Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 33, Evidence - June 10, 2015
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 10, 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 3 p.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 following today's proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. We are meeting today to continue our study of 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.
As a reminder, these committee hearings are open to the public and available via webcast on the parl.gc.ca website.
Before we begin, I would mention that there is a deferred vote scheduled for 5:30 p.m. today. We will be required to suspend the third panel briefly to allow members to vote, and then the plan is to resume immediately after the vote.
For our first panel today, please welcome, from Public Safety Canada, Kathy Thompson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety & Countering Crime Branch; Lyndon Murdock, Director, Operational and Policing Policy Directorate; and from Justice Canada, Julie Besner, Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section. Also available, if required, is Robert Abramowitz, who is counsel with Public Safety Canada.
We are not looking forward to any opening statements at this stage, so we will begin with questions, starting with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses. Perhaps I could start with a question that I asked while the minister was here and that Ms. Besner was halfway through explaining until the minister took over the answer. I'd like to give her an opportunity to further explain.
She mentioned the word "hybrid." I mentioned the word "indictable" as being mandatory under the provision. However, she did say it's a hybrid offence, which means it can go either indictably or summarily. Can you explain to me how I am incorrect in the reading of at least three provisions of this bill that which would criminalize, as I see it, the possession of ammunition, not just prohibited ammunition, but as it says in this bill all "ammunition or prohibited ammunition."
I pointed out that somebody with bullets in a shed, a vehicle or a home could be left over from 20 or 30 years ago. Unknowingly, that person, as I read those sections of the bill, would automatically become liable to an indictable offence of up to 10 years imprisonment and a mandatory minimum sentence. That's the way I read the bill.
I leave it to you, Ms. Besner, to say what you were about to say at the last meeting but didn't have time to do so.
Julie Besner, Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice: Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate on the response. I also had the benefit of looking at the transcript and was able to see that your questions were posed in relation to sections 99, 100 and 101 of the Criminal Code that deal with trafficking and smuggling and possession for the purpose of trafficking. You'll see that's why those offence provisions are strictly indictable, with minimum penalties.
For situations where someone is simply in possession of ammunition, other offence provisions would apply for just possession of regulated articles without a licence. They would be under section 91, which is what I pointed to yesterday, which is a hybrid offence without a minimum penalty.
To reiterate one point I made yesterday, those provisions of the Criminal Code that are being amended here are just to add the new term "non-restricted firearm." Otherwise, there is no substantive change to those provisions.
Senator Baker: If I understand you correctly with regard to sections 99, 100, 101, 102 — I don't know if it's 103, but it certainly goes up to 102 — words are being included which do not substantially change what I brought to your attention, which was "ammunition or prohibited ammunition" or "any prohibited ammunition." You're saying that those provisions are in a section of the act that deals only with trafficking and with being a part of a criminal organization, or something like that. Are you saying that for somebody in possession of any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition, those provisions would apply only to the trafficking provisions? In other words, they will be trafficking in the ammunition. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Besner: What I'm trying to explain is that section 99, which deals with trafficking in firearms or other regulated items, including things like prohibited ammunition and ammunition, is a straight indictable offence, or smuggling of the same. If it's just a simple possession matter, that is addressed in section 91, which is also amended by this bill to add the new term "non-restricted firearm" among the list of regulated items. Those other offence provisions like section 91 do not include minimum penalties when it is just a question of simple possession.
Senator Baker: Ms. Besner, the other part of the question related to the actual words that are used. It says "ammunition or any prohibited ammunition." Why is the term defined as such? Why wouldn't it just simply be "ammunition"? To my knowledge, I don't think there is any other type of ammunition apart from ammunition or prohibited ammunition. Why is that distinction made?
Ms. Besner: There are regulations on prohibited ammunition, things like ammunition that will explode upon discharge and full metal jackets. If I'm not mistaken, there is a short list of ammunition that's prohibited, meaning banned outright and not to be used by —
Senator Baker: Ammunition does not include prohibited ammunition, and prohibited ammunition does not include ammunition, as defined under the act?
Ms. Besner: Prohibited ammunition is specific things listed in the regulations. Ammunition in general is a cartridge or shell shot that can be used in a firearm.
Senator Beyak: Thank you very much for coming.
I asked the minister yesterday and wondered if you would elaborate a little more regarding small rural communities that have to go a ways to take the tests. I don't want anyone reimbursed, but if they'll be talking to groups that may be giving the tests in small rural communities, if they fail, if they will be able to take it again within a certain time period, we'd much appreciate that in the small areas.
Kathy Thompson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety & Countering Crime Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you for the question.
The new requirements for testing will be rolled out through the chief firearms officers in all of the provinces. We're quite certain that they are going to look at that requirement for small or northern communities as they're organizing the training.
As it is, that training is offered in different northern communities. They actually do fly in to some of the northern, more remote communities to offer the training at specified times of the year. We're certain that with the new requirement for all new PAL — possession acquisition licence — holders to be trained, not only to challenge the test, that they will look at that requirement as well.
In addition, and I don't know if the minister mentioned this yesterday, although I'm sure he likely did, the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptations Regulations will make special accommodations as well for people from First Nation and Aboriginal communities, as required.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for being here today.
Critics of the bill are suggesting that there are provisions weakening the powers of the chief firearm officer. In looking at the bill, and correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't see where it contains any provisions to limit the power of the chief firearms officer. It seems to me the government is giving itself the power to ensure that the national program will continue to be national, and this is simply a power the government is giving itself to ensure that there will be a certain uniformity across Canada and that's the reason it needs that power. Am I correct in that assumption?
Ms. Thompson: The bill does not actually make any provisions for limiting the CFO authority. It provides an authority for the government should it wish to limit the discretionary authority to bring some uniformity to what is a federal firearms program.
Senator McIntyre: The proposed amendment to the Firearms Act refers to a port of entry or exit. Am I correct in saying that the port of entry doesn't have to be a land port, that it can also be an airport?
Ms. Thompson: That's correct.
Senator McIntyre: So if you take firearms from New Brunswick to the United States, for example, I assume that you would have to check with both jurisdictions. You would need the paperwork in New Brunswick, from the chief firearms officer, and then you would have to do more paperwork at the border.
Ms. Thompson: That's correct.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Murdock, I think you were in the room yesterday when the minister testified.
Lyndon Murdock, Director, Operational and Policing Policy Directorate, Public Safety Canada: Yes.
Senator Joyal: You will remember that I raised questions with the minister about the letter that he received from the Minister of Public Safety in Quebec, Lise Thériault. Are you in a position to inform us more about the substance of the letter from Ms. Thériault?
Mr. Murdock: Beyond what the minister indicated in terms of nature of the correspondence, I don't have anything further to add.
Senator Joyal: The letter was released to the papers. I have here an article published July 30, 2014, which is a long time ago, more than 10 months ago. It seems, from what I read in the article published in Le Devoir, that there are at least two, three elements in the letter that express the concern of the minister. I will read it because it seems that, since it's a public document, I'm not leaking anything here, a public document in the sense that it was published almost a year ago. I will read part of the letter, which states:
[Translation]
After the long-gun registry was abolished in 2012, it is disappointing to see with the measures announced last week that our government seems to want to further relax gun control in Canada.
[English]
So write Minister Thériault and the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Jean-Marc Fournier. They add:
[Translation]
In addition, all of these interventions are occurring without prior consultation with Quebec.
[English]
It seems that the first comment from the letter — I'm not qualifying the comment — the first element of the letter is that there has been no prior consultation, at least with the Minister of Public Safety in Quebec. Can you confirm that statement in the letter?
Ms. Thompson: I am not in a position to confirm other than that I'm aware that there was an exchange of correspondence between the ministers. We are following up. I know that the minister made certain undertakings yesterday when he appeared before the committee, and we're following up with our parliamentary affairs group to see what information can be made available. Beyond that, I can't confirm what other consultations the minister might have had with his counterpart in Quebec.
Senator Joyal: If I may continue to read the letter, to put it on the record the way it has been published, the Minister of Public Safety continues about Bill C-42. The Quebec controller of firearms:
[Translation]
. . . would no longer have the same capacity for action to protect the public.
[English]
In other words, they contend that the firearms officer in Quebec would not have the same capacity or position to better protect the public. That's one of the comments or conclusions they draw from the reading of Bill C-42.
They continue:
[Translation]
Your government's avowed intention would restrict without cause the discretionary power of the chief firearms officer of Quebec, who currently responds effectively to the will of Quebec when it comes to gun control.
[English]
The minister continues in the letter that the firearms officer of Quebec:
[Translation]
. . . has always used that power fairly, objectively and justly . . .
[English]
It seems to me that there is an element of commonality that calls for a reaction with facts to the allegations made by the two Quebec ministers who signed that letter 10 months ago.
Can you add anything to that, or are we left wanting at this stage in the study of the bill in relation to the reaction of a province to Bill C-42?
Ms. Thompson: To reiterate the question beforehand, I think that was one the elements raised by Ms. Thériault in the letter with respect to the discretionary authority of CFOs. There is nothing in the bill that limits the authority of the CFOs. It provides that the government may, through regulation, bring some uniformity to the authority of the CFOs, but nothing currently in the bill limits the authority of the CFOs, if that clarifies that matter.
Senator Plett: Some of us are of the opinion that there has been a considerable amount of fear mongering around this legislation. There have been claims made that this legislation will allow restricted firearms to be outside of grocery stores, shopping malls and so on. Could you explain some of the rules surrounding the transportation of restricted firearms with respect to the locations they can be taken, the route that must be taken and maybe the locking systems that must be used, some of the safety measures around this?
Ms. Thompson: With respect to the provisions in the bill on the authorization to transport, it is proposed that we would streamline two separate applications. Currently, you have your licensing application and a separate provision for applying for an authority to transport. We are talking about streamlining that process so that the authorization to transport under certain conditions, not all conditions, would become a condition of the licence, to try to streamline it for firearms owners and chief firearms officers as well. It would be limited to still transporting from one specific area to another specific area. For restricted firearms, for example, if you were authorized to have a restricted firearm for the purposes of going to a shooting range, then the authorization to transport could be issued for you to transport your firearm to a shooting range.
The way it works currently is that you can apply for an authorization to transport. There are two different kinds of what we call ATTs, authorization to transport. Some of them are short term, for one specific visit to a shooting range.
Senator Plett: From your home to a shooting range.
Ms. Thompson: Correct, from your home to a shooting range. Some of them are long term and can be applied for the duration of the licence, which is five years. The authorization to transport, in that case, would simply be a condition of the licence, which is five years, which already existed in some cases. Some people would apply for an ATT, and they would be granted an ATT long term, to travel from their home to the shooting range, for example.
There are specific cases where an authorization to transport could be included as part of the condition of the licence — going to or from an approved shooting range or shooting competition, to and from your home when you're taking possession of the firearm. The shooting range or the competition has to be within the province. If you are travelling from Quebec to Manitoba, you would have to apply in different provinces.
Senator Plett: All the way through.
Ms. Thompson: Correct. It's only specific to your province, as well as going to and from a gunsmith, a gun show, a Canadian port of entry.
We discussed a few minutes ago how, if you were travelling to the United States, you would need authorization not only from Canada but from a foreign authority — in this case, the U.S. — and also to visit a peace officer or a chief firearms officer, either for disposal of the firearm or a certification.
Those are the limited conditions. It does not open it to all travel with a firearm; it's only in those specific instances that the ATT will become a condition on the licence and not require a separate approval and document. But all the checks are still in place.
Senator Plett: On the five-year licence to transport, that would be primarily from a home to a shooting range, as you said. Would I need to map out that route? If in that five-year period of time I move to another home, would I need to go back in and explain that I have moved, just in case I get picked up somewhere along the designated route?
Ms. Thompson: The travel from your home to a shooting range or a shooting competition always has to be the most direct route. You don't have to map it out, but law enforcement will have to do what they do every day, which is exercise common sense in their judgment to map that out. But that's a requirement in law; it always has to be the most direct route.
If you do move, you do have to inform a Canadian chief firearms officer of the fact that you have moved to a new location. In that case, I believe you would be required to get a separate ATT, but I will confer with my colleague.
Mr. Murdock: The CFO would in all likelihood require a new ATT.
Senator, you also asked about the requirements in relation to the actual transfer of firearms. Right now there are fairly stringent measures in place. For example, a restricted firearm would have to be transported unloaded, in an opaque container, with a secure locking device rendering the firearm inoperable.
