Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 30th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Welcome to the 128th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This meeting is being televised as we begin our study of the question of privilege related to the matter of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police publications respecting Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

We are pleased to be joined by Glen Motz, member of Parliament for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. Members will recall that Mr. Motz raised the question of privilege.

Mr. Motz, thank you for making yourself available today. You may now proceed with your opening statement.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the conduct of the Liberal government and the RCMP, and their activities around the implementation of Bill C-71.

While I will attempt to present my remarks in a dispassionate way, it is challenging not to be angered at the arrogance shown by the Liberals in their presentation of this bill, and the systematic way the government ministers and MPs have tried to mislead Canadians. This is a contributing factor to the question of privilege I raised earlier this spring.

Here's the central issue: The RCMP began implementing a proposed law, Bill C-71, before Parliament had deliberated, debated and voted on the bill. The RCMP had posted on their website special bulletin number 93, a notice implementing portions of Bill C-71. At the time, the bill was before committee and under intense scrutiny. The bulletin made use of definitive language, giving Canadians the distinct impression that this bill was current law in Canada.

On May 29, I raised the issue that the RCMP was assuming Parliament would approve the bill, despite the significant reservations of millions of Canadians and many in Parliament. Within 24 hours of that question of privilege being raised, the RCMP modified their special bulletin number 93 to remove a presumption of Parliament's final decision. On that same day, May 30, I rose again to let the Speaker know of the recent change.

On June 19, the Speaker noted he was troubled by the careless manner in which the RCMP chose to ignore the fact that the bill was still before Parliament and not a law. This may seem like a technical issue, but this technical issue supports our very system of a parliamentary democracy. Prime ministers, ministers, departments and agencies are all subject to Parliament. Of all departments and agencies, a federal law enforcement one should not be so careless with Parliament and implementing laws.

Parliament is the voice for all Canadians, and it is beholden on us to scrutinize those laws, rules and regulations for Canadians. The message being sent to Parliament by the minister and by the RCMP is that they can act without Parliament. That contravenes the purpose of this House and those of you sitting around these tables today. It suggests that ministers and senior government officials are ultimately in full control, rather than the elected officials. As Speaker Regan said, “The work of members as legislators is fundamental and any hint or suggestion of this parliamentary role and authority being bypassed or usurped is not acceptable.”

Today, the members of this committee will have the first opportunity in Canada to set the standard for departments and agencies that assume the will of Parliament. We cannot allow the precedent to be and have a muted response.

A decision was made to implement legislation, despite the highly contentious nature of the bill and the serious and valid reservations from thousands of Canadians and parliamentarians. It falls on you, as this committee, to determine who made the decisions, who is responsible, and how we deter this from occurring again. The questions before you, as I see them, are many, but they could include this one: Did the RCMP set rules ahead of parliamentary decision independently, as opposed to being instructed to do so? There are only two potential answers: yes or no. If the answer is yes, then the RCMP made a decision to prioritize their objectives ahead of the voice of our elected representatives. The police in this country do not create the rules and the law; they enforce them. This is a fundamental function of the separation of powers in a democracy.

If the answer is no, then who directed the RCMP to proceed, and, conspicuous by his absence, where has the Minister of Public Safety been on this issue? The RCMP reports to Parliament through the minister, and the minister is responsible for its actions. I contend that if the minister did not actively instruct the RCMP, then he is guilty of failing to do his job of overseeing the RCMP. He has made no comments or statements to address the issue, other than through his parliamentary secretary, the member from Ajax, now the Liberal whip, and that member sought to have the issue dismissed.

I know the investigation the committee is now charged to undertake is not about this one instance. It is about the broader principle of ensuring that the House can hold prime ministers, ministers, departments, crown corporations and agencies to account for taking action that conflicts with, undermines or otherwise ignores directions and deliberations of Parliament.

Public servants should always be mindful of the House and our democracy. As parliamentarians, we can disagree, but the function of this House is dependent on the House reviewing and approving the actions of government. Members of Parliament are not here to serve the will of the prime minister and cabinet. We are here to serve our constituents. Ministers and prime ministers are subject to the direction and will of Parliament, not the other way around.

I urge all to look at the facts of the case and see the overall picture. It's hard to argue that the minister has approached this particular legislation with full integrity and transparency. When there is a systematic and consistent attempt to deceive, it becomes harder and harder to believe the individual in question.

So far, the government leadership has made factually inaccurate statements. It could be suggested that they were made to mislead the public on the true nature of this legislation. For example, the Prime Minister suggested that currently no one needs to prove that they have a firearms licence to purchase a firearm. The truth is that selling or buying a firearm in this country without a proper licence is a criminal offence and carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail.

The minister appeared before committee and used several misleading statements as well. He indicated that, based on Toronto Police Service stats, half of crime guns were from domestic sources. Even after those numbers were proven to be completely false, the minister continued to use them. He indicated that there was a sudden spike in violent gun crime, when in fact violent gun crime and homicide by firearm are not at record levels. He used selective dates and stats to create the appearance of a crisis where none existed. Finally, he reported a massive increase in break and enter to steal a firearm, when in fact this charge was first introduced in 2008 and the sudden increase was primarily the result of the application of a new Criminal Code charge where none existed previously.

I could go on with many more examples, but I believe the point has been made. The testimony of the minister and of this government to date has been flawed and misleading. The added fact that the RCMP, upon the issue being raised in the House, immediately revised their bulletin is nothing short of an admission of guilt.

The Minister of Public Safety replied to a letter from me and my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles on an issue within the bill. In his reply, dated October 15 of this year, he acknowledged that there was a flaw in the legislation and he would grant the three-year amnesty, no doubt in part because of the overreach of the RCMP. However, there was no indication or responsibility of whether the bulletin from the RCMP was posted through ignorance or intent.

