PDA

View Full Version : SECU Meeting 118



RangeBob
06-05-2018, 09:10 AM
listening to : http://www.ourcommons.ca/webcast/42-1/SECU/118


The first motion was weird.
Obviously the minister can still make regulations, and the minister can even make regulations about restricted and prohibited.
The problem is that it takes the word 'non-restricted' out of the relevant section, which makes it impossible for the minister to use that regulation.

It's a twisting of words what happened there.

amendment defeated

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 09:11 AM
Next motion. About RCMP making determinations.
They're arguing that the RCMP are the experts, and yet the RCMP have to follow the definitions of the Criminal Code so it's parliament that are the experts because they defined the guidelines.

amendment defeated

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 09:14 AM
Next motion. Something about it having a statement that C71 isn't a long gun registry.

amendment unanimous yes

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 09:19 AM
next motion CPC-3.
Addition to classification process.
2.01 The minister may define a firearm is non-restricted, restricted, prohibited.
No order shall be unless manufacturer, and RCMP, and minister gives reasons in OIC.

amendment defeated
because contrary to intent of Bill because RCMP are experts, need unilateral, without oversight.
Mott says RCMP are not the only experts, and over the years have had issues.

Chair "There is a difference between privilege and courtesy."

YoungestPiperCub
06-05-2018, 09:24 AM
Next motion. Something about it having a statement that C71 isn't a long gun registry.

amendment unanimous yes

This one is actually good I think because it gives it in writing that it is not a registry. Court challenges later could point to this amendment as this law was put in place not as a registry.

Thanks RB for doing this.

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 09:25 AM
next motion CPC-4
Firearms Classification Board, that reports to parliament
Legislative oversight, a different wording.
Classification board, with people who are prohibited PAL, working in industry, teach a CFSC, represents indigenous
Their opinions would be published in Gazette, but minister doesn't have to follow.

Chair, may not be allowed, because requires Royal to create employees.

Chair, out of scope beyond the scope of the Bill, ruled inadmissible. No debate allowed.

was modified by another MP, as Motion CPC 4.1

amendment defeated

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 09:26 AM
This one is actually good I think because it gives it in writing that it is not a registry. Court challenges later could point to this amendment as this law was put in place not as a registry.

What if it's a registry enabler ?
Or a part of a registry (a database that when combined with other databases, creates a registry of what non-restricted make/model a PALer has)

Weekend Gunslingers
06-05-2018, 09:29 AM
Thanks RB, these updates are very helpful

YoungestPiperCub
06-05-2018, 09:30 AM
What if it's a registry enabler ?
Or a part of a registry (a database that when combined with other databases, creates a registry of what non-restricted make/model a PALer has)

Good Point. But what if the voted against it saying this is not a long gun registry. I would think that would be worse. Because then we have to believe them without it stating it. Ill shut up now so we don't dirty up the thread.

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 09:38 AM
clause 1 as amended. Approved on division.

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 09:42 AM
Motion CPC-5

background checks. duration (lifetime) too long. Labour congress prefers 10 years.

Pam Damoff: we don't agree with shortening the time. It must be lifetime. We don't support the amendment.

amendment defeated

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 09:45 AM
Motion CPC-6

10 years didn't work. We're going to go to 20 years.
20 years allows for the profile of the individual to have changed.

It's already the case according to the courts, somebody is seeking a licence they are checking lifetime. Contrary to what is claimed there is no difficulty in checking the background of an individual more than 5 years. Examples were brought up that weren't even criminal. It shouldn't be an automatic disqualification. Lifetime or shorter, it shouldn't be an immediate disqualification.

Lifetime seems too long. people make mistakes and change.

