Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We will have a recorded vote on clause 16.

(Clause 16 agreed to: yeas, 6; nays 3)

(Clause 17 agreed to on division)

(On clause 18)

On clause 18 we have amendment CPC-47 in the name of Mr. Paul-Hus encore.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know you're fed up, but it's almost over.

We have worked hard to improve Bill C-71. Unfortunately, we have not achieved the desired result. What can I say? Next year, we'll be able to take back control.

I could read you a passage from page 972 of O'Brien and Bosc, which states that it is important that members who sit on the committees have a good working relationship and get along with each other. Members are appointed to a committee on a permanent basis to improve their skills and abilities. My NDP friend, for example, has been sitting on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for a long time, and he knows his business. On our side, we are improving day by day, and it's a pleasure for me to work with you. The fact remains that it will be different next year.

For the moment, let's get back to amendment CPC-47. We are asking that subsection 117.15(3) of the Criminal Code, which provides that a firearm may be prescribed to be a non-restricted firearm despite the definitions of the terms "prohibited firearm" and "restricted firearm," be retained. However, we maintain that subsection 117.15(4) of the Criminal Code, according to which a firearm may be prescribed to be a restricted firearm, should be repealed.

What I have said will change nothing, but it's nevertheless a pleasure for me to speak. My impression is that we, on our side, are the only ones who are warm.

Do you have anything to add?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

For those of us who live in hope.

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

For once, I have nothing to say, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The Lord moves in wonderful ways.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Are we going to have a recorded vote on clause 18?

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

Is the new section 18.1 included in section 18? If it's separate, we'll have to have two separate votes.

In that case, I would like to have a recorded vote.

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

Are CPC-47.1 and CPC-47.2 not on the same clause?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

No. CPC-47.1 applies to new clause 18.1. We aren't there yet, because we haven't voted on clause 18.

(Clause 18 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us to new clause 18.1, and I'm going to make a ruling which will disappoint Mr. Calkins in the extreme.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

[Inaudible--Editor] disappointment for me, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Well, give me a chance.

The ruling is that this is inadmissible because it infringes on the prerogatives of the crown. It would create a new firearms classification board to which remunerated members would be appointed. Again, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 767, states:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

It is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendments, and this will apply to both CPC-47.1 and CPC-47.2, would impose a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule that they are inadmissible.

(On clause 19)

Moving now to clause 19, CPC-48.

Are you tired, Mr. Paul-Hus?

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

No, I'm fine. We can continue.

This amendment isn't complicated. It simply concerns the terminology used in the title, "Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted." Bill C-71 proposes to replace the last part with "or Restricted." The purpose of this amendment is to replace this title with "Regulations Prescribing the Legal Status of Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components, Accessories, Ammunition and Projectiles."

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

(Amendment negatived)

Shall clause 19 carry, as recorded by our able clerk?

(Clause 19 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to on division)

(On clause 22)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We have clause 22, CPC-49, in the name of Mr. Motz.

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

I am pleased to be able to speak to this, because I was anticipating you'd use one of your chair rulings again to rule it out of order, which I would have to challenge the chair on. However, I'm glad you did not do that.

You'll see that this particular amendment speaks directly to the coming into force section. We're talking about deleting all of the first 15 lines of page 12. In my opinion, the bill is poorly thought out, designed, and planned. To make matters worse, it doesn't deal with the issues that have been presented already, and that is the gang and gun problem that we have in this country. That is a big issue. Let's not compound the issue by attempting to bring this bill into force in a manner that is unreasonable or poorly executed, in my opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on CPC-49.1, also known as 9905820.

Once again, this amendment is in Mr. Paul-Hus's name.

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

Have we reached amendment CPC-49.1?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes.

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

This amendment reads as follows: "Sections 3 to 21 come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council." Unless I am mistaken, this is consistent with what has already been discussed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any debate?

(Amendment negatived)

On CPC-50, Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This particular amendment, again, speaks to the coming into force and requires all aspects of the bill to come into force through regulation that is directed by cabinet. We're proposing that Bill C-71, in clause 22, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 15 on page 12 with the following:

22 This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

It would be much more reasonable to have that the coming into force of this bill be directed by cabinet so that the coming into force is better thought-out than the proposed bill, and I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

(Amendment negatived)

On CPC-51, Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

The purpose of amendment CPC-51 is to prevent subsection 13(1) from coming into force. It gives the Governor in Council authority for "regulating, for the purpose of issuing a reference number...the provision of information by a transferor, a transferee and the Registrar."

I have nothing to add, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

CPC-52 was identical, so CPC-51 defeated CPC-52. Thank you.

We are on CPC-53.

Mr. Motz.

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

Again, this is coordinating, similar to CPC-43. It removes reference to subclause 13(3), which is creating regulations related to farm transfers. All we're saying is that we're amending line 12 on page 12 with the following:

(5) Sections 7 and 14

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

CPC-54 is inadmissible. I am sorry to disappoint Mr. Paul-Hus.

The amendment makes the coming into force, certain provisions, conditional to the parliamentary tabling of reports containing specific information. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pages 773 to 774, says, “An amendment intended to alter the coming into force clause of a bill, making it conditional, is out of order since it exceeds the scope of the bill and attempts to introduce a new question into it.”

Now we are on clause 22. I don't believe there are any amendments.

Mr. Paul-Hus will want a recorded vote.