Skip to content

Opens in a new window Parliament of Canada

Visit Parliament

Visit

Français

Senators

Senators

Canada’s 105 senators give regions and underrepresented groups a strong voice in Parliament.

Go to Senators

List of Senators

Contact Information

Standings

Parliamentary Diplomacy

The Speaker

Biography

Role of the Speaker

Rulings and Statements

News & Events

Contact

Chamber

Chamber

Read or watch the latest Senate debates and see how senators represent you in Parliament.

Go to Chamber

Order Paper and Notice Paper

Journals of the Senate

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Votes

LEGISinfo

Watch & Listen

Calendar

Procedural References

Rules of the Senate

Companion to the Rules of the Senate

Procedural Notes

Speaker's Rulings

Senate Procedure in Practice

Committees

Committees

Senate committees perform in-depth studies of bills and investigate issues that matter to you.

Go to Committees

Business

Schedule of All Meetings

Studies & Bills

Reports

Members of Subcommittees on Agenda and Procedure

Get Involved

For Witnesses

Media Centre

Committee Alerts

eNewsletter

Resources

About Committees

Watch & Listen

LEGISinfo

Procedural References

News

News

Stay up to date with Senate activities and find articles about the Senate’s people, history and procedure.

Go to News

News Releases

Media Advisories

Media Centre

SenCA+

People

News

Opinion

How & Why

About

About

Find procedural references, financial reports and information about the rehabilitation of Parliament Hill.

Go to About

The Senate Explained

Art & Architecture

Artwork & Heritage

Online Collection

Architecture & Rehabilitation

Transparency & Accountability

Financial Reports

Senators' Attendance

Administration & Support

Accessibility

Visit

Virtual tours

Careers

Page Program

Student Employment Program

Resources

Publications

Photo Gallery

Procedural References

Publications

Participate

Participate

Find out how you can visit the Senate, engage with its work and follow Senate proceedings.

Go to Participate

SENgage

Model Senate

Visit

Virtual tours

Watch & Listen

LEGISinfo

Committee Witnesses

Committee Alerts

eNewsletter

Contact Us

Search

SECD - Standing Committee

National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs

Menu - SECD

Home

About

Membership

Meetings

Business

Business

Studies & Bills

Briefs & other documents

Reports

Search transcripts

Witnesses

News

Past Session:

44-1

44 th Parliament, 1 st Session

(November 22, 2021 - January 6, 2025)

Select a different session

45 th Parliament

1 st Session

(May 26, 2025 - Present)

44 th Parliament

1 st Session

(November 22, 2021 - January 6, 2025)

43 rd Parliament

2 nd Session

(September 23, 2020 - August 15, 2021)

1 st Session

(December 5, 2019 - August 18, 2020)

42 nd Parliament

1 st Session

(December 3, 2015 - September 11, 2019)

41 st Parliament

2 nd Session

(October 16, 2013 - August 2, 2015)

1 st Session

(June 2, 2011 - September 13, 2013)

40 th Parliament

3 rd Session

(March 3, 2010 - March 26, 2011)

2 nd Session

(January 26, 2009 - December 30, 2009)

1 st Session

(November 18, 2008 - December 4, 2008)

39 th Parliament

2 nd Session

(October 16, 2007 - September 7, 2008)

1 st Session

(April 3, 2006 - September 14, 2007)

38 th Parliament

1 st Session

(October 4, 2004 - November 28, 2005)

37 th Parliament

3 rd Session

(February 2, 2004 - May 23, 2004)

2 nd Session

(September 30, 2002 - November 12, 2003)

1 st Session

(January 29, 2001 - September 16, 2002)

36 th Parliament

2 nd Session

(October 12, 1999 - October 22, 2000)

1 st Session

(September 22, 1997 - September 18, 1999)

35 th Parliament

2 nd Session

(February 27, 1996 - April 27, 1997)

1 st Session

(January 17, 1994 - February 2, 1996)

Download as PDF

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Monday, November 6, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met via videoconference this day at 3 p.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-21,

An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Senator Tony Dean ( Chair ) in the chair.

[ English ]

The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I’m Tony Dean, representing Ontario, and the chair of the committee. I’m joined today by my fellow committee members, and I’ll ask them to introduce themselves, beginning with our deputy chair.

[ Translation ]

Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais, Quebec.

Senator Boisvenu: Good afternoon to our guests. I’m Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.

[ English ]

Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.

Senator Plett: Senator Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.

Senator M. Deacon: Welcome. Marty Deacon, Ontario.

Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.

Senator Richards: Dave Richards, New Brunswick.

Senator Duncan: Pat Duncan, from the Yukon.

Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.

Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.

Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. To my left is the committee’s clerk, Ericka Dupont.

For those watching the session, we today continue our study of Bill C-21,

An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, all with respect to the regulation of firearms in Canada. Today, we’re hearing from five panels of witnesses over five hours, consisting of firearms owners, organizations and Indigenous governments and representatives.

On our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming James Smith, President and National Range Officer Coordinator, International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada; by videoconference, Dr. Sandra Honour, Chair of the Board, Shooting Federation of Canada; and Brian A. McIlmoyle, Director, Airsoft in Canada.

Thank you all for joining us today. We invite you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from committee members. I remind you that you each have five minutes for your testimony.

James Smith, President and National Range Officer Coordinator, International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada: Good afternoon, honourable senators. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present here today. I’m presenting on behalf of the Canadian International Practical Shooting Confederation, or IPSC.

IPSC in Canada represents about 5,000 law-abiding members who currently must conform to the Firearms Act, and we feel that the current act provides for adequate protection for all Canadians. IPSC is the largest shooting sports association in the world, with 109 member countries, and in Canada, IPSC competitors represent the most organized group of elite handgun shooters.

IPSC Canada, since its inception, has instituted an additional safety course to assure safety in addition to the federally mandated RPAL and licensing. The Black Badge course has over 300 volunteer coaches and officials committed to introducing new athletes to the safe conduct of our sport. IPSC athletes in Canada compete and train at their local clubs on a weekly and monthly basis to advance their skills, the best from each province qualify to compete at the nationals, and the best of those are chosen to advance to the World Shoot.

This sport is more than a hobby; it is a lifelong commitment to perfecting skills and marksmanship to compete at the highest level. Much like the Olympics, the World Shoot is held every three years, with continental championships interspaced in off years. There have been proud Canadian athletes representing Canada at these international competitions since the 1970s, with an average of 60 athletes attending every three years.

IPSC athletes come from all walks of life. They are fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, grandmothers, grandfathers and even grandchildren. They come from all parts of society. We have construction workers, IT professionals, bankers, military, police, law enforcement, and we even have judges. If you were to attend an IPSC competition, you would be amazed at the diversity of the athletes, with representatives of all races, genders and disabilities.

In earlier testimony, there was reference to IPSC becoming the gateway to handgun ownership in Canada. I would like to put this in perspective. We are a volunteer group. If we were to get an exemption to make us equal to Olympic athletes, there are simply not enough instructors or the infrastructure in place for more than a few thousand additional members per year.

Bill C-21 does not outright ban handgun ownership, but the result for IPSC Canada is that, as a sport, we will see a slow demise as our athletes age when no new athletes are introduced and existing competitors’ equipment wears out with them unable to source replacements. Since the ban was introduced by order-in-council, we have already seen a slow decline in participation as new prospective members have been unable to purchase handguns.

We have also had members unable to continue participating in our sport for unforeseen reasons. We had one member whose home was destroyed in a wildfire, and his firearms were destroyed with it. He is unable to access new guns. We also had another member who was travelling to Thailand to represent Canada in the World Shoot, and they lost his luggage. He has not recovered his luggage, and he is unable to replace those firearms and unable to compete in the sport that he’s dedicated his life to practising.

Over the last couple of weeks, I have listened to testimony from multiple anti-gun groups who have referred to model gun legislation in other countries, like Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Europe in general. All of the countries mentioned have athletes competing in IPSC and allow exemptions in some form for IPSC athletes to purchase, possess and use handguns for the purpose of competing. Australia has been mentioned as a model of successful gun control legislation.

In correspondence with the regional director of IPSC Australia, he has outlined a licensing procedure with provisional training periods and then full licenses for IPSC athletes. New Zealand recently added new gun control legislation and has chosen to allow IPSC athletes to own handguns for the purpose of training and competing.

Laws that are conceived to reduce gun violence and gang activity cannot possibly further that objective by targeting our competitive sports representatives who, if this becomes law, will have no sport at all. In

summary, we would ask the Senate to move an amendment to add International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada to proposed

section 97(1).

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.

Sandra Honour, Chair of the Board, Shooting Federation of Canada: Thank you, committee members. I’m the volunteer chair of the Shooting Federation of Canada board of directors, certified coach and referee. I’m here representing the current and future members of the Shooting Federation of Canada, which include recreational shotgun, rifle and pistol clubs and their members.

The Shooting Federation of Canada supports Canada’s high-performance athletes, including, but not limited to, Olympians and Paralympians, and those trying to become high-performance athletes in the International Shooting Sports Federation sports, which is the IOC-recognized international sport governing body.

The Shooting Federation of Canada is not a lobby group, and we have no political affiliation. We are simply the national sport governing body that, along with provincial and territorial sport governing bodies across this country, support the infrastructure, athletes, coaches and officials of the ISSF sports.

I contend that target shooting is one of the most inclusive lifelong sports in the world, and one that Canadians who are aware of it consider valuable. Target shooting sports provide a level playing field that few other sports do. It allows gender identities, cultural heritages, sizes and physical abilities to become null and void, and these people can compete against each other. Target shooting is an international sport with about 109 countries around the world belonging to the ISSF.

There are unintended consequences of Bill C-21 that are impacting our Olympic pistol sports, such as the loss of local, viable ranges, the facilities unable to maintain Olympic sports equipment, restricted recruitment due to lack of instructors, parts and gunsmiths with expertise in pistols being lost, and the lack of importers of competition equipment.

We need adequate participation in the sport to have Olympians. Adding more needless hurdles negatively impacts the ability to have the number of athletes participating in the sport to find potential Olympians. When it comes to Olympians, their number is much less than the athletes who train to compete. Think about hockey and how many people play hockey versus how many are in the NHL. The Olympics have even higher levels.

The Olympic target shooting sports require mastery of amazing skills, and no one starts at the Olympic sport. Compare this to other sports. Do we start potential Olympian swimmers in a 50-metre pool, divers on a 10-metre platform or skiers on moguls? By requiring that training, competing or coaching in Olympic and Paralympic events are the only valid reasons to possess a competition pistol, Bill C-21 is essentially doing to pistol target shooting sports the equivalent of making the ownership of a bicycle illegal unless a bike owner trains, competes or coaches in velodrome cycling.

A healthy sport should at every level have pathways toward elite excellence and toward recreational participation. Participation in sports at all levels provides significant social value. Bill C-21 does not allow our potential athletes to have a recreational opportunity to begin to see if they like to shoot, nor a place to go when they retire from national team aspirations.

Olympic and Paralympic events change over time. Bill C-21 as proposed now is so narrow that Canadians are unable to participate in some of the events at the world championships, which may be Olympic events within eight years.

We recruit athletes from several routes, including the other handgun disciplines you’ll hear from. What we need most is the ability for local clubs to provide safe, competent pistol shooting instruction and experiences on bigger paper, larger targets and metal targets, to find these athletes who are interested in our sport. Our sport needs these opportunities — with and without formal competition — to be available across this country as a pathway to high-performance recruitment.

