Public Safety Committee on May 2nd, 2023

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

Thank you. I thought I was losing my mind there for a second. I'm sorry. It's possible, but....

The other thing you mentioned.... Again, I'm still trying to understand. I guess my mind is going back to existing firearms on the original design and your definition with “original design”, which goes to new firearms.

I think, Ms. Paquette, as you just indicated, there are many firearms that are manufactured—both that have been for decades and that could be again in the future—that have the ability to receive different sizes of magazines over the capacity that's legal in Canada. Is that correct?

[Kellie Paquette]

Yes.

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

Okay.

If I'm projecting forward then, we know that a magazine capacity of five for these types of firearms.... Anything over that is prohibited in this country already. Is that correct?

[Kellie Paquette]

Yes.

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

What we're saying, then, is if there's any firearm that's manufactured after this paragraph receives royal assent, that firearm should not be capable of receiving a magazine larger than five. Is that what you're saying?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

There's a difference between the design of the firearm and of the magazine. You have to consider separately those two different concepts in terms of the capacity of the magazine and how you can convert it, according to Canadian regulations, and then the firearm in terms of the design and what it's willing to accept. Those are two separate concepts under the Canadian Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

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

I'm very aware of that, but I guess what I'm looking for is just clarity. Right now in Canada our law allows centrefire long rifles. What we're talking about here is a firearm that is charged with centrefire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner. We're talking about hunting rifles and shotguns. When you're looking at this design, currently you have firearms that are hunting rifles and shotguns that are centrefire and that accept a magazine that is five rounds and can accept a magazine larger than that.

However, we all know that anything larger than that is illegal and that the magazine is prohibited. That device is prohibited. We're basically back to exactly what we have today, that a firearm originally designed with an attachment magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more will be prohibited, which is what we have today.

[Kellie Paquette]

Just to add a little bit of clarity, the original design is really looking at the specifications of that firearm. Within those original specifications of the firearm, the manufacturer or the designer will indicate the intent and what magazines are intended for that firearm. They could identify a two and a four. They could identify many. Sometimes they will identify one. That doesn't mean there are no other cartridges for that firearm. This element of the definition is really to look at the intent of the manufacturing of that firearm.

In that specification, was it specified for a 20-round? Regardless of whether it could take a two or a four, what was the intent of the specifications? That's my understanding of the fourth element in that definition.

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

I appreciate that response.

To those of you who are legal counsel and who helped write this legislation, is there a way that this could be written to make it any clearer or any cleaner?

[Phaedra Glushek]

There are various ways of drafting legislation. We're not the drafters of the legislation. We are in the room and we give instructions, but to say it should or should not be a different way is speculation. We can't answer that.

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

I appreciate the response, but that's not really what I was asking. I'm asking whether this is going to be a point of confusion for manufacturers potentially—I don't know if it will or not—or firearm owners, because it doesn't apply to firearms that exist on the market today and that are in the possession of lawful gun owners today. It applies to only those that will be manufactured at some point down the road, which Canadians would buy.

Again, it may be a question that doesn't really have any impact, but I'm still curious and I want to ensure that the specifications you refer to here are not confusing and that they don't cause, as some of my colleagues around the table have suggested, the manufacturers to perhaps be prone—and I disagree with the assertion—to potentially circumventing the law and the rules around the manufacture of firearms.

Are you comfortable that this definition will clarify any confusion that the manufacturers would have?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

The drafting of the provision meets the government's intent in what is proposed in the parliamentary legislative process to members of this committee and to Parliament.

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

Fair enough.

I have just a couple more questions. Again, to review, this does not apply to bolt action or lever action. It's only semi-automatic. It's new designs, new manufacture after this is passed. It does not include any hunting rifle or shotgun that currently exists on the market today save, I suspect, all of the guns—the 1,500 or 2,000—that are listed in the order in council of May of 2020. Is that correct?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

All of your questions with regard to.... I'll stop all of the ones before the May 2020 OIC, so yes, yes, yes.

With regard to the May 2020 OIC, there is no change whatsoever that is going to be impacted by this definition. In fact, anything that is on the market today that would meet this definition is not impacted by this definition. There is no change of classification proposed as the result of this definition.