Mott: When someone applies for a firearms licence now, the CFO will check the CPIC.
RCMP: Their entire lifetime criminal history is currently checked for new PAL. Continuous eligibility is only looking at yesterday or the day before.
Mott: My entire criminal history is being examined, and then every day from that day forward, Continuous Eligibility, I'm run against CPIC, moving forward.
RCMP: You're not run against CPIC. There are 400 offences in the Criminal Code have UCR numbers, they can generate a FIP. They are generated for every single Canadian. CPIC will check that against the PALs. And forward to CFO. It's not us checking CPIC, it's CPIC checking us.
Mott: UCR codes are uploaded in almost real time.
RCMP: essentially yes.
Mott: So we already do a lifetime background check on criminality, going back to the beginning of a person's record. Then continuously thereafter. ... revoked?
RCMP: A FIP is generated and sent to the CFO. The CFO will look at the nature of the offcence and previous incidents to establish if a single offence merits consideration or is minor, or relatively minor but repeated over years is a patern of behaviour, or single offence significant such as domestic violence or egregious violence, may result in ineligibility for PAL. If a court issues a prohibition order it's not up to the CFO. The CFO will revoke the licence. The individual may challenge at a reference hearing.
Mott: If we understand how this works now, if we remove the ability for an error where someone doesn't have their licence taken away from them, should there be something mandatory removal? As opposed to where the CFO decides.
RCMP: Courts make prohibition orders, which skip revocation hearings.

Criminals who commit a murder, go to prison for life. But somebody who does something wrong in their youth, 20 years isn't long enough. We ask to have a background check to go back for life for murderers who get out of prison. Why doesn't 20 years suffice? C56 dealt with certain matters, and gave a second chance.

Pam Damoff: CPC-6 CPC-7 there's nothing in the act that precludes looking back a lifetime. It doesn't preclude you from owning it. Whether it's 20 years or 50 years. Returning ISIS fighters? To look at it for a lifetime, then a decision will be made. We won't be supporting CPC-6 or CPC-7.

Mr. Dubais: I support what my colleague has just said. We're talking about people who domestic violence, not just stealing candies when they were young. Discretion should exist. Somebody should be looked at in that context, a bad boy isn't the same thing as somebody who has been involved in domestic violence at age 30 and then at age 55 seeks a firearm. Somebody who is law abiding shouldn't be fearful about this kind of check.

? : We're giving them the ability to legally buy a gun! It comes down to just as simple as that.

Mott: There's no rules, no comfort, around that. The emergency room doctor said they're prepared to give their report to CFOs. A whole lifetime of checking to be done, moving forward that might have a different effect. Police records are expunged by law, and the records no longer exist. There might be a notation on a file that happened in the 1970s and that file no longer exists. Who makes that decision? A reasonable check is reasonable. Law abiding gun owners don't mind being checked. But what issues are being checked? How far back is feasible? What are they looking at, but there are so many unanswered questions. There is human error, and we don't trust that it will be done with a balanced approach.

Pam Damoff: The decision that's made by the CFO, is it subject to review by a judge?
RCMP : Yes, unless prohibition order

amendment defeated

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 10:03 AM
Motion CPC-7

50 years is a long time. 1968 was the FLQ. A lot of people will be taken off the list because of that.
And a lot of other people weren't even born then!

amendment defeated

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 10:04 AM
Motion CPC-7.1
Timeframes based on age. 40-year-old one time interval, 50-year-old a different time interval.

Pam Damoff: We want lifetime. We won't support that.

? : This is not indiscretions of youth like shoplifting a bracelet from a pharmacy. It's
Mott: But there's no provisions, no understanding, no limits. Whether you believe in a lifetime check or not. The devil is in the details, and there's no language to suggest how this might be done, and that provides significant discomfort to those around the country.

