SECU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The Chair called Clause 1.
The witnesses answered questions.
On Clause 1,
Pierre Paul-Hus moved, — That Bill C-71, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 1 with the following:“section 2 or 84 of the Criminal Code or any regulations made under that Act.”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
“(2.01) Where a firearm that previously met the definition of a prohibited firearm, restricted firearm or non-restricted firearm ceases to do so, the federal Minister must cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament, on any of the first 10 days on which that House is sitting after the change occurs, a copy of a report explaining the reason for the change that includes any relevant information from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the manufacturer of the weapon.”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Matthew Dubé and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
“(2) Section 2 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):
(4) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Julie Dabrusin, Pam Damoff, Matthew Dubé, Peter Fragiskatos, Glen Motz, Pierre Paul-Hus, Michel Picard, Sven Spengemann, Arnold Viersen — 9;
NAYS: — 0.
“(2.01) Subject to subsection (2.02), the federal Minister may, by order, deem a firearm to be a prohibited firearm, restricted firearm or non-restricted firearm for the purposes of this Act and the Criminal Code despite the definitions of those terms in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.
(2.02) No order shall be made under subsection (2.01) unless:
(a) the Minister has received, with respect to a firearm, recommendations from the firearm's manufacturer and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and
(b) the Minister has caused the proposed order to appear in the Canada Gazette along with an explanation of the Minister's views on why the order is appropriate based on the information received under paragraph (a).”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
“(2.01) The federal Minister must cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament any recommendations received from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to whether a firearm is a prohibited firearm, restricted firearm or non-restricted firearm on any of the first 10 days on which that House is sitting after the recommendations were received by the Minister.
(2.02) The federal Minister shall not act to implement a recommendation that is tabled under subsection (2.01) if:
(a) fewer than 10 sitting days have elapsed since the recommendation was tabled; or
(b) a motion to the effect that the recommendation should not be followed was adopted by the Senate or the House of Commons.”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Glen Motz and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
“(2.01) A firearm may be deemed a prohibited firearm, restricted firearm or non-restricted firearm for the purposes of this Act and the Criminal Code despite the definitions of those terms in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code by order of the federal Minister on the recommendation of the Firearms Classification Board established in subsection (2.02).
(2.02) The Firearms Classification Board is established and, subject to subsections (2.03) and (2.04), is to consist, in equal numbers, of individuals named by the federal Minister and individuals named by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
(2.03) Only holders of a licence authorizing the possession of prohibited firearms or restricted firearms shall be named to the Board.
(2.04) In naming individuals to the Board, the federal Minister shall ensure that there are individuals who
(a) provide instructions in the use of firearms as part of a restricted firearms safety course that is approved by the federal Minister;
(b) handle firearms in the course of duties of employment; and
(c) represent various firearm users, including hunters and members of First Nations.
(2.05) The Board may make recommendations to the federal Minister as to whether a firearm should be deemed a prohibited firearm, restricted firearm or non-restricted firearm for the purposes of this Act and the Criminal Code. The federal Minister shall cause all recommendations of the Board to be published in the Canada Gazette.
(2.06) Proceedings of the Board shall be conducted in the prescribed manner.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Clause 1, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 2,
Arnold Viersen moved, — That Bill C-71, in Clause 2, be amended(a) by replacing line 2 on page 2 with the following:
“licence, for the first time in their life, under subsection (1), a chief firearms officer or,”
(b) by adding after line 4 on page 2 the following:
“(2.1) In determining whether a person is eligible to hold a second or subsequent licence under subsection (1), a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 74, a provincial court judge shall have regard to whether the criteria described in paragraphs 2(a) to (c) have applied to the person within the previous five years.”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Arnold Viersen and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
“shall have regard to whether the person, within the previous 10 years,”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
“shall have regard to whether the person, within the previous 20 years,”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
“shall have regard to whether the person, within the previous 50 years,”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
“shall have regard to whether the person, as an adult or within the previous 10 years, whichever is the longer period,”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
“(2) Subsection 5(2) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by replacing paragraph (c) with the following:
(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence and threatening conduct on the part of the person against any person;
(d) has entered into a recognizance under subsection 810(3) of the Criminal Code that includes the conditions set out in subsection 810(3.2) of that Act; or
(e) for any other reason, poses a risk of harm to any person.
(3) Section 5 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(2.1) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(c), threatened violence and threatening conduct include threats or conduct communicated by the person to a person by means of the Internet or other digital network.”
Debate arose thereon.
Arnold Viersen moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “has entered” with the words “is currently under”.
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That consideration of Clause 2 be postponed until the next meeting.
On Clause 3,
Arnold Viersen moved, — That Bill C-71, in Clause 3, be amended(a) by replacing lines 7 to 9 on page 2 with the following:
“(9) An individual or business is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the possession of prohibited firearms of a prescribed class if the individual or business”
(b) by replacing lines 22 to 27 on page 2 with the following:
“(10) An individual or business is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the possession of one or more firearms referred to in subsection (11) if
(a) the individual or business possessed one or more such firearms on June 30, 2018;
(b) the individual or business ”
(c) by replacing line 36 on page 2 with the following:
“(c) the individual or business was continuously the holder of a”
(d) by replacing, in the English version, line 6 on page 3 with the following:
“dividual or business, in any other case.”
(e) by replacing lines 26 to 31 on page 3 with the following:
“(13) An individual or business is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the possession of one or more firearms referred to in subsection (14) if
(a) the individual or business possessed one or more such firearms on June 30, 2018;
(b) the individual or business”
(f) by replacing line 5 on page 4 with the following:
“(c) the individual or business was continuously the holder of a”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Arnold Viersen and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
(a) by adding after line 19 on page 2 the following:
“(9.1) Despite subsection (9), an individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms of a prescribed class if the individual acquired one or more firearms of that class by bequest or inheritance.”
(b) by adding after line 6 on page 3 the following:
“(10.1) Despite subsection (10), an individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the individual to possess one or more firearms referred to in subsection (11) if the individual acquired the firearm by bequest or inheritance.”
(c) by replacing line 7 on page 3 with the following:
“(11) Subsections (10) and (10.1) apply in respect of a firearm that”
(d) by adding after line 12 on page 4 the following:
“(13.1) Despite subsection 13, an individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the individual to possess one or more firearms referred to in subsection (14) if the individual acquired the firearm by bequest or inheritance.”
(e) by replacing line 13 on page 4 with the following:
“(14) Subsections (13) and (13.1) apply in respect of a firearm that”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Paul-Hus and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
Pierre Paul-Hus moved, — That the Committee do now adjourn.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
(a) by replacing line 26 on page 2 with the following:
“firearms on the prescribed date;”
(b) by replacing line 1 on page 3 with the following:
“(i) the prescribed date, in the case where at least one of”
(c) by replacing line 30 on page 3 with the following:
“firearms on the prescribed date;”
(d) by replacing line 8 on page 4 with the following:
“(i) the prescribed date, in the case where at least one of”
(e) by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 5 with the following:
“(b) was registered as a restricted firearm on the prescribed date or, in the case of a firearm that was not a restrict-”
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the amendment of Arnold Viersen and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
At 1:31 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.