Evidence of meeting #50 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th 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.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Yes. It seems that we have about as much luck getting answers from the minister as we are having today, but I thank you for your efforts to do that.
A lot of concerns I have here are getting down into the consequences of this legislation should this amendment pass. How will the process work? Will they be immediately committing a criminal act by possessing these firearms?
11:55 a.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No. The proposed amendments to the definition of “prohibited firearm” would not come into force on royal assent. They would come into force by order in council, which means they would come into force at a later date.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Are there a prescribed number of days that the order in council has to come into effect?
Noon
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
It's like a sword of Damocles for firearms owners once this passes. Basically, the government doesn't need to regulate these things right away, but they could be holding it over their heads at any time, and at any time they could decide.... It could be 30 days after this passes. It could be two years after this passes. It's something they can hold over their heads for as long as possible, perhaps something they could hold over as something to bring up during an election—but I would never want to accuse them of that. It would also demonstrate that, perhaps, this is less about public safety and more about politics.
When the order in council is triggered, what will be the effect of that? Is that something still to be determined by the regulations?
Noon
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Future steps with respect to how the newly prohibited firearms would be treated have not been determined at this point.
I would remind you, though, when the May 1 OIC came into effect, there was an amnesty order. That gave lawful owners an opportunity to either dispose of their firearms or, otherwise, come into compliance with the new law.
They have a period of time during which they are not subject to criminal liability for unlawful possession, and then a decision would be made by the government as to how to move forward with the treatment of any newly prohibited firearms that would be included in this amended definition.
Noon
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Without repeating everything you're saying, you're saying that the precedent this government has set, which is being implemented, is that there was an amnesty period following the May 2020...but you can't say for sure whether that is going to be what follows this one.
Noon
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
What I was saying was that for the OIC of May 1, 2020, an amnesty order was included the moment the firearms became prohibited. Firearms owners were not exposed to criminal liability. There was an amnesty order in place.
I cannot comment as to what would happen if there were an order in council bringing these provisions into force, but I can refer you back to what the government has done historically.
Noon
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Thank you. I do appreciate that.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.
There has been some concern that because the May 2020 OIC was passed via an OIC, it is subject to the laws of Parliament and it is below the law of Parliament, whereas an act of Parliament, which is what this proposed amendment would be doing, puts it on an equal step with other parliamentary laws.
If the government were to set the precedent that they're going to ban these firearms in legislation, would that preclude their need to provide a statement, as I mentioned, in 117.15, that they believe this is not reasonable for use in hunting? Would they no longer need to provide that justification if they were to pass this through legislation?
Noon
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The justification that you're referring to applies to firearms that are prohibited by regulation. That's a limitation on the Governor in Council's ability to exercise their discretion to determine whether a specific firearm should be prohibited.
The democratic process is what would be used to debate whether these firearms should be prohibited through legislation.
Noon
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I just want to confirm what you're saying. The Governor in Council rule does not bind the government, if they pass this legislation, from providing a justification about why these hunting rifles should be banned. It's a protection that exists only for the Governor in Council regulations, and not for legislation through Parliament. Is that correct?
Noon
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The ability of the Governor in Council to prescribe firearms is a delegated power that comes from Parliament.
Noon
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
When this provision was enacted, Parliament imposed a limitation on the Governor in Council as to what firearms could be prohibited.
Noon
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Now the government is saying they don't want that limitation anymore because, as we have said, they want the power to ban hunting rifles. That's why they're circumventing this very reasonable limitation, I think, that existed in the 1995 firearms law.
I think that just provides further evidence that this is really about giving the government the power to move forward and limit all sorts of new hunting firearms. They're just going to do this through a legislative process instead of through a Governor in Council, where at least they would be held accountable and have to justify why these hunting rifles could not be allowed.
Another follow-up is that the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights is still a law of this land. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is very important. However, the Canadian Bill of Rights says very explicitly that Canadians have the right to life, liberty, security of the person and also the right to enjoyment of property, which cannot be deprived except with due process of law. Are members of the government, under the Governor in Council, bound by the Canadian Bill of Rights when they come up with policies to confiscate firearms? Are they bound by the due process of law in the Canadian Bill of Rights when depriving people of the enjoyment of their property?
12:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
What I can say is that the Supreme Court ruled—I think it was in 1991 or 1992, in the firearms reference case—that there is no right in Canada to possess firearms.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I don't disagree with you. However, in terms of property, if you are given the right to own a firearm as property—firearms are property as well—the government can't just seize that property except through due process of law. Would you say that is correct?
12:05 p.m.
Phaedra Glushek Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think one of the questions is with respect to the federal criminal power. The reference regarding the firearms decision by the Supreme Court of Canada determined that firearms and the regulation of firearms falls within the criminal law power versus the provincial power over property. It also indicated that there was no right to firearms in Canada.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
But this is the Canadian Bill of Rights. This is a federal law, not a provincial law. Are you aware of the Bill of Rights? Is it still enforced in Canada? Does it still have power in this country, the Bill of Rights?
12:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, it does.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
What I'm getting at here is that it seems like the government, through the buy-back program and the May 2020 OIC, is trying to respect the bill of rights and say, “We're going to confiscate your property,” which is a violation of the bill of rights, “but we're going to make it up to you because we're going to compensate you for that property.” That happens all the time in this country through eminent domain laws. When people have their property seized to build a highway, the government has to compensate them for that. That's the due process of law.
However, if the government passes this amendment we're talking about today, G-4, is it notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights? Is the government saying that this will be notwithstanding the bill of rights protections for property rights?
12:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The criminal law falls under the criminal law power that is under federal jurisdiction. That's what I can point to when we speak about criminal law and this legislation that is being amended through the bill and the motions. It is under the federal criminal law power.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Yes, I understand that. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, because this will be an act of Parliament and not a regulation, as we've already cleared up, this bill will be on an equal playing field with the Canadian Bill of Rights and, therefore, will not necessarily be subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights protections on property.
What I'm submitting is that another additional reason the government is submitting this through legislation is not only, as they said, to prevent any future government from repealing these OICs, which they would have to appeal through legislation, but to relieve the government of any responsibility to compensate people for their firearms.
That's something that I think is very worrisome because, as I'm going to get into here in my next line of questions, it's very clear from a Conference Board of Canada report that the hunting, trapping and sport-shooting sectors were responsible for upward of $13.2 billion of GDP in this country in 2018. That represented about 0.6% of Canada's GDP at the time. That is an extremely significant amount of GDP.
Hunting and sport shooting are a tourism industry. A lot of these people come in from the United States. Can you tell us how this amendment would impact Americans who want to bring, let's say, a firearm that was listed under this amendment? Would they be able to bring that firearm up? Do they get an exemption?
Obviously, they don't need to have a Canadian firearms licence to come up here as a tourist to shoot, so would they be required not to bring any firearms that would be covered under this amendment when they come here to sport shoot?
12:05 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you for the question.
If the bill passes and it receives royal assent, the same rules that apply today would apply if you're bringing in a non-restricted firearm in terms of the processes and procedures. It's the same thing for restricted firearms. I believe you cannot bring prohibited firearms into the country. An American, for example, coming in to hunt would need to bring in a firearm that they could legally bring into Canada.