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.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Chair.
If that's the rationale that's being used to justify that particular clause, correct me if I'm wrong, but in virtually every case that I'm aware of, over the years I've been here, of Canada entering into an international treaty, virtually every international treaty has required an act of Parliament in order for the ratification of and accession to that treaty. That's how things like the United Nations work. They adopt an overarching treaty, and each member country then has to go back and go through that process, which generally requires legislative accession. Why would we need to put in legislation now a clause that gives that flexibility? If a treaty went beyond the scope of 20 years, why wouldn't we want to give parliamentarians of the day an opportunity to debate that and see if it's worth it at that particular point in time?
This isn't a question for you guys. This is a question for my colleagues across the way. I would hope that somebody over there could explain that to me. If that needed to be changed legislatively because of Canada's accession to a treaty that's unsupposed at this particular point in time, why wouldn't we let the parliament of the day determine that legislatively and make the amendment then?
To the witnesses who are here right now, are there any treaties that we are currently going through the process of for which this particular amendment was put in place in anticipation of?
6:40 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
You're quite correct, of course, that it would be for Parliament to pass whatever legislation is required to enter into or to bring a treaty into force. It is not uncommon in legislation that regulatory changes are required when a treaty is brought into force and that those are foreseen at the time the legislation is passed.
In answer to your question about whether parliamentarians get the final say on that, this regulation, like others under the Firearms Act, does require tabling in both houses of Parliament, and is therefore available for scrutiny by committees of both houses. That's a requirement of regulations made pursuant to the Firearms Act.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Of course, when legislation to adopt a treaty, ratify a treaty, accede to a treaty is put before both houses, any amendments to the Firearms Act that need to be made to accommodate those changes at that time could also be done at that time.
My question for you, Mr. Koops, or for anybody who's here, is this. Is there currently a treaty that is in the process of being negotiated where legislation might be forthcoming before this House that we as parliamentarians ought to be aware of?
I would suggest to my colleagues across the way that this isn't necessary as part of the legislation right now. If we go through the accession process to another treaty, this legislation could be changed at that particular point in time, and that debate should be allowed before the parliamentarians in both houses at that time. What we're doing right now is predetermining, in my opinion, the accession to a future treaty, whatever that happens to be, and making the decision for the parliamentarians of that day.
I don't see any colleagues across the way willing to engage me in debate on this. That's fine. But I still do have my outstanding question for the witnesses.
Are you guys aware of any current treaty or treaties where we're going through that process for which this clause would need to be here now?
6:45 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I know that Canada has signed but not ratified one of those treaties. It's known as CIFTA. If you could bear with us for a moment, I could get the full title from one of my colleagues, who's sitting behind us.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Is there anything in that treaty that would suggest we need to store records for more than 20 years?
6:45 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I believe CIFTA would require a longer retention period for firearms data, consistent with international norms.
6:45 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I'm not certain, sir.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Mr. Chair, I'd like to suspend the meeting until the officials have an opportunity to provide this committee with that information.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact that you at least acknowledged my request.
Mr. Koops, is there a way for us to get that information while we're continuing on here? Can you ask some of your subordinates who might be able to find that information to get back to the committee, at least during the testimony here, before we adjourn the debate on this bill?
6:45 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Sure. It's beyond the scope of our usual activity—
6:45 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
—in the realm of international trade negotiation, but I can see what we can find out for you, sir.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chair, with your permission, I would like to add something.
In view of the information Mr. Koops has just provided us, I'm not asking that we adjourn the meeting, but could we postpone adoption of this clause until we know whether we can obtain a copy of the information? This is important. If we know that a treaty already requires a period of 30 or 35 years, that will have a major influence on our preparation for adoption of this clause of the bill.
I ask you this in passing, but I assure you of my full cooperation. Postponing this does not require a major effort on the committee's part. We should at least obtain an answer from officials as to whether we can get that information.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
It stands for the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement.