Sport matters. Target shooting is a lifelong sport. With the current Bill C-21, you’re taking the opportunity away from Canadians without having a significant impact on violent crime. In Bill C-21, the Olympic sport of pistol shooting is not really exempted. The bill is just simply proposing a slower strangulation of our sport than the death of other pistol shooting sports in Canada.

I’m asking you to value this lifelong, inclusive sport. This bill suggests that it’s easier just to kill our sport rather than ask how to maximize public safety and allow target shooting sports to thrive. That starts with working with our sports organizations, which has not been done up to this point. Some minor amendments to Bill C-21 and some good solid work to find out how our organizations can support some of the issues that are facing our enforcement system in Canada could go a long way toward helping achieve what we really want in Canada, which is a safe community.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Honour.

Brian A. McIlmoyle, Director, Airsoft in Canada: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Brian McIlmoyle. I’m the director of Airsoft in Canada, or ASIC. Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Airsoft is a sport that employs devices that propel 6-millimetre low-mass projectiles that are used in games of tag at a distance. With basic eye protection, the sport is safe and rewarding, and it is growing in Canada since its introduction in the late 1980s to today. Airsoft in Canada is an advocacy organization, representing stakeholders in the sport of airsoft in Canada, from end-users — players — to retailers and importers of airsoft devices. ASIC works to bring forth to government and regulators the issues that affect the sport of airsoft and its safe continuation as both a sport and source of enjoyment and livelihood for thousands of Canadians.

Bill C-21 as originally introduced in Parliament would have destroyed the sport of airsoft. It would have eliminated access to airsoft devices, obliterated hundreds of businesses and eliminated the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians — not to mention the loss of enjoyment, personal development and exercise that the participants of the sport enjoy. Thankfully, through the advocacy of ASIC and other organizations in Canada, parliamentary legislators became aware of the devastating impact of their proposed legislation and amended the bill.

The bill before the Senate has had the parts of Bill C-21 that would have destroyed the sport of airsoft removed. The status quo pertaining to airsoft was maintained, and a new recognition of the sport of airsoft, its significant economic inputs and very positive social impacts for participants was recognized. To that degree, the airsoft community is thankful for the recognition and for the approach to remove the elements of the bill that would have impacted the community.

With respect to Bill C-21 in general, I believe it is important for the Senate, as the chamber of sober second thought, to apply the same approach to the bill and the other provisions that would impact the firearm community as the parliamentary legislators had applied to airsoft. All legislation is a trade-off of restrictions against freedoms, and in a free and open democracy and in democratic societies such as Canada, more restrictions must reach a high bar of net positive impact to warrant the curtailing of existing privileges and freedoms.

Bill C-21 seeks to largely re-legislate existing law to provide the appearance of providing enhanced public safety without actually addressing the factors impacting public safety. The airsoft provisions are a case in point. They effectively obliterated what are toys to claim an enhancement of public safety against risks that are almost never manifest while at the same time not addressing the core risks in a meaningful way.

The other provisions of Bill C-21 seek to do the same regarding firearms: re-legislate an already effective control regime to provide government with the claim that they have taken action while, at the same time, impacting public safety to a negligible degree. In my view, this action does not meet the necessary high bar of lawmaking that would curtail the livelihoods and impact the existing privileges and freedoms of Canadians for meagre returns to the citizens of Canada.

That’s the completion of my statement. I’m prepared to answer any questions or add additional clarification as necessary.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. McIlmoyle.

We will now proceed to questions. Colleagues, our guests are with us until 3:55 p.m., and we’ll do our best to allow time for each member to ask a question. With this in mind, four minutes will be allocated for each question, including the answer. I will hold up this card to indicate that 30 seconds remain in your time. I ask that you keep your questions succinct and identify the witness you are addressing.

I now offer the first question to our deputy chair, Senator Dagenais.

[ Translation ]

Senator Dagenais: My first question is for Ms. Honour. When this bill was sent to us, we were told steps had been taken to enable athletes to keep competing in the sport. That’s what Minister Leblanc told the committee.

What changes could be made to this bill so that it would be acceptable to athletes like you?

[ English ]

Dr. Honour: There are a couple of changes.

When you look at Bill C-21 and clause 43, proposed

section 97.1 (b)(

i) and (ii), if we could do things like include all the pistols that are commonly used in International Shooting Sport Federation-recognized pistol disciplines, this would allow all of our ISSF — the Olympic organization sports — to be trained and competed with.

The other thing is taking that wording of “training, competing or coaching” and changing it to “participation in organized target shooting sports run by government-recognized sport associations.” Making that shift could allow people like the IPSC as well. It makes sure that the government recognizes that we have a responsible sport organization and that we have ways to identify those that participate. They couldn’t just own a pistol; they would have to participate in our sports. That would be great.

The other thing I suggest is that for the things that people say happen with legally owned pistols in this country — whether they be stolen or they are involved in domestic violence or suicide — the Ministry of Public Safety could work with our organizations to help us better educate and better recognize issues of mental health and be able to actually make a positive impact to ensure that our athletes and those people that participate in our sport fall within normal behaviours and things we want in our society.

[ Translation ]

Senator Dagenais: When talking about your firearms-related activities, you’ve said that people are trying to deny you your cultural heritage. How would you describe what you call your cultural heritage, and how would you compare it to Indigenous people’s constitutional heritage?

[ English ]

Dr. Honour: I don’t want to compare myself to the Indigenous situation because we have special provisions for them. What I will say, however, is that as a Canadian, part of our culture includes people learning to hunt with their families and learning to shoot targets and safely utilize firearms. I’m a third-generation Canadian. It’s been part of my family — my entire family — and I think it’s important that we get to maintain that and not have people who don’t necessarily have that same background dictate to us what our culture is.

Senator Dagenais: Thank you.

Senator Plett: My first question is for Brian McIlmoyle. I once participated in an airsoft game at a youth camp that my son was a director of. Other than a couple of good welts on my arms, I thought it was a great sport and a way to teach some people lessons. I certainly have never heard of anybody murdering somebody or even robbing a bank with an airsoft gun, so I find it kind of ironic that we put that into this gun bill.

Sir, you have stated that Bill C-21, as currently drafted, creates a legal ambiguity on the possession of airsoft, which will have a very serious impact upon your sport. Are you satisfied with the amendments made in the House of Commons? Would you have any additional amendments that you might recommend to clear this up?

Mr. McIlmoyle: That’s a very good question.

Essentially, the effect of the committee meetings with the parliamentarians was to simply remove the provisions that would have affected airsoft in Bill C-21. This didn’t, in fact, resolve all of the issues with airsoft. As it still exists, it’s not completely regulated clearly, and there’s still some ambiguity with respect to the legal status of these items, particularly with respect to import. The clarification necessary to CBSA would radically reduce their workload in trying to figure out what to hold and what to let go through.

Some very clear regulation with respect to the legal status of airsoft guns to be developed in the future with consultation with our organization would be helpful.

Senator Plett: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Smith, we have heard a number of times now — the minister even saying — that this doesn’t impact sports shooting, doesn’t impact target shooting and doesn’t impact the Olympics. Yet, you don’t go from having an interest in target shooting to becoming an Olympian; you actually have to do some training and practising on the way. Certainly, some senators here would appreciate the fact that to become good in your sport, you have to do some practising. How do we go from just having an interest in and being a target shooter, sir, to becoming an Olympic champion when the government says we’re not going to allow you to practise?

Mr. Smith: I would say it’s probably impossible, if that’s the case. Sandra outlined a good process there with government-recognized sporting institutes that could have their athletes listed and still be able to access. Other than that, not having Bill C-21 would probably help too.

Senator Plett: We wouldn’t have any gold medallists, I assume?

Mr. Smith: We would have no gold medallists.

Senator Plett: Thank you.

Dr. Honour, do you have any comments on that?

Dr. Honour: No. As I said, we have to have the ability to step on and off the high-performance pathways to be able to create Olympians, then have Olympians happily retire and not just sit on the couch and suffer from incubating Type 2 diabetes and dementia. Our sport is just such a lifelong sport that people can do it into their 80s, if they can go to a recreational and not necessarily Olympic event.

Senator Plett: Thank you very much.

Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here with us.

I’m going to go directly into the impact. When the minister was here before our committee, he stated clearly that nothing will affect the sportsmanship and sportsperson in the firearms clubs. My question to all of you is this: Would you agree that sportspersons, firearms clubs and hunters are not impacted by this bill? Second, how many individuals in the shooting sports in Canada are impacted by Bill C-21?

Mr. Smith: I would answer that we are definitely impacted. We are already starting to see the impact. We’ve had people lose their firearms in the wildfires. They can’t replace them. There’s no avenue at all for them to replace those firearms.

What was your second question?

Senator Oh: How many individuals in the shooting sports in Canada are impacted by Bill C-21? I believe it’s a big number, is it not?

Mr. Smith: It would be a very large number. I don’t have it. Our organization is only one sport, and it has about 5,000 members. At the recreational level of the sport throughout the country, I suspect it would be 100,000.

Dr. Honour: I would back up those numbers. The problem is that a gun range is almost always a not-for-profit corporation that’s being run, and we need the members from all the sports to keep a facility operating. When you impact the pistol sports, it affects the rifle sports and the other sports that are being shot on the same facility because the membership is required to own a firearm, and that membership then helps support and maintain the equipment to ensure the operation of those facilities.

Senator Oh: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. McIlmoyle, do you have any thoughts on this?

Mr. McIlmoyle: Yes. I’m a licensed firearm owner as well as an advocate for airsoft. We are seeing a chilling effect across the entire community from these restrictions coming into play. Membership at shooting ranges is down, and competitions are withering on the vine. The impacts of this have been immediate and widespread, and they will continue to be immediate and widespread. It is not just the social aspects with respect to people being cut off from their main source of social activity but also the economic impacts of people who used to make their livelihoods supporting these organizations and competitions. The impacts are widespread, deep and very disturbing for many people.

Senator Oh: Mr. Smith, are you aware of any country in the world that has implemented a similar bill to Bill C-21?

Mr. Smith: No. The U.K. probably has the most severe gun control, and they still have IPSC representation at international matches. North Ireland has ownership of handguns, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, so there are people in the U.K. who travel to those locations and store their firearms there and compete in pistol sports. They would probably be the most severe gun control in the world.

Senator Oh: It is nice to hear that. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. McIlmoyle, we understand you’re having some

interpretation problems. Are they cleared up now?

Mr. McIlmoyle: It is not. We’re still working on the problem.

The Chair: Okay. Bear with us, and we’ll try to fix it.

[ Translation ]

Senator Boisvenu: Welcome, witnesses.

My first question is for Ms. Honour. I gather you have quite a lot of members — thousands, is that right?

[ English ]

Dr. Honour: Yes, we have thousands of members in the Shooting Federation of Canada.

[ Translation ]

Senator Boisvenu: When the minister testified before this committee, he said, “I don’t think hunters or sports groups oppose this legislation.”

Do you know of any sport shooting or hunting groups in Canada that support this bill?

[ English ]

Dr. Honour: No, I am not aware of any sport shooting or hunting groups that support Bill C-21.

[ Translation ]

Senator Boisvenu: The minister seemed to think that lots of people support this bill.

