Bill C-21

An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) increase, from 10 to 14 years, the maximum penalty of imprisonment for indictable weapons offences in sections 95, 96, 99, 100 and 103;
(b) establish a regime that would permit any person to apply for an emergency prohibition order or an emergency limitations on access order and allow the judge to protect the security of the person or of anyone known to them;
(c) deem certain firearms to be prohibited devices for the purpose of specified provisions;
(d) create new offences for possessing and making available certain types of computer data that pertain to firearms and prohibited devices and for altering a cartridge magazine to exceed its lawful capacity;
(e) include, for interception of private communications purposes, sections 92 and 95 in the definition of “offence” in section 183;
(f) authorize employees of certain federal entities who are responsible for security to be considered as public officers for the purpose of section 117.07; and
(g) include certain firearm parts to offences regarding firearms.
The enactment also amends the Firearms Act to, among other things,
(a) prevent individuals who are subject to a protection order or who have been convicted of certain offences relating to domestic violence from being eligible to hold a firearms licence;
(b) transfer authority to the Commissioner of Firearms to approve, refuse, renew and revoke authorizations to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) of the Act;
(c) limit the transfer of handguns only to businesses and exempted individuals and the transfer of cartridge magazines and firearm parts;
(d) impose requirements in respect of the importation of ammunition, cartridge magazines and firearm parts;
(e) prevent certain individuals from being authorized to transport handguns from a port of entry;
(f) require a chief firearms officer to suspend a licence if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the licence holder is no longer eligible for it;
(g) require the delivery of firearms to a peace officer, or their lawful disposal, if a refusal to issue, or revocation of, a licence has been referred to a provincial court under section 74 of the Act in respect of those firearms;
(h) revoke an individual’s licence if there is reasonable grounds to suspect that they engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking or if they become subject to a protection order;
(i) authorize the issuance, in certain circumstances, of a conditional licence for the purposes of sustenance;
(j) authorize, in certain circumstances, the Commissioner of Firearms, the Registrar of Firearms or a chief firearms officer to disclose certain information to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of an investigation or prosecution related to the trafficking of firearms;
(k) provide that the annual report to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness regarding the administration of the Act must include information on disclosures made to law enforcement agencies and be submitted no later than May 31 of each year; and
(l) create an offence for a business to advertise a firearm in a manner that depicts, counsels or promotes violence against a person, with a few exceptions.
The enactment also amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to, among other things,
(a) provide nuclear security officers and on-site nuclear response force members with the authority to carry out the duties of peace officers at high-security nuclear sites; and
(b) permit licensees who operate high-security nuclear sites to acquire, possess, transfer and dispose of firearms, prohibited weapons and prohibited devices used in the course of maintaining security at high-security nuclear sites.
The enactment also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to
(a) designate the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness as the Minister responsible for the establishment of policies respecting inadmissibility on grounds of transborder criminality for the commission of an offence on entering Canada;
(b) specify that the commission, on entering Canada, of certain offences under an Act of Parliament that are set out in the regulations is a ground of inadmissibility for a foreign national; and
(c) correct certain provisions in order to resolve a discrepancy and clarify the rule set out in those provisions.
Finally, the enactment also amends An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms so that certain sections of that Act come into force on the day on which this enactment receives royal assent.

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been clear since the bill was first introduced that the Conservative Party had no interest in advancing this transformational legislation. Rather than asking relevant questions of officials, last week Conservative members of the committee spent over three hours of the committee's time parroting the speaking points of the gun lobby. In addition to their previous obstruction tactics, this made it clear that the committee was going to be bogged down with unnecessary delays and that it would take not months but years, at that pace, to see the bill reported back to the House.

In fact, the NDP member for New Westminster—Burnaby asked twice for unanimous consent to add 20 hours to the clause-by-clause study of the bill and was twice denied by the Conservative Party. I did the calculation. We are meeting for three hours at the public safety committee tomorrow. In this motion, we are seeking eight and a half hours for two days, which is the equivalent of the committee meeting until June 15 if we were to hold regular meetings.

Non-partisan government officials received death threats due to their appearance at committee as they provided technical advice on the bill, which underscores why it is critical to complete clause-by-clause promptly.

That is why this motion is important today. When I talk about death threats and intimidation, that is something I have been subject to from the gun lobby since 2019, when I first spoke out during the debate on Bill C-71. I have received threats and intimidation, and these are a lot more than “mean tweets”, as the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights calls them. Twice my riding was targeted by the gun lobby, when it visited my riding in 2019 and 2021, and twice the constituents of Oakville North—Burlington have stood up for gun control and the work that we are doing in this House and sent me back to Ottawa in spite of the intimidation tactics that the gun lobby has tried to use against me.

Working in this place as an MP is a privilege I do not take lightly. I have had the opportunity to work on many issues since I was elected, and one that I am most proud of is the actions our government has taken to prevent gun violence. I was elected to this place for the first time in 2015. When one is elected as an MP, a number of things happen very quickly. One learns about the functioning of the House, as one of 338 Canadians who have the privilege to take a seat at the centre of democracy. I was not expecting to be placed on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but I am grateful every day that this is where the whip chose to put me. I have worked hard to learn the file and advocate on difficult subjects, knowing that the issues the public safety committee deals with are ones that fundamentally shape our country, and that our work on it is fundamentally about building a better, safer and fairer Canada: questions surrounding systemic racism and the oversight of law enforcement; how to build a corrections system that upholds human rights and prioritizes rehabilitation; implementing needed safeguards to protect our national security from hostile foreign actors; and, yes, gun control.

