Public Safety Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm sorry. It's “(e) a firearm that is not a handgun and that”.

I'll continue:

(ii) was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more, and

(iii) is designed and manufactured on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force; (“arme à feu prohibée”)

I'd like to break down each element in a way Canadians can understand. Before I do, Mr. Chair, I want to be very clear. In order for a firearm to be determined to be prohibited by this new definition, all four elements must be met.

I'll start with this: The definition does not apply to handguns. Our government is already taking decisive actions on handguns by freezing the market, a measure the vast majority of Canadians support. We know the definition is not applying to handguns.

The next element is that it only applies to semi-automatic firearms that shoot centre-fire ammunition. As my colleagues will remember, Mr. Noormohamed did a firearms 101 seminar. I won't get into all of that, but I will remind you that centre-fire ammunition is ammunition that is larger than rimfire ammunition. Rimfire is most commonly used in hunting firearms.

We also know that semi-automatic is just one action a firearm can be manufactured with. The semi-automatic action—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I want to make sure I heard Ms. Damoff correctly.

Did you say that the majority of hunting firearms are rimfire? Is that what you said?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

They're most commonly found in hunting firearms.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

That's incorrect, but that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Carry on.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Semi-automatic action is—and this is quoting Murray Smith from the RCMP—“where much of the loading action is done automatically by the firearm. It's kind of like having an automatic transmission on a car versus a standard.” It is automatic for the user.

All of these actions, like bolt, lever, hinge and pump—actions that require more manual effort to reload—remain unaffected by this new proposed definition. For folks following along at home, we're talking about guns that fire larger bullets and for which most of the loading is done automatically. This seems pretty reasonable to me, and it certainly does to the members on this side.

The next criterion that must be met is a firearm that “was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more”. Again, for those at home, we can refer to cartridges colloquially as bullets. It's also important to note that the legal magazine capacity in Canada is five. Anything larger is deemed to be too big and is illegal. We're only talking about guns that fire a large number of bullets, where much of the loading action is done automatically. The definition is forward-looking only. It applies only to guns that have not been invented yet.

In the amendments I submitted yesterday, I also included a provision that will ensure that there's a five-year legislative review of this definition to ensure the right balance has been struck.

In summary, this definition only applies to future guns that are designed to fire a large number of big bullets, where much of the loading action is done automatically. In the words of Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, these amendments are “A victory for science, public health, and Canadian values”.

What we have before us is a reasonable and technical definition. It also—and I want to stress this—does not take away from the firearms that were deemed prohibited in the 2020 order in council that banned 1,500 kinds of assault-style firearms, including the AR-15, from our country. Those firearms remain prohibited.

Today what we have before us are new amendments, including a new technical definition that provides clarity and sets an objective standard of what constitutes a prohibited weapon. It's a technical definition that the majority of Canadians support, and it was supported by the Mass Casualty Commission.

I've been on this public safety committee since I was elected in 2015. I've met with and listened to survivors of gun violence, domestic abuse and mass shootings, who have worked with our government to introduce legislation to strengthen gun control and enhance our public safety. That's why, in my community of Oakville North—Burlington, I hear from my constituents about the need to strengthen our gun control laws. One life lost to gun violence is one too many.

As someone who has advocated for eight years for a strategy to address and prevent gun violence, it gives me great pride to be part of a government that's introduced this legislation, which is the strongest piece of gun control legislation in our lifetimes.

I was really disappointed to see that already my colleagues across the way in the Conservative Party are spreading misinformation. Bill C-21 is a strong piece of legislation, and it has important aspects beyond the technical definition I've talked about today. Canadians are concerned about their safety and about gun violence. There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to address gun violence and crime, but Bill C-21 is one tool in our tool box to address gun violence specifically and to ban guns that were designed to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time. It will bolster border and law enforcement capacity, reduce the number of firearms in circulation in Canada, stop gun crime before it starts, create red-flag and yellow-flag laws, and provide resources to help combat domestic violence involving firearms.

We're making critical investments in housing, mental health supports and youth programs to address the root causes of crime and to set young people up for success. We also created the first-ever action plan to end gender-based violence. All these investments and actions by our government, including Bill C-21, are part of our government's broader strategy to keep Canadians safe and healthy. Bill C-21 is a critical bill that needs to be passed as soon as possible.

I just want to reiterate, Mr. Chair, that we all need to be taking a public health approach to gun control. This is one part of that approach.

I call on my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

We go next to Mr. Julian, followed by Ms. Dancho and Madam Michaud.

Mr. Julian, please go ahead.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'll speak briefly, again, because we have 160-odd pages of amendments, and I know that now that we're back on the rails, given, as I mentioned earlier, the issue around ghost guns, we have to proceed in an effective way.

I will be supporting this amendment, not only for the reasons that Ms. Damoff cited—the Mass Casualty Commission made strong recommendations in this regard—but also because of an issue that the NDP has raised in the House around the issue of manufacturers not being subject to a tight regime around approval and classification. Manufacturers and importers, as we heard in our questioning of witnesses who came from the ministry, aren't subject to an ironclad process right now. The companies can classify firearms in their own way. That's not appropriate given that such a loophole can lead to abuse, either inadvertent or conscious.

I'll be supporting the technical amendment because it helps close those loopholes. That's very important.

These amendments around ghost guns crack down on criminals. This amendment subjects manufacturers and importers to a regime that is tighter, and it ensures that they have to go through a due process. That is a shift away from saying to responsible gun owners that the focus of the bill will be on them. I think that's an important element to retain as we go through the discussions of these amendments—that if we're looking to tighten the rules, manufacturers and importers are a part of that, as is, certainly, cracking down on criminals.