? : This is not about process. The person who is reviewing the file will do better because of this, because they'll have access to more information. [how? What information?]
Mott: We can go back as far as we want, but there's still human error. e.g. someone got a PAL who shouldn't. Should have shown up on CPIC. Should have shown up on FIP. Judgement error, we're still not going to eliminate.

amendment defeated

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 10:14 AM
Motion Lib 1

Pam Damoff: We extended the time, but didn't add the criteria.
Violence tendencies, entered into a recognizance (peace bond), risk of harm to themselves or another person, threats communicated by internet, social media posts of hate or misogyny
PolySuSuvant on line
Dr. Signor violence used, threatened, or attempted.
On line threat to themselves or others be included
Coalition for gun control threats to themselves or others, and mental health, addiction,
Dr Drummond (Canadian Association of Physicians) issue not access to firearms, but keeping firearms out of hands of people, science is very strong that firearms are related to domestic violence and homicide and suicide.

Elizabeth May: my amendment threats against an intimate partner. Ok to put it into Lib 1 as sub amendment.

? : support, but (d) 'has entered into' (past tense) changed to 'currently under'. recognizance may not have anything to do with violence.

Motz: peace bonds. One can be subject to a peace bond, outside of violence. It's important that we have proper language around what actually will entail consideration of a peace bond, perhaps via UCR codes. You can get a peace bond not to attend a business due to shoplifting, years ago. Currently has a peace bond, and violence involved in peace bond. If we can make some adjustments to the language we can support that.

Mr. Duvet: support. ... what happens on line ... I'm very happy to hear this amendment.

? : Is this not already covered in the assessment? Or is this something already exists.
RCMP: The amendment would add additional offences that must be taken into consideration. [more cost]

? : Indigenous peoples who have a peace bond, that would impact that community!

? : Mr. Fabricant at university years ago who ended up shooting someone over copyright. He could have had a peace bond, but didn't have one. Past issues should remain in consideration, not just current.

Pam Damoff: Recognizance only violence and distributing threats.
Pamela Clark: This subset would only affect domestic and property offences. There are others for serious injury. The others criminal organizations, forced marriage, terrorist organizations. This amendment doesn't cover those, just 8.10 which is threats against specific person's property or threats against a particular person. But other peace bonds would not apply.

Chair: let's suspend the this and next 4 motions, to allow modifications off line to reconcile the 4 of them and the issues.
Motz: CPC8 and CPC9 are also on clause 2.
Chair: suspend all of them against clause 2.
Pam Damoff: suspend for 5 minutes?
Chair: No. Ms May's is procedurally fine, but legally problematic for officials with contradictions, and a 5 minute isn't going to fix that.
Motz: We need clarity of 8.10's. We need to include a bunch more. Ms. May's includes more. My CPC 8 includes still more offences to include.
Chair: shall we move onto clause 3? Next sitting of SECU return to Lib 1 CPC8 CPC9.

Waterloomike
06-05-2018, 10:21 AM
Thanks ever so much for your diligence, intelligence and willingness to educate and keep us informed, RangeBob.

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 10:39 AM
Motion CPC-10
change 'individual' to 'individual or business' to several spots.

Official : Grandfathering applies to individuals. Businesses have until the end of June (this month) to decide what they want to do.
? : Businesses are collecting. Do they have to dispose?
Official : Separate existing regime for businesses.
? : Does that allow the business to own these prohibited firearms?
Official : Businesses with prohibited licences may possess prohibited firearms, but wouldn't be able to have the firearms grandfathered. Businesses with provisions to sell to police, may have prohibited firearms if they have a purpose to have them. Two different issues.
? : It would be redundant?
Official : We're talking about two different things.
Chair: Withdraw amendment?
? : I think this amendment needs to be in there.
Motz: The gun shop, not an individual, owns the firearms.
Motz: What happens to a gun shop, if the passage of this bill is after June 30th? What if he's in possession of illegal firearms then? Will he be compensated if they have to be destroyed?
RCMP : I can't speak to the legalities of it. The firearms would be prohibited, so the business would have to have a prescribed prohibited licence in order to continue to possess them.
Motz: If they don't have the prohibited licence, they'll have to destroy them. Will they have to be destroyed? What if the bill isn't passed within 25 days? It hasn't even gone back to the House yet.
RCMP : Section 11 of Firearms Act prescribed purposes subsection 2, authorize business to possess prohibited firearms for a prescribed purpose. That section is not opened up by C71.
Motz: A particular firearms shop may not have prohibited.
? : The CZ firearm is very popular non-restricted, will they get a prohibited licence due to them having a CZ? That's what we need to grandfather for.
Paula Clark: No, they wouldn't currently. ... Individuals are not allowed to get prohibited licences.
Mr. Duvet: Grandfathering is in current legislation.
Paula Clark: The bill does not deem the firearm to be non-restricted. The current OIC would be repealed, and the definitions in the Criminal Code would apply, and that's not a grandfathering regime. It's not a change of the classification, it allows possession of the firearm by the original owners.
Official: When a firearm changes to a more restrictive classification, if they have a provision that allows them to retain them then they can retain them, and if they don't then they must hand them over.

