations of firearms legislation. It does not really get to the core of the issue, which is that Canadians out there acquired these non-fire reproductions in the belief that they are non-firing and have entered the country legally. Voila, now they are sitting at home with something on their wall. Little do they know they have a restricted firearm. They are illegally in possession of that item. What do you do with that?

It comes down to the whole issue of classification. Do you have faith in the Canadian Firearms Program, a program that has been parked in the RCMP? It’s not the RCMP, and they will tell you they are not the RCMP. That organization used to be part of the Office of the Solicitor General until they were defrocked out of privacy, out of transparency and out of other issues, and put in the RCMP by the Martin government.

It’s strange you would have legislation that would suddenly say, “You didn’t have any problems in the past, even though all of your corporate history says you have had problems in the past. Why don’t we give you carte blanche to do whatever you want with classification?” I think there should be oversight from a political standpoint on these issues, absolutely.

Senator Griffin: My first question is for Mr. Faulkner. As I understand it, you are one the largest independent firearms dealers in the country, certainly in the eastern part of the country. Obviously people come to your store and purchase there. I also understand that you do online sales.

Mr. Faulkner: That is correct.

Senator Griffin: How does it work with online sales? If I were to order a firearm on line, do you have to see my PAL?

Mr. Faulkner: We collect all the information on our online site, including your PAL, pertinent information like your date of birth and place of birth. This information is complied. We then enter the information into the RCMP system and check your licence before we ship the information. Also we would ask questions like, “What is your mother’s maiden name,” and things to ensure you are the person you say you are.

The firearm is only shipped to the address on the firearms licence. If a customer says “ship to PO box 560” and our system shows 360, then the red flag comes up and we start calling and asking questions. We do have a system that checks this.

Senator Griffin: I had not realized previously that online sales were such a big thing.

With record keeping, it has been fairly clearly indicated by other witnesses here, as well as yourself, that there will be many different places where everyone that is selling has their own records stored. Would it be useful to have some guidance as to how these records are to be stored?

Senator Dagenais asked what happens if you sell your business or go out of business. What happens to those records, for instance?

Mr. Faulkner: It is very unclear.

Senator Griffin: That is a big issue.

Mr. Faulkner: It is very unclear, but that is a really good question. Remember, every sale will require a reference number. All that information will be called into the federal government, which they say they are not recording. I hope I can believe them. I wish to believe them, but my heart tells me something different.

Senator Griffin: One of the issues I was concerned about is: How easy would it be to transform this information into a de facto gun registry?

Mr. Faulkner: I think this is a registry. When we go to obtain a reference number, we can’t just call up and say that we need a reference number. They will ask us what the firearm is, what the licence is, what the address is, and who the person is.

Make no mistake about it, Senator Griffin, this is a registry. The records are kept at store level, but we are calling that information into the federal Government of Canada. Are they just giving us a reference number and deleting that information? I suspect not.

Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentations. My questions have to do with the definition and classification of firearms.

Are the definitions used to classify firearms clearly defined, or are they more open to interpretation and opinion?

Mr. Faulkner: No, firearm classifications are clearly defined.

Mr. Henderson: They are minutely defined.

Mr. Faulkner: Yes. Restricted, non-restricted or prohibited, they are clearly defined. The case for Mr. Henderson is a unique one. Basically it’s a non-firearm that they have decided is a firearm. Sometimes they break their own rules. We’ve seen this before.

Senator McIntyre: As we know, assuming Bill C-71 becomes law, the RCMP, and not the Governor-in-Council, would be the sole authority to classify or reclassify firearms.

Are there experts other than the RCMP that could do that job? In other words, they could classify or reclassify firearms.

Mr. Faulkner: Let me clear this up. Right now, under this system in which we don’t have in Bill C-71, all classifications of firearms are being done by the RCMP. Where the difference comes in under Bill C-71 is that the system we now have, once the RCMP classifies a firearm as non-restricted, they have a year to change that classification. After a year it must stay non-restricted for the life of the firearm.

The problem that we have right now under classifications is that there was an order-in-council called Repeal of Firearms Records Regulations (Classifications). This was done on November 2, 2018. The government made a change here.

Basically, what has happened is that they gave the RCMP the right to change classifications whenever they wish. In other words, they classify this today as non-restricted, but, “Oh, well, I guess we’ve changed our mind. It’s a new day and it’s now prohibited.”

