Public Safety Committee on Nov. 24th, 2022

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.

On the agenda

Bill C-21

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Paula Clarke Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Rachel Mainville-Dale Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Phaedra Glushek Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon

Again, that sounds like debate, so we'll carry on.

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

Paula Clarke

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

Paula Clarke

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.