Public Safety Committee on May 14th, 2015

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and through you, thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

Thank you for mentioning the need to make firearms regulations more simple so that the average person who owns a firearm, or even a pellet gun, or a BB gun, can rationalize its use. I'll be asking another witness a different question, based on my grandkids, but let's get around to some of the testimony that was given and to some of the questions asked at our last meeting.

You mentioned in your opening statement that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters delivers a hunters safety course on behalf of the Province of Ontario. I guess it would be more appropriate, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, to say that it's in collaboration with the Province of Ontario, based on a curriculum that you both have agreed to. You also mentioned that you give the firearms safety course in conjunction with the federal regulations.

Would it be correct to say, with regard to the 100,000-odd members of your organization, that you speak on their behalf, and that the credibility of your voice would be representative of most hunting and fishing organizations throughout Canada, with whom you converse on a regular basis, from coast to coast to coast? In your opinion, would you say that most would be agreeable not only to this bill but to the opinions you've expressed here?

[Greg Farrant]

Mr. Norlock, yes to all your questions. We work very closely with our affiliates across the country, in every province and every territory, from coast to coast to coast. I sit on several panels and committees with many of them on issues related to firearms and other issues. We talk about these issues among ourselves on a regular basis. So yes, I think I can safely say that my views would represent those of our affiliates across the country.

I also can speak with confidence, I believe, in saying that I represent the views of all our members. At OFAH our slogan, if you will, is: the voice of anglers and hunters. We speak frequently for our members on issues related to firearms and other issues that are before this committee and before Parliament. So yes, I do so with great confidence.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Would you say that one of the primary responsibilities you would take on as an organization, and your members accept wholly, is that you are conservationists first, because you want to conserve our fish species and you want to conserve the game animals that we hunt? I say “we” because I am a member. I am an avid hunter. I'm also a member of Safari Club International.

Would you not agree that conservation is the number one issue that we deal with, and that your members, in addition to conservation, simply want to be able to engage in angling and hunting, and want those laws that govern those two activities so that they can understand and properly teach their children and other people proper fishing and hunting responsibilities?

[Greg Farrant]

Yes. I agree. Most definitely we are first and foremost a science-based conservation organization concerned about the conservation of our fish and wildlife resources in both Ontario and across this country. Indeed, we work with partners across North America on those issues. We're certainly concerned, given that we deliver the hunter education program in Ontario, and given the fact that our instructors are also firearms instructors. They deliver the Canadian firearms safety course either separately or in conjunction with hunter safety, known as the one-stop course. As I said during my comments, we take safety very seriously.

The item I left with the clerk of the committee to deal with is a joint production by us, the Chief Firearms Officer of Ontario, and the Ontario Provincial Police about the safe storage and safe transportation of firearms. We believe in this very strongly. We work very closely with those organizations on those issues to ensure that people understand what the rules and regulations are and what the law says. Unfortunately, as Mr. Brown has pointed out, in this particular context, a lot of people out there with low-velocity BB guns and pellet guns and paintball guns would have no clue whatsoever that they could be subject to charges for moving these around, as it currently stands.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you for mentioning that, because that was actually going to be my next question.

To your knowledge, based on the fact that you are intimately involved with hunting and fishing, not only in the Province of Ontario but across this great country of ours, would you say that some folks wouldn't realize that, if this legislation does not go through, some—and I will say so publicly—overzealous police officer who goes into a house and sees a BB gun in the corner might look at the Criminal Code and say, “My goodness, there is a charge here”?

Most police officers wouldn't lay a charge unless there were some other indications, something very serious in conjunction, but would you agree that if we leave the Criminal Code and firearms regulations in such a complicated way, because of a whole mishmash of different people who think they are doing good things, the majority of those folks who want to engage in a lawful, peaceful, and healthy pastime could end up being on the wrong end of the law?

[Greg Farrant]

That's correct. I'll speak to a couple of things there.

Most police officers, the vast majority of them, do their job very well and do it as they understand it. Until this bill came forward, I admit quite candidly, I did not realize that this loophole existed, and I deal with firearms on a daily basis and have done so for 15 years at OFAH.

We find, however, on a consistent basis, that police officers across this country do not necessarily understand the Firearms Act and what safe storage and transportation are all about. There are repeated cases that occur all the time, every day, somewhere in this country, where a police officer stops somebody and lays a charge of unsafe transportation of a firearm, when in fact the person with the firearm is adhering to the law and it is the officer who doesn't understand what the Firearms Act means in terms of safe transportation. That is a problem now, and unless this is fixed, it is certainly a problem for a whole range of other people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Norlock and Mr. Farrant.

We now go to Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you to both witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Farrant, for the additional research you did before coming to this committee.

Before I start my line of questioning, Mr. Chair, rather than take time from the committee, I have a question for the clerk.

I mentioned at the last meeting that I felt Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness should come before the committee. I understand they have refused. Did they give a reason why?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Leif-Erik Aune]

The correspondence is on the system. I don't have a hard copy with me for reference, but I would be happy to forward the exact correspondence to you.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Please do, if you could.

There are some questions that I think need to be asked of Public Safety on this particular bill. When it's a government bill, they are always here. When it's a private member's bill, the same implications are on society, and I think they should be here. I am extremely disappointed they refused.

In any event—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, we discussed this last time, and I think the member just answered his own question. This is a private member's bill. Instead of trying to make this something it is not, I think that perhaps we should just get back to questioning.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, you can take this out of my time.