My second question is for Mr. Smith. I put this same question to police representatives and shooting range managers. The thing that concerns me the most is this: If this bill were passed as written, what impact would that have on the thousands of shooting ranges across Canada? Also, what impact would it have on people in law enforcement and the military who use these shooting ranges for their annual recertification?

[ English ]

Mr. Smith: The result will eventually be the closing of all those facilities as people are unable to participate as a result of attrition through age, equipment breaking, etc. I can only speak for Nova Scotia, but our local club that I manage is a non-profit club run by our members, and all HPD shooters in Halifax use it. We have a very good relationship. Without that range, they would not be able to do their qualifications. They start on August 1 and finish November 15. They are there every day. That facility will no longer belong.

I would hazard to say that at least probably 75% of ranges in Canada are private clubs owned by the members, and the rest would be commercial ranges. As we lose members, we’ll get to a critical mass where we will no longer be able to afford to keep the lights on, and we’ll have to close.

[ Translation ]

Senator Boisvenu: You’re a large confederation with lots of members. Have you had a chance to share your comments with the minister or his representatives?

[ English ]

Mr. Smith: I testified at Parliament and shared those concerns.

[ Translation ]

Senator Boisvenu: Do you feel those people understood where you were coming from or were open to amending the bill so as to minimize the impact on your members?

[ English ]

Mr. Smith: There was discussion. During the parliamentary amendments at committee, there was certainly some discussion, and actually, some of it came to a vote, and it came down to a tiebreaker by the chair.

[ Translation ]

Senator Boisvenu: Are your proposed amendments in the bill before us now?

[ English ]

Mr. Smith: No, they are not.

Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.

Senator Richards: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.

My nephew is a lawyer and also a sports shooter. He has his own pistols. Mr. Smith, do the shooting facilities offer the pistols with which you practise? Sooner or later, do the participants want their own pistols to use? If they supply their own, with this bill, would it be almost impossible to continue the sport?

Mr. Smith: That is correct. At our facility, we do have some firearms that we use for juniors to start with, but typically, by the time they become 18 or 19, they acquire their own and move through the program with them. It’s not only at the range where practice time is needed. They practise off air with what we call dry fire so they are not actually firing the firearm. They are just practising with the trigger and the sights.

Senator Richards: Sure. In a way, they are vetted, aren’t they, these people that come to your range?

Mr. Smith: They are all vetted through the Canadian National Firearms Association, and in order to become a member, you have to have your Restricted Possession Acquisition License, or RPAL, or your Possession Acquisition Licence, or PAL.

Senator Richards: Of course.

Dr. Honour, there is a very heavy burden on the scrutiny and legal, judgmental oversight that makes many turn away from pistol shooting or not consider it as a sport or even as a hobby. Would you agree with that statement?

Dr. Honour: I would say it’s a big hurdle to join the sport and become competitive in it, yes.

Senator Richards: Thank you very much.

Senator Duncan: Thank you very much to the witnesses who have come before us today.

My question is largely for Dr. Honour and concerns the sport of biathlon. I am not an expert on firearms or on Bill C-21. My understanding is that biathlon does not use a weapon that is currently covered under this legislation. I believe you mentioned an amendment that would ensure that a recognized sports organization would be involved in the licensing or dealing with weapons and the authorization to use them.

I’m wondering if your amendment that you propose would provide future comfort to those involved in the sport of biathlon in that, in fact, the guns would not in the future be covered under such legislation. Or perhaps, has the sport of biathlon or the sports organization been involved at all in your discussions? I ask this because, of course, biathlon is part of the Arctic Winter Games, an international sports competition.

Dr. Honour: In my understanding, we do not represent biathlon. They are their own association. They are not impacted by Bill C-21. The use of their firearm is allowed.

In terms of the proposed change that I’m asking for in Bill C-21, it really is to deal with clause 43 and inserting proposed sections 97.1(b)(

i) and (ii), which is about pistols, the firearm type being a handgun, so that it would identify which handguns are allowed and who can own those handguns.

Senator Duncan: If I can follow up, then, if we were to include that amendment, would it provide comfort for future legislators and future individuals involved in biathlon? Yes, they are a separate organization, and their weapons or guns are not covered under this legislation, but forward thinking —

Dr. Honour: Biathlon is not impacted. The problem is that any government can then say, “We don’t accept your organization. We will no longer recognize your organization.” There is always a threat that our government will not recognize shooting sports. However, I’m trying to find a way in our current government system so that we can find a balance between the government wanting to have control of firearms and our ability to operate our sports.

Senator Duncan: Your suggestion is to have this amendment?

Dr. Honour: Yes.

Senator Duncan: Thank you.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all for being here this afternoon.

My first question is to our witness Mr. Smith in an attempt to really understand some of this. I’m wondering how International Practical Shooting differs from shooting sports that are recognized by the Olympics, Paralympic Games, Jeux de la Francophonie, Commonwealth Games and all those games in terms of the equipment.

At the Olympic level, the pistol, the rifle and the shotgun events are governed by the International Sports Federation, which has a rule book, as you know, about this thick, on the construction and calibration of these precise firearms. It’s regulated by really strict guidelines and staggering amounts of minutiae that dictate everything from the trigger pull weight and barrel construction to the thumb rest, ergonomics and ammunition specs. I’m not a shooter, but they are very niche firearms which serve one specific purpose tailored to their events.

Are the firearms used a standard kind that you could walk into a gun shop to purchase, or are they also very tailored to these events without much use outside of competition? I’m trying to understand that technical difference.

Mr. Smith: Just to start, we also have an international rule book that is recognized in all countries that participate in the sport. For the actual firearms that are used, we have different divisions. We have a division that starts with a firearm that you can go buy — just a basic firearm. It’s called production, so it’s a production firearm. There are then several other divisions with the open division, which would be the highest level of firearm that is tailored exactly to the sport. An analogy might be like race cars where you might have your stock car and your F1 race car.

It goes through all those iterations. The production gun would be $1,000 to purchase, and an open gun would be $15,000. Most members would probably have two, as backup, so they would have $30,000 invested into the sport. They might not be able to continue.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.

Ms. Honour, congratulations on the recent performances in Santiago. It’s great to have shooters qualify for the Olympics. It’s the first time since 2000. I want my colleagues know that. Around this issue of Bill C-21, you have been dealing with a lot of roadblocks over the last two quadrennial periods, with facilities and keeping membership fulsome, for sure. We recognize the challenges you have. You’ve heard today about the minister being in the room and us asking the minister questions a little while ago.

He assured us that elite level Olympians and Paralympians, right down to novices, would be able to train with the exceptions provided in this bill. Were you and your group consulted? Did you have an opportunity for input? If this bill is passed, do you think there will be more clarity on what to expect moving forward?

Dr. Honour: The Shooting Federation of Canada was not asked to participate in the committee that discussed Bill C-21, nor did we have letters answered to us after we wrote to the minister several times to request. In terms of any contact, what we have had is with the Ministry of Public Safety on the wording of the letter and what kind of screening we’re doing to identify athletes who would like to import or transfer ownership of a pistol.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.

Senator Cardozo: Thank you to our witnesses who are here in person and online. This is a complex bill, and we really appreciate your time with us.

I want to ask my question to Sandra Honour, if I can. It’s regarding the culture of recreational gun shooting. You made, at one point, a comparison to bicycle riding. You suggested that people needed to do more before they became an expert, a competitive bicycle rider. I would say it was an interesting analogy because it helps frame that, but the difference, though, is that bicycles cannot be used to kill people.

I put that because I think that’s part of the criticism that we certainly hear in this committee, concern about the culture of recreational shooting. You did mention that it’s a forum where people can meet and develop friendships. I understand that and I get that. There are many ways that we, as citizens, develop our friendships and get to know people. People have said to us that there is a serious crisis, an epidemic, of domestic violence, and they juxtapose that versus a hobby. Could comment on that in light of what you talked about in terms of the friendships and social atmosphere that people can develop in the field?

Dr. Honour: We definitely have community in all of the different shooting sports. I think this is where we could provide service. You have identified places where legal guns can be used in the act of a violent crime. As a community that cares about responsible firearm ownership, what could we do to help? We have never been asked what we could do, what courses we could provide, what information we could move to our community that own pistols, that belong to our clubs, to help reduce any issues around domestic violence and suicide. You are not asking us to be a part of the solution.

You just identify us as a problem, and that’s it, a blanket statement. I think it’s a two-way street. We could support community change and identification as a part of a community that really cares about responsible firearm ownership. We could do work. If we understood how to identify issues like mental health issues, if we were more educated as people who instruct and manage gun clubs, we could do more for the community than to just only make legal pistol ownership illegal and no longer have any responsible people owning pistols.

Senator Cardozo: Are you aware of any gun clubs that do that kind of awareness raising or help women’s groups?

Dr. Honour: I know IPSC Black Badge is incredible. You can talk to them. They have an incredible safety program. All the range officer training that gun clubs do has a strong component. Do we have a strong mental health component? No, we are weak in that. Could we do more? Absolutely, if someone worked with us on it to actually tell us what we could do to improve on that. The Shooting Federation of Canada is working on mental health with our athletes, but it’s more around anxiety and issues around competing, not necessarily mental health in day-to-day life, but we have opportunities.

All sport is working toward a safe sport environment in regard to both mental health and the safe operation of the facilities.

Senator Kutcher: Thank you all for sharing your thoughtful considerations around the issues related to target shooting sports and this bill.

My question is for Mr. Smith. Welcome to Ottawa. I understand that the IPSC has some chapters in countries that have quite restrictive gun legislation. You mentioned the U.K. and Australia, but I also understand that Japan has a chapter. Could you share with us, so we have a better understanding, more details about how people who are involved in target shooting sports in those countries are finessed there? What kind of processes are there in place in those countries that have the more restrictive legislation? Could you share the details of that?

Mr. Smith: I can’t speak to every one. We have a member in Nova Scotia who lives in the U.K. He travels to the Channel Islands to compete and practise. He also has a cottage in Nova Scotia and has a valid RPAL in Canada and flies over to compete in Canada and picks up his guns and flies back to other countries to use them. I don’t know all the countries. I did reach out to the

section coordinator that runs Australia to ask about it and had some correspondence back and forth. You are basically a novice, and you spend six months going to the club and using other people’s firearms. After that, you apply. It takes a year to qualify. I’m very familiar with that. I know Russia has centres where the firearms are kept. There are 109 countries. I’m not familiar with every one of them.

Senator Kutcher: It would be impossible with 109 countries.

Would it be possible, as a request, for you to do some research on this? Let’s pick Australia, the United Kingdom and Japan, for three countries. They’re more like-minded with us than Russia. Could you help us understand how they do it? What fail-safes are in place for them? Would that be possible?

Mr. Smith: Yes. I did provide that information to the CQ committee when I testified there. As I said, I did reach out to Australia, because I think at least three times in testimony they’ve been raised as the model.

Senator Kutcher: Yes, but those three.

Mr. Smith: Yes, I can do that.

Senator Kutcher: Thank you so much. That would be fantastic.

Sandra Honour, thank you very much for being with us and sharing your thoughts. This issue that you raised is an important one about the role of the shooting organization in proactively addressing concerns around suicide with guns. I thank you very much for raising that as an issue. We know that many different organizations, for example, sports organizations with young people, are now bringing in mental health literacy into those organizations, teaching people how to identify individuals who might be suicidal and what interventions can be done in the organization.

Have your organizations had any discussions with the federal government or your provincial governments or any mental health groups to help you develop those capacities? Is there a willingness to do so, if you haven’t?