Under the old system they could not do that. They said it was non-restricted, and it had to stay non-restricted. Now they have an open chequebook to do whatever they wish, whenever they want. They can basically take guns off the market.

Senator McIntyre: Currently, does the RCMP give reasons for classification or reclassification?

Mr. Faulkner: There is a set of guidelines. The classification of firearms goes by barrel length and overall length. There is a formula that is used.

Senator McIntyre: Is it possible to obtain a full forensic report from the RCMP on the conversion of firearms from non-restricted to restricted or prohibited, or vice-versa?

Mr. Faulkner: As a senator, you could get that report. As a firearms dealer, I probably could not.

Senator McIntyre: As I understand it, businesses may be required to purchase new software to meet the new diligence and record keeping requirements imposed by Bill C-71. Is there the possibility of that?

Mr. Faulkner: That’s what I did. I had to purchase a new computer system. It cost me $50,000 to retain those records for 20 years. I will state again that 20 years of records is unrealistic. I won’t be there for 20 years. I don’t know who will be there, but I won’t be. I am 62 now and soon to be 63. I won’t be there.

Senator Pratte: I want to go back briefly to the issue of registry or non-registry. Maybe I am misunderstanding it, but my understanding is that when a retailer will call in for a reference number, they will provide the PAL number of the buyer, and that’s it. There will be no information on the firearm. We have been assured of that by the government. When you call in, you give the PAL number. They check whether it’s valid, and that’s it.

In my view, if the government doesn’t collect information on the firearm and if the owner of the firearm is not required to have a registration of the firearm, this is not a registry.

Mr. Faulkner: Why would we bother calling in? We already have a computer sitting on our desk. We already have that information. This is a great make-work project.

As a taxpayer, this absolutely offends me. Don’t you believe businesses are capable of checking a firearms licence? We are already doing it. It’s a beautiful make-work project and a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. Keep it up.

Mr. Henderson: Correct me if I am wrong, senator, but why are business owners holding the records? Is it to be audited by the RCMP if an issue comes up?

There is the creep. Suddenly, you’ve downloaded billions of dollars worth of registry. How much did the registry cost last time? That has been shifted to the business owners who will now buy $50,000 computers and whatnot. They are holding the information.

The next step becomes, “Why don’t we draw this together?” It’s only a first step in the building blocks for another registry, in which we assume the burden.

Ms. MacQuarrie: If I could clarify a point, respectfully, senator, not just the licence number is being recorded. The records Mr. Faulkner alluded to include the make, model, type and serial number of a firearm. If that’s not a registry, I am not entirely clear what is.

Senator Pratte: We’re talking about two different things. I was talking about when you call in for a reference number. No information is asked by the government as to the make or any information on the file.

As far as record keeping by the retailers, how are the requirements of Bill C-71 different from what you used to be called the green book? That was the system that existed before 1995.

Mr. Faulkner: How are they different, you mean?

Senator Pratte: Yes. From 1979 to 1995, before the long-gun registry came into effect, all retailers had to keep records of their firearm sales. It was called the green book.

Mr. Faulkner: We have to obtain reference numbers from the firearms centre. I am not sure from where we to obtain them. I hear what you are saying. We’re just going to call in their licence numbers.

I don’t see that happening. That’s just not enough information for them to give us a reference number. They will want to know what firearm the customer is purchasing.

Senator Pratte: They are telling us they are not going to ask this question.

Mr. Faulkner: Why would you give a reference number on a licence that is already valid? What would be the point?

Senator Pratte: They want to check if the licence is valid. I want to go back to the record keeping. On the record that is required by Bill C-71 to be kept, there is no personal information.

There is the PAL number and the firearm details, but you are not required by the bill to have the name or address of the customer.

Mr. Faulkner: That’s not the way I understand it. If the RCMP calls and gives us such and such a serial number, they want to know who purchased that firearm: their exact address and name. That is my understanding.

Ms. MacQuarrie: If I may jump in, senator, while you’re not required to keep the information, you’re not prevented from keeping it either.

With respect to your questions prior to 1995, I’d like to make two comments. First of all, we have no evidence to suggest that the keeping of those records did anything to prevent crime, so the need is certainly questionable. What has changed significantly since 1995 are issues of identity theft and data security. Those are new concerns since that time.

Senator Pratte: I have a final point, if I may. Doesn’t the requirement for record keeping by retailers presently exists in the United States?

