Evidence of meeting #52 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.
3:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's a very good question.
“Fusil de chasse” is used in this part of the bill. It is a term that is used in other federal statutes and regulations, but also in the Criminal Code regulations that are part of the 1995 regulations. That is a term that is used both in federal regulations and in acts, including in the Criminal Code definition.
It's a term that's already been previously used and is well known, which we have incorporated into the G-4 motion.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
So it is understandable that, despite the use of this expression, it does not necessarily include weapons reasonably used for hunting.
3:55 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes, that term was chosen by the legislative drafters, highly specialized people. I'm not a drafter, but I understand that, if you make a change to the bill, you have to think about the impact it may have on all the other regulations that are related to it.
3:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Can I add a couple of things?
They also use not just other federal acts.... When the drafters look at terms, both in English and French, it should be the equivalent. They look at TERMIUM Plus, which is a database of terms in English and in French. They look at the French in Larousse and the different dictionaries in French, and then they also look at the other acts and regulations.
That's how they came up with this term in the legislation.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I understand that if an amendment was made to item (g), it could significantly change the spirit of the definition that was intended to be put in place. However, to your knowledge, if we were to add, “à l'exception des armes raisonnablement utilisées pour la chasse”—with the exception of firearms reasonably used for hunting—would that change the spirit of the definition?
3:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
If I understand the question, you're asking whether or not we could capture that it is or is not a hunting rifle, or a shotgun—
3:55 p.m.
A voice
That it is not.
3:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That it is not. That is an exercise we could look at, but, for example, in the French,
an “arme à feu à âme lisse”
is a smooth-barrelled firearm, and that could encompass some rifles as well. It depends on what the term is and how we could define it.
I could turn to my colleagues in Public Safety to see if there are any other considerations they'd like to add.
3:55 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
There are always repercussions. In this case, it would be a drafting exercise, and it's hard to say off the top of my head whether it's possible to change the text. It might be possible to do so, but it would be difficult for me to give you a definitive answer. This is your debate and our role is to help you.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Okay. Thank you very much.
I'm very much questioning the way the government decided to proceed and this famous list. I wonder if it would have been easier for everyone to proceed differently.
In 1994, the United States adopted a fairly clear definition of what constitutes a prohibited firearm. It's both a good and a bad example, because that definition has been watered down a bit by a fairly long list of exclusions.
Was this approach one of the options the government considered, rather than listing the models in a schedule and expanding the Firearms Act by hundreds of pages?
4 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you for your question.
There are limits to what I can say here, and I can't really discuss the options that the government considered when it drafted its amendments.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Chair, may I ask the mover of the amendment why she decided to proceed in this manner?
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The mover of the amendment isn't a witness here. He's free to step up in any of the debate if he wishes, but it's odd to be questioning the—
4 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
If the situation was reversed and I were the one moving an amendment, my colleagues would certainly ask me where I got it and why I am proposing it this way rather than another way.
In this case, then, I think it is absolutely legitimate to put that question to the person who proposed the amendment.
December 6th, 2022 / 4 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Chiang Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment was moved on the advice of the officials. If you have questions, you could direct them to the officials who are present here today to answer your questions.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
That is what I am trying to do. Thank you.
I understand that there are limits and that you can't discuss everything before the committee. The problem is that politics are getting in the way. If politics could stay out of this, it would be much easier for everyone.
Earlier, we talked about the structure of the schedule. Some models of weapons are already prohibited and some will be prohibited later. I think it is legitimate to know when those models will be prohibited. My understanding is that it will not necessarily be done when the bill is passed, but later, by order in council.
Is that correct?
4 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Both schedule I and schedule II on the list would come into force by order in council, so it would be a decision to be taken. There's flexibility for the government in terms of when it would want to bring into force the schedules, as well as most of the definition. There is one part that would come in 30 days after royal assent, with respect to the firearm part.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
So we can speculate that this delay before the coming into force would allow owners of now-prohibited weapons to adjust.
Do you have any comments on this matter?
4 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes. As with the May 1, 2020 amendment, there was an amnesty at that time. The government decided to have an amnesty that coincided, in order to give owners time to comply with the law.
In this case, the motions have been put forward and no decision has been made, at this time, in terms of an amnesty. There is no amnesty or compensation being put forward at this time. By the time this comes into force by OIC, owners will have to become compliant with the law.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
When you talk about amnesty, am I to understand that you are referring to a grandfathering clause that would allow them to continue to own the firearm until a certain time?
4 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can make a point of clarification.
When the schedule or the definition in paragraph (g) comes into force by order in council, at that point.... When the May 1, 2020 OIC came into effect, there was an amnesty order. The delayed coming into force of paragraph (g) and the schedule in paragraph (i) would give the government an opportunity to decide how to proceed with these firearms.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I guess that would give the government time, for example, to come up with a buyback program or that something like that. We're still waiting for the buyback program for the firearms that were prohibited in 2020. So I don't know where that would go, but it was a comment more than a question.
This would provide reassurance to owners or potential owners of scheduled weapons or models who would know what to do with their weapons when these provisions come into force. We don't really have an answer to that, and I understand that you can't really give us an answer today.
4:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's right. We can't speculate about decisions that will be made in the future.
Again, I forgot to mention that the list in schedule I is already prohibited, so there would be no change in the classification of those firearms between 1 and 96. That is a decision to be made in the future, though. We can't speak to that.