Public Safety Committee on May 11th, 2023

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

No.

This is clause 41, correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's clause 41 as amended.

Mr. Lloyd has a question.

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

Can the officials explain for the folks at home what is the impact of clause 41?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

The amendment would amend section 89 of the Firearms Act from every court, judge or justice to every competent authority that makes, varies or revokes. It's just a changing of the labelling, and then there is a timing requirement that has been changed through an amendment with regard to CFOs informing without delay—or, in this case, 24 hours—of a protection order being issued, varied or revoked.

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

What is the distinction being made between the courts and the competent authorities? What competent authorities are we talking about?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Earlier this evening, the committee talked about questions of prohibition and various prohibition orders and the definitions that they can be issued by entities other than courts. In terms of this, it is a broader language that would encompass courts as well as other competent authorities that are not courts.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Shall clause 41 as amended carry?

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

On division.

(Clause 41 as amended agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Shall clause 42 carry?

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

On division.

(Clause 42 agreed to on division)

(On clause 43)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That takes us to BQ-20.

If BQ-20 is adopted, BQ-21, NDP-17, CPC-23, NDP-18 and NDP-19 cannot be moved due to line conflicts.

Ms. Michaud, the floor is yours.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I may, I am going to move BQ-21 rather than BQ-20.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Very well, Madam Michaud, BQ-20 is withdrawn.

If BQ-21 is adopted, NDP-17 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Ms. Michaud, the floor is yours.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are at clause 43, which contains the much-debated exception for handguns.

Amendment BQ-21 strengthens this measure, in a way, by instituting a requirement that already exists in Quebec. We are asking that the much-debated letter, which must be written by a national or provincial sport shooting governing body, be sent annually. So we are simply adding the word "annually". I believe this strengthens the bill. First, we ensure continuing eligibility, by requiring that an annual letter be sent to the chief firearms officer. Second, we also ensure eligibility to possess a restricted weapon by requiring the annual submission showing active membership in a shooting club.

At the federal level, the reason most often cited to justify the acquisition of a restricted firearm is target practice. That condition needs to be met only at the time the application is made, when it is assumed that the individual is an active member of a shooting club. Bizarrely, it is not necessary to maintain the membership once the restricted firearm is purchased. In my opinion, that makes no sense. In Quebec, the Act to protect persons with regard to activities involving firearms, or Anastasia's Law, requires that owners of restricted firearms actively practice target shooting—at least once a year—in order to continue to possess the firearms.

As a result, I think the bill should be amended to require an annual submission showing membership in a shooting club and an annual letter from a shooting federation attesting to the person's participation in Olympic disciplines. We might talk about that a little later.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment calling for a letter to be provided annually. I notice that similar things are being proposed a little later that may be more restrictive.

I believe this annual requirement would be a reasonable compromise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We will go to Ms. Damoff, then Mr. Julian and then Mr. Lloyd.

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

Thank you, Madam Michaud. This is a strong addition to the bill, and we will be voting in favour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Next is Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your amendment, Ms. Michaud.

I would like to propose a subamendment to it. We have the same beginning: "meets the regulatory criteria." I would just add this partial sentence, which comes from amendment NDP-17: "including respecting the minimum participation requirements."

Amendment BQ-21 as amended would therefore read:

meets the prescribed criteria, including respecting the minimum participation requirements, and provides every six months a letter

That means that the requirements that are applicable on an annual basis, as suggested by Ms. Michaud, will be higher. There will also be a stricter framework that still allows people the opportunity to participate in shooting sports.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

I will go to Mr. Lloyd.

We're speaking to the subamendment at this point.

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

On a point of order, is that five minutes for the subamendment and five minutes for the amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's five minutes for the whole—

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

I just think that this seems like a ridiculous exercise.

We know that licensed, vetted handgun owners are not responsible for almost all violent handgun crimes that are committed in this country. These paperwork requirements that we're adding on are doing nothing to improve public safety.

We're talking about when somebody doesn't go to a range for over a period of a year, they will have their ability to own a handgun revoked if they can't provide this annual letter, and now, as a government, we're micromanaging what this letter has to say. We're putting in this huge paperwork requirement on all of these clubs and sporting associations across the country to deal with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of members.

Who's receiving these letters? Is it the chief firearms officers who will be receiving these letters? We already have a huge backlog...or we have had backlogs in the past with getting people's possession and acquisition licence and other things. Now it's going to be the CFO's job to review hundreds of thousands of letters on an annual basis, all so that we can prove whether or not somebody has shown up at a club at any time in the past year and whether they've met these prescribed minimum requirements.

This seems like we're making rules for the sake of making rules and making it look like we're doing something, when there is absolutely no evidence to prove that providing this annual letter—and the NDP was originally proposing to provide this every six months—is actually going to improve public safety in any way.

The CFOs can maybe answer my question.

Presumably it would be your job to review these letters, would it not?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Before my colleagues answer, I just want to clarify that the requirements have to do with when you register a handgun or when you're asking for an authorization to transport, new sections 12.2 and 19.1 of the Firearms Act. In other words, it's at the moment that you would seek to....

It's an exception, in order to allow the registration of a handgun for those who participate.... There is not a question of continual eligibility; it's a question of when you are acquiring or transporting it.

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

What is the point of an annual letter? It's an annual letter, in that terminology.