amendment defeated

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 10:55 AM
Motion 10-1
99.2.7.23
Oversight in bill.
Firearms grandfathered, didn't think of consequences. Firearm can be given by bequest or inheritance to son or daughter. I don't believe that was considered. When somebody dies what do you do with their firearms?

Official Koops: extend the grandfathering regime to heirs of estate. C71 that class of grandfathered owner does not pass on, just for the life of the owner. The intent of C71 that these firearms not be eligible to be passed on.

Motz: I know someone who father and son have CZ's now, so both would have a PAL with the CZ provision, so the surviving son could receive them because they have the requisite licence to own them. Why do they not have the qualification to pass them on.

Official Koops: Pre 1946 handguns (war trophies), may be passed on. The intent is that pool is fixed, and does not increase in time.
Motz: the pool wouldn't increase in time. It's fixed.

? : Could this type of transfer be dealt with by regulations?
Official : The bill currently has a provision to allow regulation to deal with grandfathering, but the current wording doesn't include a provision to allow firearms to pass to family members. The bill does not currently allow for regulations to allow this form of grandfathering. [seems contradictory]

amendment defeated

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 11:05 AM
Chair : extend the meeting?
Conservatives: I have to be elsewhere
Elizabeth May: I could stand in for all the Conservatives!

motion to continue the meeting: meeting extended.

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 11:08 AM
Motion CPC 11
June 30 2018 date .
The Bill legislation likely to be adopted after that.

Liberal: The date follows our commitment to transparency, so it should be retained without change.
Conservative: it should be a prescribed date, not a fixed date, because the work is not yet finished.
Conservative: We should not have people to live by a law that's not yet existent.
Motz: It's obvious this bill will not achieve royal assent by June 30. It causes confusion to set a date for something that hasn't become law.
Mr. Rearden: I don't know what happens if this date has gone by and we pass this Bill after that.

Official :The date would remain the same. It was intended to provide people, manufacturers, individuals, importers, etc -- warning. The intent of the bill was to cause the pool of owners to be limited to that date. Moving the date would create a larger ownership pool who may grandfather.

Conservative : The date should be around when the bill comes into effect.
Motz: Obviously there is confusion about a bill that may not become law until the fall, may not come into effect months afterwards. Is there confusion if someone is committing a criminal offence. It's reasonable if the bill becomes law before the date.

Official: No matter what date, it's not the date that causes the firearm to be prohibited, it's the passage of the law. The date is for the citizen to proclaim that they had the firearm.
Motz: If they weren't compliant, are the subject to criminal sanction?
Paula Clark: Amnesty Order goes to 2021, and that's independent of this bill. No criminal liability currently. If the bill doesn't pass, then those with non-restricted aren't in criminal risk for prosecution either. The June 30 date is a mechanism that firearms owners are in possession of the firearm as of that date [not register them?].
Motz: The June 30 date? It's only for possession of restricted and prohibited weapons.
Official : Just the CZ and Swiss Arms firearms
Official : With the intent that current owners are able for grandfathering, regardless of when this bill comes into force.
Motz: They wouldn't receive sanction until the amnesty order ...