Today, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security since 2016, I would like to share the context of where we were, where we are now, where we can go with the passage of Bill C-21, and why it is important to expand the scope of the bill and pass it in a timely matter.

In 2019, Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms, received royal assent. Through Bill C-71, our government introduced mandatory lifetime background checks for anyone who applies for a licence to purchase and own firearms, increasing the previous regime from a five-year background check. It also updated the Firearms Act to the modern age by requiring the chief firearms officer to look at a firearms licence applicant's online behaviour for signs of violence when making a determination on whether an individual is eligible to hold a licence. The legislation also required people in businesses to have proof that they are selling non-restricted firearms only to those who are lawfully licensed to possess one. It ensured that when a court issues a prohibition against a person from owning a firearm, the weapon is forfeited to the Crown, instead of giving an individual the ability to give the firearms to a friend or family member. This ensures that those who should not have access to firearms do not.

These measures improved public safety and ensured that those who enjoy the privilege of firearm ownership meet the test of a rigorous licensing regime. At the time, the Conservatives delayed the bill at committee and eventually voted against it in the House.

While many refuse to talk about it, gun control is a women's issue. The Canadian Women's Foundation notes that the presence of firearms in Canadian households is the single greatest risk factor for the lethality of intimate partner violence. Access to a firearm increases the likelihood of femicide by 500%. The Ontario coroner's death review panel said that 26% of women who were killed by their partner were killed using a firearm.

In speaking with groups like the Lethbridge YWCA, they have told me that every single woman who came to their shelter had been threatened by a partner with a firearm. These are among the nearly 2,500 women victimized in this way over the past five years. Intimate partner violence accounts for nearly 30% of all police-reported violent crime in Canada. That number has risen during the pandemic. In my riding and across the country, local organizations like Halton Women's Place are helping shine a brighter light on the dangers of gun violence.

Over the last eight years, we as a country have also become more aware of the role that coercive control plays in abusive relationships. When we add firearms to the mix, it is a recipe for continued physical, emotional and psychological abuse. In fact, coercive control, when a man uses a gun to control women without ever pulling the trigger, is real and happening right now.

An Oakville resident sent me an email that stated, “Let me just say that you can endure the physical and emotional abuse, but when he pulls our a double-barrelled shotgun, loads it and tells you he is going to kill you, then you know true terror! Thank you for looking out for the victims before they become statistics.”

Our government has been advocating, and will continue to advocate, for women, and through Bill C-21, we would be taking additional steps to support survivors of intimate partner violence who have been threatened with or on the receiving end of violence with a firearm.

Bill C-21 would introduce new red and yellow flag laws, allowing courts to remove guns from and suspend the licence of people who pose a danger to themselves or others and would ensure that those individuals subject to a protection order have their firearms licence revoked. Bill C-21 would mark an important next step in removing guns from the hands of abusive partners.

In addition to the creation of these new red flag provisions, Public Safety Canada will establish a program to help raise awareness among victims about how to use the newly proposed provisions and protections. A guide about how to submit an application to the courts and the protections available could be developed, and the program could fund services to support individuals' applications throughout the court process. It would support vulnerable and marginalized groups, including women, people with mental health issues, indigenous groups and other racialized communities, to make certain that the red flag laws would be accessible to all, particularly those who may need it most.

The government will make available $5 million through a contribution program to ensure support and equitable access.

Enhanced licensing and the creation of additional tools for survivors of intimate partner violence is just one way our government would implement stringent gun control that prioritizes public safety, while still respecting those who own and use firearms.

I would like to take a moment to take us back to April 2020 and the tragedy that unfolded in Portapique, Nova Scotia, where 22 innocent lives were lost over the course of a weekend rampage. We were all shocked and heartbroken. As we learned the identities of the victims of these terrible crimes, we were reminded of the tragic impact that gun violence could have on all of our communities, urban and rural, from coast to coast to coast. Mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbours were taken from us in a terrible violent way, and far too soon.

Gun violence is not a new thing in our society, but it is made all the more deadly with the proliferation of firearms that are more powerful than ever before. Assault-style firearms, those that were not designed for hunting or sport shooting, have become more and more prevalent in our Canadian retail market. For as long as these guns have existed, they have been capable of inflicting tremendous damage when they fall into the wrong hands.

For decades, chiefs of police, advocacy groups, grieving families and everyday Canadians have called for a ban on these types of firearms, guns that were designed to kill people, intended in their purpose to kill people in the fastest time, and have been used in Canada to kill innocent people.

Canadians have been calling upon successive governments for reform, for stronger gun control. In May 2020, we took additional action through an order in council to ban over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms, including the AR-15.

As retired U.S. Major General Paul Eaton has said, “For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war.” These weapons were designed for the battlefield and have no place on Canadian streets.

