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.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I just want to clarify a transcription detail. According to the English interpretation, I cited the date as September 21, 2017, but the year was in fact 2012. So I would like to ensure that the record shows 2012.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you.
I'm seeing no further debate on CPC-17.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
CPC-18 has already been shown to be exact to CPC-17, so CPC-18 is not dealt with.
We're now on to CPC-19, which is standing in the name of Mr. Calkins.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Mr. Chair, for greater clarity, this amendment is proposing that we amend the bill in clause 4 by replacing line 12 on page 6 with the following:
tion 29, to and from a business that holds a licence authorizing it to repair or appraise prohibited firearms or restricted firearms, to and from a gun show, to a port of exit in order to take them outside Canada, and from a port of entry. However, the authorization does not apply to a
To put it in the context of the legislation, this is very similar to the proposed amendment that was moved by Mr. Bossio and by my colleague.
I don't know that it needs a whole lot more debate, but given the fact that there doesn't seem to be any evidence at all to suggest that this is going to enhance public safety and will only provide an onerous step for the most scrutinized group of Canadians—law-abiding firearms owners—and given the fact that this bill is being sold as a bill for the purpose of public safety despite the fact that the department has no statistics to substantiate where it is going to increase public safety, we should return to the way things are operating right now.
That's what this proposed amendment seeks to provide: treating law-abiding firearms owners respectfully and trusting in their judgment. There are plenty of other provisions in law to deal with those who operate outside of the confines of the law.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate? Seeing none, we'll vote on CPC-19.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 4 agreed to)
(On clause 5)
We are now on NDP-2.
Mr. Dubé.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A concern has been raised about the issuing of reference numbers following verification of a licence in the case of the sale or transfer of a firearm between two individuals, a measure that we support. This concern stems from the fact that it should be clarified whether the reference number is associated with the verification of the licence or with each firearm.
This amendment will permit the issuing of one reference number per transaction between two individuals. This will guarantee firearms owners that the reference number issued will serve solely to enable them to validate that the licence was verified before the transaction was confirmed.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Chair, I agree with my colleague. I think this makes a lot of sense and allows for, as indicated, the multiple transfers of firearms legally at one time. It responds to the concern raised by Mr. Bernardo and Mr. Friedman at committee that individuals seeking to transfer multiple firearms need to get multiple reference numbers.
I would defer to Mr. Koops on this as to why we would draft this to require one reference number for every transfer, as opposed to one each time you want to transfer. If Mr. Calkins and I wish to transfer firearms back and forth, under what you're proposing currently it's that every time on the same day.... It doesn't say that, though. You're shaking your head no, that's not what it says...?
4:55 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Actually, I'm very pleased to have the question, because it gives us a chance to correct what has unfortunately emerged as a misperception about how clause 5 is drafted.
Clause 5 as drafted does in fact provide for the transfer of more than one firearm. The notion that has emerged that it is one reference number per firearm is not correct. It is in fact one reference number between a vendor and a seller, with no limit on the number of firearms.
At the bottom of page 6, it states:
A person may transfer a non-restricted firearm
It is not intended to limit that to a single firearm. There's nothing in the bill as set forward that would intend to require separate reference numbers for separate firearms. The number of firearms covered by a reference number could be one, it could be many, or indeed, as we've pointed out before, it could be zero, because it does not in fact confirm that the transfer took place. It confirms that the licence of the buyer was in fact valid.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I appreciate the explanation, sir. However, the fact that my learned friend would suggest that we actually change the language so that you can transfer more than one is the same question I would have. This says to me “a”, which generally in our English language means the singular. If you interpret this to be more than one, it goes back to the interpretation again and how this is going to be applied.
4:55 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I believe it goes to the Interpretation Act, in fact, but my colleague can explain.
4:55 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
I was just going to clarify. Under the Interpretation Act, words in the singular in legislation also mean the plural, unless there's a contrary intent in the legislation. That's the standard. It's standard drafting convention to say “a” to refer to something in the singular, but it would also include the plural.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I appreciate that. I didn't know that, so will a CFO or someone who is going to confirm these transfers...? We'd be naive to believe that on a weekend I'm going to go online, do a transfer, get a reference number, and buy a firearm, whatever it might be, and that we're going to get this reference number and there would be no further follow-up. The CFO isn't doing his job if he doesn't do some sort of follow-up on that.
Will that interpretation also be understood by the CFO that I didn't just transfer “a” firearm, but that I transferred a number of firearms in the same occurrence? Will they understand that? If that's the case, what harm would there be in adding clarity for those in our firearms community who have confusion about this already and who may in fact go and obtain numerous reference numbers when they really don't need to because they don't understand what that actually means?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
However, I think if you let Ms. Damoff have a moment, you might find that quite acceptable.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
In the hopes of speeding things along here, we support this amendment.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I have some questions that haven't been brought up at this particular point. Notwithstanding the goodwill here—I think we're going to be supporting this as well—I want a couple of questions of clarification.