Public Safety Committee on May 4th, 2023

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

I would like to thank Mr. Lloyd for his question.

I would just remind him that the definition is prospective. It is therefore false to say that it will lead to the prohibition of hunting rifles, because it will apply to firearms that don't yet exist.

I would also remind him that this is the definition proposed by the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission. This commission has done tremendous work and we have every reason to believe that its proposals are sound.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, all.

There being no further speakers, we'll vote on the subamendment.

(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will carry on with the debate on the main amendment.

I think Mr. Calkins is on that list—I'm trying to maintain a bit of.... Then we have Mr. Julian.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now that we have the subamendment question resolved, I still have some questions. I'm hoping the committee and witnesses will grant me some latitude, because I wasn't here for the previous discussion on this amendment. From what I see here, I have some questions. I am a gun owner. I have trust issues, as a gun owner, frankly, with a process that provides a definition yet still provides another way to circumvent the definition.

If I read this amendment correctly in the context of the current law, it simply adds the paragraph, after paragraph (d) in the Criminal Code, in the definition of a “prohibited firearm” and the one paragraph that would be before it. Paragraph (d) says, “any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm”. That's the other process.

Notwithstanding all the discussion we're having about paragraph (e) being added to the “prohibited firearm” definition in the Criminal Code under subsection 84(1), there is still an ad hoc way to declare a firearm, whether it meets or doesn't meet the definition we're debating today, as a prohibited firearm, as has always been the case. I think that's what genuinely frustrates law-abiding firearm owners. It's a “stroke of a pen” method somebody somewhere can use arbitrarily...that other process.

I'm putting on the record, as a gun owner, that I am genuinely frustrated that we're spending so much time discussing a definition for which there is a process to completely circumvent the definition. That's why I don't have any trust. Even if we come to a general consensus on this definition, this isn't the only way in which I can, as a purchaser, an owner, anybody who is a business owner or manufacturer.... There is no way of knowing, by reading the law—if this amendment is passed into it—whether or not a long gun will still be prohibited, restricted or otherwise.... It is frustrating to me.

I have some questions, because it deals with Remington firearms. I'll just use them as an example. Remington is getting back into business. They've made the 742, the 7400 and the 750. For the people here today as witnesses, you know which firearm I'm referring to, don't you? It's generally known as the Remington semi-automatic hunting line among their rifles. We all agree on that. Am I correct? Do you guys know which gun I'm talking about?

Ms. Paquette, do you understand that? Okay.

That gun has obviously been designed. It's been in use for decades. Would we generally agree with that sentiment? The 742 was replaced in production by the 7400, which was then replaced by the 750.

Generally speaking, would you agree with what I'm saying?

[Kellie Paquette]

I believe that's accurate, yes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

You would also agree that Remington designed, generally speaking, for all of those models, a four-round magazine, a 10-round magazine and a 20-round magazine. Now, only the four-round magazine is lawful in Canada, according to our laws.

Am I correct in how I'm interpreting that?

[Kellie Paquette]

Yes, but I think the definition is just one element. When they talk about the magazine capacity, it's one element to determine—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Don't.... I don't think I'm going to go where you think I'm going to go.

[Kellie Paquette]

Okay. I'm sorry.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

The magazine issue is a completely separate issue, in my opinion. Unfortunately, we don't actually have clarity, and the first thing we should be getting clarity on before we discuss any of these legislative changes is the one that actually deals with magazines. All we have right now is what we currently have in regulation, plus what the minister has said they're going to do. This means that I'm now guessing, as a parliamentarian, what that magazine legislative change or regulatory change might look like.

Remington are now getting back into the business. They've made announcements saying that they're going to create a new line of firearms. Hypothetically speaking, I'm assuming they're not going to reinvent the wheel. Let's say they create a model 800, with small design changes. It's not the 742, it's not the 7400 and it's not the 750. Let's just give it a number; let's say it's the 800, a semi-automatic rifle. They're going to manufacture a four-round magazine, a 10-round magazine and a 20-round magazine and introduce it to the marketplace.

