C-42 direction 3 ieme lecture.

De tres bon intervenant encore et in tres bon plus pour les proprio d arme.
Mes encore une vois la NFA na pas delivrer. Leur avocat ( solomon) in home pour qui j ai beaucoup de respect, ne sais presenter et je dirrais meme que le meuilleur intervening a ete Tony de la CSSA.

Merci pour le survey Lucky Moche que la NFA ne s'est pas présentée. Merci à la CSSA

Y'arrive quoi avec la NFA ??? C'es tu fini le problème interne ou pas encore ?

En fait, les problèmes ne font que commencer, ils ont mis des avocats dans l'affaire....

C-42:
Y faut que ça passe... Y faute que ça passe... Y faut que ça passe...

bon ,encore des troubles ,ca finira jamais.

Quelqu'un avait placé un lien pour suivre en vidéo ces débats, mais je ne le retrouve plus.
Pourrait 'on me le fournir à nouveau?

lucky7 a écrit:

De tres bon intervenant encore et in tres bon plus pour les proprio d arme.
Mes encore une vois la NFA na pas delivrer. Leur avocat ( solomon) in home pour qui j ai beaucoup de respect, ne sais presenter et je dirrais meme que le meuilleur intervening a ete Tony de la CSSA.

Ce n' est pas la 3 ieme lecture,

mais le comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale.

pour les invité c' est qu ' un cirque, ça change rien a rien a part des  virgule ou des mots changer dans le project de loi.

Pis la CSSA bien a jamais rien fait pour nous au QC, il travail pour les  autres province.( le passé, l'as bien démontré.)

COMMENTARY – BILL C-42, THE COMMON SENSE FIREARMS LICENSING ACT

(presented by Tony Bernardo, Executive Director | CSSA | April 30, 2015)

Brief to the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security at SECU #66

The Canadian Shooting Sports Association and its members support Bill C-42. It is the intention of this brief to draw the attention of the SECU committee to a number of areas that require attention or clarification.

1. CHANGES TO THE ORDER-IN-COUNCIL POWERS REGARDING CLASSIFICATIONS

It has been suggested to this committee that this provision creates sweeping new powers for the federal Minister of Public Safety and the Governing Council. This is not true. These powers were put in place with the inception of the Firearms Act created by the previous government. In that legislation, the Minister was granted the ability, through order in council, to put any firearm into the restricted or prohibited category. The addition of the new provision contained in Bill C-42 now levels the playing field, allowing the Minister to place firearms into the non-restricted category as well as restricted and prohibited categories.

As to the allegations that this provision moves authority away from the RCMP in regards to the classification of firearms, it must be pointed out to the committee that the RCMP never had that authority to begin with. This lack of clarity is a glaring omission in the Firearms Act, which provides for the classification of firearms, but does not state who has the authority to provide that classification. Clearly, with numerous classification errors over the last 20 years, it seems obvious that the RCMP does not possess the knowledge and technical expertise to unilaterally make these decisions with a guarantee of correctness to the citizens of our country.

This provision is an important tool to apply uniformity to Canada's firearms laws. Previous rounds of legislation have incorrectly classified many firearms and Canadians, in order to comply with our laws, have the right to expect consistency with our statutes. This provision is admirable in its attempt to establish a mechanism to provide that consistency.

2. THE MERGING OF POLs AND PALs

In the discussion regarding the merging of Possession-Only Licences (POL) and Possession and Acquisition Licences (PAL), it must be pointed out to the committee that those people that have Possession-Only Licences have had them continuously since 1995. Since that time there has been no new issuance of these licences. Enquiries made to the RCMP illustrate identical safety records between the holders of POLs and PALs. Empirically, the holders of POL licences can demonstrate that they have learned all the lessons of the Canada Firearm Safety Course. And of course, all new licence applicants must take the CFSC and exam. It stands to reason that all holders of firearms licences in Canada will have demonstrated and/or been trained in the culture of safety for which our community is well known.

The committee must also be reminded that all people who hold a firearms licence in Canada are subject to the RCMP Continuous Eligibility Program. This program, which has been in place for many years, actively cross-references every licensed firearms owner in Canada to every police computer in real time. Any licensed firearms owner whose name is entered into a police computer automatically shows up in the Continuous Eligibility Program for further scrutiny.

3. OVERSIGHT TO SECTION 58 (1) CFO GOD POWERS

Section 12 of Bill C-42 provides a potential limitation to the god powers currently enjoyed by Chief Firearms Officers (CFO) in Canada. Currently CFOs may make any condition to any licence or Authorization if they deem it in the interest of public safety. However, there is no litmus test as to what "public safety" constitutes. As currently contained in the Firearms Act, a 58 (1) decision is about public safety merely because the CFO, an unelected bureaucrat, says it's about public safety. When a bad decision is made, there is no appeal and no mechanism to override that decision. That these powers are given to an unelected bureaucrat is purely bad governance. No public servant should wield this kind of power over the law abiding without oversight.

