I think perhaps the best way to go about explaining G-4 is to step back a little and perhaps discuss how firearms are prohibited through the Criminal Code.
Section 84 of the Criminal Code sets out a definition of a prohibited firearm and lists some physical characteristics. It also has an ability to prescribe firearms as being prohibited. Some of the physical characteristics are short-barrelled handguns, fully automatic firearms and sawed-off shotguns.
The regulations have been in existence since the early 1990s. From 1990 to 2000, there were approximately 13 families of firearms that were prohibited in the regulations. On May 1, 2020, an OIC prohibited an additional 1,500 makes and models of firearms. There are 109 families. It also prohibited two categories of firearms based on physical characteristics. Those are the firearms that are 10,000 joules and over, and firearms with bore diameters of 20 millimetres or greater.
When Bill C-21 was introduced, the government also undertook to fully ban assault-style firearms. The policy direction taken by the government had several steps. One was to amend the definition of prohibited firearms to codify the firearms that are currently prohibited in the regulations. The next step was to add additional assault-style firearms that were not included in the May 1 OIC. The third step was to add the evergreen definition.
If you walk through amendment G-4 and you start with proposed paragraph (e), you'll see it includes language that it's
a firearm that is capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy exceeding 10,000 Joules, other than a firearm designed exclusively for neutralizing explosive devices,
Those are bomb diffusers. Proposed paragraph (e) is on firearms that are already prohibited in the regulations. They're being imported from the regulations to the definition of prohibited firearm.
Proposed paragraph (f) was also already included in the regulations. These are firearms that are currently prohibited. What paragraph (f) is proposing to do is to take them from the regulations and put them into the definition of prohibited firearm, thus codifying the ban on those firearms.
Paragraph (g) would be the evergreen definition. Proposed paragraph (h) is for a motion that hasn't been moved yet.
Paragraph (i) is the schedule. The schedule has three buckets. The first bucket is the firearms that were prohibited initially in the nineties, plus the firearms included in the May 1, 2020 OIC. It also adds additional variants that have come to the attention of the CFP since the regulations were made on May 1 2020. It looks like additional firearms are added, but those firearms were already prohibited.
That's what's in schedule 1. All the firearms in schedule 1 are already prohibited; it's simply moving them from the regulations to a schedule in the Criminal Code and codifying them.
The second part is everything following clause 97 in the proposed schedule. Those firearms are not currently prohibited. However, they are included in the schedule because they have the same capabilities as the firearms that were initially included in the May 1 OIC. They are capable of sustained rapid fire, meaning that they are a military tactical design and capable of receiving a large cartridge magazine.
That's what the schedule would do. Everything is listed by make and model. It adds new variants and it proposes to codify this schedule. Everything would be listed by make and model. The reason for that is for transparency and clarity, and so that the Canadian public can search the schedule to see if the firearm is listed.
Proposed paragraph 84(1)(g) is forward-looking. It proposes to amend the definition of “prohibited firearm” to add characteristics that would capture other firearms that would fall within the parameters of what is considered to be an assault-style firearm. However, it's more restrictive than the characteristics that were used for the May 1 OIC in that it is limited to centre-fire ammunition and limited to shotguns and rifles.
I don't know if you have any other questions.