Public Safety Committee on April 30th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good morning, colleagues.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Today we are continuing our study on Bill C-42, an act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other acts that would result from this.

With us here this morning we have two witnesses for our first hour. We have from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Mr. Greg Farrant, manager of government affairs and policy; and from the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, Mr. Tony Bernardo, executive director. Welcome to the committee, gentlemen.

As par for the course for the committee we will certainly allow opening statements of up to 10 minutes. If you are a little briefer of course it gives more opportunity for a bit of an ongoing dialogue. You have the luxury of setting the schedule on that, so we will go right off.

Mr. Farrant, if you have an opening statement, please carry on.

[Greg Farrant, Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters]

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and my fellow panellists.

On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the largest conservation-based organization in Ontario, our 100,000 members, supporters, and subscribers, and our 725 member clubs across the province, thank you for the courtesy of inviting me to appear before the committee to speak to Bill C-42, the common-sense firearms licensing act.

It has been clear from the rhetoric that has developed around this legislation and from many of the comments made during debate in the House, that there is either a troubling lack of understanding of what the legislation does or does not do, or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what the government is seeking to do through the legislation by suggesting that it will open the floodgates to a proliferation of irresponsible behaviour on the part of legal, licensed, law-abiding firearms owners in this country.

In fact, some members of Parliament have gone so far as to suggest that once passed the bill will sanction behaviour reminiscent of the wild west, the same kind of dire predictions that characterize the response of anti-gun lobbyists. Many of the comments have been remarkably similar to those we heard in 2011 and 2012 when debate focused on Bill C-391 and Bill C-19, the latter of which finally scrapped the long-gun registry.

Not only are many of the characterizations we heard in the House inaccurate, but quite frankly it's disappointing when in the interest of partisan politics some have suggested that the bill is either a bribe to one group in the firearms community, or payola, as one member of Parliament put it, to not testify against other government legislation; or a gift to the firearms community; or politically partisan legislation that will benefit only those who represent ridings where firearms ownership and use is the norm; or worse still, that it's the product of a “gun lobby” with a U.S.-influenced ideology, which frankly I find offensive.

During second reading debate on the bill, a number of members expressed the belief that the legislation will benefit those in rural and northern areas of the country. For members who ascribe to this theory, I would respectfully remind them that firearms owners from across Canada come from many places and many backgrounds.

In fact, if they think there is a rural-urban divide on long-gun ownership in particular, I suggest they think again. A quick survey of just our members in three urban centres, Windsor, London, and Ottawa, earlier this week showed that 4,500 of our members who own firearms live in those centres. When it comes to a large urban centre like Toronto, almost 290,000 non-restricted firearms are owned by residents of Canada's biggest city, and 85,000 are legally licensed to possess a firearm. Of those, roughly 32,000 are licensed to possess restricted or prohibited firearms, which in 2012 translated into 90,000 legally registered restricted and prohibited firearms in the GTA.

Firearms owners in Canada are judges, lawyers, farmers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, accountants, even federal politicians, many of whom, like former interim Liberal and opposition leader Bill Graham, live in and represent urban ridings. They are not criminals. They are not gang members. Rather, they are lawful firearms owners who obey the law.

The changes proposed in Bill C-42 will make life easier for these people because there will be less needless paperwork. It will not, however, change the way that these responsible, law-abiding individuals safely use, store, and transport their firearms. Despite this we have had at least one member of Parliament who attempted to link the debate of Bill C-42 and the changes it will make with the behaviour of terrorists. Others have suggested that the changes like the application of an ATT to a licence will result in firearms owners running around mall parking lots with guns in their possession threatening the public safety.

This bill does some very simple things, some of which are specifically designed to greatly enhance the public safety. The rest are nothing more than common-sense proposals that pose no additional risk to the public despite all the hyperbole. I will not speak to all the changes proposed in the legislation but will focus instead on a few key aspects of the bill.

The grace period for licence renewal comes with an incentive to renew. It addresses an administrative error on the part of the licensee that immediately and unfairly places them in violation of the Criminal Code. It also comes with restrictions that ensure that until the error is corrected they cannot use their firearms or purchase ammunition for those firearms. The bill proposes to merge possession-only licences with possession and acquisition licences. Canadians who have a POL have owned and used firearms responsibly for decades. The very fact that their licence status will change is hardly a reason for them to suddenly and inexplicably become irresponsible.

