Public Safety Committee on April 23rd, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 64 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Today, of course, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 20, we are starting our study of Bill C-42.

With us for the first hour today we have the Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Welcome, Minister.

We also have accompanying him, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Kathy Thompson, assistant deputy minister, the community safety and countering crime branch. We also have with us Lyndon Murdock, the director of firearms and operational policing policy.

Welcome to all.

To our committee, might I first offer the chair's apology? If this early meeting has inconvenienced anyone, it was not the intention of the chair. I do apologize if that is the case. The minister will be called away early for cabinet purposes, so we are starting 15 minutes early to have the full time with the minister. Without any further delay, we will go ahead and get this meeting started.

Minister Blaney, you have the floor, sir, for your opening statement.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the members for adjusting their busy schedule to allow this meeting to take place earlier.

As you just said, Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be here today, joined by Ms. Kathy Thompson. She is our assistant deputy minister for community safety and countering crime. I'm also accompanied by the director of the firearms and operational policing policy division, Mr. Lyndon Murdock.

Mr. Chair, I'm here this morning to present the common sense firearms licensing act, which is a piece of legislation that builds on our government's record of firearms policies that keep Canadians safe without adding needless red tape for those who are predisposed to obey the law, namely, law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters.

We believe that firearm policies should be safe and also sensible. That is why we've created new prison sentences for the criminal use of firearms, and why we've made significant investments in background checks for new applicants for firearm licences. It's also why we've removed needless red tape like the gun shows regulations and the firearms marking regulations, and why we've ended the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry once and for all, including in my Province of Quebec.

These are policies that are safe and sensible.

The bill before us today continues along the same lines: with policies designed to increase public safety by eliminating red tape for law-abiding Canadians.

Allow me to explain briefly the key measures in this bill. I know that this aspect of the bill is of interest to my fellow member of Parliament, Bryan Hayes.

First, the act will strengthen firearms prohibitions for those convicted of spousal violence. According to a 2013 report, those most commonly committing violence against women are husbands and those in romantic relationships with the women. So it is important for public safety to make sure that firearms are taken away from individuals at risk. Anyone found guilty of an indictable offence involving domestic violence will have a firearms possession and acquisition licence withdrawn for life.

In addition, the legislation allowing the simple and safe licensing of firearms will also require new firearms owners acquiring a firearm for the first time to take the mandatory safety course. I believe that it is important for anyone wishing to acquire and possess a firearm in this country to receive the mandatory training provided by our organizations. This is not only to fully grasp the extent of the responsibility but also to understand the requirements of safety, maintenance, training, technique and knowledge involved in handling firearms.

The legislation will also remove bureaucratic obstacles to the sharing of information on the import of prohibited or restricted weapons. This will allow us to come to grips more easily with the black market and with arms trafficking. We have noticed that our legislation has gaps—especially with regard to the Canada Border Services Agency—that can be used by those wishing to import weapons into the country illegally. That is why we are going to clarify the legislation to allow the Canada Border Services Agency to share information with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to close all the loopholes that illegal traffickers could exploit.

These three specific measures in the bill will improve the safety of Canadians.

The legislation will also help ensure that our firearms policies are sensible. That is why the legislation will merge the “possession-only” licence with the “possession and acquisition” licence. My colleagues from the NDP may remember that this was a measure that was suggested by the late Jack Layton. It does not make sense that individuals who have owned firearms for many years would not be allowed to make new purchases with their own hard-earned money. The bill before us today will give purchasing power to approximately 600,000 experienced and law-abiding firearms owners.

The legislation will also create a six-month grace period at the end of a five-year firearms licence. As you know, Mr. Chair, the firearms licence is valid for five years, and then anyone who owns firearms or is willing to keep his licence has to renew it. The problem is that if you don't renew it by the time your licence expires and you own a firearm, you are turned into a criminal overnight. You do not become the subject of criminal charges if you forget to renew your driver's licence by a day or two. Well, the same principle shall and will apply to firearms licences with this bill. We completely disagree with the premise that any Canadian ought to be criminalized for errors in paperwork.

Further, it will remove the needless red tape around the authorization to transport firearms. Let's be clear this morning: all the transportation of firearms regulations remain in place, and once this bill is adopted, they will remain the same. We will make sure that we are simplifying the process so that we are cutting red tape.

Lastly, it will ensure that unelected officials are enforcing the law rather than making it. It will ensure that the elected government is able to stop chief firearms officers from taking arbitrary action and allow the elected government to classify firearms if, based on expert evidence, the Canadian firearms program has made an error.

