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.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chair, my understanding is that the package of amendments is lengthy, with hundreds of different firearm models, but those are the ones that were banned through the OIC. That is not an exhaustive list of everything that would be included because of proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g).
Are you saying that the schedule will be exhaustive?
6 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It captures the three buckets.
The first bucket would be those that were prohibited starting from the late 1970s to the early 1990s.
The May 2020 OIC—
6 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I have a point of order, Chair.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Just going back to the point of order I made before, we're jumping ahead on amendments. We shouldn't be discussing amendments that we haven't actually moved yet.
I recognize that it can be challenging here, but I don't think we should be asking officials to comment on amendments that may or may not be coming in the future, Chair.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I have a point of order.
Sorry, am I interrupting you? I thought you were done.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Mr. Chair, I would submit that under “(i), a firearm listed in the schedule to this part”, G-46 is the schedule that is referenced in G-4. I would argue that it is part of G-4 and therefore it would be within scope to discuss that.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I think there's a fine line. The reference to it is certainly here, but the amendment itself is not moved, and it's privileged until it's moved, right?
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I understand the importance of it to you. You can certainly refer to it in your package of possible amendments.
I'll ask our law clerk—
In general, we know it's there, but we can't speak to it very specifically. Are you done with your point of order?
Oh, was that a point of order, Mr. Motz?
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Well, it's about.... I'm not going to interrupt her questions, because she'll have them and she'll continue on, I know, but it's about G-46.
The officials who are here make reference to it. Proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(i) makes reference to it, as Mr. Lloyd has indicated. I have to submit that it's completely inappropriate that here we're talking hypotheticals right now because we can't mention G-46. It has a significant list of many hundreds of firearms, and we simply want to know some answers to some questions. I think it's most appropriate that the section be brought forward and we can identify some of those firearms.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The problem here, Mr. Motz, is that it's privileged until it's moved, so we can't talk about it in public, because it hasn't been moved yet, right? We know ourselves whatever might be in there and we can speak about it in the most general terms, but we really can't delve into it, because it is privileged at this point.
Ms. Dancho, go ahead.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chair, we've spent—what?—half an hour trying to ask if we can get a list of all the things that are included so we can make a fully informed decision and so my colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP can make a fully informed decision.
Perhaps the law clerks can answer this for me.
Could the government have provided that schedule as part of this amendment, or did they have to provide them as two separate amendments? Could they have provided them together?
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The schedule has to be done at the end of the bill. That's why it's presented at the end of the package, right?
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay. That's really unfortunate. It's difficult to make a fully informed decision and have a debate if we can't understand the full impact, but it's fairly obvious. For anyone who has almost any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle, that will now be added to the prohibited list.
I think that sometimes folks forget, but there are three different classifications. Perhaps the folks here can correct me if I'm wrong. There are unrestricted firearms, for which you need a possession and acquisition licence, a PAL. If you want to own restricted firearms, you need an RPAL. Then there are prohibited ones, and nobody can own them legally in any circumstances. People do own them, of course, and we know that criminal elements in this country use them all the time, but you're not legally allowed to own prohibited firearms.
Basically, you can own restricted firearms if you have a restricted PAL and you can own unrestricted firearms if you have a basic PAL. Is that correct?
6:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes. There are three categories. A lot of people say “unrestricted”. It's actually “non-restricted”—