Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad to be able to offer remarks on my Bloc colleague's motion today. Conservatives were, unfortunately, not able to put any words on the record last week. However, I was quite impressed that Mr. Noormohamed was able to talk for two solid hours last Thursday. That was, by all parliamentary accounts, quite impressive. Well done.

However, it limited our ability to weigh in on this and ask experts further questions. I was hoping to ask them a number of things. Hopefully, we'll have the opportunity again.

I appreciate Ms. Michaud trying to find a pathway forward here.

To address some of the things she said in the last committee meeting, when she put forward her first effort to do that, my main issue with it was that we would have had to go in camera. That means it would have been in secret and beyond the public's ability to view what we would have done. That means, ultimately, that we would have come out of a secret meeting with a plan forward for something that impacts 2.3 million gun owners, and I don't think that's the best approach.

I'm very glad we have the opportunity today to speak about this in public. I would have appreciated the opportunity to review the letter. There is the possibility that we may have signed on to it, as the Conservative team, as well. We're not opposed to more witnesses. In fact, what we would like to see is considerable consultation on this historic long-gun ban that impacts hundreds, if not thousands, of models of commonly used hunting rifles.

Something that's really important for the committee to remember is that the only consultation the Liberal government can currently point to in this regard is from 2018, when they went to Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Fredericton, which are all phenomenal cities with phenomenal Canadians in them. However, I think you'd agree, Mr. Chair, that there aren't a lot of farmers there. The density of hunters is likely not as high as in, say, rural Quebec, rural Manitoba, Nunavut or the Northwest Territories. I feel that the main consultation they did on gun control falls very short of the rural and northern constituencies that should be represented at the table.

It's been widely established by the National Post, CBC and CTV that there are numerous commonly used long guns on this ban list that are used for hunting and as protection tools for livestock by farmers and the like. We could also talk about the conservation aspect of this. That's been widely recognized and established. There are countless examples of that.

In fact, the National Post today had an article about a lot of misinformation from the government. They really break down the misinformation. I agree with Mr. Noormohamed that there has been misinformation in this. I believe, contrary to his point, that a lot of it is coming from the Liberal government, which for weeks said, “This isn't a hunting rifle ban; this does not impact commonly used rifles.” Of course, now we know it does.

The SKS is a perfect example of this. It's one of the most popular hunting rifles in Canada. It was used in the 1940s. About 70 or 80 years ago, it was used as a military tool, and now it is commonly accepted as a hunting rifle. I guess what they're trying to say is that anything that's ever been used, perhaps even going back to muskets and the Civil War, should be banned in Canada.

I think a lot of hunters.... As it has been established, there are so many long guns that are so common. We're talking classic, wood stock hunting rifles being used that will be banned by this. That's the problem we're coming down to. I don't necessarily see a path forward.

The Prime Minister came out last week and said he will—I'm paraphrasing; this is not his verbatim quote—absolutely not be adjusting the definition in the semi-automatic context. That is one of the biggest problems.

Something the committee may have missed—to Mr. Noormohamed's credit, he asked this question—is that the civil servants who were here made it very clear that the list, which is about 300 pages long, is made up of firearms that fall under the OIC from May 2020 and the ban criteria there. They have 10,000 joules and a 20-millimetre bore diameter. That's what's in those 300-odd pages, with several hundred firearms. In there, 480 of them are brand new. That's what's causing all the uproar.

What people don't understand, and it was confirmed in the last committee meeting, is that the list is actually going to be thousands of models of firearms long, because the semi-automatic definition.... The bureaucrat from the last meeting confirmed that there is not a list that outlines how many firearms there are. That is not encompassed in the hundreds of pages that hunters have been able to see.

Again, Canadians who are impacted by this don't even realize that of the firearms that are being banned, actually thousands more models will be banned. There are so many semi-automatic hunting rifles with magazine capabilities that don't meet the 10,000 joules and don't have the 20-millimetre bore diameter. Those are countless more hunting rifles that we don't even have a list for yet.

That was quite a shocking development. The list that's this big is likely going to be this big. This is just really what we feel is the beginning. They're opening the door.

Of course, a lot of the firearms on that list are lever action, break action and bolt action. A number of those are caught up in this. There are obviously classic hunting rifles as well.

We just feel that with the approach so far, there has been misinformation. Of course, we feel that the government has been leading on that. Even the gun control community has said that they're very disappointed with the government's communication on this.

When we're talking about the witness testimony in particular, while I appreciate the effort, I do feel that with two meetings, we might as well not even have meetings. Two meetings do not even cover the indigenous communities that deserve to be at the table. Remember that we have Métis, first nations and Inuit and we have various regional differences for various indigenous cultures. There are very different issues from region to region. If we're going to even adequately represent the indigenous communities, we would need more than two meetings for those alone, let alone hunting, wildlife and angling associations and conservation associations.

Gun shops have been absolutely hammered. This would be the third gun ban they've had to deal with in two and a half years. These are mom-and-pop shops, for the most part. If you take Cabela's out of the mix, all of these are run by families, especially in rural and remote communities. They have been absolutely hammered. We need them represented as well. Of course, there are gun ranges that are widely used by police in the areas as well. Those are privately owned. Those are being hammered by this.

We also have heirloom collectors and World War II enthusiasts who collect memorabilia from the various world wars. We should have them at the table. We've seen the CBC coverage talking about the heirloom aspect of impacting Remembrance Day. A number of the cannons and some of those antique World War I rifles will be banned under this. Of course, there are a lot of Remembrance Day ceremonies and other re-enactments that happen in this country that are very important for remembrance purposes and for honouring how much Canadians sacrificed and what they experienced, to give Canadians a bit of an education of what that was like. They're being targeted by this as well, so they should be at the table. Perhaps we should have various Legions at the table, for example, or at least one.

