Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2018

[Nicole Robichaud]

I don't think the transaction is necessarily left in limbo. I think there's a distinction between informing the transferor that they are not being issued a reference number and informing the transferor that they're not so satisfied with respect to the eligibility.

Rob could perhaps speak to operationally, but I don't—

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

I'm reading this, and I understand where you're.... I'm reading this as:

(5) If the Registrar is not satisfied as set out in subsection (3), he or she may so inform the transferor.

I think a yes or no is required to be given to the transferor as to whether or not the transaction can proceed with regard to validity. I'm not suggesting that a bunch of information as to why should be given to the transferor because that would violate privacy laws. That would be information, as you rightly pointed out, Mr. Koops, that should only be available to the transferee who initiated the purchase.

I am concerned that there might be.... Logic and business practices would predicate that you would provide an answer, a yes or a no, but I am not sure that the language here in the.... I just want to be clear that the language here is about that yes or no authorization. That's the way I am reading it, and if I'm reading it wrong, then I need to know why I'm reading it wrong.

[Nicole Robichaud]

Proposed subsection 23(5) wasn't intended to address the “Yes, we're issuing a reference number” or “No, we're not issuing a reference number”. It was intended to ensure that there is authority should the registrar, or the people acting on behalf of the registrar, need to go a bit further and explain to the transferor that the registrar was not satisfied that the person was eligible. It was just intended to ensure that there is that statutory authority for the registrar to take that step beyond that.

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

Are you telling me that I should be satisfied because the language in proposed subsection 23(3) says “shall”? It says “shall” only in the context of an affirmative. It doesn't say anything about “shall” in the context of a denial. Am I reading that wrong?

[Nicole Robichaud]

Proposed subsection 23(3), yes, requires the reference number to be issued if they're satisfied. It doesn't specifically address a situation—

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

—where a reference number is denied.

[Nicole Robichaud]

—where a reference number is denied.

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

Do you think there is an actual, potential issue here, or are you...?

I am concerned that there is a potential issue here. I don't know how big the issue could be, but I'm not convinced that the yes or no answer.... I'm convinced that the “yes” answer has to be provided with the reference number, but I'm not convinced that the “no” answer has to be provided.

If somebody could help me with that, I would like to get the language right.

[Rob O'Reilly]

Sir, if I can operationally explain.... The licence verification element exists today. Individuals can check the validity of a licence.

In doing so, the process generally assumes that both parties are present when that is occurring so that a person isn't just arbitrarily check the validity of somebody's licence. The process, when you would call the firearms program, would be first to confirm your identity. We want to be sure that we are actually speaking to you. Once we've done that, we would, if the buyer were present, ask to speak to the buyer and would confirm the licence information of the buyer. If the individual is, in fact, present and there was some reason why the reference number could not be issued, that information would be communicated directly to the buyer at that point, and he or she would take whatever action is necessary to correct the situation.

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

So, you're saying that's the current practice.

[Rob O'Reilly]

That's the current practice because in most cases where we are doing licence verification, both parties tend to be present so that the seller has all of the related information because we don't just ask for the licence number of the buyer. We ask for the licence number. We ask for the date of birth. We ask for the expiry date of the licence. We ask for the version code. We want to actually ensure that the seller physically has the licence card of the buyer, or that the buyer is, in fact, right there and present.

In that situation, if we were not able to issue the reference number, we would simply communicate to the seller that the buyer needs to contact the chief firearms officer. If the buyer is, in fact, there, we would communicate it directly to him or her.

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

It sounds like a lot of bureaucracy.

[Rob O'Reilly]

It works very well.

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

We have to look at things in context. Here we are examining and passing laws, but things are different in real life. That's the way it goes. A reference number is requested, and, if the two individuals are standing beside one another, they're told that the transaction is denied or authorized, and everything's fine.

Here's an example of a problem that might arise. Let's say I agree to sell Mr. Berthold my firearm for $1,000. He's happy, and I am too because I'll be $1,000 richer. We've reached an agreement. He subsequently tells me that the transaction has been declined. No one has informed me of that fact, and I don't believe him. So there could be a conflict. I might think he's telling me that because he may no longer want to buy my firearm. If the registrar, a person in a position of authority, had informed me that the transaction was declined and that no reference number was issued, I would nevertheless have received confirmation. However, according to the current provision of the bill, Mr. Berthold would be responsible for telling me that it was declined, without anyone confirming it for me. I might doubt his word and think he has changed his mind, which could cause conflict.

I would like my colleagues on the other side of the table to listen because I get the impression I'm speaking in a vacuum. If that's the case, let's go away and come back next week.

It's in the public interest to clearly understand what I have just raised. A single word could cause conflict. If the registrar informed me that the transaction had been denied, I would understand, but, it was the buyer who told me that, I might not believe him, and there could be conflict. That's the point I want to make. I'm not asking you for your opinion since you've already expressed it.

I'm done, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's a good thing that you're not asking for my opinion.

We'll vote on amendment CPC-29.1, reference 9923123.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is amendment CPC-30.

Mr. Paul-Hus, we are listening.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment will be along the same lines as the one concerned by the discussions—or monologues—we've been conducting for a few hours now.

We should adopt this amendment if we really want to ensure that there is no registry. Its purpose is to ensure that the registrar cannot keep issued reference numbers. This is related to what we've been discussing for some time.

It is clear from the information we have obtained from our representatives that there would be a kind of registration. We simply want to ensure that the registrar can't keep a record of those numbers.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We will have a recorded vote on amendment CPC-30.

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

Shall clause 5 carry as amended?

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(On clause 7)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're now on to CPC-31, which I think is redundant.

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

I request a recorded vote on clause 5.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's already carried.

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

Mr. Chair, you have to [Inaudible—Editor] to actually intervene and request a roll call.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We went from the defeat of CPC-30, and then I asked shall clause 5 carry as amended. No one indicated anything to me.

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

If I may, Mr. Chair, you and I are anglophones. My colleague, who respectfully asked for a recorded division, is a francophone. He has to wait until translation is finished in order for him to intervene. I don't believe objectively that he was given that amount of time to hear the translation and then voice his concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Objectively or not objectively, it's a valid point that he did make earlier on about the time delay between translation from one language to the other language. I have some sympathy for that, so in the spirit of collegiality, you want a recorded vote on clause 5, which I suspect will have a similar outcome to the previous vote.

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(On clause 7)

On amendment CPC-31, with the passage of amendment CPC-2, I am advised that amendment CPC-31 is now redundant because it essentially says the same thing. If CPC-31 is redundant, we go directly to amendment CPC-32.

Mr. Paul-Hus, on amendment CPC-32, go ahead, s'il vous plaît.

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

This amendment concerns the information that businesses must keep. We recommend that the retention period be 10 years instead of 20 years. We believe that a 20-year period is far too long for a business. It is also not a normal practice. Business owners would be asked to have all systems in place for 20 years, whereas technologies change. A 10-year period is more than enough in the circumstances.