Evidence of meeting #118 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was firearm.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
That's because you don't know.
I'll ask the question.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Chair, I'm curious to know what our officials are thinking with respect to this amendment, especially for dealing with inheritance or things along that line. What are your thoughts on this, Mr. Koops?
12:55 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I think that if we've understood it correctly, as we read it for the first time, it would propose to extend the grandfathering regime to the heritors or estate of a grandfathered owner.
Currently what's proposed in Bill C-71 for the firearms in question is that this class of grandfathered owner not pass that status on. That grandfathered status continues for the life of the owner but does not exist beyond it. There are, as you know, certain circumstances in the Firearms Act where a grandfathered firearm can be inherited, but the intent in Bill C-71 was that the particular firearms not be eligible to be passed on through grandfathering status.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I personally know individuals whose fathers have firearms that would be grandfathered and who have the requisite licensing requirements. As well, the individual who could receive that as part of an inheritance has met the same licensing requirements. Why would there all of a sudden be a need to restrict that transference in those circumstances? I'm having a tough time understanding that.
One individual with a certain class of licence has met the requirements for that class of licence. Again, why only this particular type of firearms was considered to be grandfathered is another debate for another day. If the person who is going to be receiving them also historically has had the requisite licence to own them and may even have some themselves that could be grandfathered, why all of a sudden now would they not qualify to have this grandfathered provision available to them? I'm having a tough time understanding this.
12:55 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Parliament to date has only enacted one situation where the ownership of prohibited firearms passes from one generation to another, and that is in the pre-1946 handguns, the so-called war trophy exemption. The intent in Bill C-71 is that, in the firearms affected by this bill, like the other circumstances where Parliament has legislated to provide for grandfathered ownership, that grandfathered ownership only be available to a certain class of firearms and to a certain class of the current owners. Also, the intent is that the pool stays fixed in time, and that pool does not increase over time through bequests, legacies, or inheritance.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
The pool would never increase. If it's inheritance, you have one owner who has passed.
1 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
If it operated in that function, it would create another new eligible owner for grandfathering down through the generations.
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
One at a time is correct, but still, it would not cause the pool to diminish over time, which is the intent of Bill C-71.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
My question is for the officials.
Where this is permitted—and in this case it is—can this type of transfer be settled by regulation and not by an act, that is, by a procedure that is detailed by regulation as a result of an act that is already in place?
1 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The bill currently has a provision in it that will allow for the Governor in Council to enact a regulation to deal with grandfathering in the future, but, from what I see as drafted, it does not contain an enabling authority to allow grandfathered owners to bequeath these firearms to family members.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Yes, but my question wasn't whether we allow it or not. My question is whether, in the circumstance where there might be a possibility that one firearm be transferred to someone else, the procedure to do that will be covered by regulation and not by the act. Is that the case?
1 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
If the act gives the Governor in Council enabling authority to pass regulations to do that, the act can do that. The bill does not currently do that.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I thought my time was up. It's okay.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I guess that's exactly the point there. Should it not have that in there?
1 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?
1 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
What you just said. Should it not be in there? Would this amendment not improve the bill significantly in that regard, then?
1 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's not a decision we would make legally. As justice officials, we can't comment on policy decisions.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Yes. I guess her recommendation just made our point for us, Mr. Chair.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any other debate on CPC-10.1?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Normally we would end here, colleagues, but I'm proposing that we go to 1:30, unless somebody wants to sponsor a motion against that.