Senator McInnis: Further to Senator McIntyre's question, I wanted to get clarification. The chief firearms officer can add some conditions if it's in the interests of public safety. So what we're doing with this bill is we're giving the power to the executive council to bring about regulations. Are we talking about a blanket regulation? We're not going to put a regulation through for each and every decision that the minister doesn't agree with. Is this a blanket set of regulations giving the minister the power to override?
Ms. Thompson: No regulation is proposed at this time or that we are working on at this time. It's simply an authority for the government to bring forward a regulation if they wanted to, for example, bring some national standards to the program.
Senator McInnis: That's what I mean. I know there are none now. This would be a blanket regulation in that each time they disagree with the CFO, they're not going to pass a regulation.
Mr. Murdock: As Ms. Thompson has referenced, there are no regulations in the works right now, but any regulation would apply to CFOs across the board. That said, the discretionary authority provided to CFOs per section 58 of the Firearms Act remains in place.
Senator McInnis: So if I'm a gunsmith and I'm importing restricted or prohibited firearms from the United States, now I'll have to go and fill out a form with the RCMP, and I presume that a copy of that will go to CBSA. Could you tell me what information will be in there?
Then the application or the order goes off for these firearms. How do they get back in? Do they come directly to me as a gunsmith; is that how it works? How is the control there? That's my point.
Ms. Thompson: The bill provides that the CBSA can share information with the RCMP. Currently, under section 107 of the Customs Act, the CBSA can share certain information with law enforcement but not in this particular area that we're going to include in the bill; they can't share this kind of importation information with the RCMP.
In this case, the RCMP will develop a form; it will be an RCMP form. If you were not an individual but a business owner importing firearms — because this does not affect individuals importing firearms — you would complete the form, send it to the RCMP, and you would include a copy with your importation package. A lot of times businesses will use bonded carriers, for example, so a bonded carrier would include a copy with the package.
If there is any discrepancy between what was included in the form filed with the RCMP before the importation and what CBSA is actually taking stock of, that information now would legally be shared with the RCMP for them to consider for further action.
Again, it does not apply to individuals but to businesses. It will not contain personal information, but the file is still yet to be developed in consultation with the RCMP.
Senator McInnis: So if I'm a gunsmith, the crate of firearms that I ordered will arrive at my door unopened, not counted, nothing. Am I correct?
Mr. Murdock: In terms of the importation process, CBSA requires a customs invoice. Assuming all the documentation and licences are appropriate and you've got all the other requirements, such as description of goods and things of that nature, and no flags are identified, then the importation process should proceed. Ultimately, yes, senator, your firearms would end up at your door.
That said, the Canada Border Services Agency does apply a risk-based approach to what they will examine. To address your question, by and large the firearms crates will not be opened, but if there are reasons that the CBSA has a flag or there is a risk, they do have the authority to examine those goods.
Senator Batters: In a speech given in the chamber by the Senate Liberal critic on this matter, she mentioned something about automatic licence renewal, putting public safety at risk. To clear up a myth here, could you tell us if anything in in bill does allow for the automatic renewal of possession and acquisition licences?
Ms. Thompson: There is nothing in the bill that allows for the automatic renewal of licences.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Some have also suggested that there is no background check done for a firearms licence. Again addressing another myth, could you explain some of the procedures with respect to the background check, as well as the continuous screening that is undertaken for all licensed firearm owners?
Ms. Thompson: There is a comprehensive process undertaken for providing a licence. You'll understand in a moment why, while there is no automatic renewal of licences, there is a facilitative process because of the continuous eligibility requirement, screening requirement that applies to licence holders.
First, for an individual to be eligible to hold a licence, within the previous five years they cannot have been convicted of criminal offence, including violence, trafficking, exporting or manufacturing of drugs, criminal harassment, or any offence related to firearms or weapons. In addition, they cannot in the past five years have been treated for a mental illness associated with violence or a threat to an individual. They can't have a history of violent behaviour.
So in order to obtain a licence, you have to complete a comprehensive questionnaire that has mandatory fields. If fields are left blank, you cannot be issued a licence. These mandatory fields will require information on criminal history, for example; mental health; information on spouses, common law partners or partners for the last two years; and it requires references and attestations from two individuals, as well as a picture that's attested to by a witness.
As well, of course, you have to complete the mandatory testing, especially now with the provision that will be included in the bill for possession and acquisition licences. There will be mandatory testing, and you are no longer allowed to challenge the test. Also, there is the application fee. All of that is sent in to the Canadian Firearms Program.
For restricted firearms, all first-time applicants have an in-depth background check conducted. As well for non-restricted firearms, there is a sample of individuals that have an in-depth background check conducted. I'll talk about that in a moment.
Also, if anyone for any reason has a flag that pops up during the application process, again a background check would be completed. That goes beyond checking CPIC and associated databases. It could also include an open-source search or interviewing references, for example. Those are the kinds of background checks that go into providing a licence.
Once you actually have a licence, you are required and subject to continuous eligibility screening, which means everyone that has a licence is run against the CPIC records every day. That's not just criminal offence records but any record that is associated with CPIC, including parole, probation or new charges that have been laid, for example. That happens for anyone flagged in the system for possible concerns over violent behaviour. So everyone that has a licence is checked every day against that for continuous eligibility screening.
Included now in the bill is the six-month provision, the grace period, where anyone whose licence has expired is subject to the six-month continuous eligibility screening, where previously your licence simply expired. In addition now, you are run against CPIC and all those databases every day for an additional six months.
Senator Batters: That is extremely comprehensive. Thank you.
Senator Baker: Let me ask you a general question so that people will understand what we're talking about.
If I understand you correctly, if you take a farmer on his farm or a fisherman on the coast and they own a 12-gauge shotgun — not a restricted weapon — or a 10 gauge, a .22, no matter what, they still have to apply for something in order to utilize that non-restricted weapon. Is that what you're saying?
Ms. Thompson: If they are already in possession of a licence, they either have a POL, a possession only licence, if they were grandfathered and owned a licence for many years, or they have a possession and acquisition licence. If they are a farmer who wants to acquire a firearm for the first time, for an unrestricted licence they will have to apply for a possession and acquisition licence.
Senator Baker: So in other words, nothing has really changed over the years. A perfectly innocent person owning a firearm on a farm or in a rural area or in a fishing community in Canada is still subject to these procedures and is still on the RCMP list and on the little computer that the police have in their vehicles saying that that person owns a firearm and is therefore marked as somebody who they have to give extra care to if effecting a warrant or court order.
So nothing has really changed over the years. Somebody who has a firearm is registered and they have to submit to periodic checks. They're still restricted, even though we've been told over the years we're going to get rid of these things. In effect what you're saying is that these farmers and fishermen are still registered, checked and rechecked and are still part of this complicated procedure that you have outlined.
Ms. Thompson: There's no requirement to register.
Senator Baker: Oh, so you're not in the computer? You don't have a licence? Is that it?
Ms. Thompson: You have a licence, but there's no requirement for registering your firearm. There was in the past, but there is no longer a requirement to register.
Senator Baker: If you buy ammunition, do you have to show that?
Ms. Thompson: Not for —
Senator Baker: So you can buy ammunition without evidence that you own a non-registered weapon? To buy ammunition, you don't need anything to prove that you have a licence?
Ms. Thompson: Or a hunting rifle, that's correct.
Senator Baker: You don't have to show anything?
Ms. Thompson: Not for a hunting rifle. I just mean you don't need to register your ammunition or your hunting rifle.
Senator Baker: I will ask you the general question again.
An ordinary Canadian, the innocent farmer or fisherman using a non-restricted weapon, is still required to go through all of these hoops that the government claimed they were going to remove.
I shouldn't have said that last thing. I take back, Mr. Chair, what I just said about the government.
But they're still on the books and they're still on the police computers as owning or purchasing ammunition for a firearm.
Ms. Thompson: There is no requirement to register your ownership of a firearm that's a hunting rifle or the ammunition, but there is a requirement for licensing and proper safety training on the use and handling of a firearm, that's correct. And there are requirements for proper transportation as well.
Senator Baker: The first part of your explanation, though, really doesn't fit because I have everything that one can have as far as registration with firearms is concerned. You cannot have a gun in Canada today without having that card identifying who you are, and you cannot purchase any ammunition without showing it, and you are on all of the police computers. So nothing has really changed over the years.
Thank you for your evidence.
Senator Beyak: I have a practical question. For those who have a POL that will become a PAL and then they want to transfer a gun to the gun range, is it going to be automatic? What are the paperwork steps once this legislation is passed? If they have a one-year ATT, will that just go with the new transfer, or will they have to reapply for three years or five years?
Mr. Murdock: Senator, the requirement for restricted and prohibited firearms is that you will have to have an appropriate licence with those privileges attached. Assuming that is the case, what is provided for in the legislation is when a CFO is asked to approve the transfer of a restricted firearm — for example, for the purposes of going to and from a shooting range — then at that time the transportation privileges are automatically attached.
Senator Beyak: That's for the expiration of the licence?
Mr. Murdock: Generally speaking, authorizations to travel are for the duration of the licence, but not in all cases.
Senator Beyak: For the benefit of those watching who understood it is automatic when the law passes, what exceptions are there?
Mr. Murdock: As I say, generally speaking, the authorization to transport is for the same duration as the five-year licence. However, I understand that some jurisdictions have a shorter ATT, and it is at the discretion of chief firearms officers to set those periods of time.
Senator White: I have a short commentary before I jump into a question.
Just so we are clear, following up on Senator Baker's comments, the long-gun registry no longer exists in Canada. Is that correct?
Ms. Thompson: That's correct.
Senator White: Realistically what has changed over the past 20 years is that the fisherman, hunter or farmer, as Senator Baker referred to, who has a .22 rifle or a .303 or whatever he uses to hunt, no longer registers that. We've had firearms acquisition certificates for decades before we ever had a firearm registry, where people would have to have that permit to be able to purchase a weapon and other things.
Today we have a possession and acquisition licence and possession only licence that we will, if this legislation passes, convert into one, which will require people to have that licence to be able to purchase weapons going down the road. But, ultimately, we no longer have a long-gun registry. Is that correct?
Ms. Thompson: That's correct.
Senator White: Thank you. I will get to my question now. I know Senator Baker left it out there; I wanted to make sure we were clear.
When we talk about the CPIC checks, does that also include persons not charged by often under-investigation by the police and listed on CPIC? Would it also include that? It's referred to as PIP, a person of interest to police. Or is it only those where charges have been laid that would trigger the police to identify that someone has a licence, which means they may have firearms — because we no longer have a registry — or would it also include persons of interest to police?
Ms. Thompson: The list that is checked against CPIC on a daily basis does not only include those that have been convicted of a criminal offence, but it includes also wanted persons, persons subject to probation or parole, prohibition orders or previously refused a firearms licence, individuals accused of a criminal offence — which I think was your question, senator — and caution flags assigned to individuals in specific police records.
Senator White: Perfect. Thank you very much.
Senator Joyal: I want to come back to the minister's letter, because it raises a point in the bill that I think is important. It's about the restricted arms CZ858 and those of the Swiss Arms family. According to the minister, those arms, when they realized that they could be transformed into automatic arms, the RCMP requested that they be submitted to a different kind of regime. Apparently, the minister decided to offer an amnesty to those gun owners up to 2016. The Quebec minister, in his letter, added the following:
[Translation]
. . . no firearms club in Quebec has the authorization required to allow the use of those kinds of firearm. . .
[English]
In other words, those arms are deemed dangerous. No firearms club would be authorized for the use of those arms. Nevertheless, the bill would still maintain the capacity to use them at least up to the end of 2016.
It's surprising. Could you comment on that generally, not the situation of those arms that can be transformed into automatic arms? What is their status presently and what will the bill do with that?
Mr. Murdock: As Minister Blaney indicated yesterday, the proposed legislation has a provision that would enable the Governor-in-Council to prescribe certain firearms as either non-restricted or restricted. The minister has indicated that it is the government's intention to move forward with the exercising of that power with respect to the two firearms that you have mentioned.
Senator Joyal: What is the status now of the provincial firearms officers that are presently overseeing the arms use? Following the adoption of Bill C-42, what will be changed in terms of the status of those officers? Will their powers be limited or will their mandate be restated? What is the bill's effect on the status of the firearms officers that are presently acting in the provinces?
Ms. Thompson: Mr. Chair, at this time there are no changes in the bill that will change the status or the authorities of the chief firearms officers.
Senator Baker: Their discretion changes.
Ms. Thompson: Yes.
