Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 33, Evidence - June 9, 2015
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 9, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts, met this day at 10 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good day and welcome colleagues, invited guests and members of the general public who are watching today's proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
We are meeting today to begin our study on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts.
Bill C-42 amends the Firearms Act to simplify and clarify the firearms licensing regime for individuals, to limit the discretionary authority of chief firearms officers and to provide for the sharing of information on commercial importation of firearms. It also amends the Criminal Code to strengthen the provisions relating to orders prohibiting the possession of weapons, including firearms, when a person is sentenced for an offence involving domestic violence. Lastly, it defines "non-restricted firearm" and gives the Governor-in-Council the authority to prescribe a firearm to be non-restricted and expanded authority to prescribe a firearm to be restricted.
To begin our study on the bill, we welcome again, the Honourable Steven Blaney, P.C., MP, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Mr. Blaney is accompanied by the following officials who will be with him at the table: John Ossowski, Associate Deputy Minister, Public Safety Canada; Lyndon Murdock, Director, Operational and Policing Policy Directorate, Public Safety Canada; and also in the room is Julie Besner, Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Justice Canada.
Before we begin, I'd like to remind senators that today we are only meeting for one today to hear from the minister and to allow members to ask him questions. The officials from Public Safety will return tomorrow afternoon to answer any technical questions that you might have.
Minister Blaney, we will begin with your opening statement.
Hon. Steven Blaney, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness: Thank you, Senator Runciman. I should also say hello again, honourable members of the Senate. I am very pleased to be here today, in front of you, for this bill which is an important measure to a law that had been passed many decades ago.
Let me just start, as we are at the end of this process, to say that the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act is actually the first substantive change to the firearms licensing regime since it was brought in 20 years ago. We certainly need those updates after such a long period and to bring in some common sense.
I would first like to thank Senator Beyak, as a sponsor of the legislation, for introducing the bill in the Senate. I had an opportunity to review her remarks in the Senate Chamber this past Thursday. You took the words right out of my mouth, senator. I could not have done it better and I thank you for that. This is certainly a bill that is increasing public safety in this country and also streamlining and showing respect to the community of which you are a part as a hunter and a sport's shooter.
Well, actually, what we might not know is that Senator Beyak is involved in what is called Cowboy Action Shooting. So I have that revelation to make this morning. This is a specific type of three-gun competition that involves historical situations. One of most interesting parts of this sport is the development of stage names and personalities. I understand that Senator Beyak goes by the alias of "Buttercup," which seems wholly appropriate given her consistently pleasant demeanor.
That's what I discovered, actually, in this portfolio, over the course of two years is that there is a vivid community that is involved and engaged, and that certainly has great Canadian values.
[Translation]
So why have we introduced this bill? First and foremost, it is in the interest of public safety, but it is also meant as a show of respect for a key Canadian value tied to our heritage. Sport shooting and hunting are an important part of that heritage.
[English]
These are not homogeneous activities. There are many subsets, whether it be hunting big game or waterfowl, precision rifle shooting, bull's-eye shooting or skeet shooting, amongst others.
Actually, hunters, anglers and fishermen are the best conservationists in Canada.
[Translation]
Hunters and anglers have an intimate relationship with nature and, as such, have developed an understanding of both plant and animal ecosystems in order to achieve their objectives. Organizations such as Ducks Unlimited Canada, which has become one of the foremost protectors and defenders of Canadian wildlife, are a testament to that.
[English]
Of course, all these activities require different equipment. No one ought to be treated like criminals for enjoying their hobbies and what I just referred to as a Canadian heritage activity.
I have an example of this attitude that we have to overcome. Honourable senators may know Keith Beasley. He's one of the stars of the television program Canada in the Rough. Here is a story that he recently told about his son.
Mr. Beasley had been on a hunting trip to northern British Columbia where he had harvested a large moose. He brought back the shell casing that he had used to give to his son. His son was as proud as could be and wanted to show it to his friends at school. For this, he was suspended from school.
Let's be clear. This young boy brought a simple inert piece of metal to school, in full compliance with all our Canadian laws. It was seen as something so dangerous, so violent, that he ought to be punished.
Well, there was obviously a misunderstanding in that situation.
[Translation]
It's time to dispel and correct the perception that Canadians who partake in hunting, fishing and sport shooting are somehow second-class citizens. It's a view that is much too prevalent, one that shows disdain for firearms owners, who all too often are treated as criminals in our society.
