Public Safety Committee on April 23rd, 2015

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I'm just curious.

Again, I have my business mind going here.

[Lyndon Murdock]

This is an approximation, but in terms of both new licensees and renewals, you're looking at probably about 280,000.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

How much would it cost for the course? You mentioned it earlier.

[Kathy Thompson]

It's up to $300 for the basic course. If you are applying to acquire a restricted licence, you also need to take the restricted course.

In total for those two courses, it can be up to $300. It generally varies from $80 to $120 per province or territory.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

With respect to the authorization to transport, when it's applied for and granted, who is in possession of that information?

I'm getting mixed messages. The opposition seems to think that the information is accessible to police, but my understanding from speaking to front-line officers is that it's not. That information is not logged into CPIC or CFRO or any other police database, but rather remains with the chief firearms officer for that province.

Is that correct?

[Lyndon Murdock]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

With respect to how it works currently, that information is not available to law enforcement. The authorization to transport is a separate paper document that an individual is required to carry with them.

Under Bill C-42, that information will be automated. It will be attached as a condition to the licence. That information will be in the Canadian firearms information system, CFIS, and by extension available to law enforcement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hayes.

Madame Michaud.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee today.

I apologize in advance if I do not discuss some of the topics which were raised. Unfortunately I have not had the pleasure of hearing all of the interventions made by my colleagues.

My first question concerns the consultation process led by the Minister upstream from the tabling of the bill. You mentioned that the minister had held consultations. Could you give us further details on how the participants were chosen? Who was consulted exactly? I am curious to know how these people were selected.

[Kathy Thompson]

This morning the minister briefly spoke about the consultation process and the round tables he took part in. He said that he had participated in round tables with law enforcement organization representatives, representatives of aboriginal communities and other concerned Canadian citizens. There is also a citizens' committee that advises him on firearms.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

In fact, I am less curious about the composition. I would prefer to find out how the citizens concerned were chosen.

[Kathy Thompson]

Unfortunately I do not have that information in hand. So I cannot tell you how people were chosen.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

That is a great pity.

I will move on to another topic. Some people have expressed concern about the provision in the bill that restricts the powers of provincial chief firearms officers. In particular, certain members of the Quebec legislature, among them the premier, made recommendations. The same is true of firearms control organizations.

I would like to hear more detail on the type of limits that will be included in Bill C-42. To what extent do the changes in the bill threaten to change the role of chief firearms officers in the provinces and territories?

[Kathy Thompson]

Bill C-42 does not contain any provision to limit the power of chief firearms officers. The bill simply entitles the Government of Canada to limit those powers through regulation, if need be. That is all. The government is giving itself the power to ensure that the national program will continue to be a national program. If need be it can bring in regulations. However, no such measure is currently included in the bill.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

If I understand correctly, these changes would be made at the discretion of the minister.

[Kathy Thompson]

Yes, because there would be a regulation. A request would have to be prepared for the government.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Fine.

You tell me that the purpose is to ensure that there is uniformity throughout the country. There is a risk in limiting the discretionary power the chief firearms officers need in order to deal with provincial differences. I live in a rural region where there are certain specificities, and the same can be said about the North to a large extent. I wonder what the impact of this provision could be on the discretionary power the provincial chief firearms officers need.

[Kathy Thompson]

As I already mentioned, there is nothing in the bill in that regard. This is simply a power the government is giving itself to ensure that there will be a certain uniformity, if it needs that power. The federal government recognizes that for the firearms officers there are variations among the regions, and that is part of the program. The purpose is not to limit the discretionary power of chief firearms officers, but simply to be able to, if need be, ensure the uniform application of some measures. There is nothing in the bill in that regard for the moment. And so it is difficult for me to comment on how the chief firearms officers' power could be affected.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Before making a change, is there an obligation to consult provincial or other governments?

[Kathy Thompson]

Yes, because the change would be preceded by a request and regulations, which would then be posted for consultation and comments for a certain period of time, sometimes 30 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Leef, for five minutes, please.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the officials, thank you for your attendance and participation today.

We hear a bit of misinformation in the House, and then we see it a bit here in committee. It's not really a surprise, because when I look to the opposition, very few of them are gun owners or actually understand the activity of hunting.

A piece of this came out again today. The term “firearm” is being used interchangeably now across all classifications of firearms. Indeed, there are prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted firearms. When we hear questions pertaining to ATTs, and the transport of restricted firearms for the purpose of hunting, particularly from American citizens entering this country, or even presenting yourself to a point of entry, in fact the provinces in this country don't allow hunting with restricted weapons. That's a provincial regulation. But it's an important distinction, because if we're asking questions around American hunters arriving at a point of entry to Canada and wanting to enter our country with firearms, they are by and large doing that with non-restricted weapons for the purpose of hunting, at which point they have always received, and will continue to, a permit designating for what purpose and what time length they can enter our country.

Has any of that changed?

[Lyndon Murdock]

Thank you for the question.

No. Nothing is changing, as a result of Bill C-42, with respect to the process that you've just accurately alluded to.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

I'm going to talk about restricted firearms in a minute. I'm glad we were able to clarify that piece and a few other things. I was particularly pleased that we were able to clarify for Mr. Casey that the Interpretation Act, in section 35 and subsection 8(1), clearly defines what a province is, including the territories, and that we're clearly aligning ourselves with the whole of Canada and not parts thereof in this legislation.

I'll clarify one more thing for him as well. Perhaps it was because of the decision of his Liberal colleague in the Yukon that I am sitting in this House, because he committed to voting to get rid of long-gun registry and didn't do that. Of course, the Yukon remembers that commitment and that failure to retain that promise. They will also remember exactly what the Liberals are doing right now by fundraising and telling Canadians, through fearmongering advertisements, that this legislation will make it easier for Canadians to buy automatic firearms.

I will ask you a very pointed question: does any specific provision in this bill make automatic firearms more easily available to Canadians?

[Kathy Thompson]

No.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Yet we see advertisements about restricted firearms by the Liberal Party to try to garner funds across this country by suggesting that Canadians will have unfettered access to be able to purchase restricted and prohibited weapons, take them to shopping malls, take them to grocery stores, and take them to sports arenas. I think it's unfortunate that's continuing now. I thank you for that point of clarification.

Moving on to some more interesting things that some of the members in the opposition are saying, I see that the Toronto MP Adam Vaughan said there's no hunting being done in Toronto. He makes some remarks about having big racoons in Toronto, but says that the ATT is going to make it a lot easier to move firearms all around the city of Toronto wherever and however they want. I know you've spoken to it again, but I think it's important for the record. Can you clarify, will Bill C-42 allow anybody to travel wherever and whenever they want with a restricted firearm in their vehicle in the community of Toronto?