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.
Conservative
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's okay. That's fine.
A non-restricted firearm is a firearm that is neither restricted nor prohibited. Restricted firearms do require an RPAL, which has additional course requirements and enhanced storage requirements. Then, for prohibited firearms, there are exception under section 12 of the Firearms Act. I don't want to get out of my lane, but there are people who do possess some prohibited firearms. In general, individuals are not permitted to possess a prohibited firearm.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you very much.
For unrestricted, you get your PAL. With more licensing, as you said, you have to get your RPAL and I believe more background checks, and also, the police are aware of all the legally owned restricted weapons. Is that correct?
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Right. For any restricted weapon that's owned legally, police have the information of who owns them.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Restricted firearms are registered with the Canadian firearms program.
Conservative
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
They're non-restricted.
Conservative
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
They're not registered.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I understand.
Then we have prohibited weapons. Except for a few circumstances, as you mentioned, people are not allowed to own them.
Right now, though, it's correct to say that there are many, many semi-automatic shotguns and rifles that are non-restricted. They're the lowest category of restriction. They're non-restricted, and then we have restricted and prohibited.
Proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g) takes non-restricted firearms, a huge group of them, and jumps them, not into “restricted”, which has more oversight by police—the police are supposed to know where all the legally owned ones are—but into the “prohibited” category. Am I understanding that correctly?
With this definition of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, many firearms that are non-restricted will move to prohibited, correct?
November 22nd, 2022 / 6:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes. It will also move some rifles and shotguns that are restricted to the prohibited category—but yes.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
It's correct to say that it's jumping from non-restricted all the way to prohibited.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay.
Let's say that I own one of these and it's a non-restricted model of a semi-automatic shotgun for bird hunting. This amendment passes, and now it is prohibited.
My understanding, though, is that with the OIC and the confiscation regime that ensued, or the buyback, the government told the public that if you own these, you're going to be compensated for them. It took them a couple of years to come up with the list, but they said, “We're going to pay you. We're going to buy them from you.”
If I have a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun.... Again, we can't talk about what's in the schedule, but if it's not on that schedule, I'm not going to get paid for it. It's illegal. Is that correct? I'm not allowed to own it anymore and I'm not going to get any compensation for it.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can't speak to any government decision with respect to compensation.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
You can't speak to it, but we're not aware of any other amendment that would bring in a buyback. My colleague from the Liberals asked us whether we would move that motion. We can't, because it's financial.
What I'm asking is that this amendment, as we see it, logistically does not provide compensation if that firearm is not included in the schedule. Is that correct?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
As I mentioned before, we have no information that we can share with respect to compensation. That's outside of what is before us.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chair, I suppose from what I am seeing, there is no....
It was mentioned, I think in good faith from a Liberal member, that if we want to institute a so-called buyback or confiscation regime whereby the Liberal government would provide money to me if I had a semi-automatic shotgun that fell under this definition—which is most, nearly all—there is nothing in here to say that. What I'm seeing is that it's just going to be prohibited.
That is unlike the OIC, which was tough enough for people, because there were 1,500 models. Several hundred thousand, if not millions, of these 1,500 models were owned in this country lawfully and legally, but at least he government said, “We're going to pay you for them. We're going to take them from you—there's nothing you can do about it—but we're going to pay you for them.” What I'm seeing here is that there is no guarantee of that.
Again, firearms are very expensive. They are thousands of dollars. It's maybe $600 for an entry-level one. I'm not seeing and I'm not hearing of any communication from Liberal members about hunters who own semi-automatic shotguns for bird hunting. They're just going to be illegal, and there's nothing they can do about it. They're not going to get an ounce of compensation.
I welcome any intervention from Liberal members to contradict this. However, what I'm understanding is that there are hundreds of thousands of hunters who are going to have very expensive tools that they use, with not even a modicum of dignity that the Liberal government is going to provide them through financial compensation. That's unlike what they did with the OIC's so-called buyback. There at least they were saying, “Don't worry; we're going to pay you. It will maybe not be what they're worth, but we'll pay you something.”
I'm not seeing that at all here. Some of these are antiques. They are heirlooms. Again, I mentioned this in the House, but people pass these down for generations. They're graduation gifts. They are huge sources of pride for many in the rural community, in the hunting community.
I'll just wrap up, because I know we're out of time.
I'm deeply concerned, and perhaps Liberal members could bring back some information to the next meeting. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe there is going to be compensation for the millions of firearms that are going to be prohibited now for those people. I think they at least deserve that.
They don't deserve any of this, frankly. However, I'm not clear on whether hundreds of thousands of hunters are going to be compensated for things they've used for years that will now, all of a sudden, be completely illegal.
Mr. Chair, I'd like an answer on that when we come back. I will be following up. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Thank you to the committee. We have a hard stop at this point.
I would like to thank the interpreters, of course, who put up with all our efforts, and the officials, legislative clerks and analysts for being here every day.
We will start again on Thursday morning at 11 o'clock.
We are adjourned.