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.
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
You are incorrect, sir.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
You're telling me that everyone who has a possession-only licence has at some point been screened and has had training.
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
They are a part of continuous eligibility. RCMP continuous eligibility encompasses all firearms licences.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I still don't disagree with their being combined, but we are wondering and need to be assured whether there needs to be an amendment on the POL side that those who are grandfathered meet the original conditions of screening and training. You're claiming it's not necessary.
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
No, the application renewal forms for the licences are exactly the same. You just check off a box.
9:35 a.m.
Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Yes, I do in terms of the screening, sir.
April 30th, 2015 / 9:35 a.m.
Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Many of the people who hold POLs in this country are—how can I phrase this—fairly elderly or moving in that direction.
9:35 a.m.
A voice
Experienced.
9:35 a.m.
Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
They are experienced firearms owners, and unfortunately, I have to put myself in that group now too.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
In fact, some of these guns, to be honest about it, are held with the POLs for sentimental reasons.
9:35 a.m.
Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Yes, a lot of them are. I can't give you an accurate number, but I would hazard a guess that the vast number of people who hold POLs in this country have no interest in acquiring additional firearms at this time, and that's why they have POLs in the first place. Some of them will, which will be allowed when the licences are merged, but these are people who have held these licences for at least a couple of decades and have used these firearms responsibly throughout that time.
As Mr. Bernardo has indicated, they are subject to the same screening criteria as those who hold PALs, so there is safety, and the safe and responsible use of firearms I don't believe is in question.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Coming then to the minister, I guess I'd address the minister's ability to change the classification. I do believe the public would feel more confident if the decision is made by the RCMP or some such advisory committee. I think our experience on the Classic Green—whether a right or wrong decision was made at the end of the day, I'm still betwixt and between on that—shows that a minister is going to be under political pressure to change various classifications. I think that's a real problem. I think it far better to have an expert committee making that decision. There are always ways for the ministers to change it at the end of the day, as we've seen in the Classic Green. But why a minister would want that responsibility, I have no idea, so we differ strenuously on that particular point.
Mr. Bernardo, you suggested a number of amendments on transportation, especially postal shipping. Do you have a copy of those you can provide to committee, or maybe you have it in your own documentation?
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Especially around postal, even though I disagree with the transportation aspect of the bill, if we can still improve it, we're willing to do that and we may need amendments in that area.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
Now to the second round, which will be five minutes.
Madame Doré Lefebvre.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank Mr. Farrant and Mr. Bernardo for being here today. It is greatly appreciated.
I have a few questions. I would like to go back to the firearms licence authorization and the six-month grace period proposed by the bill.
Criminal charges can be laid the day after someone’s firearms licence expires if it has not been renewed. That’s a problem.
I tried to consult with various police forces and experts to find out what the best solution is. I still have a lot of questions about this possibility as presented in Bill C-42. You seem to have studied the bill but we have diverging opinions about the outcome.
Here is my first question.
You are representing the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association. I am not sure whether you know, but have several of your members been arrested in recent years because they did not renew their licences? Is that common?
9:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
We've had a number of our members not necessarily arrested but visited by the police, saying, “Your licence is expired and we're here to take your firearms.”
That is particularly worrisome when someone is a grandfathered owner. Remember, some of these firearms we're talking about as grandfathered firearms are worth tens of thousands of dollars. Perhaps somebody has made a mistake, they've been sick, they've been in the hospital. We've even had soldiers who were serving in Afghanistan who forgot to renew their licences before they left.
With respect to the firearms that are grandfathered and prohibited, the moment your licence expires your grandfathering is lost and you have to surrender the firearms for destruction. If everything is good, you can go to court and maybe you can get a judge to say you're allowed to sell them, but you're not allowed to keep them because you've lost your grandfathering.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
So people actually have their weapons confiscated. Do police officers really leave with the weapons or do they give owners a certain time? You say that they visit the owners and tell them they need to leave with the weapons.
Do they really leave with the weapons?
9:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
Generally yes, they take them out of the home at that point.
It varies widely, depending on where you are, the circumstances, but usually when they come to inform you that you've lost your grandfathering, they take them right then and there.
9:40 a.m.
Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Thank you.
We have members all the time who either receive a letter or a phone call from the police to say it has come to their attention that your licence is expired and you have x amount of time to either renew your licence or get rid of your firearms. They tell you that if you don't intend to renew your licence they will come and get your firearms right away.
A lot of these folks are older folks. I get panic calls a lot of the time from my members who are calling and saying, “I just noticed my licence is expired. I got no notice or anything. What do I do?”
I say, “Technically, you're a criminal right now. You must immediately take action to reapply for that licence. Keep a copy of your reapplication on file so you can demonstrate you are attempting to come back into compliance, in case the police do contact you.” Yes, it happens very frequently.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Okay. Thank you very much.
I would also like to discuss with you the important question of the classification of firearms, although all the parties here have addressed it before.
Mr. Bernardo, you talked about it in your presentation. You actually mentioned the problems caused by the way things are working right now.
Based on what Bill C-42 is proposing, the classification will change, and things will really be left in the hands of cabinet. Mr. Leef also raised this point in a question he asked you. In your presentation, you said that this was cabinet's responsibility and that this situation would create continuity. I'm sorry, I'm not exactly using the words you used.
That being said, governments change. The Conservatives are in power now, but the Liberals might be in power next. I personally hope that it will be the New Democratic Party. We never know what can happen. Without making political jokes or anything like that, I honestly have trouble seeing this continuity. Each political entity has a very different position on the classification of firearms. It is a very sensitive debate.
Are you not afraid that the debate will be slightly politicized by this issue, given that governments change?
9:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association
Too late, it's already politicized. The minister, the cabinet, already has the authority to take away firearms. They already have that. They've had that since 1995. It hasn't changed. At the end of the day, the government, the cabinet, has that authority anyhow. What we are saying here is that it is a lopsided authority. They have the power to correct the mistake in one direction, but at the moment they don't have the power to correct it in the other direction.
In fairness, we have not seen government abuse of this power since 1995. All governments so far have been very measured in their responses. However, you have to be able to go both ways. Right now, the power swings only one way.