Public Safety Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 52 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). The committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration, and we'll get to the speaking list shortly, which carries on from yesterday.

Before we resume debate, I will welcome the officials who are once again with us today. From the Department of Justice, we have Paula Clarke, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy; and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; and Murray Smith, technical specialist, Canadian firearms program.

Welcome back, everyone. Thanks for joining us once again.

With that, on the speaking list for carrying on the debate on G-4 we have Madame Michaud, Mr. Noormohamed, Ms. Dancho, Pam Damoff and Mr. Motz, and it carries on with some more. We'll go down the list further as we go.

I think this will take us to the end of the day, but feel free to put your hand up if you want to be on the list.

With that, I turn the floor over to Madame Michaud.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, dear colleagues. I am very pleased to see you again.

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to mark the date today: December 6, 2022. Thirty‑three years ago, a tragic shooting occurred at the École Polytechnique. On behalf of my political party, I want to again send my condolences to the victims' loved ones and families and to the victims injured on that day.

The weapon used that day was a Ruger Mini‑14, a semi‑automatic rifle, as my colleagues know very well. The killer had a magazine with 30 rounds, allowing him to kill 14 women and injure 13 others in a short amount of time. Until 2020, this weapon was still legal in Canada because it was classified as a hunting firearm, which according to some researchers was absurd.

I want to mention this and to encourage my colleagues to be respectful when speaking today, because it is a day of remembrance. There are people who have been fighting for 33 years to get the federal government to do more to ban assault weapons. In fact, that is the objective of amendment G‑4, which we are looking at today, and I encourage my colleagues to be respectful.

I also want to take the time to denounce the intimidation that has been happening over the past few days, of the officials who are here to help us and answer our questions. It is not any easier for them than it is for us. We get many questions from members of the public who are sometimes angry, because there is a large amount of misinformation going around. It may also be because the government did not properly explain the amendment it tabled.

I once again encourage my colleagues to be respectful towards the people who are here today to help us and to answer our questions. This also goes for those listening to our proceedings who may feel compelled to write to the officials. I encourage them to be careful in their comments.

Finally, before I begin, I also want to take the time to denounce the fact that the promotional code “poly” was used and promoted by the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights to get people to buy merchandise on its website. Marketing like that on the backs of victims is simply disgusting. I encourage my colleagues to denounce this and to distance themselves from this association.

Getting back to amendment G‑4, I think the government is trying to do something that has merit. What is deplorable is that it is working backwards. It did not explain what it was trying to do, as I said. At the outset, Bill C‑21 was mainly about handguns, airsoft guns, and “yellow flag”, “red flag”‑type measures.

When it tabled the bill, the government promised it would amend it, which means it must already have thought that the initial version was not perfect. We understand that the government, in exchange for support from some groups that support gun control, promised it would amend Bill C‑21 to also ban military‑style assault weapons. Because Bill C‑21 was mainly about handguns, there was a risk that such an amendment would be ruled out of order since, as you know very well, Mr. Chair, it may have fallen outside the scope of the bill.

From what I understood, the government has been secretly working on this amendment since May 2022, without consulting stakeholder groups. That is what these groups have been telling us for the past few weeks, that they were not consulted. The same goes for the airsoft industry which, unfortunately, does not appear to have been consulted by the government. We will come back to that later during consideration of the bill.

The government let the bill go through the process. It listened to members in the House debate handguns, airsoft guns and “yellow flag”, “red flag”‑type measures, among other things. It let committee members invite experts to appear and hear what they had to say about the possible impacts of the bill, particularly on the elements I just mentioned.

We have to remember that, during the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals committed to ridding the streets of handguns and assault rifles, as they said in their election platform at the time.

On May 1, 2020, the government issued an order in council banning 1,500 assault rifles, with immediate effect. It immediately banned nine types of firearms and their variants, including M16, AR‑10 and AR‑15 rifles, the M4 carbine and Ruger Mini‑14 rifle. The order in council also banned firearms with the following two characteristics: capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules; and a bore of 20 millimetres or greater. Those are the two criteria in items (e) and (f) of amendment G‑4.

We can therefore understand that these two elements in the amendment are nothing new, since the firearms meeting these criteria are already prohibited. I would ask the experts to confirm whether this is indeed what we should understand from items (e) and (f) in amendment G‑4.

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

That’s right, yes.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much.

