Public Safety Committee on April 30th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. Our time has now expired in our first hour of deliberation today.

On behalf of the committee, the chair would extend gratitude to our witnesses for coming here and taking the time to provide us with their expertise and their experiences. Thank you.

We will suspend now for the second hour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, colleagues, we are back in session here for the second hour.

With us today, by video conference, on the left side of your screen, is Mr. Gary Mauser, professor emeritus, Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, Simon Fraser University. Also by video conference, from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, we have Murray Grismer as an individual.

Welcome, gentlemen. I am just going to check. How is our hook-up today? Are we live and well?

[Dr. Gary Mauser, Professor Emeritus, Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual]

Good morning. This works fine for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

How about you, Mr. Grismer?

[Murray Grismer, As an Individual]

Good morning, sir. I can hear you fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, good. We are all on board and ready to go, then.

The chair will advise that each witness will have up to 10 minutes to make an opening statement. Should it be possible, it would give us more time for discussion. After that, we will go through our rounds of questioning for the second hour.

Mr. Mauser, you have the floor for an opening statement, sir.

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

Thank you very much for inviting me here. It's a pleasure to present my views to the committee.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the government for honouring its promises to reduce red tape for law-abiding firearms owners.

I would like to make two points this morning.

First, excessive regulations do not increase public safety. As anyone who has a firearms licence knows, the present regulations are quite complex and arguably excessive.

My second point is that eliminating the opportunity to challenge the firearms safety exam in order to get a firearms licence eliminates many capable people who have alternative training from obtaining a firearms licence.

Taking my second point first, I would like to point out that in Bill C-42 the challenge portion is proposed to be eliminated, and in northern British Columbia many small towns do not have access to federal firearms safety training personnel. Part of the reason for this is that the BC CFO, the chief firearms officer, has arbitrarily reduced and restricted the number of instructors. In my written submission I'll include some paperwork to support this.

Without adequate instructors, it makes little or no sense to require federal training, when at the same time there are many provincial safety instructors who teach hunting safety. These students have adequate knowledge to be safe and should be qualified to take the test. Indeed, they have been passing the test at great rates. In some provinces, both Manitoba and Quebec, the provincial hunter safety course is certified as equal to the federal training. I would urge that this be the case in this instance.

As my first point, which I'll take up now, about excessive regulations not increasing public safety, I present three statistical arguments.

First of all, homicide rates fell much faster before the introduction of licensing and the long-gun registry than they have since. They dropped roughly 25% before and roughly 8% afterwards. Secondly, accidental deaths equally fell more before than after. They dropped 45% to 60% before the introduction of licensing and long-gun registration and only 20% after. My third point is that after the ending of the long-gun registry, firearm murders and the homicide rate overall have continued to drop, so obviously it was not a necessary regulation for public safety.

Those are my basic points. They all are consistent with the argument that the present regulations are excessive. The streamlining proposed in Bill C-42 will not endanger public safety, and I urge the government, finally, to continue the challenge possibility for the federal firearms safety course.

That's my submission. Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Mauser.

We will now go to Mr. Grismer.

You have the floor, sir.

[Murray Grismer]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee, and fellow witnesses, it's an honour and privilege for me to appear before you today to assist you in your deliberations of Bill C-42, the common-sense firearms licensing act.

I'm a retired sergeant of the Saskatoon Police Service with over 26 years of service protecting the citizens of Saskatoon and Saskatchewan. At the time of my retirement on April 30, 2013, I supervised a team of front-line men and women responsible for policing the second-largest geographic area in the city of Saskatoon.

The courts of Saskatchewan, both provincial and Queen's Bench, have qualified me as an expert witness, enabling me to give opinion evidence on firearms-related matters. In that capacity, I have provided assistance in over 50 cases, both federal and provincial prosecutions. I am also a master instructor for both Canadian firearms safety courses, and an approved verifier, certified by the registrar of the Canadian firearms registry.

Firearms owners across Canada share in the desire and belief of the need for common-sense change to the Firearms Act. Bill C-42 introduces common-sense amendments to the Firearms Act and Criminal Code.

First, these amendments will create a statutory category for non-restricted firearms. A non-restricted firearm, as defined in proposed subsection 84(1), is a firearm that is neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm, or it is a firearm that is prescribed to be non-restricted.

Second, they will streamline the licensing system by eliminating the possession-only licence, or POL, and converting all existing POLs to possession and acquisition licences, which are called PALs. At present holders of a valid POLs have, since the implementation of the Firearms Act, continued to demonstrate a history of safe and responsible firearms ownership. At the time of renewal, they undergo the same rigorous background checks as PAL holders and have all the privileges of a PAL holder, with the exception of purchasing another firearm, yet they can borrow or rent any number of non-restricted firearms.

Bill C-42 will create a six-month grace period at the end of a five-year licence period to stop people from becoming immediately criminalized for paperwork delays surrounding licence renewals. Canadians having not received a renewal, or who are out of the country for business, employment, vacation, or serving in our armed forces at the time of a licence expiry will find themselves in unlawful possession of their firearms and will be required to complete the Canadian firearms safety course to re-obtain a licence. Licences extended during this six-month grace period are subject to the following limitations: the holder cannot use the firearm or purchase ammunition, any authorizations to carry or transport are expired, and the availability of authorizations to carry and transport will be limited.

