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.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I'm just asking about the rules, Chair. Can you show me where in the rule book? I was a former chair, too.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
But it is a drafting convention, it is fair to say.
I would refer you to page 772 in the rules of procedure, which I think I have here.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
On behalf of first nations people across the country, Mr. Chair, I'm going to challenge your ruling.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay.
Those who are in favour of the ruling of the chair? Those opposed?
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
(Clause 3 agreed to)
(On clause 4)
We are now on to clause 4.
On CPC-16, Monsieur Paul-Hus. This is definitely in order.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chair, may I remind you of what our expert witness, Superintendent Paul Brown, acting director general of the Canadian firearms program at the RCMP, said. In his opinion, Bill C-71 entails a problem related to the transport of firearms.
The purpose of our amendment is to simplify the transport of firearms for manufacturers, agents, and chief firearms officers and in the case of gun shows. These people need to be able to circulate with these firearms without having to request specific authorizations to transport them each time.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I would like to hear from Mr. Koops, because obviously, as the department representative here in drafting this, there had to be some rationale behind restricting ATTs. I am struggling to historically determine when previously....
We all know that law-abiding gun owners are less likely than anybody to commit a crime. They follow the rules in the transport of weapons. I can't think of ever reading or hearing or of any news issues where someone lawfully transporting a firearm, who, as a licensed firearm owner, created an issue such that we have to restrict the ATTs.
Please enlighten me as to the rationale behind this and how it will be accomplished.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The rationale is akin to what we call “the pins on the map” analogy, that the more places and the more broadly distributed those places are that one can have an authorization to transport a restricted firearm and the greater the geographic area in which one can be transporting that firearm, the less the police may be able to challenge the validity of the reason for which you purport to be in that place with that firearm at that point in time.
The best example that I would point to about a rationale for that would be in the submission made to this committee on this bill by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They spoke about the usefulness of restricting ATTs to police officers in the conduct of their duties, particularly in the field, in vehicle stops, and also in the possibility of persons who are not law-abiding gun owners using the rationale of a broader authorization to transport in the context of a defence when an offence is committed.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Okay.
I still have a question for the chair. If CPC-16 falls, does CPC-18 fall as well? I will argue that CPC-18 is similar. It's more expansive.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Yes. My notes say that CPC-18 is identical to CPC-17.
If CPC-16 is successful and is adopted, then CPC-17 and CPC-18 cannot be moved. If CPC-16 is defeated, CPC-17 and CPC-18 are still alive.
Is there further debate on CPC-16?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
LIB-2 is in the name of Mr. Bossio. Mr. Bossio is not a member of the committee. Is anybody prepared to move?
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I think we should have a look at this, Mr. Chair, and I think I'm prepared to move it.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I didn't pay much attention to it, so I haven't read it much.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
This is from our colleague, Mike Bossio, who's an associate member of the committee and represents a riding a bit to the south and west of here. I happened to visit it a little while ago. I talked to the folks in Bancroft at the rod and gun club, which the fish and game association has there.
I think this is consistent with some of the things that Sean Fraser has brought before this committee as well, when he's appeared as an associate member, talking about the whole issue of the ATT.
As you know, Mr. Chair, I think our friend Mark Holland has a little trouble with this right now because of some of the comments he made in the House about the changes to the ATT.
What's at stake here is the fact that Bill C-42 was adopted in the previous Parliament. It provided authorization to transport for the most vetted community in Canada, the firearms community, for anybody who wants to take a restricted firearm in that classification, which is usually, generally, a handgun, pistol, revolver, and some long guns. The only place they are lawfully allowed to take these firearms is to a range or to a competition or to a gun shop. In the previous Parliament, we thought it was onerous that every time they wanted to do something as straightforward as that they would have to get an authorization to transport.
We've heard from various witnesses who've appeared before the committee that the vast majority of times when the electronic ATT, which shows up right away and is easily caught through the information system...whereas a paper one is regressive in the way we do business.
Notwithstanding that, Mr. Bossio is obviously getting some significant pressure, as is Mr. Fraser, who asked these questions as, I imagine, a lot of the rural MPs who are in the governing caucus right now are probably getting. We know that about 2% or 3% of the time at the very most, somebody is transporting a firearm to a gunsmith; that's what's been heard before this committee. It makes no sense to require them to get a paper ATT to do that.
We fully support Mr. Bossio's amendments. Expanding this amendment by re-including the ability to take your restricted firearm to a gunsmith only makes common sense for law-abiding firearms owners. It does nothing to curb crime. I've heard no statistics to suggest that this is what organized crime is doing. They're going through the process of buying a gun licence and getting their RPAL in the guise of taking their firearm to a gunsmith to transport their firearms. Nobody said that in all seriousness.
I would agree with Mr. Bossio, even though I'm sure his colleagues at the table here won't.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I applaud Mr. Bossio for speaking for what I've been told is certainly some silenced Liberal MPs from the backbenches in rural areas.
So we can make an informed decision, Mr. O'Reilly, you're best qualified to answer my next question.
Can you explain, currently under the law, the six transportation authorities that exist now, what the law is around them and how they are applied in those rules, so we understand what is happening today, and the requirements of each individual PAL owner who wants to transport the firearm for the six reasons that they can? What are those rules and what does each one mean?
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Under the current legislation, if an individual wishes to acquire a firearm, they must first confirm the purpose for which they want that firearm. There are two general purposes: one would be for target shooting; the other would be as part of a collection.
If an individual were to confirm that they wish to acquire a firearm for target shooting, they would have six authorizations to transport attached to their licence: first, they would be able to take that firearm home from the business where they acquired it; second, they would now have authorization to take that firearm to any approved section 29 range in the province in which they reside; third would be to gun shows; fourth would be to border crossings; fifth would be appraisal and/or repair, and I believe sixth is disposition to surrender to a chief firearms officer or police.
Those are the six. If the individual were to indicate they are acquiring the firearm for the purposes of a collection and that reason were validated, then they would get five conditions added to their licence, namely they would not get the transportation to a range because they've indicated they are acquiring for collection purposes and not target shooting.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
That provides a lot of clarity and I appreciate that. Now, what rules do they have in each of those transportation responsibilities?
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I would say, generally speaking, in the case of all those transportation authorities that they proceed by the most direct route from the point of origin to where it is that they are going during normal business hours.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I was more specifically referring to how that firearm is transported.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Generally speaking, unless I misunderstood your question sir, if they were going to the range from their home, they would transport that firearm in a secured case, presumably in their vehicle.