Public Safety Committee on May 2nd, 2023

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

Okay.

Is this, in essence, a grandfathering clause? Can anyone who owns these right now, or buys them up before this passes—if it does—keep them, use them accordingly and sell them?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

It's different from a grandfathering regime, where the classification of the firearm actually changes and people are therefore permitted to continue to own those firearms.

This is the classification of those firearms. It does not change. Therefore, they are allowed to use, possess, sell and transfer them with the existing classification of that firearm.

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

Okay, so it only impacts new....

When we say “designed and manufactured”, what if someone is manufacturing an old design? If they newly mint a gun that otherwise falls under this definition, but it's not a new design because there are, obviously, many firearms that have....

Go ahead.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Think of it a bit like car manufacturing. Pick your favourite car, truck or vehicle manufacturer. They're manufacturing an old design. That's not captured.

What we're talking about are new designs and manufacturing.

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

Okay. If I'm a car company—I know this isn't what car companies do—I can design a 2019 Jetta and sell it in 2023, but it's technically the 2019 model. Am I still allowed to do that, as long as it's not changed in any way? It's the exact same model as it was five years ago.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

That would be the government's interpretation, yes.

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

Okay. It has to be newly designed and newly minted. Otherwise, firearms that fall under this definition will continue to be.... You could buy one brand new, as long as it's not a new design.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

That's correct.

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

Okay.

I have more questions, but I know others do as well, so we can go to the next speaker for now, Mr. Chair. I will have follow-up questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I feel there will be ample time for you to ask these questions.

We go next to Madam Michaud, followed by Mr. Motz and Ms. Damoff.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Damoff, thank you for introducing another amendment that I think is better than amendment G‑4, which preceded it. Obviously, it's not perfect, but I don't think we'll ever get a perfect definition of what constitutes a prohibited firearm.

However, I do have a comment about the term “fusil de chasse”, something we just discussed. I'm very glad we were able to remove it from the amendment. I feel it was confusing to folks who thought that a wit'seapon they were hunting with was directly targeted. It's the same thing with the list of firearms they had tried to put into Criminal Code: I feel it's a good thing that was taken out.

I also note that item (e) of amendment G‑4 was removed from the definition of what constitutes a “prohibited firearm”, which stated “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,”. Item (f), which stated “a firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater, other than a firearm designed exclusively for neutralizing explosive devices,” has also been removed.

Can the officials please explain to me why this language was removed and if it will make a difference to manufacturers when they design their future models?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Thank you for the question.

The 10 000 Joules criterion still exists today. It was included in the order issued on May 1, 2020. It's one of the criteria established by regulation and so it still exists today. It hasn't been subject to any changes.

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

Thank you.

I also have a question about item (ii) of amendment G‑3.2, which talks about a firearm that “was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more”.

We're concerned about this item, and that we fear it could be easily circumvented by manufacturers. For example, a manufacturer could put a gun on the Canadian market with a magazine that would effectively be limited to five rounds. However, nothing would prevent the manufacturer from marketing the same weapon in the United States, where this can be done, and equipping it with a high-capacity magazine, such as 30 cartridges. It would then be easy to illegally obtain these high-capacity magazines on the black market and use them in Canada on a firearm that is now legal here.

Therefore, I was wondering if inserting “originally designed” into the definition might give manufacturers an opportunity to circumvent the requirement specified in the definition. Would it not be better to say “able to hold a cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more”? I don't know if my question is clear to you.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

The government intended to target weapons based on the type of magazine for which they were originally designed. As to the wording, it's up to the committee. I would also note that high-capacity magazines are illegal in Canada.

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

I'm with you on the illegality of high-capacity magazines, but there are still magazines that have had a rivet put on them to reduce the capacity from 30 rounds to five rounds, for example, which is still legal.

The government says it relied on the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission's recommendation for this definition, saying that theirs is virtually the same. I note a rather significant difference, however, in that the commission's proposed definition does not include “originally designed”.

Would including “originally designed” have a significant effect on enforcement? If removed, will it make a difference to manufacturers when they are required to comply with this definition?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

From our perspective, it's important to go by the manufacturer's intent when the firearm was originally designed. My colleague Ms. Paquette may want to add something.

[Kellie Paquette]

Thank you for the question.

Except for the prospective aspect, my understanding is that the intent of the new definition is that it would capture the same types of firearms that were in the original definition. As for the magazines, this is one element of the definition, so it can't stand alone. It's used to identify what a manufacturer is making. In looking at the magazines as a stand-alone, there are many firearms that can accept many magazines.

This is just one element to help identify a certain type of firearm.

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

I will stop my questions here for now, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Motz, followed by Ms. Damoff and Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Motz, go ahead.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate the responses.

I want to clarify a couple of things I've heard to date, to make sure that we're up to speed. One is that this new definition applies only to firearms that are going to be manufactured after Bill C-21 passes. Should Bill C-21 pass and receive royal assent, it then becomes anything manufactured after that. Is that correct?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

It would be after the paragraph comes into force.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

It's after the paragraph comes into force.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

That's right.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

When is the paragraph going to come into force?

[Phaedra Glushek]

At royal assent.