Amendments will also make classroom participation in firearm safety training mandatory for first-time licence applicants. First-time licence applicants will no longer be able to simply challenge the Canadian firearms safety course tests. They must now successfully participate in one or both of the Canadian firearms safety courses.

Bill C-42 will amend the Criminal Code to strengthen the provisions related to orders prohibiting the possession of firearms where a person is convicted of an offence involving domestic violence. A mandatory 10-year prohibition order would apply to a person convicted under section 109, regardless of the possible sentence or discharge, when violence is used, threatened, or attempted against the offender's current or former intimate partner, the child or parent of the offender or the current or former intimate partner, or any person who resides with such a person.

The maximum length of discretionary prohibition orders under section 110 are extended if, in the commission of the offence, violence is used, threatened, or attempted against the offender's current or former intimate partner, the child or parent of the offender or the current or former intimate partner, or any person who resides with such a person. In such circumstances, prohibition orders may be imposed for life, or for any shorter period as the court deems appropriate.

Amendments will end needless paperwork around authorizations to transport by making them a condition of a licence for certain routine and lawful activities. The authorization must take the form of an attachment to the licence. Upon licence renewal, the holder of the licence to possess restricted or prohibited firearms will automatically be authorized to transport them within the province of residence for the purposes of travel to and from all approved shooting clubs and ranges; to any place a peace officer, firearms officer, or chief firearms officer is located for the purposes of verification, registration, or disposal; to a business for the purpose of repair or appraisal; to a gun show; or a port of exit and from a port of entry.

Contrary to what you may have been told or led to believe, the proposed conditions listed above reflect conditions that are currently in place on authorizations to transport.

Amendments will authorize firearms import information sharing when restricted and prohibited firearms are brought into Canada by businesses. Those businesses seeking to import a restricted or prohibited firearm will be required to notify the registrar or Canada Customs, in the prescribed form, before or at the time of importation.

Bill C-42 will allow the government to have the final say on classification decisions, following the receipt of independent expert advice, by granting the Governor in Council the authority to override the firearms classification in section 84 by way of regulations carving out exemptions.

As a veteran police officer, master firearms instructor, and court-qualified expert, I am of the opinion changes to Bill C-42, the common-sense firearms licensing act, contrary to what others would have you believe, do not constitute a threat to public safety, nor do they inhibit a police officer from executing his or her duties. ln fact, they enhance public safety and through the simplification of the licensing regime and ATTs greatly assist police officers in the execution of their duties, all done by the application of a little common sense.

Mr. Chair, honourable committee members, in conclusion, Bill C-42 is worthy of your consideration and support. It brings common-sense legislative changes to the Firearms Act and Criminal Code.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Grismer.

We will now go to our first round of questioning for seven minutes.

We will start off with Mr. Hayes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, just for your information, I'm a stand-in on this committee. I was invited because I have a piece of legislation currently being studied on domestic violence prevention. I don't own a gun. I came into this committee with virtually zero knowledge of gun legislation. Having been on the committee now for several meetings and listening to several witnesses, I can say, unequivocally, that I do support the legislation that this government is bringing forward.

I want to focus my questions on safety, and specifically, on the safety of women and children. The committee has heard testimony that screening for a licence was less intensive under POL than under PAL and that somehow eliminating or combing the two will make screening less intensive.

Is there any truth to that comment? I'll ask Mr. Grismer first.

[Murray Grismer]

No, sir. The people who are supplying you that information are incorrect.

The screening that goes on for a person who has a POL is exactly that for a person who has a PAL. At the time of renewal, they go through the same rigorous background checks as a person with a PAL. They've been doing so since 2001, which was the final date that you could obtain a POL. For the last 14 years, people who hold POL licences have gone through the same background check as a person who has a PAL at the time of renewal. If those people who have been in lawful possession since that time don't pass the background check, which is the same as with the PAL, they wouldn't have a licence.

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

Mr. Mauser, I assume you agree with that. If you do, just nod because I'll move on to the next question and I'll ask you the next question first if you don't mind, sir.

Is there anything in this bill, in your opinion, that jeopardizes the safety of Canadians in any way, and conversely, is there anything in this bill that will increase gun-related domestic violence? I'll ask you first, Mr. Mauser and then, Mr. Grismer, I'll ask you to respond to that as well.

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

No, I do not think that any of the changes in Bill C-42 would increase the danger to women or children through guns. At the present time, only 2% of accused murderers have any kind of a firearms licence. That's a PAL, POL, or the old FAC. So this is very small group of people and nothing would change.

As Mr. Grismer has pointed out, gun ownership is subject to intense scrutiny to achieve a licence, and secondly, nightly to make sure that there are no restraining orders or any kind of offences committed overnight. Nothing in this bill would reduce that. In terms of merging POLs with PALs, they are already treated bureaucratically now as the same.

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

Mr. Grismer, could you comment as well please?

