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.
4 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible—Editor]
4 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
They could through the Criminal Code regulations. So the Governor in Council could no longer downgrade the classification of a firearm. The power to downgrade was exercised twice in 2015 in relation to these firearms. The government is seeking, through Bill C-71, to give up or rescind that power, asking Parliament to take that power away from the Governor in Council. In the two instances where it was used, you question why the grandfathering would come in. The grandfathering comes in in those cases to allow the continued ownership by people who have bought those firearms in good faith under the existing rules of the day.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I'm not sure who's going to be best positioned to answer this question, Mr. Koops, Mr. O'Reilly, or maybe Ms. Clarke. If this amendment passes in the context of the rest of Bill C-71 passing, would the firearms that are listed in the legislation become the same classification as they're highlighted in this legislation right now?
4 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I'm sorry, I don't follow.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
What I'm suggesting to you is the minister has come before this committee and said that parliamentarians and the Governor in Council ought not to be the ones making the decision on the classification of firearms. Yet in this legislation, this is a political decision.
Mr. O'Reilly has distanced himself from suggesting that it was the department that brought forward this proposal of a change in Bill C-71, which means that this is a political decision to include this list of firearms, which happens to be the same list that was changed in the 2015 classification that was granted an amnesty with the provisions of Bill C-42 in 2015.
Am I right or am I wrong?
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Correct.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
My question for you is this. If this amendment passes, notwithstanding that the rest of Bill C-71 passes in its current form, how would it change the classification of these firearms?
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
These firearms would revert to the classification that is defined for them in the Criminal Code on the basis of their physical attributes, rather than on a deemed classification that has been put in place by the Governor in Council.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I understand that, but the Governor in Council part, notwithstanding that, becomes null and void if this legislation passes. Therefore the RCMP becomes the sole arbiter, again, of the classification scheme and these firearms would end up in the same classification under that scheme as they would right now in the current legislation. Is that correct?
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
No, they will revert to the classification that's defined for them by the Criminal Code in relation to their physical attributes. As the minister has pointed out, it remains within the domain of Parliament to define what those classifications are.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Are you suggesting that the legislative reclassification of these firearms that's in Bill C-71 right now is different from what the RCMP is recommending?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I don't believe the legislation is suggesting a reclassification. The legislation is suggesting or is putting forward the notion of removal of deeming of a firearm and that the initial determination prior to 2015 remain.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Prior to Bill C-42, the RCMP reclassified a firearm. That was fine. That was the legislation at the time; I'm not arguing that.
My argument right now is if the provisions that are being talked about in this particular amendment were taken out of the legislation, would the classification of the firearms that are listed in law right now revert to or be changed to or would the Canadian firearms centre have the ability to make exactly the same classification? A yes-or-no response.
4:05 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I think I understand the question you're asking. Should Bill C-71 not advance, the deeming status of these firearms would remain; and these firearms would remain deemed as non-restricted or restricted depending on barrel length. They could not arbitrarily be reclassified as something else, because they are deemed to be non-restricted or restricted.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
The classification that's put in this legislation then is inconsistent with the original assessment or recommendation from the RCMP in 2015?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I'm not exactly sure. I don't think a classification is being put forward in this legislation. My understanding is the legislation is simply removing the deeming of these firearms as being something other than prohibited
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes, they are.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
They're no longer going to be on a referencing order. It's going to be incorporated in the body of the Firearms Act. It's no longer going to be black and white, and the RCMP will have no ability in their current classification structures, whether you're using the firearms table or whatever the case may be, to address these firearms or any reclassification of these firearms in the future. Is that correct? Because it's in the statute now. It's not going to be part of their—
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Chair, I think what's being provided for in the statute is the grandfathering status of those firearms. The statute also then provides that the deeming provision under which they were deemed to have been something other than what the Criminal Code would have provided for is being repealed. That does not touch their individual classification. They revert to the original classification. They are listed here in this section in relation to creating the ability for the firearm and the owner to be grandfathered if Bill C-71 comes into force.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Given we're talking about CZ and the SA firearms, would the manufacturers of these firearms be treated differently from other manufacturers, possibly because of how these firearms have been singled out? Does that open this up to a trade challenge?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I can't speak to the question of a trade challenge. I can tell you that the firearms by these particular manufacturers would not be treated differently. It would not prejudice the classification determinations for any other firearms manufactured by either of these companies.
