Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't think I'd receive any objection from the committee if I started it just a little bit early. Everybody's here, keen, ready to go. Mr. Motz tells me that he's all excited for a good, long session.

[A voice]

And tomorrow.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes, and tomorrow and the next day. Apparently he's very enthusiastic, but he has to take a day off for Sunday to confess his sins.

(On clause 3)

CPC-12 is where we left off. This is an amendment in the name of Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Chair.

CPC-12 is an amendment to remove all the references to a specific date, and amend it to be prescribed in regulations once the bill receives royal assent.

You'll see the motion is that, in clause 3, Bill C-71 be amended, (a) by replacing line 26 on page 2 with the following:

firearms on the prescribed date

Then (b), by replacing line 1 on page 3 with the following:

(i) the prescribed date, in the case where at least one of

Then (c), by replacing lines 17 to 18 on page 3 with the following:

(b) was registered as a restricted firearm on the prescribed date or, in the case of a firearm that was not a restrict-

Then (d), by replacing line 30 on page 3 with the following:

firearms on the prescribed date

Then (e), by replacing line 8 on page 4 with the following:

(i) the prescribed date, in the case where at least one of

Then (f), by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 5 with the following:

(b) was registered as a restricted firearm on the prescribed date or, in the case of a firearm that was not a restrict-

Now, members of this committee, the House of Commons, and the Senate all deserve the appropriate time to consider this and many of the other bills, as we know, to ensure that they meet the standard and meet the test of good governance, and are honest with Canadians. There are many who don't believe that this legislation is honest, or fair, or in any way deals with the issues that Canadians want—gangs and guns—or the issues Liberals claim it does. It seems only reasonable that artificial deadlines that the government is already trying to impose be replaced with a date after which it passes.

What's interesting is that on this particular issue of prescribing regulations once the bill receives royal assent, on our prescribed date, I rose last week on a question of privilege in the House about online publications that the RCMP, respecting Bill C-71....

The RCMP, on its website, presumed the adoption of this bill already. As a result of that, which is what led us to think this language was necessary, there is no caveat on the RCMP website, describing Bill C-71, that this legislation is subject to parliamentary approval. There is no acknowledgement of the parliamentary process at all. In fact, in my view, as I explained to the Speaker that day, it was contempt of Parliament.

Let me read a sampling of the content found in special business bulletin no. 93, that the RCMP had on its site. “Because...all CZ firearms will be impacted by changes in their classification, businesses will need to determine if their firearm(s) will be affected by these changes. Bill C-71 also lists a number of specific Swiss Arms (SA) firearms that will also become prohibited. If you own CZ/SA firearms, the steps below can help you identify whether your inventory of firearms is affected by Bill C-71. They explain the grandfathering requirements and how to avoid being in illegal possession of a firearm.”

That language is actually quite clear. Now, it has, “will be impacted”, “will become prohibited”, and “is affected”, not could be, may be, or might be. Later in the bulletin we read that:

Business owners will continue to be authorized to transfer any and all impacted CZ or SA firearms in their inventory to properly licenced individuals, until the relevant provisions of Bill C-71 come into force. For an individual owner to be eligible for grandfathering certain requirements must be met by June 30, 2018.

Now, you might think about the language about this bill coming into force, possibly conceding the need for parliamentary approval, so let me continue reading what the quote says.

From the same bulletin, “The proposed changes to classification status for CZ/SA firearms listed in Bill C-71 will come into force on a date to be determined by Governor in Council. This date is yet to be determined.”

I would contend that any conditional language one might read or infer in the RCMP's special bulletin document is left to the mind of the reader and, therefore, is a matter of cabinet discretion, not Parliament's discretion.

Turning to a second document where the issue of this amendment comes up, entitled “How would Bill C-71 affect individuals?”, we see additional presumptuous language. A lot of it mirrors what I quoted from special business bulletin number 93. Other passages, however, include, “If your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited firearm.”

The language used, “was”, seems as if Bill C-71 is a document from the past, not a bill currently before a parliamentary committee.

Later in that same document, it says, “To qualify for grandfathering of your currently non-restricted or restricted CZ/SA firearm*, the following criteria must be met:”

Now there follows a list of details for firearms owners to meet, which just coincidentally happens to be laid out in clause 3.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé has a point of order.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I don't know if I can refer to my own absence or not in the House. I was in and out the day the member was making his question of privilege. I'm just wondering: I'm not sure procedurally whether we can read the same speech more than once into the record. I don't know if committees fall under the same thing, if the same point of order is being made again.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is the same point of order being made again, Mr. Motz?