Through Bill C-21, we are building on the work done in 2020 to offer a prospective technical definition to ensure that in addition to the weapons banned in 2020, no future similar weapons would ever be able to make it into the Canadian market. It responds to recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission.

Doctors for Protection from Guns called the definition “A victory for science, public health, and Canadian values...to permanently ban future models of assault weapons.”

Dr. Najma Ahmed said, “As a trauma surgeon I can say there is no greater damage done to the human body than that from semi-automatic assault weapons. I invite any Member of Parliament who denies this reality to join me in the operating room.”

This scoping motion before us today would ensure that this technical definition could be included in Bill C-21.

That brings us to where we are today. Bill C-21 puts forward some of the strongest gun control measures in over 40 years. These new measures include implementing a national freeze on hand guns to prevent individuals from bringing newly acquired hand guns into Canada and from buying, selling and transferring hand guns within the country, a freeze which through regulations has been in effect since October 2022; taking away the firearms licenses of those involved in acts of domestic violence or criminal harassment, such as stalking; and fighting gun smuggling and trafficking by increasing criminal penalties, providing more tools for law enforcement to investigate firearms crimes and strengthening border security measures.

Over 75% of firearm deaths in our country are by suicide, and there are provisions in the bill to help medical professionals and others ensure that firearms do not remain in the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others.

The new amendments that are outlined in the scoping motion before us include tackling ghost guns, guns that are privately manufactured, or 3-D printed. This is probably one of the most important things we can do for law enforcement in Bill C-21 to support them with the emerging prevalence of ghost guns.

Members of the public safety committee visited the RCMP gun vault and were able to see how quick and easy it was for criminals to 3-D print firearms illegally. Police services across the country have told me how worried they are about ghost guns infiltrating our communities.

Investigators like Michael Rowe of the Vancouver Police Department, who appeared at our committee during our study on guns and gangs, emphasized the need to create legislative solutions to address this gap so police would have the tools to apprehend those creating these ghost guns.

During his appearance at committee, Inspector Rowe said:

...one of the trends we're seeing out here in Vancouver right now is the use of privately made firearms or “ghost guns”. During the gang conflict, we're seeing more ghost guns, specifically in the hands of people who are involved in active murder conspiracies or people who are believed to be working as hired contract killers. Ghost guns can be 3-D printed or modified from what's called a Polymer80 handgun...

Modern 3-D printing materials can produce a durable firearm, capable of shooting hundreds of rounds without a failure. For example, one of my teams recently completed an investigation in which we executed search warrants on a residential home. Inside this home, we located a sophisticated firearms manufacturing operation capable of producing 3-D printed firearms. They had firearm suppressors and they were completing airsoft conversions—converting airsoft pistols into fully functioning firearms.

The amendments before us in Bill C-21 are in direct response to Inspector Rowe's ask, which was:

...I'd respectfully like to submit that a potential solution would be to bring in legislative remedies to regulate the possession, sale and importation of firearms parts such as barrels, slides and trigger assemblies. This type of legislation would give us, the police, the necessary tools to be able to seize these items, get active enforcement action and more effectively target the manufacturing of privately made firearms.

Our proposed amendments to Bill C-21 would do just that.

Police services across the country are sounding the alarm on this problem, and the amendments we are introducing to address ghost guns is another reason Bill C-21 is such an essential piece of legislation that would increase our public safety.

I would like to share the words of Noor Samiei. Noor was there that night at the Danforth shooting. She lost of best friend, Reese Fallon. Noor, Reese and their friends had graduated high school and were out to celebrate Noor's birthday with friends.

Here are Noor's words:

“What started off as a night of excitement in celebrating my 18th birthday ended in sheer horror and misery. It has been almost five years since the Danforth shooting, and I still struggle to find the words to speak about what my friends and I experienced that night.”

“There will never be enough words to adequately convey how beautiful Reese was. As cliche as it sounds, she was unlike anyone I've ever met before.”

“Another word for friendship is love. Friendship is one of the sweetest and most purest forms of love. Reese was love personified. She radiated so much light and shined so bright in any room she stepped foot in. She had a love so strong that nothing or no one could take that away.”

“While some may argue we were in the wrong place at the wrong time, it does not take away from the fact that it was a legally imported handgun that was later stolen from a gun shop in Saskatchewan. That's why legislation is vital and crucial.”

Canadians are calling on us to take action.

Bill C-21 would save lives, because the status quo is not good enough for Canadians. The status quo led to people like Reese not being here today. The status quo led to the slaughter of women at Polytechnique, the shooting rampage in Nova Scotia, the devastating taking of life at Dawson College and the mosque in Quebec City. The status quo has led to firearms deaths from coast to coast to coast.

In my religion, we are taught that the gift of grace has been given to us by God so that we may give it to others, even if we do not think they deserve it.

We do not deserve Noor's grace, but we are given it anyway.

Let us do something with that gift. Let us pass this motion before us, so we can efficiently deal with Bill C-21 in committee and the House and save lives.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I would also like to acknowledge the impact colonization has had on indigenous peoples, with overincarceration and overrepresentation in the foster care system, and the impact it has had on missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

I am pleased to begin debate today on the motion before the House and speak about the importance not only of this motion but of passing Bill C-21 in a timely manner.

