Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2023

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Lloyd, go ahead, if you wish.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I have a deep concern about the barriers we're putting up for people who need to carry for their jobs.

I'm thinking of a friend of mine who is a forester working in northern Alberta. Some of the helicopters that fly these people in are very small. You're not able to fit shotguns or long rifles in these helicopters with all of the other equipment they have. The inability to get authorization to carry a handgun has had deadly consequences. In the case of my friend, he was mauled by a bear and suffered traumatic brain injury from it. Clearly, putting up more barriers for people who need handguns for occupational safety is not something that's acceptable to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Genuis, you have one minute and 44 seconds.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to agree with what my colleague Mr. Lloyd said. I think this is an important point, and it underlines the urban-rural divide sometimes in the firearms debate.

Understandably, there are people in urban centres who are, of course, firearms owners and involved in sport shooting and things, but in rural areas, in parts of my riding, this is a matter of necessary tools. Telling people they cannot have the tools they need to do their jobs—to keep them safe in the context of their jobs—or making this a complex regulatory process for them doesn't make a lot of sense.

You have people from a different reality. They don't understand or connect with that rural reality. They say, “Well, our association with these tools is that they're used for one purpose”, without understanding or being empathetic at all towards the experience of other people. I find that troubling. What we should be trying to do as legislators is bridge these divides and understand that an aspect of one person's experience might not be the same aspect of someone else's experience. They may have different immediate needs or uses for these kinds of products.

I think that was well explained, with particulars, by Mr. Lloyd.

When I was younger, I spent some time tree planting in areas that were.... I know that's hard for some of my colleagues to believe, but there was a time when I did physical labour and planted trees. It was a different—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

—reality from being in the city. I would hope members of the government and others would have some sympathy for the points Mr. Lloyd made and the need to use—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

—firearms as tools in certain situations.

I'll leave it there. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion on this clause?

Seeing none, I shall ask the clerk to call a roll.

(Clause 28 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 29)

We now come to clause 29. Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Can I ask the officials what the impact of this clause will be?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

In terms of the changes that happened in the previous clauses, the change is that the commissioner would be the one to issue authorizations to carry for reasons of personal protection. It's outlining that it's the commissioner who outlines any conditions that would go with that ATC.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Can you give us some examples of conditions that have been used in the past by CFOs, presumably?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I will turn to my colleague at the CFP.

[Rob Mackinnon]

An example would be when an individual is unable to be protected by the local law enforcement.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

How is that a condition, though? Presumably, when they're talking about a condition, this is a restriction on the ability of the person with the authorization to carry. Are you saying it's a condition of.... Are there are circumstances in which they would need an authorization to carry?

[Rob Mackinnon]

The CFO would determine the use of the firearm to be carried based on locations, the geographical area the individual would be trapping or working in while in a wilderness area.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Interestingly, a later clause talks about geographical restrictions. If this is centralized in the commissioner, does that mean that people will have the authority, for protection of life, to travel outside of their province of residence with their authorization? Is the reason for the centralization to allow people to be able to travel freely across the country and protect themselves, rather than to have this system with all the different CFOs that don't allow this?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I think in that case, it would be very highly specific to the reasons that the individual would need to have an authorization to carry for protection of personal life. I think the conditions that would be attached to it would be tailored to the particular conditions that the individual needs.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Potentially, this could allow somebody to travel across provincial borders, because the commissioner has authority over the whole country and not just individual provinces.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I won't speculate when it comes to that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Calkins, you have two minutes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Would the witnesses have any insight as to who could respond more quickly to an authorization to carry, given the proximity to the person making the request and given the fact that the purpose behind this would be for the safety of the individual receiving the authorization to carry?

It would seem to me that removing the decision-making one step further away from the province from which the person is making the inquiry and into the commissioner's office rather than the CFO's office would be adding a layer of bureaucracy or removing the process from where the decision is more likely to be understood by the decision-maker.

I can't help but think that a chief firearms officer in Alberta, British Columbia or anywhere else would be better suited to make a decision on who should be carrying a firearm in Alberta, rather than somebody who is situated elsewhere in the country.

If the individual's life is at risk and the application for the authorization to carry.... Would this process, or this change in who's making the decision, potentially put that person at risk?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

The vast majority of authorizations to carry are for reasons of employment, and that's remaining with CFOs. We've already noted that the number of authorizations to carry for personal protection are quite low. Obviously I can't really speak to timelines, but I believe that these are treated with all due haste. Whether they are treated provincially by CFOs or would be treated centrally by the commissioner, they would be treated with all due haste.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

If that's the case, moving it from the office of a chief firearms officer to the commissioner of firearms means there must be some problem.