Hence the importance of this bill. It's intended to ensure that Canadians who engage in traditional activities are once again treated with respect. I have repeatedly called for gun control policies that strike the right balance between common sense and public safety, and that is the purpose of the bill before you.
Now, as we near the end of the legislative process, I'd like to lay to rest some of the myths, rumours and urban legends that have been circulated about the bill and describe for you its measures for what they really are.
First of all, the bill will strengthen the ban on the possession of weapons by those who are convicted of domestic violence offences. They will face a lifetime prohibition on the possession of firearms. Anyone who is convicted of an indictable offence involving domestic violence will automatically be stripped for life of their licence to possess or acquire firearms, because we believe that the best predictor of future performance is past behaviour and that firearms should not be allowed in unstable domestic environments.
Second of all, the bill will make it mandatory for new gun owners to successfully complete a firearms safety training course, ensuring they all have a common understanding of how to handle a gun safely in a civil environment.
[English]
You may know that I have taken the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course. I found it quite informative and convenient. I had a lot of things to learn. Once again, this is where I certainly came into contact with the respect that is shown by the firearms community toward our Canadian laws and our Canadian regulations. Just to give you an example: How to cross a fence with a rifle is a challenge, and I was successful in achieving it. I could show you, but maybe I would need a little update.
What's more, the proposed legislation will improve information sharing between the RCMP and the CBSA. The third measure is with regard to the RCMP and CBSA. I came before the Senate committee to say that the left hand of the government shall know what the right hand is doing. This is exactly the case by making mandatory the process of the exchange of information between the RCMP and the CBSA, our border agency responsible for the import of firearms. We will limit and reduce the risk of illegal firearms being imported into our country.
These three strong measures are in the bill.
We also have measures to streamline the process for law-abiding citizens. These don't have much to do with public safety but have more to do with red tape and this attitude change we need to correct. Let me just give you some examples.
We have the intention to merge the possession-only licence with the possession and acquisition licence. This is will give from 500,000 to 600,000 experienced firearm owners the right to make new purchases. This is a right they have not enjoyed for the past 20 years since the initial introduction of the law. These are experienced and skilled hunters who have long experience with firearms. We will just simplify the process by merging those two licences.
We also have the intention to streamline and make uniform the ability of chief firearms officers to make arbitrary decisions. The Firearms Act is a federal law. There should be no patchwork of different rules and procedures from province to province on a federal law.
[Translation]
Furthermore, the bill will put in place a six-month grace period at the end of a five-year licence. Currently, under the Criminal Code, a gun owner whose licence expired on April 8 and who happens to be out of the country on April 9 — such as a member of the military deployed abroad — is considered to be in possession of a firearm illegally and may therefore be charged with a criminal offence that carries a penalty of 3 to 5 years in prison. The six-month grace period will prevent a gun owner whose licence has expired from being charged with an offence under the Criminal Code. During that period, however, the gun owner will not be allowed to use their gun or purchase ammunition. The measure will give the gun owner an opportunity to rectify the situation.
The bill will put an end to unnecessary red tape associated with obtaining authorizations to transport prohibited or restricted firearms. These authorizations will automatically be included in the licences of individuals who are eligible for restricted firearms possession. The bill contains these measures because authorizations to transport firearms in no way enhance public safety since the information they contain is not shared with police, making the act of applying for them a pointless exercise in red tape.
The bill will give elected officials the discretion to fix classification errors made under the Canadian Firearms Program. Last fall, we observed arbitrary decisions being made with respect to firearms classification. On the advice of experts, I intend to reclassify two firearms, the CZ-858 and the Swiss Arms family of rifles, in order to rectify the highly embarrassing position we were in. Law-abiding Canadians who had in good faith acquired firearms many years prior found themselves on the wrong side of the law, and that is absolutely unacceptable. On the advice of experts, the bill will introduce a mechanism to correct errors that may arise in the classification and reclassification of firearms.
That is what the bill entails. Of course, falsehoods about the bill have made the rounds.
[English]
For example, false information has been circulated around this bill. It is important for public safety reasons to discard completely those frivolous statements that have been made.
The Liberal Party of Canada has put out fundraising advertisements claiming that, as a result of this bill, handguns will be able to be taken into grocery stores and hockey arenas. This is completely ridiculous. This is totally untrue. This is really a shocking statement, and it is totally the opposite, actually. There are strict rules regarding the manner in which restricted firearms are transported and they are all retained. Let's be clear: There is no change in the handling of firearms, whether restricted or non-restricted, in this proposed legislation.