We also have the Premier of the Northwest Territories coming out and saying that if this passes, people will starve in her community because they use legitimate tools, which are being banned, to feed their families. We have a premier in this country saying that if this passes, people are going to starve in the north. She should absolutely be here, and so should other first nations or Inuit communities in the north as well.

The governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are expressing great dismay about this. Perhaps we should have folks from their various levels of government come out.

I think I mentioned conservation as well. What is the impact on those with hunting licences and other licensing fees? What is the decrease going to be in that regard? We know that a lot of the conservation efforts in Canada are a result of those fees. What impact is that going to have?

We also know that rural and northern communities really depend, in many parts, especially indigenous communities.... Often there will be guides for hunters and often they're American hunters. We have hunting tourism in this country, particularly from the Americans, who will often bring semi-automatic rifles, which will be banned now. The Americans pay tens of thousands of dollars to come here, enriching local, northern and rural communities and indigenous guides. What's going to happen to that source of income? Are the Americans going to see that this is the third ban and they are just not going to bother?

What's that going to mean for areas like Timmins, Ontario, northern Manitoba and other communities where there are prime fly-in hunting lodges and outfitters that really provide the ability to have resources and economies in areas where other industries aren't booming?

I've just outlined a few, Mr. Chair. They're certainly not exhaustive. The idea that we can fit in even half of what I just mentioned in two meetings is impossible.

What's really frustrating for us as Conservatives is that this work should have been done by the Liberal government and their vast resources. As you know, Mr. Chair, this is now the committee's fourth week talking about this. We're going to have to go back and sort of flip-flop through this backwards in this committee process because they didn't do their homework.

Now they're sort of turning it around and saying they'll do it in two meetings. So we have two meetings. We barely scratch the surface of the people who are impacted by this ban—again, the largest hunting rifle ban in Canadian history. We barely scratch the surface.

For people who don't know, two meetings, as you know, Mr. Chair, are about 12 witnesses. I don't think 12 witnesses are nearly enough.

We feel that any suggestion that two meetings are adequate.... I'm going to say that I do feel that it is offensive to the people who are going to be impacted by this. It does not give them the dignity of having a seat at the table, and, like I said, it does not even represent the indigenous communities who need to be at the table, let alone everybody else.

We could not and we will not support two meetings under any circumstance.

Now, recognizing that as many meetings as the Conservatives would want would likely not be supported by all parties, I would say 50 meetings would be adequate, given that's the consultation that should have been done across the country. They should have gone to Nunavut. They should have gone to the Northwest Territories, northern B.C. etc. I'd love to see them go to Churchill.

I'm going to propose a bit of a solution to this, and perhaps it will open up a bit of the discussion.

Again, one of the last points I'll make before I do that is that I mentioned something about the utility of semi-automatics in, I believe, our first committee meeting when the Liberals pulled this amendment. We've seen a number of people come forward who are saying the same thing I am, so it's not just me, Mr. Chair.

The NDP member for Nunavut—I'll give her so much credit—in question period talked about the polar bear threat in Nunavut and how the ban will impact people's safety against polar bears in Nunavut. That was something I raised first off in this discussion, which has not been widely recognized.

Just recently somebody sent me.... Do you remember that I talked about those wild boars? I don't know if committee members of other parties were aware, but I was just sent a video. There are 30-odd wild boars that attacked a group of hunters. Again, they are very fast. They have tusks. They can be very deadly and they do an all-out assault. These hunters are running away for their literal lives from these wild boars.

Again, I feel that we need to have expert testimony to explain the raw utility of having a semi-automatic hunting rifle, because there is one, Mr. Chair. I know this. I know hunters know this. I know farmers know this, and certainly northern Canadians are aware of this.

I don't mean to go on and on, but I have so much to say, and we weren't allowed to talk in the last week, but I will wrap it up.

I will move a subamendment here, Mr. Chair.

Before I do, I should have done this off the top—my apologies. I've been thinking a lot about Jim Carr. It was almost a year we had with him as the chair. When I first came on as vice-chair here, he was the chair. It was his first time chairing, and he did a really phenomenal job. I do have to say it was nice to come to work and to be on this committee.

We worked together for the first time on public safety. We were able to all sign onto a guns and gangs study, and it was pretty unheard of for all parties to agree to policy on guns and gangs. We also did an IMVE study, and we all came together on those. There were no dissenting reports. That is pretty impressive, and I credit a lot of that to Jim.

Mr. Chair, I know you will do a phenomenal job as well. I have full confidence in you, but I am going to miss him a lot. These have been quite emotional 24 hours for all of us.

In that spirit, much like Mr. Noormohamed, I am trying to put forward a good-faith amendment to this motion so we can open the discussion to something more reasonable and just underline that there is no way we will agree to two meetings. It will not do justice to this, so I'm going to put a proposal out there. People are welcome to counter-propose, but this is the proposal we're putting forward for discussion.

Within this amendment, Mr. Chair, when we were writing this, we thought about the rural and northern Canadians who need to be represented at the table and also how this committee has never travelled in the year that I've been vice-chair of it, so why not take this opportunity and do the homework the Liberal government should have done? I hope that we can come together on this and meet in the middle.

I don't have the amendment in front of me, Mr. Chair, so I don't know where exactly this would be placed, but likely it would start at “two consecutive meetings”, and it would say—

Raquel Dancho

$520,448.00