[Murray Grismer]

I believe that there's nothing that's going to take and diminish the safety of Canadians whatsoever. In fact, I believe that the changes made to sections 109 and 110 of the Criminal Code in relation to domestic violence and redefining people in an intimate relationship will enhance the safety of the public by prohibiting persons who have been convicted of violence or threats of violence towards anyone within that clause....

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

Okay.

Mr. Grismer, the Coalition for Gun Control website states that the bill proposes an automatic renewal. I guess they're referring to the amnesty period. Do you agree that, given the limitations within the six-month grace period, this constitutes an automatic licence renewal? Yes or no. Could you speak a little bit about that grace period and the importance of that grace period and what those limitations are?

[Murray Grismer]

I can. As I outlined in my opening remarks, it's not an automatic renewal. The licence is merely extended for a period of six months to allow the person who for reasons of either being away from Canada or for not having received their renewal notice, because many within Canada are certainly moving about because job markets are transient in nature.... If they haven't received their renewal or they haven't had the ability or opportunity to be able to renew their licence because of being out of Canada, they now have a six-month period of time whereby, hopefully, at the time they return to Canada they can come into compliance with the law.

The legislation, though, sets out specific things that they can't do. Once their licence has expired they can no longer go to a shooting range. They can no longer hunt with that. They can no longer use them in the public domain unless they were supervised by somebody who happens to be a holder of a valid PAL licence. What it does do then, or in addition, is it also takes away or cancels any authorizations to transport that they may have had for restricted firearms. Again, they can't be transporting those around. I just see this as being a common sense kind of thing to do.

The criticism of the existing legislation is that people are not necessarily getting the information they need. They're not getting their renewal notices. Again, there are a variety of reasons for not having done that. This seeks to allow people to come into compliance without having to go about taking the Canadian firearms safety course training and tests again. They've already had it when they obtained the PAL in the first instance. Really what's the purpose of it? I guess if once they've gone beyond the six-month period certainly then maybe there's a need for a refresher to remind them of their obligations.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Madame Doré Lefebvre, you have seven minutes.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank Mr. Mauser and Mr. Grismer for joining us by videoconference and for participating in this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

My first question is for Mr. Grismer.

In your presentation, you briefly mentioned—and that is why I want to go back to that—the courses for people who want to purchase firearms in the country. I find that interesting. I took those courses myself. I am a resident of Quebec and I took them in the Montreal area. We have two separate courses: the firearms safety course and the introduction to hunting course. Since I am in the greater Montreal area, it is easy for me. Many courses are available for those who want to obtain a hunting licence.

However, I know that it's more difficult to have access to those courses in other parts of the country, especially in rural or remote regions. Some First Nations communities are quite isolated. Could you tell me what your opinion is?

Measures, such as the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptation Regulations, have already been implemented for First Nations. I was wondering whether the proposed courses would go against the rights of First Nations and what the impact would be on rural and remote communities that don't have easy access.

[Murray Grismer]

I share your concern about the availability of courses, as does my colleague Mr. Mauser. Certainly it is of concern to me that access to Canadian firearms safety courses for people in remote areas is limited. People who live in northern Quebec are the same as people who live in northern Saskatchewan. The challenge will be for the CFOs within the provinces to make it available to people in remote areas. Certain logistics will have to be worked out.

I share your concern that it will not be as universally available, or at least as readily available, to people in remote areas as it will be for you in Montreal.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Mauser, would you like to comment?

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

Thank you very much for your question.

I am exceedingly concerned about access to federal firearms safety courses, or firearms safety courses in general, in the rural parts of Canada, certainly for the native bands, the residents who live on small ranches and small farms, and the people who live in exceptionally small towns. Many of the chief provincial firearms officers around the country have arbitrarily restricted the number of firearms safety instructors, so it's even more difficult than it normally would be for such residents to have access to courses.

That is why in both Manitoba and Quebec the federal government has set it up so that hunter safety courses can be seen as equivalent to federal firearms safety instruction. I would urge that to be set up in British Columbia. We have many instructors who teach in both the federal course and the provincial course in British Columbia. These are high-quality hunter training courses in Quebec, in Manitoba, in British Columbia, in many provinces, and these should be encouraged. If you live in a small town or a small village and the only firearms instructor is hundreds of miles away, it means that you have to drive and stay the night to take a long course. This is an incredible imposition on people in small towns.

I would encourage the government to not dismiss the challenge option so that people can take training at better convenience. The test, of course, is the final arbiter of whether the person is safe or not. If he or she passes that test, then they are safe.

Thank you for your question. I hope that answers it.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

That sheds a lot of light and I appreciate your answers to that question.

My next question is basically for all the witnesses before the committee. It has to do with the classification of firearms as proposed by Bill C-42. I am trying to clarify that part of the bill. My understanding is that it seemingly gives a lot of power to cabinet to decide on the classification of the various firearms. A number of witnesses have shared their views with us, and those views vary.

The bill places a lot of power in the hands of cabinet in terms of classification decisions. However, governments and parties in power change. I wonder if the consistency in the classification of firearms will not be compromised by the provisions in Bill C-42.

If possible, could you tell me what you think about that?