Evidence of meeting #66 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was licence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
No. It creates more enforcement problems than it solves.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Okay.
I guess we'll go back, then, to the question of the classification of weapons. The way you've characterized it is I think clearly incorrect. What the bill says is that cabinet will make those decisions. There's nothing in there that requires cabinet to consult experts or anyone. It simply gives the power to cabinet to make exemptions to the existing law, not just to classify but to make exemptions—
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
But they already have that power, sir.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
No. With respect, they do not. The only power they have for exemptions to the existing law is for weapons that have a legitimate hunting or sport use. They do not have a general—
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
Who decides if it has a legitimate hunting or sport use, sir? I'm talking about—
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
That is a power that is given to cabinet in the current law.
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
If I may, sir, .32 calibre target pistols that are used in the Olympics are prohibited firearms in Canada. Every time a new high-tech .32 calibre pistol is needed for use by our Olympic team, they have to go through this huge gyration to have the firearm exempted. The exemption is done by order in council. How does this happen?
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Well, because the law says that if there's a legitimate sporting use, cabinet is authorized to create an exemption.
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
Not for non-restricted, it can only move between restricted and prohibited.
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
No, I'm not incorrect.
9:20 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
I live this every day. I am not incorrect.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Well, I'm not sure there's any point in continuing to ask you any questions, then, if you're right on everything you've already said to us. We can leave that to greater legal experts.
In terms of the merger of licences, New Democrats, of course, originally suggested that it was a good idea. Our concern there has been very minor. I would like some acknowledgement of that since the implication was made that we didn't support anything in the bill.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Okay, Mr. Chair. I probably don't have time to complete the question, so we'll let it go.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
We will now go to you, please, Mr. Breitkreuz. You have the floor, sir.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, witnesses. You've given us a very comprehensive overview of your feelings about the bill. Both of you are obviously very knowledgeable. You can tell that by the opposition not being able to really find any issues to criticize in the bill. They're following their notes, of course, but they've obviously been pointed out as being not correct.
I will give you a chance to expand, explain, and maybe emphasize some of the things you've already mentioned. I often find it very difficult to sit quietly in the House of Commons and listen to the misrepresentations of the bill. Both of you have done a very good job of explaining what some of those misrepresentations are.
Mr. Farrant, maybe you could comment a little more on why you felt it was important that these common-sense changes be put forward. You've talked a bit about the benefits of firearms ownership and how families can use this as an activity to participate in together. Your organization has done a lot, of course, with the courses you offer, to make the use of firearms safe. Also, as yours is a conservation organization, probably firearms ownership contributes a lot to the incentive to make sure that we manage our natural resources in a proper way. If you wouldn't mind, could you expand a bit on some of those things?
April 30th, 2015 / 9:25 a.m.
Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Breitkreuz.
Before I respond directly to your question, I want to thank Ms. James for the clarification of my comments. I can assure Mr. Garrison that I read every line of every debate in the House, and it comes from no one other than myself. I find that somewhat offensive that you would suggest that.
If you look at the policies of the Ministry of Natural Resources in Ontario, you will see there are policies enshrined in there that suggest that hunting is the most valuable wildlife management tool that it has to control wildlife populations in this country and in this province in particular. Without legal, law-abiding hunters and their firearms, and hunting seasons, which are all determined on the basis of science—they're not determined by ad hoc reasons, but they're based on science—wildlife populations would be out of control. When they get out of control, what results is culls. Culls are an acknowledgement of the failure of policy to properly manage wildlife.
In our federation, obviously, a large majority of our members use firearms and own firearms, and they do so responsibly. We meet on a regular basis, as does Mr. Bernardo, with Ontario's CFO to discuss a number of issues regarding firearms use in Ontario. I might also point out that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters currently, with the CFO and the Ontario Provincial Police, has a poster circulating throughout the province re-emphasizing the need for safe use, storage, and transportation of firearms.
