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.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I'll get back to some of the unsolicited submissions that went into this report. Of the submissions that were received through this public consultation to the government, 64.84% opposed any further limitations on firearms.
Let's get into the online questionnaire portion of it. As I said, over 130,000 Canadians provided feedback, roughly just over half of whom did not own a firearm. Fewer than half indicated that they owned a firearm.
Let's see what they said about whether more should be done to limit access to handguns. Of the total submissions, 81% said no. That was specifically on handguns.
Here is a very misleading question, I would argue, and we got this from testimony when I was at this committee a little while back and was able to ask a question of one of the lawyers: “Should more be done to limit access to assault weapons?” Again, it's a very badly worded question. Assault weapons, as we know, are not properly defined in a legal sense. They are defined in a technical sense. An assault weapon is a firearm that is select-fire capable and fully automatic.
Should more be done to limit access to that? Again, of 130,000-some Canadians, 77% said no. That is the response.
This is the data the government itself got on the need to reduce gun violence.
What are some positive measures that can be taken? When asked, “With respect to limiting handguns, assault weapons, and other firearms in the illicit market, in which of the following areas do you think efforts should be focused?”, 86% of respondents said smuggling. I agree 100%: Let's go after illegal firearms and the illegal trafficking of those firearms.
There's more in there. I'm not going to waste more time by going through this report, but this is the data and consultation the government refers to that was done to gather their evidence.
The other thing that was referred to was the public consultations. I'll give Mr. Blair credit: He showed up in my riding before I was even elected. As I was in the midst of transitioning out of the military and joining this illustrious place—if that's what we call it—I attended a public consultation in my riding in the town of Durham. I can say quite honestly that not a single person who interjected in that two-hour-plus round table had anything positive to say about anything the government was discussing or proposing. Mr. Blair took it fully on the chin for a couple of hours, and I give him credit for at least showing up.
Let's get back to the prohibition, because that's where some of the definition goes and where specifically these amendments were listed.
I asked a question of the government as part of an OPQ that I submitted, and one of the aspects of it was how the list was determined—under what sort of functionality or capabilities. My understanding of the answer I received at the time was that characteristics and functionality were not used to come up with that list. There were three key principles.
Is it a fair assumption to say that this was about principles, not the actual functionality or capability of the firearms.
4:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
For the OIC of May 1, 2020, the criteria set out in the regulatory impact analysis statement said there were three aspects considered in establishing the list. The first was that the firearm must be “semi-automatic” with “sustained rapid-fire capability”. That was meant to include tactical military- designed firearms with large magazine capacity.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Let's pause on the first one, because that's exactly what I want to address.
Is a high sustained rate of fire for a semi-automatic not somewhat of a contradictory statement considering that the rate of fire of a semi-automatic is controlled by the shooter and how fast they can pull the trigger? If it's a fully automatic, 100% you pull the trigger and rounds go off as fast as the firearm can cycle, recoil and put the next round down range. However, a semi-automatic's rate of fire is completely controlled by the shooter and has nothing to do with the firearm, unless you want to get into the technical aspects of trigger pressure and so on, which are not even part of this discussion.
4:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think your question is an important one, and I hope I don't come across as dismissing it, but these were the parameters set out in the regulatory impact analysis statement. These were the principles used to guide the determination of what was listed in the order in council.
The technical aspects of each firearm were examined by the Canadian firearms program. When we get down into a granular discussion, it probably would be helpful for the committee to have representatives from the Canadian firearms program here to answer questions about specific firearms and more technical questions as well.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I couldn't agree more.
The first principle you identified was large magazine capacity. I just want to make sure this is on the record and that everybody here in the committee understands it: Magazines for long guns of greater than five rounds have been illegal in Canada since 1992.
Do I have the date right?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The second one is that it has to be “of modern design”.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Can you please explain for the committee what modern design is?
4:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's post-World War II.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
As long as the firearm is 70-plus years old or newer, we should ban it. That's basically one of the principles used to come up with the list.
4:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's right, but there are three criteria, and all three criteria had to be met in order for it to be included on the list.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It has to have a large or significant presence in the market.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
It has to be “present in large volumes in the Canadian market”.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I'll ask a logical question here. It may be a little rhetorical. Let's say there are 100,000 of firearm X—one of the firearms listed here. It has been used in zero gun crimes in Canada, but it meets the other two principles. It's now being banned and added to this list, or it has potentially been put on this list. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The list is determined by these three criteria. Whether or not a specific firearm has been used to commit an offence is not one of the criteria.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Got it. It could be on the list, with 100,000 of them in Canada. It has never been used in a gun crime, but it meets these three principles. I don't want to use the word “criteria”, because to my understanding, that's never used in here at all. It's three “principles”.
In a separate situation, we could have firearm Z. There are only 10 of them in Canada. All 10 of them have been used in gun crimes in Canada. There's no guarantee that they're going to be on the list, even though they might have been responsible for killing lots of people. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
As I indicated, the list for the May 1 OIC was based on the technical capacity of the firearms to discharge ammunition in a sustained way. Whether or not a specific firearm is used to commit offences was not a criterion for establishing the list.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Another thing the government has said, which has been brought here in testimony, is that these firearms were designed by soldiers for use by soldiers. One of the questions I asked the minister previously was about the list. We're almost, I would argue, at over 2,000 different models and variants if we include the order in council of May 1 and the new list we're debating now, which has been included in this amendment.
How many of the firearms that are listed—there are over 2,000 of them—are currently used or were ever used in the past by the Canadian Armed Forces?
4:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I don't have that information. This information could perhaps be provided to you by the Canadian firearms program. I would invite you to submit that question—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Well, I asked the minister that question a year and a bit ago. Unfortunately, he didn't determine that it was worth answering.
