Evidence of meeting #15 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We now move to clause 28. We have clause 28 and a new clause 28.1. There's a new clause put in that we will deal with right after we--
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We have received an amendment from the New Democratic Party. It's a new clause to be added into the bill.
Madame Boivin.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Actually, the amendment proposes that Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 45 on page 9, the new following clause:
Section 117 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (m):
(m.1) regulating the keeping and destruction of records by businesses in relation to firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms.
We still have the same concern about long guns, which aren't necessarily harmless—as if any firearm could be harmless—and some of them have fairly impressive range. We need to prevent the destruction of the registry and especially the information it contains, through other impacts of the legislation, from creating the gap in clause 11 that I spoke of earlier. As stressed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and victim support groups, we need to avoid this situation. Out of caution and to provide a little more protection, it would be well-advised to put that clause back in. If we really want to ensure public safety, I think it's the least we could do.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Madame.
This again is viewed and ruled as being inadmissible. This is what they call the parent act violation. Section 117 of the Firearms Act is not being amended by Bill C-19, so the table views that as being inadmissible.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Chair, I'm not challenging, this is just a point of clarification. I appreciate your ruling and the advice from the clerks and the legislative clerks.
I'm trying to understand how the effect on the records, which is clearly delineated in this bill, is out of the range and the scope of the bill. I heard what you said in terms of the parent act, but just for the committee's purposes and for the public, what is being talked about and discussed in this bill is the destruction of the records, the elimination of those records. Madame Boivin is attempting to move an amendment to suggest that this part of the bill should be altered. I'm trying to understand why that would be out of the scope of this particular act.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It's a good question. I guess it's because the part in the bill that is not being changed is section 117, and this would consequently change it.
We do have some experts. Is that your role here, sir?
Mike MacPherson Procedural Clerk
Basically, the issue is that Bill C-19 doesn't amend section 117 of the Firearms Act. We can't go in to amend that if the bill doesn't do it at second reading.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I don't want to confuse the situation. I just want to be clear.
We're dealing with business records. This is from the sale of firearms from a gun dealer, as opposed to the destruction of government records, which is what the federal government holds. This is the distinction we're making right now. We'll get to that amendment next.
That's the clarification.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
So that is ruled out of order.
(On clause 29--Destruction of information—Commissioner )
On clause 29, again we have amendment LIB-3.
Mr. Scarpaleggia.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Chair, we have very clearly heard that the Government of Quebec wants to create its own firearm registry if Bill C-19 is adopted. It's very clear. The Quebec minister of public safety himself appeared before the committee to share his position on the issue.
It also seems clear to us that the Conservative government has not received a mandate from Quebeckers to eliminate the firearm registry. So we believe that it is important to respect the wishes of Quebeckers and prevent the federal government from destroying the registry. It's a relevant tool for the Government of Quebec. We want to eliminate clause 29 to make it impossible to destroy the information so that it is accessible to the Government of Quebec and any other government that wants to create its own long gun control system.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Scarpaleggia.
We rule that this is an inadmissible amendment. Basically, what it is attempting to do is to delete the clause. The proper process or procedure for deleting a clause is to vote against the clause, so the amendment is ruled inadmissible.
NDP-4.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm pleased to submit this amendment. I feel that throughout this whole discussion that's taken place over 20 years over the gun registry, including a Supreme Court decision in 2000 that clearly indicated that any level of government has the ability to create legislation and create policy that will control the use of firearms, in a case where the federal government abrogates its responsibility--which it is doing with this bill--for the registration of long-guns and shotguns, then provinces, territories, and aboriginal governments have the capacity and the right under law to create their own registries, to do what they deem appropriate for public safety in their own provinces.
I've always supported removing the gun registry from the Criminal Code. This bill does that. But it doesn't allow the continued movement of information that has been collected by the federal government on behalf of gun owners across the country.
Mr. Chair, it's interesting to note that as I was sitting in the terminal building in Hay River yesterday, a registered gun owner, an aboriginal person, talked to me of his concerns about how guns would be handled in the future, how his registered guns would be protected, how his liability for the guns in his possession would be kept straightforward, and how the records would show his possession and ownership of certain guns and not of others.
When we look at the transfer of guns from one person to another.... Mr. Chairman, in my riding there are people who have 70 or 100 firearms. They're always in the process of moving firearms from one owner to another. This is something that is part of the life of people in the north. Simply for hunting in the north there's a requirement for not one or two guns, but probably for half a dozen guns to suit the particular animals being hunted. In some cases they may be marine mammals as well. So we have a situation where we do use a lot of firearms. These firearms will be transferred from one person to another.
The ownership of these firearms will still be under some consideration by the police, in terms of safe storage. Without understanding who owns the gun, how can the police then effect a safe storage charge under the Criminal Code against the appropriate individual, for these guns? What we will have when this law is passed is a situation where there will be no opportunity for the provinces and territories to consider what the ramifications are under the law for the liability for guns within their own provinces, territories, or aboriginal communities.
The amendment here is a simple amendment to hold the records for a period of three years. By holding them for three years—this Conservative government doesn't have to worry that this is an NDP plot to re-establish the registry after that time--
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
—it gives the provinces, territories, and aboriginal governments time to think about the ramifications of having no process of registration, no process by which gun ownership can be clearly identified within their own jurisdictions. That is a big problem.
I appeal to the Conservatives. I have supported the efforts you have made to remove the gun registry from the Criminal Code for many years. I appeal to this committee to consider this amendment. It's a reasonable and rational amendment, which will allow other jurisdictions across the country to make decisions about how they should deal with the data that is in place.
Registered gun owners have paid to put their guns on the registry. In some ways, Mr. Chair, the gun owners themselves have a right to the data within the registry. They have paid for it. They have done the work to register their firearms. So I think the government should really....
I appeal to the Conservative Party to support this amendment, because this amendment will act in a spirit of cooperative federalism. It will act in a spirit that we do have different points of view across the country about how we deal with property. Once the guns are removed from the Criminal Code, they become property. They are simply property, and that comes under the jurisdiction of provinces and territories and aboriginal governments.
Why should we not be accommodating to those jurisdictions? Why should we not give them the opportunity to react to the laws that we have changed in this country? Why should we not have that spirit of understanding and respect for those other jurisdictions?
With that, I'll leave the amendment as is, and I trust you will find it does meet with your accord.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much for that interjection, Mr. Bevington, and for introducing this amendment.
We will be coming to a couple of amendments that will be admissible, just so everyone can be assured, but again I'm told that this one would be inadmissible. It's beyond the scope of the bill, so we will deem that inadmissible.
NDP
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
—but you had a clear explanation from the clerk last time in terms of the differences in the records. That was from gun shops and point-of-sale purchases. This is different.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I can give you the reading from the chair, then, because we can't go into debate on the chair's ruling.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Bill C-19, in clause 29, stipulates that the commissioner of firearms, as well as each chief firearms officer, shall ensure that certain information related to the Canadian firearms registry be destroyed “as soon as feasible”.
The amendment attempts to insert conditions upon this process by directing the commissioner of firearms to contact all provinces, territories, Indian bands, and self-governing aboriginal communities to seek whether they intend to create a registry and transfer the information to those entities.
Again, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states, on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair and the table, the introduction of the transfer of this information to these entities is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-19 and therefore is inadmissible.
We will move to the next New Democratic amendment, NDP-5. Again, I will give you the opportunity to introduce it, hopefully not with a long discourse.
