Bill to Amend Certain Acts and Regulations in Relation to Firearms
Motion in Amendment--Vote Deferred
May 13, 2019
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That Bill C-71 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended on page 10, by adding the following after line 21:
“11.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 94:
94.1 (1) The Commissioner shall provide to the Minister, no later than February 1 of each year, a written report for the immediately preceding calendar year that sets out
(a) the decisions and recommendations made by the Commissioner regarding whether a firearm is a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm or a non-restricted firearm; and
(b) the reasons for those decisions or recommendations.
(2) The federal Minister shall cause each report received under subsection (1) to be tabled before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the federal Minister receives it.”.
Senator Pratte, on debate.
Very briefly, I agree with the intention of the amendment. As I was quoted saying in committee, the firearms program has suffered since its inception from a lack of transparency. The decisions made by the RCMP experts were briefly announced, the rationale behind these decisions was often not explained and it was very hard for people to know why, how and when guns were classified or reclassified. Therefore, there was certainly a need for more transparency.
However, I believe the amendment is unnecessary, and here is why: First of all, the RCMP confirmed in committee that what is called the Firearms Reference Table, which is where all decisions concerning the 180,000 models of firearms are registered and accessible to police officers, will be available in the next few months on the Web to anyone wishing to consult it. It will be regularly updated, which will be more preferable than an annual report, because you will be able to see it immediately on the Web, in real time, how a new gun model is classified or if a gun that is already classified is being reclassified.
Second, there is already in the Firearms Act the authority of the minister to order the Commissioner of Firearms to put something in their annual report. Further to different statements by stakeholders, the minister has advised the Government Representative and me that he will ask the Chief Firearms Officer to present in the annual firearms report a more comprehensive analysis of firearms classification. Therefore, you will have both the reference table that will be available online in real time that has all the decisions taken by the RCMP experts, and you will also get the information on gun classification decisions taken in a year in the Commissioner of Firearms annual report.
That is why I think, despite being well-intentioned, the amendment is not necessary.
Honourable senators, I have a few comments to make. I’ll start with addressing what Senator Pratte just said.
Senator Pratte is indeed correct that some consideration is being given to making a firearms reference table. Although this is a good step, it is not enough for a number of reasons.
First, this disclosure should be mandatory and not voluntary. This amendment would make such disclosure a statutory requirement, not just an aspirational goal.
Second, the firearms reference table contains over 150,000 entries. It would be an overwhelming task for parliamentarians and firearms owners to track changes being made. What is needed is an annual report that summarizes the changes made during that year.
Third, this amendment calls for the reasons to be given for the changes that are made. It is imperative, because it ensures transparency and public accountability for the changes that are made.
That’s in reference to what Senator Pratte just said.
This amendment, colleagues, is necessary because the RCMP are not currently required to issue any public notification when a firearm is reclassified. One day, you are the owner of a non-restricted firearm, and the next day, it is a restricted or prohibited firearm. You have no way of knowing that this just happened. There is no press release. There is no report to Parliament. There is no public notification of any kind. Instead, the firearms reference table is quietly updated.
The problem with this is that the reference table is not public. The use of the table is limited to the RCMP and individuals who have been authorized by the RCMP, members of the police community, specific public agents and approved firearm verifiers.
Typically, the way the firearms community becomes aware of a reclassification is when someone is arrested and charged. Now, I wish I was exaggerating, but I am not. There are many examples of firearms owners being blindsided due to the reclassification decisions. The tragic result of this is that they are charged when possessing a restricted or prohibited firearm or device and must face charges under the Criminal Code. In one case that I know of, the individual charged had purchased the product only two months prior and had no knowledge of the reclassification. Colleagues, this needs to change.
The amendment being proposed today is a very modest one. It would require the Commissioner of Firearms to prepare an annual report of the firearms that were reclassified during that year, along with the reasons for the reclassification. There is no reason why that shouldn’t happen. Although modest, such a measure would help to begin to address the lack of transparency surrounding the reclassification of firearms and ensure that the firearms owners are made aware of such changes.
Colleagues, I urge you to support this amendment. Thank you.
Honourable senators, I didn’t intend to speak on this today, but I just want to say this: I think the amendment is well-intentioned, and I recognize the comments made by Senator Plett. I’m not sure that we’ve got a transparency issue here as much as we’ve got a relationship issue. Anyone in this chamber who has followed the discourse of Bill C-71 over the last several months will know about the tensions, concerns and issues in the relationship between firearms advocates, firearms associations and the RCMP as represented in the Canadian Firearms Program.
Although we might try, we cannot legislate better relationships between a regulator and the regulated community, and this is what we’re talking about. This whole discussion is within the ambit of regulation.
Based on what I’ve seen, I would urge the government, the RCMP and the Canadian Firearms Program to make an effort to reach out to Canada’s firearms associations and advocates transparently, with more information about decisions they make and to engage in a discussion with the regulated community.
This relationship is not likely ever to be entirely friendly, because that’s not what happens often in the world of regulation. However, it can be way better than it is today. I think many of us would recognize that. But I don’t think we can legislate our way there. Thank you.
Are senators ready for the question?
Honourable senators, in amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator McIntyre, seconded by the Honourable Senator McInnis, that Bill C-71 be not read a third time but that it be amended on page 10 by adding the following line after 21 — shall I dispense?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”
All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Do we have agreement on a bell?
One hour.
Pursuant to rule 9-10, the vote will be deferred until 5:30 on the next day the Senate sits, the bell to ring at 5:15.
Your Honour, excuse my ignorance. We’re going to have a vote on an amendment, so I want to clarify: Does that preclude us from debating and bringing forward other amendments tomorrow before the vote?
If I could, I can commit to something. Of course, it depends upon where we are in the Order Paper, but if we have passed that item in the Order Paper earlier than 5:30, for my part, I would be happy to revert so that the honourable senator, should he have other speeches or amendments, could bring them forward in due course of consideration of tomorrow’s debate.
To clarify your question, Senator Plett, and to add to what Senator Harder said, the item will not be called on the Order Paper until after the vote takes place. So if there were further amendments, they would have to be moved after the vote.
