Public Safety Committee on May 4th, 2023

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

That wasn't my point.

[Rob Daly]

I know, but the reality—

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

It's a little more substantive than that.

[Rob Daly]

It has to be a material change—

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

Okay, just so I'm clear, if the Remington 800 that is currently being thought up, drafted and designed gets its patent and comes to the market two years after this becomes law, accepts a Remington 750 magazine or any magazine that worked in a Remington 750 and any magazine that worked in a Remington 7400 or any magazine that worked in a Remington 742, it would meet the test in subparagraph (ii). Would you agree?

[Rob Daly]

Sorry, could you repeat that? It would meet the test of...?

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

Remington manufactures a four-shot, a 10-shot and a 20-shot magazine, even though the four-shot magazine is the only one legal in Canada. If Remington produces a model 800 semi-automatic that accepts all magazines from the 750, 7400 and 742 platforms that Remington has made—the four-, 10- and 20-shot magazines—would test number (ii) be met? The Remington 800 is, however minor the modifications might be, a new model of the Remington semi-automatic platform, and I know you're saying that it has to be a substantive enough change, but that's a subjective decision that is made by somebody, and we don't necessarily know who those folks are.

In theory, I'm reading (ii) as meaning that a Remington 800 semi-automatic 30-06, for example, which could accept a 10-shot 30-06 magazine even though it's not legal in Canada, for the purpose of the law, meets the test.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. It's unfair to ask officials to make a future determination on a firearm. The officials have answered as best they can, and now they're being asked to determine the eligibility of something that is complete speculation. It's putting them in a very difficult position to be able to say one way or the other when there's nothing in front of them. They've been clear about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for the intervention. I think Mr. Calkins is trying to delve into the particulars of the definition, and I recognize that it's very difficult.

I think we have a couple of different questions, if I may incorporate them into your questions. There's the consequence of a derivative design. Second, if that derivative design is capable of accepting multiple cartridges, what is the circumstance? Would that be a fair summary?

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

Yes. Thank you, Chair. Your language is very articulate.

I just want to be clear that I'm not trying to put anybody here in an unfair.... I'm not being hostile in any way, shape or form. I'm trying to take comfort in the fact that if the derivative of, say, the 800...because we have history with that particular firearms manufacturer. We have the 742 and the changes to the 7400. We have the changes from the 7400 to the 750. Remington has not reinvented the wheel; let's be honest.

That's why I pursued that line of questioning as our hypothetical example. I understand, but I have to predict what this law is going to do in the future. It's my job as a parliamentarian to know how changing the law affects the future, so I have to ask hypothetical questions. I think I'm being as fair and reasonable as possible.

I actually believe that if Remington came out with an 800 model that had as minor changes to it as the 750 did compared with the 7400, because Remington originally designed cartridge magazines with 10 and 20 rounds in it, test (ii) would be met. However, it has to meet all three, right? We already know that it meets test (i), because it “discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner”.

We all agree that it meets test (i), and I think it meets test (ii), so the only hope for Remington, then, to get the Remington 800 on the marketplace in Canada would be that it doesn't meet test (iii). If it's designed and manufactured, that model.... I think we have had this discussion about the model. If that model “is designed and manufactured on or after the day on which [the] paragraph comes into force”, and the example I gave you was that this model is designed and comes onto the marketplace after this comes into force, in my opinion you're going to have a hunting rifle that is now prohibited in Canada.

Am I missing something, or is there, Mr. Daly, some way...? It would be nonsensical to have a Remington 800 be labelled prohibited and a model 750, which is virtually identical, be legal in Canada. Are we going to have that scenario, potentially? How would the law be interpreted so that something that seemingly asinine wouldn't happen?

[Rob Daly]

I think hanging on your words of “virtually identical” is a bit of a challenge, because then I would say, if I take that at face value, that there's not a new design here, so it doesn't meet test (iii).

I think that's the best I can do in a hypothetical situation. Again, it comes back to the determination of whether or not this is actually a new design post this coming into force.

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

I don't see the word “new” anywhere in the amendment in regard to a design. Am I missing something?

[Rob Daly]

The issue in test (iii) is “originally designed”, right? I'm referring, then, to the opposite of that.

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

That's what I need to know. I need to know how the interpretation and the implementation of the interpretation will work.

[Rob Daly]

Right. If this model that you're speaking of, the 800, is virtually identical, then we would be using the original design specs—the original.

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

Okay.

Based on your experience and knowledge of how the program has been administered over the years, how significantly would the design have to change in order to be considered, then, a new design? Are there some examples? I brought up the Kel-Tec Gen 1 and the Kel-Tec Gen 2. They're virtually the same firearm. I think the way the stock works is all that really changed.

Can you give me an example? Would it have to be going from a gas-operated to a...? I don't see that as being a significant change, but maybe you do; I don't know.

[Rob Daly]

It could be that. I mean, it would have to take in a number of different criteria. I gave some examples of the mechanical operation. It could be other things. It could be the size of the change in the frame size as well, the receiver frame size. That could have an impact as well that would precipitate potentially looking at it as a new design.

It's difficult to run hypotheticals through at this level, but again, I think we've given some examples of what would precipitate our looking at this as a new design. It would also be how the manufacturers are pushing out the material in their literature and how they are describing this firearm.

I think a combination of several features and factors will go into making that determination. I can't give you just one specific feature and say that as long as they meet that, then they're in or they're out.

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

Would it normally be either the manufacturer or the importer that would send you a firearms reference table or apply for a firearms reference table ruling on the classification? Is that how that works?

[Rob Daly]

Or a design, yes...we would follow up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

We go now to Mr. Julian.

Go ahead, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

We're now coming up to four hours on this amendment.

I'll flag two things.

I've already mentioned the incredible length of time it will take to get through clause-by-clause on this schedule. I note that I proposed a pathway the Conservatives have rejected, which was to request additional committee time next week—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd, on a point of order.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

It isn't on the subject of the amendments. This is on the subject of his unanimous consent motion.

I think he should get back to the topic at hand.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for your intervention.

I think it's certainly pertinent to committee business. I think he's moving along into the amendment itself.