Public Safety Committee on June 5th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

First of all, you can't amend your own amendment.

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

Well, I'm unacceptable again today.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Are you having a colleague amend your amendment?

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

As a matter of fact, that might occur, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do people understand the amendment that he has proposed to his amendment CPC-4.01?

I know you'll be disappointed in my ruling, Mr. Motz, and I feel badly about that, but I don't feel so badly as to not tell you that the amendment you proposed, CPC-4.01, was referred to the committee after second reading, and it is out of order because it is beyond the scope and the principle of the bill.

It is the opinion of the chair that the firearms classification board introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I am ruling it inadmissible.

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

Can I comment on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's a motion that can only be voted on; it can't be debated. I don't think...debate and comment are one and the same in the present circumstances. No, you can't comment. I feel badly about that. I'm sure I'll hear about it later.

Amendment CPC-4.01 is inadmissible.

We still have amendment CPC-4.1, which we will get to.

I insincerely apologize for some confusion on the part of the chair, but we've had a fresh set of amendments and then we've had another fresh set of amendments. I'm just trying to keep track to make sure that we stay on track. I'm therefore told that we now move to the motion. Shall clause 1 as amended carry?

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to on division)

There we go. Thank you, colleagues, and thank you for your patience, and I thank you in advance for your future patience.

(On clause 2)

We are now on clause 2. The first amendment is CPC-4.1.

That is Mr. Calkins' amendment. Is someone here prepared to move that?

Mr. Viersen.

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

I'm asking the committee to consider this amendment, by replacing line 2 on page 2 with the following:

licence, for the first time in their life, under subsection (1), a chief firearms officer or,

This would help to ensure that people who are working in this have eligibility, with a licence. We have to make sure that this all works.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on to CPC-5. I note that if it is adopted, CPC-6 and CPC-7.1 cannot be moved.

Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is about background checks. We are unanimous in saying that a more effective background check system must be put in place. However, we believe that the duration provided for in the bill, which is for life, is far too long. Currently, it is five years.

In a brief to the committee, the Canadian Labour Congress also recommends a 10-year term. the amendment suggests that a 10-year limit be placed on the background check.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

We certainly don't agree with shortening the time. The bill indicates a lifetime. It's a consideration that will be given for the lifetime of the person, and that certainly is appropriate, so we won't support the amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll turn to CPC-6.

Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Given that a period of 10 years hasn't been accepted, this amendment proposes a period of 20 years.

Let's see what might happen if the background check period was set to lifetime.

My father is 70 years old. Suppose, when he's retired, he decides to undergo firearms training in order to obtain a licence. A background check that covers his entire life, so 70 years, would be done. Logically speaking, how could that be done? It makes no sense.

Customs were different 50 years ago, in the 1960s. He could have done something that was proper then but isn't anymore. Things change in 50 years. He would be denied a licence because something might have happened 50 or 55 years ago.

That may make sense in the case of someone who is 25 or 30 years old, but not in the case of people who are 50, 60 or 70 years old. They may decide to go sport shooting or hunting because they never had the time when they were working. Now they have time and would like to go duck hunting, for example. Then we would go through their whole lives. A 20-year period is still a long time in a lifetime. Such a period would provide a profile of the individual and provide a good idea of the person.

Mr. Chair, we need to be a little logical.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that's already the case. According to the courts, any information about a licence applicant can already be considered. The change proposed in the bill is intended to clarify one point. In some cases, this is already done, despite the five-year limit.

I am reassured by what I have heard from several witnesses during our study. Contrary to what they seem to be claiming, a single incident in an individual's background will not immediately be focused on. The extent of the action and whether there is a criminal record will be taken into consideration. We have been given examples of things that aren't even criminal offences. As things stand, it's very clear that we can weigh everything up. There will be no immediate disqualification. If follow-up with an applicant is deemed necessary, for example through an interview, this will cover the period being assessed, meaning the entire lifetime. At the risk of repeating myself, there will be no immediate disqualification.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Viersen.

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

Yes, for sure, I think that the ban for 20 years works fairly well. I would support my colleague on this one. I don't see why we need to have it as a lifetime. That seems too long. I think people change after 20 years. People make mistakes. So it's worth a miss for sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Chair. I have two questions for Mr. O'Reilly, just to clarify some information. You know, there is some confusion.

When someone applies for a firearms licence now, the CFO or the Canadian firearms program will check that person's criminal record, will they not?

[Rob O'Reilly, Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Yes, they will.

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

That criminal record check is not for only the previous five years, is it?

[Rob O'Reilly]

When an individual makes the initial application for a firearms licence, their entire criminal record is looked at at that point.

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

Currently.

[Rob O'Reilly]

Currently, on new applications. As it relates to continuous eligibility, there has been some discussion in this room about the distinctions between the two. Continuous eligibility, in essence, brings things in real time to the attention...so continuous eligibility is not looking back historically. It would look at incidents that may have occurred yesterday or the day before. However, during an initial application, the entire criminal record would be looked at.