That answer alone clarifies a lot of things. We see people up in arms against certain points in amendment G‑4, but that is because the government never took the time to present its amendment properly, and to explain and clarify what it was doing.

That is the Bloc Québécois’s chief criticism at this point: that the government did everything backwards and made things confusing for everybody. It is very difficult to make sense of a binder like this and to explain what it means to the public. I am grateful the experts are here to answer our questions, as the Liberal Party is clearly unable to explain its own approach. We have so many questions that we don’t know where to start.

Going back to amendment G‑4 to Bill C‑21, we understand that it fulfills the Liberal Party’s promise. I understand that the government wants to ban assault weapons, and we at the Bloc Québécois agree. I even promised witnesses during hearings on Bill C‑21 that the Bloc Québécois would table an amendment to ban assault weapons if the government did not keep its promise to do so.

That is exactly what we did with amendment BQ‑1, which was defeated in a heartbeat when all parties voted against it. We were proposing that the definition of a prohibited firearm in the Criminal Code be amended to “a prescribed military‑style assault weapon.”

What we were proposing was quite simple: allow experts to define what an assault weapon is, and in particular to differentiate an assault weapon from a weapon reasonably used for hunting. We never wanted to go after hunters or prevent them from hunting. That was never our intent. I want that to be quite clear.

I think providing a definition rather than a list would have been much clearer for everybody, unlike what item (i) in amendment G‑4 does, which is propose that all firearms listed “in the schedule” be prohibited. This schedule is something else that is not clear in the government’s approach. The Liberals have never taken the time to explain what it would contain.

It is therefore difficult to look at amendment G‑4 without talking about the schedule. I would in particular like to know what criteria were used in creating this schedule. Since things become clearer as we ask questions, I will now take this opportunity to ask two questions of the experts who are with us.

I understand that the first portion of the schedule refers to models of firearms that are already prohibited. Is this correct?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Yes. Paragraphs 1 to 86, I believe, list the firearms that were prohibited by regulation in the 1990s.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

Other than the part dealing with firearms prohibited since the 1990s, there is a section dealing with weapons prohibited under the 2020 order in council. Is this correct?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Yes. I believe they are paragraphs 87 to 96.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

The schedule would then list the newly prohibited firearms if Bill C‑21 were passed, as well as firearms that would be exempted from the prohibition. Do I understand correctly?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

The paragraphs following paragraph 96, in schedule 2, include models that were added after the May 2020 prohibition. This was done using the same criteria, but removing the question of pre-World War II design and presence on the Canadian market. There is no list of exempted models following paragraph 96.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

So there is not necessarily a list of exemptions. On the other hand, if we rely on the text introducing certain categories of firearms, we can read that a given firearm is prohibited, with the exception of certain models that meet certain criteria. Is this what we are to understand?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Yes, I understand your question better.

The text introducing certain categories of firearms, as in paragraphs 95 or 96, should be read in conjunction with the list that follows it. For example, if a model of a certain firearm is capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules, it is included in the list of prohibited firearms. Therefore, not all models of that firearm will be prohibited, but only those that meet the criteria set out in the text introducing the category and that are in the list.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

As I understand it, items (e) and (f) and the government's proposed definition in item (g) would be used for the classification of models that are going to be created in the future, but the firearms listed in the schedule do not necessarily fall under that definition.

Did I understand correctly?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Items (e) and (f) set out the same criteria as those mentioned in paragraphs 95 and 96 of the schedule. So there is some overlap.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

This confirms that certain models are on the list, but variants of those models that are capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules are prohibited. If a person has a rifle that is on the list, but the variant they are using requires a muzzle energy of less than 4,000 joules, that weapon will not be prohibited.

Is this correct?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Yes.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Much of hunters' concern stems from this confusion, which could have been avoided if this amendment had been incorporated into the original version of the bill, if press releases and fact sheets had been made available, and if consultations and the like had been held.

As my colleagues would say, having the legislative summary and fact sheet of a bill goes a long way toward helping us put the right questions to the experts who appear before the committee. In this case, we don't have a fact sheet or a summary of the process related to amendment G‑4. This makes it a little difficult to ask our questions. Plus, it makes it more complicated to explain all of this to the general public, the average person.

I think it's a bit of a shame that the government is relying on us to resolve the current impasse on amendment G‑4. Until the parliamentarians on the committee have the tools to clearly explain, in less than 15 seconds, what this amendment is doing, I don't think we will ever agree.

