Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2023

[Kellie Paquette]

I think that the current provisions provide you a way of removing firearms from your house if you feel that you need time for your health. I think it provides you a way that you could lend these or transport these to a different location for a certain time period.

If you're asking the question of whether it allows you to track the mental illness of someone and whether the CFO gets involved to make sure the firearm should go back to that individual, I do not think the current provisions are written like that. However, it does allow you, as a firearms owner of handguns, with these regulations, to at least be able to temporarily store these somewhere else.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We'll go back to Mr. Ruff.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I think my point has been proven here, in that there isn't great clarity. It's not crystal clear. The challenge the firearms community has is that not every one of them is an expert on the whole Firearms Act.

Personally, I don't think there's any risk—I haven't heard anything from the officials—in adding this level of clarity to it, so that firearms owners know they have this option available to them, again, through regulation, if needed. I have complete confidence in the firearms program to put any necessary regulations in place to ensure there are safeguards. It's already in the act that, in order to transfer or even to get an ATT, I think, there's a level of competency and a recognition that you're giving it to somebody or, if it's theirs, returning it. The act has all those safeguards in place.

I think this is an important addition for clarity. Otherwise, I'm just telling you that these people, i.e., firearms owners, will not utilize this option because it's not even clear. As the officials state, there's nothing in the regulations that clearly prescribes this. Because every chief firearms officer in every province might interpret it slightly differently, if we signal this through legislation so that this is clear, that this is the intent behind it, and allow this avenue, I think it's just going to make Canada a safer place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

We have one minute and 18 seconds in the Conservatives' time slot, I'm wondering if there is unanimous consent to add another five minutes to the parties.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I have Mr. Calkins and then Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I believe that Mr. Ruff just made eloquent comments that are going to be the premise for my question. My question for the officials is this: Even though the ability to have a one-way transfer with no prescribed date of return is available, there's no obligation on behalf of the chief firearms officer to grant the authorization to transport. Is that correct?

[Rob Mackinnon]

That would be correct. There's no obligation.

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

If that's correct, then there would be a reason for somebody who is going through a mental health issue to doubt that the transfer will be approved, and that could potentially prevent them from attempting to do the transfer. Does that seem logical?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I just want to ask the committee a clarifying question.

Are we talking about temporary storage or are we actually talking about a transfer, where somebody is giving the firearm? You may want to consider, because those two words, in terms of “temporarily store” and “transfer” are in conflict.

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

I'm talking about a transferee and a transferor and a temporary storage. Let me be more clear, if I can.

My colleague Mr. Ruff articulated that this clause, if added into the legislation, would provide clarity and direction to a chief firearms officer, who is under no obligation, as Mr. Mackinnon has just said in answer to my previous question, to grant an ATT to temporarily store a firearm.

If we're trying to reassure the firearm-owning public that, if they want to temporarily store their firearms or their restricted firearms in order to deal with a personal issue, I guess my question would be this: Would the clause that's being discussed here by my colleague Mr. Ruff, that's being presented by Mr. Ruff, not provide more certainty and clarity to a chief firearms officer?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Then in that case, if it's a question of temporary storage in which the clarity the committee wishes to provide is to the the chief firearms officer, it may be better to not put it in the transfer provisions, if it's a temporary storage issue, and to look at it going into the authorization-to-transport provisions elsewhere in the Firearms Act.

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

We've already heard from officials that there is no certainty and that a chief firearms officer has to grant an authorization to transport. If we leave that to the discretion of the chief firearms officer and we don't actually prescribe it in law, as is proposed by Mr. Ruff, then there is no guarantee, certainty or predictability for a restricted-firearms owner to get temporary storage. Am I missing something?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Again, a transfer is a sort of permanent transaction. If your intent, or the intent of the amendment, is to go towards temporary storage, then I think at that point it's not a question of a transfer. It's not that permanent “from one party to another”.... It's a temporary hold. I'm just wondering if there might be—

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

Nothing in the language in the amendment that I see says anything about a transfer. It says, “to temporarily store”. I think the language is clear in the proposed amendment because the words actually say, “temporarily store”.

I think the intent that my colleague Mr. Ruff has is to provide clarity and certainty, and to provide the chief firearms officer with direction that, when somebody has a mental health or personal issue for which they do not know the prescribed end date of what they're dealing with might be, they have the ability to approach the chief firearms officer with certainty of knowing they can temporarily store their restricted firearms somewhere while they deal with their personal issues.

What I'm hearing is that the current provisions in the “temporarily store” through the ATT are that there is no requirement for a chief firearms officer to consider mental health or any other personal issue, which Mr. Ruff has brought forward. It is thereby creating uncertainty and creating a risk to anybody who comes forward who might want to deal with this issue. I actually commend Mr. Ruff for doing this.

I have brought this up in previous meetings dealing with firearms legislation. If we put barriers in place for people to be honest with the government, then they're not going to be honest with the government. I think this clause will provide that certainty and predictability to not only firearms owners but also to the chief firearms officer. It does not talk, in any way shape or form, about a permanent transfer. It talks about temporary storage.

I would urge my colleagues at the committee to adopt this. I think it's fair and reasonable. I think it's a way that we can treat those who are dealing with these issues, and potentially a large number of veterans, with the respect, dignity and trust they deserve. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We will go now to Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have two questions.

First, given the amendment that you have before you, what are the potential unintended consequences of doing it this way?

Secondly, having sympathy for the approach that Mr. Ruff is suggesting, what are other ways that we would be able to tackle the same issue? I'm assuming that's regulatory, but it could be, as well, in later sections of the bill and the ATT.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Thank you.

The motion proposes to amend clause 23 by adding to section 28 of the act. That whole provision deals with the approving of transfers, those permanent transfers of “sell, barter or give”. Then at that point, it might be better, if that is the intent, to maybe look at amendments to the “authorization to transport” sections in the act.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you.

It's the provisions.... It's something that we could come back to in terms of the authorization to transport and in terms of the regulatory framework.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

That's right.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Okay.

Mr. Chair, I think this is something we will need to come back to tomorrow, perhaps in another section of the bill.

I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Ruff's amendment. If we're voting on it tonight, I would vote against it tonight, but with the intention of seeing whether there's another way of doing this tomorrow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We go now to Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I looked at the Firearms Act, and I think this is what Mr. Julian is getting at. This is with regard to the section on transfers.

As officials have said, transfers are permanent. They're not temporary. While the amendment talks about temporary storage—it's in the section of the Firearms Act that deals with transfers—we can't support the amendment as it's written.

If Mr. Ruff wants to go back to the drawing board and go to section 28 of the Firearms Act that deals with authorizations to carry for transport and come up with something in that section, we would certainly be open to looking at it but not as it's written right now on a transfer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Lloyd, you have 11 seconds.