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

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's your time, Mr. Bittle.

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

You can ask him here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We will now go to Mr. Nater for five minutes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Motz, for joining us.

I might follow up a little on what Mr. Bittle was going on. Do you think there's a process in place within a government department for approval of notices and information that go out to the public? Do you assume there's a process that ought to be followed, and could there perhaps have been a breakdown in this process?

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

Absolutely. Let's look at this.

This is the bill of the Minister of Public Safety. Bill C-71 was his. It's his push to get it through, with time allocation in the House and a rush to get it through committee. Again, the committee did not allow for any amendments of any substance that were going to change the consequence of the bill.

It's fair to suggest that there was.... They're not going to be blind to the way government and the departments work. The people who put the information on the website got their direction to do it from somebody. The choice of language was not.... Was it an oversight? These are pretty bright people who clearly understand the implications.

I think they were under the impression that it was going to happen, either that or they were wilfully blind to the fact that it was still before Parliament, still before committee. It hadn't even gone to third reading, and hadn't been to the Senate.

People can suggest what they want to suggest, but the minister and his department are responsible for the communication on this bill and how it's acted out by an agency responsible to enforce it, which is the RCMP.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

It would be worthwhile for us to look at that approval process, look at how communiqués or bulletins are approved, and find out where in that process there was a breakdown in communication.

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

I think that would be more than fair, Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I appreciate that.

I want to follow up. It's been mentioned that you have an extensive background in policing, as an inspector. From your police background, when information like this is circulated, which at the very least causes confusion, what kind of effect does it have on a policing community, on a law enforcement community, and on those who are going to be interacting with the law enforcement community?

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

There are a couple. First of all, it creates confusion for the gun-owning Canadian public. Many of the municipal agencies, provincial agencies and law enforcement agencies in this country receive action bulletins and law bulletins from the RCMP, who have been involved with or play these things out and are responsible for programs, such as the Canadian firearms program. It's possible that it could cause confusion for them. Without checking, someone could believe that this is already enacted and make an error in that regard. Thankfully, I'm not aware of anything like that happening. It was changed. But it's possible.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Now, certainly when the Speaker made the prima facie ruling, he noted that this was a slight against the authority and dignity of the House of Commons.

Certainly it falls to us to find out exactly what happened, why it happened, where the failure happened. But I'm curious as well whether we should be looking at hearing from certain witnesses who may have been affected by this or may have potentially been impacted, as the target of these bulletins, by the information coming out. Do you think there should be some efforts to reach out to certain groups or organizations that could have potentially been impacted by this?

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

I think that's more than fair. I think it's essential to call people who are impacted or were impacted to speak to that, and the confusion that was created by this mistake and what the consequences were.

The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, the Canadian Shooting Sports Association and the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association are groups that represent a large portion of the Canadian shooting public, the firearms-owning public, through their memberships. I think they can clearly speak to it.

Wolverine Supplies is a distributor of firearms in this country who could speak to the impact that this misinformation could have on that business directly, and then on the retailers down the line. It had the potential to impact not only Canadian gun owners, but also the businesses that make their business off that industry.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

Now we'll go on to Ms. Sahota for five minutes.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

In your previous testimony here today, during your interaction with Mrs. Kusie, there was some discussion of the impact that this posting on the website had on people in your community, people waking up the next day thinking that they were going to have to face repercussions.

Can you explain that to me a little more, what people in your community felt?

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

This wasn't just my community. As you know, I had been involved in the discussions on Bill C-71, on social media as well as hosting and being involved in town halls and round tables for discussions on Bill C-71 with the Canadian public. As a result of those activities, there were many people following some of our social media feeds.

We received feedback from them, and other offices were also receiving information. I guess it would be fair to suggest that there was confusion. They were hearing that we were still debating this issue, and yet the RCMP was saying that it's going to happen: “It's happening now. You will have to do this. You will be doing this”, specifically about aspects of Bill C-71. So, yes, there was confusion and there was alarm. It's something that obviously we want to try to prevent.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Absolutely. I can see the changes that have been made to the site since the time that you brought up this matter. But even in the original text, although it didn't state “proposed legislation” every step of the way—I guess those are the amendments that they made—in the general information section it did still list it as proposed legislation. It also indicated that the order would “provide protection from criminal prosecution for possession of these firearms until February 28, 2021”, which is many years out, while the government implements measures to address continued possession and use.

