Public Safety Committee on May 11th, 2023

[An hon. member]

It's a tie vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Well, that's unfortunate.

I know the tradition is that the chair votes to extend debate. I'm not really sure how that works in this case, so I'm going to vote no.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That takes us to NDP-19.

Mr. Julian, go ahead, if you please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Heeding the words of Mr. Blois and the idea of having “prescribed minimum participation requirements for training, competing and coaching” in these disciplines, as I've mentioned, other countries have exemptions for rigorous participation in sport shooting. Those countries have handgun bans. We have a handgun freeze. It seems to me that to have the government hear what Mr. Blois and others have been saying about the possibility of putting in place regulations that allow for future Olympians to participate makes sense, so I would suggest that NDP-19....

Mr. Chair, we've just had the closest vote on this issue that we've seen throughout this entire saga of a year now for Bill C-21. It was a tie vote that you had to break. I'm sure it was a difficult position you were in, but I think that is a message to the government.

This amendment would provide for some framework around the government to potentially look at the message they are receiving at the committee tonight from members of three of the four parties. I would suggest that adopting NDP-19 would allow for that rigorous framework, but would also allow for the government to perhaps examine, through regulation, how they might look at some of the issues that have come up around sport shooting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Is there any discussion on NDP-19?

Ms. Damoff.

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

Chair, we won't be supporting this amendment for the same reasons that I said before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Lloyd.

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

I'm a bit confused. I thought that this amendment needed the previous amendment to pass in order for this amendment to apply.

Is this a stand-alone amendment, Mr. Julian? I'm just wondering how this, as a stand-alone amendment, achieves what it's trying to achieve.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Julian, do you wish to respond?

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

It opens the door for the government to look at regulation prescribed on minimum participation requirements.

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

I think you're giving a great deal of deference to the government to decide. You would think the government would be willing to give itself the power to decide.

I always think that prescribing these things in legislation is a clumsy way of doing things. As we know, things don't always play out cleanly when they're written down. Situations change. The names of organizations change. Mr. Kram was just talking about how Olympic sports will change over time.

However, generally I think Conservatives aren't against this amendment, and so we will be voting in favour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

Seeing none, I guess we shall conduct the vote.

I'm told that a hand-waving vote doesn't really work—it's against the House rules we set up way back when—so we're going to do a voice vote.

Actually, I think we'll have to have a recorded division on this.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

On a point of order, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

It's somewhat a point of information. I know we've found a great deal of success at other committees that if it doesn't pass on division, you just go to a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Well, that's a good approach.

Right now, I think we'll just go to a recorded vote, because I think we're going to need it.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 43 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 44)

That takes us to CPC-24.

Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd.

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

I'll move this on behalf of Ms. Dancho.

I believe it's in the bill about advertising of firearms. There was some concern by the government that this was somehow leading to violence.

Conservatives wanted to put forward this amendment because we don't want to have any unintended consequences. For example, in the film industry, there are certainly images of people getting shot and the advertising of that. We wouldn't want to penalize the film industry, or the Canadian Forces or public safety personnel.

I'd be interested to hear what the government has to say about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Damoff.

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

Chair, overall, we support it. I just wonder whether the Conservatives would consider an amendment. It's adding the words “in their usual course of business”.

I'll just read the whole thing, Chair: “Subsection (1) does not apply to persons or businesses that advertise, in their usual course of business, directly to or on behalf of the film industry, the Canadian Forces or public safety personnel.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

There is an amendment on the floor.

Is there any discussion on this amendment?

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

If I'm hearing it right, the “usual course of business” is what you've requested to be added. What do you mean by “usual course of business”? I'm sorry to ask you.

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

Here's the thinking I had on that: You mentioned the film industry, for example. If there's a company that is advertising to the film industry, it would be during the normal course of business to be advertising to the film industry; if it was just Joe that set up to advertise something and it's not his normal business, then he wouldn't be allowed to advertise. It wouldn't be a company that would normally be in this business.

I don't think that weakens it at all, Dane. I think it's just clarifying that this is their normal business that they're advertising to the film industry or to the Canadian Forces or to Public Safety. It's not somebody who sells widgets and then decides to just do the advertising. It's meant to clarify, not to weaken it in any way at all.

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

Okay. Well, this might be the only Conservative amendment that gets passed, but I will support this. I think it could be a friendly subamendment and I guess we'll see how it plays out in the legislation, should it pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like the officials to tell me how they think this can be translated into French:

“in their usual course of business”