The second thing that I'd like to talk about is the possibility that a firearm may be used with a magazine able to hold six cartridges or more, keeping in mind the original magazine design and therefore the manufacturer's intent before the firearm was launched on the market.
Here is the recommendation from the Mass Casualty Commission that reviewed the events in Nova Scotia.
The federal government should amend the Criminal Code to prohibit all semi-automatic handguns and all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that discharge centrefire ammunition and are designed to accept detachable magazines with capacities of more than five rounds.
The definition suggested by the government is similar, but there's still a sizeable difference: it does not at all mention the possibility of a firearm being used with a magazine of six cartridges or more, but rather stresses the original design. As I stated earlier, and as Mr. Motz also indicated, at the end of the day, a semi‑automatic firearm's magazine capacity when the firearm is launched onto the market in Canada could become the deciding factor as to its legality or not, rather than the actual magazines that can be used with it.
A firearm originally sold with a 10‑cartridge magazine in the United States would be illegal in Canada, even if the magazine only held five cartridges. If the situation were reversed, however, that firearm would be legal in Canada. Even if the firearm was originally sold in the United States with a five cartridge magazine, and then a few weeks later the manufacturer put out a 30-cartridge magazine, and that firearm was then sold in Canada with a five cartridge magazine, the original design would indicate that it was a magazine holding five cartridges, regardless if lots of 30‑cartridge magazines were being sold south of the border.
Obviously, we have to keep in mind that the government's proposed definition does not apply to firearms currently being sold, but rather to future models, as Ms. Paquette has said. There would be absolutely no impact on existing firearms, whatever definition we choose. I don't know if our Conservative colleagues will pursue the same line of questioning, but Ms. Dancho did ask such a question at our previous meeting. The way I understand the definition is that the Lee‑Enfield rifle would not be included, because it currently exists and the definition will only apply to future models.
The argument that we have heard not to justify using the definition proposed by the Mass Casualty Commission is that if a magazine with a higher capacity were to be sold by a third party, i.e., someone other than the original manufacturer, it could be prohibited retroactively. But it's not true. From what we understand, the RCMP does not review the classification of a firearm unless there are legislative or regulatory changes. So that argument does not hold water.
Let's go back to the definition proposed by the commission, which seeks to prohibit firearms based on the possibility that they can be used with a large-capacity magazine, rather than the initial capacity intended by the manufacturer when the firearm is introduced to the market. Would such a definition really halt the flow of semi‑automatic firearms into Canada? We don't think so, because many semi‑automatic centre-fire guns with detachable magazines have already been designed so as not to be used with large-capacity magazines.
Let me give you a concrete example. I will try to describe the firearm. I do have an image before me, but I am unfortunately not able to use a visual aid. It is the Browning BAR Mark III rifle, a firearm that is legal in Canada right now. Obviously, the definition proposed by the government would not apply to this firearm, because the definition will be used going forward, but I am giving it as an example were there to be a similar model in the future. This semi‑automatic hunting rifle has a detachable magazine that can contain three or four cartridges, depending on the calibre used, either a .300 Winchester Magnum or a .308 Winchester, but it has not been designed to be used with a large-capacity magazine. The magazine housing is closed by a lip that keeps the magazine in place and there is no extrusion in the lip that would allow a large-capacity magazine to be used. In other terms, it would be physically impossible to use a large-capacity magazine without altering the firearm.
In this case, it is completely unreasonable to think that the manufacturer would sell larger capacity magazines for this model. If the manufacturer wanted to sell a larger capacity model in another country, it would design another model with specifications that would be slightly different for the magazine housing. That is precisely what Browning did in the United States by introducing a detachable magazine for the same firearm so that it could be used with a 10‑cartridge magazine.
In other words, according to the definition proposed by the Mass Casualty Commission, if the firearm was first marketed in Canada with a five‑cartridge magazine, the American version would be reviewed separately by the RCMP and would have its own number, because it wouldn't be the same model. In the case of the definition proposed by the government, the firearm would be allowed if and only if the original magazine did not take more than five cartridges. However, with the definition that I am referring to, the definition proposed by the commission, the firearm could not be sold in Canada because there would be no design constraints to prevent the use of a larger capacity magazine. I think that this is an important distinction because we are still talking about future models.
Now let's forget the American model and go back to the model which is sold in Canada, the BAR Mark III rifle with a three or four cartridge detachable magazine.
Only third‑party businesses could possibly manufacture alternative larger capacity magazines. There again, the firearm would have to be altered in order to be used with such magazines. There is therefore a far lower risk that such large-capacity magazines would be manufactured south of the border for this type of firearm. In other words, by replacing the expression “was originally designed” by “is designed to accept”, this firearm would be legal and it would be very unlikely that such large-capacity magazines would be manufactured south of the border.
The government argues that if such a larger capacity magazine was to appear on the market, it will retroactively prohibit this type of firearm. My response is that the RCMP will not review a firearm unless changes are made to legislation. I don't think you can argue that we have to consider possible negative impacts not foreseen by users or manufacturers, because that is simply not the way the classification system works.
I therefore come back to the recommendation made by the Mass Casualty Commission, which is to prohibit the possibility that a firearm can be used with a large-capacity magazine. This is contrary to what the government is proposing, i.e., concentrating on the original intent of the manufacturer. In other words, we are talking about a physical limitation baked into the firearm, as opposed to an intent, which can only be proved if you look at the chronological order in which magazines for that firearm are sold on various markets.
Let's put pressure on the manufacturers so that they obey the law, rather than open the door to potential loopholes.
That is why I am going to submit a subamendment to the government's G‑3.2 amendment. The clerk already has copies of the subamendment to distribute to all my colleagues. I hope that my colleagues will support it. I think that it will improve the bill and it will assuage the concerns expressed to us by the survivors of the far too many massacres that have taken place in Canada.
I can read out the subamendment or wait until everyone has a copy.
