Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2018

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

I have some concerns.

I'm a hunter, and it happens from time to time that we borrow each other's firearms or lend each other firearms, sometimes for a short term. It can be as simple as two hunters in a duck blind borrowing each other's shotguns.

I'm not suggesting that there is going to be a problem there, but there are also hypothetical situations. You find yourself in the back country. If the rifle you brought has malfunctioned, you forgot the ammunition after you've driven a long way, and you want to borrow a firearm from your colleague, would that be caught up in the need to do a transfer for borrowing? Is there some provision in the law that I'm not aware of that would allow two hunters, who both have the licences and everything they need, to lend their firearms for a short term or intermediate term?

By intermediate term, I would suggest that would be for a week. For example, if I were on a week-long hunting trip and my firearm for whatever reason was disabled, and I wanted to borrow a spare rifle that one of my colleagues brought on the hunting trip, is that caught up in this?

[Randall Koops]

The answer is no, because lending between two authorized owners, two licensed owners, is not a transfer as defined here.

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

It's not a transfer. Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Before I call the question, I want to take note that if amendment NDP-2 is adopted, amendments CPC-20 through CPC-22 cannot be moved because—

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

What are you saying?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

—they amend the same line.

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

Which one can't be moved? Is it amendment CPC-20?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

They cannot be presented, because they amend the same line.

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

Exactly what does that mean?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's convention that you can only amend the line once.

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

How do you decide what you'd like to be brought forward first, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's the order in which they are received.

May I call the question on amendment NDP-2?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That, therefore eliminates amendments CPC-20, CPC-21, and CPC-22.

Members, it is my intention to take a break at around 5:30. I hope that meets with the approval of colleagues.

On amendment CPC-23, Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

I'd like to go back to what you said about it being impossible to amend the same line. If one line of the bill is altered by an amendment, can another amendment be amended again, somewhat like a subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

If we defeated amendment NDP-2, then your amendments CPC-20 through CPC-22 would still be alive.

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

As for amendment NDP-2, we accept the change made, but that changes nothing in our own amendments since it concerns something else. Isn't that the case? Are our amendments automatically nullified by the adoption of amendment NDP-2?

[The Clerk]

The committee has made a change to a line in the bill. Consequently, to avoid any redundancy or confusion, you would probably have to move an amendment to this amendment that has been adopted. You can still present your subsequent amendments, but you would have to adapt them to exclude the line that has been amended by amendment NDP-2.

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

I see.

Can you give me a minute? Since that concerns three amendments, you've just saved two hours.

This won't be long.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Where are we? Are we on amendment CPC-23?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're on CPC-23.

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

All right.

This is a very important amendment.

Mr. Chair, even if the Liberals adopt the bill as it stands, the fact remains that, despite the amendment we adopted on Tuesday, this is a kind of registry because the established concept is consistent with that of a registry. At the same time, I'm pleased to see that the Liberals have voted to add a line to the bill providing that this is not a registry, but, in actual fact, what is here will nevertheless stand.

I received a letter from a Calgary couple, Mr. and Mrs. Delamont, who had an idea for a way to simplify the process. We were short of time, we had four meetings, and we didn't really have enough time to do everything we wanted to do and conduct a good study of Bill C-71. Our travel was also denied.

Amendment CPC-23 eliminates the obligation to issue a reference number and requires only that the transferor's licence be verified as valid. That would be enough, somewhat as we have just done with amendment NDP-2.

Adding verifications and reference numbers is merely one way of restoring, once again, a kind of verification, a kind of registry—we'll call it what we want.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, CPC-2 clarified what this committee almost unanimously has understood from the beginning, which is that C-71 is not a registry. I welcomed Mr. Paul-Hus introducing that amendment. I think that because we accepted that amendment, what he's talking about here, frankly, and in other amendments that follow is rendered moot.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

From the standpoint of an argument, it may be moot, but it's not moot as far as legislation is concerned. As long as this is in order, it's in order, regardless of—

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

I meant out of order. By saying “moot” I meant that I think what Mr. Paul-Hus is talking about is actually out of order because of CPC-2.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Fragiskatos, I know this may be a disappointing ruling, but Mr. Paul-Hus is still in order, and it is not moot, notwithstanding what you and I might think about CPC-2.

Mr. Paul-Hus, do you wish to continue with your argument about CPC-23?