C-42 places the most moderate oversight on the unbridled powers contained in section 58 (1). It permits the government of the day to override a bad 58 (1) decision by means of passing regulations. While perhaps the most cumbersome way that this could be accomplished, it nonetheless provides some measure of scrutiny over the actions of a Chief Firearms Officer.

4. SIX MONTH GRACE PERIOD UPON LICENSE EXPIRATION

Successive governments have expressed a desire not to expose honest firearms owners to criminal sanctions due to paperwork errors or omissions. For the mere failure to fill out a renewal form for your firearms licence, a person can be plunged into criminality without ever committing a real offence against our society. By the standards expressed by all political parties in Canada, this is simply wrong. Bill C-42 will enact a six-month grace period upon expiration. While the acquisition privileges for firearms and ammunition will be suspended, this period will permit people to bring themselves into compliance with the law without facing criminal penalties. Furthermore, the six-month grace period will permit Canadians to retain valuable (grandfathered) private property without fear of confiscation. In addition, the six-month grace period keeps Canadians who own firearms in the RCMP's continuous eligibility system. The previous system expelled the person from Continuous Eligibility when an individual's firearms licence expired, regardless of whether they retained possession of their firearms.

5. CHANGES TO AUTHORIZATIONS TO TRANSPORT

One of the more contentious portions of Bill C-42 is the widely misunderstood changes to the Authorization to Transport. The Authorization to Transport (ATT) is an obsolete vestigial document that hails from the days before firearms licences. When an ATT is issued, the information does not go into CPIC. In fact, the only person who knows an individual has an Authorization to Transport is the recipient and the bureaucrat that issued it. A police officer cannot access ATT information on the police car computer. Approximately 300,000 ATTs are issued each year across Canada.

When an Authorization to Transport is issued, it may be issued for any term up to the duration of the individual's firearms licence term. It is very common for an ATT to be issued for a 3-5 year period good 24/7 for transport to any Section 29 range (and other locations in some provinces) in the province of residence. This would permit individuals to transport restricted and prohibited 12(6) firearms to any range in the province at any time. This is how it is done now and there are no problems with illegality.

For border crossings, no firearms may be brought into the United States by a Canadian resident without completing a United States Form 6NIA application. This document is valid for a period of one year. Currently, the Chief Firearms Office will issue an ATT to border crossings in the province of residence for the corresponding one-year period.

An individual cannot apply for issuance of an ATT unless they have the necessary firearms licenses and registrations. Former Ontario Chief Firearms Officer, OPP Superintendant Chris Wyatt, stated publicly that during his tenure as CFO he had never revoked an ATT for cause and, in fact, could only recall one instance of refusing an ATT application. The individual refused subsequently challenged the refusal in court and won.

The obvious question must be posed. If there is a permit that no one can apply for without the qualifications to receive it and it is almost never refused or revoked ... what use is it?

Despite the positive changes to ATTs contained in the bill, there are still problems. For example, the bill does not permit the issuance of an ATT for the purposes of instruction. Yet Ontario and Quebec both require additional safety courses with live fire on shooting ranges. Instructors for these courses are routinely given Authorizations to Transport their firearms to various places for the purposes of instruction. Bill C-42 would provide for the issuance of ATTs to the very same ranges for the purposes of target shooting but not "instruction." This seems very counterproductive at best.

As well, the bill does not provide for the issuance of an ATT for the purposes of completing a transfer. To explain, it is necessary to understand that many transfers of restricted and prohibited firearms are shipped by mail. Aside from the obvious fact that persons working for Canada Post do not possess either firearms licences or Authorizations to Transport, an individual must get an ATT to take the firearm, securely packaged in accordance with the law, to a Canada Post outlet. Of course, it follows that the person needs an ATT to bring the firearm home from a Canada Post outlet.

Authorizations to Transport specify the firearm make and model, the serial number and the registration certificate number of the firearm; but nowhere on the shipping box does it say what is contained inside the box for obvious reasons. It stands to reason that for the individual to successfully receive an Authorization to Transport the firearm home from a postal outlet, they would need to unbox and examine the firearm at the post office, verify the serial number, the make and model of the firearm and the registration certificate number for that firearm before being able to correctly apply for an ATT to bring the firearm home. Needless to say, this would create tremendous disruptions at Canada Post outlets. Because of this, Chief Firearms Officers have traditionally turned a blind eye to the requirement to have an ATT. If the CFOs don't even want this, it should be added to the list of prescribed ATT purposes in C-42. It also stands to reason that it is no more dangerous to transport it to Canada Post to ship it, than it is to pick it up and transport it home. Authorizations to Transport, for the purposes of completing a transfer, need to be included in C-42.

