Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2018

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand that people are tired, but that's life. We're here to do our work.

As regards amendment CPC-23, I don't know whether there are any differences of meaning between the English and the French. Here's the French version:

b) le cédant a vérifié auprès du directeur, par écrit, en ligne ou par téléphone, le permis du cessionnaire.

The translation corresponds; the wording is accurate.

What bothers us is the matter of the reference number for the transferor and transferee. It's not the same thing, but it is the same principle, although it's a different clause.

Can our experts provide some verification?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Are you directing the question to them—

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

Yes, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

—and if so, could you be...? I didn't hear the question, so could you repeat the question?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Since we've introduced an amendment, and everyone is aware of the amendments, I would like to hear the opinion of our experts. What do they think of our proposal?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, here we go.

Mr. O'Reilly.

[Rob O'Reilly]

I won't speak in terms of opinion, but I will speak in terms of the consequences of the removal of the reference number.

First, it would remove accountability from the individual who is required to verify licensing. Second, it would compromise the ability for law enforcement to effect a trace.

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

So?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Calkins.

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

With the greatest of respect to my colleagues around the table here, as a former database administrator, data architect and systems analyst, I will say that you can't trace something against a database that doesn't exist. A database is a registry by any other name.

I guess it doesn't matter...the inconsequential amendments that were adopted unanimously at this table for CPC-2.... This amendment eliminates the provision for requiring a reference number to transfer a non-restricted firearm, but it still requires that they get the approval; it just removes the reference number. Given the fact that CPC-2 was actually adopted and everybody at this table agrees that this is not a registry, do you believe that the adoption of CPC-2 actually puts in conflict the current...? If we don't adopt this particular section, then we're not actually living up to the provisions that were adopted in CPC-2 that got rid of the traceability of records and reference numbers.

My question is just that. If you have a database, if you have a reference number, you have a primary key identification number in a relational database. You guys might know these things. I know these things like the back of my hand. If we don't adopt this, how are we going to be in conflict, or could we be in potential conflict, with the fact that the committee has already adopted CPC-2?

Notwithstanding the fact that it's a trace—I understand that the police and the minister believe that tracing a firearm back to its original source is actually going to somehow solve crimes, the presumption being that the initial purchase of the firearm by a law-abiding licensed firearm owner is somehow the cause of the crime that happens subsequently—how does this actually advance public safety? I don't see how this advances public safety in the slightest. It might make things, with regard to investigative procedure or from an investigative point of view, slightly easier. However, if we're investigating an unlawful firearm or a firearm that's used unlawfully by somebody who is licensed or by somebody who is not licensed, those are completely different investigations.

[Rob O'Reilly]

Sir, I'm not quite sure what the question is in terms of the advancing of public safety.

All I can say is that with regard to the regime that is currently being suggested, the presumption is that we've now identified that the firearm in question related to a crime is now attached, lastly attached, to an individual who is a licensed firearms owner. That individual either lawfully verified the licence of somebody else and transferred the firearm, did not lawfully transfer the firearm, or in fact was the individual who committed the crime.

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

But this regime was in place for 20 years. Given the fact that the records need to be kept at the point of original sale for a new firearm or a used firearm, the police could actually trace this back through several transactions of lawful firearms owners, which then implicates them in an investigation that they otherwise wouldn't necessarily need to be in, and I think that's the concern.

[Rob O'Reilly]

I note your concern. I'm not sure what you would have me answer from my perspective.

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

What difference is it going to make whether or not there is a reference number if the transaction is still approved by phone or...?

This amendment actually proposes that the “transferor has verified the transferee's licence in writing, online or by phone with the Registrar”, so the verification process has actually happened. Would you agree that this is what the amendment actually proposes, or is there some disagreement?

[Randall Koops]

There is no disagreement there.

The reference, though, sir, is that the reference number—

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

Yes, it's to remove the reference number.

[Randall Koops]

Yes, but the reference number is the means by which the transferor has proof of having verified that the licence was valid.

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

Okay. Right now, the law does not have a reference number on that. The law presumes that any transfer between two individuals, or between a business and an individual, happens at the point of sale where the buyer or purchaser provides a valid firearms licence, a PAL, and it's presumed that the licence is valid. That licence can be checked.

[Randall Koops]

Voluntarily, yes.

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

If there's reason or a suspicion to believe, for example, that somebody's buying 20 firearms at once, that might trigger the vendor to say, “Something is up here. We're going to phone and verify this licence,” or whatever the case might be. Those things are being changed, as well, in this legislation.

What I'm asking specifically is, other than keeping a reference number of that transaction, nothing is actually being changed with this amendment. Is that correct?

[Randall Koops]

Except that the transferor does not have the benefit of receiving a number that confirms that they have done their due diligence and complied with the intention of the law.

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

Right, Mr. Koops, but there isn't one right now.

[Randall Koops]

Correct.

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

The implication is that all the transfers that are happening person to person, business to person, are illegal transfers.

[Randall Koops]

Not at all.

Bill C-71 is proposing that there be a means of obliging vendors to verify that a purchaser has a valid licence. In turn, that vendor or seller, the transferor in the terms of the legislation, then has a reference number that proves they did their due diligence as required by law, and checked the validity of the licence of the purchaser.