Second, we have heard some individuals say that the requirement to take a safety course will be unduly onerous on those from rural or remote areas. Individuals need to attend in person to challenge the exam; so they have to travel anyway. We believe that the public safety benefit is clear.
Third, some have suggested that the new power for elected officials to lower the classification of firearms would allow automatic firearms to be considered non-restricted. This is obviously not the intention of our government or any government. We are there to make policy based on public safety and technical analysis. We want to make sure we fix those mistakes.
In a nutshell, this is it. Let me end by saying what we heard about the National Post in the other place. The committee heard from hunters, sport shooters, police, university professors and others. I understand you will also hear from many of these experts as well. The view of the National Post editorial board had the following to say about the bill:
Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, will soon become law. This is good news for responsible gun owners, and good news, as the name suggests, for common sense —
Canada's millions of lawful firearm owners are not a threat to the public — which is why gun crime is so vanishingly rare here despite widespread civilian gun ownership. As Bill C-42 shows, it is possible to streamline the process of legally acquiring a firearm without reducing the already stringent controls on their ownership, and we welcome its imminent passage. Honourable senators, with your support and your help, I would be more than open to answer your questions to achieve this objective.
The Chair: I have a long list of questioners and would remind senators that we will adjourn at 10:55. Hopefully, we can get all questions directed to the minister. Minister, I hope you will keep that in mind in terms of responses, as well. We will begin with the Deputy Chair of the Committee, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: I will direct one question, but perhaps to the officials. First, I congratulate the minister. It's good to see him again. He's done an excellent job for the Government of Canada in his position. Certainly, on the face of it, this appears to be good proposed legislation.
My question for one of the officials is: The bill proposes to amend on pages 11 and 12 various sections of the Criminal Code, 99(1), 99(2), 101 and 102. I'll read the words into the record:
. . . a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, . . . a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under any Act of Parliament.
The words that are objectionable, I believe, are "any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition." This is repeated in proposing to amend those three sections of the Criminal Code. "Ammunition or any prohibited ammunition," first of all, wouldn't it be just as simple to say "any ammunition"?
Second, the punishment is a mandatory minimum sentence in jail, an indictable offence. It appears to me as if one would interpret that to mean possession of any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition.
People in rural areas have ammunition in their homes. It could be left over from old guns and so on. But to make that an indictable offence with a mandatory minimum punishment, I'm wondering whether the officials can clear up my confusion. I'm obviously confused here. This can't mean what I suspect it means, that actual possession would mean an indictable offence if someone has ammunition left over from an old gun they had 50 years ago and it's in their barn or anywhere in their home. Surely it doesn't mean that. Could you clear that up, first of all?
Julie Besner, Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice: Certainly. I believe the key offence provision would be section 91 of the Criminal Code, which is the "simple possession" offence, a hybrid offence without a minimum penalty. Since the mid-1990s —
Senator Baker: I'm sorry, this bill says it's indictable. The punishment section, 23(1), gives the offence, and 23(2) states that every person who commits an offence under (1) will be subject to this, that and the other thing.
Mr. Blaney: If I may just step in, Senator Baker. I thank you for your comments. The kind of question you raise is always to strike this balance between streamlining the process, but keeping public safety as the top priority.
Last night in Moncton I learned that a police officer was shot and killed in cold blood by a member of a right-wing extremist group. We are in an environment where we always have to work with the firearm community but always making sure that, as a government, our first priority is to make sure that those who are making use of illegal firearms will be fully prosecuted, fully charged and that society has zero tolerance for anyone who is making inappropriate use of a firearm.
The intent of the bill in that sense is to make sure that if you were found to use a firearm in an inappropriate manner and using ammunition, this has to go hand-in-hand. We tried to, while streamlining the process, always be aware that a firearm is under the Criminal Code for a very good reason.
That would be my general answer now. Maybe Ms. Besner wants to bring more legal clarity.
Ms. Besner: The only thing I would add is that the provisions that are being amended that the senator referenced are being amended to add the new term "non-restricted firearm" to those provisions. There is otherwise no substantive change to those provisions.
I'll leave it at that. The minister has otherwise answered the question.
Senator Beyak: The minister answered my question in his presentation. It was about the small communities and the onerous taking of the test, but he addressed that. Thank you, minister. You could elaborate.