Bill C-42 contains two very important changes that taken alone or together will help to enhance public safety, something that many parliamentarians and anti-gun groups have been arguing for for years.

The first, which I might point out has been a long-standing policy of my organization, is that all new or first-time firearms owners will no longer be able to simply challenge a test to get a licence, but will have to take the firearms safety course.

You would think that even a group like the Coalition for Gun Control would applaud this move, but instead of admitting that the provision enhances public safety, they choose instead to focus on what they believe are discrepancies on how the course is taught across the country instead of supporting the introduction of mandatory training.

The second relates to proposed changes that Bill C-42 would make to sections 109 and 110 of the Criminal Code that relate to mandatory and discretionary prohibition orders. Court orders prohibiting the possession of firearms and other articles including ammunition are mandatory when a person has been convicted or granted a discharge. Bill C-42 adds that a mandatory prohibition order would apply regardless of the possible sentence when violence was used, threatened, or attempted against the offender's current or former intimate partner, or the child or parent of the offender or the offender's current or former intimate partner.

With respect to discretionary prohibition orders, Bill C-42 provides that, in circumstances involving the use or threat of violence, prohibition orders may be imposed for life or a shorter period as opposed to the current maximum of 10 years. Surely this is something that should be supported, but we've been disappointed with the reaction of anti-gun groups and others to what we believe is a sensible amendment that enhances public safety.

During debate in the House, several members of Parliament spoke of their concerns about illegal firearms coming into Canada and chastised the government for not doing anything to address the threat. In fact, this bill proposes to end the loophole that stops information sharing between law enforcement agencies, in this case, the RCMP and the CBSA when they are investigating the importation of illegal guns. The concern over the flow of illegal firearms into Canada is a serious one, and depending upon the jurisdiction, is responsible for the large majority of guns used in the commission of a crime. In my view, this amendment goes a long way to addressing this problem. Just anecdotally, former police chief Bill Blair, estimated that 55% of the guns used in crime in Toronto were smuggled in from the U.S., while in B.C. one police chief suggested it could be up to 90%.

Lastly I want to touch on the portion of the bill that amends section 19 of the Firearms Act pertaining to the circumstances under which authorization to transport restricted or prohibited firearms is granted. The bill provides for automatic authorizations upon licence renewal, not automatic licence renewal, as the coalition would have you believe. It simply removes the requirement to obtain paper authorizations every time you want to move a firearm. A person who holds the appropriate licence will be authorized to transport them for the five purposes spelled out in the legislation, not freely transported in cars at any time going anywhere within the province, as the coalition and others have suggested.

In closing, Mr. Chair and members of the panel, Bill C-42 proposes reasonable amendments to sections of the Criminal Code that make sense, that eliminate red tape, and introduce additional public safety measures. It does not make guns easier to get. It does not allow firearms owners to transport them at will wherever they want, and it does not put guns in the hands of the “wrong people”.

I am pleased to see that the Liberal Party of Canada has chosen to support many of the aspects of the bill, and we appreciate and acknowledge that.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for affording me the courtesy of appearing here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Farrant.

We will now go to Mr. Bernardo. You have the floor, sir.

[Tony Bernardo, Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to all the members of the committee.

I beg your indulgence if I may because I think my presentation is about 30 seconds too long, but I'm dealing with the technical aspects of the bill and there are a lot of technicalities I'd like to cover, starting with the first item: the changes to the order in council powers regarding classifications.

It has been suggested to this committee that this provision creates sweeping new powers for the Minister of Public Safety and the governing council. This is not true. These powers were put in place with the inception of the Firearms Act created by the previous government. In that legislation, the minister was granted the ability through orders in council to put any firearm into the restricted or prohibited categories. The addition of the new provision contained in Bill C-42 now levels the playing field, allowing the minister to place firearms into the non-restricted category, as well as the restricted and prohibited.

As to the allegation that the provision moves authority away from the RCMP in regard to the classification of firearms, it must be pointed out to the committee that the RCMP never had that authority to begin with. This lack of clarity is a glaring omission in the Firearms Act, which provides for the classification of firearms, but does not state who has the authority to provide that classification. Clearly, with numerous classification errors over the last 20 years, it seems obvious the RCMP does not possess the knowledge or the technical expertise to unilaterally make these decisions with a guarantee of correctness to the citizens of the country. This provision is an important tool to apply uniformity to Canada's firearms laws. Previous rounds of legislation have incorrectly classified many firearms. Canadians, in order to comply with our laws, have the right to expect consistency within our statutes. This provision is admirable in its attempt to provide a mechanism to make that consistency.

