Evidence of meeting #67 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was easter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
All in favour of the amendment by the Green Party?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go to LIB-1.
9 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, our amendment is to add proposed paragraph 19(2.1)(f) to the bill, as follows:
(f) to a port of exit in another province in order to take them outside Canada, and from a port of entry in another province, if there is no port of exit or port of entry in the individual's province of residence.
The amendment basically attempts to clarify the situation with respect to P.E.I,. Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador so that the firearms owners in those provinces would enjoy the same rights as those in provinces with land ports of entry and exit.
I guess, to put it this way, it's to bring better balance and equality to all the provinces, including those that may not have a point of entry or exit.
9 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
We will be supporting Mr. Easter's amendment. We think it's a common sense amendment, as the government likes to say. The number of times those who need to transport to an exit would be small, but it would be individuals who would do so on a regular basis. That could easily be accommodated under the existing system.
9 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Mr. Garrison, did I hear you endorsing the government's common sense?
9 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
No, the concept of common sense, which the government likes to cite.
May 5th, 2015 / 9 a.m.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate what Mr. Easter is proposing, but on the one hand they're opposing a bill based on what they continue to purport to Canadians is free and clear access of firearms in the country. We've heard over and over again from our witnesses about how some of the questions they've put are completely misleading.
This isn't about provincial fairness in any respect. The constituents in Yukon who want to transport their firearms out of Yukon to anywhere other than Alaska need to get the appropriate licences to enter British Columbia and then take it to a point of entry in British Columbia. If they want to exit the country through a point of entry in Alberta, they would need one from the Province of B.C. and then the Province of Alberta in order to get it out of the country and into the United States that way.
There is no owned advantage by any province in this bill. It's not putting any other province at a disadvantage by having to get licences to do interprovincial transport, save for the piece where you happen to be living on a particular point of entry with a particular state in the United States. So in that vein I could argue that Yukoners don't have the same access to the United States or the same rights as Ontarians, because they can enter different states in the U.S.
I think if we start using that line of argument for interprovincial transport for equal and unfettered access to all points of entry in the United States, what we would run into is a lot of cross-country mobility and some very confusing amendments and additions to firearms paperwork that would only increase the burden and the red tape that we're trying to avoid in the first place.
9 a.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Leef actually said some of the things I wanted to say. The chief firearms officer is responsible for the province, so basically this amendment proposes that an individual could carry firearms across provincial jurisdictions without the chief firearms officer of the province he's crossing into even being made aware of it.
The intent of this bill is to reduce red tape for law-abiding firearms owners within the provincial jurisdiction in which they reside.
Of course, it's all over the Internet that the Liberals are trying to fundraise by saying that this bill allows firearms owners to carry their guns absolutely anywhere, to grocery stores and anywhere else. This amendment is actually proposing to go beyond that and take it into other provincial jurisdictions.
I don't know which way he wants this bill to go, but for all of those reasons, I will not be supporting this.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
It wouldn't be on topic, Mr. Chair, but if we want to get into the history of fundraising and firearms, the real reason—
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
No, Mr. Easter. We're dealing with this bill and that's how we will proceed. I would also caution the parliamentary secretary to follow the same line of questioning.
Let's just proceed with the bill, Mr. Easter.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, Mr. Chair, whether we agree with certain sections of the bill as a party or not, and we do have some concerns over the open transportation, we think there should be.... We're always willing to improve a bill. We don't get caught in an ideological stance like the government does, and we want to see some equality across the provinces. That's why this amendment is there.
We know that this bill is being brought forward, Mr. Chair, simply put, so that they can get into fundraising again in the gun community. That's why it's here. Those are the facts.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.
Are there any further speakers?
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 6 agreed to on division)
Colleagues, we have an opportunity here, should the committee wish, for the chair to call clauses 7 to 9. Are we comfortable with that?
(Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 10)
Thank you very much.
We have amendment G-1.
Yes, Ms. James.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
This is a small technical amendment. It's basically replacing line 6, which currently says “following before section 43”, with “following in numerical order”. It has to do with correcting a numbering error that came as a result of the Statutes Repeal Act this year. It's a technical amendment that doesn't change the intent of or anything in the bill.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 10 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 11 agreed to on division)
(On clause 12)
We have an amendment suggested by the Green Party, amendment PV-2:
That Bill C-42, in Clause 12, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 33 on page 6.
Yes, Mr. Easter.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
There's no one here from the Green Party. Does someone have to move this before we talk about it?
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Okay.
Then to the witnesses, what is the net impact of deleting lines 28 to 33? I have some concerns about the ability of the federal government to impose its will on the chief firearms officers in the provinces, especially in the Province of Quebec, actually, more so than my own. If we were to support the deletion of lines 28 to 33, does that not take more authority away from the chief firearms officers in the province? Or am I reading that wrong? It says “exceptions”. Could the witnesses expand on what would be the impact of this amendment?
9:10 a.m.
Robert Abramowitz Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The impact of this amendment would be to remove a clause, making it clear that chief firearms officers' discretion to attach conditions to licences or authorizations is subject to the regulations. That is what the clause is aimed at doing.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Okay. So the net impact would be to take away the ability of the federal minister to order a chief firearms officer around in a province by regulation. Would that be a direct way of putting it?