I'll be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We go now to Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Dancho, go ahead, please.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a number of comments and then some very important questions for the officials, for clarification.

I know that this area, formerly withdrawn amendment G-4 and the list that accompanied that, which has not been brought back—and I appreciate that—caused a lot of turmoil. That was over four or five months ago. It also caused a lot of stress within the hunting community and in the anti-gun community as well.

I just want acknowledge that I recognize that there were threats made to many members of this committee and to officials. I think it's important, as we get into this very important democratic discussion that we were tasked with, which is our duty at this committee, to acknowledge that Conservative members, me included, have not been immune to that abuse and those threats. I understand, on a personal level, how difficult it is for many of us to come to the table and have an honest and democratic dialogue about this.

Mr. Chair, I want to acknowledge that, going forward, it is my goal to ensure that each of us has the opportunity, the freedom and the protection to fight in our corner and to make our points known, but that I fully denounce, as do all Conservative members, any abuse or violence directed towards any members of this committee or any members of government. I just want to be very clear about that.

Going to this definition, I appreciate Ms. Damoff's overview. I appreciate it, and I will get to some questions, but I do want to address a few things that she said.

I appreciate, again, that this is a heated debate or that it has been in the past, but I don't appreciate the allegation that there has been misinformation over the past 24 hours from Conservative members, and I do want to address some misinformation that I think was shared, perhaps by accident, by Ms. Damoff.

Just to be clear, hunting guns take centrefire ammunition. It would be completely inhumane to hunt a deer or anything larger than a deer with rimfire. Centrefire ammunition is extremely common. You cannot hunt a big animal with rimfire, or it would not be humane to do so. That is very standard. I just want to be very clear about that since, again, we are talking about hunting rifles in many cases in this regard.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I just want to apologize to the honourable member and recognize that I misspoke.

What I should have said was that rimfire will not be impacted by the definition, but you're absolutely correct and I apologize.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

It's no problem. It is a complicated issue with lots of details.

I do have a number of clarifying questions because I have been bombarded, as I know all members have. Certainly on this side, on the Conservative side, we have received a lot of questions from constituents and others.

I want to make a couple of other statements on the French interpretation in particular. It was “fusil de chasse”. As Ms. Damoff mentioned, that is “hunting rifle” as a direct translation. Can we just clarify what the French word is now? Also, is that still an accurate French word to describe what's in this new definition, please?

That's my first question. I have a few.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I think that's a question for the officials.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

With regard to it in English, it talks about “a firearm that is not a handgun”. In French, it's a very literal translation.

In French, it's “une arme à feu qui n'est pas une arme de poing”.

It's an exact literal translation.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Okay. Thank you.

There was a mention from Ms. Damoff of what the difference is between this definition and the last one. Just so folks are clear, I'm going to briefly outline what the last one was, if you'll just bear with me. I do think it's important, given how contentious this was at the time.

The last definition, which was withdrawn, was:

a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed,

Can we be a bit more specific and elaborate on what specifically is different in the new one versus the old one? I'm really not clear. I believe it was something about original design, but can we can get into further detail about what the difference is, please? Then I have more questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Thank you.

The definition has been simplified. The change with regard to “rifle or shotgun”, that has been changed to “a firearm that is not a handgun”.

With regard to capturing the government's intent to capture firearms that have a detachable magazine and how to differentiate those that are intended for small detachable magazines, which are quite acceptable in Canada for hunting purposes, from the concept of large-capacity magazines or those that are designed for those large-capacity magazines, that language has been simplified to “was originally designed with a detachable magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more”.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Okay. If I'm clear, then, it's the original design. If I have a firearm and I have altered it and it then otherwise would fit this definition, it wouldn't fit this definition. I hope it's clear what I'm trying to say. If it wasn't originally manufactured in a given way and then I altered it, and only by altering it did it fall under this definition, for the rest of it, is it then falling under this definition?

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. Again, I'm not clear on the nuance there with original versus....

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

In terms of your talking about post-manufacturing modifications, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about that original design of the firearm.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Okay. Thank you very much.

I have a few more questions here. Actually, I have a number of them.

You mentioned “not a handgun”. Other than rifles and shotguns, are there others? Why that change? Other than rifles or shotguns, are there any guns that aren't handguns that would fall under this that didn't before, or is that just a sort of semantic change?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I believe the intent is to capture long guns.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

All long guns...? Okay. All right. Whereas you feel that “shotguns and rifles” before didn't capture all of them, can you list a type of long gun that wouldn't have been captured under “rifle and shotgun”? Can you provide one right now?

[Phaedra Glushek]

Hi. I just wanted to bring a bit of additional clarification.

In the French version, it was “fusil de chasse”. That was causing some confusion. In order to clarify and simplify the definition, I understand that we used “a firearm other than a handgun” to clarify that it does not include shotguns and that each of these firearms has to meet the defining criteria.

Again, the definition is prospective in nature. If new firearms come on the market, they would have to be assessed against that definition in the future of determining whether or not it would fall under the prohibition.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Okay. I'm going to loop in this secondary clause that's within this—at least it's in the slide deck. I'm going to read from what it was. I think it's the same in the legislation, but this language.... Maybe you can correct me. It says that this is specifically a technical definition that would cover firearms designed and manufactured after this bill comes into force. It would not affect the classification of existing firearms in the Canadian market.

I am not quite understanding what that means. Let's say I have one of these firearms that falls under this definition. I'm still allowed to own it, use it, sell it or pass it down to my kids—whatever—when this bill passes if this definition passes with it. Is that correct?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Yes.