These are safe and sensible changes.

Why? Because, for too long, the gun control policies developed under previous federal Liberal governments have targeted legitimate gun owners rather than attacking the source of the problems we have experienced, dangerous criminals and those possessing illegal weapons.

I am proud to be part of a government that has decided to respect law-abiding citizens. We are reducing red tape for law-abiding citizens, but we are making sure that those making violent use of firearms will face the full force of the law.

Some false notions about this bill have been spread around and I would like to clarify them. Specifically, after the bill was introduced, the Liberal Party saw fit to orchestrate a fear campaign, designed to drum up donations, that falsely claims that this bill will let people take pistols and other handguns into grocery stores and shopping centres. That is completely ridiculous; it is irresponsible and I call upon that party to stick to the facts and to stand up for public safety in our country instead of trying to raise funds. The fact is that restricted weapons can be transported to an approved destination, such as a shooting range or a gunsmith, only by the most direct route. Remember that the weapons must not be loaded and they must have a mechanism that locks the trigger. A restricted weapon must be in a padlocked container and, if the passenger leaves the vehicle, the weapon must not be visible or stored in the trunk. That is the law; it will remain in effect and it will be strengthened.

The Liberal Party also said that the bill “would take the power to classify firearms out of the hands of police...and put it into the hands of politicians...”. Once again, this is false. The police do not classify firearms; Parliament does, but has no mechanism to correct mistakes if they occur.

How do we do that? We do it through the Criminal Code and did so in fact in 1995 under a Liberal government. This is certainly a good opportunity to remind them what was put in place.

The Canadian firearms program interprets the legislation, and sometimes they make mistakes. The example we saw last year of the CZ858 and the Swiss Arms family of rifles is a perfect example and we intend to correct that mistake. That is why this legislation allows elected parliamentarians to correct these types of mistakes.

Mr. Chair, as I draw to a close I would like to highlight how proud I am of the broad support for this legislation. Hunting and conservation groups from coast to coast to coast support this legislation. Police officers support this legislation. Former Olympians support this legislation. Taxpayers support this legislation.

Here is what the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs had to say about this bill:

The Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs is thrilled with this initiative. Quebec hunters are very pleased with this bill because it simplifies the licence issuing process for law-abiding users, while reinforcing the concepts of safety and education.

Hunters and anglers are responsible citizens who want to enhance public safety in our country and who support measures to simplify red tape. Clearly, support for these secure and reasonable policies is very strong. Unfortunately, we have seen members of the New Democratic Party state that they would like to re-establish a costly and ineffective long gun registry. Of course, Mr. Chair, we have a program in place for handguns and restricted weapons. During the debate, we saw a Liberal member from downtown Toronto, who clearly wants to get into a game of political one-upmanship with the New Democrats, compare hunters, law-abiding citizens, with jihadi terrorists. It is important for us to maintain perspective. But statements of that kind will surprise no one who knows that these are the parties who have sometimes expressed contempt for law-abiding citizens. I feel that this is the time to pick a different target, if I may use that expression.

Earlier this week, Mr. Chair, we saw the opposition parties oppose measures whereby our hunters and anglers will no longer be treated as second-class citizens in society.

I will be happy to answer questions in order to provide any required clarifications to the bill that will allow firearms to be simply and safely registered.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Minister Blaney.

In addition to our regular members, the chair would also like to welcome replacement members here today. From the Liberal Party, Mr. Casey is here. We also have Mr. Wilks, Mr. Hayes, and Mr. Leef.

We will now start our first round of questioning with Mr. Hayes for seven minutes.

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

First, Minister, on behalf of my constituents, I want to take this opportunity to formally thank you and the members of this committee for their work on Bill C-51. That is an incredibly important piece of legislation and very important for my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, because we're a border community and have a significant Canada Border Services Agency presence there. This legislation is incredibly important for the safety of all Canadians.

Second, I want to thank you and, ultimately, this committee for bringing to fruition the elimination of the long-gun registry. That was very important to my constituents, and I would suggest that had the NDP had a different position on that in a riding such as Sault Ste. Marie, which has a significant presence of hunters, farmers, and sports shooters, perhaps I might not be sitting here today. I'm very pleased to be here representing Sault Ste. Marie.