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

I appreciate that answer. I'm asking probably an obvious question. Does the order in council stand as is?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Yes.

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

Those are all of my questions for now, Chair. I reserve the right to come back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

It will be Ms. Damoff, followed by Mr. Shipley, followed by Ms. Dancho again.

Ms. Damoff, please go ahead.

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

I don't need to ask it now, Chair. It was about the order in council, and Mr. Motz asked it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Very well.

We'll go now to Mr. Shipley.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to everyone for being back here again. We're talking about Bill C-21. What a pleasure.

I have to start off by making some comments about my colleague across the table Ms. Damoff's opening remarks.

Ms. Damoff, we've had a nice working relationship I believe up until now. I don't think I'm an ultrapartisan guy, but some of your remarks quite frankly use a bad analogy. You kind of took a fully automatic weapon and mowed us all down with your opening remarks about all of your Conservative colleagues across the table spreading misinformation. I take offence to that.

[An. hon. member]

It's disinformation.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Disinformation, dismiss—all you guys ever use are those two words.

I've mentioned it many times. If you could show me an example of when I've even spoke about this since you brought out these new amendments, we can have that discussion. I haven't, so you can't blanket everyone.... I'm not sure what my colleagues have said or not said, and I don't think we've all said misinformation or disinformation.

We're starting off today and we have a lot of long work ahead of us, and to have the very opening remarks be so partisan, I find that a little bit objectionable, Ms. Damoff. I don't think that was a really great way to start the tone as to where we're heading on this. I just wanted to clear that up.

You mentioned that you've been on this committee since 2015 and how your residents have called on you to enforce stricter.... I don't want to paraphrase you, but I think you said stricter gun legislation. It's your party that's been in power for eight years. You've had eight years to correct things. I'm hearing day in and day out, not just from my residents, that things have gotten a lot worse in eight years. Now to sit here today and make it sound like you've done so much over eight years.... It's gotten worse across Canada, as far as I'm concerned, and the stats I think go to show that.

I'm sorry to have to start off making this about you and me having a discussion, but you kind of started it, Ms. Damoff. I took offence to some of your comments, and I wanted to feel a little better by getting it off my chest.

What I really want to talk about with this new amendment is the fact that I hope we can all agree that the original G-4 was a problem. It was probably written poorly and caused some issues. I know there's been a lot of time for your party to go back...and there were some consultations done by your minister. I'm sure you guys have had lots of meetings about this. To now see this new clause that's come out.... Quite frankly, it's just so vague. It's so poorly written.

On proposed subparagraph (ii) specifically—from someone who has been in design of product for over 25 years—to word something that says “was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more” is so vague that you could drive a dump truck through that wording. You've had this long to come up with what you are really trying to do, and that's the best wording?

Some of my other colleagues have mentioned it too. It doesn't even make sense. I mean, “originally” what? Is that from a CAD design? Is that from when someone originally started the first plans? It's just vague. It really doesn't make any sense.

I guess I could ask the staff who are here today.... My colleague Mr. Motz touched on most of the questions I had about that second one.

I have no idea what “originally designed” means. That could mean just about anything. Does anybody want to jump in here and tell me how they can possibly say what “originally designed” means?

[Kellie Paquette]

I think the intent of using “originally designed” is so that it doesn't capture the aftermarket magazine. There could be firearms that were not originally designed with a certain magazine, but then there could be a magazine that comes out in future years that also fits that firearm or that is made for that firearm. The word “originally” is so that you don't start capturing those aftermarket magazines.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I agree, but again, I'm not here to nitpick this apart, because I don't want to do the job for the government and correct their legislation on this one. However, on “originally designed”, you could have two sets of CAD designs going through an operation at the same time. One is dated five minutes before the other one, and that's the original design. It just doesn't make sense. That's what I'm trying to say. I understand what you're saying about the aftermarket, but on “originally design”, five minutes later is not the original design. It's the new design.

I'll leave it at that for now. Some of my colleagues have some comments. We'll see where this goes.

Thank you, Chair.