Evidence of meeting #120 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.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I think this is the perfect example of a problem that citizens will have to face. We know what's happening here, but citizens don't. For them, the act doesn't exist until it comes into force.
The explanation I'm being given is that, as a citizen, I could have problems since I would have purchased a firearm and then would have broken the law. If I buy my firearm on July 5, is that legal? Why fix such a date?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I wonder whether you might direct the question to Ms. Clarke on the retrospective application of legislation.
June 7th, 2018 / 3:40 p.m.
Paula Clarke Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
As Rob has explained, I believe the only thing the June 30 date does is state when a person would no longer be eligible to keep their firearm. They would not be eligible for grandfathering after July 1. Nothing affects the current classification of the firearm or the anticipated or proposed classification of the firearms that are in the act. The only thing the June 30 date does is trigger eligibility for grandfathering. It does not affect the classification of the firearm. The June 30 date does not relate to classification.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I understand that, but let me go back to my example of July 5.
If I bought a restricted firearm on July 5, could I be eligible under the grandfathering clause, or would I not be eligible because, when the act comes into force, it will include a retroactive date that will render illegal all firearms sales transacted in the two or three summer months? What will we do?
In my example, I've just bought a firearm that was still restricted at the time of purchase because the act was not yet in force. What will I have to do with my firearm? I won't be entitled to keep it because the grandfathering clause won't apply?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chair, that supports my argument that this will not work because many people will conduct transactions. If we maintain the June 30 date, we'll wind up with a lot of problems.
3:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Rob would like to make a clarification.
3:45 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I have just one clarification to Paula's point. If you had already acquired another CZ 858 prior to June 30, then you would be eligible to own that second firearm, owned post-June 30, because you would qualify as a grandfathered firearms owner.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
For my own curiosity, is the retrospective application of legislation without precedent in the making of legislation, or is this a practice that from time to time is exercised in the drafting of legislation?
3:45 p.m.
Randall Koops Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It is a fairly common practice, particularly in relation to the Firearms Act. The firearms grandfathering provisions are all related to a point in time that the person possessed that firearm.
It also occurs in other types of legislation, most notably in tax legislation. The eligible day on which a person must own or not own certain shares or other types of investments is a day that is listed in the legislation, for the sake of transparency and to ensure that there are equal public signals sent to everyone who is engaged in that marketplace. That day is presented as a date that is not linked to coming into force, and does not presuppose coming into force or royal assent by that day. In fact, in the case of tax legislation it is often budget day, the day on which the government makes its intent clear.
The analogy in Bill C-71 is that the government has made a very clear intent about what would be the commencement day or the eligibility day, irrespective of when or if the bill receives royal assent and is brought into force.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
With the greatest of respect, changing the dates of the implementation of a tax code simply changes calculations based on taxes. It doesn't put somebody in a position where they're doing something lawfully, and then doing something unlawfully. That is the circumstance we would find ourselves in, and the scenario proposed by Mr. Paul-Hus, if Parliament were to pass the current piece of legislation. I think that might be a precedent that Parliament hasn't had too many dealings with.
I understand that, and I think the chair was right to ask the question. I appreciate that. I understand what Parliament can and can't do. Yes, it's completely able to pass laws with coming into force dates that are retroactive. These things do happen from time to time.
I want to see greater clarification, though. If a person is in possession of at least one of the firearms that's being designated in this legislation that's slated for grandfathering, in addition to any transaction that happens after June 30, that would mean that the firearm itself is not being grandfathered, but the actual individual is being grandfathered. Do I have that right?
3:45 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It's both. The firearm would be grandfathered, and the individual would be grandfathered as well.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
If somebody was in a situation where they did not have a firearm that was in respect of this piece of legislation that was grandfathered, and bought a firearm that was to be grandfathered prior to June 30, but bought it post- June 30, they would not be grandfathered. Is that correct?
3:45 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I apologize, sir. I didn't quite—
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
You know, I'm having a hard time myself, Mr. O'Reilly.
This begs the question. It is also not uncommon, Mr. Chair, as you would know, to have laws that actually come into force on the date that they're signed into royal assent. I think that's the reasonable thing that we're asking. It's simply having a coming into force date for clarification for firearms owners, on the date that the legislation actually comes into force.
Given the current uncertainty in the Senate, and some of the other issues surrounding other pieces of legislation that people thought might not be controversial, and the controversial nature of this piece of legislation, I think this is a reasonable request. I'll just leave it at that.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
As the only legitimate grandfather at this table, I recommend it.
Mr. Paul-Hus.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I maintain—and my goal here is really to be efficient—that preserving the June 30 date in this way will clearly cause a series of problems. As I mentioned in my example, several thousands of people, hundreds of people, may conduct transactions and subsequently find themselves in a grey area, without knowing whether they have committed an offence and without knowing whether they are subject to a grandfathering clause. This seems to be vague based on the answers we're getting.
I think the government party should review its position on this point. Instead of June 30, it could be 30 days after royal assent in order to give the industry time to adjust, but it should not be retroactive because that will create a grey area between the two. It won't work.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If you were a retailer and you were in possession of the CZ or the Swiss Arms firearm would any transaction, post-June 30, on any of these firearms be illegal, even if the law hasn't come into force?
3:50 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
No, they would not be illegal, however, the firearms themselves may not be eligible for grandfathering if Bill C-71 were to pass.
3:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The Four Seasons firearms that are the subject of the current amnesty order that are prohibited could not be bought and sold. The firearms that are non-restricted or restricted can be bought and sold currently, and they could be bought and sold after June 30.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I would hope that any non-restricted firearm could still be bought and sold after June 30.
3:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, but I'm just trying to answer your question.