No.
Evidence of meeting #67 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.
Evidence of meeting #67 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.
10:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
10:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That being the case, is there any further discussion?
Next is Mr. Lloyd, please.
10:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I for one was very interested in what Mr. Blois had to say. A Liberal perspective from rural Canada is an increasingly rare thing to hear these days in the halls of Parliament. I thought hearing something like that would have been a very interesting thing. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party muzzled their own member and wouldn't let him speak, but we are where we are.
This is not a move about public safety. I understand the Danforth families and I feel for them. Ms. Damoff was correct. It was a legal firearm in the hands of a killer, and it was stolen from a gun-shop, but we have an epidemic of smuggled firearms on the street. If it hadn't been a gun stolen from a gun-shop, it would have been a gun smuggled in from the United States. These criminals are determined to get these firearms, and despite our best efforts they are getting them, and more needs to be done.
Mr. Chair, am I able to offer my time to Mr. Blois?
10:50 p.m.
Liberal
10:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Okay. Well, I'll just continue with what I have to say.
May 11th, 2023 / 10:50 p.m.
Conservative
10:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
On a point of order, does the clerk have any perspective on that?
10:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The House order requires unanimous consent to extend debate on amendments.
10:50 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Can we cede our time, like a minute of our time? We quite often share during committee questions.
10:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
With unanimous consent, we can do pretty much anything.
Do we have unanimous consent for some of the Conservative time to be used by Mr. Blois?
10:50 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Could we just suspend for a couple of minutes, Chair?
10:50 p.m.
Liberal
11 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The meeting is resumed.
The Conservatives have offered to give some of their time to Mr. Blois. I believe, if we have unanimous consent, we can do that.
Do we have unanimous consent?
11 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
11 p.m.
Liberal
11 p.m.
Liberal
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As you recognized, I am not a permanent member of this committee, so I didn't have the benefit of hearing all the testimony the members have heard throughout the study on Bill C-21 and, of course, on the proposed amendments. However, I want to give a perspective from my riding.
I certainly appreciate where Ms. Damoff is coming from and the idea that, if we open up exemptions too far, it could undermine the government's policy intention. I recognize it and appreciate it. I embrace the fact that we come from different parts of the country with different lived experiences and that we may approach this issue differently.
Let me be very clear: This bill has a number of very important measures and we need to get it through Parliament, because it would make a difference for public safety. However, I would be remiss not to speak to Mr. Julian's amendment, because I think there is merit in it. Whether it's through this amendment or not, I hope the government will consider ways to allow those competing competitively in other disciplines that are not Olympic sport shooting...such that there is recourse.
I will give you an example. Our former warden in the municipality of East Hants is Jim Smith. He appeared before this committee. He represents Canada and participates around the world in IPSC-related events. One of his colleagues was just representing Canada and lost a handgun. Air Canada, the airline, actually lost the gun. Right now, there's no recourse for that gentleman to obtain a new handgun and continue to compete.
There's a tension on both sides of this. I heard about the idea of a pile-on and I think that is legitimate. I think that has to be examined before we can move forward. However, at the same time, as Mr. Julian talked about, this is an internationally federated body. If there is one organization outside of Olympic shooters this committee and indeed this government should consider, I think it's IPSC.
Mr. Julian went to great lengths, I think, borrowing from some of the work Mr. MacGregor did, to highlight that [Technical difficulty—Editor].
11 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Stop the time. We seem to have a technical difficulty. I think we've lost him.
Mr. Blois, you're back. You have one minute and 20 seconds left.
11:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
The Tories are going to have fun with this one. They're going to make it look like my video somehow got cut.
Mr. Chair, I want to make sure this is on the record. I appreciate where the government is trying to go with some of these elements, but I think this has to be examined. It will be interesting to see whether this goes back to third reading in the House or it can be a regulatory measure.
I don't want to penalize those who are actively competing or have a situation, whether or not it's a lost gun.... You can appreciate these folks who shoot quite often. Sometimes their guns will just wear down and break. We have to have a provision for those who are gun owners today and who are continuing to compete so that if something happens, they have some recourse. I don't know the bill to that extent. I look forward to studying it prior to third reading to a greater extent, once we get through the amendments, but I want to make sure that perspective is on the table.
Again, I've raised it. I'm part of a team. I like what the government is doing on a lot of measures, but this one is a bit difficult. I hope that moving forward, there can be recourse, as Mr. Julian talked about.
Thank you.
11:05 p.m.
Liberal
11:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I just want to say that Mr. Blois brought up some very good points. Yes, this is a very punitive measure by the government. If indeed we pass this amendment by Mr. Julian and we find in a year or two that this is being used by criminals to threaten public safety, then let's revisit it.
At this time, there is no evidence that this is a threat to public safety, so the Conservatives will be in support of this amendment.
11:05 p.m.
NDP
11:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Okay. I have two points.
First off, the next NDP amendment prescribes “minimum participation requirements for training, competing and coaching” in these disciplines. There's a very tight framework around this.
Second, we are talking about a handgun freeze being put into place. Handgun bans in other countries still allow for participation in IPSC. I would suggest that we're not at the standard of countries like the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, which have handgun bans, yet they have found provisions for an exemption for IPSC.
I understand the arguments against. I think we have to go with best practices. I think countries that have put into place a ban, which Canada is not doing, have allowed for exemptions for IPSC. I think that is a best practice and it makes logical sense to follow it.
11:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
I believe there is no more discussion.
Let us call the vote. We will have a recorded division.