Mr. Faulkner: We have a different system than that of the United States. I don’t know their system. I can tell you that we have a system in Canada based on a firearms licence. It’s not a bad system to have a firearms licence to buy a firearm.

I know that in the United States it’s a completely different world. When you go fishing, you need a fishing licence. When you go hunting, you need a hunting licence. In Canada, when you buy a firearm you need a firearms licence. I think we probably have that right. In the United States, you walk into a gun store and you show your driver’s licence, or any other form of identity, and you’ve got the firearm.

These are two different scenarios. We’ve got it different in Canada. We do not compare to the United States in any way.

The Chair: We have four senators to go and we have about 12 minutes, so I am asking you to keep that in mind.

Senator Oh: Most of my questions have been asked, so I am going to ask about some facts and common-sense questions.

Ms. MacQuarrie, how long have you been running this association?

Ms. MacQuarrie: Our organization formed in 2016, so three years.

Senator Oh: Three years. This morning the panel was talking about committing suicide using guns. How many of your members have committed suicide and how many members are left?

Ms. MacQuarrie: Zero.

Senator Oh: Your association mostly deals with target practice, handguns and long guns.

Ms. MacQuarrie: Our members participate in all shooting sports, so handguns, rifle shooting, skeet shooting and hunting. Our members are involved in it all.

Senator Oh: And no one has used a gun to commit suicide?

Ms. MacQuarrie: We have had no crimes committed by our members.

Senator Oh: I have an economic question for Ross Faulkner. You say 20 positions that will be lost if Bill C-71 kicks in.

Mr. Faulkner: I presently employ 20 people. I want to make the Senate aware, as well, that these are not burger-flipping jobs. They come as full-time positions. My employees have dental and prescription drug plans, and they’re getting paid way more than minimum wage. They’re getting paid a wage that they can live on.

This bill negatively impacts my business, and the result will be layoffs for good, hard-working Canadians. That’s what’s really going to happen with Bill C-71. Let the Senate hear it and hear the truth. The truth is the truth, and this is the truth.

Senator Oh: Do you know roughly how many people, including family members, will be affected?

Mr. Faulkner: If our business goes down, we will start laying off. There is no question about it. Five to seven positions could be affected by this if our business goes down, and I believe it’s going to go down. Anything negative like Bill C-71 turns people off. They don’t like to buy.

Senator Oh: How many members, including their families, will be affected? You employ 20 people. That’s a lot in a rural area.

Mr. Faulkner: I am the biggest independent employer in McAdam, New Brunswick, with a population of about 1,200.

Senator Richards: Senator Oh asked my question, which is fine. I am glad he asked it.

Mr. Faulkner, I know that you’re the biggest employer in McAdam. Pretty well all of the income in that village revolves around your shop. This is a registry, and that might even be fine if it would stop gun violence.

I know you’re not a criminologist, and neither am I, but I’ve dealt with this matter for quite a while. Do you think this legislation will do anything to stop gun violence across the country?

Mr. Faulkner: That’s a great question, Senator Richards. I am going to speak from my heart. I have a son and two small grandsons. Public safety is a concern for me, but I feel that this will not stop any crime and will not enhance public safety in any way. It will be a burden for my business. I can assure you of that.

Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for the clarity of your presentations and how well you voiced your concerns about the bill. Much like Senator Richards, Senator McIntyre asked one of my questions already, so I don’t need that information.

Ms. MacQuarrie, you talked about our having a different perspective on domestic violence, and you didn’t get a chance to speak to that. We would all be interested in what that would be.

Ms. MacQuarrie: There are two things I would like to address there. First, I’d like to remind the committee — and I am sure you know this, sir — that the presence of a firearm in a home is not a predictor of domestic violence. What I mean by that is homes that have firearms are not more likely to be scenes of domestic violence than homes without firearms.

Second, I learned through my group the perspective of women who have been subject to domestic violence in our laws today. It was an eye-opener for me. One of the questions that folks are asked when they apply for a firearms licence is to provide the name of their former spouse or conjugal partner. I have had multiple women in my organization who were victims of domestic violence stop the licensing process when they get to that point. In order to proceed with the licensing, they were shocked to find out that they would have to provide contact information for the person who victimized them.

We talk about looking at firearms law with a gender lens. Many of the presentations to date have assumed that it’s men using firearms and women being victims of them. I would like to reiterate that’s not the case.

Senator Busson: It’s always difficult to be last because people have covered so much of the waterfront. I am interested in folks like you who deal with these kinds of issues on a day-to-day basis and are clearly hit between the eyes when things change. Your expertise is really appreciated.

