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.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
A point of order.
I just want to clarify that the definition is just the main purpose of the amendment.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.
I think that's part of the debate, but perhaps it's a clarifying point.
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
That didn't really clarify much, Mr. Noormohamed, but thank you.
I don't want to talk about what's coming, but the Liberals have tabled several amendments to Bill C‑21. It's curious, since this one came from the government. If this bill had been so good when it was introduced, the government wouldn't be making so many amendments.
As my colleagues mentioned earlier, there is a legislative and democratic process. We knew that the main purpose of the bill was to ban handguns, so we invited experts to appear before the committee to give us their position and explain why it was a good idea or not, and we talked a lot about handguns with them.
Now the government is proposing amendments to deal with semi-automatic weapons and hunting rifles. If we had known that the government was interested in these weapons, we would have invited experts to come and talk to us about semi-automatic weapons and hunting rifles. We would have had some indication of which models should or should not be on which prohibition list. We would have had some guidance on how best to legislate.
At this point, Mr. Chair, I must admit that we were caught off guard. That's unfortunate, because we're learning it as the public has learned it, and we're trying to navigate by sight, which isn't easy.
There are a lot of things I'd like to say, so I'm having a little trouble getting my head around it.
I would like to reassure the people in my riding and in Quebec who write to me and my fellow members of Parliament a lot about their concerns. We didn't really expect this when we saw the original wording of the bill. We need to look at what's in there and ask questions before making decisions.
The Bloc Québécois' position has always been clear: we want better gun control in Canada. I think that's ultimately what everyone wants, for our cities and neighbourhoods to be safer. There are various ways to do this. Is G‑4 the right solution? I would tend to say no, but it will have to be debated.
So we're going to try to make sure that people aren't disappointed in us. Obviously, we can't please everyone. I know a lot of people are concerned about this bill. It's a very emotional issue. I think my colleagues would agree that it's not always done in a polite way, as we see on our Facebook pages, but I can understand that people feel concerned. So we will do our best to debate it.
Personally, I would like to know which firearms that are already prohibited will be included in the schedule and which non-prohibited ones will be included. Second, of the non-prohibited ones, I would like to know which are hunting weapons that are commonly used in Quebec and Canada. That would help me make a decision.
I would also like to know what will happen to people who have guns that are going to become prohibited overnight. We've heard about a buy-back program, but it's still not confirmed. People have told me about weapons they had before the May 1, 2020, order that they still own. They know they have been illegally in possession of this gun since the order in council came into effect, but they have never heard from the government about what to do with it. Should they turn it over to a police officer or the government? No one knows. We also don't know what will happen to these weapons that they want to ban. It would be beneficial for us to know that, so that we can also reassure our constituents.
As I said earlier, we support better gun control. To be honest, I don't see why anyone should have a military-style assault weapon in their basement. That's not the way it should work. However, I don't see why someone who hunts should be prohibited from doing so.
I don't know if you had any other speakers on your list, Mr. Chair. I'll give my place to my colleagues and speak again a little later.
Thank you.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Michaud.
We now have Mr. Zimmer, followed by Mr. Martel, followed by Mr. Johns.
Mr. Zimmer, go ahead, please.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to the opportunity to ask some questions here and to speak.
My questions will be for our experts here, technical questions specifically. There is also one that is kind of on the floor, which was asked previously about the Benelli Super Vinci. Is this firearm listed in the prohibited list, yes or no?
5:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
As to the content of the schedule, I'm going to defer to the Canadian firearms program, because they are going to be able to provide you with accurate answers and more detail. They're truly the technical experts, and I think it would benefit the committee to have their views, knowledge and expertise, which would better enable committee members to have constructive conversation and debate over the content of the schedule.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thank you.
I want to get back to some of the questions being asked around the new proposed paragraph (1.2)(g) in government amendment G-4. I want to make sure I understand correctly.
Proposed paragraph (1.2)(g) essentially establishes a three-part test with respect to whether a firearm is prohibited. Is that correct?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
That test is separate and apart from the schedule made in reference to part 1, in amendment G-46.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
To be clear, there is no language in proposed paragraph (1.2)(g) that requires a firearm to be listed in this schedule for proposed paragraph (1.2)(g) to apply. Is that correct?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thank you.
Now, I want to walk through the three-part test relatively quickly.
The first is that a firearm is designed to fire ammunition, meaning, generally speaking, it fires a cartridge larger than a .22 calibre, which would be a rimfire cartridge. Is that correct?
5:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I don't know if that's correct, but we can come back to you with an answer.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
There are .22s on the list, but that particular criterion isn't, so that's where some of the confusion begins.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Okay.
Now, the second test is that it fires the centre-fire round in a semi-automatic manner. That means that for each pull of the trigger, one projectile is issued down the barrel. This is distinct from other actions, such as pump, bolt or lever, which require the operation of a part other than the trigger to move around from the magazine into the chamber. It is also distinct from an automatic firearm, which has long been prohibited under Canadian law, which fires many projectiles with one pull of the trigger. Is that correct?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thank you.
The last portion of the test is that the firearm is designed for use with a detachable magazine that could hold more than the allowed five rounds. Is that correct?
5:35 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct.
The magazine has to be designed for that firearm, so it wouldn't be an aftermarket cartridge magazine. When the firearm is designed originally, the cartridge magazine that goes with that firearm has to be capable of holding more than five cartridges.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Therefore, to follow up on that question, we know of many firearms that are designed with a wood stock. They have aftermarket stocks that can be changed to a plastic stock with a magazine that can possibly hold more than five. Are those particular stocks and magazines exempted from this, as you seem to allude to?
5:35 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
What would determine whether or not one of these firearms falls within this definition or these qualitative criteria is this: When the firearm was originally designed, was it designed to accept, at the time it was manufactured or designed, an oversized magazine cartridge or a cartridge magazine that's capable of holding more than five cartridges? If another cartridge magazine or another magazine was developed not specifically for that firearm but was capable of being used in that firearm, then that firearm would not fall within the definition, unless—I know it's really confusing—there was a cartridge magazine designed for that.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The intent of this is to ensure that there's a static definition and that the classification of the firearm, as being prohibited, doesn't change based on aftermarket magazines.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
However, you just said it possibly could, or that was my impression. If somebody were to add another part to that particular firearm, it potentially would be under the prohibitive restriction, where it wasn't previously. If it's designed with a five-round magazine maximum capacity and somebody puts on an aftermarket stock and magazine, it sounds like you're saying that it is exempted from this prohibition.
I want this to be very clear. There are thousands of Canadians watching right now who are looking for these specifics. They're very concerned with what's going on. There are enough hunting firearms that are already on the list that we know are straight-up hunting firearms.
I'll move on to my next technical question, but I'd appreciate an answer to that.