Last week, we introduced a number of important amendments that reflected conversations had across this country with Canadians and indigenous peoples. I will acknowledge that we needed to step back and ensure that we got Bill C-21 right, and the time we took was important to do that.

We have introduced a new amendment to ensure that we do not derogate from the section 35 charter rights of indigenous peoples. We have introduced a technical definition to prohibit firearms that inflict the most casualties in the least amount of time, while respecting hunters, as well as a suite of measures to address the rise of ghost guns.

It has been clear since the bill was first introduced that the Conservative Party had no interest—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be supporting this amendment. Having had the opportunity to meet with the RCMP in Surrey, British Columbia, it was an eye-opener to see the extent to which a 3-D printer with the possibility of certain software plus legally-obtained firearms components, obtained without a PAL, and the possession of ammunition, all of these things added together.... Law enforcement officials indicated how difficult it was currently, with the current law, to do the appropriate follow-up.

As I've mentioned many times, and I know law enforcement has mentioned this as well, in the streets across this country, in certain regions like mine, ghost guns have increased exponentially over the course of the last year or two. This isn't an issue that is slowly developing, this is an issue that is exploding. There were 20,000 seized ghost guns in the United States, and the Biden administration is taking action. Canada needs to take similar action and equip law enforcement with the ability to crack down on criminals.

Essentially, Bill C-21 is becoming more of a bill that is cracking down on criminal behaviour. These ghost gun provisions are vitally important to that. We have to crack down on criminals, cut off their source, and make sure they do not have untraceable firearms. That's a danger to the public; there is no doubt. It's a danger to all of us, so I'll be supporting this amendment.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

I was thinking about tabling a subamendment to allow the government to regulate airsoft guns, but I have just been told that this is already possible. I will therefore vote in favour of Mr. Julian's amendment.

That said, I want to say quite clearly to the airsoft community that I was going to table precisely the same amendment in order to withdraw any reference to airsoft in bill C‑21.

Thank you.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Mr. Julian for tabling this amendment, as well as Mr. MacGregor, with whom the committee had worked previously on this important issue.

As Ms. Damoff stated, when we visited the RCMP's vault, we were able to see how easy it is to convert an airgun into a real firearm, because the components of a firearm fit easily into the housings of an air gun. However, as my colleagues have mentioned, I think it would be a step too far to prohibit air guns in bill C‑21.

Moreover, when industry representatives came to testify before the committee, they were very conciliatory and said they were open to the idea that the industry be regulated. I will quote part of the opening statement given by Mr. Brian McIlmoyle, the director of ASIC, the Airsoft in Canada association, when he testified before the committee:

We believe the best means to mitigate these risks is an 18‑plus restriction on the purchase of airsoft, which would prevent children from buying airsoft without parental knowledge. In addition, a legal acknowledgment of risk or waiver, when signed and combined with some clear educational material, will impress upon parents and young adults the importance and very mortal responsibility of owning airsoft gear.

He also stated that he was willing to go further and made the following proposal:

[...], ASIC has studied a self-regulatory system similar to the United Kingdom's Airsoft Retailers Association and the UK's Violent Crime Reduction Act, which stipulates membership in an airsoft association in order to possess airsoft. This kind of measure would require a higher administrative overhead, but there is a feasible appetite for it within our community.

To which he added:

These measures benefit from joint positions with the FSAQ, or Fédération Sportive d'Airsoft du Québec; the AABC, Airsoft Association of British Columbia; and the CSAAA, the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association.

By the way, I would just like to thank the FSAQ, which helped us in our work.

Mr. McIlmoyle ended his presentation with this:

We suggest that this committee empower the Governor in Council to work with consulted bodies such as ASIC to more comprehensively and exhaustively defined “ replica firearm” and/or “airsoft” through regulation. We hope today that the committee can work with our community to develop a solution.

I now have a question for the public servants.

Are you able to confirm that the government is currently able to regulate airsoft guns without these guns being expressly mentioned in bill C‑21? Is there something in the bill right how that would allow the government to regulate airsoft guns?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Amendment G‑3.2 seeks to amend clause 1 of bill C‑21 by adding, after line 15 on page 1, sections 1(1.1) and 1(1.2). It also seeks to add a paragraph (e) at the definition of a “prohibited firearm” at subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code. I am suggesting that we replace “was originally designed with” by “is designed to accept” at subparagraph (e)(ii).

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 64 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

The committee resumes the debate on amendment G-3.2. I will now welcome the officials who are with us today, once again.

From the Department of Justice, we have Marianne Breese, counsel, criminal law policy section; Paula Clarke, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director, general firearms policy.

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Mr. Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; and Ms. Kellie Paquette, director general, Canadian firearms program.

Thank you for joining us again. We look forward to your valuable contributions as we proceed.

We will continue the speaking list from our last meeting. Mr. Motz had the floor. However, he is not present, so we will continue with Ms. Damoff, followed by Madame Michaud and then Mr. Julian.

Ms. Damoff, please go ahead, if you will.

An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for ensuring that the debate stays relevant.

Certainly the amount of money the Liberal government is spending is critical to every bill, so thank you, Madam Speaker, for overseeing the discussion as I continue my interaction here today.