The second item is the merging of POLs and PALs, and Mr. Farrant has already touched on a number of things here. In the discussion regarding this, it must be pointed out to the committee that the people who have possession-only licences have had them continuously since 1995. Since that time there has been no new issuances of these possession-only licences. Inquiries made to the RCMP illustrate identical safety records between the holders of POLs and PALs. Empirically the holders of POL licences have demonstrated that they've learned the lessons of the Canada firearms safety course. Of course, all new licence applicants must take the Canada firearms safety course and the exam. It stands to reason that all holders of firearms licences in Canada will now have demonstrated and been trained in the culture of safety our community is so famous for.

The committee must also be reminded that all people who hold a firearms licence in Canada are subject to the RCMP continuous eligibility program. This program, which has been in place for many years, actively cross-references every firearms owner in Canada to every computer the police have in real time. Any licensed firearms owner whose name is entered into a police computer automatically shows up in the continuous eligibility program for further oversight.

The third item is the oversight of subsection 58(1)'s CFO “God powers“. Section 12 of Bill C-42 provides a potential limitation to the God powers currently enjoyed by chief firearms officers in Canada. Currently chief firearms officers may make any condition to any licence or authorization, if they deem it in the interest of public safety. However, there's no litmus test as to what public safety constitutes. As currently contained in the Firearms Act, a subsection 58(1) decision is about public safety merely because the CFO, an unelected bureaucrat, says it's about public safety. When a bad decision is made—and there have been lots—there is no appeal and there is no mechanism to override the decision. That these powers have been given to an unelected bureaucrat is purely bad governance. No public servant should ever wield this kind of power over law-abiding citizens without oversight.

Bill C-42 places the most moderate of oversights on the unbridled powers contained in subsection 58(1). It permits the government of the day to override a bad subsection 58(1) decision by means of passing regulation. While this is perhaps the most cumbersome way that this could be accomplished, it nonetheless provides some measure of scrutiny over the actions of a chief firearms officer.

Item number four is the six-month grace period upon licence expiration. Successive governments have expressed a desire not to expose honest firearms owners to criminal sanctions due to paperwork errors or omissions. For the mere failure to fill out a renewal form for a firearms licence, a person can be plunged into criminality without ever committing a real offence against society. By the standards expressed by all political parties in Canada this is simply wrong.

Bill C-42 will enact a six-month grace period upon expiration. While the acquisition and use privileges for firearms and ammunition will be suspended, this period will permit people to bring themselves into compliance with the law without facing criminal penalties. Furthermore, the six-month grace period will permit Canadians to retain valuable grandfathered private property without fear of confiscation. In addition the six-month grace period—and this is important—keeps Canadians who own firearms in the RCMP's continuous eligibility system. The previous system expelled the person from continuous eligibility when the individual's firearms licence expired, regardless of whether or not they still retained ownership of the firearms.

Number five is the changes to authorizations to transport. One of the more contentious portions of C-42 is the widely misunderstood changes to authorizations to transport. While ATTs are an obsolete, vestigial document that hails from the days before firearms licences, when an ATT is issued the information does not go into CPIC. The only person who knows an individual has an authorization to transport is the recipient and the person who issued it to him. A police officer cannot access ATT information on the police car computer, and approximately 300,000 of these documents are issued every year.

When an authorization to transport is issued, it may be issued for any term up to the duration of the individual's firearms licence term. It's very common in Canada for ATTs to be issued for a three- to five-year period, good 24-7, for transport to any section 29 range and any other location within your province of residence in some provinces. This would permit individuals to transport the restricted and prohibited 12(6) firearms to any range in the province at any time. This is how it's done now, and there are no problems with illegalities.

No firearm can be brought into the United States by a Canadian resident without completing a United States form 6NIA application. This document is valid for a period of one year. Currently the chief firearms office issues an ATT to all border crossings in your province of residence for the corresponding one year.

OPP Superintendent Chris Wyatt, the former chief firearms officer in Ontario, publicly stated that during his tenure as CFO he had never once revoked for cause an authorization to transport, and he could only recall one instance of ever refusing an ATT application. The individual refused subsequently challenged the refusal in court and won. The CFO was wrong.

The obvious question must be posed. If we have a permit that no one can apply for without the qualifications to receive it, and it's almost never refused or revoked, what good is it?