The third item would be the ATT for the purposes of changing residences. This is one of the conditions an Authorization is issued daily across Canada. It makes sense to add this common occurrence to the list of lawful purposes attached to a person's restricted firearms licence.

To re-cap, we believe that C-42 should be amended to include the Authorization to Transport for the purposes of instruction, completion of a transfer, and changing residences.

The Canadian Shooting Sports Association supports Bill C-42. Our members believe it is a positive step towards fairness for lawful firearms owners and has absolutely no negative impact on public safety.

CRITIQUE OF BILL C-42:

The Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

Presented by:

Canada’s National Firearms Association

11 October 2014

CRITIQUE OF BILL C-42: The Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act Presented by Canada’s National Firearms Association

Introduction
Since the historic and public failure of the Firearms Act (1992 C-17 and 1995 C-68) and election of the Conservative Government in 2006, Canada has been the only nation in the Commonwealth to pursue any firearms law reforms by trying to address the egregious domestic gun control agendas perpetuated in the name of civil disarmament in the 1990s.

The ending of the "long gun registry" of Bill C-19 in 2012 broke over 40 years of political and legal stalemate that prevented any firearms law reforms from being enacted in the aftermath of each round of civil disarmament legislation that has been imposed in Canada since the late 1960s. Canada’s National Firearms Association has recently intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada to support the Federal Government in also ending the registry in Quebec.
The ending of long gun registration under Bill C-19 and the stated intent of the Bill C-42 demonstrates that firearms law reform has been recognized by the Government of Canada as legitimate and needed in the face of the past 40 years legislation of bad firearms legislation which has targeted regular law abiding Canadians and stripped them of their rights and property.

While Canada's National Firearms Association celebrates this political sea change with all other Canadians who believe in rights and freedoms, these reforms, although well intentioned, may create problems and do fail to address the most obvious solution to address the failure of Canada's firearms control system.
The failed firearms legislation of 1992 and 1995 must be repealed.
The CPC’s Bill C-42 has been in planning for several months, at least from December of 2013. Its introduction was delayed due to high-profile incidents.

The federal government's recent introduction of Bill C-42, ostensibly aimed at reforming Canada's morass of failed and ill-conceived firearms law, is the product of many months of consultation, review and debate that began last December. As a result of two high-profile incidents, introduction of the new bill was unavoidably delayed. Unfortunately, the bill delivered misses the mark by a wide margin and does not reflect the data which demonstrates conclusively that none of Canada’s firearms control legislation has affected crime rates. The recent well-known work by Dr. Caillin Langmann on the matter in The Journal of Interpersonal Violence (2012) is particularly persuasive on the matter.

There are some aspects of Bill C-42 which have the potential to provide some small relief from irritating bureaucratic processes; however, this bill does little to address the many significant problems with Canadian firearms law of which the government is well aware. Bill C-42 though marketed as offering “common sense” reforms for firearms owners, nevertheless contains significant problems which prevent the NFA endorsing it as introduced. The NFA supports the repeal of former Bills C-17 and C-68 in their entirety as the research demonstrates that the drop in crime rate has more to do with an aging population rather than anything to do with firearms legislation. Firearms laws do not prevent bad behaviour and poor decision-making, nor do they limit the extent of any ill-doer’s ability to cause harm.

Specific Criticisms

Easing ATT restrictions may help firearm users in Quebec, Ontario, and other jurisdictions where there have been significant problems with narrow ATT issuance. However, limiting these ATTs to the province of residence is unnecessary and creates an additional bureaucratic process in many places where ATTs were multijurisdictional. Section 63 of the Firearms Act provides that licenses and authorizations to transport are valid throughout Canada. For that reason and it is surprising that the government would choose to limit ATTs only to the province of residence in s. 19(2), which is in direct conflict with s. 63, especially when tying the ATT to the license. It is ironic that under the proposed process it will likely be easier to take a restricted firearm to and from the US than to a neighbouring province. Perhaps this situation represents confusion of the drafters between authorizations to transport (ATT), and authorizations to carry (ATC) which are limited to province of issue. Correcting this situation would represent an improvement to existing legislation and represent a significant improvement to the bureaucratic process as well as a cost savings.

