Evidence of meeting #118 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was firearm.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Ms. Damoff mentioned that she was against CPC-6 and CPC-7.
If I may take just another few moments, I would say that 50 years is a long time. That goes back to 1968, to the student crises at the time or the rise of the FLQ in 1970. There is no doubt that the people who experienced those events don't have weapons today.
Some people will be refused a licence because 50 years covers a long period. In my opinion, that would be the limit, because if we went even further back, my parents wouldn't even have been born yet.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
We have an interpretation problem, Mr. Chair.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Do we have any debate on this that we haven't already exhausted?
Mr. Viersen.
Noon
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
As a point of levity, I just want to point out, for the sake of the chair, that I am not 50 years old.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I don't know whether that's a pro or a con.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are on CPC-7.1.
Mr. Paul-Hus.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Allow me to get my notes and my chart, Mr. Chair.
CPC-7.1 addresses the length of the audit period. By going back to the age of majority, 18, the period covered is more or less long depending on the age of the licence applicant: this period will be 22 years if the applicant is 40 now, or only seven if the applicant is 25. So we propose a minimum of 10 years for the verification period, which may be longer if the applicant is older.
I hope you understand what I'm saying because I prepared this amendment very late last night. If the applicant is 40 years old, the verification period to the age of majority would be 22 years. If the applicant is 25 years old, it would only be 10 years back, to when the applicant was 15. Did you understand it that way?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
This is the fourth attempt at changing this. We still are comfortable with a lifetime of consideration, so we won't be supporting it.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
To Ms. Damoff's point earlier, it feels like we're on the opposite sides of normal when it comes to criminality. Normally, they're asking for a reduction in sentence, and we're asking for an improvement in sentences, so we're on opposite sides there today.
I think that proves the point that we are looking for a compromise position here. Also, I think this one—perhaps more than the other ones—works well, because it allows for indiscretions of youth to fall off after 10 years.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Mr. Dubé, who probably is the only one at this table who can still claim indiscretions of youth....
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I hope there aren't too many, since I spent a good chunk of my youth in this place, although someone said that there's indiscretion here as well.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
At any rate, just for the record, I wanted to say once again that, speaking on a more serious note about indiscretions of youth, that's not what's at issue here.
Second of all—and I say this with all due respect to my colleagues—I wonder how seriously this issue is being taken when we have amendments that say “10”, “20”, “50”, and now “adult or within the previous 10 years, whichever is the longer period”. That to me just doesn't show the seriousness with which we need to take this type of background check. It's completely arbitrary that there is literally a span of 40 years in between two of the proposed amendments.
I'm sure they wouldn't take this approach with sentencing or things like that in other types of legislation, which is not to say—for the record, before it gets twisted against me—that I am at all comparing sentencing with licence acquisition. I am once again acknowledging that this in no way will encumber someone's ability to obtain a licence if all we are talking about are these stated indiscretions of youth.
This is not shoplifting a bracelet from the pharmacy. We're talking about a way to make sure that someone who 20 or 25 years ago may have been involved in serious situations of domestic violence or others... I think back, notably, to Ms. Irons' testimony. I am sure my Conservative colleagues would agree that the types of things this individual was involved with should have disqualified him from having a licence. I acknowledge that what's in the legislation won't completely prevent that from happening—and Mr. Motz has raised some issues that can be debated—but I think that at the end of the day having the lifetime look at this is not that problematic.
My understanding, to judge by what I heard Mr. Calkins and others say, is that if we removed everything related to PAL, verification for transfers, and record-keeping the bill would get unanimous consent. Now we're trying to amend the background check, so I'm having a hard time following where the logic is, quite frankly.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
There's really nothing in this bill that deals with the process issues identified by even Liberal witnesses. That's part of the challenge that exists with this. There are no provisions, no understanding, and no anything about how this will play itself out.
Whether or not you believe in lifetime background checks, the devil's in the details, as we've heard over and over again, on how that will occur. There's no language and there's nothing to suggest how this might be done, and that provides significant discomfort to those across this country who might be impacted by this legislation.