Evidence of meeting #66 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th 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
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm sorry Mr. Calkins, but I'm going to have to end it right there.
If you have a very quick response, go ahead.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I believe we already answered that we can't speculate on the reasons.
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
As an individual member of the committee, can I not ask a 10-second question?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
No. We have fairly strict marching orders from the House.
Seeing no further interventions that we can entertain—this is fairly extreme—we will conduct a vote. I'm going to assume we're going to a recorded division.
(Clause 29 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 30)
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Lloyd, go ahead.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I'm a bit confused about this one because, as I stated earlier, I believe the ability of the CFO to grant these authorizations to carry is already not valid outside of the province they're issued in.
Can the officials explain what the impact of this clause will be? Thank you.
Counsel, Department of Justice
I'll do my best to answer that.
I would direct the committee to clause 30, which proposes to amend subsection 63(3) of the act, which defines the geographic scope of an authorization to carry. Clause 30 proposes wording that would maintain the provincial limit on the scope of the ATC.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
This is a clause that basically affirms a practice that is currently in force.
Counsel, Department of Justice
It slightly rewords what exists in the act now, due to the division of responsibility between the commissioner and the CFO of jurisdiction, wherever that is. The language in the geographic scope section as it exists now wouldn't reflect ATCs issued by the commissioner. In order for this provision to catch both types of ATCs that can be issued, it's rewritten this way to maintain the same scope but ensure that it applies to ATCs under both paragraphs (a) and (b) of the act.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
That's a bit confusing. Can you maybe explain how this impacts someone who has one of the ATCs in question?
Conservative
Counsel, Department of Justice
Again, it's consequential to the division of responsibility between the commissioner of firearms and the CFO of jurisdiction. The wording as it is now would not accommodate that division of responsibility. It's simply accommodating the motions carried by the committee that would divide that responsibility. Otherwise, the geographic provision wouldn't make the most sense, given how the committee has elected to redraft it. This would fix what would become a problem were this not done.
Again, I would refer you to the existing subsection 63(3) of the act, which, again, has wording that would not accommodate the division of responsibility between the commissioner and the CFO of jurisdiction. If you like, I can read it.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Yes, please do. How does the wording not accommodate it?
Counsel, Department of Justice
Subsection 63(3) currently says that
Authorizations to carry are not valid outside the province in which they are issued.
When the commissioner of firearms is issuing an ATC, it's obviously not issued in a province, given that the commissioner is a federal entity. That language would tend to exclude ATCs issued under paragraph 20(a)—those by the commissioner—hence the rewording to accommodate both types of ATCs.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
The clause in question has 16 words. It says, “Authorizations to carry are not valid outside the province where the holder of the authorization resides.” That is straightforward, simple language that all of us who did our homework before we came here tonight already understood.
I think we've worked through a whole range of important amendments today and we've had a consensus. To the credit of the Conservatives, they've voted with all of the other parties to improve the bill in a whole number of places. In fact, most of the votes we've had tonight have been unanimous, which is great, Mr. Chair.
However, they're going back into this mode of filibustering and asking questions when they already know the answer. Clause 30 with its 16 words is one example, and having votes that we normally do on division.
What is the consequence of that, Mr. Chair? It means that the important discussions—we've had a number of them tonight, and we want to be discussing Mr. Ruff's amendments tomorrow—get pushed aside, because the Conservatives are not using time wisely. Time is something about which Mrs. Theodoro, who was my English teacher back in high school, said, “You know, if you lose a minute, you can't get it back.”
I regret.... We've had a number of periods tonight when the Conservatives worked constructively. We've really made progress. I think we've had consensus in a whole range of important areas. Now they're getting back into filibuster mode.
I believe, because of the provisions around ghost guns, that we absolutely need to move forward, so I'm going to offer another unanimous consent motion to extend the time. There's nothing in the order from the House that precludes us from meeting after midnight. If all parties are in agreement, I move that we extend to 2 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I think it would depend on the availability of House resources and I think we need unanimous consent for this.
Liberal