The most significant and potentially divisive problem with the proposed changes to s. 19 (2) is that it makes it clear that the owners of prohibited firearms which are not handguns may not use them, and may only move them at all in order to change residence or transfer ownership. This issue is a major concern with Bill C-42. It is imperative that owners of prohibited long guns be authorized to transport and use these firearms for legitimate purposes. In the past, the refusal to grant authorization to do this was used to set the stage for the creative manufacture of grounds for confiscation of private property.

The "authorization to transport" itself is a document useless for any purposes of public safety and created only as a means to control and manipulate the legitimate ownership and use of firearms. It must be ended, and the only way government can do this by developing legislation to replace the 1995 C-68 Firearms Act.
In its haste to change the word firearm to non-restricted firearm, the drafters appear to have failed to consider that the word firearm is inclusive and non-restricted is quite limiting. The proposed limiting change to s. 23 fails to consider section 23 (1) (d) which includes restricted and prohibited firearms.

Giving the Minister clear power to change classifications from prohibited to restricted status may well be a useful step if it is used to remove the prohibited status of standard capacity magazines, and to start reclassifying firearms wrongly classed as prohibited as an interim step to eliminating the classification system. Even so, the wording remains problematic if this is the intent.

Under section 10, the change to businesses in the non-proclaimed section of the Firearms Act that affects information sharing between the registrar and a customs officer may well assist the firearms control system, but it will not be helpful to businesses, or their customers. On the surface, this may seem to be a logical and helpful step to curb smuggling and illegal importations, but this change also suggests that there will be an increased burden on firearms importers and increased onus on importers of surplus firearms, where firearms data supplied at the front end of the importation process may problematic when shipments actually arrive in Canada. Firearms importing is not always an exact science, and information sharing between CBSA and Firearms Program might result in a hostile investigatory environment where no offense is actually being committed.

An ill-considered aspect of the Bill is the requirement to eliminate the ability of people to challenge the exam to obtain a license by modifying the Firearms Act s 7 (1) b. In effect, this would deny people with alternate training from being able to obtain a license without taking a course and seems to run counter to the Government of Canada's stated commitments to northern and rural Canada. It would also present hardship to people in areas with few instructors and those in small communities or people with limited time from obtaining a license – a license required as a defence to a criminal charge. It should be pointed out that the license only exists due to S. 91 which creates the crime of possessing a firearm from the former Bill C-68. Again, the license is the defence to the criminal charge.

There is currently little infrastructure in Northern Canada and in rural areas to offer the course. In many places CFSC instructors are few in number, and the economic effect of requiring payment for the full course and the associated economic impact in having to travel to obtain the course will further punish those in rural areas, and actively discourage individuals from licensing themselves. This change should be removed from the Bill.

Section 58 of the Firearms Act provides that CFO's may add conditions to licenses and authorizations. The geographic limitations on authorizations to transport are conditions added pursuant to that section. C-42 does not prevent the CFO from continuing to add conditions to ATTs, except in the amendment subject to the regulations. This hardly represents a curtailing of the arbitrary nature of CFO power, and leaves open the possible imposition of a harsh system of regulations. Obviously, the Minister of Public Safety cannot micro-manage the Canadian Firearms Program, and this change will entail that that the minister will only be able to act after punitive or misguided policies are implemented by the CFP and the damage is done. Section 58 should be repealed completely.

The change of part 14 to s. 64 (1.1) of the Act regarding a 6 month grace period seems odd – if the intent is to remove the criminality of the offence of expired paperwork, why not make the license good for life, and thus ease all of the bureaucratic processes and cost that are associated with this controversial aspect of the law? Again, the license exists only as a defence to the criminal charge of possessing a firearm without one. Mandatory licensing coupled to criminal penalty for simple possession or ownership of property is wrong.

In part 18, the changes affecting the definitions in the Criminal Code, and thereby creating a narrow definition of non-restricted firearms, is a dangerous step to take that has the potential of creating several unintended legal consequences. Firearms currently considered non-restricted may well not be included in the chosen definition, and thus this is not a supportable aspect of the Act. Many of the sections appear to be intended to address the effect of this creating this definition and simplifying wording.

Part 19, affecting s. 91 of the Criminal Code (not Act, as written by the drafters) seems to portray an inconsistency of use of the defined terms in removing the inclusive word firearm and replacing it with the defined terms. The effect is to make the language longer and not improve the wording.

At Part 26, the maintenance of mandatory minimum sentencing remains an unacceptable limitation on the ability of judges to apply justice by taking into consideration the circumstances of the offence and offender.