I have a question. I think both Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Henderson spoke about the classification of firearms and how the RCMP could on a whim, which I think was the phrase used, change a classification from one to another.

What motivation other than public safety do you think the RCMP would use to change a classification from one to another?

Mr. Faulkner: I believe they have a list out there. In Bill C-71 there were two firearms on the list that I had previously seen. That just made me believe that they have a hidden agenda here.

I believe that they are on an agenda, that they have been given full rein to do what they wish with classifications, and that people like me will financially take the burden. There’s no question about that.

I spoke earlier about when the order-in-council came through that they had changed how they could change the classification of firearms. I knew we were in trouble. As a gun shop, I was in trouble. My inventory was in trouble.

I am very nervous right now that the RCMP could say, “We don’t like the look of this firearm. This firearm looks to be an assault weapon. Whether it is or not, we’re just going to get rid of it.” That’s what I see coming.

Mr. Henderson: If you give this to a public servant entity, there is an innate risk for them to make everything prohibited because it reduces risk. There’s always the weight by locking in with a public service entity to constantly move to remove the risk.

If something happens in our society, they’re to blame because they didn’t identify that one. “That one got through. Why don’t we take this entire category?” Obviously they will be more diligent. That’s why we need politicians to come into the process and to assume some of the risk so that you take the weight off of our public servants who are trying to do the best they can. I am very empathetic for the responsibilities thrust upon them.

In order to preserve freedom and liberty of its citizens and their property and to create an environment which is safe, the responsibility for some of these matters should remain in the hands of Governor-in-Council.

The Chair: We’ll take this opportunity to thank all three of you for being here. We appreciate your candour of your responses.

For our third panel today, we have Matt DeMille, Manager, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and Brian McRae, Senior Advisor, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Welcome to the table.

Via video conference from B.C., we have Chuck Zuckerman, Chairperson, BCWF Firearms and Recreational Sport Shooting Committee, B.C. Wildlife Federation. Welcome, Mr. Zuckerman. We understand that you are only good until two o’clock because of video access.

If you have any questions, senators, please lead with Mr. Zuckerman if that’s your interest.

Matt DeMille, Manager, Fish and Wildlife Services, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters: On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, thank you for inviting us to talk about Bill C-71.

The OFAH is the largest conservation-based organization in Ontario, but we also represent all possible firearms interests including hunting, trapping and recreational shooting. Additionally, we represent 56 shooting clubs which operate 80 CFO-approved licensed ranges.

This is not just an Ontario perspective. In fact, almost all of our affiliate fishing and hunting organizations from coast to coast to coast, including our co-panellist BCWF, have endorsed our submitted brief. In total, these organizations represent approximately 345,000 Canadians.

Long-term trends show overall firearms-related crime is on the decline, but regardless of the statistics no Canadian should deny there is a need to reduce gun violence. It’s not about if; it’s about how.

We applaud the government’s financial commitment to crime prevention projects across Canada, as well as funding for RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency to ensure we have the resources needed for heightened security along our borders. This is the “how” we expect from the government.

The messaging and spending clearly indicate this public safety initiative was developed to target gangs, gang violence, organized crime and illegal cross-border smuggling of firearms. However, this policy direction in Bill C-71 only targets law-abiding firearms users and does so in a way that will achieve negligible enhancements to public safety. The policy silence on gangs, violence and serious firearms crimes is deafening. It is not surprising firearms owners feel unjustifiably targeted. This is the “how” that doesn’t make sense to us, so we cannot support the bill as written.

There is a common misconception that there isn’t enough scrutiny on who can obtain and keep a firearms licence in Canada. Firearms owners are already one of the most vetted segments of Canada’s population. New applicants undergo a rigorous screening process. Between 2012 and 2017, 4,637 licence applications were refused.

In addition, existing firearms owners undergo continuous eligibility screening to verify there has been no criminal activity since acquiring their licence. Between 2012 and 2017, 14,505 licences were revoked. Refusals and revocations occur for many reasons including court-ordered prohibitions or probation, domestic violence, mental health, potential risk to self and others, and violent behaviour. In 2017, there were just over 443,000 individuals prohibited from possessing firearms.

The take-home is that we have a screening system and it works to enhance public safety. Is it perfect? No, but investing in a more coordinated and connected screening system among agencies has greater potential to enhance public safety than trying to dig deeper and look for different things.