Senator Joyal: By authority, of course, as my colleague Senator Baker means, the discretion, the power and the role they have in implementing the provisions of the act. That's essentially the question.
Ms. Thompson: Again, Mr. Chair, there is nothing in the bill that fetters their discretion.
Senator Joyal: As my colleague is trying to —
Senator Baker: To limit the discretionary authority of the chief firearms officers.
Senator Joyal: Yesterday, when I was listening to the minister, my colleague Senator Baker pointed it out to me, but I had already underlined it. I read the summary of the bill:
This enactment amends the Firearms Act to simplify and clarify the firearms licensing regime for individuals —
— and listen to this one —
— to limit the discretionary authority of chief firearms officers and to provide for the sharing of information on commercial importations of firearms.
The intention of the legislator is to limit the discretionary authority of chief firearms officers. How do you explain that with your statement?
Ms. Thompson: The bill clarifies that the discretionary authority of a CFO may be limited by regulation. The bill clarifies that, but there are no regulations and there is nothing in the bill, certainly, that limits the authority or discretion of CFOs.
Senator Joyal: That was my next question: Will the regulation in fact limit the authority, the discretion of the firearms officers? The bill allows the minister or the Governor-in-Council to adopt regulations. So the bill doesn't do it directly, but in fact it's the intention of the bill to do it through regulations. That's the way I have to interpret your answer.
Ms. Thompson: Again, Mr. Chairman, the bill provides that regulations can be brought forward by the government. What the bill simply does is clarify that regulations can be brought forward for the purpose of bringing some uniformity to the program. But there is nothing in the bill that limits the authority of CFOs or the discretion of CFOs, and no regulations are proposed at this time.
Senator Joyal: Yes, but you understand that you are playing on words, because the bill's intention in the summary of the bill states that the objective of this bill is to "limit." So the intention is to make sure that, through regulations — of which we don't have the text now; we have to approve it blindly — but we can expect that by the end of third reading of this bill, if it happens, then there will be limits to the discretionary authority of the chief firearms officers. We can't ignore it and say, "It's not in the letter of the bill. Don't try to find a page or a section; it's not there. But in fact it is our intention to do it." In French it says:
[Translation]
The text amends the Firearms Act in order to simplify the regime for licensing firearms to individuals and to make clarifications, limit the discretionary authority of firearms officers . . .
[English]
How can I ignore that this is the intention of the bill and that in fact what we are implementing in this bill is the capacity to limit the discretionary authority of the firearms officers? I can't dispute the provincial Minister of Public Safety in Quebec to be concerned by that — even though, as you stated, it's not clearly stated in the section of the bill, but it is the intention to achieve the result.
The Chair: Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Right now, the RCMP, I take it, has the authority to determine if a weapon is a restricted weapon, prior to this bill. Is that correct?
Ms. Thompson: The Canadian Firearms Program assesses firearms against the definition in the Criminal Code and the lists that are included in regulation.
Senator Plett: With the passage of this bill, the minister will have the sole discretion to declare a firearm restricted, or is that not correct?
Ms. Thompson: The provision in the bill provides that by GIC the government can deem a firearm to be restricted or non-restricted. The minister has indicated to do that. It's envisioned that this would be used exceptionally, but to do this the minister would rely on the advice of experts.
Senator Plett: In part of his questions at the start, Senator Joyal talked about these Swiss Army rifles that somebody deemed to be a restricted weapon and the minister came along and said he didn't agree. Am I correct?
Ms. Thompson: In fact, the Swiss Arms and the CZ were deemed to be prohibited firearms after a number of years of being deemed unrestricted or restricted.
Senator Plett: They are now prohibited?
Ms. Thompson: They were deemed to be prohibited upon review by the RCMP, but the minister has introduced an amnesty — which was referred to a few minutes ago and which is in place to 2016 at this time — to maintain their previous classification.
Senator Plett: I'm not sure whether "deemed to be prohibited" and "prohibited" are different. I say "prohibited" and you say "deemed to be prohibited." Is there are a difference between the two? After 2016, the government would believe that they should not be prohibited. How would that go about making them not deemed to be prohibited after 2016?
Mr. Murdock: Thank you for the question.
In Bill C-42 there is a mechanism, as Ms. Thompson alluded to, for an authority of the Governor-in-Council to prescribe or deem firearms either non-restricted or restricted. It would be through a regulatory process whereby the Governor-in-Council would exercise that authority. As was just referenced, it would be on exceptional circumstances and, as the minister indicated previously, further to the advice provided by technical experts.
Senator Plett: If I get my licence to buy a gun, not register a gun and take the training, I can go to Canadian Tire or a gun shop and buy myself a 12-gauge shotgun. Do I need to take further training? I understand I can't go to Canadian Tire or a gun shop to buy a restricted weapon, but do I need further training to get a restricted weapon?
Ms. Thompson: This bill proposes that anyone who is acquiring a licence for the first time or a possession and acquisition licence — because the two licences that currently exist will be merged into one — will have to take mandatory training. Previously, there was an option to challenge the test. Now there will be a requirement for everyone to take the mandatory training.
Senator Plett: The second part is that mandatory training allows me to buy a .22-calibre rifle or a .30-30 shotgun. I suppose it would allow me to buy and carry a restricted weapon under the proper rules.
Ms. Thompson: There are two types of training. One is for an unrestricted firearm and a separate training is for a restricted firearm.
Senator Plett: I asked earlier about transportation and storage. You gave me a good explanation of the transportation and storage of the weapon or the firearm. I'm not sure whether you said that the ammunition has to be in a separate case. Is there a spread between the ammunition and the gun? Can they both be in the same trunk?
Mr. Murdock: Briefly, the firearm can be in the same trunk, but the firearm needs to be unloaded and rendered inoperable, so separate from the ammunition.
Senator McIntyre: On the issue of regulations, isn't there an obligation on the part of the Governor-in-Council or cabinet to ask if they consent or not within a certain time frame, say 30 days?
Ms. Thompson: Those regulations are posted and consulted through the Canada Gazette for a period of 30 days, usually, for consultation. People are invited to provide comments in writing.
Senator McIntyre: In the case of domestic violence, the Crown can proceed summarily or by indictment. I understand that if it proceeds by summary conviction, the court retains discretion whether or not to impose a probation order. It can do so with the proposed amendments in this bill for all classes of firearms. However, if the Crown proceeds by indictment, the probation will be for life or restricted or prohibited. In the case of non-restricted, it will be from 10 years to life. The big change that I see in this bill is that you will need a conviction on indictment if you want to ban for life.
Ms. Besner: There was always the requirement to ban for life for restricted or prohibited for conviction on indictment for offences that carried a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. When it's a domestic violence offence, it's the threshold of 10 years or more that is being changed here. If someone is convicted for an offence involving violence against a spouse, a descriptive criterion for domestic violence is provided. Regardless of that penalty threshold, if convicted on indictment they could get a prohibition for life for restricted or prohibited or minimum of 10 years for non-restricted.
If they're convicted on the summary conviction option, a new provision in the bill would authorize the courts to make the duration longer than previously set out in the law, which I believe was five years. Now it proposes to be open-ended as it could be life for any class of firearm. It provides more flexibility to the courts.
Senator McIntyre: Ms. Thompson, there is a different process for aboriginals regarding certification and training. Could you briefly touch on that, please?
Ms. Thompson: A separate process is provided for under the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptations Regulations (Firearms), whereby elders, for example, can be exempt from the requirement to take the training provided they can demonstrate to the chief firearms officer in their area of the province that they have the required knowledge, not only from a firearms safety perspective but also in terms of the law governing firearm use, handling, storage and transportation.
As well, if an Aboriginal or First Nation individual would like to forego the training and testing, they need to have the confirmation of the elder that the individual possesses the required knowledge on firearm use and safety and the laws on firearm use.
Senator McInnis: Further to that, Senator Joyal is partially correct, I think. The chief firearms officer still has discretion to make decisions. However, the authority that this bill proposes to give the minister is such that if bad decisions are made that bring about inconsistencies across the country, then regulations can be put in place to correct that. That's why I used the word "overriding" earlier. It will override bad decisions. That's the purpose of it.
Secondly, sometimes questions are asked in the other place, the House of Commons. They're not as efficient or effective as we are here. We like to get clarification to make sure that everyone understands. With respect to classification of the firearms, the minister will have the authority, and that's natural as that's the way legislation works. He will put in place an expert panel or group of individuals, whether they are gunsmiths or engineers — people who know about these things. That's what will exist. It's not the minister sitting in his office making a determination on classification.
Ms. Thompson: The minister has been very clear and has spoken to this issue a number of times. Should this provision be used — and it will be used exceptionally — he has indicated interest in using the deeming provision with respect to the CZ858 and the Swiss Arms firearms, and the minister will rely on experts to bring forward advice for the GIC.
Senator Joyal: Are technical advisers determined by the profession or their responsibility in relation to arms? "Technical adviser" is a generic term that means everything and nothing. Could you be more precise?
Ms. Thompson: With respect to the experts — and we are still working to define those standards — we would anticipate there would be representatives from law enforcement as well as from firearms manufacturers, possibly.
The Chair: Thank you all for your assistance and your contribution to our deliberations. It is much appreciated.
For our second panel today, from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, we have Greg Farrant, Manager, Government Affairs and Policy for the organization. Appearing as individuals, we have Constable John Gayder, and Jessie Mc Nicoll. Representing the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, we have Steve Torino, President.
You all have opening statements. Mr. Farrant, the floor is yours.
Greg Farrant, Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.
On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the largest conservation-based organization in the province, our 100,000 members, supporters and subscribers and our 725 member clubs across Ontario thank you for the courtesy of inviting me to appear before the committee to speak to Bill C-42.
It's clear from the rhetoric that has developed around this piece of legislation, both in the media and during debate in the house, that there is either a troubling lack of understanding of what the legislation does or does not do or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what the government is seeking to do by suggesting it will open the floodgates to a proliferation of irresponsible behaviour on the part of legal, licensed law-abiding firearms owners in this country. It has even been suggested that once passed, the bill will sanction behaviour reminiscent of the Wild West. This is wrong and frankly irresponsible, but it is remarkably similar in nature to the comments and language heard during the debate around legislation scrapping the long-gun registry.
It was disappointing during debate on Bill C-42 in the house that, in the interest of partisan politics, it was suggested that the bill is a bribe to one group in the firearms community; "payola" to not testify against other government legislation; a gift to the broader firearms community; politically partisan legislation benefiting only those who represent ridings where firearms ownership is the norm; or, worse still, that it is the product of a "gun lobby" with a U.S. influenced ideology, a suggestion that frankly we find offensive.
The comment has been made that the legislation will benefit only those in rural and northern parts of the country. I would respectfully point out that firearm owners come from many places and from many backgrounds. In fact, for anyone who thinks that there is a rural/urban divide on long-gun ownership in particular, I would respectfully suggest that they think again.
A survey of three urban centres — Windsor, London and Ottawa — showed that over 4,500 of our members who own firearms live in those cities. When it comes to a big urban centre like Toronto, almost 290,000 non-restricted firearms are owned by residents of Canada's biggest city, and 85,000 are legally licensed to possess a firearm. Of those, roughly 32,000 are licensed to possess restricted or prohibited firearms, which in 2012 translated into 90,000 legally registered restricted and prohibited firearms being registered in the GTA.
Firearms owners in Canada come from all walks of life. They are judges, lawyers, farmers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, accountants and even federal politicians, many of whom live in and represent urban ridings. They are not criminals or gang members but rather lawful firearms owners who obey the law and use, store and transport their firearms safely. The changes proposed in Bill C-42 will have no effect on how these people conduct their business or how they behave when it comes to using their firearms responsibly.
Despite this, at least one member of Parliament attempted to link this debate over Bill C-42, and the changes it will make, to the behaviour of terrorists. Others, both inside and outside of Parliament, have suggested that the application of an ATT to a licence will suddenly result in legal, law-abiding firearms owners threatening public safety, which is abject nonsense.
Bill C-42 does some very simple things, some of which in fact are specifically designed to greatly enhance public safety. The rest are nothing more than common-sense proposals that pose no additional risk to the public despite all the hyperbole.
In my last couple of minutes, I will touch briefly on a couple of key aspects.
The grace period for licence renewal comes with an incentive to renew. It addresses an administrative error on the part of the licencee that immediately and unfairly places them in violation of the Criminal Code. It also comes with restrictions that ensure that until the error is corrected, they cannot use their firearms or purchase ammunition. This does not extend the terms of licence, something alluded to by the Coalition for Gun Control.
