Evidence of meeting #120 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.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Okay.
These are the only firearms specified under section 12 of the Firearms Act?
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
They're the only ones identified under these new clauses, which would form part of section 12 under Bill C-71.
Conservative
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I don't know if I can answer.
Nicole Robichaud Counsel, Department of Justice
Section 12 identifies other firearms, but not with this level of specificity. They're in a more general category.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Other firearms that could fit in this classification aren't specifically identified; these have been singled out specifically under section 12?
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I think because in this case they are the only ones that were deemed to be something other than their classification, using the deemed provisions in 2015. If Bill C-71 repeals the deeming provision, these are the only families of firearms that are affected.
If you look in section 12 of the Firearms Act, you see a whole series of classes of firearms that over the years have been made eligible for grandfathering, both the owners and the firearms. They are usually tied to a specific date or a specific class of firearm. In this case, the new addition to section 12 is simply the two families of firearms that were deemed to be something else in 2015. The specificity that would be added to section 12 around them is in relation to the specificity with which they were deemed to be something else.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Motz. Is there any further debate?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Calkins.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Yes.
Now we're on to CPC-15, and we have a ruling with respect to it.
In the opinion of the chairs, the words “remote areas”, “make their livelihood from hunting”, and “related to service in the...military” are imprecise and would be challenged to interpretation before implementation. Therefore, it is out of order, and that ruling also applies to CPC-40.1, which proposes an amendment to clause 10.
Mr. Paul-Hus.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
You say, without any other kind of explanation, that the amendment is inadmissible and that we must abide by your decision. However, there are some very important points concerning indigenous people.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
You have the ability to challenge the chair on a ruling, and if you wish to challenge the chair, you're welcome to.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
The chair has made a ruling, and it's the prerogative of any member to challenge the chair.
I'm seeing no challenge, so the ruling stands.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
That's part of my learning process.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I want to be clear on your ruling regarding why this is inadmissible. This was written by legislative writers, so I don't understand why they would put this in if it isn't proper language. Now all of a sudden it's deemed to be out of order because the language isn't appropriate in identifying remote areas or making a living from hunting. It's just a matter of trying to understand that particular ruling, that's all.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
There are several phrases in the amendment itself that are less than precise, such as “respect for Canadian heritage”, “Indigenous reserve lands”, “remote areas”, “make their livelihood from hunting”, and “related to service”. The law hates imprecision, and as a consequence, this is inadmissible.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
No. I'm clarifying, and I'm assuming that Mr. Paul-Hus is asking for one final clarification.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm simply trying to get a clearer understanding of the process. You are giving us information that you're relying on to make decisions. I understand.
However, the fact nevertheless remains that the subject is important. Is there any reason for government amendments. I think it's important to take into account indigenous people living in remote regions. I was simply trying to understand why you've come to such a firm decision without giving us the slightest opportunity to correct our amendment. If there is a lack of clarity, that can be corrected.
Basically, the indigenous point of view is extremely important in the context of Bill C-71. We saw that during Ms. Bear's testimony. They are even prepared to challenge its constitutionality. So we're trying to add elements to improve it.
In the interests of clarifying matters, shouldn't we be allowed to move an amendment to the amendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
There's always the prerogative to make an amendment, but you cannot amend something I've ruled out of order.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Mr. Chair, can you please quote the rules on this? In the 13 years I've been here, which is just slightly fewer than you've been here, I've never actually seen this applied. For every amendment brought before a committee, a chair could simply say that something about it is imprecise.
We as parliamentarians sit at this table to actually debate such things. I don't want to challenge the chair, because I would like to move ahead constructively on this, but I have to say that as somebody who lives in rural Canada and who spends a lot of his time in outlying areas or in the bush, and as somebody who represents 16,000 people who live on reserve and who have a treaty area, this is not imprecise language to me at all. I know exactly what's being talked about here, notwithstanding that the chair doesn't seem to.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Well, I would regard that as a challenge to the chair's ruling. I don't have to make a further explanation.
