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.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Okay. Thank you.
I guess that makes the point that the date should be around when this bill is going to come into effect. I think that this amendment would work very well to do that, just to ensure that people aren't having to abide by a law that isn't even in existence yet.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Obviously, there's going to be confusion with a bill that may not receive royal assent until into the fall at some point in time, so that it doesn't become law until then. Therefore, we're backdating it, so that we have a June 30 date that could be three or four months or more away, after the bill becomes law.
Besides the confusion, is there the potential that someone may think that they are committing a criminal offence in the meantime? Is it a possibility, much like I'll bring up in CPC-12 where there's going to be confusion. I think it might be convenient when you draft a piece of legislation to suggest that having a three-month prescribed date is reasonable to get people ready if that date is going to become law. Given the timelines when this was introduced and the time we have left until the end of this session, we know that to receive royal assent is an impossibility.
1:10 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
No matter what day it is that the bill becomes law, that was not intended as the effective date to be an eligible owner for grandfathering. What the date of June 30, 2018 does is establish the point in time at which an owner will be asked to establish, as a matter of fact, that they were a lawful owner, with a duly issued registration certificate for that firearm on a given date.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Okay. You just confirmed my concern, which is that we have a prescribed arbitrary date of June 30. We're not talking the CZs or the SAs. We're talking about the other provisions in this act that make it a criminal offence, if they aren't adhered to. You're saying—let's take a date, like October 1—this act receives royal assent and it becomes law. Who is going to go back and make sure that everybody was compliant? What you're saying is that everybody has to comply by June 30. Even though it's three or four months out, they had to be compliant back then and if they weren't, are they subject to criminal sanctions?
1:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There's currently an amnesty order in place for the four-season firearms. That amnesty order ensures that people who are in possession of these firearms would not be subject to criminal liability. That amnesty order goes until 2021. It lasts for three years. That amnesty order is independent of this bill. If this bill never becomes law, that amnesty order still exists. If this bill doesn't come into force, the government could take steps to address that at that time, but there's currently no criminal liability for individuals who are in possession of these firearms. Regarding the other firearms that are currently not restricted, people aren't at any risk of prosecution for those either.
The June 30 date has nothing to do with the legality or criminal risk of these firearms. People who are in possession of them will not be at criminal risk for prosecution until the expiration of the amnesty order, which is roughly two and a half years from now.
The June 30 date is simply a mechanism to ensure that firearm owners are aware that they need to be in possession of the firearm at that date. That would make them eligible for grandfathering and if you were in possession of the firearm the next day, you would not be eligible for grandfathering. If the bill doesn't come into force, then these individuals would not be grandfathered through this bill and the June 30 date would mean nothing.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm drawing a blank. I don't understand the arbitrary June 30 date. Is that a common date that's set—three months from when a bill is introduced?
Second, the application of the June 30 date to the specifics in this bill is only on possession of firearms. It doesn't apply to any other aspect of the bill, such as ATTs or anything else? It's only for possession of restricted and prohibited weapons, correct?
1:15 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It's in reference to the eligibility for grandfathering for CZ and the Swiss Arms firearms.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
So June 30 has no other application in this bill but the grandfathering. Is that what I'm hearing you say?
1:15 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes, that's correct.
1:15 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The intent is to ensure that current owners—current roughly at the time the bill was introduced—can be eligible for grandfathering, irrespective of when the bill comes into force.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Then there is what you said, Ms. Clarke, that the amnesty is in place, so those who choose not to be compliant on June 30 would not face sanctions until some time after the bill receives royal assent, if it does. Is that an accurate statement?
1:15 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Unless the amnesty order was repealed, they would not be at risk for criminal liability.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm sure Mr. Motz might have other questions, but we have Ms. Damoff, Mr. Viersen, and Mr. Paul-Hus.
Ms. Damoff.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
If this June 30 date deals strictly with grandfathering, by extending it, what you're really doing is allowing more of those guns to be imported and sold. Is that correct?
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
We're talking only about grandfathering here, which is what Mr. Motz's point was. If we were to arbitrarily move it to September 1, it would mean that more of the guns would come in and then be sold.
1:15 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
That's correct.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Chair, we're going through this bill line by line right now. We have several amendments left to go—nearly a doorstop's worth—and that could change the tenor of the bill to some degree, I think.
I have an amendment coming up soon, proposed by Mr. Calkins, to remove the CZ firearm model from the bill. They say it's not necessary. That will change the date on which this is going to come into effect, and I think it's important to recognize that. Having that June 30 date in there was, in my opinion, fairly arbitrary. It should be on the day that the law comes into effect. That seems to make much more sense. This seems like a very arbitrary date, picked willy-nilly, not because it's the law of the land, but precisely because of what the witnesses said, which is that we want to stop the sale of this rifle today. Well, the law of the land today is that it's totally legal to own this particular rifle in Canada. Why would we try to restrict the sale of that rifle today when it is legal to sell it today, even though at some point in the future a law is going to pass that will make it illegal to own it?
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Those are exactly my colleague's arguments. In the case of Bill C-45, which includes marijuana, the Prime Minister's intent was for it to be in force on July 1st. However, we could see that because of the legislative work, implementation would take place later. This doesn't mean that everyone can smoke pot on July 1st. It will only be legal once the bill comes into force.
It's kind of the same principle. If, on July 4th, I want to buy a gun, I will have the right to do so if the legislation hasn't yet come into force.
What are we going to do after that? If the legislation comes into effect in September, what will people who have bought guns in the summer do? There is no logic in that. In fact, there is one, but is it correct, legal and acceptable?
There's the problem.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Witnesses, based on what we've just heard on this date, and what you've just indicated, and what Mr. Viersen has just said, if I choose to purchase one of these restricted firearms, I'm qualified to own one, if that's the case. I'd buy one before June 30, and that's still legal. Even though this bill has not passed or come into law, will a gun shop be in violation of anything should they sell one of these firearms after June 30? Will I, as a licensed gun owner who could purchase one of these firearms as identified in this act after June 30, be subject to criminal sanction at that point in time?
This act means nothing yet because it hasn't been enacted. It means nothing. That's the whole point. This is confusing the Canadian public. It makes zero sense to me that we would consider that. Can a gun shop sell one of these firearms as you've prescribed after June 30, and the amnesty applies? And it's the same thing with me. Can I purchase one after June 30? Obviously I can up until then, as my colleague has indicated. If they're lawful today—this act hasn't passed—why wouldn't they be lawful after June 30 if this law still hasn't passed?