The bill proposes to merge possession only licences with possession and acquisition licences. Canadians who have a POL have owned and used firearms responsibly for decades. The very fact that their licence status will change is hardly a reason for them to suddenly and inexplicably become irresponsible.
Bill C-42 contains two very important changes that, taken alone or together, will actually help to enhance public safety, something that many parliamentarians and anti-gun groups have been arguing for and something that we strongly support.
The first, which has been a long-standing policy of my organization and one that we have supported for some time, is the requirement that all new or first-time firearms owners will no longer be able to simply challenge a test to get a licence. They will have to take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. You would think the coalition would applaud this move, but instead they have focused on what they believe are discrepancies on how the course is taught across the country.
The second change that relates to public safety pertains to sections 109 and 110 of the code, broadening the definition of "intimate partners" and adding to mandatory and discretionary prohibition orders.
With respect to discretionary prohibition orders, Bill C-42 provides that in circumstances involving the use or threat of violence, prohibition orders may be imposed for life or any shorter period as opposed to the current maximum length of 10 years. Surely this is something that should be applauded.
Lastly, I'll touch on the portion of bill that amends section 19 of the act, pertaining to the circumstancing under which authorization to transport restricted or prohibited firearms is granted.
The Chair: We will move on.
Next witness, your opening statement, please, and try to keep it to five minutes, or the same result.
John Gayder, Constable, as an individual: Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee. It's an honour.
I will be speaking as an individual in support of the passage of Bill C-42. Rather than to speak directly to each of the ways Bill C-42 makes changes to current legislation and practices, I will spend my time talking about why bills like Bill C-42 are so important.
If you have any questions pertaining to the specific amendments, I would be pleased to try to discuss them afterwards, but I suspect you will be hearing from several other witnesses who already have or will be willing to discuss them in greater detail.
The proposed common sense firearms licensing act is as important as the one which led to the elimination of the long-gun registry. As a natural next step, Bill C-42 is equally important because it helps to restore citizens' trust in the political process while once again correcting more of the bad policies lingering from previous governments. That trust is a vital component in restoring the relationship between law-abiding gun owners, their government and the police. When that trusting relationship exists, the job of law enforcement is made safer and more efficient.
It's a political constant that people will only have respect for a legal system when that legal system has respect for them. It is wrong and counterproductive to unduly interfere with the gifts left to honest and hard-working citizens by our previous generations of veterans. It is also wrong and counterproductive to have laws which are so complex that people cannot easily understand them.
That same complexity is bad for the police, too. When an officer graduates from the police college, he or she does so with extremely limited knowledge of the matters we have been discussing here. When asked questions about firearms law by citizens on the street, they will most likely be forced to refer the person to a specialist in the field or to the Internet. This is a situation that does not inspire a lot of confidence in police knowledge about the law.
I would like to think I know a little more about firearms than the average officer, but when reading the executive summary of the proposed bill and the bill itself, I came to realize that our firearms laws are 10 times more complicated than they need to be. I know this complexity is a natural and unavoidable result of many factors and that Bill C-42 will help to untangle only a few small portions of those laws, but, seriously, this can be very complex material, especially for laymen but sometimes even for professionals.
I think it is also important to remember that virtually everything being discussed here is not about dealing with the people who carry and are ready to use a firearm to commit robberies or settling disputes within the illegal drug trade.
For emphasis, I will say this another way: The current discourse around gun ownership tends to gloss over the fact that gang members and criminal sociopaths don't get licences, ATTs or transport and store their firearms according to the regulations. In fact, the only people that seem to be torturing themselves over these details are the people represented in this room.
Luckily, when the police do come across individuals under obviously violent or nefarious circumstances, the law is far more knowable, straightforward and clear-cut, but I'm sure that in your own reading of just this small portion of what makes up volumes of firearms law, you will have also seen that there are many potential pitfalls awaiting the honest citizen who just wants to hunt or engage in target practice during his or her days off. Those legal pitfalls carry serious, life-altering penalties for what are essentially non-violent regulatory infractions.
I will close by stating that as a front-line officer who works at the interface of where the laws created by Parliament and the Senate get applied to the public, I want the attention of those bodies to go toward things which are proven to assist in the discouragement, detection and apprehension of real criminals.
I'll submit that many of my colleagues feel the same, and we need easier-to-understand laws as opposed to costly, complex ones which have also had the unintended consequence of driving wedges between us and the honest members of the public we swore to protect.
Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act, is a good step in the right direction. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Jessie Mc Nicoll, as an individual: Good afternoon, senators. This is my first time participating in a Senate committee meeting. I am quite overwhelmed about being here, and I hope that you will go easy on me.
I live in Quebec, and I own firearms. My boyfriend is a firearms enthusiast, and he is on the board of directors of the Valcartier recreational shooting club, where he is a shooting official. I grew up in the country, in a house where there were always firearms. From the age of 10, I sometimes did target practice with my father.
In Quebec, a woman who understands the pleasure associated with firearms is not recognized. The only thing you hear people talk about is more control, without regard for the effectiveness of the measures or the undesirable side effects.
My mother has firearms that she has not used for many years but keeps for sentimental reasons, hoping that they will remain in the family and that I will own them one day. Currently, I only have a .22 rifle, even though I have a licence to possess restricted firearms, because Quebec does not respect federal firearms jurisdiction.
After the massacre at Dawson College, the government turned to the minister of education, leisure and sport to create legislation regarding firearms.
Bill 9 states that we must be members of a shooting club and shoot at least once a year with each of our restricted firearms so that the serial number can be registered at the club to prove that each firearm has been used. If more than a year passes without the restricted weapon having been used, we lose this right, and the results of the course that we had to take are no longer valid.
A lot of people keep firearms for their sentimental value, even though they are no longer usable. However, they must be members of a shooting club, go once a year with their broken firearms to pretend to shoot them so that they can have them registered and therefore retain their right to keep these weapons.
I took the Black Badge training offered by the International Practical Shooting Confederation simply for the pleasure of learning better shooting techniques, because I am not interested in competition. However, the course that interested me the most, which made me decide to get my possession and acquisition licence, or PAL, was the course offered by the Canadian Academy of Practical Shooting, which is defensive firearms training that prepares you for carrying a weapon.
Obviously, a civilian is not allowed to carry a weapon, but until recently, it was possible to take the same training as those who can carry a weapon. Dave Young is the course instructor. Dave is allowed to give courses to civilians across Canada, but he no longer can in Quebec because of the firearms officer's interpretation of the bill. Returning control of firearms to the RCMP will render Bill 9 invalid and will allow for a more uniform application of the Firearms Act.
Furthermore, since my boyfriend and I live 150 kilometres apart, it would be complicated for me to have restricted firearms in my name. I would not be allowed to transport them to shoot with him on the Valcartier base because I would not be authorized to transport them and could not be a member of the Valcartier recreational shooting club.
Changing the rules on transport would make my life easier. Taking the discretionary power away from the provinces would allow me to free my mother of the burden of keeping weapons at her home and would allow me to accompany my boyfriend to Valcartier.
On another topic, the grace period in the bill would rectify certain injustices. In Quebec, for example, the bailiff is sent to the door the day after the PAL expires, even if the delay is due to a cardiovascular event, which is what happened to Dr. Dubord.
For people concerned about the easing of the requirements under the bill, I would like to pass around a graph to support my remarks. Know that using a firearm to commit murder has been on the decline since the 1970s, and that no legislation has had an impact on this trend.
All the proposed measures to ease the requirements in Bill C-42 are desirable because they avoid criminalizing honest citizens, they would reduce red tape, and they eliminate needless fees, all without compromising the safety of Canadians.
The tightening up that appears most worthwhile to me is the lifetime ban on possessing firearms for anyone known for their violent behaviour, specifically in terms of spousal violence. From 1991 to 2000, 58 per cent of homicides involving a spouse involved a reported history of family violence between the perpetrator and the victim.
Giving greater teeth to the legislation in these specific cases is a measure that responds to the demand of New Brunswick, where 37.5 per cent of victims of spousal homicide are killed with a firearm. This measure makes sense, and it deserves to be adopted.
[English]
Steve Torino, President, Canadian Shooting Sports Association: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for having invited me to speak on behalf of the members of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association. This association and its members completely support Bill C-42. We would like to draw the attention of this committee to a few areas that require either additional attention or clarification.
Changes to the order-in-council powers regarding classification: Previous legislation has incorrectly classified many firearms. Canadians, in order to comply with our laws, have the right to expect rationality in our statutes. These powers were put in place with the inception of the Firearms Act created by the previous government. In that legislation, the minister was granted the ability, through order-in-council, to put any firearm into the restricted or prohibited category. The addition of this new provision now levels the playing field by allowing the minister to place firearms into the non-restricted category as well.
The Firearms Act provides for the classification of firearms but does not state who has that authority to provide that classification. With numerous prior classification issues, it seems the current system requires some oversight over classification decisions to ensure their correctness to the citizens of our country.
Insofar as merging the POLs and PALs is concerned, persons that have possession only licences have had them continuously since 1995. Inquiries made to the RCMP illustrate identical safety records between the holders of POLs and PALs. The holders of possession only licences can demonstrate that they have learned all the lessons of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. It stands to reason that all holders of firearms licences in Canada have revealed the culture of safety that our community is well known for.
It must also be remembered that all firearms licence holders in Canada are subject to the RCMP continuous eligibility program, which was commented on earlier. It is a comprehensive program that been in place since the beginning, cross-referencing every firearm owner in Canada, every day.
With regard to oversight of section 58(1), CFO discretionary powers, clause 12 of the bill provides a potential limitation to the discretionary powers of the chief firearms officer in Canada. Currently CFOs may add any condition to any licence or authorization that they deem to be in the interest of public safety. However there does not seem to be any litmus test as to what "public safety" constitutes. As currently contained in the Firearms Act, the decision is about public safety merely because the CFO says it's about public safety. There is no appeal and no mechanism to override that decision effectively.
Bill C-42 places the most moderate oversight on the powers of section 58(1) by permitting the government of the day to override a decision by means of passing regulations, providing some scrutiny over discretionary acts of the chief firearms officer.
With regard to the changes to authorization to transport, as far we are concerned, an individual cannot apply for authorization to transport unless they previously have the necessary firearms licence and registration certificate to be issued one and there are no problems with illegality, or the permit holder's licence could be revoked. This is a separate permit that no one can apply for without prior qualifications to receive it. It is almost never refused or revoked, so what use is it really? By including the ATT in a possession and acquisition licence, the situation is addressed, freeing up valuable resources for more important matters.
In summary, the Canadian Shooting Sports Association supports Bill C-42. Our members believe it is a positive step towards fairness for lawful firearms owners, without any negative impact on public safety. It permits the reallocation of valuable government resources to where they can be better utilized.
The Chair: Thank you for editing your presentation because it gives senators more time the questions. We will begin with Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Thank you to the witnesses for excellent presentations.
As has been outlined before this committee by the officials and the minister, we have a very complex system for registering firearms and purchasing ammunition in Canada. As I understand it, an ex-spouse is still telephoned for a character reference upon application or renewal. It's a very complex and intrusive system for anybody to have a firearm in Canada.
What does this actually do to simplify matters for a firearm owner, as the summary says it does? That's my question for any of you to answer. What does it actually do to simplify and relieve people of these enormous pressures that they have?
And to Mr. Gayder, you are a constable in a police force. Have you ever been involved with or do you know about the issuing of summonses or search warrants for homes? Have you ever been involved in those things?
Mr. Gayder: Not recently, but I have in the past.
Senator Baker: But you do know the procedure. Do you know what a hard entry is when somebody issues a warrant to search a home?
Mr. Gayder: Yes, sir.
Senator Baker: Yes, you do. A hard entry is when you just break that door without announcing your arrival and you might throw in a stun grenade in advance. Those things are done because the home you're entering is a home in which there is a firearm. Well, it's not the only reason — I can see Senator White going to object and Senator Dagenais — they are just going to kill me after this. Let me be more exact; it could be one of the factors. Let me put it that way.
If anywhere on the police computer, in doing up the warrant — we all read case law here. We're senators and we read the case law. We see that in those warrants, if one the reasons for hard entries is that somebody possesses a weapon, then that can be used against the police. There's no doubt about it. But it sets up two classifications of people in Canada: those who own firearms and the other who don't.
