Public Safety Committee on June 5th, 2018

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, the debate has been raging since Bill C-71 was introduced. That was the case even last night in the House of Commons because of the issue of bringing back a long gun registry. The government is telling us that there is no question of bringing the registry back, but we doubt it very much.

In order to close the loophole and ensure that the law is correct in this regard, we are proposing an amendment to ensure that there will be no return of a long gun registry, which cost Canadians $2 billion and was abolished because it was ineffective and unnecessary. We believe it is fair and would solve the problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I very much welcome this amendment because I think it provides clarity that C-71 does not establish a long-gun registry. For that reason, it has my full support. The wording testifies to that fact.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Viersen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I'm happy to hear from my colleague, and that was precisely our point with moving this amendment: that folks are considerably worried about the fact that this bill is the reintroduction of the long-gun registry. I'm glad to hear that the Liberals are supporting this, for sure.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other debate?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Could I get a recorded vote?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's a rare occasion of unanimity on this bill.

Just before I ask for CPC-3 to be introduced by Mr. Motz, I'm assuming that there are no consequences to the support for CPC-2. Am I correct about that?

[Olivier Champagne]

I would concur.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

CPC-3 deals with weapons classification, and it provides, to me, a better process. It provides a better process for review of weapons classification and ministerial decisions—based on manufacturers' and RCMP recommendations—that are gazetted with the minister's rationale.

If you look at clause 1 of Bill C-71, we're recommending that it be amended by adding after line 8 on page 1 the following language:

(2.01) Subject to subsection (2.02), the federal Minister may, by order, deem a firearm to be a prohibited firearm, restricted firearm or non-restricted firearm for the purposes of this Act and the Criminal Code despite the definitions of those terms in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.

(2.02) No order shall be made under subsection (2.01) unless

(a) the Minister has received, with respect to a firearm, recommendations from the firearm's manufacturer and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and

(b) the Minister has caused the proposed order to appear in the Canada Gazette along with an explanation of the Minister's views on why the order is appropriate based on the information received under paragraph (a).

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

With regard to what was just distributed by the clerk, what's the difference between that and...?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm told it's not the same, but I have not seen what was just distributed.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, from what I understand, amendments CPC-3 and CPC-4 have been amalgamated. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The issue is this: what does the new one have to do with the one that's just been moved?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

It's similar in nature, but different.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Colleagues, just as a point of courtesy, it's very difficult to absorb what is being moved with what is being distributed if we have no time.

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

What was just read—CPC-3—what was just distributed, and CPC-4 are all different versions of a proposed subsection 2(2.01). It's a little unfortunate. I understand that, notwithstanding a member's privilege to move something from the floor, we have this huge new pack of amendments and everything on the fly like this. Again—notwithstanding that I recognize that I have done it myself and I will certainly do it again, perhaps not on this bill, but on others—it's not the most helpful thing. I'm just seeking clarity from my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

There is a distinction between privilege and courtesy, and for those of us who are recipients of these new things, they're difficult to absorb.

Mr. Motz.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

The new amendment before us, which I'll speak to when I'm done with amendments CPC-3 and CPC-4, was received this morning from the legislative clerk's office at 10:19. I didn't have any previous opportunity to provide it, so I would ask the committee's indulgence in that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You're entitled to the indulgence.

I think we should just carry on, unless our legislative clerk has some different view. I wouldn't want to anticipate the success of Mr. Motz's motion in advance, but I think we can continue.

Mr. Motz has properly presented the motion and read it into the record. It's now open for debate.

We're still on amendment CPC-3.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Unlike the case with amendment CPC-2, in which my colleagues opposite recognized what this side has always said about the long-gun registry, the fact that it's not a long-gun registry, and on which we agreed unanimously, we're not going to agree here.

It can't be supported simply because the proposed amendment is directly contrary to the intention of the bill, which is to ensure a consistent approach to firearms classification such that determinations are made by technical experts within the Canadian firearms program.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

In reality, we heard from witnesses who made it very clear that the RCMP is not the only expert on firearm classification. In order to ensure that there is a robust process.... Unilateral classification by the RCMP alone has historically been fraught with issues over the years. Having a different process—under which they do not have unilateral control without oversight regarding approval of any classifications—is the desire of tens of thousands of Canadians across this country. We're here to represent them, and not for some other partisan purpose.