Despite the positive changes to the ATTs contained in the bill though, there are some problems here. For example, the bill does not permit the issuance of an automatic ATT for the purposes of instruction, yet Ontario and Quebec both require additional safety courses with live fire on shooting ranges. Instructors for these courses are routinely given authorizations to transport their firearms to various places for the purposes of instruction. Bill C-42 would provide for the issuance of the ATT to the very same ranges for the purposes of target shooting but not for the purposes of instruction. This seems counterproductive.

As well, the bill does not provide for the issuance of an ATT for the purposes of completing a transfer. By explanation here, it's necessary to understand that many transfers of restricted and prohibited firearms in Canada are shipped by mail. Aside from the obvious fact the persons working at Canada Post do not possess firearms licences or authorizations to transport, an individual must get an ATT to take the firearm securely packaged in accordance with the law to a Canada Post outlet, and of course, it follows that the person needs an ATT to bring it home from a Canada Post outlet.

Authorizations to transport specify the specific make, model, serial number, and registration certificate number of the firearm being transported, but nowhere on the shipping box does it say what's contained inside the box, for obvious reasons.

It stands to reason that for the individual to successfully receive an authorization to transport the firearm home from a postal outlet, they would need to unbox the firearm in the postal outlet, examine the firearm at the post office, verify the serial number, the make, the model of the firearm, and the registration certificate number for the firearm, before being able to even correctly apply for an ATT to bring the firearm home, and of course, the post office would have to hang on to it for two or three weeks while the CFO issued that ATT.

Needless to say, this would cause tremendous disruptions at Canada Post outlets. Because of this, the chief firearms officers right across the country have traditionally turned a blind eye to the requirement to have an ATT to bring your firearm home from the post office. If the CFOs don't even want this and don't feel the necessity for it, it should be added to the list of prescribed ATT purposes in Bill C-42. It also stands to reason that it's no more dangerous to transport the firearm to Canada Post than it is to transport it home from Canada Post. If that's the case, authorizations to transport for the purposes of completing the transfer need to be included in Bill C-42.

Lastly is an authorization to transport for the purposes of changing residences. This is one of the conditions that an authorization is issued daily in Canada. It makes sense to add this common occurrence to the list of lawful purposes that are to be attached to a person's restricted firearms licence.

To recap, we believe that Bill C-42 should be amended to include an authorization to transport for the purposes of instruction, completion of a transfer, and changing residences. The Canadian Shooting Sports Association supports Bill C-42. Our members believe it's a positive step toward fairness for lawful firearms owners, and it has absolutely no negative impact on public safety.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bernardo.

Colleagues, we will now go to our first round of questioning of seven minutes. We will start with Mr. Leef.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Farrant and Mr. Bernardo, for your presentations today. I think they were both very clear and succinct and dealt with many of the things we've heard both in the House and on committee, and hopefully, have clarified some of the questions that the opposition members have obviously been struggling with during this debate.

I don't know if you have seen them, but I would bring your attention to some of the things that the Liberal Party has put out in the broader Canadian public around this particular bill. One of them, of course, is our fundraising effort that is suggesting that guns—they have some pictures of them, pistols and long arms—are going to be able to move in and out of a province anywhere people want, and they list places like shopping malls, grocery stores, and sports arenas, then they ask the question, “Is this really safe for our community?”

First I'll direct this to you, Mr. Bernardo. Have you seen these fundraising ads that the Liberal Party has put out, and would you agree that Bill C-42 in any way provides the opportunity, or anything that would be different from the current-day situation in respect of firearms movement in Canada?

[Tony Bernardo]

Yes, Mr. Leef, I've seen the advertisements and they are incorrect.

There are no changes to the purposes for which a firearm can be transferred. There are no changes at all. Right now my authorization to transport, my paper one issued by the Province of Ontario, is for three years. For three years, 24-7, I could take my firearm from Cornwall to Kenora. I could go to Kenora and stay in hotels. I could eat in restaurants. I could shoot a match in Kenora and drive back to Cornwall, staying in hotels all the way, and that is completely and perfectly legal right now. It's simply that I must have a separate piece of paper to do that, and I have to hang on to that separate piece of paper for three years.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Perfect, thank you.

