On Tuesday, February 14th, 2023, OFAH Manager of Policy Mark Ryckman provided testimony to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Below is a transcript of Ryckman’s testimony.
Good afternoon, Mister Chair, and members of the committee. On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, thank you for the invitation to appear at this committee.
The OFAH is the largest non-profit, conservation-based fish and wildlife organization in Ontario, with 100,000 members, supporters, and subscribers, and 725 member clubs with 55 of them operating 122 CFO-approved licensed ranges. Our organization is 95 years old so we have a long history of advocating for the hunting community in Ontario.
While there are provisions in Bill C-21 that we have concerns about, I will keep my comments scoped to the impact of Amendments G4 and G46 on the hunting community.
Hunting is an ancient tradition passed down through generations and remains a way of life for many Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Hunting today makes important social, cultural, and economic contributions to our country. It remains an important way to put food on the table, connect to nature, create and foster relationships, relax in the outdoors, and contribute to the conservation movement. Indeed, some take offence when hunting is referred to as a sport or hobby because it is so much more than that. Hunting isn’t just for rural Canadians – they come from urban, suburban, and rural Canada. They are judges, lawyers, teachers, dentists, plumbers, mechanics, even politicians.
Hunting provides information and funding for wildlife management, can help control populations and address human-wildlife conflict, and can foster a sense of obligation to give back to nature through conservation activities. In 2018, hunting spending totaled $5.9B and the resulting contribution to Canada’s GDP was $4.1B. Hunting supported 33K jobs and generated almost $2B in labour income. The importance of our hunting heritage is even recognized in federal legislation.
There is no such thing as a ‘hunting firearm’ type. Firearms primarily used for hunting are also frequently used for plinking, shooting at the range, or even competition. There are no hard line thresholds for labeling firearms as hunting or non-hunting, particularly when only looking at the appearance or overall design of the firearm itself. It requires comprehensive examination of multiple features and functions of a firearm like action and calibre, but will also be influenced by non-firearm considerations like the cartridge, user, environment, target species, and jurisdiction.
We are pleased that the amendments have been withdrawn and applaud this committee for studying their impact. In addition to the nature of the amendments, we were also troubled by their unexpected introduction and lack of consultation. In proposing Amendment G4, the government jumped directly to prohibitions, skipping over less-extreme alternatives that would help achieve its goals without infringement on hunters and other legal gun owners. A stepwise and adaptive approach creates better policy and is much fairer for Canadians than the unnecessarily blunt prohibition of guns by make and model.
Take detachable magazines as an example. The Criminal Code already prohibits the possession of any magazine that holds more than five shots for a semi-automatic centrefire long gun. If it can hold more than five rounds it must be pinned so that it can’t. Bill C-21 proposes to go further and make ‘unpinning’ a specific offence (as opposed to a lesser included offence). So, we have a proposed new offence that hasn’t even been enacted yet, let alone been given a chance to work when the amendments were introduced. Even if the government felt compelled to go further, they could take targeted measures, like banning import and sale of new magazines that have the ‘potential’ to exceed five rounds.
Our opposition to the amendments is not partisan or emotional or pre-determined on principle. It was only after a thorough critical analysis that we arrived at this conclusion – it won’t enhance public safety. The evidence simply doesn’t support it.
Firearms are not the disease, particularly in a nation like Canada with robust gun laws. Gun violence is often symptomatic of much bigger societal issues. Taking firearms away from law-abiding Canadians will not reduce the upstream issues that fuel criminal activity and demand for illicit firearms. Therefore, model-based firearm prohibitions will continue to fail as they won’t be able to have a detectable impact on reducing gun violence or enhancing public safety. If political discourse remains fixated on finding the firearms that should be banned or saved, then we will continue to underinvest in the resources and time we need to address critical issues we have.
Thank you.
For more on OFAH advocacy on Bill C-21, the OIC and much more, click here.
Leave a Comment