Mr. Blaney: If you refer to the fact, senator, that the mandatory training will be applicable for every Canadian. Some former police officers and military members came to me and said, "Look, I know how to use a firearm. I know all the technicalities of a firearm." My question to them would be this: "If you go hunting, do you know how to cross a fence with a firearm? You are now a civilian, so you have to learn how to use a firearm as a civilian, and that's why the course is mandatory for every Canadian."
Of course, some Canadians living in remote areas would have to travel to take their course. We are working with all the wildlife federations across the country. To get a licence you have to pass a test, so you have to travel in order to pass that test.
What we say is, "Why don't you travel to get the course and pass the test?" Maybe you will have to stay overnight. I know the Supreme Court feels that to have a firearm is a privilege. I feel it is also more a responsibility and a privilege, but it's a responsibility. I said it's a right that comes with responsibility, but I don't want to undertake a debate with the Supreme Court. However, we agree on the principle that there must be responsible action taken in order to acquire and maintain your licence, and that's why mandatory training is widely approved by all organizations. Wildlife federations are supportive of transmitting that knowledge, but also the responsibility and behaviour that is expected from anyone who has a firearm.
To answer your question, yes, we feel that there are more benefits, even if you are living in a remote part of the country, to travel to take that test, but also get the training and the course.
Senator Beyak: I agree. Thank you very much, minister.
Senator Jaffer: Minister, you know what happened in Edmonton last night. When I work with security or police authorities, I hear that their biggest fear is going into a home because they don't know what kind of firearms may be there, and it's very sad. We must reflect on the families who have lost their loved ones.
The area that I work on is domestic violence, and the greatest fear is for the women when spouses have access to firearms. I have to commend you on your mandatory weapons prohibition and the discretionary aspect.
Minister, I want you to reflect on this, and especially your department, the majority of cases I deal with, they don't even get to that stage. There are lots of peace bonds and restraining orders in the civil court which won't even cover this. My experience around domestic violence is that, yes, if there's a conviction, those were the extreme cases. Yes, if there is a discretion of the judge, but I would like to have seen even more. What happens if a peace bond is issued? What is in place for the justice of the peace in dealing with issues of firearms? I would like you to expand on that.
We know, according to the 2013 report measuring violence against women, that spouses were the most common perpetrators in violent crimes against women, 45 per cent, and, further, more than two-thirds of violent incidents, 69 per cent, against women were committed in private residences.
Mr. Blaney: Thank you, Senator Jaffer. I think we are all shocked this morning to learn of the tragedy that took place in Edmonton. I believe you would share with me that our thoughts are with the family of Constable Daniel Woodall who was killed in Edmonton, and Sergeant Jason Harley who was wounded in the line of duty last night. It reminds us of the risks that our police officers take on a daily basis. I was in Moncton last week for the commemoration of the tragedy that took place a year ago.
Our government, in the last decade, has probably adopted the most stringent regulations toward possession of illegal firearms and toward crimes committed with firearms, especially those horrible crimes. We've moved legislation forward. We have seen the rate of homicides going down, but that is no excuse. We have to do everything we can to prevent any tragedy from happening.
Last week I was in Codiac where the tragedy took place. I attended the briefing that police officers do every morning to get prepared, and they face a lot of challenges. There are a lot of individuals who represent a threat to our society. They know they are out there. They cannot necessarily make arrests and charge them because they don't have enough evidence.
That's why, as you know in the matter of terrorism, I came before the Senate, to lower thresholds so they are better equipped in terms of legislation. Also, as you know, it is important to make sure they are provided with sufficient equipment and resources. That is certainly a commitment that we are fully embracing.
But Senator Jaffer, what they also told me was that, of course, every time they enter into a house, they have to assume that there could potentially be a firearm. That's why, in many ways, as was indicated, this bill is reinforcing the regime, especially for domestic violence. May I remind you that at this point in time that we also have what we call the "continuous screening eligibility." There is a continuous screening of any firearm owner in the country on a daily basis. So if any firearm owner has had some behavior, then it is automatically shared from the database with the police officer. This is the continuous eligibility screening.
We have to do everything that we can to reduce those issues and we will continue in the same direction. That would be an answer.
Senator Jaffer: But can you answer my question: Will you be —
The Chair: Senator McIntyre.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, minister, for joining us today. I gather that, to help shape the bill, you undertook formal consultations involving police, Aboriginal and other stakeholders. I also gather that Public Safety Canada conducted consultations as well. Could you tell us more about those consultations?
