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.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chair, I wish I had known before, because I have other appointments.
As the extension of the meeting wasn't planned, we weren't able to prepare for it. Had we known in advance, we would have prepared our questions. However, we have other things to do. I'm sorry about that.
The meeting went well, but we should have known about the extension. That way, we could have found people to replace us, which isn't currently the case.
1 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I suppose I could take your chair and help out the Conservatives.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
That's very generous of you, Ms. May.
Unless there's a motion to the contrary, I can extend this meeting to 1:30. Do you wish to sponsor a motion to not extend the time to 1:30?
1 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Yes, because it wasn't planned. As I said, there are other commitments, and we weren't able to provide replacements to continue this work. It isn't just a study, but a clause-by-clause consideration. We have to present our amendments.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
That's a dilatory motion.
Those in favour of Mr. Paul-Hus' motion effectively to terminate the meeting now?
(Motion negatived)
The meeting continues until 1:30 at the call of the chair.
The next clause is CPC-11. Who's moving for Mr. Paul-Hus, other than Ms. May?
Mr. Viersen, are you moving CPC-11?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Yes. I don't have it in front of me, but I will move it.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
It should be passed immediately. I don't have it in front of me, though.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I will help my colleague out there.
The issue is the June 30 reference. We don't know, with this new, independent Senate, what's going to happen. Not to foretell the results of the vote on this legislation, but we can imagine it's likely to be adopted. I think allowing the date to be prescribed, rather than sticking with this hard June 30 deadline, gives that greater certainty, which will certainly be helpful for firearms owners.
I support it.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, I would argue the opposite. Rather than a later and undefined date, the current date—which is fixed at June 30, 2018, for the purposes of grandfathering—reflects our commitment to transparency and allows businesses and individuals to plan their time accordingly.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to say something.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Last week, we saw that the RCMP had already put rules in place when the bill hadn't even been passed. The legislative process isn't complete because the Senate hasn't reviewed it. If the government says that a date has been set and maintains its position, then we don't need to be here today and everyone can go home.
It's just normal to put a prescribed date rather than any date when we haven't even finished our work. I am glad my NDP colleague agrees with that.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I want to echo my colleagues, that this would make sense. When it's not the law, we shouldn't have people trying to live by a law that is going to come into effect sometime in the future and then, essentially, postdate it. I think this is a great amendment, now that I have it in front of me and can read it clearly.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Chair, given the time we are today—and it's obvious that this bill will not receive royal assent by June 30—it only makes sense that the Governor in Council set the date and not cause confusion around Parliament backdating this law. It causes confusion otherwise, contrary to what Mr. Spengemann may have just indicated. In my opinion, without a prescribed date, it actually causes more confusion by setting a date of something that hasn't even started to come into law yet.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
What happens if this bill is not passed, and then we pass it later and this date has gone by? It seems to me like we have an internal conflict in the bill. No?
Mr. Koops.
1:05 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The date remains the same. I suggested that there's no need to update the date, in the sense that the date is roughly three months from the time of introduction of the bill. That period was intended to provide people in the marketplace—owners, buyers, sellers, importers, wholesalers, retailers, manufacturers—with a period of time, as fair notice of the government's intent. It was not intended that the date would be effective, related to royal assent coming by that date, by any means.
If the date is delayed, as Mr. Spengemann suggested, the policy effect is that the pool of potential owners may grow. The intent of the bill is to actually begin to limit the pool of potential owners of these firearms. By putting the date off to an indefinite later date, there is less clarity as the signal to the marketplace for people who choose to get into that portion of ownership or for those who are choosing to divest themselves of those firearms, which could also potentially create a larger ownership pool, subject to future grandfathering.