Public Safety Committee on May 5th, 2015

[Robert Abramowitz]

The way I would answer that is to say that the clause is aimed at making it clearer. It would not take away the ability for the government to make regulations.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'd like to ask another question, Mr. Chair, because we are getting into the federal government, whatever political stripe happens to be in power, through the minister, imposing its will on chief firearms officers in the provinces. Is there any ability for a chief firearms officer or a province to argue against those federal regulations that make certain impositions on chief firearms officers within the province?

[Lyndon Murdock]

Again, as Mr. Abramowitz has just mentioned, the amendment before us would essentially remove the ability of the government to bring forward regulations. These regulations are really all about ensuring that the federal government has an ability to ensure there is consistency in how this federal program is administered. It does still provide CFOs the flexibility to introduce measures to address the realities of their own jurisdictions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Still, my question hasn't been answered. As the federal government brings in a regulation for “consistency“, as we could call it, is there consultation with the provinces or the chief firearms officers within the provinces when they bring in those additional regulations, or is it just that this is the way it will be, and that's it?

[Lyndon Murdock]

With respect to bringing forward the regulations, there is the consultation through the Canada Gazette. Regulations are generally pre-published, and organizations have opportunity to provide comments. There is consultation through that process.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay, so it would be under the regular process.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.

Thank you to our witnesses for the clarification.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 12 agreed to on division)

(On clause 13)

We have an amendment proposed by the Green Party, amendment PV-3, which calls for deleting lines 8 to 12 on page 7. You can turn to page 7 of the bill.

Mr. Garrison.

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

In the absence of Ms. May, we'd just like to say that this again deals with the automatic authorization to transport weapons, which we believe does raise public safety concerns, so we will be supporting her amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 13 agreed to on division)

Colleagues, we have the opportunity to go from clause 14 to clause 17. We can group them if it is the will of the committee.

(Clauses 14 to 17 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 18)

We have an amendment proposed by the NDP.

Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I believe these are in the process of being circulated to committee members.

This amendment would eliminate the ability of cabinet to make exemptions to the classifications of firearms that have been established in law. We think that not only is this wrong in practice, it's probably also wrong in law, because the purpose of regulations or cabinet activities is normally to implement laws passed by Parliament, not to create exceptions to laws passed by Parliament.

In addition to the political question it raises about politicization of firearms, we think it creates a very negative precedent with regard to protecting the right of Parliament to make the basic decisions, and it is not for cabinet to create exemptions to existing pieces of law.

It goes back to one of our fundamental concerns about this bill, which is the politicization of the issue of classification of firearms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, just for your reference, this amendment is suggesting that lines 26 and 27 on page 8 be deleted. Mr. Garrison has had the conversation in his introduction.

Is there any further comment? I'll give you a second to peruse that.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I don't think it's any surprise that I'm not going to be supporting that amendment. It goes against part of the purpose of this bill. I don't really need to say anything further on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very kindly.

All in favour of NDP-2? All opposed?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 18 agreed to on division)

Colleagues, we have the opportunity to group clauses 19 to 33 should you wish.

(Clauses 19 to 33 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 34)

We have a proposed Liberal amendment number 2, and the chair has a ruling on that.

Mr. Easter, would you like to move that first before the chair makes a ruling?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, I will move it, Mr. Chair, because it makes so much sense that experts be in charge rather than just the Governor in Council.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you. The chair will read the ruling on this based on the advice and counsel of our staff.

The amendment envisions a role for the commissioner of firearms in the regulation-making process, thus introducing a new concept into the bill.

As stated on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, this amendment does go beyond the scope of the bill, therefore the chair rules that the amendment is inadmissible.

We will now go to the vote on clause 34.

(Clause 34 agreed to)

(Clauses 35 to 38 inclusive agreed to on division)

Colleagues, we are now dealing with the short title. Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Shall the bill carry?

Yes, Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We are in the situation where we have another bill that has been rushed through Parliament using time allocation and rushed through committee. We have not heard from the full spectrum of witnesses we should have heard from with regard to a bill that's so important to public safety. We have not had any proposals to change any provisions in the bill from the government, so the bill stands as it was introduced.

