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.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I'm talking about the firearms that are specifically cited for grandfathering, because no non-restricted firearms would have a grandfathering clause pertaining to them, would they?
3:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Some of the firearms that are listed for grandfathering are currently non-restricted, some are restricted, and some are prohibited. The government's intent is to grandfather all the firearms that would become prohibited, once the deeming provision comes into force. Some firearms are currently prohibited—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Yes. There's prohib going prohib, restricted going prohib, and non-restricted going prohib.
3:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes. There are firearms in all three categories. But should the bill come into force, all these firearms will then be prohibited.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Given the fact that there is a massive change in the legislation on classification, notwithstanding the fact that this is about grandfathering, do retailers have the protection of this legislation if they sell a firearm in good faith? This is where we're getting back to you; who is going to ultimately be responsible: the purchaser or the seller? Should a transaction not be compliant with the law after the coming into force date, which is somewhere further down the road from the June 30 deadline that's indicated in the legislation, is there a scenario in there where a seller or a retailer could be charged with any offences under this legislation?
3:50 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I can't answer that.
3:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The June 30 date is not going to change anything with respect to the criminal law and these firearms. Should a firearms business sell some firearms that are currently prohibited, then they would be in violation of the law. Should a firearms business sell firearms that are currently non-restricted or restricted, they would still be in compliance with the law and therefore not subject to criminal liability simply for transferring or selling the CZ and the Four Seasons firearms.
The June 30 date has nothing to do with the legal classification of the firearms so it has no impact on criminal liability. It's simply a date that would allow a person to be eligible for grandfathering.
3:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Should the bill not come into force, it's a meaningless date.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I have a minor point of order, Mr. Chair.
You had indicated on the record that you were the only grandfather around the table. I want to correct that to say that I'm times six, thank you very much.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Well then, I defer to your seniority because I've only got three. I have an unproductive bunch of kids.
Not wishing to debate further grandfather issues, may I call the question?
(Amendment negatived)
We're now on to CPC-13.
Monsieur Paul-Hus.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're asking that the list of firearms identified in Bill C-71 be deleted because it completely contradicts the government's objective. Bill C-71, a government bill, identifies firearms, four Czech firearms and 16 Swiss firearms. That's a political decision. At the same time, it's requested that the RCMP be responsible for doing this work in the future. There is already a contradiction here.
We have no idea why these firearms would become prohibited. I understand the example of the CZ 858 model. It's virtually identical to the WR 762 model, a firearm that will remain restricted. These are therefore arbitrary choices, and we would like to know why these firearms are included in Bill C-71 in a political manner before the RCMP is subsequently permitted to make the decisions.
Mr. Chair, I don't know who can answer my question.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
We would like to know why the list of Czech and Swiss firearms has been identified. What is the reason for each of the firearms, and why is the WR 762 not included, whereas the others are? Where does that come from? I think that's quite a relevant question.
3:55 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I cannot speak to the political intent behind why these were included, which was your question. However, the reason these specific firearms are at issue is that prior to Bill C-71, they were determined to be prohibited firearms. As to why these firearms and not the firearm that you mentioned, sir, I think the answer was partly in your own remark, in the sense that you said it's almost identical. It isn't identical. Therefore, it would be classified differently from the W model that you had so indicated.
As to why there was a decision to bring this forward as part of Bill C-71, unfortunately I can't answer that.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Can someone answer us? Where does this choice come from? Why were these firearms specifically selected, and based on what evaluation? This is very precise, and no one is giving us an answer. I would like to know who, somewhere in an office, decided that these firearms would be prohibited.
3:55 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Sir, maybe I can provide an answer to the questions you're looking at.
These firearms were imported into Canada, the CZ was first imported in 2005, the Swiss Arms was first imported in 2001. The firearms when imported were believed to be non-restricted and the determination of classification was made as such. Information came to light that identified them as being something other than what they were purported to be, namely that the CZ was a variant of the Czech VZ-58, which is a prohibited firearm, and that the Swiss Arms Classic Green, which was purported to be a variant of the SG-540, which is a non-restricted firearm, was in fact a variant of the Swiss SG-550, which is a prohibited firearm.
Consequently these firearms were determined to be correctly prohibited firearms. The previous legislation, Bill C-42 , deemed them to be non-restricted and restricted based on barrel length, but that did not change the determination made by the Canadian firearms program in terms of their classification in accordance with the Criminal Code.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
When you say a determination was made, to whom are you referring?
4 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
If a firearm is being brought into the country, a determination of classification is made by the Canadian firearms program based on Criminal Code definitions.
This allows the registrar of firearms to register that firearm when somebody chooses to import that firearm. It is the Canadian firearms program that makes the determination of classification. It only, however, becomes applicable when that firearm actually is imported into Canada the first time and somebody attempts to register it.
In the case of the Swiss Arms and the CZs that were at question, when these firearms were first imported into Canada, based on the information that was available to us in order to make the determination, they were determined to be in accordance with the Criminal Code non-restricted firearms. Subsequent information corrected that identification and correctly identified them as a variance of prohibited firearms and therefore prohibited by definition.
4 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Well—
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I thought the government wanted to let the RCMP do that work.
4 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Bill C-71 does not change the role of the Canadian firearms program as it relates to determinations of classification. In fact, nothing is being given back to the RCMP. The Canadian firearms program, which is part of the RCMP, but not a law enforcement entity, has always had the ability to make determinations of classification, and will continue to do so. Bill C-71 does not change that.
4 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The change, if I may, is that the Governor in Council would no longer have the ability to downgrade the classification of a firearm. That's the change being made in Bill C-71.