Whether it's a private member's bill or a government bill, when it deals with the Criminal Code, it has the same implications. In fact, when it is a private member's bill, and I've put forward some private member's bills, you don't have the advantage of having the Department of Justice go through it as you do in a government bill, so I think it is even more important to have them here.

In any event, they have refused for whatever reason, so we will not belabour the point.

Mr. Farrant, I didn't look into this, but you mentioned archery in one of your statements. How are archery products treated under the law?

[Greg Farrant]

They are not subject to licensing requirements or storage requirements that I am aware of. Certainly not—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Storage and transport....

[Greg Farrant]

They're certainly not subject to the same requirements as firearms.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I went to an archery range last summer, and there are some pretty powerful archery products out there as well.

Mr. Brown, I am actually intrigued by your proposed amendment. It would simplify things considerably if just certain products, pellet guns, paintball guns, or whatever, were exempt under the law. It would simplify it a lot more than the current proposal. If we were to look at that, what are the areas that you would see as being exempt?

[Todd Brown]

I don't believe I said that anything was exempt. I was working within the confines of this bill, and the recommendation I made was to put section 86 into the list of sections that section 84 of the Criminal Code will affect. I don't believe I said anything should be exempt. That would be a whole other topic that would take up too much time than what would be necessary here at the committee today.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I guess I didn't use the right words. I meant “deemed not to be firearms”. I think those were your exact words.

[Todd Brown]

Yes, okay. That makes a difference. As you know, in the law, terminology can mean everything. I'm very up on the terminology.

The one thing I had mentioned was that as a firearms instructor—and I will state that I am a former firearms instructor due to exigent circumstances; I still own my teaching kit—all these firearms are disabled firearms that are not able to shoot or discharge a projectile in any way, shape, or form. Why they should be still considered a firearm is beyond me.

Instructors have their restricted teaching kit, for example, which are restricted class firearms that are all deactivated. They are no longer functioning firearms, so why they shouldn't be exempt under the law is something that's always bothered me in that respect. As instructors we're out there teaching and trying to make people safer, and we're being penalized by paperwork and government bureaucracy in trying to help people learn a new skill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Let me come back, Mr. Chair, to the transportation and storage aspect of this particular bill.

I understand the public safety offence would still exist. That's correct, right? Mr. Farrant, you can answer that if you could.

I've said this in the House that part of the value of having these pellet guns, BB guns, etc., under the transportation and storage rules is the value of education. The Criminal Code penalty does seem a little excessive. If not that, then what?

I have two questions. What do you suggest in the absence of the current law on transportation and storage? Do you believe the public safety offence should remain if these are used at a risk to public safety?

[Greg Farrant]

Thank you, Mr. Easter, for the questions.

The courts in previous judgements have said that a firearm becomes a weapon only if it is used, or intended to be used, to cause death or to threaten or intimidate a person. If somebody is using a firearm, regardless of what type of firearm, for that purpose, they should still be subject to the law and charges under the law that are appropriate.

We are talking here in this context about people who innocently are going about their business with low-velocity firearms or guns where you don't even classify it as a firearm. In fact, Dunn says that pellet guns that fire under the standard that's been established have never met the definition of a firearm because they are incapable of causing serious injury or death to a person. They have further suggested that neither storage regulations made under the Firearms Act or the Criminal Code firearms offence provisions apply to them.

Far be it from me to correct a court, but subsection 86(2) creates an offence for the contravention of storage and transportation regulations made under the Firearms Act. However, paragraph 84(3)(d) of the Criminal Code exempts lower velocity firearms from the provisions of the Firearms Act and its regulations, including those relating to storage and transportation. On one hand the court is saying one thing, and on the other hand the law is saying something different.

I think this bill serves the purpose of identifying there is an inconsistency in the law. I do not believe that in any way, shape, or form changing this legislation, approving the bill and making the change to the Criminal Code as proposed will in any way, or shape, or form threaten the public safety any more than what we currently exist under.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Farrant.

Now we have Madam Michaud.

You have five minutes.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to thank Mr. Farrant and Mr. Brown for their presentations.

Mr. Brown, I would like to follow up on a question that my colleague Ms. Doré Lefebvre asked. Do you know whether any members of your organization have ever been convicted under the current legislation?

[Todd Brown]

No, I don't. However, given the thousands of people who are in my organization, I don't have a daily discussion with them over this.

My concerns are with the potential for something bad to happen. This is something that would be like a preventative measure. We don't want to see somebody having to go through the court system to deal with something involving a pellet gun or a BB gun.

This, as I said, is more a preventative measure. Rather than waiting for something bad to happen and saying that we have to fix it, we've identified the problem. Let's fix it before something bad happens to somebody else and they get dragged through the court system for a piece of legislation that's unclear.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you very much.

In my constituency of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, there are a lot of hunters and anglers. So I am quite sensitive to their concerns. The head office of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs is located in Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures, which is also in my constituency. So I am very familiar with the issues.

Mr. Farrant and yourself said that the bill we are studying would have a preventive effect, but that it does not seem to tackle the real issue. That is what I understand from your comments. Moreover, the Canadian Police Association mentioned that the number of actual convictions, not the number of charges brought to court, is very low, less than 10, actually. I am still new to this committee and I am trying to understand the need for this bill.

Gentlemen, I am going to bring up something else. You mentioned that businesses could be affected by the legislation. Do you know of any businesses that have financial difficulties because of the current legislation, that might have had things seized or other problems as a result of the current legislation?

Mr. Brown, you can answer first and Mr. Farrant can comment later.