Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2018

[Randall Koops]

Although, as we read it, the offences enumerated here include trafficking in firearms.

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

That's not a minor firearms offence—

[Randall Koops]

Correct.

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

—so that doesn't apply to this particular amendment.

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

All those things mentioned, the false documents and so on, also pertain to Criminal Code offences, where they would be more properly actually charged. Being complicit in organized crime and so on would likely end up in a Criminal Code charge, not a Firearms Act charge. However, your point is taken.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do you still wish to have a vote on this?

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

Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote on CPC-40.2?

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

(On clause 13)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're now onto CPC-42.

Monsieur Paul-Hus, go ahead.

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

Thank you for your kindness, Mr. Chair.

Amendment CPC-42 aims to preclude the possibility for the Governor in Council to make regulations for the provision of information by the transferor, the transferee, and the registrar for the purpose of issuing a reference number.

We feel that firearms owners in Canada are already the Canadians whose behaviour is most highly scrutinized and who are subject to the most verifications.

If we trust them enough to allow them to have firearms in their homes, why create this security theatre, as the Criminal Lawyers' Association has called it? Why create an even larger bubble around subsequent firearms purchases?

The public safety benefits of this kind of measure are very limited. It must be said that people who commit crimes do not buy their firearms at Cabela's or at Firearms Outlet Canada in Ajax, for example. They get them illegally.

All this measure does is encourage those who have limited knowledge of how the firearms authorization process works, and who suppose that we are like Americans, to think that we're doing the same thing.

Once again, this is consistent with the logic of this bill as a whole. An attempt is being made to scare people and make them believe that it's like the United States here: it's the far west. However, Canada is one of the countries with the highest level of firearms control.

I repeat that it is the criminals who are the problem. There are already enough constraints and verifications. There is no need to add more. That is why we recommend this amendment. At some point, we have to stop adding on.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

CPC-43 is identical to CPC-42, so it can't be moved.

Now we move on to CPC-44 in the name of Mr. Motz.

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

This is a coordinating amendment to remove the references to registrar and issuing of a transfer number. In clause 13, we're looking at lines 10 to 14 on page 10 to be deleted completely.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Shall clause 13 carry?

Are we recording or are we not recording this?

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

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You've got to give me a hint.

(Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 14 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 15)

Now we're on clause 15, CPC-45, in the name of Mr. Motz.

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

This has to do with the deadline for the new ATTs, the changes in the rules that come into effect to allow a reasonable adjustment, which will take place well after the next election.

If you look at Bill C-71 in clause 15, we're talking about replacing line 23 on page 10 with the following:

prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm are revoked on the 3rd anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force, namely

Proposed section 135.1 revokes the ability to transport prohibited and restricted firearms and it makes that start as soon as the bill comes into force. This amendment would change the coming into force to allow a reasonable amount of adjustment time for the government to properly establish, fund, and operationalize their process for providing authorizations to transport.

Having spoken with some chief firearms officers and knowing that they are already underfunded and backlogged, I know that the ability to handle the expected influx of the requests as soon as the bill receives royal assent is somewhere between ridiculous and outrageous, depending on your expectations of the government.

I would therefore submit that should the government want to revoke the reasonable ATTs that exist today, they should take the time to ensure that the systems are in place first.

After making that statement, I would liken this to the Phoenix program, which the government was clearly told not to implement until it was ready, as well as the way we don't have a plan for the illegal border crossers. Perhaps we need to stop making the same mistakes over and over again, but I doubt that's going to happen. It seems to be a consistent practice that we're going to vote everything down that comes from a Conservative.

If I remember right, when Bill C-42came into effect, there was huge push-back from the RCMP and from officials from the firearms program, Mr. O'Reilly, about how it was not possible to get this act implemented and all the rules put in place and how you would need long-term timelines to make that happen.

I see with Bill C-71 that there's no indication of that, and yet we do know that there are backlogs for firearms officers, CFOs, and we know that there will be huge amounts of backlogs for them, and they are underfunded. I'm wondering what your take is on waiting, as the amendment says, until the third anniversary after this becomes law before the changes to the new ATTs take effect.

[Randall Koops]

There are, in Bill C-71, two very different sets of coming into force provisions. There are the provisions that will come into force on royal assent. However, clause 15 is not among them.

As drafted, clause 15 related to the issuance of ATTs would come into force on a day to be determined by the Governor in Council. The amendment would substitute that discretion of the Governor in Council with, I believe, a three-year mandatory coming into force period. The intent of coming into force by order of the Governor in Council is to allow, just as you suggested, Mr. Motz, that the Canadian firearms program and chief firearms officers have adequate time to make the necessary arrangements in their systems but also in their practices and to ensure that the transition is smooth and orderly.

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

You're suggesting that with clause 15, under the latter provisions, there will be time to make that happen.

[Randall Koops]

Because it will not come into force until the Governor in Council deems that the scheme is ready to be brought into force, I don't think I could say today whether two years, three years, or four years is the right amount of time. I just wouldn't want to speculate about that.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived)

Do you want a recorded vote on clause 15?

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

Yes, please. You're reading my mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I won't comment on what might be in there.

(Clause 15 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(On clause 16)

That takes us to amendment CPC-46, again in the name of Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many Canadians are concerned that the RCMP have the last word on evaluation of firearms owned by law-abiding Canadians. Even your colleague Mr. Mike Bossio, my dear Liberal friends, has expressed this concern. I hope that won't cause too many problems.

We acknowledge that the RCMP has firearms expertise, but it should not necessarily have the last word on everything.

We have to have this kind of safety valve that allows for a kind of reevaluation. The RCMP must not be the only authority that decides to what category firearm belongs. This amendment proposes the establishment of a committee of firearms experts that would be responsible for reviewing the RCMP's decisions. This would be one way to respect honest citizens.

I want to point out for the record that the basis of our remarks and of all the proposals we have submitted to date is in no way ideological. From the outset, we have proposed very specific and very technical amendments with complete respect for citizens. The Liberals, moreover, have rejected several proposals that in no way compromised public safety.

Coming back to amendment CPC-46, we acknowledge the RCMP's effective work, but the fact remains that a committee responsible for reviewing the RCMP's decisions would serve as a safety valve.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any wish to debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 16 carry? Do you want a recorded vote?

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

Yes. That helps us get a word or two out of our friends on the other side.