Evidence of meeting #122 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chair, it's clear, precise and definite: the debate about Bill C-71 was cut short. We asked for more meetings in order to study the question in depth. The lists of witnesses that were submitted would have allowed us to study the issues, and this could have been included in the bill.
The debate was cut short and we had to move quickly to study the bill and get it passed. Now, other elements are being proposed that could have been included in the report, as my colleague mentioned.
I want to remind my dear colleague Ms. Dabrusin that Bill C-71, which is very technical, refers to certain firearms whose classification has gone from “restricted” to “prohibited”. From now on, under this bill this will be the RCMP's responsibility. Several technical elements of the bill are quite similar to what was submitted here through your motions.
Personnaly, I consider that my colleague's motion is good for Canadians, for the simple reason that these elements could have been included in Bill C-71 to make your bill more complete.
Now it seems as though you are playing politics. You wanted to earn points on the one hand; now you are presenting other elements to reopen the debate, whereas this could already have been done.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Speaking to Ms. Dabrusin's comments, a regulatory structure gets its permissions from the legislative structure, which means that the regulations can't do anything not prescribed in the legislation. Somehow to suggest that all of the things that are listed—and I'm not questioning the intent or the desire that this motion is trying to do. But if we don't actually address the legislation, the legislation cannot grant in regulation what is not prescribed in the legislation itself, which means to say that the regulations have to fall and get their authorities from the law.
I think it's only appropriate if we're going to look at straw purchases and other things, which I think might actually impact public safety, then we ought to bring back Bill C-71, make recommendations in the legislation and hear from more witnesses on how we could improve the legislation so that we can actually improve public safety.
This is a very backwards way of trying to make up for the shortcomings that many witnesses...some of whom had the privilege of testifying here, many of whom did not, but they still aired their grievances through other means. This is a backwards way of trying to address the shortcomings of Bill C-71. If we're going to take our job seriously, then why don't we bring Bill C-71 back? I would gladly hear from more witnesses on the issues of straw purchases. We only heard from the chiefs of police. We didn't hear from front-line police officers. We didn't hear from any vendors or retailers. We didn't hear from the industry association that deals with or covers the retailers or vendors of firearms across this country.
I'm in favour of the intent of the motion, but I don't see how, through Ms. Dabrusin's intervention, we can simply recommend that the government make regulatory changes for which the law is not prescriptive. It seems disingenuous.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, this is just a question. I'm not sure that it's established parliamentary practice that every time regulations are discussed the legislation is put back on the table. I'm wondering if the analysts would be in a position to comment on whether that's true and whether regulations are often discussed separately from pulling all of the legislative framework back up for discussion.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Legislation is the purview of the committee. To make recommendations suggesting regulations without having the law in place is foolhardy. It's a public relations exercise and nothing more.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I don't think the analysts are able to answer the question. I don't know that our clerk is able to answer that question. You can take from it what you wish.
Is there further debate?
Conservative
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
It's almost like.... We're asking researchers to find evidence to support a position. That's what you're asking there, rather than.... Could we not call on the government to research measures that look at firearms violations or that include gangs and guns and gun violence? That's opposed to a prescriptive correlation that you already have a preconceived position on as to its conclusion. That's an option if we're actually going to do a study.
And crickets....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there further debate?
Seeing none, we'll vote on Mr. Motz's amendment?
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I know exactly how it's going to turn out.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Are we done with the questions on the motion? May we submit amendments?
I'd like to ask a question.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
In paragraph c), you refer to restricted and prohibited weapons. Your wording leads one to think that there is advertising about prohibited weapons. But there is not.
Why did you use the word “prohibited”? The companies and enterprises do not promote prohibited weapons.
Liberal