As I was saying, the finance minister indicated that she would use fiscal restraint. I do not believe she did so. If I could go even further back to when Bill S-6 was first being discussed, which was last spring before we broke for the summer recess, it was at that time and even into the fall that the finance minister indicated she was going to implement an idea that our leader has committed to: the “pay as you go” system. She said she would have fiscal restraint, but I do not believe she has that. Last year, at the end of the spring session, Bill S-6 was being discussed, as well as the “pay as you go” system, but both of these things did not happen.

In relation to our economy, I talked about Canadians being frustrated, defeated and exhausted. I am sure members saw the article in The Globe and Mail today indicating that this point in Canadian history is the worst time for new small business start-ups. This touches my heart very much. I know members have heard me speak before about how I come from a small business family in Calgary Midnapore. For me, growing up, small business was always front of mind. This included regulations, and I believe small businesses will struggle with the changing regulations indicated in Bill S-6. Again, if we look across the different departments, we can see how this can happen. Those are a couple of points in relation to Bill S-6.

I will also point out that in Bill S-6, with the way the government legislates and operates in general, the language is consistently filled with jargon, with words and phrases that are difficult for Canadians to interpret. I started out this speech by talking about how legislation should be for Canadians. It is the common Canadian we should be legislating for. When we have phrases that are too complex for Canadians to understand, it does not help them. It does not empower them. We need to do that.

With that, I would like to take a moment to talk about the plain language law that we would implement once we are in government, again in an effort to get government working for Canadians instead of having Canadians work for the government, as we are seeing in this case. I thought that was a very important point to mention.

As shadow minister for the Treasury Board, another place where I see this take place is with the public accounts. There needs to be much revision to the public accounts and how they are presented. I do not believe Canadians understand them in the format they are in presently. I always share the story that in my home growing up, like the concept we have in our home, a budget was like this: We bring in this much money as a household, we spend this much money as a household and we save this much money as a household. I do not believe the public accounts reflect a simple concept such as this, a concept that many Canadian households and many Canadians sitting around the dinner table have to follow. Again, this is in relation to the jargon, the lack of plain language and the complexity we see in regulations and legislation from the government, which is relevant to Bill S-6.

We also talk about Bill S-6 being indicative of another concept, which is very dear to the official opposition and the heart of our leader: getting rid of the gatekeepers. That essentially means making it easier for Canadians to live, to conduct business and to have the quality of life they deserve, which the government is not delivering to them, as evidenced by some of the earlier indicators I gave.

We as the official opposition have provided some constructive ideas for getting rid of the gatekeepers.

For example, our opposition day motion that was presented yesterday talked about getting rid of the municipal gatekeepers, which, coming from Calgary, I have had an opportunity to see first-hand at Calgary City Council. Having done some advocacy work at the civic level, I can say that all governments must be working together, pulling in the same direction in an effort to provide Canadians with the best standard of living, and that includes housing.

Especially when we consider the ambitious immigration targets of the current government, we need to seriously and sincerely consider how we are going to accommodate all of these newcomers. Again, I say this as an Albertan. Alberta is a place of incredible growth and we are so happy that so many new Canadians and so many Canadians who have abided in other places are making the choice to come to Alberta, but we need to seriously consider how we are going to support our citizens.

In his opposition day motion speech yesterday, my leader talked about how we will incentivize those municipalities that make the decision to build more homes for Canadians, and we will not reward those that do not. This is an excellent example of where we have to think about the gatekeepers. Bill S-6 is just an indicator that there are so many gatekeepers across government, when we have to make these minute changes to legislation which seems applicable to ages ago, including things as simple as removing stickers from liquid vending machines. It is astounding to me that these types of things are coming to light now.

Another example I will give of the official opposition's desire to get rid of the gatekeepers is our unique idea to bring home doctors and nurses and to allow for a Blue Seal in the same way that we have the Red Seal in the trade professions. That is wonderful. It is just fantastic how we have more young people joining the trades. I am especially excited about more young women joining the trades. I am certainly glad to see some of the legislation, even if it is at a provincial level, allowing young women to feel comfortable in joining the trades. Whether it is providing safe and clean restrooms for them or whether it is providing equipment that is suitable for their size and stature, whatever that may be, that is just excellent.

Our leader and the official opposition have found that the licensing bodies create endless barriers and red tape, which again is a topic that is talked about much in Bill S-6, resulting in an unnecessary, even greater shortage of doctors and nurses. I would like to quote this sentence from my leader. He said, “The Blue Seal will mean that it won’t matter where someone comes from, it matters what they can do.” That is just fantastic. If these doctors and nurses meet our Blue Seal standards, they will be able to work in our health care system. Again, this is just another example of the Conservative Party, the official opposition, looking for true efficiencies.

Bill S-6 addresses these tiny things. Really our energies could be spent on addressing much larger problems and finding efficiencies in larger problems rather than, in many cases of Bill S-6, providing opportunities for even more legislation through regulation.

I will add that legislation by regulation has not always resulted in the best outcomes for Canadians. I know that as we discuss Bill C-290 in the government operations committee right now, we are discussing, for example, the role of the public service integrity commissioner. A big discussion around these debates on Bill C-290 is really to decide how much leeway we will give the public service integrity commissioner in terms of regulation.

