Evidence of meeting #50 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 firearm.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Are you able to answer it now?
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Okay.
I've come into possession of a report from the FRT, produced by a firearms business I am familiar with, which searched for precisely these criteria and found that there are 514 models of firearms that are prohibited by this amendment.
Can you comment on that?
5:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Again, I would refer you to the Canadian firearms program because it has technical experts who are best placed to answer those questions for you.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Yes. I can provide that information to you, if you wish, or the committee.
We understand that there are many types of firearms, mostly non-restricted, that meet this new criteria, but to understand the scope of that change we actually need to dive in further. The term “variant” is often used in relation to firearms classification, but it is undefined in legislation, despite the best efforts of my former colleague Larry Miller, which were previously brought up in this committee meeting by my colleague Mr. Ruff. It is used throughout the FRT, ironically.
Could you provide a definition of “variant” to this committee?
5:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There is no definition of “variant” in law. It is a term of art.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Could you tell us how many variants of the 514 models of firearms will also be prohibited based on this amendment?
5:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I cannot provide you with that information, but I would redirect you to the Canadian firearms program.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Once again, I hope they will be present to answer these very important questions. I asked because it seems that “variant” is a very loosely defined term, and you said it's not defined even in legislation.
I'll give you an example. The Mossberg 715T is a .22-calibre rifle. It is identical in structure and operation to the Mossberg 702 rifle. The one difference is that where the Mossberg 702 has the more traditional-looking wood furniture on the exterior, the Mossberg 715T has a plastic shell.
I mentioned this because for years and years the 702 and 715 were non-restricted. Then, a few years ago, the government decided the 702 was a variant of the AR-15, which is restricted even though the exact same firearm without the plastic shell was non-restricted.
Further, the government listed the 715 in the May order in council, making it a prohibited firearm and putting it in the bizarre position of having the guts of the firearm simultaneously being both non-restricted and prohibited. The government has attempted to address this in amendment G-46 by making the Mossberg 702 Plinkster a listed prohibited firearm, a .22. I know the Liberal Party is saying there are no .22s affected by this legislation. There absolutely are, and that is one example.
As an aside, I'm sure that banning firearms designed for shooting pop cans and squirrels is exactly what will stop the 92% increase in gang homicides under this particular government. It's not funny.
All of this is to ask whether you can comment on the situation in which, without a legal definition, the term “variant” seems to have been stretched to include having such a tangential and superficial connection as a similar physical appearance?
5:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It is an important question.
What I can tell you is that the term “variant” is used by the Canadian firearms program experts to guide their own technical analysis as to whether or not a specific firearm is a variant of a listed or otherwise prohibited firearm.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
That's even though you've already acknowledged that there's no legal definition.
5:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's a technical criterion.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Okay. Another example under this proposed amendment is the Remington 870 DM. The 870 is a very common shotgun used by many duck hunters and farmers across this country—I had one previously—but with a detachable magazine that is centre-fire, which would fit this definition.
Would this mean that all Remington 870 shotguns would be prohibited as variants, even though the rest of the 870 variants are pump-action shotguns?
5:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's not possible for me to comment on a specific make and model of a firearm. I would again refer you to the Canadian firearms program.
What I can answer for you is that the schedule lists firearms by make and model, and it also lists all known variants.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
However, we already discussed that even amendment G-46 isn't necessarily exhaustive, based on the three criteria. Is that correct?
5:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'm sorry—can you repeat that?
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
We're just about done, so I'll keep going.
I have more important questions that need to be answered, and I'll try and get through them today.
In a similar vein, many centre-fire semi-automatic rifles are also chambered in the .22 calibre rimfire ammunition. Would all rimfire variants of a centre-fire rifle become prohibited?
5:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Do you mean under the definition?
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
I mean under this legislation, Bill C-21 and its amendments.
5:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The definition—in proposed paragraph (1.2)(g)—does not apply to rimfire firearms.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
That's except the Plinkster, which I already just mentioned. It's actually in amendment G-46.
5:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Is it attached to the schedule, then?
5:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The schedule does include some rimfire firearms.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Okay. That seems inconsistent with what we've been promised by the government.
I'll go to my next question.
If the definition can be stretched in that way, can you confirm which variants of firearms that meet this new three-part test will be captured? I think that's what the mystery out there is for Canadian firearms owners and hunters: If what they have is not on the list, will it be the next thing put on the list?