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.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
If I could, I'll add a point of clarification, because police officers were used as an example.
It is only with regard to authorizations under the Firearms Act that this would affect. Police officers hold their service arms not under the Firearms Act, but under their enabling legislation. If they hold firearms privately, they would be affected, but their service arms wouldn't.
Liberal
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Was that, indeed, one of the justifications made? This was a means to prevent somebody from being a police officer because they wouldn't be able to carry their firearm. That seemed to be what some of the testimony was saying.
What you've clarified here I knew, because military members and police members are not required to have authorization to carry. It's part of their job, so we're not talking about police officers and taking away police officers' handguns here. If they're a danger, there are other processes to remove them from the force.
I think I would trust the CFOs in this case to make the right decisions. I don't think taking away this tool is going to enhance public safety.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
Seeing none, let us conduct a vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
BQ-16 carries, which means that LIB-6 cannot be moved; PV-10 cannot be moved and NDP-13 cannot be moved.
That brings us to whether clause 36 shall carry.
Is there any discussion on clause 36?
Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Can the officials quickly explain for the folks listening at home what the impact is of this clause?
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Clause 36 establishes a new licence revocation scheme related to domestic violence and protection orders, going from the revocation in situations of domestic violence, revocations in cases of protection orders, notices for the revocation of firearms and the conditional licences.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Is this not already in place? In cases where somebody has been convicted of domestic violence, does the CFO not have the authority to revoke their licence or their access?
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It expands on the current revocations that are in place for the revocation of licences.
(Clause 36 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 37)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We have a new BQ-17. If BQ-17 is adopted, LIB-7, PV-11, NDP-14, BQ-18, LIB-8, PV-12 and NDP-15 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Madam Michaud.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment BQ-17 deals with delivering the firearm. It is very similar to LIB-7. In fact, the intent of both these amendments is exactly the same, but with different wording, so I prefer not to move BQ-17 and to vote for LIB-7.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Very well, BQ-17 is withdrawn.
That takes us to LIB-7. If LIB-7 is adopted, PV-11, NDP-14, BQ-18, LIB-8, PV-12 and NDP-15 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Madam Damoff, if you please.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thanks, Chair.
There was an error in the amendment that was distributed. In the French version, it says page 25, and it should say page 24, under (c). It's a typo that was done when it was distributed.
This, in essence, is ensuring that the 24 hours...or if that's not possible, that it's an extended period established by the chief firearms officer. We we want it returned as quickly as possible. However, if the CFO determines that someone is out of the country, they can extend that time to within something that's reasonable.
I do have a question for our legislative clerks, though.
One of the amendments later on that will not be able to be moved is dealing with that same question of “otherwise lawfully dispose of”, so BQ-18, LIB-8, PV-12 and PV-15 will not be able to be moved.
Can a colleague amend LIB-7 to include those words in this one? Can Madam Michaud amend LIB-7 to include the amendment that is in BQ-18?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm not sure how the wording would work, but in theory, you can have a subamendment.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
The problem last time was that we were told there was a line conflict, so I don't want to ask for unanimous consent again, and I suspect that if you seek it, you would find that Madam Michaud would love to amend my amendment to remove the words “or otherwise lawfully dispose of”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
You wouldn't need unanimous consent for that. She would just have to move it, I believe.
Before we do that, you made a comment about some errors in the text around part (c) of the French that was distributed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay.
You moved LIB-7.
Is there any discussion on LIB-7?
I'm going to ask if Madam Michaud would like to speak and potentially move a subamendment.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, I would like to move a subamendment.
Ms. Damoff, I would just like you to repeat exactly what you want me to take from BQ-18.
Thank you.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Essentially, you would be putting the wording from BQ-18 into this, if it's allowed, so the words “or otherwise lawfully dispose of” would be removed from (a) and (b) unless the legislative clerk says that we can't do that.