Mr. Blaney: Thank you, Senator McIntyre. My first meetings were here, in Ontario, with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, with whom I consulted on the approach that should be used. I also have an advisory committee on gun control, whose top priority is public safety. At its most recent meeting, the committee discussed issues related to mental health. Always with a view to moving forward, we thought about how to identify potential gun owners who might pose a risk as a result of mental health issues, while upholding the laws of the land.
So that tells you what a strong sense of responsibility the members of the gun control advisory committee and the representatives of various Quebec and Canadian hunters and anglers associations feel. Why? Because they have suffered and continue to suffer every time someone commits a crime using a firearm. The entire gun-owning community is penalized and has therefore assumed tremendous responsibility. I believe Mr. Latraverse, the head of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, supports these measures. I hope you will have a chance to hear from him.
One Quebecer had this to say in English, and I quote:
[English]
This bill very much targets the needs of Quebec hunters because it simplifies the procedures for awarding a permit for users who follow the law, while strengthening safety and education.
So one of the priorities of the hunters and the sports shooters is to increase public safety by using common sense measures. They support that bill.
We've consulted a lot with the Canadian Police Association. They've expressed their views. I'm certainly proud of the overwhelming support that the bill has received from those who are impacted and those who care about public safety.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Welcome, minister. In your response to Senator McIntyre's question, you said you had conducted consultations. Did you receive feedback on the measures in the bill from the provincial governments, in particular that of Quebec?
Mr. Blaney: Yes and no. We're actually still in contact with the Quebec government through Lise Thériault. We were in talks when the bill was introduced. And we intend to continue those talks because gun control is sometimes a shared responsibility with the province, as in Quebec's case. We plan to implement the legislation while taking into account that specific context.
In short, I did have discussions at the provincial level. I would say there were some concerns but I think I was able to address some of the concerns expressed by my counterpart.
Senator Joyal: What concerns did Quebec's government have regarding the bill?
Mr. Blaney: I received a highly publicized letter. I had to reassure the provincial government that nothing would change with respect to the transportation of firearms. Given how complex the issue is and the fact that it was new to me, I had to become very familiar with the file.
For example, there are rules dictating how non-restricted firearms are to be handled. The rules are even more stringent for restricted firearms. All firearms, regardless of type, must always be unloaded and disabled by way of a locking mechanism, whether that means the trigger is secured or the gun is stored in a locked and secure box. That is mandatory for all firearms.
In the case of prohibited firearms, two layers of protection are mandatory, and the rules are even stricter. Under the bill, in the case of restricted firearms — such as those used by sport shooters — hunters with a restricted firearms licence will be authorized to transport their firearm. The gun must be disabled, locked and stored in a secure cabinet or padlocked box, and the gun owner is authorized to transport the firearm only between home and a shooting club, a gunsmith, the border in the case of an activity outside the province or country, or the place of a chief firearms officer for administrative purposes.
Senator Joyal: You said the legislation wasn't being enforced consistently across the country and that the bill was meant to introduce some consistency. How is the legislation being enforced inconsistently?
Mr. Blaney: For instance, in the case of an authorization to transport a restricted firearm, known as an ATT, the rules differ from one province to another, despite the fact that the legislation is federal. In some provinces, hunters have to apply for another licence every single time they want to travel with a restricted firearm. Other provinces, however, don't have that requirement. So we are harmonizing and streamlining the process.
Furthermore, chief firearms officers can also impose additional requirements. I have to tell you, I hear a lot from law-abiding hunters who have to jump through bureaucratic hoops that in no way enhance public safety. The purpose of the bill is to establish federal legislation enforceable under the Criminal Code. We want to make sure that those who are responsible for enforcing the law respect the intent of lawmakers.
Senator Joyal: Would we be able to get a copy of that letter?
[English]
Senator Batters: I have a quick one on this, but I will tell you what my second one is, too. My home province is Saskatchewan and I think that your changes included in this bill will be welcome.
Earlier, when you were discussing the mandatory safety training and trying to make some accommodations regarding availability, you spoke briefly about working with the wildlife federations. Can you give us a bit more information about that? I know people in Saskatchewan will be interested to hear about that.
Also, I would ask you to address this: The leader of the Liberal Party said that this bill would allow restricted firearms to be taken anywhere, including grocery stores and hockey arenas. Is that accurate?
