Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2018

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I disagree.

May I, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't know that that's actually debatable.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Can I have the floor, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You can have the floor. I don't know whether having the floor actually constitutes debate. The ruling is the ruling and at the end of the day, the only recourse is a challenge to the chair.

Go ahead, because I'm such a generous and warm-hearted chair that I'm perfectly willing to hear what you might comment.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'll likely get to that after I go through my thoughts on this.

This amendment is put forward by a rural Liberal MP who won his seat by a handful of votes and understands the travesty of justice that Bill C-71 poses for law-abiding firearms owners. He is seeking protection and amelioration for himself and some of his colleagues for what he knows is coming once this law is passed.

It's unfortunate that he's not here to present the motion himself tonight. On his behalf, I would like to challenge your ruling, Mr. Chair, because I don't believe this is beyond the scope. It fits in nicely with everything that we're discussing, which is licensing provisions and transaction provisions for the transfer of firearms between one licence-holder and another. This is paramount. The fact that this Bill C-71 changes how licences can be granted is certainly within the scope of this legislation.

Therefore, I believe that Mr. Bossio's addition through this amendment, which also changes how licence rejections can be appealed, is in order and should be allowed to be debated before this House. I would like the opportunity to do so and the only means I have is to challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins, and I'm questioning my generosity at this moment.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I would like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 3)

As a consequence of the challenge of the chair being sustained, LIB-4 also is beyond the scope.

(On clause 10)

We therefore move to CPC-38, standing in the name of Monsieur Paul-Hus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As regards amendment CPC-38, section 101 of the Criminal Code is very clear: it is already an indictable offence to sell a firearm to someone who does not hold a licence.

As the Criminal Lawyers' Association has said, this provision merely adds a criminal liability threat if two individuals authorized both to possess and acquire firearms fail to inform the government of their lawful transactions.

What additional safeguard will this provision achieve for Canadians? Does someone think that gangs that buy illegal firearms concealed in trunks of cars will stop to get a reference number before conducting the transactions? That's absurd.

Perhaps it's more like the statement made in the House of Commons by Mr. Holland, who said that people who had authorizations to transport were thugs who travel around a million places. I know that Mr. Holland got a lot of coverage in the firearms community following that comment, and I accept his statement that there was some misunderstanding.

However, let's be clear: the only people with firearms who can be called thugs are those who don't have licences to acquire firearms, and absolutely nothing in the bill concerns them, despite what the experts in the Prime Minister's cabinet may tell us.

That's why this is amendment is so important. Instead of devoting government resources to telling law-abiding firearms owners what they already know, namely that they are law-abiding firearms owners, we could use those resources to target thugs and criminals.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Calkins, do you want to comment?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on CPC-39.

Once again, I turn the floor over to Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

What amendment are we discussing? Wasn't there another one before that?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It is amendment CPC-39.

You just dealt with amendment CPC-38.

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

These are relatively the same arguments as those I just advanced concerning amendment CPC-38. Once again, this concerns the form of the registry that is imposed, but it's slightly less rigid than amendment CPC-38. Amendment CPC-39 affords more flexibility.

I hope this will be perceived in the same way by my colleagues on the other side, who seem to be very interested.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment CPC-40 is apparently the same as amendment CPC-39, so amendment CPC-40 cannot be moved.

Amendment CPC-40.1 was reference number 9928789. We already made the original ruling back under CPC-15 that it was ruled out of order for vagueness.

(Clause 10 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 11 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

There are no amendments to clause 12.

We're on amendment CPC-40.2, reference 9927639, in the name of Mr. Calkins.

I would just make the observation—I'm not going to rule against it—that there's, borderline, a scope issue, but beyond that, you've moved it and we'll let it stand.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

One of the things this committee heard about, particularly in the testimony of Dr. Gary Mauser, Professor Emeritus, is the fact that in the past this bill has created a lot of paper criminals. This is a long-standing frustration of law-abiding firearms owners. This is actually why they're so up in arms and incensed with Bill C-71. Again, they feel that it is an attack on the law-abiding citizen rather than an actual focus on going after criminals, organized crime, contraband, and all of those things.

