Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2023

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Just to clarify on “permanent”, if I transfer something to somebody—and you said “give”—they can give that back to me, so it's not really permanent. Is that right? You say it's permanent, but it could be transferred back and forth.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Because handguns are restricted firearms, you do have to register that transfer. Then, because of the regulations that were put in place and that came into force in October 2022, you would therefore not be able to transfer that back.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Then it's not permanent. It's because of a law that it's been made permanent. Thank you.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Who made the point of order?

Mr. Ruff, I apologize. That 11 seconds I just gave to Mr. Lloyd should have been yours, so I'll give you 20 seconds.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for my 20 seconds.

Look, if we can bring this forward further down in the bill, I'm good with that. I would just ask the clerks to draft this solution to it. If it's in the wrong part of the bill, that's fine, but if we're already past that part of the bill, I'm in a bit of a pickle unless the committee agrees and we're going to get the support for it that we can change it.

If I understood the officials correctly, that's what they're saying. Where we're trying to slide the actual change into Bill C-21, it's in the wrong spot in the Firearms Act. I'm completely open to having it fall under the ATT portion if we can still move that as an amendment later on in the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

I'm going to go to Mr. Noormohamed shortly

With the amendment where it is now, if we wish to go back to this amendment, we would have to stand the clause. We would require unanimous consent to do that. However, it seems to be the wrong place for it. If there is a later place where this would fit, perhaps an amendment could be drafted for that purpose and be brought in at a later time.

Mr. Noormohamed, please go ahead.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be very brief.

I just wanted to state on the record that, if Mr. Ruff were to find an alternative place for this, I think it would be certainly well considered. I really do appreciate his intention on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Are there any further interventions?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm just looking for where it needs to go in the bill. Can the officials provide what clause we should be sliding this into in the amendments? I don't think there's anything other than the preamble or the first sentence that needs to change in the language. It just needs to say it under the right part of Bill C-21, so it slides into the act in the right spot. Is that correct?

I'm just looking for that clarity from the officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm not sure if the officials can advise on this, but go ahead if you wish.

Then we're going to have to move to a vote.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

It would have to be a little bit earlier in the Firearms Act. Again, we would have to have a look at exactly where it would be, but it's a little bit earlier before section 28 of the Firearms Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

What we are constrained by is the order things happen in Bill C-21. If we vote past the point where it should go into Bill C-21, then we would require unanimous consent to go back. Anyway, I would advise you to talk to the clerks to see what can be done going forward.

Mr. Julian, you have some time.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I think where there's an expression of interest for unanimous consent around the table, it's just a matter of seeing what we can do. We'll be coming back to this tomorrow. I think there's some goodwill on all sides here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I think there's goodwill, except that it's unresolved what we should do. It seems it's the wrong place in the bill for this. I think we should vote on this amendment as it stands, although it is up to the committee if they wish to stand the clause and to vote on this in this place at another time later on.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Can I raise a point of order? My suggestion, just to be on the safe side, given the importance of this, would be to stand the amendment and the clause. That way everybody can feel comfortable if another place is found for it. At least then, when we come back to it, we know if we have found another place or not. Just procedurally, if there is goodwill, let's not have a vote on this until we know what the alternative is. Then people can weigh the alternative against the present amendment. If the goal is to proceed in a collaborative fashion to get to the result, I would suggest that course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Damoff, go ahead.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

To clarify, though, Mr. Ruff is going to have to work with the legislative clerk, law clerk or whoever it is to come up with a new amendment for us. It's not up to us or these officials here to draft something, so he would have to work with them to determine where it would go and what it would say. You can't take this one because it still mentions transfer. We're talking only about storage for a mental illness, so if he wants to work with them and is able to get something, that's fine.

I want to be clear that it's not the officials or us drafting this or finding where to put it.

We have no problem with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The decision we're faced with now is whether we send this amendment to be voted on later, which has been suggested.

Do we have unanimous consent to stand this amendment?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm sorry. I'm confused, though.

I thought officials said it wouldn't belong here. I'll tell you my concern. It's that we pass another clause later in the bill, two or three down, and that's actually where it belongs. I'm fine with doing that, but we may need to get unanimous consent tomorrow to go back to a clause if we've already dealt with the clause that deals with authorizations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

If that is what you want to do....

If we stand this amendment, we will come back to it another time. If we vote on this and move on, that's a different story. If we vote on this and it is defeated, Mr. Ruff can still potentially find another place in the bill, later on, where it might fit better.

The question remains whether we want to stand this amendment. I don't see unanimous support for this.

We will—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order on that.

Normally, if you were going to stand an amendment, it would be by majority. If there's something in the House orders that prevents us from standing the amendment without UC, that's another thing. Normally, if you were going to table an amendment, that would happen based on the will of the committee. Maybe it's a motion to table the amendment, or something. I'll look to the clerk on that.

Is there something in the House orders that obviates the normal rules on that, or are we under the normal rules in that respect?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's not in the House orders but, as far as I'm informed, we require unanimous consent to stand an amendment.

Mr. Clerk, you can speak, if you wish.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Unanimous consent is required because you are already on the motion to amend. It's a motion, and you can't have two at the same time. To bypass that, unanimous consent is needed.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Respectfully, any time there's a motion before the committee, a member can move to adjourn that motion before the committee.

I would move to adjourn consideration on this amendment. That would be a dilatory motion and—