Public Safety Committee on May 2nd, 2023

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

My internet connection is strong again, so it should be okay. I'm using that updated headset.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Are there no blizzards in Manitoba today?

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

It's a sunny, beautiful day. I wish I were outside, actually.

How is that now? Is that better?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I think it's good, so let's carry on.

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

Okay. Here is my question. I'm not clear if I'm understanding this definition fully because, when the minister was announcing this yesterday, he did mention large-capacity magazines.

I'm just wondering if this is somewhere in this definition and, just to be clear, in what was provided to MPs, the media and the others: that he will require the permanent alteration of long-gun magazines so that they can never hold more than five rounds and ban the sale or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than the legal number of bullets.

Is that in this somewhere? Where is that mentioned in these amendments, or will it be in future ones that we can't talk about yet? Can I have an answer on that?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Thank you.

That part of the minister's announcement—and I would refer you back to the news release—is outside of the bill. These are other measures that the government intends to bring forward, and that's outside of the scope of this bill.

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

Okay, so that doesn't fall under this definition then. However, if we're talking about permanently altering magazines, which is the language used, that exists right now for five rounds. Magazines have to be pinned, so to speak, at five rounds, and the language used right now in legislation is “permanently altered”.

Can you tell us if that's different now because of this in regulation?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Again, this is outside the scope of this bill. I would just refer you to the minister's announcement.

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

Okay. The reason I ask is that it was announced when he was talking about Bill C-21, so he was announcing that there's a new definition and no list, and he was also announcing this. I'm getting a lot of questions about this.

I believe that the officials at the table right now are those who would be supporting those new regulations regarding magazine capacity. Can we have answers on those specifics? How do we get answers on what that means? It is all involved in this conversation as per the minister's announcement, and it's not clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I would suggest that perhaps the officials might not be able to speak to what might be forthcoming in other matters. I don't know, but it's kind of out of the scope of this amendment in any event. The officials may answer if they wish.

Go ahead.

[Phaedra Glushek]

With regard to the regulations that are within the Criminal Code, we cannot speculate on timing or what would be included, but as my colleague has said, we can refer to both the Minister of Public Safety's news release yesterday, as well as the government's commitments to permanently alter large-capacity magazines.

That's about all we would be able to provide to the committee today.

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

Does that include tubular magazines when he says that?

[Phaedra Glushek]

I have the wording of the commitment before me, if you would like me to read it. The mandate commitment is “Requiring the permanent alteration of long-gun magazines so they can never hold more than five rounds”, and “Banning the sale or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than the legal number of bullets”.

Those were the commitments made by the government on December 16, 2021, with respect to large-capacity magazines. Again, anything in future regulations would be confidential. We don't have any information about the timing and the scope of those regulations at this time.

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

I will move on to other questions. I just have serious concerns, Mr. Chair, regarding this, because if it includes tubular magazines that includes things like the Winchester lever action, which is a very old wood stock classic gun used by farmers and hunters that very much is Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle. The Lee–Enfield gun is also Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle. I'm just very concerned that we don't have clarity on this. He announced it within the scope of the Bill C-21 amendments. If we can't get more clarity, I'm very concerned that we're not going to be able to answer the many questions we're receiving. Lots of people have tubular magazine long guns, and the Lee-Enfield is about as ubiquitous as the SKS.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I would suggest that these concerns are, while valid, beyond the scope of this amendment. This is strictly a definition. It doesn't relate to magazines. Really, it doesn't relate to any existing firearm. That's what we've heard.

Carry on if you wish.

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

I would just ask perhaps Ms. Damoff as parliamentary secretary—we talked about this offside—if the government would consider a technical briefing on that specifically, because there are a tremendous number of questions from industry and firearm owners about this. It is a growing concern. Perhaps we can have that conversation offside.

That's all for me for now, but I may have more, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

We go now to Mr. Ruff, followed by Mr. Julian and Mr. Motz.

Mr. Ruff, go ahead, please.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I have a couple of things more for the parliamentary secretary.

In your opening remarks you made a couple of caveats or comments that the majority of Canadians support this definition. You talked about the consultation process. There are really two questions. How do you know this? Do you have any data or evidence that the majority of Canadians...? Could we get that tabled here so we understand where that evidence is?

Again, I did ask the minister privately in a one-on-one last Friday, I believe it was, when I was here at committee...because on the consultation process that he's taken since the previous G-4 was tabled, he said he went wide and across the country. Could we get the government to provide the committee with a list of where he went and who he saw? I'm not aware of his having visited one Conservative riding.

Again, I don't want to be partisan here. I'm just trying to understand if we're getting consultations that are only impacting some Canadians. That's my first question for the parliamentary secretary, which is tied to the logic behind this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Members of the committee aren't here to answer questions. Ask her if she wishes to answer, but you might want to ask the officials these questions.

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

I could ask the officials if they have the information if she doesn't want to answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

She may answer if she wishes.

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

It's a straightforward question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's not the role of the members of the committee to provide evidence to the committee.

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

I'll ask the officials maybe with the Department of Public Safety or with the firearms program, because obviously that's where some of this was built from. Do we have a list of all of the different places the minister went and who he consulted with over the last number of months?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I would invite you to pose that question to the minister.