Evidence of meeting #49 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We have to bear in mind that our officials are here to serve us all in a non-partisan way.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
That's just a straight-up fact-based question.
Would they be included or would they not be included?
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
It's also kind of not in scope of what we're dealing with in amendment G-4.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
There are about 150 pages of now-prohibited firearms on here. That's not in scope? Are you kidding me?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to confirm that you're saying that it is not in order if he asks whether these weapons that will now become prohibited—hundreds of thousands of weapons owned by regular people—will be included in the confiscation regime or the so-called buyback. We can't know before we vote on this whether people are going to be financially compensated. I'm just clarifying that's what you're saying.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm just saying that this is about the definition of prohibited weapons.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
But once they become prohibited, people aren't allowed to own them. There are likely millions of these firearms.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The whole matter of the buyback and how that is managed is a whole different subject. I'm just trying to keep us focused on this particular amendment.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
No, no, no. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but, on a point of order, this is being brought in by your government. Paragraphs 84(1.2)(e) and 84(1.2)(f) directly relate to the buyback or the OIC, in essence. They take the OIC and put it in legislation, or part of it anyway. We are not the ones who brought the OIC conversation into this. It's what's in this amendment. It stands to reason, Mr. Chair, on my point of order, that we should be within our rights to ask and to know if the semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns are going to be banned, in the hundreds of thousands if not millions, and people are going to be compensated. I think that's a legitimate question.
If they cannot answer it, then Liberal members on this committee should have that information. This is impacting hundreds of thousands of people with very expensive tools that they use on a day-to-day basis.
Respectfully, I disagree with you.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm just saying that the compensation regime, however that unrolls, is not the subject of this particular—
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Given that there is nowhere—to Ms. Dancho's point, I think—in this document that speaks to a buyback of any kind, I would agree with you that it seems that it would be out of order, but just for clarification, if Ms. Dancho wanted to propose a buyback, I'm sure she could propose such an amendment. Am I correct?
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That would be a charge on the treasury. Anyway, thank you for your points of order.
Mr. Lloyd, you can carry on, please.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Thank you.
I would argue that under proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(i), a firearm listed in the schedule to this part—and the schedules that were included are that massive list of firearms—is in the scope of this amendment because it's referring to a schedule that is referenced.
An interesting thing about me is that I used to do historical re-enacting and I know we have had—I know; I'm a bit of a history nerd—a number of witnesses from that community who have expressed a deep concern that their.... Can you tell us what the definition of an antique firearm is?
5:35 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can answer that for you.
The definition of an antique firearm is set out in subsection 84(1). An antique firearm is any firearm manufactured before 1898 that was not designed to discharge rim-fire or centre-fire ammunition and that has not been redesigned to discharge such ammunition or any firearm that is prescribed to be an antique firearm.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Thank you.
I just wanted some clarification on that. Does that mean that the firearm had to have been created before 1898, or could a re-creation of that...? We know a firearm before 1898 probably would have fallen apart from misuse. If somebody were to re-create a firearm that had been designed before 1898 with no modifications, would that be considered an antique firearm or not?
5:35 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The definition says “manufactured before”, and so—
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Then presumably if somebody made a musket, a pistol or a cannon that was from a design from the 17th century, that would be considered a firearm even though it functionally is the exact same as a firearm constructed before 1898.
5:35 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes. There's a legal distinction between a firearm that is designed to be a certain thing or one that is manufactured. We would just take the plain meaning of “manufactured”, which is that it was made before 1898.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
You've clarified for me that a pistol or a musket that was manufactured after 1898 is considered a firearm.
We're learning so much today.
5:35 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
My colleague just pointed out to me that there is one exception, which could be if the remanufactured antique firearm doesn't meet the threshold for a firearm, meaning that it can't cause serious bodily injury or death. Then that would be a legal item. It would not be regulated and it wouldn't fall within the definition of an antique firearm if it's not itself a firearm, and the definition of firearm is set out in section 2.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
A musket ball with black powder definitely could kill people. It killed people for hundreds of years, so that would be considered.... That concerns me as somebody who has historically re-enacted. With these firearms, functionally, you could put black powder in them.
At these historical re-enactments, nobody's allowed to bring any musket balls or anything like that. They would never put that in there, but if somebody were to put a musket ball in there, it actually could kill somebody. Under this legislation, those would now become prohibited. Were they already prohibited, or would they have become prohibited under this legislation?
5:35 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There's nothing in the definition in section 84 that would change the current law around antique firearms.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Okay.
Why was the 10,000 joules threshold set? What is the purpose of 10,000 joules?
5:35 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That was to address what we'd colloquially call sniper rifles.