They also have another ad out suggesting that the power to determine what is restricted, prohibited, or non-restricted, is being taken away from the police and being given to politicians. They're using this, again, to promote fear and misunderstanding in the broader public about the technical aspects of classification of firearms. What's your understanding of how Bill C-42 effects a change? You touched on it briefly that the RCMP doesn't have the technical ability to properly classify firearms. Is it your understanding that there will be a group of politicians, much like us, sitting around with firearms in front of us trying to determine which one should be classified, restricted, prohibited, or non-restricted?

How will that work under this new legislation?

[Tony Bernardo]

I certainly hope that isn't the case. That's how we got into this mess in the first place.

My understanding is that the minister is going to seek advice from people who actually have the technical expertise. There are those people in Canada. Many of them work for companies that manufacture and design these; they're engineers. I know the RCMP will obviously continue to be consulted on all of these things. I don't foresee any change there, but certainly politicians will not be sitting around discussing whether or not a single-shot bolt action .22 is supposed to be restricted or not.

It's only very few firearms that come in where their classifications are not obvious, and if they're not obvious, then maybe we ought to refer them to experts who can understand the technicalities of them. The RCMP has a long and illustrious track record of making wrong classifications and then reversing them. We've seen just a few of them in the last couple of years, where firearms that were deemed to be non-restricted and then purchased by tens of thousands of people in Canada as non-restrictive firearms are now being called prohibited. Well, that's their mistake, not the person's mistake who bought it.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Fair enough. Thank you.

Mr. Farrant, you talked about some of the things that have been mentioned that are troubling for your conservation organization of a 100,000 members. We heard this week about this “gun lobby”, as though there's a negative connotation to being a firearms owner.

Can you describe who makes up your organization? Are there young people, women, men? If so, what's the general sense of your conservation organization in terms of this negative viewpoint that some witnesses and some members of Parliament have put toward being a gun owner in this country?

[Greg Farrant]

Thank you, Mr. Leef.

As I noted during my remarks, I think it's disrespectful when those types of terms are applied to legal, law-abiding firearms owners.

My organization has a large youth component. It has a lot of women members. It has a lot of family members. At least 22,000 of our members are classified as family members, where all members of the family are OFAH members. We are first and foremost a conservation organization, but we represent hunters, anglers, and recreational sport shooters. Of our 725 clubs, 52 clubs have shooting ranges and therefore they participate in recreational shooting.

The OFAH also conducts, on behalf of the Province of Ontario, all the hunter safety courses in Ontario. We put roughly 25,000 people a year through hunter safety courses, and the growing number of those are young people and women. Women make up the largest component of those who are taking their hunter safety course to hunt in Ontario.

As for comments about gun lobbies, just because we're all firearms owners does not make us a gun lobby. You're quite right, it's always said in the pejorative sense. These people are engaging in heritage activities. This country was founded on hunting, fishing, and trapping, to a large extent. Those particular segments contribute $15.2 billion to the annual national economy. They're huge economic drivers. They involve millions of Canadians. In fact, one in five Canadians either hunts, fishes, or traps.

To put it in that context, it's very pejorative to a large segment of the population.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

I appreciate that, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Now, Mr. Garrison, sir.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their appearance today.

I have to say I hope that both these witnesses have actually reviewed the debates in the House of Commons and are basing their comments on their personal review of that, and have not received summaries from someone else. Because there are quite a few inaccuracies in what they are saying took place in the debate, in particular, the allegation that someone alleged “payola” with regard to Bill C-51. There was no such allegation, and I'm the person you're referring to, and the word was never used.

If you reviewed the debates and you can find that in anything I said, then you can point it out to me but it was not there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

There is a point of order.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I don't think the witness specifically mentioned any one individual in this committee.

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

That's not a point of order. That's a point of debate, and you'll get your turn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That is a point. You're correct there, but thank you very much, Ms. James.

I would certainly hope that if there is an issue that has to be discussed with regard to he said, she said, we can do that personally—

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

No, Mr. Chair, this is an important issue of public policy. An allegation was made about things that were supposedly said in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

An allegation was not made about an individual.

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

With respect, sir—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

No. There was no mention of any name in the allegation. If you, as a member, believe that you were the recipient of that, or the intended target of that, then you can certainly respond as such.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I will finish this. There was no indication given to the chair or the committee that any person was named from the statement. You may certainly respond in any manner you feel according to that.

Yes, on a point of order.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

It was said, “this is payola to the gun lobby” and it was said by Jinny Sims. Again, the witness here did not specifically point to any member in this committee, but it was said in testimony. I have it right in front of me.