Dr. Honour: As a national sports organization, there is an absolute willingness. The other sports have that opportunity, and we are going to be able to piggyback on some of those other sports in terms of their learnings and how to manage that. We will absolutely be bringing it into the leadership and the coaching and the officials and that type of work at the sports organization. What would be great is if we could get that to the clubs.

Senator Kutcher: Thank you.

Senator Yussuff: Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

My question will be both to Sandra Honour and, of course, James Smith and is to deal with the concern that you have in regard to the legislation and future membership because of the Bill C-21 ban on handguns and use of handguns. Maybe there are two parts to it. Membership in the organization is a serious responsibility, and obviously, if there were an exemption based on what was proposed in the other place, there would be a higher degree of vigilance as to how you would police that because anybody could join just to get around the handgun restriction. Could you elaborate on some of your thoughts about this?

This is an issue that has been raised publicly. I would like to get your thoughts in regard to this.

Mr. Smith: As I said in my opening statement, IPSC, since its inception in Canada, had a requirement to have an extra training course above and beyond what the government required. We call it a “Black Badge” program. It’s a two-day course where we vet the people. It’s some training. It’s the rules. It’s a bit of everything. We have a limited number of instructors. If everybody comes and says they want to join, it’s just not going to happen because we don’t have the facilities.

In addition to that, we have a requirement that you have to participate on a yearly basis or you lose that black badge and are no longer able to participate. We certainly would cooperate and do that vetting. As members come in and left, we would let everybody know that that’s how it works.

Dr. Honour: Similarly, that could be done in the ISSF sports as well.

Senator Yussuff: To follow up on your answer, what is the requirement to maintain membership and ensure that someone who joins your organization is actually engaged in the competitive nature of what is required?

Mr. Smith: We track participation at the competitions at the provincial and national levels. If you go a year without participating, you go into a six-month probation. If you don’t participate in that six months, you have to go through all the training again.

Senator Yussuff: Would that be the same, Ms. Honour, in regard to your organization?

Dr. Honour: No, we are not currently at that level, but could be if required.

Senator Yussuff: In regard to the amendment that was proposed in the other place, that amendment deals specifically with some of the concerns that you have that the committee dealt with and, obviously, didn’t support, but they did look at it. Were you satisfied with the amendment as it was proposed?

Mr. Smith: Yes. It could have gone a little further, but the writing was on the wall and we would take whatever we would get at this point to have our sport survive.

Senator Yussuff: Thank you, both, for your testimony. Thank you for being here.

The Chair: Colleagues, I’m afraid that brings us to end of the panel. There were more questions lined up, so that’s a mark of the quality of the presentations that our three witnesses brought to us today.

We greatly appreciate your time, expertise and contributions today, and we finish by commending the three of you for the very hard work that you do in representing your various communities. Thank you very much for that and for joining us today.

For the next 55 minutes, we have the pleasure of welcoming Matthew Hipwell, Owner, Wolverine Supplies; William J. Klassen, Former Police Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Yukon; and, by video conference, Lynda Kiejko, Civil Engineer and Olympian, Pistol.

Thank you all for joining to us day. I invite you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. I remind you that you each have five minutes for your testimony. We begin with Mr. Hipwell.

Matthew Hipwell, Owner, Wolverine Supplies, as an individual: Good afternoon, senators and guests. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before you this afternoon and touch on a few points concerning Bill C-21.

The handgun freeze implemented by Bill C-21 and the Liberal government currently has done nothing to reduce our handgun crime in Canada since its implementation in October of 2022. Do we know what this freeze has actually done for public safety to date now that we’re a year into it? I’m going to suggest we can’t because the freeze that was on the sale and transfer of handguns within Canada only affected those Canadian handgun owners who were legally licensed and able to lawfully possess those firearms. The freeze did not prevent the criminal element in Canada from possessing a handgun or acquiring one.

Nor, as we know, do the criminals care about any of those laws. They only affect those who want to enjoy their chosen sport or hobby. We have even heard from chiefs of police and the RCMP who have stated legal handguns are not the problem, but the statements from professionals at the front lines have been ignored so far. We’ve missed an opportunity to enhance public safety. To appease the public, we have focused on what was easy, and that was the legal handgun owners who were fully licensed. We did not address our open borders or handguns on the streets.

We still have media reports of shootings where handguns were used. Like I asked previously, has there been a reduction in crime in the first year?

Firearms classification is not complicated, although over the years, individuals have built their careers on classifying firearms. The exception is when it comes to handguns. They are clearly defined by barrel length, calibre, number of shots — i.e., magazine capacity — and any one of us can determine that.

I bring this up because Minister LeBlanc has said that he wants to re-establish the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee to independently examine the classification of existing models that fall under a new prospective definition of a prohibited firearm in Bill C-21 and to identify those that qualify as hunting firearms and exclude them by a future decree — for example, an order-in-council. What is the prospective definition of a prohibited firearm under Bill C-21? We don’t know. It hasn’t been developed.

But if we stuck with simple classifications — barrel length, magazine capacity, the action, et cetera — any one of us, including the manufacturers and retail customers, would know what the class of their firearms would be and how to use them.

Everyone from a manufacturer, importer, distributor or retailer to an owner wants to comply with firearms laws and regulations, but when these are not clearly defined and constantly reinterpreted, we are placed in the precarious position of leaving us liable to lose money and face possible criminal charges. Where’s the media education for the firearms owners so they are aware that their firearm is now prohibited? There are many people out there today who use their firearms as tools and are certainly not well versed in gun law.

How many firearms like the Ruger Mini-14, which was prohibited a number of years ago, are used as a farm gun today where the farmer takes it out to deal with a rabid skunk? Manufacturers have been accused of trying to evade the law when they are only trying to comply with the regulations that are laid out because the goalposts keep moving.

With respect to new offences in sentencing, I’ve taken this to heart from my former experience. We have talked about increasing sentences from 10 to 14 years. These sections do not help us unless the tools in our justice system are there to implement these new laws. During my years in law enforcement, it was clear the justice system had many revolving doors, as police officers and justice officials just became frustrated with catch and release. Let’s address the system before we need to add longer sentences.

We have new offences listed under Bill C-21. One, for example:

Authorization to transfer cartridge magazine to individuals

(2) A person may transfer a cartridge magazine that is not prescribed to be a prohibited device only if the individual holds a licence authorizing him or her to possess firearms.

Now we need a licence to possess a magazine. A magazine for a firearm will need a licence to purchase or possess? How many 22-calibre magazines are out there in Canada today? The number is staggering.

I realize I’ve only touched on a few points from Bill C-21 this afternoon, and I hope you can see the legislation has many areas that need improvement. I am supportive of commonsense and accountable firearms legislation and something that does not infringe on the privileges of law-abiding Canadians.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hipwell.

William J. Klassen, Former Police Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Yukon, as an individual: Good afternoon, senators, and thank you for the opportunity to talk with you about Bill C-21 and how it will affect firearms owners like me.

Since I was a boy on the farm, I have used and owned firearms for pest control, target shooting, hunting for meat, and in my work. I am an active member of the Yukon Handgun Association, and I speak in part on behalf of its members.

I agree with our Yukon Liberal member of Parliament who voted against Bill C-21. I also agree with other witnesses who have appeared here and have stated that Bill C-21 is seriously flawed and recommended that it be scrapped.

In my view, the current firearms laws, if properly enforced, are all that is needed to keep Canada and Canadian communities safe. If the Senate, in its sober second thought deliberations, decides to pass the bill, then it should make some substantial amendments. I fully support the amendments suggested in the brief sent to you by the group of seven researchers, policy experts and subject-matter experts.

I have time to speak to only two aspects of the bill, the semi-automatic rifle ban and the handgun freeze.

If I understand it correctly, sections 15 and 16 of the bill propose to ban semi-automatic, centre-fire long guns with detachable magazines capable of holding more than five rounds. That is unnecessary. All semi-automatic, centre-fire long guns are already restricted to five-round magazines. Some of the firearms that are termed assault-style rifles are used by many Canadians for hunting and target shooting. Why ban those? Where is the evidence that such legally owned guns are used in crime or that banning them will make Canada safer?

The list of prohibited firearms includes the ArmaLite AR-10. Three years ago, the Yukon government bought AR-10-type rifles — actually, SIG Sauer 716s — for their conservation officers, arguing that they needed semi-automatic rifles to deal with conflicts with dangerous wildlife. There have been at least three instances in recent years where Yukoners were killed by grizzly bears. Why should Yukoners and other Canadians not be able to own the same type of firearms that conservation officers need to protect themselves?

Many Yukoners spend considerably more time in the bush than do conservation officers, but the ban will prevent them from owning and using AR-10-type rifles to protect themselves.

Over the years, I have collected more than a few handguns, three of which were the issue sidearms of RCMP members with whom I served. These revolvers have considerable historic and sentimental as well as real economic value to me. The freeze on handgun transfers by order-in-council in October 2022, which has been strengthened under this bill, has destroyed the considerable economic value of my collection. I may not transfer them to my children or grandchildren, and I may not sell them. I can donate some of them to a Yukon museum, but an income tax receipt will not come close to equalling their real value.

My executor may well have to surrender many of the handguns from my estate to be destroyed.

Where is the evidence that banning and destroying this valuable property will make Canadian communities safer? Canadian handgun owners must take instruction, pass tests and have their spouses or partners agree to their receiving a restricted firearms licence for guns that they may then only use at RCMP-licensed ranges. Licensed firearms owners are not the people responsible for shootings in Canada. Preventing them from trading or selling these restricted firearms will not make Canada safer.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Klassen.

Lynda Kiejko, Civil Engineer and Olympian, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for having me here today.

I’m the volunteer president of the Alberta Handgun Association. I’m also a current national team member on the pistol shooting team. I have recently returned from representing Canada at the Pan American Games. This was my third time representing Canada at the Pan Am Games. I’m a three-time Pan Am Games medallist, a Commonwealth Games medallist and also a two-time Olympian in pistol shooting. Both my father and one of my sisters are also Olympians in pistol shooting sports.

Target shooting is one of the most inclusive, lifelong sports in the world and one Canadians should consider valuable. Target shooting sports provides a level playing field that no other sport really provides. All people, all body shapes, all genders, able‑bodied, otherwise, it doesn’t matter. We can all compete shoulder to shoulder against each other on a level playing field.

The limitations that Bill C-21 now presents, and some of the rules that have been created, create issues specifically for me and for future athletes like me. If my gun becomes broken, I can no longer acquire parts. I can’t have warranty work done outside the country. I have no access to new firearms and the latest models with which to compete on the international scene, and the delay on import and export licenses is significantly a concern.

Currently, I already have to bite my nails waiting to receive my export permits when I get named to a team with less than six weeks departure. I received my export permit for the Pan American Games after I arrived at the airport to depart for the games. It has caused me excess stress leading up to the games. It did nothing to improve your safety overtop of the existing regulations that are already in place. It only really impacted me and nobody else.

I have at least two teammates who are currently struggling with acquiring new firearms. One firearm was ordered before the handgun freeze was put into place, and it was issued. My understanding is it’s still sitting in import purgatory. One has been trying to move through the regulations as they sit today to acquire a new firearm under the regulations that have been introduced to the market after the handgun freeze was put in place. More than a year later, both these individuals do not have the required equipment in their hands to participate in their events. By removing the ability to enter the sport, new shooters are struggling to acquire the equipment to participate.

