Evidence of meeting #51 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 firearms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Technical Specialist, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I was just looking at the actual definition there. It does not actually use the word “capable”. It uses the word “designed”.
Your point is partially correct in that the classification of the rifle or the shotgun is influenced by the kind of magazine it's designed to accept, but the use of the word “capable” is somewhat broader than that.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Could I clarify the drafting of the provision as well?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There seems to be a misunderstanding that the “designed to accept” a cartridge magazine means that it applies to any cartridge magazine over five. The phrasing of the provision says “greater than five cartridges”, and then what follows afterward says “of the type for which the firearm was originally designed”.
The “designed to accept” clause was drafted to refer to the magazine that was originally designed for that firearm by the manufacturer.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
With all due respect, Ms. Clarke, the first words in that clause are “a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun”. It's not talking explicitly about magazines.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It says, "a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun", and then it goes on to say, “that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner”. Then the third requirement is that the firearm “is designed to accept a detachable...magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges”. The final clause is, “of the type for which the firearm was originally designed”.
That means that the firearm and the magazine cartridge were designed together by the manufacturer. Compatibility with a third party manufacturer's magazine beyond the original design intent of that firearm would not render that firearm prohibited. That firearm would not be prohibited according to this definition.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Sorry; I haven't finished.
This would establish a stable classification of these firearms. That is unaffected by third party manufacturers of cartridge magazines.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
With the greatest respect, Madame Clarke, most of the firearms capable of receiving a magazine are “designed”. There is nothing different about the feeding mechanism of a magazine when it feeds a round of ammunition into the chamber. There is nothing different about it, whether it can hold five or seven rounds.
Under Canadian law, there is no requirement at all to have a licence. Anybody can go into any store and purchase a magazine for a rifle without a firearm licence.
Am I correct?
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
What this means, in my interpretation, is that.... Even though I appreciate your clarification, I'm worried about the fact that we don't have any restrictions on magazines, at all, in this country, other than that if they are going to be used, they have to be pinned to five. Would you agree with that statement?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I agree with that statement.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
However, that's not what this.... I know that's what you're trying to say it says.
This has caused fear in the firearms community, because there is no restriction on magazines. You do not need a licence to buy a magazine. Virtually every single manufacturer of the firearms we talked about—semi-automatic with detachable magazines—also makes magazines for the same model. They might be sold in different countries, but they make detachable magazines designed to go into that gun. That's what they are designed to do. Therefore, they meet your criterion of “designed to accept a detachable...magazine”.
Why would we put such ambiguous language in the legislation and create this problem? I simply don't trust the wording in this clause at all. Neither does any other hunter in this country who has a semi-automatic firearm.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
My response would be that this is a motion put before the committee. The committee and Parliament have the ability to modify the wording of the proposed definition. This is something to be debated and passed by Parliament. Should an amendment to the definition be agreed upon by Parliament, that is a decision that could be made at the political level.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Madame Clarke.
I'll get back to hunting.
Has the department had any consultations with any provincial or territorial ministry responsible for hunting?
I will frame the context for you. I'm an Albertan, so I can tell you about the laws in Alberta, but I also know what they are in Saskatchewan, Ontario and other places. For example, the hunting management unit just east of Ottawa, right now, has a two-week shotgun hunting period for deer. The provincial regulations clearly say you can use a semi-automatic shotgun to do so. They don't indicate in any way, shape or form whether or not that firearm can have a pistol grip or appear in any way, shape or form to be a scary type of firearm. It can be a shotgun that looks like a Defender, the one I referenced in my introductory remarks.
Has the department consulted with any of the provincial ministries responsible for hunting on how many hunters in their province or territory use those types of firearms, which are now going to be prohibited, should this law come to pass?
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you for your question.
The proposed amendments under G-4 do not contain any criteria related to pistol grips or the colour of the firearm.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I can repeat the criteria. This has nothing to do with the criteria you outlined in your question.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I could add that even though there's provincial and territorial legislation that refers to different types of firearms—whether non-restricted, restricted or prohibited—once these firearms become prohibited, they will no longer be able to be used or possessed by Canadians for any purpose.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I know I'm jumping ahead to G-46, but I would imagine the items on the G-46 list are there because of G-4.
A number of Benelli shotguns are now going to be prohibited. Benelli seems to be the only firearm that has a reverse list of exceptions in the schedule. Am I correct in that?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
When the Benelli was prescribed as prohibited in the 1990s, there were firearms that were exempted from that definition, and that was the decision made at a political level: to exempt these makes and models from the prohibition.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
When Benelli comes out with a new model or a new variant of shotgun, we would need an act of Parliament in order to make it legal in Canada, because the Benellis that are legal are provided in a list of exemptions, and virtually every other Benelli that's not on that list is prohibited, correct?
Technical Specialist, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes, that would be correct.
On the listed exemptions in paragraph 7 of schedule 1, which is the one that deals with the Benelli M1 and M3 shotguns—which I believe are the ones you're referring to—that list is a closed list. The firearm make and model must be explicitly named in the list in order for it to be exempted, and any new model that comes out would fall within the variant and modified version clause of paragraph 7 and would be prohibited.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Even if it appeared to be a bird-hunting, semi-automatic shotgun, it would be prohibited automatically because it's simply not on the list.
Technical Specialist, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
That's correct, and it's been that way since 1992.