I'd like your interpretation of this piece of legislation, if it came to pass into law, for a Remington 800, if that's what they decide to call it, designed and manufactured after this becomes law, if they come to the marketplace with that and they get the patent after this becomes law. That Remington 800 now comes with a four-shot magazine, a 10-shot magazine and a 20-shot magazine, because it will probably be interoperable on the platforms, as almost the whole 700 platform is. What would be your interpretation? Would it be your advice and recommendation, to either an order in council or whatever the process may be, that this firearm, the Remington 800, be prohibited?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I don't think the witnesses can speak to their advice, but they can give you answers to your questions about their interpretation.

[Kellie Paquette]

That depends on the modifications of the design. That's number one; we would have to evaluate what kind of design changes are made. If it's a new model, it will be applied against the definition. However, it depends on what modifications are made to the firearm, so I really can't answer that until we know what changes are made.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Now it's not about the firearm; it's about the firearm model. Do I understand your answer correctly?

[Kellie Paquette]

I should have said “design”. That was my mistake.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

This is important for firearms owners to know. These are the questions and concerns that I have. If it were the case, in theory, that a Remington 800 semi-automatic 30-06, because of an interpretation of this clause and an interpretation of the designs.... Even though it's interoperable now, its magazines and everything are interoperable with a Remington 750, a Remington 7400 and a Remington 742. Would that put in jeopardy the firearms that are currently owned legally and would hopefully still be legal in this country? Would it put those models in jeopardy?

I have had numerous Chevy pickup trucks. They're all 2500s and they're all Duramaxes, and they're all different over time. This is just a different form of the same thing; this is what I'm trying to get at. If the new form of the same thing is prohibited, then I can reasonably presume that the old form of the same thing will be prohibited. Am I wrong?

[Paula Clarke, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Hi. I just want to recap to make sure we're on the same page.

Your example is a new firearm that is designed in the future and produced in the future, which is capable of—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

It might be. It might be the exact same firearm, just marketed differently with a different model number. It might be the exact same thing as the last one that came out.

[Paula Clarke]

Okay. I can speak to the law, and maybe Ms. Paquette can jump in if I'm making a mistake.

The way the definition is drafted is that it's meant to capture any firearm that is capable of receiving a magazine that can hold more than the legal limit, so in this case it would be six or more. That would include a firearm that can accept a magazine that has two, four, 10 or 20. Therefore, that would be captured, according to (ii).

The third part of the definition is that all of this has to happen in the future, so it would be a new design, and then manufactured in the future.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

In your interpretation, would the Kel-Tec Sub-2000 Gen 2 be different from the Kel-Tec Sub-2000 Gen 1?

[Paula Clarke]

I don't have the technical expertise to answer that question. I would defer to the CFP for that.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Is there anybody here who is qualified to answer that question?

[Rob Daly, Director, Strategic Policy, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Maybe I'll take a shot. Can I just step back to the question?

Existing makes and models, your 700s, are not affected by this definition. They are currently in the market. They were previously designed. They were previously manufactured. They will continue to exist and not be touched by that definition. We're good on that front, are we?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I believe that's the intent, sir, yes.

[Rob Daly]

Now we move to the 800 model, and you mentioned that it's built on the same—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

It's the same function.

[Rob Daly]

If there's not a material change in the design.... Again, I'm going to be hypothetical here, but let's predicate it on the fact that it's based on how the manufacturer comes out and markets that new model. Is it defining it in any different way? Are there improvements being made? Is it really just something that is substantive or not substantive?

I'm going to give examples. The mechanical operation is changed or is not changed, or we move from a gas operated to a recoil system. There has to be some material change. This isn't impacted by a colour. Your Duramax Dodge truck that went from red to green to yellow isn't necessarily....

I'm just interpreting this as you're asking us to.