Bill C-21 is requiring athletes to prove they are training for the Olympics before they even start into the event. It makes no sense. Athletes rarely start off a new sport with the sole purpose of making the Olympics. Sport is intended to promote activity for life. Why are we putting such an additional pressure on the shooting sports only to produce Olympians? Participation in other shooting sports provides an avenue to enter into the International Shooting Sport Federation, the ISSF events. It covers a greater opportunity for competition than just Olympic events.

There are more events within the ISSF World Championships than are contested at the Olympic games. Bill C-21 removes the option to compete at an international competition just because the Olympic Games has now a limited subset of what the ISSF covers. This also doesn’t take into account any of the other international bodies that are also handgun events.

Bill C-21 would limit the ability to take an RPAL course required to own a handgun, any ability to require a handgun, ranges qualified to shoot a handgun, and the list keeps going on. For what? What goal is being achieved by the regulations of Bill C-21? My guns and those of my teammates are not the guns we are trying to remove from the streets. Our guns have never been on the streets. These regulations are impacting me directly and doing nothing for illegal guns, nothing for violent crime and nothing for public safety. Bill C-21 has a pretense of doing something while doing nothing productive.

I have been competing in pistol shooting for 31 years. I have been part of the national team for the better part of 24 years. I became an Olympian seven years ago. Without all of the training leading up to my first Olympic Games, I would not have become an Olympian. What happens if I retire from my sport? Will you confiscate my firearm? Would you confiscate a swimmer’s swim suit? What about a soccer player’s ball? What about a tennis player’s racquet? Where is the recreational element for shooters?

Olympians come out to participate after their rigorous training is done, and it is part of the motivation for future athletes. By requiring the Olympic or Paralympic discipline as the only valid sport to train, compete or coach to have the equipment to take part, there is a significant restriction on future athletes.

Sport matters. Target shooting is a sport for life. With the current Bill C-21, you’re taking it away from Canadians, without significant impact on violent crime. As the Senate, I implore you to include all pistols commonly used in ISSF disciplines, the world championship sports and at participation in organized target shooting sports to the training and competition section. This should not be just restricted to the Olympic or Paralympic disciplines. There are a lot of other disciplines with which we actually collect people to go to the Olympics. IPSC has their own international sport federation. I implore you to look —

The Chair: Ms. Kiejko, I’m afraid —

Ms. Kiejko: Thanks very much.

The Chair: I’m sorry to have interrupted you. Let me just say congratulations on behalf of all of us in this room on your many sporting accomplishments. Well done.

We’re now going to proceed to questions. The panel finishes at 4 p.m. As with the last panel, I’m limiting each question, including the answer, to four minutes. I’ll hold up this card to indicate that 30 seconds remain in your time. Please keep your questions succinct and identify the person to whom you’re addressing the question. The first question goes to our deputy chair.

[ Translation ]

Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Hipwell.

Mr. Hipwell, you’ve said it’s impossible to please everyone, especially when it comes to gun control in Canada. I believe you responded to PolyRemembers’ demands by saying you wanted to find what you called a reasonable approach.

Given the current state of things with Bill C-21, do you think it’s still possible to reconcile legal gun owners’ position with that of people who want to make all guns disappear? What do you think would be a reasonable approach?

[ English ]

Mr. Hipwell: Thank you. That’s a very good question.

I believe, yes, we can find a middle road, but there needs to be a little more work done. We need to be able to hold people accountable. We’ve heard this afternoon that there are many different levels of what that accountability looks like, from licensing to additional training. You talked about storage and transportation regulations. That’s another aspect. We have heard mental health being spoken of highly. We all know the impact that’s had on various individuals. A lot more things need to take place. I don’t think it’s just for one body to make those decisions.

[ Translation ]

Senator Dagenais: As someone who sells guns, what do you think of the Liberal government’s buy-back program?

[ English ]

Mr. Hipwell: Regarding the repurchase relating back to the OIC from May 1 of 2020, first, if these guns were so bad and the government wanted to remove them from the streets, why haven’t they repurchased them now? It’s been three years, and those guns are still sitting locked up securely in homeowners’ safes, vaults and cabinets. That’s not the road we want to go down.

[ Translation ]

Senator Dagenais: I’d like to hear your thoughts on the definition of the semi-automatic weapons the government wants to take off the market. For starters, do you sell these? Who buys these combat weapons?

[ English ]

Mr. Hipwell: There are many different types of semi-automatic firearms, and that’s a very broad statement. There are different calibres, from rim-fire to .22 to shotguns, which your bird hunters and competitive sports shooters, to various other centre-fire hunting rifles and target-type rifles. They are used in many different walks of life — some that aren’t recognized, and some that are for a livelihood. For an example of a semi-automatic firearm that’s used in predator control, I took a phone call from a customer on my way here today who was having problems.

He’s already had 27 coyotes he’s had to dispatch this fall, and the winter hasn’t even begun. There’s a time and place in many parts of the country.

Senator Oh: Witnesses, thank you for being here with us.

My question is for our Olympian, Lynda Kiejko. I want to thank you very much for representing Canada and putting our country on the map of the world. My brother is also an Olympian shooter, so I understand how professional and hard-working all of you are and the high level of discipline in your work.

The minister has been to our committee. He came on October 23. Referring to the Olympic level of competition, he said that we are not affecting the ability of these elite athletes to access the firearms they need for the sports competitions. However, we also heard from the Chief Firearms Officers from Alberta and Saskatchewan, who told us that not a single application for firearms acquisition has been approved for Olympic-level athletes since the federal government issued the order-in-council banning the sale and purchase of handguns. Can you tell us if it is your understanding that what the minister has said is correct?

Ms. Kiejko: No, the minister is not correct. The Bill C-21 regulations are trying to carve out a bit of an exemption for handgun owners, specifically in the Olympic sports. However, from what we’ve seen currently, we’re having lots of problems. There’s no way to actually get approval or importation of a new type of firearm. There are some brand new ones on the market that are cutting edge, and Canadians will not have access to those firearms.

I have a teammate who has literally been trying — I compete alongside her, and I train alongside her on a regular basis — for probably over a year now to import one of these new cutting-edge firearms specifically for competition. It’s one of the only things you can use it for, and it’s specifically for an Olympic event. It’s been to no avail. We’re not having any luck, and she’s not having any luck with it.

The truth of the matter is that Bill C-21 cuts down our ability to compete on an international scale. Whatever we have within the country right now is all we’re going to be able to attain. If anyone new coming into the sport wants to move into the 22 events, they will not be able to. They will have to borrow. We are literally having to supervise new athletes coming in and lend them our equipment. Everybody’s handgun is kind of customized to your hand. You need a customized grip. It’s like borrowing someone else’s sneakers and trying to run a marathon in them. It’s not something that works really well. You have to have your own equipment.

Senator Oh: I hope the minister listens to what you say.

Senator Plett: Hear, hear.

Senator Oh: I hope we have more young athletes like you representing us in the future. Otherwise, we will be wiped off the map. Thank you.

Ms. Kiejko: Thank you.

Senator Plett: My first question is for both Mr. Klassen and Mr. Hipwell. You’re both ex-law enforcement officers.

Since 1976, gun control measures have ramped up significantly: Bill C-83 in 1976, Bill C-51 in 1977, Bill C-17 in 1990, Bill C-68 in 1995, Bill C-10A in 2003 and Bill C-71 in 2018. Along with these were measures that were introduced by order-in-council. This is a pile of gun control bills, and in spite of all these measures, the sponsor of Bill C-21, Senator Yussuff, noted at our last meeting: “When I was young and went to school, gun violence was not a thing.”

I want to make our communities safer as well. I think we all do. Can you explain to me why gun control measures are going to succeed in making our communities safer with this bill when all others have failed to do so? I know I’m asking opponents of the bill rather than proponents. I maybe should have asked them that question, but please go ahead.

Mr. Klassen: I think Mr. Hipwell said it earlier. For the most part, the people who commit gun crimes pay no attention to the laws, so adding more laws and regulations for those of us who do comply with the existing laws is not going to have, in my view, a positive effect. I have a small example. I live in the Yukon just outside of Whitehorse. Within the last three months, four kilometres from where I live, the police — the RCMP — raided the home of a young man who was under court order not to be in possession of firearms. He had no firearms licence. He was a drug dealer, and he was found with several firearms.

In my view, Bill C-21 will have no effect on someone like that who ignores even court orders to not be in possession of firearms.

Senator Plett: I will ask Mr. Hipwell another question. I’m sure the answer to this one will be very similar to yours, although I don’t want to put words in your mouth, Matt.

Some witnesses who appeared before our committee last week were supportive of the ban on assault weapons, but it is the definition of those that is in large part the problem. What it seems to have come down to is the look of a firearm rather than what it actually does. In Canada, as you know, we have many semi-automatic rifles that are used for hunting. Certainly well over a million semi-automatic rifles are in legal hands and are non-restricted firearms.

How does one pick and choose these guns and classify them as assault weapons but leave them in circulation — like the non-restricted semi-automatic firearms that may shoot exactly the same ammunition — and claim that some of these guns are safer than others? How do you pick and choose?

Mr. Hipwell: How do you pick and choose between them? That’s very challenging. I’m not an expert in that area to be able to pick and choose between the different types. They all have different features — the ergonomics or the fit, much like the example of a grip on a pistol. Some of these rifles are smaller. They are designed for smaller shooters. I’ve heard of grizzly bear examples. I’ve heard of wild boar examples where semi-automatic firearms come into their own. There’s environment and predator control. With a coyote population explosion in parts of the country, these types of firearms come into their own and are tools to protect people’s livelihoods.

Senator Plett: If a wild boar was coming after you after it had been shot once, you’d probably be happy to have another bullet in your clip.

Mr. Hipwell: I haven’t encountered it, but I’m sure that might be the case.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all for being here this afternoon.

My question comes in two parts and goes to Ms. Kiejko. Welcome back. We’re thrilled that you got back. We know the rest of your team is certain to be back by today, and we’re so glad you were able to make it this afternoon.

Looking at this legislation, of course, we are told — and we see — there are exceptions for people in your position, not only elite athletes like yourself but also those who are training. When I asked a question about this of the minister, he assured the committee:

It’s not only the persons who go to these international competitions representing Canada, it’s those who are training and getting ready to, one day, hopefully, have the opportunity to do that.

Also — as I note — the bill provides exceptions for those who are training, competing or coaching in a handgun shooting discipline that is on the program of the International Olympic Committee, or IOC, or the International Paralympic Committee, or IPC. I take this to mean they don’t necessarily need to be training for the Olympics but simply participating in a sport recognized by these agencies. Why do you think this won’t be the case?

Ms. Kiejko: How do you prove that you’re training for that? There are 15 different Olympic disciplines. Paralympic disciplines, I believe, are a very similar amount. Really, when it comes right down to it, how do you prove you’re training for it? One of the International Practical Shooting Confederation witnesses said that they have a regulated amount where they track where everybody is, what everybody is doing and how often they have been competing. Our events don’t necessarily track it the same way. You can go back and look at the listings, and you can figure it out.

However, we don’t actively track how often someone competes to make sure they are still competing, training and working toward it. There are some people who trained a few years ago, and they had some life changes and weren’t able to come back. Then, three years later, they jump right back into it. We’re totally supportive of that. They could have definitely been training away from it. They just may not have been able to come to a competition due to a whole bunch of life things.