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

I'm not making a point of order. I am using this to support the amendment that I have—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Was there a ruling on your point of order?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Then there is no point of order.

Go ahead.

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

So there follow the details for firearms owners to meet, which just coincidentally happen to be laid out in clause 3 of Bill C-71, yet there is no indication in that document that these are proposals before government, before Parliament, let alone in need of parliamentary sanction to be enforced.

Now in RCMP documents, we're talking about a publication that gives advice on how to avoid becoming a criminal. One of the passages I referred to earlier said, “They explain the grandfathering requirements and how to avoid...being in illegal possession of a firearm.”

Another passage was, “If your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited weapon.” The unlawful possession of a firearm can lead to a jail sentence of up to five years.

Now we've been very clear on this side and on the record about our concerns with the RCMP having arbitrary reclassifying authority for firearms, and that's why the previous government gave the Governor in Council an oversight role. Now, suddenly, with one blanket move, what dozens or even hundreds of thousands of people already possess is somehow deemed illegal, and the bill hasn't passed. We've seen this disrespect before, and this is an institutional history, unfortunately.

In the research we've done, we've found at least 10 previous occasions where this has occurred. So it goes without saying that it comes as absolutely no surprise that our national police force, unfortunately, would snub its nose at Parliament, or—and this I highly doubt—that the new commissioner would order this on her own without some approval from the Minister of Public Safety, rather than urging compliance with the rules of Parliament.

Now what's interesting is that I rose on this on a Tuesday. On Wednesday morning, that same website that the RCMP manages was changed, and it was changed back to the language that now would verify what we have been saying. I stood again on the Wednesday and said that it had been modified on the Wednesday, May 30, and the posting now has a disclaimer that Bill C-71 was a proposed law. In fact, when you print out that particular document from the website, it actually has a date stamp saying it was changed on May 30.

Again, this speaks to the whole idea that the RCMP has caused confusion with this bill by having an arbitrary date of June 30, and advising Canadians that this will come into effect then, when it hasn't even gone through this committee yet. As well, the conversations we had on Tuesday about an arbitrary date will add confusion.

I am recommending that this amendment falls in line with other bills where it fits with a reasonable time and there's no artificial deadline. It's when this bill comes into play at a prescribed date, whenever it is passed and receives royal assent.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Mr. Chair, I can't support this amendment. Really, having a fixed date creates certainty in the market. It means businesses and individuals can plan. They have a time and date, as opposed to waiting for a random date in the future.

Also, because it would ultimately potentially have the effect of delaying the start date, having a date in the future could actually result in a greater increase in the number of CZ and Swiss Arms firearms in circulation, so overall this makes no sense.

As far as trying to allow people to plan, have transparency, and know how to govern themselves accordingly, it makes sense to have a fixed date, as we do in the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you. Is there any further debate?

Monsieur Paul-Hus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I still don't understand the logic behind the fixed date. As my colleague very clearly explained, the bill will receive royal assent in early fall.

Here's an example. If I obtain a licence to possess and acquire a restricted firearm on July 5, when the act will not yet have come into force, and if I decide to buy a CZ 858 rifle, what will happen subsequently if the date fixed under the act is June 30? Will I be breaking the law?

I ask the representatives to explain to me what will happen if I buy a CZ 858 rifle on July 5.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Are you directing that to Mr. O'Reilly?

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

In fact, I'm addressing it to the person who can answer my question.

[Rob O'Reilly, Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

If I understand your question, currently if you were to buy a CZ 858, that firearm would be deemed to be either non-restricted or restricted, depending on barrel length. If the firearm is non-restricted, you could acquire it without any issue. If it's restricted, you would have to register it as restricted.

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

That doesn't answer my question.

Let's say that, July 5, a hypothetical date—

[Rob O'Reilly]

Oh, in July, sorry.

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

Yes, because the law is not in force, if I buy a CZ 858 on July 5, then what happens afterwards, when the law is in force? June 30 is in the law. I just want to understand.

[Rob O'Reilly]

If you were to acquire one of the CZ 858s that would be deemed prohibited—because not all will—should this legislation pass as written, on July 5 nothing would happen. However, once the law passes and comes into force, and there is a requirement for you to attempt to register that firearm, in declaring to the registrar of firearms that you acquired it post June 30, you would be deemed to be ineligible to hold that firearm. The firearm would be prohibited, and you would not be able to register it.

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

That's the problem.

This is the problem with the date. The law is not in force before September or October.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I understand your argument, and I think colleagues on both sides understand the argument.