I don't see anything changing in any of this legislation to lessen that distinction that's made against a firearm owner in Canada. As a constable, have you any suggestions to make whereby these people will be treated as ordinary law-abiding citizens, as they should?
There are two questions. What does this legislation actually do, Mr. Farrant, to actually simplify matters for gun owners?
And to you, Mr. Gayder, could you comment why we have a hard entry, sometimes, for persons just because they own a firearm?
Mr. Gayder: Senator, you've covered a lot of ground. I'll try to keep up.
Senator Baker: Sorry about that.
Mr. Gayder: That's okay, sir.
You mentioned how this new bill will simplify the licensing. It is going lessen the burden on people who own possession only licences, which will get rolled into possession and acquisition licences. You're exactly correct about it being confusing. Streamlined licensing is going to help the government because they have a bit of a problem with expiring possession only licenses, so it makes sense.
But the background checks and the intrusiveness that you mentioned about former spouses, that's still going to happen. It's up for debate as to whether that's intrusiveness or thoroughness.
Moving to your other area of questioning about hard entries, certainly the known presence of firearms at a residence that is the subject of a search warrant is a factor. However, as we discussed with the Bill C-19 legislation that eliminated the gun registry, most of the things that bite police officers in the back side are the unknowns, the things that are not known.
You talked about whether a person is registered or known to have a firearm. If a person has restricted firearms, that is knowable to police officers on the street. If a person is a licensed gun owner that may only have long firearms, that is also known.
The Chair: We're going to have to move on. The long preambles to these questions are going to preclude our witnesses from responding fully, I'm afraid.
Senator Beyak: Thank you very much, Ms. Mc Nicoll, for so clearly and eloquently stating what has plagued ordinary gun owners for so many years across Canada, and especially in Quebec.
Thank you, also, Mr. Gayder, for being so clear on what it's like to be a police officer under the old laws.
My questions are for Mr. Farrant and Mr. Torino. I was impressed with the number of members in your organizations. Can you tell me the economic impact of 600,000 new transferees from the POL to the PAL system?
Mr. Farrant: That would call for some speculation, senator. I appreciate the question.
There are 600,000 POL holders in this country right now. As to how many of those will purchase additional firearms once the legislation passes, it's unknown. It's difficult to then give you an economic clarification.
I can tell you that for hunters, recreational shooters and outfitters in this country and the activities they engage in, it's a $15.2 billion a year industry as it is currently, but it's hard to say how many of those additional licensees will purchase firearms.
Senator Beyak: That's a comprehensive answer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Torino: Mr. Farrant touched upon the economic total of $15.2 billion. If we were to take the 600,000 POLs and convert them into PALs and assume even 25 per cent would actually become more active, either purchasing more firearms and related equipment, camping equipment, et cetera, you're looking at definitely another $4 billion touching the $20 billion. The last study that was done was very close to that amount. I can see an impact going that far without any question in the very beginning, probably the first year or two.
Already the firearms industry has seen an interest in the number of people who show interest; younger people who are taking the courses, and so I think it will have a good impact in that area.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Ms. Mc Nicoll, I would like to go back over a few points from your presentation. You said that Quebec does not respect federal jurisdiction. Could you explain what you meant by that, based on your experience?
Ms. Mc Nicoll: Quebec brought in Bill 9, which has no impact on safety, but which makes the procedures more cumbersome for owners of restricted firearms. Quebec is also thinking of creating a long-gun registry. It is not respecting the fact that this is a federal obligation and is imposing additional regulations on us. We are very concerned about this because Quebec wants to discourage people from possessing firearms. We expect that our weapons will be registered and they will tax us for each weapon. We are very concerned in Quebec.
Senator Joyal: You think that Bill 9 has no practical impact?
Ms. Mc Nicoll: On safety, absolutely not.
Senator Joyal: Why do you think it has no impact?
Ms. Mc Nicoll: Its very makeup. It came into force following the massacre at Dawson College. The amendments made to the bill were meant to prevent massacres like the one at Dawson College. But, when we look at the criteria, the killer met all the requirements of the bill, except for receiving a fine for taking the bus. In concrete terms, the mechanics of the bill have not been thought to be effective, but to give the impression that something was done and to complicate the lives of firearms owners.
The course is like an introduction to the shooting range and, then, the application of the bill is —
Senator Joyal: Random.
Ms. Mc Nicoll: Yes. For example, take the obligation to practice at a shooting range. The Dawson shooter was a member of a shooting club. He went and did target practice, and possessed firearms legally. So there were no provisions in the bill that would have in any way prevented what happened.
We are aware of that and, as a result, we are concerned about the true motivation underlying this legislation.
[English]
Senator Joyal: Thank you, Mr. Torino, for your presentation. In point four of your brief, in reference to clause 12 of the bill, you say that there have been discretionary reactions over the decisions of chief firearms officers that are not acceptable, in your opinion. Could you be more specific about past decisions of firearms officers that would illustrate your proposal?
Mr. Torino: Thank you, senator, for the question.
I think that probably the biggest area would be uniformity in the application of federal law in the different jurisdictions. Eastern, western, central, there are differences. Some of them are required because you have regional differences, but others seem to be in the application and interpretation of the law. If some kind of mechanism is in place that can take a second look or act as oversight on the discretionary powers that will be determined by regulation — and no one seems to know what is in there at this point — as long as uniformity is applied, I think you will go a long way to addressing some of these issues.
Senator Joyal: In other words, you would want to have an appeal mechanism for a decision that a gun owner would feel not justified or not rational or not based on a sound reading of reality. That's what you seem to contend.
Mr. Torino: There are already appeal procedures in other areas of the Criminal Code and legislation across Canada. Why not here? That would be one way to look at it.
The uniformity and the application of federal law is probably one of the main areas to be taking a look at. If we have a federal law, why is it not being applied uniformly, allowing for regional differences that occur? No matter what, there is a uniform principle. Parliament has determined that this will be the legislation and this is how it is to be applied uniformly.
Senator McInnis: Thank you all for coming.
A number of years ago, the Senate did a study on rural Canada. Rural Canada is suffering because a lot of people want to live in urban centres. I don't know why. I live in the country myself. The Senate talked about the economy and what this means.
In my hometown, down on the eastern shore of Nova Scotia, in the spring, summer and fall, fishing and hunting, the lodges and all of spinoff is absolutely astounding. I know that you mentioned $15 billion. Was that revenue or was that economic benefits?
Mr. Farrant: That's annual contribution to the national economy.
Senator McInnis: That's fine, but I think you should talk more about that. I think it's very important, particularly in rural Canada.
Can I ask you these two quick questions? I know each province has a hunters and anglers association, but do you have a national body?
Mr. Farrant: Currently there is not a private sector national body. However, a couple of years ago the Prime Minister created a panel known as the Hunting and Angling Advisory Panel, which brings together the 25 largest hunting and fishing conservation organizations in the country. It reports to the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. That panel met just a week ago. I'm one of the co-chairs of that panel, and it deals with issues like this and conservation and hunting and fishing issues across Canada, on a national and regional basis. So there is that.
Senator McInnis: But you don't a permanent staff or anything like that?
Mr. Farrant: There is a secretariat attached to that. It was provided for when the secretariat was created. It does the reports, sets up the meetings, does records of decisions and things like that. The panel meets a minimum of twice a year.
Senator McInnis: What role do you play in the firearms test? Do you find instructors? Do you participate in putting on the classes? Are you satisfied that, at the end of the day, we're going to have a class of hunters that know what they're doing from a safety point of view?
Mr. Farrant: I'll speak to Ontario. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters provides hunter education in Ontario on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources. We have 302 instructors. The number of people taking hunter education has increased, over the last decade, each year. Last year, we put 25,000 people through the hunter education. Those same instructors are the ones in Ontario who also provide the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, sometimes together with the hunter ed., which is called a one-stop course, sometimes separately. Many of them also provide the restricted firearms course. It was asked earlier: Are there separate courses for non-restricted and restricted? Yes, there are.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for coming. I found your presentations very interesting.
In the time I have, I would like to ask a question of you, Mr. Gayder, because you are a police officer. I work with women who suffer domestic violence. One of the greatest worries they have is to enter a home that has a firearm that they don't know about. Often, they or the spouse gets hurt. I won't repeat, in the limited time we have, the statistics of women suffering violence.
I was very interested when you talked about strengthening the tools. What tools can we strengthen to keep the women safe?
Mr. Gayder: Trust I'm hoping is what you meant, that we would be able to strengthen the trust between gun owners and the police.
A lot of officers will talk about their concerns with firearms going into a home, but I'm afraid that we, as a nation, have come to a bit of a funny tipping point where, if a firearm is believed to be in a home or known to be in a home in the case of a licensed gun owner, because so many officers nowadays haven't grown up with firearms, there is some unnecessary paranoia attached to that.
A home with a licensed owner who is experiencing domestic abuse should not raise huge red flags for an officer visiting. Law-abiding firearms owners, by their nature, are law-abiding. Some of the cases, perhaps what Senator Baker was indicating about the smashing the door down and rolling the grenades in type of thing — and those happen — are, unfortunately, in many cases, an overreaction.
Senator Jaffer: What should be done? How do we build that?
Mr. Gayder: Education; relaxing the laws.
Senator Jaffer: Education of whom, the police officers?
Mr. Gayder: Yes, ma'am.
There is a large paranoia built into police training about citizens owning firearms, and it's wrong. Law-abiding Canadians who own firearms are some of the most wonderful people in the world. They are subject to continuous screening. As was mentioned earlier by the panel — you may not have been here for it — licensed gun owners are checked through CPIC and other databases every 24 hours. So in the case of domestic violence, if even something small were to pop up, it's on the computer right way and the police can follow up on it.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our guests. Ms. Mc Nicoll, I am from Quebec, and I understand you quite well. Things are not always easy in Quebec.
For information purposes, when Jacques Dupuis, Quebec's minister of public safety, announced Anastasia's law at Dawson college, I was the president of the Association des policiers provinciaux du Québec, so I was a police officer and I was with him. I think that Mr. Charest was there as well. It was more of a political announcement. That certainly corresponds with your concern.
Mr. Gayder, I listened to your presentation carefully. I am a former police officer and, as a police officer, the calls we fear the most are the ones related to spousal violence situations where, often, we have to show up and face an armed man. By way of background, I have been greeted by a torrent of .303 calibre bullets. There were 13 in the patrol car but, thank God, I am still here today.
Under the bill, individuals charged in a spousal violence situation will, from now on, no longer be able to hold a firearms licence for the rest of their life. I was with Minister Blaney this morning, and he confirmed that.
What do you think of that provision of the bill? Obviously, it may be reassuring for police officers. I would not tell you that a similar situation would never happen, but what do you think about that aspect of the bill?
[English]
Mr. Gayder: The prohibitions that occur on sentencing happen quite a bit downstream from where street level police officers are practising their trade. That is done on sentencing, and it's sort of out of our area. To borrow a phrase from fishing, we just catch them; we don't clean them.
Practically speaking, any time someone is convicted of a violent offence, they can probably forget about ever owning firearms again because they're going to have this flag in the computer. I think the firearms officers and the people who determine the suitability to have a licence will probably disregard the application.
Senator Plett: The main questions that I was going to ask were asked when we were talking about the economy, but I have a couple of very brief questions.
Mr. Gayder, in your presentation you mentioned, and maybe I misunderstood, that you felt you were more qualified in firearms than many others. Do you recall what you said and, if you do, could you explain that?
Mr. Gayder: I mentioned that I like to feel I know a little more about firearms than many officers.
Senator Plett: Why is that? Why do you feel you know more than other officers? Is it training?
Mr. Gayder: Yes. I grew up in a policing home. My father was a policeman. He had a large firearms collection. I joined the military and spent seven years as an infantryman, and I have since spent 26 years front-line policing.
The politics and law surrounding firearms have always interested me.
Senator Plett: It has nothing to do with the bill, but I appreciate your answer to that.
Mr. Torino, in your gun clubs across the country, we have been talking economics and sport, hunting and fishing, what that does to the economy.
With target shooting, people coming to your club, do for the Canadian economy? How many people in the gun clubs use restricted weapons versus simply using shotguns, going skeet shooting and using rifles they can get because they have a licence?
Mr. Torino: There are a little over 7 million firearms. There were 7 million long guns in Canada before the registry and, with the last count I saw, about 800,000 or 900,000 restricted or prohibited firearms. You're looking at 250,000 or 300,000 permits to transport out there at this present time.
Senator Plett: How many?