I think there is a huge limitation by just saying that we need to only look at the Olympic events and not do anything with that. There are some other Olympic events where, if they want to bring them in, they might bring them in or they might not. There are some Olympic events that once were Olympic events but no longer are, but they are still competed in on the world championship stage. Those are still supported by the International Shooting Sport Federation, ISSF. Those events are a whole bunch of guns that would no longer be allowed under the regulations.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.

I’m going to dig deeper on something else in your experience. I think it’s that trained participation piece that you’re talking about. Let’s look at something you touched upon a little earlier. Having worked on many Olympic Games, two of the biggest challenges are the logistics of getting the horses to the riders out of ships and quarantine, and getting guns and ammunition to the athletes. Those are the two biggest challenges of the games. I know you’ve been through it. You started to talk about it. What is that like for you, and how do you see that perhaps changing as a result of Bill C-21?

Ms. Kiejko: I think one of the other witnesses has mentioned it. If somebody’s firearms are lost in transit, what do you do to replace them? I literally had to compete a year ago at one of our championships with somebody else’s gun. Again, it was awful. It doesn’t fit, it didn’t suit me and it did not work. My performance was definitely subpar. What if I had never gotten them back? What would I have done? I don’t know. Under the regulation, I wouldn’t have had a firearm to continue competing with. I wouldn’t have gone to the Pan Am Games this year. I wouldn’t have made the team this year because my guns would be gone.

We’re looking at logistics. I am entrusting my firearms to the airline to be able to get it to me. There are logistics. There are rules, permits and everything in place. Right now, I have a whole bunch of permits I have to apply for before I leave the country to be able to get back into the country. I’m at the mercy of the government to get all of that done in place. If I dare to apply late because I get named to a team late, then there is nothing I can do and there is no way I can rush those permits.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.

[ Translation ]

Senator Boisvenu: My question is for Mr. Klassen. I’d like to draw on your experience as a police officer.

This bill pits two of our society’s values against one another. Firearms have been around for about 800 years. The history of firearms goes back to the 13th century, more or less, and people who strongly support this bill are looking at things from a philosophical or utopian perspective according to which Canada must eliminate all firearms. We’ve heard the arguments.

There are also those who say this bill is flawed, people such as directors of sporting organizations and Olympians, as we saw earlier, and law-abiding hunters who use these weapons within the bounds of a very safe firearms culture. As we saw after the act was passed in the 1990s, successful gun control takes citizen and gun owner buy-in.

My question is simple. Do hunters and gun owners support this bill? If not, what’s the future of gun control in Canada if most gun owners don’t support a bill?

[ English ]

Mr. Klassen: Thank you for the question.

The firearms owners I know, mostly the members of the shooting club of which I’m a member, to the extent that they understand the bill — and it’s not a bill that is easily understood, because when you read the legislation — and I have some experience in doing that — you have to cross-reference it to all these other bills that are being amended at the same time. So to the extent that shooters understand the bill, no, they do not support it.

Many of the members of the handgun association own handguns. Perhaps that’s obvious. They are negatively affected by this bill because it has resulted in the loss of the value of the firearms they own, and the value of those firearms is not insignificant; that is to say, it is significant, as the previous witness mentioned. If you own several handguns, you’re into the tens of thousands of dollars. Looking at the loss of the value of that, and in my case, given my age, from my estate, yes, it leads to opposition to the bill.

[ Translation ]

Senator Boisvenu: Bill C-68 was passed in 1995. In 2004-05, 50% of the information in the Canadian Firearms Registry was incorrect. Police offers would frequently show up at an address that had no indication of guns being present, only to find guns there. The registry did very little to protect police officers even though protecting them was one of its main reasons for being. If this bill passes, might we end up five years from now with gun control being neither better nor worse than it is now, when Canada has one of the best gun control regimes?

[ English ]

Mr. Klassen: As a former peace officer, when I went to a home where there was some concern about the possibility of firearms being present, I always assumed that there would be a firearm there.

The registry was certainly not perfect. In my own case, I transferred a handgun from the former registry to the new registry, and when I received my registration certificate, it said I only owned the frame and it had no barrel, so I had to re-register it because of that error. There were many errors. I have a friend who was not used to using computers, and he tried to register his firearms online. He registered them three times, so he suddenly owned three times as many firearms, according to the registry, as he actually owned because of that error.

Senator Boehm: My question is for Ms. Kiejko, following along from what Senator Deacon was asking you about, but first, I join others in congratulating you on your amazing sporting career.

We have heard from victims groups about the so-called Olympic exception. They are concerned that people might fall between the cracks in that context, but I would imagine that in the many sporting events that you have participated in — maybe not so much the last one in Santiago at the Pan American Games but for others — there are athletes representing other countries that have enacted laws that would outlaw guns of certain kinds. I’m thinking, in particular, perhaps in the context of the Commonwealth Games and Olympic Games.

Maybe when you’re not as tense as you would be in competition, but when you relax with your colleagues, have you had a chance to talk about laws in other countries and how they are applied? Do other competitors face the same tensions that you would in getting their permits before getting on the plane? I would be interested whether you have heard others’ views.

Ms. Kiejko: I haven’t necessarily heard other views. There are definitely a few, like some of the challenges that some of my Great Britain teammates have gone through. They literally have to go to a different country to be able to train for their event, and they have to store their firearms somewhere completely different. I would say it’s a huge disservice. I actually personally do a lot of dry firing. I have three young children at home, and the majority of my training actually occurs after they go to bed, which gives me very small windows during the day to be able to do my training.

To not be able to have my firearms at home with me to be able to do that dry training, I can’t even imagine the challenges that some of my other competitors might actually be under or how they even manage that situation entirely.

I have had conversations on the flipside where people look at me and shake their heads, wondering how on earth I even manage. “How do you get your guns out? You might be arrested getting back into the country because your own country didn’t give you the permit to get there?” That’s even though I’m taking out the same thing that I have owned legally within the country. It’s a bit staggering to some that we jump through so many hoops just to be able to go, compete and then come home to represent a country that doesn’t seem to be very proud of us.

Senator Boehm: What would you say to the groups that are concerned about the so-called Olympic exemption?

Ms. Kiejko: I would ask them why. I understand that the sporting tool that we use can be seen in a very negative light, but I think any Olympian, any sport competitor in any sport, respects their sport and respects the tools they use in their sport. I would have a hard time. I would really want to understand where they are coming from and if they are focused only on the tool or on the practice that goes into it and the intentional practice that goes into competing in any sport at a high level.

Any competitor at a high level has a high respect for their sport, for their competitors and for the general public around them. We’re expected to be role models for the general public. That’s just the expectation.

Senator Boehm: Thank you very much.

Senator Kutcher: Congratulations, Ms. Kiejko, and thank you for bringing forward the issues that Bill C-21 may have on target-shooting sports. I think it’s an important issue.

My question has two parts. The first part has been taken by my seatmate, Senator Boehm, so I won’t repeat it. The second

part is this: realizing the challenges that your sport would have, but at the same time balancing the right of people not to be shot, are there any changes that you would make to the bill that would protect your sport, while at the same time protecting Canadians from gun violence?

Ms. Kiejko: That’s a really double-edged question. In my opinion, I’m not sure there is a whole lot of Bill C-21 that I would necessarily keep because I don’t think any of it addresses gun violence. If you’re looking to address gun violence, then you need to look at the places where gun violence is being committed. If you’re looking for that, it is not at the gun range. It’s not in competitive sports. If that’s the case, then pretty much all target sports need to be exempt from the restrictions that Bill C-21 is trying to implement.

If you’re trying to literally deal with the violent acts that are happening, you need to look at where they are happening and who they are being perpetrated by. In the majority of cases, that’s being handled by illegal firearms, and Bill C-21 will have no impact on illegal firearms or illegal firearm ownership. Bill C-21 will create more people who don’t want to be a criminal and potentially end up creating more criminals than we want. I don’t want to be a criminal. I want to follow the regulations, and I want to continue participating in my sport.

Through additional regulations, you’re going to create accidental criminals, and that’s not really the case. It’s not making you any safer.

Trying to deal with the socio-economic factors that are creating gun violence, gangs and problems on the streets, being able to implement and enforce the regulations that we have and reinforce the RCMP and give them the tools required to help keep the streets safer and do their jobs appropriately, those are things I would see as being a better regulation than putting additional things into Bill C-21. I’m sorry, I don’t have a whole lot of hope or support for Bill C-21 as it sits today.

The Chair: Thanks very much.

Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

A couple of my questions have already been asked by my colleagues, but I did want to dig a little deeper after Senator Deacon’s questions. I wanted to ask about the sports in the Olympics and other international events that involve shooting or guns. I wanted to know if you knew or could give me a number of Canadian athletes who might be involved in shooting competitions in the Pan Am Games, which is where you competed so successfully, in the Olympic Games and in other international events. Can you give me a sense of how many Canadian athletes are involved in shooting in any of these international events like, for example, the Pan Am Games? I just want to get a sense of the numbers.

Ms. Kiejko: I’m going to preface this by saying that the numbers once you get to the international level is significantly less than the numbers that are competing within Canada to work towards those numbers. In the most recent Pan American Games, we had 14 athletes competing. In the last Olympic Games, I was actually the sole Olympian there. We are very fortunate we have qualified two athletes for the next Olympic Games from these last Pan American Games.

When you’re looking at, say, world championships, then you can expand that. I think we only had a handful of Canadians. I can’t count them all up. We’re looking at between 5 and 10 at world championships. Most of that was actually due to the financial cost of getting to the world championships. It cost each of us between $6,000 and $8,000 to go to world championships because we didn’t have any financial support. That’s a lot for some of our athletes. If we had fielded a full team, then we probably could have had at least 30 people at world championships.

Within Canada, there are a whole lot more who are competing within Canada because we would have between three and five athletes per event who would then compete in it, depending on their own self-funded basis.

Senator Dasko: Right. When you said 14, is that the number of Canadians at the Pan Am games who were in shooting competitions?

Ms. Kiejko: Yes.

Senator Dasko: 14.

Ms. Kiejko: 14.

Senator Dasko: That is quite significant, actually. It’s more than I would have thought.

Tell me about the new firearms issues. Why is it that you would not be able to have access to developing technology?

Ms. Kiejko: Because it’s a new handgun. There is a new firearm that is being manufactured, and it’s taking some technology from several different types of firearms. It’s kind of taking the best of a few different versions that are on the high competition level. It’s being manufactured from Germany, I believe, and trying to export that firearm from Germany, with the German firearm rules, and then import that firearm into Canada, there is a minimum export process of at least six months to be able to get it out of Germany, and then we have the import process to be able to get it into Canada.

No one has been successful because you can’t do that. There are very few limited import licenses for this specific type of firearm or this manufactured firearm. The ones who do it haven’t been able to navigate a way to do it yet.

Senator Dasko: Right.

Senator Richards: Thank you for being here. Congratulations, Ms. Kiejko.

My question is for Mr. Klassen or Mr. Hipwell. Maybe I’m the odd man out here, but I think this, in a way, targets rural and northern Canadians and people who use guns for a livelihood or for hunting. I think it’s an extremely elitist bill made by people who have perhaps never used weapons or never grew up on a farm. I don’t know what you think of that, but I would like your opinion on that. That is what I said in second reading about it.