To add to all of this, the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister have hinted in the last few days that some firearms reasonably used for hunting are on this list. Whether there is one or a thousand, how do we find it or list it? We are obviously not experts on this subject, although we are learning more and more about it. How is the public supposed to identify them?

In my opinion, the solution is to establish a clear definition of the assault weapons that are going to be prohibited. Instead of proceeding by list, we could say that, if such a weapon meets the criteria provided or the definition, it is prohibited. If necessary, a list of exceptions could be included. I understand that there are currently hundreds, if not thousands, of models of firearms and it is difficult to navigate.

But it is equally difficult to navigate when lists are used. Through the answers provided by the officials, I am gaining a better understanding of the reason for choosing to do it this way. However, in my opinion, it may not have been the best way to proceed.

If amendment G‑4 is adopted in its current form, including the reference to the schedule contained in item (i), are we to understand that the Criminal Code is going to have to be amended every time a new model of gun comes on the market? How will this work going forward?

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

In the schedule, where it uses the term “variant”, that would be a new firearm that is a variant of any of the firearms that are listed in the schedule. It would be captured and would be prohibited.

There's also the definition in paragraph (g), which may capture future firearms that are not listed in the schedule but that meet the definition with the characteristics that are set out in (g).

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

If the manufacturer creates a new model and offers it for sale, how will this work? Will the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have to call the manufacturer and tell them that their firearm is illegal? How will it work when these new models are put on the market? I am sure that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Madame Michaud, we're not getting translation for a moment, so....

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Okay.

I am being told that the problem is solved, so I will resume my question, for the benefit of the committee.

If a manufacturer decided to create a new kind of firearm to get around the regulations, but it was actually a variant of a prohibited model, and therefore an illegal firearm, what would happen? Would the Royal Canadian Mounted Police be informed? Could the manufacturer circumvent the law by saying they didn't know it was a variant?

[Murray Smith, Technical Specialist, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

The determination of the classification of a firearm can, in principle, be done by anybody. Nobody owns that. Any person can look up the criteria that are in the Criminal Code and compare the characteristics of the firearm to those terms that are in the Criminal Code and arrive at a conclusion as to whether the firearm is non-restricted, restricted or prohibited.

However, for greater clarity and for the purposes of uniformity across the country, the RCMP keeps a database—the firearms reference table—which catalogues firearms and determines their classification according to the matrix in the Criminal Code. That is available to police, to officials and to the general public for their reference.

To answer the other part of your question, the actual assessment is made depending on exactly what the criteria are. If you are looking at one of the items—clauses 1 to 94, for example, or clauses 97 and onwards in the proposed schedule—those are based on the principal model of the firearm being named, and then any variant or modified version of it is also included. The exercise in classification would be based on whether or not the firearm in question was related to the original firearm in a way that would include it within the bounds of a variant or modified version.

In the case of 95 and 96, there are explicit physical criteria, and the question would be to accurately determine the diameter of the bore or the energy of the projectile, as the case may be. The firearm is then classified depending on whether it's over the thresholds or not.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Daly?

[Rob Daly, Director, Strategic Policy, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Yes. For greater clarity, there is no variant in the evergreen definition. Every new firearm entering the country would be matched against the criteria in definition (g). Where a variant applies is as it relates to the schedules you alluded to earlier, so we would be looking at both of those.

If a firearm is coming in and it is a variant of one of the listed firearms, it would be put in the schedule accordingly. However, going forward, most of it would be up against (g) and looking at each one of those criteria individually, so not as a variant.

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

I'd like to add to my colleague's comments that “variant” is a well-known term that has been in the classification regulations since 1995. It's been judicially considered. It's a very well-known term used by experts.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much.

This leads me to raise another issue. I don't know if I mentioned this last time, but the French version of the definition found in item (g) proposed by the amendment refers to fusils de chasse—hunting rifles—whereas the English version does not mention terms like “hunting”.

I understand that the text of the amendment was written in both English and French, so the French is not a translation, which may explain this. However, I was told that this was the expression commonly used in French to refer to this type of weapon. On the other hand, it is difficult to explain to people that no hunting rifles will be prohibited when it is written in black and white in the bill that we are talking about semi-automatic hunting rifles.

How could that be interpreted in French?