Mr. Blaney: No, senator.
With respect to the first part of your question, I have a quote from the Firearms Chairman and past-president of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, Mr. Greg Illerbrun. He said about the bill:
. . . I understand that there are serious disconnects between the legitimate firearms users and those for whom the very mention of the word "gun" strikes unwarranted fear into their hearts. Sadly, this is the reality, which is continuously fuelled by a politically motivated and sensationalist media agenda. . . .
Today's measures do represent common-sense improvements, and for that I thank you. Legitimate firearms users are ready to get to work. We will help you foster the discussion and assist in creating a common-sense act that stops criminalizing the traditional lifestyle of legitimate firearms users in Canada.
I think I described the measures that increase public safety, such as mandatory training; removal of licence for domestic violence; mandatory sharing of information; and better control actually of the import of legal and illegal firearms by connecting the RCMP and CBSA.
To get back to the second part of your question, it's somewhat disappointing to see political parties trying to score a cheap political point by misleading Canadians on very important safety issues. Canadians can be proud of having a system that is robust and that protects them, but not so proud of a system that overtly imposes a bureaucratic burden on law-abiding citizens; so that's what this bill is all about.
There is a lot of misunderstanding around the requirements for the possession of a firearm. In my case, for example, I had to get the support of my spouse, who happens to be the same one for the last two years so I didn't have to give another name. There is a lot of legitimate scrutiny into anyone who would be willing to possess and acquire a firearm.
You cannot go to Canadian Tire. You have to go through a thorough process, which will be even more stringent with the mandatory training. You cannot just take the test. You have to take the mandatory course provided by organizations, such as the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, that have a clear understanding of the responsibility that goes with a firearm, as well as the duty to ensure that anyone who legally acquires a firearm will be an added value to the safety of this country and not cause tragedies that impact so negatively and build distrust between the firearms community and Canadians who practise other activities.
Senator White: Again, our condolences for the loss of the officer in Edmonton to his family and the officers in the community.
Ms. Besner, I'll go back to the question on peace bonds so we are not left with the opinion that a judge or justice of the peace doesn't have the ability to restrict firearm access for anyone under a peace bond anywhere There are a number of conditions in place. Could you walk us through them for the public who might be listening?
Ms. Besner: There are other authorities in the Criminal Code that allow the courts to impose prohibition orders in a preventive fashion without an individual having been convicted. There is section 111 of the Criminal Code, which is a preventive prohibition order. An application can be made before the court if there are concerns about someone's safety or if threats have been issued.
In the context of a bail hearing, a justice of the peace or a judge is authorized to impose restrictions on the possession of firearms and also in the context of peace bonds.
Senator White: People talk about possession-only licences and acquisition licences. There is a misunderstanding among the public that realistically someone with a possession-only licence for a 33 rifle they use for hunting was in a difficult position to even purchase ammunition for that weapon to continue hunting without an acquisition licence. It was not just about buying more weapons but about ammunition as well. I think the public would suggest that even those who don't support the bill would say it made no sense that you couldn't buy ammunition for your weapon.
Mr. Blaney: Are you saying that with a possession-only licence you cannot buy ammunition?
Senator White: That's right.
Mr. Blaney: I am always learning something. This is another ridiculous thing: You have a firearm and you cannot buy ammunition, although you legally own it. Thank you for bringing this to light, senator.
This is like a licence that is not issued any more that goes back to the introduction of the law. The typical owner of this licence is probably in his sixties. The law was introduced more than 20 years ago. He is a long-time firearm user who is well aware of all the responsibilities but, as you mentioned, was not able to buy the ammunition. It put such individuals into an uncomfortable position. .
POL holders are allowed to buy ammunition.
Senator White: They are? Oh, then I apologize. I have both so I wasn't worried about it.
Mr. Blaney: Okay. Thanks to my associate deputy minister, I won't be giving any misleading information.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, minister. Back in 1990, I was responding to a domestic violence call and when I arrived on the scene, my police cruiser was the target of thirteen .303 calibre bullets. As you can imagine, you don't forget an experience like that. So, on behalf of police officers responding to domestic violence complaints, which can be extremely dangerous situations, I would like to thank you.
When it comes to gun control measures, powerful special interest groups like the pro-gun lobby want to have their voices heard. The bill contains references to the term "non-restricted firearm." Would you mind telling us what that means?