I also think that if you’re going to make semi-automatics illegal, you’re going to put three quarters of my friends on the wrong side of the law. I think those on the wrong side of the law would never give up their semi-automatics. I would like either of you to comment on that, if you could.

Mr. Hipwell: The first part of your question was about creating a divide between rural and urban Canadians. I’ll speak on the handgun side. I’ll use IPSC as part of my example because that’s a sport I’m more familiar with and I did compete in. I’ll use the province of Manitoba. I’m going to say 80% of the shooters live within Winnipeg. You have 80% who are in an urban environment. Yes, in some cases you are seeing examples from rural Canadians and of rural Canadians, but it’s not just affecting rural Canadians.

When we get into southern Ontario, where we have a large following with IPSC — I don’t have the number; I’m sure Mr. Smith would be able to get those numbers for you — there are a lot of urban Canadians who are also being affected by this legislation.

Senator Richards: That’s handguns? Yes.

Mr. Hipwell: Correct. I’m just speaking of hand guns.

Senator Richards: Great.

Mr. Klassen: Thank you, senator.

When it comes to firearms use in Northern Canada, yes, Indigenous or Aboriginal people certainly use them as part of the way of maintaining themselves. Obtaining meat from the wild, or country food, as it’s sometimes called, is an essential part of their lives. Whether the bill is elitist or not, as I said, witnesses have been here have either suggested doing away with it, not passing it, or at least substantially amending it.

Earlier legislation, as I think Senator Plett was referring to, even that long gun legislation, was not understood by some of the older First Nations people I knew who would go into a firearms store — in this case, Canadian Tire in Whitehorse — to buy a rifle. They would be asked for their firearms license. They didn’t have one, and they wouldn’t be sold a rifle. A little while later, a younger Aboriginal man would come in and buy the same firearm, and you could be quite confident that it was going to the older man in the community and there would be no record of where that firearm was being stored.

I think there is a lack of understanding in legislation like this that there are still people in this country who have great difficulty with our system of laws. All they know is that they need a firearm to get a moose.

I recall another Senate committee that came to Whitehorse in 1995, I think it was, and there was an older First Nations man from the community of Ross River who said, I think tellingly, “If you take my gun away, how am I going to live?” He said to the senators, “I can’t sit at the table, look at paper and make money like you guys.”

Senator Richards: That’s pretty well what I was also saying about rural Canada and about many people in the Maritimes. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Colleagues, we are running out of time, and there are still several senators on the list, so we will now go to three minutes each.

Senator Yussuff: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.

Mr. Hipwell, you don’t have an issue with those who have a firearms license being able to purchase ammunition, do you? I think you made reference in regard to a magazine. As you know, ghost guns are an issue that we are struggling with in the country. There is a real challenge as to how we can get control of that, recognizing the technology is evolving pretty quickly. The legislation will put restrictions wherein you will have to have a license to purchase some of this equipment, obviously so as to not get into the wrong hands. Is that an issue? Why would it be an issue?

Let me finish on this point. A criminal who committed a terrible crime on Danforth in the city of Toronto went in and bought ammunition, even though back then he didn’t have a license. He was able to purchase ammunition in regard to the gun, which was obtained illegally and used to commit the crime of killing individuals in the Danforth shooting.

You don’t have an issue with putting restrictions on purchasing ammunition and other equipment that will bring some continuity to how the law can be maintained so criminals are not doing bad things, do you?

Mr. Hipwell: No. I think that’s a little bit misunderstood. As it sits today, to purchase a firearm, the serialized item, and ammunition, you require a firearms license. That’s already in place. My example there was now it was going to be an offence for the magazine that belongs to that firearm. If I were to give you the magazine that belongs to that firearm and you don’t have a firearms license, that is now going to be an offence. Now we’re talking a part of it. How is that going to be controlled? There are firearms manufacturers who you will hear from later today.

The number of magazines they manufacture in relation to the number of firearms is probably 5 to 1, maybe 10 to 1, so you have all these parts. I don’t see how it is going to curb and enhance public safety by saying that you now need a license to have a part.

Senator Yussuff: It would certainly allow us to track those who are purchasing these parts so they don’t end up being put into ghost guns, if that’s a possibility.

Mr. Hipwell: I’m not sure how we will track it.

Senator Yussuff: If you require a license to do so, we would know who was purchasing this equipment.

Mr. Hipwell: So we will start today with a license for all those parts, but what about all the parts that are currently in society?

Senator Yussuff: Maybe you can’t solve every problem with one piece of legislation, but certainly, going forward, it’s looking to ensure people who are purchasing these things have a license to do so because you want them to be responsible for what they are doing.

Mr. Hipwell: The next part to that is how do we educate everyone that that is now the law, much like Mr. Klassen’s example here with the transfer of a firearm? A lot of people don’t understand. We have gone from the serialized piece, which is the expensive part, the part that we can track and control because it has a serial number like a VIN on our vehicles. Now we’re going to a small component and we want to try to track it? I think we can come up with better ways to help our law enforcement resources and put our money towards other areas that would be more effective.

Senator Duncan: Thank you very much to all our witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Klassen, for being here. You spoke of your work in public service as an RCMP officer, but you didn’t mention your work with the Department of Environment or renewable resources. You spoke very eloquently about the use of the semi-automatic rifle by the Department of Environment. If you could, I would like you to perhaps briefly address the background that would have gone into the minister purchasing those semi-automatic rifles.

Mr. Klassen: Actually, the Minister of Environment in the Yukon Legislative Assembly tabled a legislative return that outlined the process that they had gone through, the firearms instructors in-house in the Department of Environment where, yes, coincidentally, I was the deputy minister of that department for a time. The in-house instructors in that department tested a range of semi-automatic rifles, and they determined that the SIG Sauer 716 was the firearm that best met the needs of the conservation officers. Last week, I spoke with the former senior conservation officer about the use of those firearms.

He said that they had been used in dealing with some grizzly bears at a bison kill, and they were very effective. The training the officers received is extensive.

But also outside of government, there are instructors in the handgun club to which I belong who are actually experts in the use of these semi-automatic firearms so that training could also be provided to civilian owners.

Senator Duncan: Under Bill C-21, as a Yukoner, if I had this training, I couldn’t buy one of these same weapons. Is that what you’re saying?

Mr. Klassen: I’m sorry, the system was failing me. I have a hearing impairment and didn’t hear —

The Chair: I think we have to end. I’m sorry.

That brings us to the end of this panel, colleagues. We’re a little bit overtime.

I extend a sincere thanks to Mr. Hipwell, Mr. Klassen and Ms. Kiejko. We greatly appreciate the contributions and time you took to share your expertise with us today. Congratulations, Ms. Kiejko, and thank you for the work that all three of you do in representing your communities so well. We had many more questions for you today, but thank you so much for the amount of information and advice you could squeeze in in the time available.

We will now continue with our third panel of the meeting. We have the pleasure of welcoming, by video conference, on behalf of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, Mr. Tony Bernardo, Executive Director; Master Warrant Officer (Ret’

d) Richard James Ostashower, Instructor, Canadian Firearms Safety Course, former Military and Police Firearms Instructor; and in the room with us today, Richard Edward Terry McCullough, Vice President and General Manager, Savage Arms Inc.

Thank you for joining us today. I invite you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from members. I remind you that you each have five minutes for your testimony. We begin today with Mr. Bernardo.

Tony Bernardo, Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association: Good afternoon, everybody. The Canadian Shooting Sports Association, CSSA, is one of the largest firearms associations in Canada, with a membership of 37,000 individuals. We have existed in various forms for 66 years. Over 75% of our members own and shoot handguns, and we are one of the regulatory bodies for sport shooting in Canada.

You have been listening to firearms experts. They have told you the problem and have given you the science to reduce gun crime. What I don’t understand is why is the government not listening to them? Why is this government directing its efforts against the law-abiding as opposed to directing them against the criminal misuse of these objects? From all of the evidence you’ve listened to, it seems clear the government is engaged in a witch hunt against millions of lawful Canadian citizens. Yet expert after expert has told you the same things, from Marcell Wilson to the former OPP Commissioner, Chris Lewis.

Bill C-21 will not stop or lessen gun crime, and it’s totally focused on the law-abiding. Every measure we have has shown the current government pogrom against lawful gun owners has failed to curtail violence with firearms; in fact, the problem increases each year. Clearly, this 30-year-old approach doesn’t work.

Please also address as well the devaluation and confiscation of the handguns. This bill does not simply freeze transfer of handguns; it mandates their fiscal destruction. Finally, let me address the confiscation without compensation. Worse, it doesn’t have the courage to confiscate them from me. It takes the cowardly route of confiscating many millions of dollars of private property from grieving spouses left behind when their loved ones perish. It literally robs large sums of money from the purses of widowers and widows at their worst moment of vulnerability and leaves this obscenely immoral issue to another government to deal with.

England didn’t deal with it that way. Australia didn’t either. Even New Zealand had the fidelity to pay compensation to its citizens. Yet this government chooses to ignore the experiences of our Commonwealth partners and British common law. Even this government recognized how wrong this was when they enacted the May 2020 order-in-council confiscation of modern sporting and hunting firearms. They pledged fair-market compensation for the theft of those firearms.

The May 2020 order-in-council guns, you want to take them away from me; the Bill C-21 handguns, you want to take them away from my grieving widow.

As of last year, media outlets have reported that 661 repeat offenders, all arrested for committing other serious crimes, were also charged with 1,514 counts of breaching firearms prohibition orders, yet our Public Safety Minister refuses to lift a finger to fix Canada’s broken firearms prohibition order system to address this serious public safety issue. The CSSA even went so far as to present a system to remedy the firearms prohibition order problem, but no response was received from the federal government.

Thank you for hearing our concerns. We will leave you with my statement given on October 18, 2022, before the House of Commons SECU Committee:

The people who are using guns now aren’t the lawful owners who have registered guns and done the background checks and been trained and safely store them. Those are not the people committing the violent crimes. It’s people who are using smuggled guns from the United States. That’s the vast majority of guns used in crimes, handguns.

There are all kinds of laws in effect now that those people are disobeying, so adding more laws for the lawful owners isn’t going to impact the criminals, who don’t care about laws. They commit them all, including murder.

According to Chris Lewis, the former OPP Commissioner, “ … banning lawfully owned handguns is just not going to solve the problem.”

Please pay the deepest attention to this matter. The confiscation of legally owned property from lawful Canadians who have committed no offence is a slap in the face to the liberties our country has enjoyed. You have the power to change this fraudulent bill. Respectfully, please do so, and thank you for your service to Canada.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bernardo.

Richard Edward Terry McCullough, Vice President and General Manager, Savage Arms Canada Inc., as an individual: Honourable members of the Senate of Canada, I’d like to thank you for inviting me here today to testify. For the last 16 years, I have been in the role of vice president and general manager at Savage Arms Canada, which currently stands as Canada’s largest rifle company. I’m also in my sixth year as a volunteer board member of the Peterborough & the Kawarthas Economic Development Agency, having served as the board chair in 2020. I am also a former member of the board of the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association.

Savage Arms is an iconic gunmaker founded in 1894 by a gentleman called Arthur Savage in Utica, New York. It is currently headquartered in Westfield, Massachusetts, and the company has manufacturing facilities in Lakefield, Ontario, and Westfield, Massachusetts. Savage Arms began in 1969 as Lakefield Arms in the village of Lakefield, Ontario. The company was, in turn, acquired by Savage Arms in 1995, and today the Canadian division of Savage Arms Canada employs between 80 and 225 persons. We manufacture anywhere between 150 to over 336,000 rim-fire rifles in Lakefield, Ontario.