You mentioned in your comments my piece of legislation relating to domestic violence, which is now before committee. It's a piece of legislation that I brought forward, because I recognize that this is an issue all across the nation. In Sault Ste. Marie in 2010 there were 1,250 reported cases of domestic violence, of which 256 resulted in criminal charges. Earlier you spoke about the domestic assault component, and I'm hoping you can explain why you feel it's important to include the mandatory safety training as well as firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic assault.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Hayes. I will address your question with two answers.

First, I must tell you that I've met with representatives from the hunting and fishing organizations, and since you are a member from Ontario, I have to tell you that I've met with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Actually, I got my own training for the possession and acquisition of firearms from this organization.

I must tell you how impressed I was and how important it is for these organizations to respect our laws and to make sure that the carrying of firearms is done in a safe manner. Just as an example, I've learned how to cross a fence with a firearm. It may look simple, but I had to think twice, because you always have to take into account that a firearm has to be handled with care. I'm pleased to report that I successfully did this exercise.

It is important to mention that those organizations were thoroughly consulted as we were moving forward, and I must tell you they were supportive of the measures you've mentioned and, in particular, of making sure that individuals who could represent a risk to the safety of Canadians should be prevented from carrying a firearm. That's why, for the first time in our country, an individual who is convicted of domestic violence will be prevented for life from carrying or owning a firearm. That's why I personally, as a member of Parliament, support your legislative initiative and feel it is complementary to what is in this legislation regarding an individual who could represent a threat being prevented from carrying a firearm.

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

Thank you, and I appreciate it.

Minister, we all know about last year's decision by unelected bureaucrats to criminalize owners of Swiss Arms and CZ858 firearms by arbitrarily reclassifying them. I know you took a series of steps, starting with an amnesty, to ensure that average Canadians would not be caught up in the legal system simply by owning a gun that the previous day they had owned legally.

Can you run through the steps you took last year and how this legislation provides the final solution to bureaucrats having criminalized Canadians overnight?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

You may know some colleagues, some friends, or some constituents who have actually purchased a firearm over the last decade. That was legal. With the stroke of a pen, these law-abiding citizens were turned into criminals because a firearm that was non-restricted was classified restricted and even prohibited. Still, physically, we have in front of us the same firearm. This was clearly a mistake; this is a mistake. Since the law was put in place in 1995, there have been no mechanisms to correct mistakes. What we are suggesting is that, based on the advice of technical experts, we would fix those mistakes. I want to be very clear this morning that we intend to fix the mistake.

As you know, those who at this point in time own this firearm, the CZ858 or the Swiss Arms, have an amnesty. But, still, the firearm is considered restricted or non-restricted, depending on which one we're talking about. We need to fix this mistake. That's why we are introducing a review mechanism that will be based on the advice of experts so we can fix those mistakes and treat with respect those who acquired firearms that were deemed to be legal under the law and who were treated, I would say, as second-class citizens. I really feel this is unacceptable. This goes against common sense. This is actually going against the safety and security of our country because this has nothing to do with security. This has to do with red tape and with harassing law-abiding citizens. That's why there is a provision in this law that is willing to fix it and introduce a review mechanism for mistakes. Mistakes happen; we just need to be able to recognize that they happen and have a mechanism to fix them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Hayes.

We will now go to Mr. Garrison.

You have seven minutes, sir.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister for being here this morning.

I also want to thank him for his, I guess I'd call it, oblique acknowledgement that the NDP has supported reasonable changes, in his reference to our late leader's position on part of this bill. But, as usual, the bill seems to take off from what might be described as a reasonable position and goes to some very strange positions.

He's always talking about hunters and fishers in rural and remote areas, and so I want to ask him why the government is eliminating the ability to challenge the test. In lots of rural and northern areas having to do a course is a problem, because these are not offered within a reasonable distance or in reasonable time frames. The existing legislation allowed people who already had the skills to challenge the test, to demonstrate that they had the necessary knowledge. It's very difficult for me to understand, when the government says it's committed to not having unnecessary red tape for rural, northern, and remote communities, why the challenge is being eliminated.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you for the question.

The reason why we wish to put mandatory firearms safety training in place is very clear. It is a responsibility.

It is important to make sure that each individual, each new Canadian, who wishes to acquire a firearm can benefit from the expertise and experience of the community of those who handle firearms and know how they work.

For example, some city dwellers do not really have the opportunity to be in contact with firearms; they not only have to become familiar with all the mechanisms, the rules and the history of firearms, but also the way they are handled, their particular characteristics and the ways in which they are used.