We remain concerned about two things in this.

One, on which we presented an amendment today, is that non-aboriginal Canadians in rural or remote areas are losing the ability to challenge the firearms test. For a government that argues it's reducing red tape and unnecessary paperwork for gun owners, we think this is an example where they are in fact doing the opposite.

The second and probably larger objection deals with firearms classification. We've had this single example of the Swiss Arms classic green rifle, which was reclassified and seems to have caused the government to consider changing the whole classification system and introducing a political element that we do not believe should be there.

The current legislation allows the minister to exempt weapons that have a legitimate hunting or sporting use from the classification established in the law, and we think that's sufficient. This opens it up wide, and as I said in our discussion of the various clauses of the bill, it really politicizes the process of gun classification rather than leaving it up to experts. I always raise the prospect that the Conservatives service may not always be in government and may not be as happy with political decisions made on gun classification by other parties as they would be with ones made by themselves. I think that illustrates the problem. We don't believe any political party or politician should be making those basic decisions.

The final objection I wish to call attention to is the automatic authorization to transport. I have personally heard from many in the law enforcement community that this is not about the law-abiding citizen who has the authorization to transport; it's about their ability as law enforcement to enforce the law against the illegal transportation of goods, and those who don't have authorizations to transport.

What the scheme here creates is what one law enforcement official said to me, which was five automatic excuses for having a weapon in your car. And having not heard from law enforcement, I remain convinced that this is a significant public safety issue in this bill.

So at this point we will not be supporting the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

I see Mr. Breitkreuz wants to make a point. However, he's not subbed in. There would have to be the consent of the committee for him to speak.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's fine. You have the consent, Mr. Breitkreuz. Do you have a brief comment?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Thank you very much, and thank you to the committee for allowing me to make a comment here. It's difficult for me to sit back and simply observe what's happening without making a comment on what Mr. Garrison has just said.

The CZ was alright to own for more than 10 years, and it appeared as if there were an arbitrary decision made at some point to suddenly criminalize a large number of people. In fact, it's not even known how many people would be caught by this reclassification.

There appeared to be no point for it, and I think for the people who are responsible for the classification to suddenly change their mind on something that was legally owned and had not been a problem for 10 years indicates why we have put this legislation in place to prevent this kind of thing.

The other impression that is often left in regard to the authorization to transport is that somehow suddenly you will be able to carry firearms wherever you wish. I'd like to point out to the committee that this does not change any of the restrictions that normally would apply in transporting firearms. You can still only transport your firearm where the licence allows you to, meaning to the shooting range, or basically a gunsmith, or that kind of thing.

To give the impression that suddenly guns will be carried all over our provinces is completely false. It does not change anything. I may not have a chance in the House to point this out, but I'd like to point it out to this committee.

I thank the committee for allowing me to make those comments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said in the House, we do have some problems with this bill, Mr. Chair. There are also some areas in the bill that favour, but because of our concerns, especially about the turning over to the minister of the issues of classification, we'll be voting against the bill.

We certainly favour the combining of licences; I think that does make a lot of sense. The six-month grace period in terms of the licence makes sense. And the additional training we would agree to. But much like Randall said on the ability of the minister to classify guns from non-restricted to restricted, etc., that is a huge concern. Quite honestly, I don't know why any minister would want that authority, because it's going to put a lot of political pressure on the minister from some certain interest groups.

As for what Mr. Breitkreuz mentioned a minute ago on the classic green rifle, I'll not get into it, but I do have a memo to the previous minister, Vic Toews, in which it seemed to be recommended, and there was no problem then. All of a sudden there's a problem.

I think the government and the minister are making a big issue that could have been addressed another way. As a result, now turning over so much of the authority to the minister himself, who is subject to political pressure from interest groups, is a problem. I think it would have been better to have left it with the expert committee, in addition to the RCMP.

In any event, we won't be supporting the bill, but we do recognize that there are four areas in the bill that are quite useful and helpful to law-abiding gun owners.