These are significant things that touch upon workers and will gravely determine whether a public servant decides to file a grievance and if they feel comfortable in doing so. This is something that is very important.

Another situation where we saw regulation was not sufficiently applied, for this official opposition, was the order in council regarding firearms. My goodness, that was before the pandemic, so three or four years ago now. That is a time when it most probably should have been legislation. Of course, we are going through the Bill C-21 process right now, which the Conservatives oppose. No matter what the wolf in sheep's clothing looks like, we will oppose Bill C-21. That is an example where regulation was used and perhaps should not have been. Perhaps it should have been left to legislation. This is most definitely another example.

I look through these different examples. There are other examples that my colleagues will talk about this evening, things they are very concerned about, interpretations of endangered species, for example. Again, there are more topics filled with jargon, but members will give their comments as well as to what interpretation of this legislation will mean through regulation.

It is something important to keep in mind, because, as I indicated, legislation should be made by the people for the people. This is something the official opposition, the Conservatives, are committed to. I think about how we are going to deal with the complex issues ahead of us, such as artificial intelligence, if we are talking about liquids coming out of vending machines.

Bill S-6 brings back the complexity, the jargon and the gatekeepers of this legislation. We on this side of the House want to have legislation that works for every Canadian in every single home, my home, all our homes, so let us bring it home and let us re-evaluate Bill S-6.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

On a question of privilege, Madam Chair, I've been waiting to confirm that this information I received from an outside party was correct.

This is a question of privilege. I believe some of the amendments and subamendments from this committee were shared with a stakeholder. That goes to the point that my colleague from the Bloc was making, that people have been talking to outside groups, including two political parties here.

I have an email that I am going to read. I also have a French translation that was kindly provided my friend Alexis from the Bloc.

I'm going to read this email that I received April 28, 2023, and then I'm going to go into the point of privilege and what I believe the role of the chair is. This is what I was told:

Following up on our conversation in committee, there are two sets of amendments to Bill S-245 related to the after-first generation exceptions in the Citizenship Act:

Here's where my concerns begin.

NDP-1, NDP-3, NDP-5, NDP-8, NDP-12, G-2, G-6, G-7, G-8, and G-9.

Then it continues on:

From our perspective—

This is from the stakeholder group. I don't blame the stakeholder; this is not their fault. This is something that happened here at committee between parliamentarians. I was not included, and thankfully there are no CPC amendments affected by this.

From our perspective, the NDP amendments best address the issue of family separation/lost mobility for Canadians who work abroad because the connection test can be met by parent or grandparent and has a threshold that Canadians can meet naturally. One big problem with existing law is that it treats citizens so differently that nobody really understands it, so this last point is very important.

It goes on:

The Liberal amendments have the advantage of a grant that can be met at any point in time. If you miss the residency requirement before you have children, you can make it up. But the test is one that a great many people will miss even if they stay connected in Canada.

Here is the sentence in the next paragraph that's most important to me, because this is exactly what's happened here on amendment NDP-3, which is, I believe, a breach of the privileges of the committee:

What I have heard about the Liberal NDP compromise is that they will offer subamendments—

That has just happened.

—to the NDP amendments to increase the connection test to 1,095 days—

The subamendment made the reference back to the substantial connection test.

—only for parents—

We just removed grandparents.

—and by right vs. grant.

I asked the officials whether this was by right versus by grant.

The stakeholder group then goes into the details describing their preference.

I went back to Bosc and Gagnon. On page 1,062, it says:

Notices of motions normally remain confidential until they are moved during a meeting, although the sponsoring member may choose to make it public prior to doing so.

This would mean that any member controls their amendments. The government side and opposition side will control their amendments. We're allowed to give those out. I'm entirely okay with what people do.

It continues, in Bosc and Gagnon, on page 1,005:

When there is sufficient time, if the committee agrees, the package can be circulated in advance of the clause-by-clause consideration meeting, ensuring that all members of the committee may see the amendments that their colleagues wish to make to the bill.

That's the enumeration of the bills that we have. Those amendments can be shared amongst ourselves as parties meet confidentially.

Everybody has perked up. I'm glad I have everybody's attention.

We can meet. We get the numbering of all our amendments. It just makes it easier to work out which amendments we like and which amendments we don't like amongst parliamentarians on this committee. That's fine.

These practices combine such that the usual practice in committees of the House is that notices of amendments are treated as confidential when submitted to the clerk of the committee until the sponsoring member moves them during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Now, I have an example of what happened at another committee, because I think it's very relevant to what's happened here. Occasionally, exceptions are made by committees and not by individual members. This is the example I have.

Last fall, there was a debate on Parliament Hill about the Liberal government's overreach with amendments G-4 and G-46 to Bill C-21, which is the firearms confiscation bill that the government has before the public safety committee. It's still before the public safety committee. That committee, while debating amendment G-4, also agreed to make public amendment G-46.

We have no such agreement here that I understand. Reading from this email, it's indicative that a person knew the numbering of our amendments and knew what subamendments were going to be made at committee at some point. I didn't know about any of this, and I believe that's a breach of the privileges of the committee.

