Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2018

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

They were wondering what CIFTA was. That's what it is. The reason this is in here is to curtail firearms trafficking. I'd be surprised if the Conservatives would support anything that would allow more firearms trafficking, but the free trade agreement is the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Chair, the purpose of the question was solely to ascertain whether the agreement would help determine the period of time for which records must be kept.

The only answer I was waiting for from officials was whether we could have access to that information before voting on this clause. As I am new to the committee and am merely passing through, I won't make a big deal out of this. It's just a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's very difficult to ruffle feathers in this committee.

The officials have undertaken to provide the information. I don't actually think it impacts on the intentionality with respect to the voting. Therefore, unless there's other debate, I'm going to call the question.

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're moving on to CPC-35.

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

Mr. Chair, I withdraw amendment CPC-35.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's withdrawn. It's not moved, actually.

Next is CPC-35.1 in the name of Mr. Calkins.

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

Thank you, Chair. I would like to move my amendment and debate it. I'm assuming I have the floor.

Mr. Chair, this amendment proposes a similar change, namely that Bill C-71, in clause 7, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 8 with “in the circumstances that may be prescribed or seven years after the records were transmitted to them, whichever is earlier.”

I'm proposing this because notwithstanding the evidence that we've heard here today about what might be a norm, my concerns are now exacerbated by the understanding that there is a proviso in the legislation that allows for an automatic extension of the 20-year period to something larger as a result of Canada assenting to the international trade agreement that was brought to my attention just now, which is CIFTA. Without knowing what that prescribed period or timeline actually is, the record-keeping norms we have in Canada would suggest a keeping of the records for seven years, which is how long we have to keep tax information and all other manner of documentation in terms of government record-keeping.

Notwithstanding virtually every rationale that a firearms vendor would have on behalf of whoever the supplier or the original manufacturer might be, I'm not aware of any reason to go beyond seven years for conditions of warranty or what have you. That is the normal reason for a vendor to keep that information on behalf of the manufacturer, in case there is a warranty issue, not particularly because it's a public safety concern.

Given the fact that the previous motion to reduce the 20 years down to 10 was defeated, and that the motion to get rid of the clause that would allow anybody to extend the 20-year period was defeated as well, I don't hold out much hope for this one, but I'd like to move it nonetheless.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

So moved.

(Amendment negatived)

We are on amendment CPC-36.

Mr. Paul-Hus, go ahead, please.

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

I'm going to withdraw this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Amendment CPC-37 is identical. If you've taken out amendment CPC-36, then you also take out CPC-37.

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

It's not the same thing at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I apologize. I assumed because he was withdrawing it, then he was.... Okay.

That was my error, Mr. Paul-Hus, and therefore amendment CPC-37 is on the floor.

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

Thank you.

There will be a bit of work to do on amendment CPC-37. We'll have to discuss its objective in particular. We also feel there are some translation problems.

First, the objective is to protect records in order to protect citizens. In our view, an inspector may not simply enter a business and access records without a warrant. The idea is, above all, to protect citizens, in view of the fact that there is purportedly no registry. We do not see why an inspector can simply enter a business without a warrant justifying his doing so. Furthermore, we are talking here about a private business. The government has decided to require that private businesses maintain the registry. However, business owners are not required to receive these impromptu visits or to provide access to all their information, particularly since they are not paid to do so.

I would like to hear the opinions of the experts here on access to information and on how to proceed. We are talking here about private sector business owners who have an obligation to keep records without being compensated.

Do they have a right to ask that inspectors have warrants if they wish to access their computers and information?

That may be a question for the people from the Department of Justice.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

They're just deciding who's going to respond.

Go ahead.

[Paula Clarke]

There's nothing in the bill that would create any new investigative powers for law enforcement, so while they may attend a business if they had suspicions or were investigating a crime, that's fine, but it doesn't require that the business owner answer any questions. The normal procedures that take place for law enforcement or a police investigation would remain the same.

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

It's not clear in the bill either, and that's why we're introducing an amendment. For the moment, there's no protection for business owners or the records they keep. Inspectors may enter a business without a warrant. Nowhere is it mentioned that they must have one. The purpose of our amendment is to clarify that. Otherwise, there is no protection.

[Nicole Robichaud]

I'll just clarify. There is an inspection scheme in the Firearms Act, which is similar to inspection schemes in other legislation. Regulatory inspection schemes operate under a framework that is different from that which police investigating criminality operate under, for which the high thresholds of a warrant apply. For a regulatory inspection scheme, typically if it's just for a business, you would not require a warrant because the expectation of privacy is lower. You'll see in the Firearms Act that if a firearms inspector is going to enter a home, then in that circumstance there will be a warrant. This would be typical of other regulatory inspection schemes in other legislation.

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

So you're telling me it's already provided in the Firearms Act. An owner who has new obligations under Bill C-71 is automatically protected by the Firearms Act.

Are you confirming that for me?

[Nicole Robichaud]

Section 102 is an inspections power under the act and there is a specific provision, section 104, that deals with inspection of dwelling houses that would require a warrant to inspect a dwelling house. A warrant is not required to inspect a business.

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

In fact, we need clarification on section 102. That's the purpose of this amendment.

This is currently unclear, as are several other points. We are therefore seeking assurances that there is no more vagueness and that this is clear. We are asking that an inspector be required to have a warrant.

Is that legitimate?

[Rob O'Reilly]

In reference to section 102, if you look at the definition of an inspector under section 101, it is a firearms officer. Section 102 is just to ensure compliance with the record-keeping requirements.

What you are talking about in terms of inspection of the records for the purposes of law enforcement is not touched by this particular portion, so section 102 would simply be a firearms officer going in to confirm that the records are being kept as per the requirements of the act.

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

There are probably some translation problems, but I think this is a firearms inspector, not a police officer. We were actually talking about an inspector. We therefore want there to be an obligation for an inspector to obtain a warrant before intervening. The retailer owns a private business; he is someone who has an obligation to keep records.

With respect to privacy, we request that this action be carried out with a warrant. Section 102 exists, but it is not clear in this area.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Seeing no one wanting to debate, we'll vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

I don't believe there are any other amendments to clause 7.

Shall clause 7 carry?

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

Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We will have a recorded vote.

(Clause 7 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to)

Before we debate LIB-3, which is a new clause, we have a ruling from the chair.

The amendment seeks to create a new reconsideration process for decisions to revoke or to refuse to issue a licence registration certificate or authorization. According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, the reconsideration process introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule it inadmissible.

We have a consequential ruling to LIB-4 as well.