As Mr. Mauser pointed out in his testimony when he appeared before the committee, on average there are about 15,000 firearms charges and subsequent other Criminal Code charges that are laid as a result of these particular issues, so what I'm proposing—and I'm hoping my colleagues will see it—is that in the event that somebody finds themself offside with the law in the sense that it's only a paper crime for which there is actually no victim.... For example, a police officer goes to a house for an unrelated reason, sees a firearm that's not being properly stored, and lays a charge in accordance with the Criminal Code or the Firearms Act, when there is no victim.

We can have a debate or argue all the time about whether or not public safety is actually served by that, but I would appeal to the angels in the room. If we actually don't have a victim, we shouldn't be sending people to jail. We have enough people in this country who are committing crimes for which there are plenty of victims and for whom the rationale of giving them light sentences, parole, or bail is that we don't have incarceration space for them. That is a reality.

I'm proposing this amendment so that it can give at least some assurance to law-abiding firearms owners who, through something that might have happened inadvertently or a result of a misunderstanding of the legislation or what have you, find themselves.... Unless we actually have a victim or somebody who is harmed as a result of a violation of this act, we shouldn't be sending people to jail.

I'm moving this and hoping that the folks in the room see its reasonableness. This is a reasonable amendment. I'm all for cracking down on actual perpetrators, on people who actually commit offences and have the intention to either deprive people of their property or commit harm to another person, but for those who don't do that, I want to give them at least some small victory. The fact is that Bill C-71 is going to pass, much to their concern. I'm hoping that we can give them this victory, Mr. Chair. I think this is beyond reasonable, and it shouldn't be a partisan issue at the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to applaud my colleague for presenting this amendment, because I think it speaks to where we find ourselves with the majority—97.3% of gun owners, based on the statistics—who have never committed a crime with their firearm. Because of a paper error, we potentially are going to create for them criminal records.

If public safety is the ultimate goal of Bill C-71, which we are told repeatedly that it is, then it would be reasonable to accept this amendment for an individual who has committed an infraction of which they are unaware, as we have said before, with respect to a paper infraction.

I can tell you from my experience in my previous life that when you come across someone who has committed a minor offence—a bylaw offence, a minor Criminal Code offence, a traffic infraction, anything—and they actually don't know that what they've done is wrong—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

They should.

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

They don't. They should.

I'll get into a debate sometime, Julie, about some of the things you may not be aware of that are going on in your community and are offences. You may not be aware of it—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

But I don't have a firearm with me.

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

Yes, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is that they haven't committed an offence with a firearm. They're not a threat to public safety. They're not going to be. They never will be, yet we're suggesting that we will criminalize them.

When you see those individuals, and you watch them.... If the police continue to proceed through the justice system, many times the courts will toss it. When they toss that, in this circumstance, because they have been charged with an offence under the Criminal Code or the Firearms Act, that, in all likelihood, will prevent them from continuing to have a licence and from continuing on with their hobby or whatever it is that they may do.

What I'd like to ask the officials is if they see this amendment as creating such an egregious affront to public safety that it would not make sense to proceed.

[Randall Koops]

Sir, if I read your amendment correctly—and I'm open to correction if I don't—the offences that it would propose there be no punishment for include “false statements to procure licences”, “false statements to procure customs confirmations”—so, importing or trafficking—“tampering with licences”, “unauthorized possession of ammunition”, “non-compliance with [a] demand to produce [a] firearm”, and “contravention of conditions of licences”, as well, with regard to section 103, failing to comply with the “duty to assist inspectors”, which from our reading would go to the heart of the public safety provisions of the Firearms Act.

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

With regard to the ones you've read there, I would agree, but I think there is a multitude of other types of offences that could possibly occur under the particular intent of this amendment.

[Randall Koops]

Indeed, although, as we read the amendment as proposed, those are the offences that it would exempt from punishment.

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

If you read the amendment, it is not that they do not face any criminal sanction. It's that they don't go to jail for some of the more minor paper offences. Just like we are seeing—and this is not your issue, although you're public safety, so it might, and we're justice—with Bill C-75 and some of the current serious indictable offences that are going to be reduced, that sanction could be a fine. That's what this is saying: that there's no jail time for some of these minor paper offences.