Public Safety Committee on April 30th, 2015

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

I would think right now that it is indeed necessary and proper for the minister and by implication cabinet to have final discretionary power over such decisions. They should of course be advised by a technical committee who knows the details, but it is in fact a decision that should not be left to unsupervised people such as the police or a technical expert. There needs to be an overview.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, and the time's expired.

Now, Mr. Falk, you have seven minutes, please.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for giving me the ability to talk with our witnesses here.

I want to thank you both, Mr. Mauser and Mr. Grismer, for participating in this very important study with us this morning by video conference.

There's been a lot of fearmongering by groups and individuals who don't believe that Canadians should have the right to own guns, even though they're law-abiding hunters and farmers and sport shooters. In fact, they have even made statements like the passage of this particular bill will just throw open the gates and allow people to carry guns to places where we wouldn't want guns, like shopping malls and sports arenas.

In fact, I don't see that as being the case at all. When I read the bill I see it as streamlining the paperwork and process. It also strengthens some of the safety aspects of our sport.

Mr. Mauser, you did mention the elimination of challenging the test as a concern, but I think your initial comments said it was perhaps a useful tool in strengthening public safety. I'd like you to comment a little more on that and whether you think requiring people to take the Canadian firearms safety course is a good idea.

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

Thank you for your question.

I think it is an excellent idea and it would encourage public safety to allow and encourage people to take these kinds of courses. That is not always possible in physical locations, particularly small towns. For example, in British Columbia we have hunter safety training that's available through the Internet, although the backbone of the Internet is often unobtainable in small towns. Many people can study through books, friends, and provincial instructors to get an alternative education.

I definitely think that courses are a good thing that would encourage public safety, and I definitely would encourage provincial chief firearms officers to increase, not decrease, the number of federal firearms safety instructors as well as make use of provincial hunter safety instructors. But definitely such instruction improves public safety.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Good. Thank you very much.

I'll turning to Mr. Grismer. As a retired police officer, you made a comment in your opening remarks that the streamlining of the POL and the PAL, the possession-only licences and the possession and acquisition licences being combined, would better enable police and law enforcement officers to do their jobs.

Can you expand a little bit more on that?

[Murray Grismer]

I certainly can.

If the person is stopped and if you are checking them and if they have firearms with them, certainly the first thing a police officer's going to do is ask them for their licence. If they happen to have a restricted licence, you will notice that on the back. If the individual has his restricted firearms or prohibited firearms with him, the condition on the back of the licence will indicate automatically the terms under which he can transport those.

It's just a one-stop thing for them. They have the licence and it has the conditions under which they can move or transport the restricted and prohibited firearms, and also for what purposes, I might add.

For the police officer on the street, it makes it that much easier for them to do their job. They're not looking for a piece of paper. Oftentimes authorizations to transport are faxed to individuals. People don't go into the firearms office to get them; they're usually sent by fax. Depending on the nature of the fax machine, the faxed copy may not be that good.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you for that. I think that helps to clarify, at least in my mind, one of the reasons it's important to streamline these two licences.

[Murray Grismer]

If I may just make one more point here, sir, the person who's in possession of a restricted and prohibited firearm has been vetted by the CFO of every respective province, and they have been deemed worthy of having these firearms. A great number of conditions are put on people who have them, and as long as these people haven't come into non-compliance with the law, the chances of your ever seeing them or even knowing that they're transporting firearms is really limited because they take precautions of their own given the very nature of the firearms they have.

Individuals who are not going to transport them lawfully or legally, or who are going to be taking them into shopping malls or God knows where else, are people who shouldn't have firearms in the first instance. These are not lawful, legitimate firearms owners. If they are doing that, they are definitely people who shouldn't have firearms, so I don't see this as being a problem.

In my 26 years of policing, I never encountered a person who had a valid licence and was transporting restricted and prohibited firearms in non-compliance. If the person is, for lack of a better term, a gangbanger or a person who is doing things unlawfully, they'll go about doing whatever they want for whatever purpose they want at any time they want, and no piece of paper or licence is going to stop them from doing that.

Thank you, sir.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay.

Thank you very much for that testimony.

Our government has been very purposefully reducing red tape for many different things, and part of this legislation is to reduce the red tape for law-abiding gun owners. But at the same time this legislation will also strengthen the public safety aspect by requiring people to take that Canadian firearms safety course and though the prohibitions it will have on people who have been convicted of domestic violence. At the same time it allows for a grace period without putting people offside to the point where police officers have to actually arrest people for owning firearms once their licence has expired.

Would you gentlemen agree that this is indeed a common-sense bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Give a very quick response, please.

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

Speaking for myself, I definitely agree with you. I think this is a common-sense bill, and strengthening the restrictions on people who have been convicted of domestic abuse from owning or possessing firearms is an excellent idea.

