Public Safety Committee on June 5th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Viersen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

With regard to this amendment as well, just the fact that it's gazetted.... We want some clarity around the fact that if changes are being made, all Canadians should be made aware of that. We would like to see it in the House of Commons, but if we can't get that, then the Canada Gazette would be appropriate as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I can give you an example. Last week, we saw what could happen. It was my colleague here who discovered it. On its website, the RCMP has already officially announced changes to the types of weapons, even though the act hasn't yet been passed in the House.

It is important that Parliament—the House of Commons and the Senate—retain a reserve right over RCMP operations. We cannot let a police force do everything it wants independently. If that were the case, we would be a bit like a police state. It is our duty to keep an eye on this. That is why this amendment is very important.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Further to that, Mr. Chair, and based on what my colleague said, I think it's important that we heard from witnesses in other testimony that law enforcement should be the enforcement arm of these legislative.... They can advise. They are there to provide expertise, but they are not there to be the final authority on not only the making of the law, if you will, but also the enforcement of it. There needs to be a distinction, and that's where elected officials come in.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on amendment CPC-4.

Mr. Motz.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would suggest that this has some minor differences. This amendment proposes that clause 1, again, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 1 the following:

(2.01) The federal Minister must cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament any recommendations received from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to whether a firearm is a prohibited firearm, restricted firearm or non-restricted firearm on any of the first 10 days on which that House is sitting after the recommendations were received by the Minister.

(2.02) The federal Minister shall not act to implement a recommendation that is tabled under subsection (2.01) if

(a) fewer than 10 sitting days have elapsed since the recommendation was tabled; or

(b) a motion to the effect that the recommendation should not be followed was adopted by the Senate or the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Viersen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

This amendment is in keeping with some of the other amendments we've had. We have some options for the Liberals to work with us on this. Particularly, we want to see legislative oversight being done by legislative officials, not the RCMP exclusively. If we're going to make changes to the Firearms Act, it should be tabled in the House of Commons. I think this is a workable solution, like some of the others that we brought forward. But if the Liberals want to vote against this, they'll have to wear that as well, I guess.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We have 4.1 and 4.01. Is that this 4.01?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm assuming that 4.01 comes before 4.1. Sorry, we've allocated a number to the one that's just been distributed and we're calling that 4.01.

This is yours, so you're on.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you.

Again, this is similar to CPC-3 and CPC-4. However, there are some substantial changes to the body of it.

Clause 1 is amended by adding after line 8 on page 1:

(2.01) A firearm may be deemed a prohibited firearm, restricted firearm or non-restricted firearm for the purposes of this Act and the Criminal Code despite the definitions of those terms in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code by order of the federal Minister on the recommendation of the Firearms Classification Board established in subsection (2.02).

(2.02) The Firearms Classification Board is established and, subject to subsections (2.03) and (2.04), is to consist, in equal numbers, of individuals named by the federal Minister and individuals named by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

(2.03) Only holders of a licence authorizing the possession of prohibited firearms or restricted firearms shall be named to the Board.

(2.04) In naming individuals to the Board, the federal Minister shall ensure that there are individuals who

(a) provide instructions in the use of firearms as part of a restricted firearms safety course that is approved by the federal Minister;

(b) handle firearms in the course of duties of employment; and

(c) represent various firearms users, including hunters and members of First Nations.

(2.05) The Board may make recommendations to the federal Minister as to whether a firearm should be deemed a prohibited firearm, restricted firearm or non-restricted firearm for the purposes of this Act and the Criminal Code. The federal Minister shall cause all recommendations of the Board to be published in the Canada Gazette.

(2.06) Proceedings of the Board shall be conducted in the prescribed manner.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz, before I ask for debate, could you give me an argument as to why this section does not require a royal recommendation, because you are in effect creating a new entity, which would require expenditure on the part of the government. That's generally beyond the scope of a bill.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I think what's important to recognize, as I said previously, is that historically there have been issues with unilateral classification by the RCMP. We heard from witnesses at the committee that if we were going to try to at least give the appearance of getting this right, we need to have more involvement in a classification process that's broader. The best way to do that is to develop a board—we call it a classification board here—for that purpose.

If you deem that this is not appropriate because it has an expenditure component to it, that's not something that I took into consideration, simply because I'm trying to address an issue that's void in the bill and that—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

[Inaudible—Editor] trying to address? I'm not convinced that this isn't beyond the scope of the bill.

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Chair, here's what I find interesting about this amendment. Given that we received it today, I apologize if I read it wrong.

Despite the Conservatives' willingness to put the power in the hands of the elected officials, their amendment does the opposite. Subsection 2.01 proposed in this amendment reads: “… despite the definitions of those terms in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code”. Changes to the Criminal Code fall within the jurisdiction of Parliament, which passes legislation to amend it. This amendment removes the power of Parliament to set definitions and gives the minister back the same power he had under the previous government.

The committee formed has no real power; it simply makes recommendations. On the contrary, if the minister doesn't even have to follow the recommendations of the committee he appointed and if we add “despite definitions” that may be established by Parliament, it is less democratic, in my opinion, than what is proposed in the bill. Indeed, the bill at least proposes that Parliament retain the power to legislate with respect to the Criminal Code.

As I just said, we have just received this amendment, and I may be reading it wrong. However, as I understand it, the status quo is maintained, and we want to be democratic by proposing the formation of a committee, but it would not be accountable to the public in the way we would have expected.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, it is normal for us to return to the complexity of weapons classification management.

It is said that Bill C-71 should not propose the creation of a board. However, it plans to change the classification of certain weapons. There is some question of Czech or Swiss weapons. Who around the table can tell me what the Classic Green model from Swiss Arms is? No one knows that. There are technical elements that we haven't debated regarding which weapons should or shouldn't be banned or prohibited. We see this as a problem. That's why we think the creation of a board of experts made up of people who know what they're talking about would be in the best position to make the right recommendations.

I would like to know who created this list, where these names came from and why these weapons are listed. Someone made those decisions, and we don't know why. We have no explanations.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Viersen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

On this particular point about whether it's budgetary or not, it is interesting that the minister and the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and all the people named to this board would possibly already be on the public dime regardless. I don't know if it would necessarily cost us anything to run this particular board, because we could appoint them essentially from existing bureaucrats and members of the RCMP. That wouldn't be a problem in terms of budget impact. That's why I think this particular amendment should stand.

It gets back to the point that the RCMP is in the business of enforcing the law and not of making the law. We need to ensure that it always comes back to an elected official to have to make the final decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Going back to my NDP friend's suggestions, I just got it this morning and I just read that we are void.

I'm prepared to make an amendment based on his suggestion that the parliamentary oversight for the classifications board still exists, and that this was in error, being non-existent in this particular one. I would move an amendment that would include, similar to amendments 3 and 4, “That both Houses of Parliament have the ability to be involved in the final decisions, as recommended by the classifications board”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is that an amendment to the amendment?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Yes. Let me explain it, sir.

In amendments CPC-3 and CPC-4, we wanted parliamentary oversight, and in amendment CPC-4.01, parliamentary oversight was voided from this particular amendment, which was done in error.

I just read this now and my NDP colleague just brought it up. I want to ensure that what we are asking for, which is parliamentary oversight, continues to be involved. The only addition we are asking for here is that we have a firearms classification board, that the recommendations from that firearms board go to the minister, and that minister is then required to report it back to Parliament.