Today, in our opening remarks, we haven’t been able to do a deep dive into the bill. I hope you’ve all had a chance to review our submitted brief that included a thorough analysis of each section of the bill with background context, outstanding questions and concerns, as well as the results of a survey on Bill C-71 of more than 3,500 firearms users conducted by the OFAH in April 2018.

Our opposition to Bill C-71 is not partisan. It is not emotional. It was not predetermined on principle. It was only after a thorough, critical analysis that we arrived at the same conclusion for almost every proposal. It won’t enhance public safety. The evidence simply doesn’t support it.

Licensed firearms owners care about public safety as much as other Canadians. The firearms community is not against firearms policy but it needs to be evidence based, and we want to see measures that will actually keep Canadians safe.

One of the most significant challenges we face in establishing sound firearms policy is the politicization and therefore visceral polarization that almost always occurs. Unfortunately, it seems the only conversations we seem to have about firearms occur in the media often after a tragic event or in the political arena. There has been a lack of willingness on either side of the debate to get past the rhetoric and an entrenched view that we need to start in opposition to each other.

In reality, we all want the same thing. We all want to reduce crime, violent crime, and the illegal use of firearms in Canada. If we stop fighting with each other, we could turn that energy, time and resourcing into achieving real public safety benefits for Canadians.

To that end, the OFAH has been invited to participate in a formal dialogue with a gun control advocacy group facilitated by the Mosaic Institute. The goal is to build mutual understanding, seek common ground and attempt to develop public policy proposals to reduce gun violence that would be better informed and carry greater weight than either group could develop on its own.

This dialogue will explore differences and perspectives between rural and urban Canadians, firearms users and non-users, and the lived experiences related to responsible firearms use and the misuse of firearms. There is a clear need for better education on both sides of this debate, and we believe this facilitated non-political discourse can build some momentum to help us get there.

In the end, Bill C-71 has created confusion and concern and has eroded confidence in the government’s approach to firearms policy. Even for the changes we can live with, there is almost no convincing evidence to demonstrate it will do anything to enhance public safety.

If the government is serious about respecting the firearms community, then it can’t move forward with Bill C-71 without significant amendments, not only to minimize the unnecessary scope of its impact on law-abiding Canadians but also to introduce tangible provisions that directly tackle the stated intent of addressing gun violence.

In conclusion, we are imploring this committee to ask tough questions and seriously consider meaningful amendments. Our recommendations for amendments include increased penalties for firearms-related violent crimes; requirements for accessible and effective appeal system for individuals when licences are refused, revoked and when verification is not granted; the addition of specific provisions for retailer information security standards and penalties for non-compliance; rescinding the proposals to remove destinations for automatic ATTs; and the addition of a requirement for a standardized classification process that is consistent, transparent, evidence based, fully consults firearms users, and includes an effective and timely appeal system for classification decisions.

Chuck Zuckerman, Chairperson, BCWF Firearms and Recreational Sport Shooting Committee, B.C. Wildlife Federation: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting the 50,000 members of the B.C. Wildlife Federation to communicate with you regarding Bill C-71.

Firearms ownership is a way of life for the responsible firearm owners of British Columbia. We appreciate the outdoors experience and are committed to placing natural, wholesome food on our families’ dinner tables. We realize that this experience bonds us to our ancestors and the pioneer spirit. It forms the values that hold our families and society together. This is what gives meaning to our lives.

Firearm usage is an important harvesting tool when it is based on the scientific management of species and fair chase ethics. The benefit of appropriate harvesting is that it limits negative wildlife interactions. It prevents crop predation. It protects livestock, and it saves the government the cost of employing conservation officers to address problem wildlife.

Regarding safety, I am a licensed firearms instructor, a master CORE hunting instructor and a competition handgun shooter. A student may be issued a restricted firearms course report only after attending a two-day training session and passing written and practical tests. Safety is a priority, and foremost in the instruction is always pointing the firearm in a safe direction and keeping your finger off the trigger.

Learning the safe and legal use, storage, transportation and display of non-restricted firearms requires that they be unloaded, have a trigger lock applied to them or have them stored in a safe or securely locked container or room. Restricted firearms further require that they be unloaded with a trigger lock applied and transported in a locked case with the ammunition transported in a separate locked case. Transporting restricted firearms in any other manner is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. It is illegal to carry a loaded or unloaded restricted firearm on your person.

Only 