Now, they agreed to that, and ahead of it being moved at the appropriate stage of clause-by-clause consideration, that agreement can be found. It's recorded at the beginning of the public safety committee's minutes for November 24, 2022. If the extra legislative clerk wants to go check, it's there.

Again, that said, it's acknowledged and common practice for members to engage with stakeholders in policy development which could extend to developing those policies in the expression of legislation, including amendments to bills.

It's not, however, appropriate to take the amendments that have been filed with the clerk, especially other parties' amendments, and share them with stakeholders or the public at large for comment. It's a protected document at the committee.

The approach of the public safety committee on releasing amendment G-46 to Bill C-21 shows, I think, the correct method of proceeding and the correct way of doing it. This stakeholder group did not have the right to know which amendments were which, or what subamendments would be moved, especially because they knew the strategy of when they would be moved.

Based on the communications I have received, we know he had possession of the committee's amendment package and not merely draft text yet to be finalized and filed. He cited amendments by their reference numbers, which are assigned to them by the clerk of the committee. There's no other way for him to know which ones are NDP-1, NDP-2, NDP-3, NDP-4 and the enumeration of which ones were in there.

It makes me glad that the Conservatives didn't submit any amendments despite, Madam Chair, my having moved an amendment when we were going into this, to give us extra time to submit them. I'm glad I didn't do that now, because I don't know if they would have been made public or given to the stakeholder group.

Because the draft amendment package has been shared with members of the public, a possible breach of privilege has occurred, and the committee must report the matter to the House for appropriate consideration. On the committee chair's role, this is from the online “Privileges and Immunities” chapter:

Unlike the Speaker, the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege. Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege, or, in the case of some incident, suggest that the committee deal with the matter.

It goes on to say:

The Chair, however, has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred. The role of the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and it's not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate. If the Chair is of the opinion that the Member's interjection deals with a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate, or that the incident is within the powers of the committee to deal with, the Chair will rule accordingly giving reasons. The committee cannot then consider the matter further as a question of privilege. Should a Member disagree with the Chair's decision, the Member can appeal the decision to the committee.... The committee may sustain or overturn the Chair's decision.

I have the motion ready and written out, Madam Chair, if you find that it was a breach of privilege. I can give you a copy, if you want to consider that.

I also have the email from the stakeholder who gave it to me. Madam Chair, I'm more than happy to give it to you so you can take a look at it. I think you will find it's egregious. It is a violation, I believe, of my privileges as a member and those of my colleagues who were not privy to any of these conversations.

Amendments are supposed to be confidential to the committee. We can share our own. I know that's a practice that is done regularly. There are sentences here that talk about subamendments that were just done in NDP-3.

I believe there was a breach of privileges of the committee, and my privileges as a member, because I was not party to any of this, and there is an outside member of the public who knew what the subamendment strategy was of certain members of this committee.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Okay, Mr. Chair, then I'm going to have to continue, because we need some more answers here, more clarity. We don't trust that there isn't something being pulled over gun owners right now. Given the track record of the Liberals on this committee and the minister, I think it's reasonable that we have this hesitation about this specific definition.

What is being done today just doesn't follow. It doesn't make sense, based on the rhetoric, that they would bring forward this forward-looking clause. I haven't heard any explanation of why that is being done.

I'm also not reassured that this firearms committee is not just a back door to banning the very long list they withdrew. It sounded like, from the minister yesterday, that it could be the case. Again, I don't know why he would announce these things together if we couldn't talk about it in the context of Bill C-21 today in this committee and get real answers about the composition of that committee and about high-capacity magazines. Why he would confuse people, I don't understand, given the mass confusion he created with these amendments a few months ago by convoluting these things. That's not on us; that's on the minister for doing that.

It's frustrating that we can't get clarity on what a firearms advisory committee would look like, what they're allowed to do and what the deal is with high-capacity magazines. Are Lee-Enfields being banned? Are tubular magazines being banned?

Just to be clear, Conservatives are quite disappointed. We cannot get the clarity for gun owners on this that they need, given their reasonable apprehension and fear, which was created over the last five months with amendments G-4 and G-46.

Mr. Chair, that's all I have at this time, but, again, I would urge you to urge the parliamentary secretary to talk to the minister about another technical briefing. That could certainly help things go along, especially considering that the good-faith measure to park this clause for now to get to the rest of the bill was not approved, which would have allowed us to get to the other important measures and get more answers in the interim. I think that it was a good-faith measure. It was certainly made in good faith.

I don't know why we can't do that, but anyway, that's all for now, Mr. Chair.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Chair, just to conclude, we were provided a technical briefing basically minutes after getting the slide deck for all of this. We are getting a lot of questions.

The minister is responsible for this because he announced, within the scope of Bill C-21, the announcements that we're talking about today.

I would appreciate, and I think members of the media, stakeholders and other members of Parliament would appreciate a fulsome briefing now that we've had a bit more time to digest what these amendments mean and what the capacity and magazine restrictions will mean. What is the makeup of this firearms advisory committee? Who is going to be on that? How was that decided? How can gun owners trust that it won't be biased?

These are basic questions that we need answers to.