The measure will also apply to people such as police officers, for example, who have to handle firearms as part of their duties. They will need to take the training. In fact, although people like that have an excellent knowledge, a mastery, of firearms, from now on, they will have to use it as members of civil society. That is why the training is mandatory. Just because a person does a simple, basic test and fills in little boxes, it does not mean that we are in a position to know that the person has all the knowledge required. Firearms owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

To make sure that the public is safe and that they can trust firearms owners, it is important to make sure that they have some knowledge about firearms and are worthy of the trust. That is why were are introducing mandatory training for handling and acquiring fire arms.

A little earlier, I mentioned that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters supported this measure, just like the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs supports mandatory training in order to give those who wish to acquire a firearm some accountability.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister, but with respect, you really didn't address the question, which is about how people who already have the ability to pass the test in rural and northern areas are going to be able to do so when training isn't available.

Let me go to my second and probably the most significant concern about this bill. You say that it does not politicize the classification of weapons and you talk about the Swiss Arms classic green firearm having been reclassified at the stroke of a pen.

With respect, Mr. Minister, that stroke was with your pen, when you signed the order. So I wonder why we need to go to this extreme level of allowing cabinet to create exemptions to the legislation when the existing legislation, in subsection 117.15(2) says:

In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm

—then I'll skip a bit of it—

if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.

So under the law right now, Mr. Minister, if you thought the Swiss green rifle had any use for hunting or sporting purposes, you could have refused to sign that order in council under the existing legislation.

So why is there a need to create this giant loophole when cabinet can itself, as you say, correct mistakes based on expert testimony. If you had expert testimony, as the minister you could have refused to sign the order in council at the time and have referred it back to the Canadian firearms agency, or you could have said it has a legitimate hunting and sporting purpose.

You did neither of those. You signed that order yourself. So again, with respect, it was the stroke of your pen that reclassified that weapon.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Well, I disagree with your statement, sir, because you may be aware.... I think it is a good thing, when introducing legislation that has not been revisited for more than 30 years, for Canadians to understand how the system works.

The fact of the matter is, regarding the classification, that neither the experts at Public Safety—and we have these experts at Public Safety—nor am I involved in the classification process; nor is Parliament. That's why we need to fix this, and it's the reason that we have tabled this legislation, so that we can eventually be involved in a review mechanism to correct mistakes that have occurred, such as the one for the CZ and the Swiss Arms rifle. I can assure you this morning that, had I been empowered to intervene to avoid this mistake, I would have been very glad to do so. But now, as you see, we don't have a mechanism. That's why we had to go through an amnesty process, first for possession, and then we had to have an amnesty process for use.

But as we speak, some of those firearms are still considered prohibited. Obviously we need to fix this, and that's why this legislation is in front of us, to make sure that Parliament can correct mistakes. I believe Canadians expect us to have this capability to correct mistakes based on the advice of experts.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Minister, with respect, what is the mistake? If the Swiss Arms rifle has a hunting or sporting purpose, then you did not have to sign the order in council under the existing legislation, so it's very difficult for me to see what mistake you're referring to.

It seems that you had the power and did not use that power or that there isn't a legitimate reason for the amnesty that you're giving for this rifle. I just can't see how those two things can be true at the same time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison. We are out of time on the questioning.

We will now go to Mr. Leef, please.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your presentation this morning.

One change that has been made in this legislation is the authorization to transport restricted firearms, to have it as part of the restricted licence rather than as separate pieces of paperwork.

I'd also point out that when those additional forms for ATTs are completed, they aren't actually shared with the police. They're just retained by the chief firearms officer in the region and really are just put in a drawer.

We've heard, of course, the Liberals saying some pretty outrageous things in respect to this, in an attempt to fearmonger Canadians about that piece of legislation. In fact, I'm looking right now at an advertisement they have, which they're using for cheap fundraising activities, and they're proposing ridiculous comments such as that this ATT merger of conditions on a licence will allow restricted weapons to be transported to places such as grocery stores and hockey arenas, and I think they have shopping malls—all kinds of outrageous, misleading, and grossly inaccurate comments in a cheap effort to fundraise.

Could you comment on these false claims and give some context and greater understanding to my colleagues in the Liberal party about how these requirements and this change to the legislation will actually be implemented?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Leef.

