Public Safety Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[Murray Smith]

The versions of the M1 and M3 shotguns that are made with conventional sporting accessories are the ones that are commonly used for hunting. There is nothing that physically prevents any version of an M3 or M1 shotgun from being used for hunting, but if you were to look at, say, the marketing material for these firearms as they're sold in Canada, it is the sporting configuration of the shotgun that is generally advertised for use for hunting.

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

Does the fact that, for example, some guns have a 14‑inch barrel rather than a 19‑inch barrel cause them to be considered prohibited firearms?

[Murray Smith]

Barrel length is a factor that is considered for whether a firearm is prohibited or not, in conjunction with other characteristics. In the case of a shotgun like a Benelli M1 or M3, if the barrel gets too short, the firearm could wind up being restricted, and if it gets shorter still, it could become prohibited. It depends on exactly how the barrel becomes shorter and exactly what the length is. It varies depending upon the exact circumstances, but essentially, the shotgun barrel length is considered in conjunction with other factors to arrive at a determination of classification.

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

To your knowledge, at this time, what is the allowed barrel length for shotguns?

[Murray Smith]

That varies according to the type of hunting. There's no single answer for that.

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

Do you think that many firearms used for hunting are found in the annex mentioned in paragraph (i)?

[Murray Smith]

Generally speaking, the schedule is made up of military and paramilitary-style firearms, so in those schedules there are relatively few hunting firearms that were explicitly designed for the purposes of hunting. There are bound to be some exceptions, though. Those are found in clause 7 of the proposed schedule, which we've just been discussing, and elsewhere, like clause 64, for example.

Some firearms are named in the schedule as exemptions and are used for hunting, but the majority of the firearms in the schedule are firearms that are either military originally or tactical in nature.

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

I'll take the liberty of repeating in French the gist of what you said: the majority of the firearms that are in the schedule are firearms that are not reasonably used for hunting. The annex includes some of the latter, but there are few.

[Murray Smith]

Just to clarify, I'm not aware of any firearms designed for hunting that appear in the schedule. That said, there are firearms that can be or have been used for hunting. It depends on how you define “reasonable”. It will depend on who you ask. I mean, “reasonable” is a subjective characteristic. What I can say is that the majority of these firearms, if not all of them, are there because they are military firearms or tactical firearms or derivatives of those firearms.

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

I'll come back to a question I touched on briefly earlier. In your opinion, is there a way to completely take the responsibility for the lists that may exist out of the hands of politicians?

By listing the criteria mentioned in the G‑4 amendment, which sounds like a definition, is that enough for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to classify firearms, because I guess it is your job to do that? Is the use of a definition sufficient or does a list allow you to do your job better? Could a definition without a list do the same thing?

[Murray Smith]

That's really not our choice. The choice as to how firearms would be regulated lies with the government and with the Governor in Council and with Parliament. The RCMP applies the laws that they create. Using a schedule or using the regulations is one way of identifying firearms that should not be in circulation. That system has the advantage of being able to name specific makes and models, and limiting the effect of the change in law to only those kinds of firearms.

As an alternative, a more general approach can be taken, as in amendment G-4, with a definition that applies automatically to all firearms that fit the criteria. The kinds of firearms and the numbers of firearms that will be captured by the definition will depend on the exact wording of those provisions. That is within the control of the Governor in Council and Parliament.

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

The words “designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges”, found in paragraph (g) of amendment G‑4, seem to be problematic for several hunters' associations, because they are concerned that it is too vague.

Can you confirm that the definition of prohibited semi-automatic weapons does not affect current models and only future models?

[Murray Smith]

That definition, I believe, was designed to affect firearms in the future. It's the forward-looking element in the proposed amendments.

The criteria in that definition are all concrete criteria, so it can be very readily determined whether a firearm is a rifle or a shotgun. It can be easily determined whether it has semi-automatic action or not. It can be easily determined whether it has a detachable magazine or not, and it can be easily determined what the capacity of that magazine is, whether it's five cartridges, four, three, two or whatever.

All the criteria in that provision are relatively easy to establish. Whether they prohibit the correct firearms is dependent on the goal of either Parliament or the Governor in Council, as the case may be. They are the ones that decide what should be prohibited or what should not be prohibited, and the terms of the definitions are determined accordingly. Officials can provide advice, but ultimately it's the government's decision as to what will be prohibited.

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

I understand more and more that this was chosen to ensure that as many models as possible were enshrined in law.

I have a very hypothetical question: could a future government add a variant of the AR‑15, for example, to the exceptions in the schedule? Which takes precedence, the list of prohibited weapons or the list of exceptions? Would it be possible for any government to add a variant to the list of exceptions?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Currently, the exceptions are for firearms that were banned in the 1990s. For firearms that were banned or prohibited by executive order in May 2020, no exceptions have been listed.

Would it be possible for a future government to write exceptions into the law? Yes, it is always possible.

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

Thank you.

I have another hypothetical question. If amendment G‑4 were to pass, would a sport shooter be able to rent a prohibited firearm listed in the schedule, such as a semi-automatic weapon or pistol, for use exclusively at a shooting range, without owning it and without the ability to take it home?

Does the way this amendment is written in no way allow a citizen to own such a firearm?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Are you looking to see if a prohibited or banned firearm could be borrowed or rented by someone?

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

Yes, that's right. You're not allowed to have one in your home or own one in your name, but would the way the G‑4 amendment is written allow people to rent one at a gun club to go practise their sport, for example, or not at all?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I don't think it's possible to rent prohibited firearms. Having said that, I'll pass the floor to my colleague.

[Phaedra Glushek]

Maybe I can clarify that. The definition applies to rifles or shotguns. It doesn't apply to handguns. It deals only with rifles or shotguns, to make that clear. The handgun would be separate and something that, under the existing provisions in the Firearms Act, would be regulated.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

There is no proposal to change the classification of handguns, which remain mostly restricted firearms. You cannot rent a prohibited firearm, such as an automatic weapon, and take it home.

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

All right.

Some of the firearms that are in the appendix are hyper-expensive collectible firearms that are put on a shelf. There are people who collect firearms and some of these firearms are worth a fortune.

If there were an openness to a buy-back program for these firearms, would the G‑4 amendment involve significant costs and logistical challenges? Is this being addressed, or was the G‑4 amendment written without thinking about this possibility?

[Phaedra Glushek]

Maybe my colleague can jump in. Paragraph (g) is forward-looking. It's meant to look forward. However, there are mechanisms to come into compliance with the law right now if a firearm is not included in the buyback program. Those firearms are in the schedule of May 1, sections 87 to 96, I believe. They are the ones that are included in the buyback. There is deactivation, as well, that's available to individuals to come into compliance with the law. Again, we can't speculate as to any kind of buyback or amnesty, but one way to come into compliance would be to have a firearm deactivated in order to be able to keep that piece in one's house.

Paula, did you want to add anything to that?

[Paula Clarke]

No, that's good.

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

So the owner could not, for example, sell his now prohibited firearm abroad. That would not be possible either.