At part 30s and 31, we find probably the most egregious aspect of this Act to be the amendments to s. 109 and 110. For even relatively minor offences, a person can be prohibited from possessing firearms for life. This seems on the face of it to be an unreasonable and excessive use of the power of the state to coerce for offences much less than intended by the original law. The law does already provide for a prohibition order to be applied for serious offences.

In addition to all of the above, the minor tinkering with s. 91 et al to improve the wording represents an unpalatable commitment to the essence of the Firearms Act in that it will remain a criminal offence to possess a firearm without the government license. Canada's National Firearms Association reminds the government that large numbers of otherwise innocent Canadians currently in possession of firearms do not have firearms licenses as a result of the failure of the implementation of the C-68 firearms licensing system. These Canadians will still be criminals if C-42 becomes law.

The only purpose of Section 28 of the Firearms Act is to limit and prevent the transfer of restricted/prohibited firearms. This is a clear violation of the property rights of the owner and should be repealed.
The prohibited class only exists as a means of removing arbitrarily selected firearms and other items from people which in effect removes their value to the owners and his or her heirs. It is imperative that the government should repeal the prohibited class and return the control of this property to the owners. At the very least, the government should remove the impediments to the use, transport, and transfer of these firearms and other items.
Section 67 of the Firearms Act has the purpose of removing arbitrarily selected firearms from use and circulation – the government should repeal that section.

Conclusion

In the view of the NFA, Bill C-42, while recognizing some important issues with Canada's failed firearms control system, takes little action to correct the many significant problems with Canadian firearms legislation. At the request of the Minister of Public Safety the NFA provided 5 limited aspects which would represent significant action to improve the firearms laws as an interim process towards repealing the ineffective and unnecessary former firearms control Bills C-17 and C-68. Those suggestions do not appear to have been considered in C-42. They are reproduced here for reference:
The problem with a list of five points is that it is like the rest of the Firearms Act – an arbitrary construct. Here are five basic points along the lines of recent letters that we have written that are relatively easy to fix as a start; however, these alone are not sufficient to resolve the many significant problems with Canadian Firearms law.

A relatively comprehensive list of five points might include, for example:

Decriminalize firearms possession (elimination of S. 91, 92 and related sections)
Extensively modify and eliminate prohibited and restricted classes, including rescinding of arbitrary clauses on barrel length and calibre that classify firearms, and regulations affecting magazines and other accessories such as stocks, as per our letter. Firearms chosen by appearance alone should especially be removed from these classes. This fix could be done easily without going to parliament merely by rescinding the former OiCs.
Eliminate punitive safe storage and transport requirements that have caused much grief to firearm owners in the absence of any wrongdoing. Storage matters should be a civil issue to be dealt with if harm occurs, not a criminal one. Education is the key, not criminal law.

Restructure Firearms Act enforcement so that there are no longer arbitrary powers granted to the CFO regarding the issuance of licenses and authorizations pertaining to the use and sale of firearms, or the operation of ranges or other firearms events. F.A. Section 58.1 should be rescinded.
Remove the administration of the Firearms Act from the control of the RCMP and so reduce the stigma associated with the ownership and use of firearms.

Those five would cover a lot of ground, but need to be presented in the context of an over-arching need to rescind the Firearms Act and its related regulations and redress outstanding problems.
The National Firearms Association hopes that this criticism of Bill C-42 is useful in beginning the process to correct many years of bad law.

La NFA n etais meme pas representer ou meme inviter au reunion devan le panel.

c' est un cirque se panel

quand auras lieu la 3 ieme lecture dans le futur , il y auras le vote , et ça seras final.

En fait, non.

Après la 3e lecture, ca s'en va au Sénat, pour 3 lecture et un comité, et ensuite Sanction royale!

gunguru a écrit:

En fait, non.

Après la 3e lecture, ca s'en va au Sénat, pour 3 lecture et un comité, et ensuite Sanction royale!

le sénat c' est encore un autre cirque qui sert a rien.

Étapes du processus législatif

Avis
Dépôt et première lecture d'un projet de loi  
Deuxième lecture d'un projet de loi et renvoi à un comité
Renvoi d'un projet de loi à un comité avant la deuxième lecture
Examen en comité des projets de loi  
Étape du rapport d'un projet de loi  
Troisième lecture et adoption des projets de loi  
Étude par le Sénat
Sanction royale et entrée en vigueur d'un projet de loi


PIS LA on est devant le comité,on n'est pas en 3 ieme lecture.

Les intervennants on tous passé.

BoomSticK a écrit:

coldshot a écrit:

Quelqu'un avait placé un lien pour suivre en vidéo ces débats, mais je ne le retrouve plus.
Pourrait 'on me le fournir à nouveau?

http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/in-committee-house-of-commons/episodes/38015075/

Merci!