Public Safety Committee on June 5th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ladies and gentlemen, it's 11:00. I wish to get started.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to raise a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Let me call the meeting to order before you have your point of order. We'll start off.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 28, 2018, we are now moving to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

We have with us three witnesses. From the Department of Public Safety we have Randall Koops; from the RCMP we have Rob O'Reilly; and from the Department of Justice we have Paula Clarke.

Before we move to the formal consideration of clause-by-clause, I understand Mr. Paul-Hus has an intervention.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Here's why I'm raising a point of order.

During the last meeting, there was a real breach of my privilege as a parliamentarian because of interpretation problems. It isn't that our interpreters are ineffective, on the contrary; they are professional and do very well. However, the delay in interpretation means that exchanges can be more complicated. I can understand English, but I listen to the interpretation. So I have to wait until the interpreter has finished the sentence, which takes two or three seconds, then someone else speaks and I'm not in a position to speak. So my right to speak is cut off.

I would like the committee to take note of this problem.

This wasn't a problem when I was on the Standing Committee on National Defence. It isn't just a problem on the francophone side. If an anglophone speaks, I also have to wait. If I stop speaking now, Mr. Chair, you will end up hearing the interpretation, and if I continue, it cuts into your right to speak. Do you understand the problem?

I think it's important for everyone. It's a matter of mutual respect for all members of the committee, in one language or the other. We should wait for the interpretation to finish before continuing.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you. You've made your point. I think it's valid. I have the same problem.

(On clause 1)

With that, we will move to clause 1, CPC-1. The amendment is in the name of Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Mr. Chair, before we start discussing our amendments, I would like to point out something else.

Last week, I asked for a deadline to work on our amendments. We ran out of time. On our side, we have 54 amendments, which require additional work. In addition, testimony given by indigenous people must be taken into account.

That said, I will talk about the Conservatives' first amendment. We think it is important to give elected officials the power to regulate the types of restricted weapons. It should remain the privilege of elected officials to decide which weapons can be used by the public.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, respectfully I cannot support the amendment. The reason is that the cited sections of the Criminal Code, specifically section 84, already reference relevant regulations when appropriate and, as such, the reference to regulations is redundant.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz.

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

I would say that it's important that the amendment maintain the ability for the elected officials, via regulation-making, to determine that a firearm is non-restricted. It's consistent, albeit the words are different, with what's contained in the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Viersen, welcome to the committee.

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

Thank you. It's my honour to be here this morning.

I was just wondering if we could ask our witnesses here today if this would make it more clear that we want to ensure that elected officials maintain control of the regulation made under this act.

Mr. Koops.

[Randall Koops, Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I think there's nothing in the act that would change the provisions that elected officials remain in control of the regulations. I think the question, as your colleague has suggested, is that perhaps since section 84 already includes the definition of regulations, this provision may in fact be redundant in that case, without actually changing the situation that it is elected officials who are responsible for the regulations.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

On NDP-1, we have Mr. Dubé.

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

One of the big changes made by this legislation—one which we support—is returning power to the RCMP for classification. It's our belief that they're the ones with the expertise to make such determinations, which are obviously based on definitions created by Parliament.

That being said, I think one of the things that clearly comes out of both witness testimony and correspondence that members have received on this legislation is that there is obviously a trust issue that needs to be addressed with the community of firearms owners in this country. I believe one of the ways to address that is to have the RCMP be more transparent about the reasons behind determinations that are made and I think that would go a long way in re-establishing trust.

That's what this amendment seeks to do, by tabling a report that goes through the reasoning behind the changes potentially made by the RCMP.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't believe the amendment should be supported because, as C-71 is already drafted, it ensures a consistent approach to firearms classification, where determinations are made by technical experts at the Canadian firearms program.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Viersen.

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

With all due respect, I think this really needs to be supported for the exact reasons cited. Particularly, I think this amendment goes to similar causes as the amendment before it. We want to maintain that the list is overseen by elected officials. If the regulations can be changed, or the firearms are being placed on the restricted list, or taken off, or all that kind of stuff, it is important that it doesn't come back to the House of Commons.

This is a canary in the coal mine issue. When the government is changing legislation or changing regulation around the classification of firearms, I think we need to ensure that they have to make Parliament aware of that situation.

I think this is a very supportable amendment and I'm happy to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz.

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

I agree with my colleague. As I understand this amendment, it will force the Minister of Public Safety to table the rationale for the classifications in Parliament.

I would prefer that the RCMP were not the unilateral, sole source of classifications and we'll see some of that in amendments coming forward. This amendment does make sense.

I guess my question to officials, like Mr. Koops, as well as our legislative clerk.... I would support this amendment, unless it is deemed that if we support it, some of the ones that are similar in this would be deemed to be non-votable.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Are you asking that of the legislative clerk?

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

Yes.

[Olivier Champagne, Legislative Clerk]

It's an independent one.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

On CPC-2, Mr. Paul-Hus.