I want to reiterate some of the comments made by previous witnesses, one being our CSAAA president. Our Canadian firearms industry plays a pivotal role in the Canadian economy, contributing over $8 billion annually to our national GDP and providing employment for over 45,000 individuals. However, we are currently weighed down by a regulatory environment that has become a substantial burden and source of anxiety for our industry.

Some of the previous witnesses brought some great insight. Dr. Christian Leuprecht said that about 90% of the handguns seized in the commission of a crime or that are possessed unlawfully in Canada have been smuggled into Canada by various organized crime groups.

The current government came into power claiming it would engage in evidence-based decision making, and instead, the bill amounts to decision-based evidence seeking. As has been commented on by several of the expert witnesses, including Mr. Bernardo, going after law-abiding Canadian handgun owners will do nothing to control gun crimes that we see in our cities and towns.

It’s certainly an organized crime gang element that really does not care about the laws and certainly cannot abide by cities choosing to ban handguns. Enforce the bans on shooting people. Enforce the bans on illegal handgun ownership.

I understand there’s a large group of folks who have already commented on law enforcement and our Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. One of the comments I did want to read was a national headline. There were several of them. One is “Canadian police chiefs won’t back handgun ban, say it wouldn’t stop flow of guns into the country.” Vancouver Police Chief Adam Palmer said, “The firearms laws in Canada are actually very good right now. They’re very strict.”

We have really seen several times that experts — as we say, a group of seven academic scholars and doctors have come together and written to the Senate. We all agree.

I’ll finish by saying that attention must be focused on bolstering policing efforts. Really, that’s what we see. Rectify the flaws in our catch-and-release bail system and fortify our border services.

I’d like to thank you very much. I’m ready for any questions you might have.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. McCullough.

Master Warrant Officer (Ret’

d) Richard James Ostashower, Instructor, Canadian Firearms Safety Course, former Military and Police Firearms Instructor: Honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for hearing me today. There are many things I wish to say.

I have read and researched the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Criminal Code since starting with the Calgary Police Service, CPS, in 1989. I have found little if any correlation to public safety in Bill C-21 as it relates to these critical documents. There are several direct discrepancies — if not outright contradictions — within this bill as it relates to the Charter and the Bill of Rights, especially the enjoyment of property.

I must point out that I have maintained contact with many people of varying ranks and positions within the Calgary Police Service, the RCMP and the military, and I’m regularly kept abreast of many of the circumstances and situations they are labouring under. After speaking with several extremely knowledgeable people — and I’m fortunate to know very many — I have decided against speaking out about how Bill C-21 affects me personally. I shall emphasize instead several points that have multiple effects on our country writ large.

The first point I wish to make is about the negative effect some of the bans have and will continue to have on our society’s safety. I’m referring to the inability of police and military, as well as public agents and armed guards, to purchase for private use and practice firearms that are either similar or, in some instances, identical to their service firearms.

I recently met a young woman in a local shooting range who had purchased a Glock 17 — 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for those who may not be aware of it — and was practising with it. She obviously had well-taught drills and skills, so I asked her what her regimental number was — her police identifier. The young lady told me that she had failed the RCMP recruitment course at Depot Division in Regina because of her difficulty with firing the RCMP-issue firearm. She’d subsequently applied for and been accepted to the Calgary Police Service and was preparing for that.

Her devotion to never quitting was evident through her tenacity in learning how to handle what would become her service firearm. She had paid the better part of $1,000 for the gun — although I didn’t ask for specifics — and only she knows how much time and ammunition she has spent practising with it. Obviously, this happened before the handgun freeze, so this is an option not available to others of the same ilk.

I spoke with someone who told me she had learned of a recent gun show in Irma, Alberta, not far from Canadian Armed Forces base Wainwright, where I have spent many years. A military couple at this gun show came up and spoke with her, and she questioned them, of course, about what they do and their views on what’s happening now. Their response was that we, as a military, are hurting. We have 25 rounds of ammunition per annum to practise with and 25 rounds to do a basic weapons proficiency test with. That’s it. Granted, these must be young soldiers and probably not infantry, but they still have to know how to use their firearms.

Having served over 40 years in the Canadian Armed Forces and almost 13 years with the Calgary Police Service as a civilian member of the firearms unit, I know that these are new developments. When I was in the army, especially attached to combat arms units, there was never a shortage of training ammunition. In fact, I spent over 10 years on rifle teams where it was not uncommon for an individual to expend upwards of 1,000 rounds a day, and we would be shooting for five days a week for months and months at a time.

We had shooting teams, as I said, in both organizations, and I was proud to be part of them. I know that after 10 years of being on various shooting teams, I fired well into the millions of rounds of ammunition. Part of being accepted as an expert witness in Alberta in both the provincial court and Court of Queen’s Bench — able to deliver opinion evidence on firearms, ammunition, explosives and other weapons — was my history of shooting and utilizing many different firearms systems.

While I was with the Calgary Police Service, there was a requirement to qualify with one sidearm three times a year — once every four months. Wednesday evenings —

The Chair: Mr. Ostashower, I’m sorry to interrupt. Could you wrap up please in the next 15 seconds or so? Thanks.

MWO Ostashower: Certainly.

They no longer have that. They now qualify twice a year. The big problem is liability. What happens when somebody who is not trained and not allowed to keep their proficiency shoots the wrong person? Everybody loses at that point: the person who’s shot, the person who does the shooting and the family.

For myself, my firearms — and I won’t go into them — are now literally not worth the price of scrap metal because I can’t even do that to them. They are wall hangers in my vault.

Bill C-21 is bad law, and you, honourable senators, have the ability to stop it. I ask of you, with all humbleness and respect, to you bring this into consideration.

Thank you, sir.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Mr. Ostashower.

We’ll now go to questions. We have to finish at six o’clock. We have four minutes for each question and answer, with the 30‑second warning card that you’re familiar with. We go to the deputy chair, Senator Dagenais, for our first question.

[ Translation ]

Senator Dagenais: I’ll get right to the point. My questions are for Mr. McCullough.

Mr. McCullough, you sell components to repair guns, and we know the new 3D printing firearm manufacturing phenomenon is very worrisome.

Can people who illegally manufacture plastic firearms buy the components you sell and incorporate them into illegal weapons? What kind of control do you have over that?

[ English ]

Mr. McCullough: That’s a very interesting question. Thank you, sir.

With our particular Savage Arms models and designs, I would say no. We do not sell those types of components. If someone was to be nefarious and buy a Savage Arms rifle and start taking it apart and trying to re-engineer, that could be possible. However, we make rifles that are not in the 3-D printing and 3-D metal. But it is the technology, and 3-D printing is available now in metal, as you know, for aerospace parts.

[ Translation ]

Senator Dagenais: I checked out a website for a Quebec business that sells hunting gear. It sells some of your Savage Arms Canada Inc. products, including various magazines that can hold up to 10 rounds. Bill C-21 would limit the number of rounds in semi-automatic weapons.

Is that limit realistic? Do you think it will make people safer? Is it true that it’s easy for people who want to circumvent the law to modify a magazine? I believe it can be done by unscrewing a single screw. Correct me if I’m wrong.

[ English ]

Mr. McCullough: For rim-fire ammunition, if that’s what you’re referring to, we sell 10-round magazines, yes. If I’m clear, with centre-fire ammunition, you’re not allowed more than five rounds for hunting. It has already been testified that five rounds is the most you can get in a centre-fire magazine today in Canada. Ten-round would only be available in rim-fire, unless you were at a specific range, and then you would be allowed a 10-round magazine. But my understanding on the centre-fire side is that’s the absolute maximum in Canada — 10 rounds.

[ Translation ]

Senator Dagenais: You’re in charge of an American company that makes and sells guns and gun parts in Canada. I don’t doubt that Bill C-21 will impact your business in many ways, but can you quickly compare American and Canadian gun buyers? I’m sure you have different marketing strategies for each country.

[ English ]

Mr. McCullough: I want to be clear. We are manufacturing firearms in Lakefield, Ontario. We’re not a retailer in that sense. I wouldn’t know the American laws per se to comment on this state.

[ Translation ]

Senator Dagenais: Don’t you sell guns in the United States? Don’t you do any business with the United States?

[ English ]

Mr. McCullough: Yes. We sell our rim-fire rifles in the U.S., and Savage Arms is also manufacturing firearms in the U.S. We export 94% of all the firearms we make to America and the world. Again, as the other witness testified, to be up on every single country’s firearms laws — I would not profess to know that.

Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for joining us.

My question is around compensation for handgun sales and the purchase ban. The government has offered no compensation for its decision to ban the purchase and sale of handguns. These firearms have been acquired legally and in good faith by licensed firearms owners, and the government decided to arbitrarily ban their sales and purchase. Do you have any estimate as to the monetary impact on restricted firearms owners of these measures? Do you believe that the government should offer compensation for this action, which obviously has a negative impact on the value of these firearms?

Mr. McCullough: On the first, I would defer the question to Mr. Bernardo, who is more able to answer it.

The second question, however, I will answer. Yes, absolutely. I believe, as was already testified, that this is a grab. People have value in their collections and in their estates. I met a gentleman at the Clays for Kids shoot last month, a cancer fundraiser, who had literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in an 1880s handgun collection, for example. The monetary value would be huge. If the government is going to arbitrarily make these guns illegal, I think they have a responsibility to compensate the owners.

Senator Oh: This is similar to people who collect art for their retirement.

The Chair: Mr. Bernardo, did you want to answer the first question?

Mr. Bernardo: Yes, I would. Thank you very much.

Senator Oh, there are a number of large collections. There are a number of small collections. Some of the collections might be only two or three handguns, and those collections would be worth, for example, $2,000 or $3,000. The larger collections, as Mr. McCullough said, could be worth well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The point is that it doesn’t matter if it’s $1 or $100,000. The federal government shouldn’t be taking money from Canadians through confiscation of their legally acquired property. There is no compensation scheme attached to this. I would guesstimate that the overall value of handguns would be into the hundreds of millions of dollars across the entire country.

Senator Oh: Thank you.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all for being here with us today.

Mr. Bernardo, as we look at witnesses, I try to have a look at your websites and learn what I can about you ahead of time, usually in committee. On CSSA’s, I found some commentary on the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel, which I’ll quote here. It makes sense.

An old saying reminds us, “You don’t need a gun until you NEED a gun.”

The world saw this proved true in the most horrific ways over the weekend. Hamas terrorist atrocities in Israel continue, with no end in sight.

It’s a stark and brutal reminder of why the Americans have the Second Amendment in their Constitution.

There cannot be a right to life without the corollary right to possess the tools required to protect and defend that life.

Israel forgot that historical lesson and, to the world’s horror, is paying the price for it today.

This post did give me a chance to stop in my tracks to pause and reflect, as I believe promoting firearms for personal protection is misguided. Research consistently shows that families living in homes with guns face substantially higher risks of being killed by a gun than those who don’t. It’s statements like this one that make me think we need this handgun freeze because, if people think owning a gun protects them and their family, perhaps they bought into a false and potentially deadly notion.

Is this one of the reasons why the CSSA opposes this bill? Thus far, discussions on this bill have really focused a lot on hunting and sport shooting, not weapons for self-defence.

Mr. Ber