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.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
This is pretty straightforward. In clause 5, it would delete lines 13 to 16 on page 7.
What we're removing is, “The Registrar shall issue a reference number if he or she is satisfied that a transferee holds and is still eligible to hold the licence authorizing them to acquire and possess a non-restricted firearm.”
That is the proposed subsection that we are asking to be removed.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Seeing no one wanting to debate, we'll vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
Amendment CPC-28 is also in the name of Mr. Motz.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
This would amend line 17 on page 7. The words that are intended to be removed are:
A reference number is valid for the prescribed period.
Again, it goes with the arguments that we have had all along. This reference number is akin to a registry and it does not enhance public safety.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Seeing no one wanting to debate, we'll vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
We are now on CPC-29.
Mr. Motz.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Chair, this one is the same thing. Lines 18 and 19 would be removed with this amendment. The lines read:
If the Registrar is not satisfied as set out in subsection (3), he or she may so inform the transferor.
It's redundant to have that in there if we don't have proposed subsection (3).
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Seeing no one wanting to debate, we'll vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
We're on what we're calling amendment CPC-29.1, which is reference number 9923123, in the name of Monsieur Paul-Hus.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of this amendment is to require the registrar to inform the transferor if he refuses to provide a reference number. In its present form, Bill C-71 provides that the registrar may so inform the transferor. However, in amendment CPC-29.1, we propose to say that the registrar "must", not "may," so inform the transferor.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I would like to ask the experts for their opinion. Does leaving the word "may" rather than replacing it with the word "must" make the intention too vague?
6:10 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I think, sir, I would suggest that it's not strictly necessary, because if the transferor does not receive a reference number, it will be obvious to the transferor that he or she is unable to complete the transfer. It is the giving of the reference number that provides to the transferor proof of the decision of the CFO that the licence is valid.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Yes, but the person selling the firearm may have to wait a long time for an answer if the registrar doesn't inform him of his refusal. The registrar must be required to provide a response. If it's positive, the transferor will know it, obviously, but that won't be the case if the response is negative.
6:15 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
As provided in the bill, the fact that the person receives or doesn't receive a reference number will stand as a response.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
What will the transferor do if there's no response? He might have to wait a long time without knowing why. He has to know. The transferor must be informed of a refusal on the registrar's part.
Everyone is happy if a reference number is requested and obtained, but, if the request is denied, the transferor isn't informed of that fact. The amendment is quite simple: its purpose is to ensure that the transferor is informed. The transferor must know, or else he'll have to wait a long time. I'm trying to understand how it would be logical not to accept our amendment.
I think it's simply logical to inform the transferor of the fact that the reference number has not been issued. If, upon verification, the registrar discovers that the potential buyer of a firearm is not eligible to purchase, he won't issue a reference number. That's how we proceed. However, the seller waits for a response. That's why we're asking that the act requires the registrar to inform the transferor if he refuses to do so. The registrar need not disclose the reasons for his refusal, which concern the potential purchaser, but he must at least inform the transferor that the transaction will not take place. Otherwise, the latter will be stuck in limbo. I would like to hear your opinion on that point.
6:15 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I don't want to try to convince you.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I'm trying to understand why we should proceed in this manner.
6:15 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I'd like to explain to you the nature of the impact that amendment would have in the context of Bill C-71 as currently drafted.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
We are introducing an amendment because we think there could be a positive change, one that could improve matters. If our friends are in agreement, everyone will be happy.
Thank you.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm curious with the way that language is currently in the act, that he may “inform the transferor”.
Would we not potentially be putting someone who may not be able to acquire a firearm or transfer a firearm, as the case may be...? Are they going to violate the law because of it? If he doesn't tell them, how does that individual then go about knowing why he or she was rejected or turned down? How does that look? Without some parameters around the reason, you set someone up. We talked earlier today and on Tuesday about, well, there's always the avenue of a judicial appeal.
It would seem reasonable to the average Canadian to be given an explanation as to why someone, why the registrar in this circumstance, wasn't satisfied that the transfer was allowable, for example. I know it says “may”. I'm curious to know why we would not consider that other language,“shall”, that he has to.
6:15 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It would provide that the registrar could provide that information to the transferee, i.e., the person who wishes to purchase.
In a case where a transferee is attempting to purchase a firearm, and the transferor, that is the vendor, is unable to get a reference number confirming the validity of their licence, the purchaser, not the vendor, may then contact the Canadian firearms program and ask, “Why is the vendor not able to get a reference number for a transfer on my licence today?” That information, which could be personal information about the transferee, the buyer, goes to that person, and not to the vendor, the seller. The seller does not receive the reasoning behind a decision not to provide a reference number.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Akin to other personal information that would be protected under the Privacy Act, as my Justice colleague reminds me, the person who has access to the reason is the owner or the subject of that personal information, not the other person involved in the transaction.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
That's not how I read subsection (5), unless I've misread it:
If the Registrar is not satisfied as set out in subsection (3), he or she may so inform the transferor.
It's the person who is transferring, correct? It's the person who is transferring the firearm, not the one who is receiving.
6:20 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
In subsection (5), it says, “If the Registrar is not satisfied as set out...he or she may so inform the transferor” that he is not satisfied; that is, there is no reference number.
That doesn't imply that the reason for that, or the personal information related to that about the purchaser, in turn can be shared with the transferor.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I understand the privacy concerns, and the answer that you gave makes sense in that context, but help me if your reading of the bill and my reading of the bill are different. I see subsection (5), the transferee, through the attempt to purchase, would then require the transferor to seek authorization through the firearms centre, with the approval of a referenced number, the ability to lawfully transfer the firearm from the transferor to the transferee.
Subsection (5) here, says:
If the Registrar is not satisfied as set out in subsection (3), he or she may so inform the transferor.
If they're not satisfied and they're not obligated to tell the transferor that they're not getting a reference number, is the transaction not left in limbo, or am I reading that wrong?