Mr. Torino: About 250,000. That's a rough number. I don't have the latest figures; I'm sorry, senator.
Insofar as the use of the club, many hunters who wish to ensure that they are actually going to hit their target properly and put the game down so they can take it home will go to gun clubs to practise in July, August, just prior to hunting season. There are 1.9 million licensed firearms owners in Canada and 600,000, as Mr. Farrant said, are POLs that will be converted into PALs, assuming this legislation passes. Most of these people will want to go out when it comes time for hunting season to practise with their firearm and make sure everything is in working order.
As to the economic impact of firearms directly from the figure Mr. Farrant quoted, you're looking at about $6 billion to $7 billion a year directly related to firearms according to the last study I saw that came out about two years ago.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you all for your presentations.
Mr. Farrant, I understand your ministry meets on a regular basis with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. You also meet with other organizations for the purpose of emphasizing the need for safe and responsible use of firearms. How do you do this? Do you do this through your television show, radio show, annual reports, press releases, magazines and so on?
Mr. Farrant: The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters uses a number of venues — and you have mentioned a couple, including television, radio shows and Ontario Out of Doors magazine — to report on and receive feedback on firearms issues. We also meet with the Chief Firearms Officer of Ontario on a regular basis in connection with the Canadian Shooting Sports Association at least twice a year, sometimes three or four times a year.
There is also a panel called the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee that provides advice to the Minister of Public Safety, which meets on a regular basis. It has representation, including Mr. Gayder and myself, from across the country, police officers, academics, people representing hunting and shooting clubs, et cetera. So there is continual discussion and dialogue between us, the ministries, the chief firearms officer and our members.
We do a great deal of education with our 100,000 members, supporters and subscribers. We spend great deal of time talking about responsible firearms use with those folks to ensure they are out there employing the use of their firearms safely.
Senator McIntyre: Research has shown that it is crucial to properly manage wildlife, which means keeping it under control. My understanding is if you don't keep it under control, what results are culls. Could you explain what culls are all about? Is it an acknowledgment of the failure of a policy to properly manage wildlife?
Mr. Farrant: You're bang on, senator. That's exactly what it is.
If you look at the policies of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, it states that hunting is the most valuable wildlife management tool they have available to them. Without regulated hunting and scientific management of our populations, which includes hunting, the result is exactly as you painted it. There is an overpopulation and overabundance of wildlife for the care and capacity of any particular habitat, which results in culls. And culls are an admitted failure on the part of the ministry to properly manage wildlife.
Senator Batters: Mr. Gayder, thank you for your support of this bill and stating in your opening statement that Bill C-42 is a good step in the right direction.
As a front-line law enforcement officer, have you ever had utility for the authorization to transport, and do you feel this has either kept you safe or aided you in solving crimes?
Mr. Gayder: Never have I seen an ATT, except by people at the gun range, and I have never had to ask for one. They really are an invisible thing.
As far as solving crimes, no, I have never seen one solved by one.
I think if ATTs were effective and really used, any time you looked in the paper and saw that the X, Y, Z Store had been held up at gun point, you would be able to go to the ATTs and look to see who had one on that route. But of course it doesn't work that way. Criminals don't get ATTs.
Senator Batters: Just as they don't register their long guns.
Mr. Torino, can you highlight the problems with the decision of the RCMP to reclassify the Swiss Arms family of rifles and the CZ858?
Mr. Torino: I haven't seen all the reports, only what has been made public, and there seems to be a difference opinion on those items. Frankly, I'm not qualified at this point to state what the differences would be at this stage. I would need more information.
Once this bill is passed or not, I'm sure there will be some issuance of a report from the minister's office and maybe we can readdress this because right now I don't think it's possible to do it.
Senator Batters: Does anyone else have a comment on that?
Mr. Farrant: While Mr. Torino is quite correct, the general perception when those particular families of firearms were reclassified is that these are firearms that were in the country and were considered to be in the hands of legal, law-abiding firearms owners for many years before suddenly there was a change.
One of the concerns about the way firearms are reclassified in this country is that in many contexts — and this appears to be one of them — they look scary or because suddenly someone decided that something could be changed and therefore there is a need to suddenly change the classification of these firearms. It's not that it was generated by a particular incident, but rather somebody decided to look at this: "Oh, it looks scary or like a hybrid of something that is a prohibited firearm, so surely this also should be one." That is not a rationale for reclassification, particularly when the RCMP was involved in the importation of those firearms at the time and they have been in this country as non-restricted for many years. How suddenly did they become different? That's not the basis for reclassification. It's not scientific or logical.
The Chair: I thank the witnesses for being here and taking time out of their schedules to assist the committee in its deliberations. It is very much appreciated.
As members appreciate, we're under time constraints this evening as we will be called to the chamber for a vote, which will occur at 5:30 p.m. I'm hopeful that we can hear all opening statements prior to committee members having to leave. That's the intent. Following the vote, we will return to the witnesses and senators' questions.
On our third panel is Solomon Friedman, who is appearing as an individual. Representing the Firearms Institute for Rational Education is Todd Brown, Executive Director; and from the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters, appearing by video conference from Halifax, is Tony Rodgers, Executive Director.
As you've witnessed, we try to keep you on a five-minute schedule. It is especially important this evening. We will begin with Mr. Rodgers.
Tony Rodgers, Executive Director, Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon. On behalf of the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters, I'd like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for this opportunity.
It was just over 20 years ago when former Minister of Justice Allan Rock started to make statements in the media that indicated he was pushing for more gun control in Canada. At that time, reports were attributed to him such as the police and military should be the only people to possess guns in Canada and that firearms should be removed from all cities and stored in armories.
This was a wakeup call to the firearms community. In turn, it created a strong unity in Nova Scotia and Canada. Our firearms committee will never be reactive again but rather a proactive group with strong communications across the country.
The responsible firearms owners of Nova Scotia organizations represent 100,000 hunters in the province as well as gun collectors, target shooters and farmers. It is also supported by 32 hunting and fishing clubs and 60 shooting clubs. Over the past years, these people have demonstrated the resolve to fight bad firearms legislation to the end, using whatever legal means necessary.
The cancellation of the long-gun registry by Prime Minister Harper's government was a very good beginning in bringing back respect to the firearms community. For the past 20 years, we had lived under a dark cloud that betrayed us as criminals because of our hobbies. We strongly support the passage into law of Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act, and look forward to its implementation.
There are specific amendments that will change the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code. Streamlining of the licensing system, eliminating the possession only licence and converting all existing POLs to possession and acquisition licences will have a very positive effect on hunting in Canada as it will allow many hunters that held the old POLs to purchase new firearms. Hopefully this change will also attract some of the people who left hunting to come back and once again contribute to the conservation of this country's wildlife by purchasing licences and giving back to their hunting heritage.
One of the main problems with the legislation as it is today is creating many paper criminals — people who did not have the right piece of paper for the right firearm under the old registration system or forgetting to send in their licence renewal. Creating a six-month grace period at the end of the five-year licence period to stop people from immediately becoming criminalized for paperwork delays around licence renewal is a very positive move and will be welcomed by the firearms community.
Safety has always been the hallmark of the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Making classroom participation in firearms safety training mandatory for the first time for licence applicants really is a no-brainer. I can appreciate that areas of Canada, especially in the North, may not have the ability to provide the service, but I believe it will pay dividends to the rest of the country having everyone classroom trained from this point on.
Transporting a firearm to the shooting range from a gunsmith should not require a separate piece of paper, in my view. To end needless paper work around authorizations to transport by making them a condition of the licence for certain routine and lawful activity is positive and will have the side effect of reducing costs within the firearms office.
I have heard stories from my colleagues across Canada of the abuse of power by some chief firearms officers in Canada by using their own interpretation of the Firearms Act or the Criminal Code to fit their personal likes and dislikes with respect to firearms and firearms owners. A change to provide for the discretionary authority of the chief firearms officers to be subject to and limited by regulation works for me. The CFOs will administer the act as it is written and not through individual interpretation.
It is also important for the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP to share information on newly imported restricted and non-restricted firearms into Canada, so the change to authorize firearm importation information sharing when restricted and prohibited firearms are imported into Canada by Canadian businesses is good. This last amendment was prompted by the classification of firearms by the RCMP, which made hundreds of Canadians criminal overnight. The Swiss Arms Classic Green army rifle had its status changed from restricted firearm to prohibited firearm with a stroke of a pen. That decision was made after the importers had worked with the RCMP on the original classification. The changes will allow this government to leave the final say on classification decisions following the receiving of independent expert advice.
The good news is that all these changes will go a long way to foster a positive relationship between the firearms community, government and police.
Solomon Friedman, Firearms Law Expert, as an individual: Mr. Chair, Mr. Deputy Chair and honourable senators, thank you for inviting me to address you today on the subject of Bill C-42, the proposed common sense firearms licensing act.
I am pleased to testify in support of this proposed legislation and to highlight the importance of its provisions to law-abiding gun owners in Canada. I want to clarify and pre-empt some of the criticisms of this bill, criticisms that in my opinion are based on fundamental misunderstandings of the way firearms are used, transported and regulated under the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code.
This bill is important in several respects. First, it blunts, to some degree at least, the criminal consequences for law-abiding citizens whose only crime is to fall behind, inadvertently or otherwise, in matters of administrative paperwork. Recall that as of the introduction of Firearms Act in 1995, the mere peaceable possession of a firearm, no criminal intent or act required, became a criminal offence unless the individual held a valid firearms licence.
This was no mere tinkering. It was a sea change that transformed millions of Canadians overnight into presumptive criminals. In other words, instead of the scalpel of social policy and regulation, Parliament used the sledgehammer of the criminal law. Those who failed to comply, even with the most minute detail of the overall scheme, faced criminal consequences, including arrest, detention and imprisonment.
Clauses 14 and 16 of this bill would give licensed firearms owners a six-month grace period, during which they cannot be subject to the criminal liability under section 91 of the code, in order to return to compliance with the law. This provision recognizes the reality of firearms ownership and the longstanding criminal law principle that individuals should not be subject to criminal liability for inadvertent or unintentional actions. It distinguishes between the truly criminal use of firearms and the type of conduct that the Supreme Court of Canada described as a "licensing infraction," which carries "minimal blameworthiness."
Once this bill becomes law, some 2 million licensed gun owners can rest easier, knowing that they will not become paperwork criminals overnight simply for inadvertently failing to renew their licences.
In addition, this bill addresses the transportation of restricted and certain prohibited firearms. Specifically, it requires that an authorization to transport be issued as a condition to a firearms licence. Until now, the provincial chief firearms officers, through their issuance of authorizations to transport, added an unnecessary and burdensome layer of red tape while providing no further safeguards or oversight.
Bill C-42 would simplify and centralize this process. Moreover, this makes a great deal of common sense and is in fact faithful to the intent of the Firearms Act as originally drafted. In fact, subsection 61(3) of the Firearms Act explicitly states that:
An authorization to . . . transport may take the form of a condition attached to a licence.
As my co-authors and I note in Annotated Firearms Act, 2013, "to date, authorizations to transport have not, in practice, been attached as licence conditions." However, there are no valid public policy or safety reasons why this has not occurred.
Now, there are those who have claimed that Bill C-42 would somehow relax the laws and regulations governing the transportation of restricted firearms. This is absolutely false, and I would urge you to reject such suggestions. The Senate of Canada is the home of sober second thought, not irresponsible fear mongering.
Let me be perfectly clear: First of all, the manner of transportation would continue to be dictated by the applicable regulations. Nothing in Bill C-42 amends that.
Second, the places to and from which restricted firearms could be transported are the very same places that were previously authorized by the chief firearms officers in their stand-alone authorizations.
Third, the current requirement that all transportation of restricted firearms be "reasonably direct" is in no way affected by this legislation.
I would like to conclude with an observation. This bill is an important step forward in the fair treatment of gun owners in this country, but it is only one step along that road.
The Chair: I will have to stop you right there and move on to our next presented, Mr. Brown.
Todd Brown, Executive Director, Firearms Institute for Rational Education: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the invitation to speak on Bill C-42.
I have been doing in-depth research on the Firearms Act. I have written over a dozen articles and reviews on current and proposed gun legislation. I am co-founder of the Concerned Gun Owners of Alberta as well as the Executive Director for the Firearms Institute for Rational Education. I was a firearms instructor for over 10 years.
