Public Safety Committee on May 5th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, colleagues, welcome to meeting number 67 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today we are dealing clause by clause with Bill C-42. We have with us today witnesses to answer any questions, should that be necessary. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Lyndon Murdock, the director of firearms and operational policing policy. Thank you, sir. We also have Robert Abramowitz, counsel for legal services. Thank you. From the Department of Justice, we have Julie Besner, the acting senior counsel from the criminal law policy section.

Welcome to all of our assistants here today. Certainly we will be calling on you, should your expertise be needed.

Colleagues, I would just maybe mention one small point for your consideration. Going forward with any potential legislation that comes before this committee—of course, there are bills right now at second reading—the chair certainly is not going to be presumptuous and suggest that we're to deal with any particular one. However, should we deal with one, I would just ask all of our colleagues at committee to be mindful of any potential witness lists they might prepare and/or be prepared to put to the clerk, so that the clerk is not left hanging at the very end trying to look for a witness. I just bring this to your attention. It is certainly only an observation by the chair and not a request at this particular point. That'll be up to each individual member of this committee.

Yes, Mr. Easter?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On witnesses, Mr. Chair, I don't know whether we'll face it in other legislation, but we have faced it with this one, Bill C-42, and that's the procedure for subpoenaing witnesses. What it is? I guess I could find out from the clerk.

It's absolutely astounding that we're dealing with a bill, the common sense firearms act, and the RCMP, who are in charge of that, refused to come. The larger police forces in the country refused to come. That's a serious matter because we're dealing with a bill now without having had the experience of a number of police forces on the ground. I don't know what the reason is for their not coming here; it would be not right for me to speculate.

What is the process for subpoenaing witnesses? Because if we need them, we need them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The chair would certainly confer with the clerk just for a second, but my first thought on this as chair would be to suggest that, of course, that's at the will of the committee. If the committee decides that is the way they wish to proceed, then, of course, the committee has that authority and that right to do so. That would have to be a decision of the committee to do so.

I would ask the clerk for further clarification, if it's necessary.

The chair has been advised that that really is the process we would use, Mr. Easter, if at some particular point a motion were to come before the floor to that effect and the committee committee supported going down that road. Traditionally that has not happened, but the chair has seen a couple of occasions in the years he's been here where that has taken place.

Colleagues, we will now go to clause by clause on Bill C-42. We are going to deal with the short title, of course. It'll be postponed until after we finish the bill, should there be any changes to that. Right now we'll go to clause 2.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(Clause 3 agreed to on division)

(On clause 4)

Now we have an NDP amendment, I do believe.

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

While we have great overall concerns about the overall impact of this bill, one thing that we heard from witnesses at committee, and increasingly from residents from rural and remote areas, is the concern that this bill will eliminate the ability to challenge the firearms test.

While we do support the firearm safety course and believe that everyone should take that course, it's simply not a practical reality for many in the far north or in rural areas to do so. In some places, the course is only offered either very irregularly during the year or it requires someone to travel two, three, or four hours, and stay overnight to take the course. It involves great inconvenience and cost to those people.

What we're proposing in this amendment is restoring the ability to challenge the firearms licencing test. We're really just restoring the existing wording in the law, by deleting the changes that were proposed to paragraph 7(1)(b) of the existing act.

It's a fairly simple amendment. It restores the existing situation, where it is possible to challenge the test. By no means are we arguing that the safety tests are of no value; we're just trying to accommodate those who live in rural and remote parts of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

For those who were trying to follow along here, if you have the amendment, we are talking about clause 4, on page 2, and we're talking about deleting lines 8 to 24.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I won't be supporting NDP-1.

The intent of this bill was two-fold. One was to reduce red tape for law-abiding firearms owners. The other was ensuring greater capacity for public safety.

A number of things within the bill were directly related to that. This one here that you're proposing would actually remove the requirement for someone to take that course. We believe it is in the interest of public safety and, therefore, I will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Yes. Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I think Randall brings up an interesting point. Could the witnesses here explain what process the bill proposes, and what happens to an individual who can't take the safety training course? In some cases, in remote areas, it would be a long time. Could someone answer that?

Is there any avenue available to individuals who live in remote areas for them to meet these conditions? Maybe they have to travel, but could witnesses expand on what's proposed in the bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Murdock.

[Lyndon Murdock, Director, Firearms and Operational Policing Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

With respect to what is proposed in the legislation, as has been noted, individuals will be required to take the course and successfully pass the test. The only exception that would be available would be for aboriginals. There is a carve out for members of the aboriginal community to challenge the test directly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much for that clarification.

I see no further comment.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Is it only the aboriginal community that can challenge the test?

[Lyndon Murdock]

With the scheme that is proposed in Bill C-42, that would be the case, yes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

So, would some people in remote areas be in a different situation than those in the aboriginal community?

[Lyndon Murdock]

Correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

On NDP-1, all in favour? Opposed?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 agreed to on division)

(Clause 5 agreed to on division)

(On clause 6)

We will now go to PV-1. If this motion were to be adopted, then we could no proceed with the Liberal amendment coming up, as it amends the same lines.

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-42 does provide automatic authorization to transport weapons as part of the licensing, and for that reason we will be voting against the bill. We think that is wrong in principle.

What Ms. May has proposed here tries to deal with that piece by piece through the bill. We do support the concept she's raised, so we will be voting in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine. Thank you very much.

Yes, Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can't support this amendment. The intent of this bill is to eliminate a lot of the red tape. Once you have a firearms, it's automatically the case that you can transport it to a sporting goods store for repairs, or to a range. I think this is appropriate in the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Yes, Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Just as one other comment, we heard from a number of the witnesses on this. In fact, someone actually brought a couple of examples where they actually had an ATT that was valid for multiple years. It wasn't just for a specific trip.

Again, the intent of this bill is to reduce red tape, as well as to bring an increased public safety factor into the community, so I will not be supporting this amendment either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Yes, Mr. Garrison.

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

One of the things Mr. Easter raised earlier was the fact that we had not heard from the law enforcement community on this. One of the concerns we have with the whole automatic authorization to transport is that it makes it very difficult for law enforcement to enforce the provisions against the illegal transport of guns.

When it comes to public safety, we think this provision does not in fact enhance public safety. Again, that's one of the chief reasons we'll be voting against the bill as a whole but are supporting this amendment, because it does raise that issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

Yes, Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

We've heard from witnesses that in fact the CFO just wrote out this thing, stuck it in a drawer, and the police never knew at any point in time when a firearm was being transported. To me, that has no bearing at all on this case. Once you have that licence, it gives you the authorization. As we've heard from previous witnesses and as Ms. James said, in fact you can transport over longer periods of time, not just for the year.

Thank you.