As the lead on public safety, I would ask that you consult with the parliamentary secretary for public safety on providing another amendment. I believe there is time because we know now there won't be any more time for another public safety meeting this week, which we know Liberals are supportive of. That time's freed up, so why not have a technical briefing where we can ask more questions now that we've had time to digest this and have a few more answers from officials?

Mr. Chair, perhaps you can respond on whether you will have that conversation with the parliamentary secretary, and then I'm done.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I did want to note that there have been no consultations through this committee process on this forward-looking clause. Had there been, we may have gotten more clarity on what exactly this means.

Again, it seems that there's a trick being pulled here because it just doesn't add up at all. There were no consultations done on this. When we were at G-4 and G-46, the government conceded that, because they were so significant as the largest hunting rifle ban in history, we were going to have eight consultation meetings as a result.

Now here we have a new definition, Mr. Chair, and no consultation on it that the committee gets to do. It just seems very strange.

The NDP did view this as out of scope before and the Bloc was open to that. It is just odd that we needed so much consultation on the prior one. Now we have a new one, yet we're not allowed to consult and we're being criticized for asking an hour's worth of questions on something that may be very significant. I'm not really clear on that.

Secondly, I appreciate that Ms. Damoff mentioned a poll, but for the government's own consultation, when I asked for an information request on public consultations on Bill C-21, they provided us information on a $200,000 consultation. Of the 133,369 people who were consulted through that, 77% of them responded that nothing more was needed to limit access to so-called assault weapons and 81% said no to limiting more access to handguns.

This is $200,000 and almost 200,000 people consulted, and the evidence was quite clear from their response. It doesn't really add up with that one poll that probably polled about 1,500 people, maybe 400 even.... Just to be clear, the government's own evidence was not in favour of this from a public opinion side.

Lastly on that, Mr. Chair, we know that when the government says “assault-style”, they really mean hunting rifles. That was established in G-4 and G-46, which was why, it seems, the government withdrew them. It was established by hunting associations across the country. We have talked about a number of hunting rifles that are commonly used. The SKS, for example, is very commonly used as a hunting rifle in indigenous communities and others. It's just a bit frustrating in that regard.

It's not clear on capacity. I recognize that's been informed now. It's clear now. It's not in the bill, but magazine capacity does impact a lot of these firearms and it's disappointing we don't really get to ask any questions about that.

Also, I will ask a question on the firearms advisory committee.

Is this new firearms advisory committee included in the bill? When asked about banning the SKS, the minister said that they were referring it to this firearms advisory committee. Is that in the bill? Is that being brought forward through this bill?

That is for the officials.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

—on the admissibility of amendment G.32 in relation to the scope of Bill C-21.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I just wanted to add a clarification regarding Mr. Motz's and Mr. Julian's remarks that it was premature to think about how the Speaker of the House will rule once Bill C‑21 is at report stage in the House.

I find it a little peculiar to be hearing this at this point, because just before the government withdrew its amendments G‑4 and G‑46, the NDP was about to introduce a motion calling on the Speaker of the House to rule on the scope of Bill C‑21.

As Ms. Damoff says, if your ruling is being challenged, Mr. Chair, perhaps we should go to a vote now. Otherwise, I would be willing to go back to debating the amendment.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

To Mr. Julian's point, and to yours that you just made in your intervention, I would agree. I think because of the importance of this particular definition and the impact on this bill and the impact on law-abiding firearms owners in this country and on manufacturers and the entire industry, if you will, this is something that we have to go through with some vigour and we need to discuss all aspects of it and understand it completely. The suggestion that since we're taking a long time on this particular amendment this is how it will be all of the time is simply untrue. I think we can be quite judicious on some of the other amendments moving forward.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I am hopeful there will be some time to further digest this definition, but it doesn't appear as if there's any willingness by some of the other parties to do that. I will go back to something that I started with Bill C-21 when we first began our debate back in the fall. That has to do with scope. I've had conversations with many people on both sides of the aisle since Bill C-21 was introduced. You know, Bill C-21 was introduced as a handgun bill. It was debated in the House of Commons as a handgun bill, yet the majority of our debates at this particular committee since the new definitions have come out have had to do with long guns and shotguns, and they're completely out of scope.

If I understand parliamentary process, it would be reasonable, on the expansion of the scope, to go back to the House to be determined whether it is in scope, or the government could decide to put something forward so that it could be debated in the House and then brought back here to committee and we could continue to have this conversation. In fact, that may be something that the government should consider—actually bringing this definition and the new additions to this bill back to the House for debate.

Unfortunately I tried to do this last time on a motion. You ruled it to be in order and within scope. I disagreed and some horsepower in the House disagreed with you as well. That's still an opportunity that exists. Canadians heard us in the House debating a bill about handguns. Now, for the last six months or so we've been talking about long guns and shotguns and hunting rifles and things that impact a wider range of Canadians than the handgun freeze or ban or buyback process does. Now we're involving the livelihood of Canadians, the pastimes of Canadians and sustenance for Canadians who are now impacted by this particular bill.

My suggestion is that we give consideration to the fact that this definition and some of the amendments to this bill are out of scope. That would be a motion that I would present to this committee—that it be sent back to the House to have determined whether or not it is in scope and have the Speaker make that ruling.