Mr. Blaney: Essentially, it refers to the majority of firearms in circulation around the country that, to some extent, haven't been defined under the law. The definition of a firearm focused on what it was not, as opposed to what it was. Take, for example, the Winchester that my grandfather left to my father and that my father will one day pass on to me. At that point, I will be in legal possession of a firearm. It's a hunting rifle, a long gun, which meets the typical definition of a non-automatic firearm and, thus, the definition of a non-restricted firearm.
Restricted firearms are semi-automatic firearms or handguns. Prohibited firearms are those that aren't available to the civilian population.
The reason we had to proceed this way has to do with the reclassification that was done a few months ago, whereby a non-restricted weapon became a restricted weapon. All of a sudden, numerous gun owners who didn't have a licence to possess a restricted firearm found themselves in possession of a firearm illegally. That's why I extended amnesty to gun owners, allowing them to own and use their firearm.
The weapon had to be reclassified for two reasons. First of all, in the case of these firearms, it was to correct a classification error. Second of all, even though these gun owners are now allowed to possess and use their firearm legally, they cannot transport it anywhere because it is classified as a restricted weapon and is therefore subject to more stringent rules. And so they aren't able to take their gun to a shooting club. And that's why it's so important to make sure that firearms are properly classified on the basis of their technical features. That's also why it became necessary to establish a designation for all of the firearms available throughout the country, meaning non-restricted firearms.
[English]
Senator McInnis: Thank you, good to see you and your officials again.
In Canada, any discussion on firearms evokes controversy, it seems, and unfortunate untruths that emanate out of the discussion, partly by the media and partly by individuals who don't understand the sports that evolve out of hunting and shooting ranges and so on.
I read some of the comments that were made in the other place. You were going to take the classification of weapons out of the hands of the RCMP, and apparently you were going to do it in your own office. The transporting, as Senator Batters mentioned, they were going to be in malls and all over the place. There was the criticism of the grace period with respect to automatic renewal of licences.
Do you think your mistake was that you called it the "Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act"?
Mr. Blaney: You are right, senator, that this is a very sensitive issue because of the very nature of firearms and also of the tragedy that we have witnessed. Being a Quebecer, having studied civil engineering, I can certainly relate to that.
[Translation]
As the old saying goes, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
[English]
As government, our first duty is public safety. As I was given the opportunity to share with Senator Jaffer, we are the government that has introduced mandatory minimum sentences for illegal possession of a firearm and that has put in place tougher sentences for anyone who commits a crime with a firearm. There is a decrease of homicides committed with a firearm, but we always have to increase public safety and that's why there are measures in this bill that address this issue.
In the meantime, this doesn't mean we have to ostracize those impacted by tragedy and are in no way related to those horrific acts of violence.
This bill is about restoring respect to law-abiding citizens who have been ostracized for too many decades. That's what this bill is about, while reinforcing public safety. That's why I believe this bill is welcome.
I quoted the National Post editorial board, and I also quoted the Wildlife Federation that has such a keen interest in public safety and the safe handling of firearms. I believe you will be able to hear for yourselves that this bill is willing to achieve this. Hopefully, we are going in the right direction and we seek your approval on it.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I can't figure out why the RCMP wouldn't have the necessary expertise to continue overseeing the classification of firearms or why a single authority reporting to you and the government is better suited to the job of making sure that firearms are properly classified.
Mr. Blaney: I have the utmost respect for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the work of its members in controlling guns. As I, myself, observed, there is no review process in place. But it seems perfectly normal to me that any system would be equipped with a review process, and that's what we have proposed in the Common Sense Firearms Licencing Act.
Senator Joyal: Could you kindly provide the clerk with a copy of the letter you received from the Quebec government regarding the bill?
Mr. Blaney: I will check, Senator Joyal. To my knowledge, it is already available to the public. I just need to make sure that it won't break any rules.
Senator Joyal: That way, it would appear in the record.
Mr. Blaney: I would be happy to provide that. If it doesn't break any rules, I will happily share it with the members of the committee.
[English]
Senator Baker: When does your card expire?
Mr. Blaney: On my 50-something birthday, senator.
Senator Baker: Oh, that's 10 years from now.
The Chair: Thank you, minster and officials. We will see the officials again tomorrow.
Minister, I suspect we may see you again before the summer recess as well.
Mr. Blaney: Thank you. It's up to you.
(The committee adjourned.)