Pam Damoff: By extending the date, you're allowing more of these guns to be imported and sold.
Official : Yes.

? : On June 30, given this bill won't have passed yet, will CBSA allow these firearms to pass the border?
Paula Clark: ... four seasons firearms ... If the bill doesn't come into force then the date is meaningless.
Paula Clark: they will come across the border until the Act comes into force, because until then they're non-restricted. The ones that are currently prohibited, may not be imported for sale.

[I missed the last few minutes. Motz was trying to figure out a situation.]



Grandfathered individuals — CZ rifle


(10) An individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the individual to possess one or more firearms referred to in subsection (11) if
(a) the individual possessed one or more such firearms on June 30,2018;
(b) the individual
(i) held on that day a registration certificate for one or more such firearms, in the case where at least one of those firearms was on that day a restricted firearm, or
(ii) applies, before the first anniversary of the commencement day, for a registration certificate that is subsequently issued for a firearm referred to in subsection (11), in any other case; and
(c) the individual was continuously the holder of a registration certificate for one or more such firearms beginning on
(i) June 30,2018, in the case where at least one of those firearms was on that day a restricted firearm, or
(ii) the day on which a registration certificate referred to in subparagraph (b)*(ii) is issued to the individual, in any other case.


Grandfathered firearms — CZ rifle


(11) Subsection (10) applies in respect of a firearm that
(a) is a
(i) Ceská Zbrojovka (CZ) Model CZ858 Tactical-2P rifle,
(ii) Ceská Zbrojovka (CZ) Model CZ858 Tactical-2V rifle,
(iii) Ceská Zbrojovka (CZ) Model CZ858 Tactical-4P rifle, or
(iv) Ceská Zbrojovka (CZ) Model CZ858 Tactical-4V rifle; and
(b) was registered as a restricted firearm on June 30,2018 or, in the case of a firearm that was not a restricted firearm on that day, is the subject of an application made before the first anniversary of the commencement day for a registration certificate that is subsequently issued.

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-71/first-reading

YoungestPiperCub
06-05-2018, 11:16 AM
Chair : extend the meeting?
Conservatives: I have to be elsewhere
Elizabeth May: I could stand in for all the Conservatives!

motion to continue the meeting: meeting extended.

WTF - Great! No one pro gun left in the meeting.....

Edit it seems like they are staying for now. Maybe just an empty threat to shut the meeting down.

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 11:32 AM
Audio ends.
They were proposing to have a meeting on Wednesday.

YoungestPiperCub
06-05-2018, 11:38 AM
Thanks for everything RB

I was confused at the end also. It sounded like Motz was trying to get at the fact that after june 30 but before the bill comes into law someone could buy one but not be grandfathered. It honestly sounded like there was a lot of confusion. That meeting was frustrating to listen to.

And why was May there????

YoungestPiperCub
06-05-2018, 11:40 AM
So currently as it sits nothing changed except it being worded to say this is not a registry.....

Also more discussion coming on the risk factors and checks. Was agreed to discuss again once reconciled all amendments to that section.

(Edit after clarification from RB)

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 11:45 AM
My first read of the Bill I thought that anyone who didn't have a registration certificate for a CZ before June 30, couldn't get one; and because they're currently non-restricted you can't get one.

My read of the Bill just now, it's talking about getting a registration certificate before the anniversary of commencement. Commencement means royal assent (says so in the bill). Anniversary would be a year afterwards.
So, how do you prove to the government that you possessed the CZ before June 30 2018, when you register it in May 2019?

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 11:47 AM
Also more discussion coming on the 10 year length. Danoff wants lifetime. 20 was talked about. Was agreed to discuss again once reconciled all amendments to that section.

That's incorrect.

The lifetime, vs 20-year, vs 10-year, vs 50-year -- all those motions/amendments were defeated.
See posts 11, 12, 13, 14.

