Evidence of meeting #51 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 firearms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
The difference is that earlier, it would require just a simple order in council in order to put it on the list. Now it's going to require an act of Parliament in order to do that.
Am I missing something, Mr. Smith?
12:45 p.m.
Technical Specialist, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
No. That's consistent with my understanding as well.
12:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, that's correct. They will codify these into legislation.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Then now, if you're a hunter who uses Benelli firearms and you want the newest make and model of what Benelli has to offer to the marketplace, you would have to contact your local member of Parliament and ask for an amendment to the statutes of Canada in order to be able to purchase and acquire a modern or a newer version of a Benelli turkey-hunting gun.
12:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, as with any other prohibited firearm.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
No, that's not true, because you used to be able to put items on the schedule through an order in council, and now it requires an act of Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Let me rephrase.
Yes, you would have to ask, because it would be in statute and codified in the Criminal Code as a prohibited firearm rather than a delegated authority through the GIC through regulations, which they are now and which some of them have been since the 1990s.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Now that this has moved to being codified in the statute rather than just being something that can be done through an order in council, what are the chances, should this law come to pass and codify in legislation all of these Benellis, of any Benelli shotguns actually getting into the marketplace in Canada?
12:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I don't think we can speculate on that, on what manufacturers would or would not do and how they would enter the market.
Does my colleague have anything to add to that?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Do you think Benelli would have a legal case of being treated disproportionately?
12:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think we'd have to ask Benelli's counsel, but they would be prohibited from being imported into Canada.
12:45 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I'll just add, though, that it's not Benelli the manufacturer, right?
12:45 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It's not Benelli the manufacturer. It's variants of items that are prohibited.
12:45 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Getting back to personal defence, I articulated in my opening remarks numerous scenarios of people who are in the outdoors and who currently would not have to seek any permission to use their non-restricted shotguns or rifles, like a Tavor chambered in .308. Is there anything in this legislation...?
Let's face it: If you have an employee who's working in a dangerous situation, you as an employer have a responsibility to provide your employees with all of the safety equipment that's necessary for them to conduct their duties safely. We've seen this in the RCMP, as a matter of fact. The RCMP lost a case for not providing the right equipment to their members.
Is there any provision in the legislation or the proposed amendments for people who work in dangerous industries in which they're proximal to wildlife or have been charged with the protection of other people? Are there any exemptions for them for any of the firearms they currently use right now? Is there a permitting path? Is there a way for them to get an exemption so that they can continue to use the firearms they purchased for the purpose of personal protection, or will their firearms that are now slated to go to the prohibited list go to the prohibited list, and it's too bad, so sad—go buy a different gun? What's the approach?
12:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
What I can say, being from up north and having experienced this because I worked at a fly-in fishing and hunting camp, is no, there's no right in Canada to a specific firearm. The law is well settled. Once it's prohibited, there is no ability to use that for self-defence or any other purpose in the wild.
What I can say is that there are sometimes authorizations to carry that are provided under the authority of the Firearms Act. I could possibly turn to my colleague Rachel, and perhaps she can....
12:50 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thanks.
Under the Firearms Act there is a mechanism whereby individuals are specifically authorized to carry restricted firearms and use them for either personal protection or for the course of their employment. That's what exists right now.
An example is a security guard. A private security guard would have an exemption for the reason of their employment. We also see that sometimes—you mentioned in the north—for protection from wildlife, people will sometimes carry more than one weapon, maybe a handgun and a long gun. Restricted firearms can be used in those cases.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Basically what you're saying right now is that certain firearms that people are using currently without having to ask for extra permission will be moved to a prohibited list. The only way they will be able to continue to use them for personal protection....
Of course, I'm not talking about somebody who would be an armoured car driver or something like this. This is not the exception I'm talking about. I'm talking about the person on a northern cruise ship who gets off the ship charged with the responsibility of protection if a polar bear comes and attacks the crew or the guests, and who currently uses a Tavor chambered in .308 or uses a shotgun that is now going to be prohibited. They would have to ask for permission from the local chief firearms officer. The northern cruise ship would potentially stop in Atlantic Canada and maybe in several provinces, each with its own chief firearms officer. It might stop in northern Quebec, in Nunavut, in the Northwest Territories.
Are you saying that that individual would need an ATC from each of those jurisdictions in order to do their job?
12:50 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
In terms of the firearms, if the firearms they are currently using become prohibited, they won't be able to use them even with an ATC. An ATC applies for restricted firearms.
12:50 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
That would be the impact if the firearms that they are currently using are prohibited. That would be the impact.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
If it's prohibited, it's now rendered useless for all of this, regardless. They would still have to switch to either a non-restricted firearm or get a restricted firearm and then ask for an authorization to carry.
12:55 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
That is correct.