There are two proposed changes in Bill C-42 that have me concerned. Attempts to restrict the chief firearms officer's power to make arbitrary decisions in the legislation have left a large back door. The intent is admirable, but the solution will create more of a problem. As drafted, the proposed amendment to section 58 of the Firearms Act reads:
(1.1) However, a chief firearms officer's power to attach a condition to a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport is subject to the regulations.
The problem here is in the last five words, "is subject to the regulations." Since the regulations are not attached to Bill C-42, nor has a circulation draft been made available, I must ask: What are the regulations, who is writing these regulations and are these regulations subject to change under section 117 of the Firearms Act by the Governor-in-Council?
Making limitation on the CFO's powers subject to regulations created after the bill is passed could create a problem. Further, since the regulations are subject to amendment under section 117 of the Firearms Act by the Governor-in-Council, the government's intent with Bill C-42 at this point could be fatally undermined and changed at will by any future cabinet without consulting Parliament.
I would recommend the following changes.
The CFO's powers under this section of Bill C-42 should be defined and embedded in the text of the act itself. Therefore, any amendment would require Parliament's consent.
The CFO's discretion informed by personal beliefs and opinions must not be part of the process of creating policies. Policy decisions must be backed up by verified facts, and any policies must have a vetting process approved by the Minister of Justice. This process must be retroactive to the Royal Assent to the Firearms Act to correct the regulatory overreach of the CFO to date.
For greater certainty in respect of the scope of the powers of the CFO, we propose that subsection 58(1) be amend as follows:
A chief firearms officer who issues a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport may attach any justifiable condition to it that is in the interests of the safety of the holder.
Again, for greater certainty in respect to a CFO's powers, we propose that subsection 75(3) be amended to shift the burden of proof from the applicant or holder to the CFO. Subsections 58(1) and 75(3), as amended, would not be subject to regulations yet to be written and/or made public. They could only be changed by an act of Parliament, and they would define and circumscribe the powers of the CFO.
The proposed six-month grace period for licence renewal is also a great idea if it were not for the addition of the proposed amendment to section 64 of the Firearms Act with proposed subsection (1.2). If the intent of the change and additions to section 64 of the Firearms Act is to cut down on paperwork violations, this addition would change the status quo very little and potentially put people into another legal quandary. The ability to buy guns or ammunition would be self-regulating by the vendors when the licence is shown to be in the grace period, but if the holder of the licence is unaware the licence is expired and continues to use the firearms for legal purposes, the licence holder would be put in the same position as those who now find themselves with an expired licence. These people could still be charged with possession of a firearm without a licence under section 91 of the Criminal Code of Canada. A clause like this that is buried in the legislation would only add to the confusion of the Firearms Act and would not reduce the number of paperwork criminals.
I would recommend the following changes.
Eliminate the words "use their firearms or."
To eliminate any chance of confusion and to simplify the legislation and keep from creating more paperwork criminals, the proposed amendment of no use or acquisition in proposed subsection 64(1.2) should be eliminated. This option would simplify the legislation even more, as no more regulations would have to be written to cover this section.
In conclusion, the concerns raised are subject to two guiding principles: first, that the discretion in the exercise of powers under the Criminal Code of Canada should be limited by explicit definition in statutes and not left to subsequent delegated legislation; and, second, any change in how Criminal Code powers are exercised should be subject to Parliament's review and consent. Finally, these principles would strengthen the rule of law, both in respect of explicitly defining the CFO's powers, accountability and giving greater predictability as to what is required of law-abiding, responsible gun owners in Canada.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you all. We appreciate the timely way you conducted that.
As I indicated earlier, I am going to suspend while members return to the chamber for a vote. I would encourage all members to return as quickly as possible and respect the generosity our witnesses are affording us by remaining in place. Then we'll get on with questions following the vote.
(The committee suspended.)
——————
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Again, I thank you three gentlemen for your patience. We will begin questions with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: I thank all the witnesses for their excellent presentations to the committee.
I'll restrict my question to one witness, Mr. Friedman, and point out the great contribution he has made to Canadian law before the Supreme Court of Canada recently and the Court of Appeal of Ontario and the Superior Court of Ontario on a fairly consistent basis. He's a very busy lawyer and an excellent one.
Mr. Friedman, how will the new definition of "non-restricted firearm," or any other definitions that are of great importance to the administration of this proposed act, affect the RCMP classification of such a firearm?
Mr. Friedman: Thank you. It's an interesting question.
It was always a bit of a mystery to me why the Firearms Act, among all its definitions, never defined the term "non-restricted firearm." "Restricted firearm" was defined and "prohibited firearm" was defined, but never "non-restricted firearm."
There is a reason for that: It's by design. It was originally designed to allow the Governor-in-Council to reclassify firearms in only one direction, that is, to take them only from non-restricted to restricted or to prohibited categories. In other words, guns could only become more restricted.
There is no way for Parliament to overrule an opinion of the RCMP or to determine on its own that a firearm ought to be non-restricted. In my opinion, this is a good example of the power going back to where it ought to be.
We have to remember that the RCMP has no legal ability to classify firearms. Nowhere in law does it say that their determination is binding. Rather, they're giving a technical opinion based on work done in a laboratory, not based on public policy considerations or legally reviewable issues, in general.
This allows the Governor-in-Council to determine whether, for example where people have relied for years on the RCMP's classification, it ought to be non-restricted. It's an important step forward in recognizing that the purpose of the Governor-in-Council is not only to make firearms more restricted but also to recognize that there are different types of firearms that ought to be put in different categories.
Senator Baker: Thank you for your efforts. This committee has struggled over the years with the definition of "firearm" being a barreled instrument that shoots a projectile. Of course, we pointed out in this committee when the legislation went through many years ago that that definition would cover an air gun. Recently you litigated a case concerning that, and it went to the Court of Appeal of Ontario. Thank you for your definition.
Did you want to add anything?
Mr. Friedman: When I argued that at the Supreme Court of Canada, I wish you had been there to testify about what Parliament intended.
Senator Beyak: I wonder if you could answer a practical question that I hear all the time, one from the side of law enforcement.
In the old days of the gun registry, they never went into a home assuming that a gun registry was telling them about a weapon. They might be stabbed going through the door or hit by a baseball bat or some other projectile. Is it true that more people are stabbed in Canada each year than are shot?
Mr. Friedman: A firearm is an implement for homicide and is far in the minority. You can look at the Statistics Canada report on that subject.
When I talk about police use of the gun registry, I have to remind everyone, even legislators, that the police have access to a system called CFRO, Canadian Firearms Registry Online. For example, if my name is run as a licensed firearms owner, it will show up in every interaction I have with the police, regardless of whether I have a registered firearm. If an individual is licensed, that comes up in every interaction because the police have that information.
We've heard consistently from front-line police officers that it is in fact injurious and dangerous to the safety of police officers to over-rely on registry data. This came out in the coroner's findings in that terrible tragedy in Laval, Quebec, when a young police officer was killed because she mistakenly assumed that just because a registry check came up clean, she could throw caution to the wind in a certain regard and rely on that. Senior police officers have reiterated over and over that this is a tool that not only was useless but also dangerous to police safety.
Senator Beyak: Thank you very much.
Did you have an answer, too?
Mr. Brown: The police officers I have talked to also found it quite dangerous in the same respects. No matter what the registry said, they would always walk up to a door with the assumption that there was something in there. They never went up there with the assumption, "Oh, well, the database told us this, so we don't have to worry." That was never the case with the officers I spoke to.
The Chair: Mr. Rogers, did you wish to comment on that?
Mr. Rodgers: I'll just say that it's a similar situation here. We've heard the same stories online from police officers that the firearm may have entered the home just before they arrived, so "Let's not rely on information like that."
Senator Joyal: My question is to Mr. Brown and Mr. Friedman, and Mr. Rodgers could comment.
Mr. Brown, I read your brief carefully. On page 1 you suggest two proposed changes. What is of concern to me are two things: The legal process to come forward with the implementation of the regulation, and then the appeal of a decision of a firearms officer if a firearms officer denies the permit or the condition for which the permit could be issued.
Those are two different steps. One is general. It is in the interest of the public to know how the regulations will be drafted, the period they will have in order to come back to make suggestions, and how it is going to be publicized because we are talking here about regulations that concern millions of Canadians. Then there is the individual decision of a firearm owner who wants to challenge a decision of the firearm officer, which seems to be lacking in the bill.
Could you comment on those two issues that are legal in their definition but have very important implications individually and for the Canadian public generally?
Mr. Brown: Was it my first point or my second point to which you are referring?
Senator Joyal: What are the regulations? Who is writing these regulations? Are these regulations subject to change under section 117 of the FA by the Governor-in-Council? In other words, the overall process of enacting the regulations.
Mr. Brown: That's the reason I was concerned. I'm looking at this long term, and the present government I'm not really worried about. I worry about successive governments that want to start to deregulate firearms and give us another registry. I was just looking at closing any "back doors" that may be open to them to change things without notice. I would much prefer to have it go through Parliament where we can debate it and will know about it prior to something being enacted in law, rather than having it snuck in the back door through a regulatory measure.
Senator Joyal: In other words, you would have hoped for a provision in the bill that would have provided that before the regulations are enacted, they be tabled in Parliament and that Parliament have a period of time to go through them and report to each chamber. Is that the procedure you were contemplating?
Mr. Brown: Yes, it is more of a procedural thing. Too many times, laws have changed through order-in-council for firearms owners, and it comes as a surprise to us. It's situations like reclassifications, although that's not necessarily an order-in-council. It's always nice to be able to go forward and debate these things and look at the pros and cons before it actually becomes law and affects thousands of people financially.
Senator Joyal: Certainly my colleague Senator Baker, and maybe colleagues on the other side also, will know of some federal statute that provides that the minister table the regulations in both chambers and that both chambers have a fixed period of time to report, in a motion, that they accept the regulations so that there is an opportunity for a committee of either of the two chambers to hold public hearings and look into it. Because the subject is of such general concern in the country, it seems that it is a fair process. I would not say for all the regulations, of course, because some are rather technical in different bills. I'm talking about this bill especially, those regulations that are of concern to so many millions of Canadians and that there should be a public process to debate them and to move them so that everybody would know that that has happened.
Mr. Brown: Yes.
I support this bill in concept. It's just some of these little back doors that have me a little concerned as to what direction they will take. Considering that we are going to control something in any bill by regulation, what are the regulations? In what direction are you going to go, and what exactly are you going to control with it? It's like me giving you a contract to sign with a clause that says, "I may change something after you sign this."
Senator Joyal: I know that Mr. Friedman might want to address the second point I raised because it is an appeal to a decision, but maybe on the second round.
The Chair: Mr. Friedman can hold that until we have another opportunity.
Senator Batters: Thanks for your patience, earlier, while we had to suspend briefly for a vote.
Mr. Friedman, I've watched you on TV a little bit lately, and occasionally you are even talking about the Senate in a certain way. I was happy to see your opening statement where you say that the Senate of Canada is the home of sober thought, not irresponsible fear mongering. I was very glad to see that. Is this your first time before a Senate committee?
Mr. Friedman: No, it is not. I have had the pleasure of appearing before, and I have the greatest of respect for the work that's done in this committee and the other Senate committees.
Senator Batters: That's great. Thank you very much for saying that.
We have heard some discussion about comments regarding this legislation from Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. He claimed that this bill will allow for restricted firearms to be transported to the grocery store. You said, in November, 2014, "I would advise a client that the kind of conduct Trudeau is describing would not be lawful and will continue to be unlawful." I'm wondering if you stand by those comments and if you could perhaps elaborate further on the safe transport requirements.
Mr. Friedman: Sure. In terms of transporting restricted firearms, the regulations for so doing are set out in regulations to the Firearms Act. There is a stand-alone set of regulations that govern both the method of transportation and where these firearms can be transported.
Included in those regulations is a requirement that the route taken by the firearms owner, from home to range and back or from home to gunsmith and back or from home to border crossing and back, be reasonably direct in the circumstances. This is an area of law that has yet to be litigated, so there is no jurisprudence on it. All we have is that requirement on its face.
If Mr. Trudeau were asking me for legal advice, I would tell him that going to the grocery store with your pistol in your trunk is not reasonably direct in the circumstance. That requirement is in no way affected by Bill C-42.
Senator Batters: Further, in the past, Mr. Friedman, I understand that you have acted as counsel for the National Firearms Association. Can you just clarify for us whether you are here today on their behalf, and have you had any communication with them about your testimony?
Mr. Friedman: That's a great question. Today I'm appearing as an individual in my capacity as a lawyer. As lawyers, we swear an oath to refuse no cause of action reasonably founded. That is something that's very important to me in the tradition of the English barrister, and I was proud to represent the NFA as an intervener before the Supreme Court of Canada.
