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.
5:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We understand that there are other motions that might be introduced and—
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chair, do we have to move a motion to compel them to bring a list of all the firearms that will be banned?
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
No I believe they're referring to the fact that on our list of things to do, there are other amendments coming forward.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I am just confirming that you will be providing that list to the committee.
5:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We do not have a list. I believe the committee might be provided motions, perhaps, with a list.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
What I am asking for.... As this is going to ban, I would say, probably thousands of models, at least hundreds of models, of perfectly legitimate hunting tools, we would need a list so that people can understand if their firearms are now going to be prohibited.
What I am asking is this: Are you capable of providing us with an extensive list?
5:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We cannot provide you with a list, as justice officials here at the table.
What we can do is speak to the definition in front of us and the amendments that the government is putting forward in the revised definition of prohibited firearms. In that definition, there is the ability for a list to be added to a schedule in part III.
5:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Mr. Chair, could we take two or three minutes just to have a huddle?
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
May I pick up afterward, then? I have more questions.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Yes.
We'll suspend for a couple of minutes, but before we do, I just want to note to the committee and everyone that we have a hard stop today at a quarter after six.
I would also like to take the opportunity to welcome Ms. May to our august body and congratulate her on her leadership win.
November 22nd, 2022 / 5:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not here on my own volition. I'm here because of the motion this committee passed that requires me to be here and that also reduces my rights to present amendments at report stage. It's a small point—it's large to me—but perhaps the committee is unaware that I'm here because of a motion you passed.
Thanks for the welcome.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I kind of understand that. We've been here before.
Thank you all. We will suspend for a few minutes at the call of the chair.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you.
Perhaps the public safety folks could let us know what they've discovered with their chats. I have several follow-up questions. I'll pass it over to you.
6 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you.
The government is proposing to codify, as well as create, an evergreen definition for “prohibited firearms”. The amendment that's proposed in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(1)(i) includes a schedule that would capture the list of firearms that meet that definition as we or as the government knows it today. There is a always a possibility that as the firearms reference table is continually updated, there may be ones that have not been identified but will be caught up in that definition.
What you see in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g) is that evergreen definition, which is to prevent new entrants to the market of firearms that would meet that definition.
6 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes, proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g) is intended as an evergreen definition that would prevent new entrants that have those characteristics from entering the market.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Would it also include existing ones that are in the market right now, in gun shops and in our homes?
6 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
As far as we know—as far as the government has done the work—it has identified those in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(i) in the schedule that would be presented as a motion and as an amendment.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay, thank you very much.
A schedule is provided in another government amendment for this bill that I'm sure we will discuss when it is moved by them. My understanding is that this list would be most of the OIC confiscation regime—the buyback of guns—that was already made public and added to, but it was two and a half years ago now.
This proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g) goes far beyond what was on that list provided by the OIC two and half years ago. Is that not correct?
6 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
If we look at what is in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(i), there are a few different portions.
There's the codification of firearms that were prohibited starting in the late 1970s, I believe, all the way up to the 1990s. There were the firearms that were included as part of the May 2020 OIC, as well as others that meet this evergreen definition that are known today.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
That's understood. I suppose what you're saying is that we have not seen the schedule.
Mr. Chair, I don't know if you can answer that. This schedule, which will include every firearm that is captured in the definition provided in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g), exists. Is that correct? Does this schedule exist somewhere?
6 p.m.
Liberal