Public Safety Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[Phaedra Glushek]

Once any firearm is prohibited, you cannot sell, transfer, import or export. You would have to come into compliance by either surrendering it or deactivating it. If there were an amnesty that allowed for other means of disposal, or a government buyback program, those would be options open to the owner.

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

All right. Thank you.

I'd like to go back to the hunters' associations that contacted us. These people have confirmed that they have not been consulted by the government about the amendment or its wording. They are expressing what can only be described as legitimate concerns.

The Weatherby MARK V firearm, which is designed for one cartridge and is generally used here for hunting, is permitted. It would not be prohibited under paragraph (i) of amendment G‑4, which refers to the proposed appendix to amendment G‑46. In contrast, the 460 Weatherby Magnum, which has variants and is designed to hunt elephants in particular, would be prohibited.

Is that what we need to understand?

[Murray Smith]

The Weatherby Mark V rifle appears in clause 96 of the proposed schedule, I believe, which deals with high-energy firearms. It's only those Weatherby Mark V rifles that would be prohibited. They are chambered for a calibre that produces energies in excess of 10,000 joules. If the rifle were chambered in a different calibre that did not exceed 10,000 joules, then it would retain its existing classification, which is, for the most part, non-restricted.

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

I thank you very much for your answers as well as your patience. This answers some questions, for now, but, the further we go, the more questions seem to emerge. So it's becoming difficult to get your head around it.

Mr. Chair, I'm sure my colleagues have many, many more questions to ask. So I would like to make a proposal that I hope would satisfy everyone at this point.

I would like to invite independent experts from the government to explain to us the effects of this amendment on their industry or on their lives in general. It would be a bit like what we do in the normal parliamentary process, when we invite people to come and give evidence at the beginning of a bill. People have not had a chance to speak publicly on this massive amendment put forward by the government, and I think it would be quite legitimate to allow them to do so here, before the committee.

I therefore request that additional meetings be held to hear witnesses who have not yet been heard by the committee. I am aware that this request requires the unanimous consent of my colleagues on the committee. I therefore propose to them at this stage that the committee's Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure meet to discuss the number of meetings that could be held and the experts that the committee would like to receive. If the committee were to get answers to its questions and the witnesses it wants to hear could be heard publicly, specifically on amendment G‑4, that could help move the process forward, in my view. This amendment is quite substantial, I think you will agree.

I therefore invite my colleagues to vote in favour of my proposal, which requires unanimous consent. That is what I am proposing today so that we can move forward on amendment G‑4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

That presents somewhat of a dilemma for me. We are in the throes of.... There is an amendment on the floor that we're now debating. We can't bring forward another amendment. To interrupt this process and go to more meetings is problematic.

I'll suspend for a few minutes and have a chat with the clerks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The meeting is resumed.

Thank you, all. We've had a number of discussions. I'm not sure that we have any kind of resolution, but I will ask Madame Michaud to put forth her unanimous consent motion. It's the only kind of motion we can deal with at this time.

My understanding is that the unanimous consent motion is to seek unanimous consent that we convene a subcommittee meeting to discuss having additional witnesses and additional witness meetings on Bill C-21. Is that correct?

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

That's exactly right, Mr. Chair.

I ask for unanimous consent of my colleagues that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security meet to determine the number of meetings to be held and the number of witnesses to be received at the committee to allow people who have not had an opportunity to speak to the bill and amendment G‑4 to be able to do so.

It's pretty obvious that there is frustration across all parties that not everyone has had the opportunity to be heard. Once the witnesses have been heard, that might allow us to move forward on the G‑4 amendment. That is what I am proposing.

I know that if I were to suggest a number of meetings at this stage, I might not have the unanimity of my colleagues. Therefore, I propose to leave decisions on the details of these meetings to the subcommittee.

I therefore seek the consent of my colleagues to resolve this impasse and move forward with this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

Since it's a unanimous consent motion, I don't believe it's debatable. I'm going to ask the members if there is unanimous consent.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

There is not unanimous consent. However, I certainly encourage all the members, all the parties at the table here, to continue to talk among yourselves to find a way forward on this.

Madame Michaud, have you finished?

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

I find this distressing. I think it would have allowed us to move forward, but I understand the different considerations of members.

My questions end here for today. I will put my name on the list of speakers a little later.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We go now to Mr. Noormohamed.

Mr. Noormohamed, you have the floor.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we continue clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21, I just want to take a moment to pause. We've had some good, healthy debate today, but I just want to pause and bring us back to the why of what we are doing here. As Madame Michaud noted, today is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. It commemorates the senseless murder of 14 women at École Polytechnique 33 years ago.

We need to make sure we never forget their names. We must also make sure that they did not die in vain. We are talking about Geneviève Bergeron, Maryse Laganière, Hélène Colgan, Maryse Leclair, Nathalie Croteau, Anne‑Marie Lemay, Barbara Daigneault, Sonia Pelletier, Anne‑Marie Edward, Michèle Richard, Maud Haviernick, Annie St‑Arneault, Barbara Klucznik‑Widajewicz and Annie Turcotte.

These 14 women were killed simply because they were women.

We read these names to remember them. I think it's important that we pledge and recommit our pledge to keep working to end gender-based violence, which is, as we all know, a lived reality for far too many women across Canada. We have a shared responsibility at this table, as we have healthy debates and discussions, to make sure we commit to ending gender-based violence once and for all, together.