This falls to the investigation and the determination of this committee. It is therefore critical that a decisive and clear report show the prejudgment of Parliament to be a serious issue. This committee is responsible for upholding a key part of our Parliament and democracy, where ministers and agencies of the government must respect and abide by the House.

In closing, I would ask each of you to review the ruling of the Speaker. Putting aside political allegiances and party standing, Speaker Regan put the will of Canadians and their elected representatives ahead of the defence of party brands. He spoke truth to power and called on you to ensure that this Parliament and each one after it are empowered by the Canadians who voted for them, rather than obligated to follow a party hierarchy.

When ministers and parties use misinformation and positions of authority to obstruct the House in its duties, we put our democracy in jeopardy. Look beyond our disagreements and towards the values that bring Canadians together. These values must be reflected and upheld in our Parliament and in the ability of members of Parliament to hold each other and the government to the will of the people.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Now we'll go to seven-minute rounds of questioning. We'll start with Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Motz. I think you might be on the right path here. Misleading members of the House is contemptuous indeed. I don't disagree with that. I looked at the website. It certainly did use language that gave the sense that this was either happening or going to happen and people should be prepared.

The only place where we diverge, I think, is on intent. I won't write this off as an innocent mistake, but I don't want to describe or characterize it as being particularly malicious, either. I've seen this before. I can give you a couple of examples where this has happened. For example, you can say that there are many bureaucrats, many people in agencies, people who work for the government—in essence, they work for the people of this country—who prepare themselves for what is around the corner. To me, there's a lot of due diligence there. For example, we just went through a lot of work on the Canada Elections Act. If the people of Elections Canada had not prepared themselves for what might be coming, then the situation would be exacerbated even further—more difficulties way down the line. For them, I think it's an issue of due diligence.

Now, did the police, in this case, do due diligence? To a certain degree I think they did. They wanted to let the public know what is changing and whatnot. Do you think they should have said—using that language—“This is what's going to happen. This is the new rule. This is how you have to register yourself if you have a firearm”, and then at the end added, “pending parliamentary approval”? Would that have sufficed?

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

I think it's fair to say that your assessment of trying to get ahead of the ball, if you will, or get ahead of the curve on being proactive, is probably an accurate depiction of what they were trying to do. However, I would suggest that rather than leaving language like that to the back end, you do it at the front end. You say, “This is the proposed legislation that is before Parliament. It is being discussed in the House. It's being debated at committee.”

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I don't mean to cut you off. I totally agree with you, because I was particularly appalled a few years ago, in 2014, when the headline was “Harper gov't spending funds on ads for measures still 'subject to parliamentary approval'”. Their ads were basically saying that these tax breaks were coming, but right at the bottom they said, “subject to parliamentary approval”. I didn't like that, and I'm sure you didn't either, when it was happening.

In this particular case, when the police made the correction, I guess you'd call it an admission of guilt, that they did something wrong. We're going to have the minister here to get his explanation behind it, but to a great extent, yes, I do agree with you. Not to get into the weeds about the issue, but I think in this particular case.... I don't want to discourage people who work in the public service from practising due diligence and being prepared. As I was angry with Stephen Harper for the ads that he did, because they were misleading, in this case it is misleading too.

But again, it's the intent that bothers me. If the intention, as it was in 2014, was to say, “This is going to happen. We have the majority, so what are you worried about?”, then that's not right. But if this is due diligence that the public service is doing, then good on them. Just don't pretend, as in this case, that it's going to happen.

We'll ask the minister when he gets here.

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

That's fair enough. I think the minister has a lot to answer for with respect to this. It's important to recognize as well that when you are making a statement or putting out a publication that impacts thousands of Canadians and that can make them believe that they could become criminals overnight—their understanding was that if they didn't comply, they would be criminalized—then it's important that there be some understanding at the front end of that.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Sorry, this is a sincere question. Is that the language they used?

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

No, but there were repercussions from what they were suggesting, that this will be in effect and it will have this impact—and it was still being debated in committee.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Did they suggest something, or did they say, “These are the rules that will be in place”? There are no ramifications to it—or there will be, of course, but they didn't allude to the fact that people will be punished. Is that right?

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

No, but every.... The Canadian firearm-owning community is the most responsible of the Canadian public. They know, and they're the ones with all the rules.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Was that mentioned on the website?

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

Pardon me?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Was that mentioned on the website?

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

Was what mentioned?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

That they are the most responsible.... Listen, I'm a gun owner myself. I consider myself to be quite responsible, as most of them are, no doubt about it.

I'm trying to nail down the intent of this. I don't think they were out there to deliberately mislead people. Do you really think the Mounties did that?

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

I have some suspicions, but I really think that it's the responsibility of this committee to find out by asking and seeking evidence.

Who authorized it? What was the intent behind it? Whom you call as witnesses could be critical, sir, to the finding of the fact and whatever conclusions you want to draw. I think the most important thing is to make sure it doesn't happen again, regardless of whether it was an honest mistake and there was no intent to mislead, as your contention was, or whatever words you chose to use.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I totally agree.

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

That's the responsibility, I think, of this committee. I'm not here to presume the will of the committee.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

But you're making a presumption on intention. I got the feeling that you were making the presumption that the intention was bad. In the first sentence, the word “arrogance” was used. I'm not sure if arrogance was really the right word. At this point, the minister hasn't even been in yet. Don't you think that's rather presumptive?

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

No, I don't at all, actually. I think it's completely evidenced by the—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Do you mean that the arrogance is evident?

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

I was being very polite. The responses that I'm getting from constituents, from Canadians, on Bill C-71 are not as politically correct as that.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Would you be offended if I said that your opinion was arrogant?

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

Not at all.