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.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The evergreen definition proposes a qualitative definition that would prohibit firearms that meet the definition. The definition includes a rifle or shotgun.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
No, I'm not talking about what's in proposed paragraph (g). I'm talking about the statement you read from the department at the very beginning of your intervention in your response back to me.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Proposed paragraph (g) reflects the government's policy objective of enhancing public safety and ensuring that all assault-style firearms are treated the same in the law.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
That's the one I'm looking for. Thank you.
A firearm that right now is a non-restricted firearm is going to be classified as a prohibited firearm because some ideologue somewhere said that it's a military-style assault weapon. That's really what we're saying here. Is that right?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There is no definition of “assault-style firearm” in law.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
What there has been, to date, is the ability of the Governor in Council to establish criteria on which the OIC of May 1, 2020, prohibited a list by make and model of firearms.
This criteria, which was publicly stated after the introduction of the bill, made clear that the factors that were looked at were that the firearm was capable of sustained, semi-automatic rapid fire. It had to be of a tactical or military design with the capability of accepting a large magazine, which would be an oversized magazine—therefore, above five.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Okay, but having a magazine in a firearm like you described, over five, is a prohibited device in this country already.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
You are correct. The magazine itself is a prohibited device. What the May 1 OIC sought to prohibit is the firearm that can receive the prohibited device.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Wow. I know what it's asking for, what it's suggesting. Do you not consider that a significant overreach, really, of what the design is?
Firearms need to be classified, like I said on Tuesday, by what they can do, not by what they look like. You said they look like....
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No, I didn't. What I said was that the firearms were prohibited according to what they can do, which is the semi-automatic, sustained rapid fire, based on a military or tactical design and capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
What you're describing, really, is a fully automatic firearm.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
What I'm describing is a semi-automatic version of a military or tactical design firearm.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
In Canada, that semi-automatic firearm right now has a maximum capacity magazine allowable under law of five.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
One way in which public safety is taken into consideration with respect to firearms is that limitation on magazine capacity. The government has made a decision to further ban assault-style firearms to further protect public safety by also prohibiting the firearms that can accept oversized cartridge magazines.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
In preparation for this bill, which began a couple of years ago, I'm sure, was there any evidence provided that supports the government's decision?
We always hear this government brag, in words only—not necessarily in action but in words—that they base their decisions on evidence. They call it evidence-based decision-making. What I think they probably adhere to mostly is actually decision-based evidence making.
There are 400 firearms now on this list. On the other list that came out in May 2020, there were 1,500, plus hundreds more since then. Did they provide you with any factual evidence that all of them pose a significant risk to public safety?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's the determination based on the ability of these firearms to perform sustained rapid fire based on the semi-automatic capability combined with—
Conservative
November 24th, 2022 / 12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, he should allow witnesses to finish their statements. It's rude to interrupt them.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen. I was just about to say that.
Mr. Motz, if you ask a question, please wait for the answer.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you.
What I'm hearing you say is that, because we don't have a definition of a military-style assault weapon, which is a made-up term by this government, we will now try to fit firearms into that definition. In so doing, we have identified non-restricted firearms in that list because of someone's misunderstanding of firearms and the laws that we have in this country.
I've talked to Canadian military and American military folks who laugh at this definition. A military-style assault rifle is a rifle that is capable of fully automatic fire and has large-capacity magazines. That's a military-style assault rifle by any definition. What this government is trying to do through this legislation is to go from a handgun-freezing bill to an all-encompassing bill of “let's just eliminate all firearms”. That's basically what they're doing. They are including now a whole brand and a whole type of firearm that otherwise was non-restricted, with little thought to the impact that has on the culture and heritage of many Canadians.
I wanted to ask you a question specifically about variants, if I could.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
How does the department, or you as the drafters, define a variant?