We're all here because we want to keep our communities safe, protect our neighbours and friends, and keep guns off our streets.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the exceptional work of PolySeSouvient and the other advocates who have been working hard to ensure that we have stricter gun control. This is not a partisan statement. It's one that recognizes the efforts of those who seek to keep our streets safer, without taking away the rights and privileges of Canadians who hunt and who farm, and of indigenous communities.

We all have to accept that access to guns is a primary risk factor for armed violent behaviour. The simple fact that a firearm is present in a home increases the risk of violence and intimidation for women and children who live in those homes. We know that intimate partner violence, or IPV—which is a subset of domestic violence—that involves a firearm is 12 times more likely to result in death than similar incidents that don't involve a firearm. We know that access to guns in the home triples the likelihood of homicides and multiplies the risk of suicide by five.

We've seen data in Canada. Public reports show that between 37% and 42% of the women and girls killed in 2019 and 2020 were killed with a firearm. Data on murders committed by licensed firearm owners using a registered firearm or with firearms that were previously seized are not collected or available. As a result, it is not possible to estimate the effect of gun registration policy on femicide. The presence of a firearm in a home increases the lethality of IPV fivefold.

Asking about the presence of firearms at home can help physicians in Canada develop a safety plan for those in at-risk situations. Bill C-21 will go a long way in addressing gender-based violence in every community across Canada. I know that every one of us at this table, from all sides, is committed to this.

I believe we have an obligation and an opportunity here to be smart about how we write good legislation in respect of firearms. I've asked my Conservative colleagues and others to tell us how to improve this bill and how to look at this list, and to provide feedback. I must admit I have not received that feedback from my colleagues—I don't know if others have—other than hearing that it's all bad.

“It's all bad” is not a good enough answer for victims' families. It's also not good enough for the farmers, hunters and indigenous communities who believe that we need stricter gun control. It may be good enough for the CCFR, but that's not who we are here to serve.

I believe that every single law we write can be made better. We've done that at this committee, and we do it in other committees. Nobody has a monopoly on good ideas. I want to say this personally, as I have said to my colleagues: I am committed to doing whatever I can, and I know my colleagues are, to improve this legislation. That doesn't mean erasing it from the books. It does mean improving it and working together to do that. I think we have an obligation to ourselves and to this country to do that work.

I will say this before I get to some questions for officials. I find it incredibly problematic that there are organizations that are fundraising off tragedy. I found it appalling and I would like my Conservative friends to condemn what the CCFR did in seeking to provide a discount on products for sale on their website with the discount code “POLY”. It is unacceptable. It is disgusting. We all—every single one of us—need to speak out against this type of absolutely reprehensible behaviour.

Whether Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat, Bloc or Green, we should not be acting in that way. Canadians deserve better. All of our constituents deserve better. I know there are firearms owners who are absolutely appalled by that kind of disgusting behaviour.

I want to make sure that when we leave this room there is not a single person out there who feels that anyone in this room is acting in a manner that enhances, promotes or amplifies these types of abhorrent views. I hope my colleagues will join me in that.

Let's now get to the crux of some of the things that I know we want to discuss.

If I could turn to our guests, perhaps Ms. Clarke could explain to us in layman's terms what the definition intends to do.

For people out there who are watching this—and in recognizing that everything gets clipped—tell us in layman's terms, please, what the definition intends to do.

[Paula Clarke]

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.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have a few.

Can you clarify why we reference both shotguns and rifles?

[Paula Clarke]

If you didn't list it as a shotgun and rifle, it's going to apply to all firearms, which would include handguns.

I believe Mr. Smith probably has something else to add.

[Murray Smith]

That's essentially the reason. The effect of the evergreening definition is limited to rifles and shotguns.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

It's also listed in the Criminal Code, if I'm correct, in those terms...or it's in the Firearms Act. Is it not also the language that's used in the Criminal Code?

[Murray Smith]

It's used in some places in the Criminal Code, but not universally. Some provisions apply to all firearms, whereas other provisions apply to just handguns. Yet more provisions apply to just rifles and shotguns. It depends on what part of the classification matrix you are looking at.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you.

The list in amendment G-46 has been the source of tremendous consternation, as you have come to see. Could you provide a simplified list of G-46, broken down by when these things were banned, so that people could look at this and understand whether this is something that's been on the banned list since the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s or whatever?

The last thing we want.... I think we are all in this maelstrom with our constituents of everyone assuming that everything on this list is new, and you have clearly said it's not. If we had that, I think we would be able to focus our conversations in a much more meaningful way.

Is that something you can provide for us?

[Phaedra Glushek]

Yes, that's something we could provide to the committee. Would you like it orally now, or would you like it—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

No, I don't think we need it orally now. I don't think we want to sit through those 400 hundred pages, and I don't want to do that to you.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

We can provide that, yes. However, as a guide, clauses 1 through to 86 in that list are firearms that were prohibited in the 1990s. Clauses 87 through to 96 are those that were from the May 2020 OIC. After that are proposed additions to complete the May 2020 OIC. Those are not currently prohibited.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

To make sure, that's 96 through to....

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I'm sorry. It's 97 through to 232.