We work very closely with those two organizations on an ongoing basis, and we spend an inordinate amount of time, through our magazine, our television show, our radio show, press releases, our annual reports, and other media, emphasizing the need for safe and responsible use of firearms at all times.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Thank you very much. I'll come back to you with another question.
I want to ask Mr. Bernardo to maybe expand a little bit about the issue of the chief firearms officers, or CFOs, in the various provinces.
As a member of Parliament who has been working on this issue for quite some time, I get a lot of complaints from firearms owners about some of the seemingly arbitrary decisions that are made by these CFOs. There seems to be quite a difference between provinces on some of the regulations that are imposed on firearms owners. Would you maybe explain to me some of the problems or some of the issues that exist with the chief firearms officers? Maybe you could also tell me whether all firearms owners receive a notice that their firearms licence is expiring.
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
Thank you, Mr. Breitkreuz.
Despite the constitutional guarantees that Canadians have of equal application of the law in all provinces and territories, I can assure you that the chief firearms officers right across the country make it up as they go along.
We've had more issues with chief firearms officers making arbitrary decisions than you could ever imagine. I'll give a couple of very fast examples, if I may. The Ontario chief firearms officer said a few years ago, and this is a quote. Mr. Farrant was in the room when he said this. He said, “I woke up one morning and decided that people needed to have an invitation to go to a shooting club that wasn't their own”, despite the fact that your federal permit says you can.
He said that he didn't care if it's written on the back of a cocktail napkin or if it's an email and he didn't even care if clubs put out blanket invitations, not having that invitation is a violation of the terms and conditions of your authorization to transport, with a mandatory minimum of three years in jail.
What bureaucrat in this country has the power to arbitrarily make up a rule that can put Canadians in jail for three years? This is insane.
The House of Commons repealed the gun show regulations back a couple of years ago, and that's good. They were never implemented because they were absolutely ridiculous.
The chief firearms officers of British Columbia and Alberta decided that they would implement the regulations anyway, regardless of what the House of Commons said. We had to actually appeal to the commissioner of the RCMP to step in and ask his employees to comply with the law, because they were arbitrarily applying these rules to gun shows within weeks after the House of Commons had repealed those same rules. That's the kind of thing we're facing all the time.
Every single province has its own rules as to how gun clubs and shooting ranges are run and how stores are inspected and approved. We actually had one case where a store had completely redone a wall, but in the original specification there had been a door there at one point in time, and the CFO was insisting that the door be alarmed, but it didn't exist anymore. He was actually threatening the business with pulling its business licence over that.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
We're past time now, Mr. Breitkreuz—yes, already sir.
Now we will go to Mr. Easter.
You have the floor for seven minutes, please.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank both witnesses for coming and for your presentations.
Mr. Chair, if we're going to get into advertising allegedly misrepresenting fact, as Mr. Leef alleged, I'd be here all day if I got into the government advertising on a number of subjects, so I guess we'll just leave that one alone.
The difficulty we're having on this bill, while we do support certain aspects of it, is that we are getting mixed reviews. I do appreciate your point of view. I may disagree with some things, or maybe it's a misunderstanding, but we're concerned both about the transportation aspects of the act—and Mr. Bernardo, you went some distance to answer that—and also the minister's authority to make the final decision. Whether he consults or doesn't consult will remain with the individual minister.
Mr. Chair, I understand that the RCMP, which has been involved in this area, has declined to come. Is that correct? We really need to hear from the RCMP, which has been involved in these matters, to get their point of view. I find it absolutely unacceptable that they're not coming before this committee.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Mr. Easter, the witnesses who were asked to come here and declined have sent reasons and/or a written confirmation with regard to their non-appearance, and as such, the chair would be willing, at first convenience, to have the clerk distribute their response to the committee.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
We need that because I really would like to hear the point of view on these two subjects from the people who are enforcing these areas.
Let me go then to the witnesses. On the PAL and the POL, we agree with the combining of those licences—but have the possession-only licence holders been screened for various domestic or criminal problems or whatever, or had the training? Is there any training out there? Am I right, or am I incorrect?