I'm open to input from anyone who wishes to share ideas about firearms legislation. I have spoken at National Firearms Association conferences. I would be happy to speak at the Coalition for Gun Control's annual convention if I were so invited. As long as I can share my ideas and thoughts about firearms law and policy, I'm always happy to do so.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much to all three presenters. Because of the limited time I have, I'm going to try to ask Mr. Friedman a question.
Mr. Friedman, your reputation is that you are well versed on the issues that we are looking at, so it's a privilege to ask you this question. I'm sure you have also looked at Bill C-51. Can you tell us how Bill C-51, with the privacy rights and the sharing of information with 17 departments, will affect this bill?
Mr. Friedman: I'll say candidly that when clients ask me about real estate advice or contract law advice, I tell them that I'm a criminal defence lawyer. I stick to my competence. I'm here well versed in the provisions of Bill C-42. I can tell you that I'm probably not the only criminal defence lawyer who has concerns about the content of Bill C-51, but I am not in a position to comment about it with respect to this legislation.
Senator McInnis: Thank you both for coming, and, Tony, it's nice to see you again, albeit by video. I see the Eastern Shore Wildlife Association became a member of your group, which is good news.
Tony, I understood you to say that you are proactive in dealing with government. I took it that you were talking about you being unstaunched and that these policies and rules and laws would be difficult to turn back.
I thought of this. As all members of this committee know, we try to be above politics, but it is important for groups such as yours — and I was going to put the question to the previous panel — to actually deal with the other parties. For example, have you dealt with the NDP to see what their policies might be with respect to gun control? There is a tremendous lobby out there on the other side. I would do that with all parties because, as we know, this fall there will be election, and sometimes when you get it on record in advance as to exactly what their policies are, it encumbers them following the election to go back on that.
Don't be too comfortable. What proactivity do you take?
Mr. Rodgers: The proactivity I was talking about in particular was dealing with one another when we see a piece of legislation come forward and having all of the organizations across Canada be proactive and react to that new legislation, whatever it might be.
With respect to the other political parties, we have not reached out to them formally, but certainly our membership has engaged their members of Parliament in their ridings to talk to them about it.
For instance, Peter Stoffer, who is an NDP within Lower Sackville just outside of Halifax, was a staunch supporter of ours at one time with respect to firearms legislation. In turn, he decided that he didn't want to go that way anymore and changed his position, which hurt us quite a bit. That fell hard on the firearms community of Nova Scotia, and we are very cautious now about who is saying what and what to believe from various politicians.
What I meant by unity is dealing with this within our own organizations. Every province has a wildlife operation somewhere, like the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters. We have large national groups like Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl and the Fur Institute of Canada, to mention a few, that are affected directly by firearms legislation.
I heard the question earlier about whether Mr. Friedman had come before the Senate previously as a witness. I remember my one and only time had to do with the same issue — Bill C-68 — 20 years ago when I appeared before the Senate on the same subject, which is firearms legislation.
We have to stay vigilant and I will take your advice on that. Perhaps we should do more in contacting these other political parties and getting their views. I guess we're taking too much from media as well. We hear what Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair say about firearms, but it has only been in the media.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you all for your presentations.
My question has to do with the training aspect of the firearms program. As I understand, the training has two components — a classroom component and a practical component in terms of safe handling, basic safety requirements and the use and care of a firearm.
Does the program follow a basic curriculum set by the Canadian Firearms Program? In other words, is there uniformity across the country?
Mr. Brown: To the best of my knowledge, yes. I was a firearms instructor in Alberta, so I can only speak for Alberta. As far as the two components are concerned, you are correct, but both are classroom components because the firearms we use are disabled. They still function as an active firearm, but you cannot fire a cartridge from them.
Both components are done in the classroom and we follow a curriculum. There is a student manual. Everybody has to know the acronyms and they have to know safe handling. Don't point the gun at anybody, know how to load and unload your gun, how to clear it and all the things they need to know.
Senator McIntyre: Under the new legislation, those who possess a possession only licence are being converted to a possession and acquisition licence and will have acquisition rights, as was the case when the act came into force in 1998 after receiving Royal Assent in 1995.
My understanding is that the PALs will not be required to take the firearm safety course since they are known to be very experienced firearm owners. Do you have any comments about that?
Mr. Rodgers, are you satisfied with that?
Mr. Rodgers: Yes, I am very satisfied with that. We have to look at the case in point. The person that has the POL today is a responsible firearms owner and has a card in their pocket that has been vetted by the police. They own firearms and have owned them for years. The only thing they can't do is purchase a new firearm. To me, it's a matter of doing that conversion. We would have liked to see that long ago, but it is taking time to get to this point.
The Chair: I wanted to let you know that the TV broadcast will continue at this point, but the committee hearing will continue on the Web.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: You caught my attention with the murder of Valérie Gignac, a police officer with the Laval police force. Shortly after the murder, I made a presentation before the House of Commons committee as President of the Association des policiers provinciaux du Québec. Implementing the firearm registry had been relatively costly. The police officers had doubts about its effectiveness, and it tended to create a false sense of security among the police officers. It was always important to be very vigilant when responding to a call, particularly to a home when executing a warrant. I remember the murder of Ms. Gignac, a police officer in Brossard, four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, and so on.
As I mentioned to the other witnesses, what I find interesting in Bill C-42 is that, from now on, when spousal violence is involved, the police will have the authority to take away the firearms of the guilty party for life. The worst calls that the police receive are the ones that involve spousal violence toward a husband, a wife, a child. I would like to hear your comments on this part of Bill C-42. The police officers who respond to these calls are often gunned down through a door or in an isolated area. What are your thoughts on this?
[English]
Mr. Friedman: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. This is an interesting part of the act, and one I'm not in complete agreement with as it's drafted. I'll tell you why.
The first reason is that until this point in Canadian law, there has been no definition of domestic violence. Bill C-42, an act about firearms, seems to be an odd place to have the policy discussion about the constraints of domestic violence for the purpose of a firearms prohibition.
To this day, there is a regime in place in sections 109 and 110 of the Criminal Code to allow judges to give both discretionary and mandatory firearms prohibitions. As a criminal lawyer on the ground level, I can tell you that that power is not used sparingly. Judges are not loath to impose firearms prohibitions in appropriate cases. Depending on the type of offence, and certainly for all serious personal violence offences, it is mandatory.
In general, legally owned firearms are not the problem. People who need to go through the proper process — get a licence and firearm — are not the people who are generally responsible for homicide by firearm. What I would like to see is a carefully thought out definition for the people who are committing offences at the most minor end of the spectrum, given the definition here of what is essentially a domestic violence offence. Perhaps that's deserving of consideration on its own. If we never thought it was necessary to define domestic violence in the Criminal Code, why are we doing it in Bill C-42, an act about firearms? That's my only comment.
Senator Joyal: I will come back to my issue, Mr. Friedman: a process of appeal from a decision of a firearms officer that a citizen would want to appeal. In the present conditions of the law, as it stands in this bill and as it stands in the Firearms Act, anybody who would want to challenge that would be forced to go to the Federal Court.
Mr. Friedman: No. Respectfully, sections 74 and 75 of the Firearms Act prescribe that a reference is taken to the provincial court, so the Ontario Court of Justice is your first stop. I can expand on that and tell you, in my humble opinion, what some of the problems are with that process and ones that are not addressed by Bill C-42 but perhaps this body should think about.
Right now, when the chief firearms officer makes a decision that you disagree with — or the registrar of firearms or the Canadian Firearms Program — about issuing a licence or attaching a condition to a licence, the onus is on the individual citizen to demonstrate to the provincial court, under sections 74 and 75, that this was an unreasonable or incorrect decision. In my submission, given the wide latitude the chief firearms officer has to make these sorts of decisions and attach conditions to licences, that really reverses the burden.
I would suggest a process where, if you choose to challenge at the provincial court, you get either a fresh hearing — in other words, where there is no assumption made that the chief firearms officer was right, or, if you want to go one step further, that the chief firearms officer has to justify their decision before the provincial court. But it's really unfair to put the burden on the individual.
Remember, the state has all the information. They have all the evidence. They have all the records of your conduct. They should be able to justify these decisions. But instead, the individual citizen has to prove that it is wrong, which is almost like proving a negative, specifically when it comes to proving that you are not a danger. When an individual is refused a licence, it's very difficult to prove that you are not a danger in terms of evidence and the legal burden. I would like to see that reversed.
Senator Baker: You can call them for cross-examination, can you not?
Mr. Friedman: Here's the problem: You can call the chief firearms officer or his representative, but you can't cross-examine him. You can only examine him in chief, meaning you can only ask him open-ended, non-leading questions. I can tell you, as a criminal defence lawyer, I much prefer cross-examination.
Senator Baker: You can ask the court to make a judgment that he's not cooperating with you.
Mr. Friedman: Agreed.
Senator Joyal: Whether a firearms officer denies a positive decision or attaches conditions that somebody might want to challenge, the firearms officer will put that decision in writing so that the discretion is not merely, I would say, on the face of the petitioner. It has to be justified and explained; otherwise, what kind of judicial control could you exercise on a decision that is totally discretionary?
Mr. Friedman: I agree. This is one of the interesting things about the variations of chief firearms officers and their representatives across the country. Some are much better than others when it comes to delivering decisions. Some will give you a two-paragraph decision in letter form; others will give you a much more detailed decision, including your entire file, which allows you, I agree, to have a meaningful review of that decision. But in a context where sometimes these decisions are very brief — sometimes they are oral in terms of the refusal to issue an authorization. If you have a phone call with a representative of the Canadian Firearms Program, you dial 1-800-731-4000, as many of my clients do, to get the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program, and the person tells you over the phone, "We are not going to do that." What kind of meaningful review can you have of a decision like that to the provincial court?
Senator Joyal: Do you think that the issue could be addressed in the regulations that the minister will be allowed to adopt under Bill C-42?
Mr. Friedman: I do. I think, for example, to have a regulation prescribing written reasons for every decision would be a good place to start.
I'd also note, by the way, that the regulations in the Firearms Act are indeed reviewed by Parliament. This committee may remember. I testified about the regulations regarding business sales, so that's something that already happens.
Senator Joyal: Of course. That's why I said there are precedents in relation to that.
Another quick question is about the brief from Mr. Torino. I think he left the room. I don't know if you have his brief. Mr. Torino proposed additional changes to the bill, because the bill does not permit the issuance of an ATT for the purpose of a safety course; the bill does not seem to provide for the issuance of an ATT for the purpose of completing an approved transfer between individuals; and the bill does not provide an ATT for the purpose of changing residence. It seems to me those are very rational justifications to provide for an ATT. Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. Friedman: My approach to the issue of reasons for ATTs is that there ought to be blanket permission for licensed firearms owners to transport their firearms for lawful purposes. Remember, people who commit acts of violence with restricted or prohibited firearms will never feel constrained by the terms of any authorization to transport, assuming they have one in the first place. We are talking here about a bureaucratic burden that's imposed on somebody who has willingly complied with the scheme.
I would also take issue, in terms of this bill, with the fact that it only allows authorizations to transport to be issued for restricted firearms and, in the class of prohibited firearms, prohibited handguns only. I would suggest that it should be extended to prohibited firearms, for example, semi-automatic firearms, automatic firearms that have been permanently converted to semi-automatic, or firearms that are only prohibited because they have been prescribed as prohibited by Governor-in-Council but function no differently than many non-restricted and restricted firearms. If we want to have a rational basis for how we regulate firearms, that distinction is, in and of itself, irrational.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Brown, on the basis of your experience, somebody who takes his firearm to go to a course —
Mr. Brown: I still have my non-restricted firearm teaching kit. I don't have a restricted teaching kit. But I find it a little bit ludicrous that if I want to go out and teach a course, and if I can't get authorization to transport this from point A — say I am doing a course at a house for several individuals and I need to transport it there. Why do I need an ATT? First off, these guns have been disabled. They are technically not a firearm. Why would I need an ATT? They are a paperweight. I shouldn't need an ATT in the first place.
Second, why wouldn't I be granted an ATT? The only way they could be used as a weapon, as a Criminal Code definition, is if I threw it at you.
The Chair: I thank all three of our witnesses for their appearance, their testimony and again for their patience. It's very much appreciated.
Members, we will meet again tomorrow morning with more witnesses on Bill C-42 and clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-12.
(The committee adjourned.)