The motion that they're reconciling is all the stuff Pam Damoff is adding to the bill, to list the additional things the CFO has to look into (over a lifetime), including recognizance and social media posts.

YoungestPiperCub
06-05-2018, 11:49 AM
That's incorrect.

The lifetime, vs 20-year, vs 10-year, vs 50-year -- all those motions/amendments were defeated.

The motion that they're reconciling is all the stuff Pam Damoff is adding to the bill, to list the additional things the CFO has to look into (over a lifetime), including recognizance and social media posts.

Thank you for the clarification. I got lost during that part. So it stays 10 but talk about extra factors?

Man Im glad I have my PAL now. Imagine how long the waits are going to be once they have to start creeping your Facebook etc.

YoungestPiperCub
06-05-2018, 11:54 AM
My first read of the Bill I thought that anyone who didn't have a registration certificate for a CZ before June 30, couldn't get one; and because they're currently non-restricted you can't get one.

My read of the Bill just now, it's talking about getting a registration certificate before the anniversary of commencement. Commencement means royal assent (says so in the bill). Anniversary would be a year afterwards.
So, how do you prove to the government that you possessed the CZ before June 30 2018, when you register it in May 2019?

That was my take away from that as well. Its a bit of a grey area. I think thats what Motz was trying to get sorted.

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 12:07 PM
So it stays 10 but talk about extra factors?

No, it's currently 5-years (see the PAL application form), but by court order criminal code stuff goes back as far as the CFO wants to look (i.e. lifetime, or whatever hasn't been purged from CPIC).

Bill C71 changes it to lifetime, and they're not changing Bill C71.

Nothing about "10 years" has been anything but talk, and was defeated.



And yes, they're going to add factors to the list of things to be considered by CFOs

Waterloomike
06-05-2018, 12:11 PM
Chair : extend the meeting?
Conservatives: I have to be elsewhere
Elizabeth May: I could stand in for all the Conservatives!

motion to continue the meeting: meeting extended.

If she is able to stand, make her stand on the corner.

Weekend Gunslingers
06-05-2018, 12:27 PM
clause 1 as amended. Approved on division.

Not sure what this involves. Can you please provide a brief description?

Soph
06-05-2018, 01:13 PM
That's incorrect.

The lifetime, vs 20-year, vs 10-year, vs 50-year -- all those motions/amendments were defeated.
See posts 11, 12, 13, 14.

The motion that they're reconciling is all the stuff Pam Damoff is adding to the bill, to list the additional things the CFO has to look into (over a lifetime), including recognizance and social media posts.

In short, adding more Big Brother stuff. Restricting rights further will get traction.

Grimlock
06-05-2018, 01:23 PM
In short, adding more Big Brother stuff. Restricting rights further will get traction.

An actual, direct assault on free speech. Proof of why the US has the first and second amendments, in that order and priority.

YoungestPiperCub
06-05-2018, 03:48 PM
Another meeting booked for tomorrow 3:30 to 6:30

shortandlong
06-05-2018, 06:14 PM
An actual, direct assault on free speech. Proof of why the US has the first and second amendments, in that order and priority.

Well something tells me they are going to be running to a certain online forum ...... if you think some politicians should be in jail no firearms for you.

I might have to sell mine

RangeBob
06-05-2018, 06:16 PM
clause 1 as amended. Approved on division.Not sure what this involves. Can you please provide a brief description?

They're doing a clause-by-clause of the Bill.
The first 6 posts in this thread were about clause #1.
Several motions/amendments to clause #1 were defeated, one was approved unanimously.
The one that was approved unanimously was that this was not a long gun registry.

So, "clause 1 as amended" means the one change that was approved, and none that failed. They voted on that.

Possible vote results
- defeated
- approved on division
- approved unanimously

'approved on division' means that some people voted for it, and some against. In this case it usually means that all the Liberal members on the committee voted for it, and the Conservative and NDP voted against it.