Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2023

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Thank you for the question.

Section 54 of the act contains the requirements for applications for firearms licences and registration certificates, as well as that for applying for authorizations to carry and authorizations to transport. Authorizations to carry can be made for reasons of either employment or protection of life. Most of the ATCs that are given in Canada are for reasons of employment—as you've noted, for security guards—or in terms of personal protection when they are employed.

Clause 27 amends paragraph 54(2)(a) to specify that applications for a licence or an ATC for lawful profession or occupation purposes must be made to a CFO, except in the cases under paragraph 20(a) in terms of protection of personal life. In those cases, it would be changed from the CFO to the commissioner of firearms.

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

Yes. Actually, that was brought up by the CFO from Alberta when they came to committee, I believe, or maybe when I met with them. I think the number is confidential, but it literally is in the single digits, the number of people across the country who have authorization to carry for personal protection not because of a profession but because their lives are at risk. We're literally talking about a very small number of people who also have to prove that they're competent with the firearm. It's not just anyone who can get this thing. It has a very high bar.

Do you have any insight into why an amendment like this is necessary when the system is not broken? Is there any evidence that the system is broken and would require this change to come in?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

The intent of making this amendment is, again, to centralize with the commissioner that very small number of applications for authorizations to carry for personal protection.

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

Centralization for centralization's sake.... Is there an actual problem with the current system under the CFOs, or is this just a power grab by Ottawa to tell the CFOs that they don't have the ability to do what they've been doing very competently for many years? I guess you can't answer about the power grab in Ottawa, but that's what it certainly looks like to me.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I'll just repeat what I've already answered. The intent is to centralize it with the commissioner of firearms.

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

It seems to me that the government's indicating that it doesn't really trust the provincial CFOs. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. That's my opinion. We have a system that works, and this could potentially cause problems because we have numerous CFOs across the country dealing with small numbers of people. Now you're telling all these people that they have to go to one office with the government, a government that can't even get people's passports on time.

If people's lives are really at risk and they have to prove that they're in immediate danger, like imminent danger, in order to get these things, centralizing it in an Ottawa office, I think, is putting people's lives needlessly at risk. That's why I can't support this clause. The system is working. There has been no evidence that there has been abuse of the system, and unless that evidence comes forward, I just don't think there's any justification to change this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Genuis, you have 43 seconds.

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

Mr. Lloyd has put the questions to the officials, who can rightly give us technical explanations. I'm wondering if, just briefly, the government members want to explain the rational for.... Do they agree with Mr. Lloyd's assessment that this is just a power grab for Ottawa, or is there some other rationalizing explanation for why it, in their view, makes sense for this to be out of the hands of provincial CFOs?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The members aren't here to answer questions. They may engage in debate if they wish.

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

It doesn't have to be long, but it would be nice if maybe the government provided some explanation for why this is included this clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm going to have to cut you off there.

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

This is embarrassing then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further—

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

It could be a 30-second explanation. Is Mr. Lloyd right or—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Genuis, you're done.

Is there any further discussion on clause 27?

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

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Clause 27 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 28)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any discussion on clause 28?

We have Mr. Lloyd, followed by Mr. Genuis.

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

Blaine, you can go ahead. I give you permission.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

One of you may go ahead.

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

Can the officials here talk about the changes...? This is for a lawful profession or occupation. Given the role that I have and the lifestyle that I lead, I'm immediately thinking of my friends who are trappers and others like that.

Could you describe what the potential impact and changes would be should this clause carry and become law?

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

Can I make flippant jokes, or is that still out of bounds?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I'm sorry. I'm just refreshing myself on some of the provisions here.

In terms of the difference proposed here, it defines the responsibilities of the CFO with respect to issuing an authorization to carry and transport a handgun only for the purposes and use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation.

For example, if you were speaking of a trapper, they often carry not just their rifle or shotgun but also sometimes a handgun for personal protection. In that case, it talks about the CFO being designated as being responsible for the issuance of ATCs and ATTs for those purposes. This provision is consistent with amendments to the application process for authorizations to carry in paragraph 54(2)(a) of the act.

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

What is this changing that currently exists? These authorizations to carry already exist. What is the substantive change from the current procedure?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

It adds the references referred to in paragraph 20(b). It just provides clarity in terms of who is providing the authorization to carry. It's the CFO.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Calkins, are you done?