You raise a very valid point. The fact that there is a lot of red tape for the authorization to transport firearms has no impact on public safety. The forms that have to be filled out by those who are willing to travel with restricted firearms just go into a file, and I see no purpose in terms of public safety. So you make a very valid point. This is a very good example of red tape that has no impact on safety, but is indeed creating red tape—for example, for sport shooters who want to attend a shooting club to do their hobby. That's why we are willing to simplify the regime so that once you are admitted to get the training and possess a licence, you will, within your own province, not need an additional layer of red tape that has completely no purpose in terms of security.

But this bill is an opportunity to look at the real mechanism we have in place now to keep an eye, if I can put it that way, on anyone in this country who owns a firearm. This is an opportunity to share with Canadians that we have what we call the continuous eligibility screening. So every morning, everyone who has a police record and owns a firearm is considered in that database. So on a daily basis, every citizen in this country who owns a firearm is monitored, if I can put it that way, by our law enforcement. So we have a strong mechanism, a robust mechanism. We are reinforcing it by making sure that CBSA and the RCMP are sharing information regarding the importation of firearms.

We are adding mandatory training, not just a quick challenge test. This is an important responsibility, so you have to go through a course. It also makes sure that those who are convicted of domestic violence would be banned from owning a firearm. So those are the measures.

But at the same time, yes, we are cutting red tape, and the authorization to transport is one. A grace period is another measure. That's why we also want to make sure that decisions that are made regarding the use of firearms are done for safety reasons and not to add an additional layer of red tape that has no impact on public safety.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Minister.

You know, I mentioned how the Liberals were spending time misleading Canadians for the benefit of their own fundraising interests, and I'm not surprised to see the NDP here misunderstanding the firearms laws and the classification of firearms. Or if they're not misunderstanding, they're intentionally misleading Canadians.

I want to ask you a pointed question. Did you, as the minister, have to sign an OIC for the reclassification of the Swiss Arms rifle and CZ858, or did officials? Is that why you brought forward the review mechanism under Bill C-42?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

To answer the question, this is not within the power of the Minister of Public Safety; it's not my power. So I could not prevent the reclassification. That's why, after the fact, I had the capacity then to consult and bring forward an amnesty. In the meantime, hundreds, thousands, of law-abiding Canadian citizens were basically treated as criminals. I find it particularly disrespectful for law-abiding citizens who have acquired legal firearms to be turned into criminals.

I must tell you that I was not happy, if I can put it that way, with this course of state. That's why we are bringing legislation to avoid such a situation occurring again, and to enable Parliament, which is responsible for the classification, to fix mistakes. We don't have the capability to fix mistakes. We need to have this capability. That's what is in this bill. Once again, I can assure you that this will be based on the advice of experts.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Only 30 seconds left, Mr. Leef.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Minister, maybe you could elaborate on the cross-country support. You did highlight it a little. We're wondering if you have any additional remarks on the support you've heard from rural Canadians right across this country for this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Very quickly, please, Minister.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I must tell you that people are in favour of common-sense firearm licensing measures. What I was able to realize while I was consulting with many members of the communities—I was in northern Ontario and in various parts of Quebec—is that law-abiding citizens feel that they have been ostracized over the course of the last decade because they have a passion for the outdoors. They have a passion for an activity that is at the core of this country. Hunting, fishing, and sport shooting are totally legal activities, but due to this red tape and this administrative harassment, they felt like second-class citizens.

I feel that we have a responsibility as parliamentarians and as government to deal fairly with law-abiding citizens. That's what this legislation is all about. It is about reinforcing the safety of Canadians while showing respect to those who I would call “the guardians of our outdoors” and treating them with respect, while ensuring that they are complying fully with our laws regarding the handling and the carrying of firearms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Mr. Casey, sir, for seven minutes, please.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I think it's unfortunate that Mr. Leef used up a bunch of his time to offer advice to the Liberal Party as to how they should attempt to fundraise and also to take some partisan shots, because there's actually a provision in the bill that disadvantages his constituents. His constituents probably haven't been well served by his line of questioning. Perhaps I could help him out a little.

Proposed subsection 19(2.1) of the bill specifies that the section would apply to an “individual's province of residence”. The result of that specific reference to “province” would mean that the proposed “Automatic authorization to transport” provisions would not apply in the territories, and that those in the territories would require an authorization to transport under the current subsection 19(1) of the Firearms Act.

My question is for the benefit of Mr. Leef's constituents, because he wasn't able to get to it as he didn't have enough time. Why are the territories being treated differently or being discriminated against by this provision? Or was it simply an oversight that we'll have to correct through amendment?