[Murray Grismer]

I concur with my colleague. This is very common sense, and it enhances the safety and security of people in the public by seeing that people who have used firearms in a domestic violence situation are restrained from having access to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Falk.

Now, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before the committee.

Mr. Grismer, in answer to the previous question you'd mentioned that in 26 years you'd never had a problem with anyone who holds a transport permit for prohibitive or restricted guns. During that time have you ever had any situation where during transport—not during storage—those prohibited or restricted guns were stolen or taken by somebody else who had criminal intent in mind?

[Murray Grismer]

I've never encountered that, sir, insomuch as having taken a complaint from any individual having lost or had their firearms stolen because they were improperly stored in their vehicle.

I do know of instances where police officers in various cities have had their firearms stolen out of vehicles, not because they weren't properly stored but because the individual who broke into their vehicle was able to find them.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, I'll come back to that in a minute.

In case I run out of time, taking the training is crucial and that's come up with a number of people, especially in northern, remote aboriginal communities. Is there anything we need to do in terms of this legislation to improve upon that?

The legislation...it's interesting because everybody seems to mention the chief firearms officers a lot within the provinces. The legislation provides for a federal override, if I could put it that way, in some instances on what CFOs do. They also seem to be very crucial in terms of showing a willingness to provide other opportunities for the training aspect. Is there anything we need to do in that case to ensure the training is available, or is there anything that we even can do under federal legislation?

Either one of you, or both.

[Murray Grismer]

Mr. Easter, I think one of the things that's been left out of the discussion is the fact that when a person completes a Canadian firearm safety course test there is a practical aspect to it. They have to demonstrate knowledge and ability in the handling of firearms to a degree. This doesn't involve shooting or firing the firearm, although it certainly could be expanded to that, but there is a component of demonstrating the knowledge to safely handle the firearm. That is not excluded from the basic challenges now.

I agree with my colleague, Mr. Mauser, that it is more desirable to have individuals receive the Canadian firearms safety courses, whether they're looking for just a basic one, or a basic one and a restricted one. Certainly, it makes the world far safer if they've received training, if they've then done the test and demonstrated their ability. I agree that it should be expanded more.

I share your concern, as I did with the committee member before, on the accessibility to it. The challenge will be for people who are administering the training and the courses, and the people who overview the training of the courses, which is the CFO of the provinces, to see that it's available and accessible in remote areas. That's a logistics thing that will have to be worked out.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Coming back to the transportation area, which we as a party do have some concerns about, part of it is that once you're not applying for transport each time—I understand the paperwork side there—as with anything else, once it becomes common practice that you don't have to apply there is a risk that you'll just stop in this store this time on the way home.

I think once a thing becomes common practice you're not as alert to what you shouldn't do. Having said that, do the police know when there's an authorization to transport a prohibited or restricted gun? Do you know? Are you informed, or is it just the chief firearms officer? Do you have the authorization to ask for a transportation authorization for the gun if no gun is visible in the vehicle?

[Murray Grismer]

First off, police in Canada are not notified when a person obtains an authorization to transport. In the provinces in Canada, people who are routinely going to shooting clubs and ranges receive an authorization to transport. I have some in front of me that I've had over the years, and one recently given to an individual I know. His authorization to transport has no expiry term, and it gives him the authority to do all the things listed in the proposed legislation. The only difference is that it's a piece of paper and not a condition sitting on the back of his firearms licence, which would make it that much more accessible.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Do you have any comments, Dr. Mauser?

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

The changes proposed in Bill C-42 in no way impact on public safety. They merely reduce the amount of red tape that a firearms owner who wishes to transport his firearm must undergo, and the amount of bureaucratic busyness that is imposed on the chief firearms officer. The police have the same information. The conditions remain the same, so there is no change as far as that is concerned. Perhaps the chief firearms officer can spend their time more wisely than shuffling paper that is 99% approved.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, gentlemen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.

Now Mr. Garrison, please, it's your turn for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

I'm going to go back to something we talked about that arose earlier in the committee today, and the comments that were made in the House—and taken quite out of context—by the member for Newton—North Delta about the timing of this debate. Since this issue has been raised, I think it's quite important for people to understand the context in which she was speaking.

We have a situation in Surrey where there have been 23 shootings over the past month, I believe. There's a very serious problem with gun violence in the community of Surrey. The member for Surrey North and the member for Newton—North Delta have been raising these questions in the House to ask that attention be given to their community and this very serious crisis. It's resulted in a number of very tragic deaths.

What she was referring to was how fast this legislation, which was introduced in October 2014, suddenly appeared back on the agenda. I think it's important to remember that here we are today, really just nine days after this was approved at second reading, and finishing our hearings in this committee. I think that's had an impact on our deliberations here. The very rushed nature combined with some administrative errors means that, for instance, the Liberal Party had no witnesses appearing before the committee, and the NDP only had two of its four witnesses. We've ended up with an unbalanced set of testimony here, with no criticism of those who appear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have a point of order, Ms. James?