There was an amnesty within that, and it would be a long time before any kinds of criminal prosecutions would take effect. That was listed right at the outset of what was online.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that it's going back to the issue of intent. What was the intent, and was it malicious? Was this done in order to scare people? Was this done from above to below, or was it an error that was made down below and then corrected?

What is your feeling on that? They included that right in the general information section. I think they could have done a little better, but do you think, as my colleague suggested, that their intent was some kind of conspiracy from above? Do you think their intent was to make people feel that they were going to be prosecuted under a law that hadn't been enacted at that point?

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

Absolutely not. I want to make it very clear, again, that I don't believe there's any malicious intent on anyone's part. Mr. Simms took an exception to my choice of words, the word “arrogance”.

If the Canadian public had any comment back to me, it was the apparent arrogance of believing that because of a majority this is going to happen anyway, no matter what happens. No one's going to stop what we want to do. It's going to happen, so let's just tell the public it's going to happen. That's the anger the Canadian public is up in arms about. They're saying that that's not democracy at all.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Is it possible to have that type of thinking within the department and within the RCMP? Is it possible that the RCMP, as my colleague suggested, was trying to prepare for a possible outcome, and therefore alerted the public to things that may be coming? Is that possible at all?

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

Absolutely. I applaud them for being proactive in their approach and the language they use.

To use your statement just from a minute ago, Madam, I think it's fair to say that maybe even in departments there is the presumption that it's going to happen anyway, so they can just go ahead and start doing it even before it's passed. The role of this committee is to try to say, “Hold on a second. You can say, 'If this is passed, these are some of the things....'” With some of the laws we're working on, it will take time for people to make adjustments. Being proactive in that.... No one's faulting the RCMP for being proactive.

The issue here is the presumption that it's been passed in Parliament when it has not, and the confusion it caused. Where did that come from? Where does that mentality come from? Does it come from an attitude? Does it come from a systemic issue? I don't know. That's one of the things that we have to try to prevent from happening.

I don't suggest for a moment that there was any malicious intent or a conspiracy, as Mr. Bittle suggested, or that somebody was saying this. I just think there is potentially a systemic challenge that governments, departments and public servants can have that clouds the reality of the role of Parliament. We need to be mindful of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Ms. Sahota.

We'll now go on to Monsieur Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to participate in the committee.

I'd like to start by setting some things straight. This is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. What is happening right now is an inquisition of sorts to determine whether our colleague, a parliamentarian like each of us, raised a point that merits this committee's consideration. My colleague never attacked the minister. We aren't here to attack anyone or play politics. Rather, we are here to determine whether there was an error in procedure and whether this incident led to consequences. This incident could have involved a different issue, but as I understand it, this is the first time that something like this has happened and that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is looking into it. It is clear to me that impugning Mr. Motz's motives is misguided on your part. If that's not what's happening, here, the fact remains that you've all asked questions to that effect.

As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I worked on Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms. We proposed 46 amendments to the bill, to address such issues as the June 30 cut-off, which is in question here. In light of the trouble gun owners had in terms of their understanding, we proposed a change.

We aren't talking about lobster traps, here. We are talking about gun owners whose firearms are going to be classified as prohibited. June 30 is an important date. The RCMP posted, on its website, information for the public indicating that June 30, 2018 was the cut-off date. The legislation has not even been approved by Parliament. Privilege is therefore at issue. Privilege affects not just members who belong to the Conservative Party or the NDP. Privilege also affects Liberal members, who are parliamentarians and have a duty to consider the fact that a problem has occurred in this case. In other words, no matter which side of the table members are on, it is incumbent upon them to examine this problem. Right now, you could all care less about what I'm saying as you look down at your iPhones, but the fact remains that this is a problem, one that won't be solved by impugning Mr. Motz's motives.

First, the committee has to figure out where the directive came from, if there was indeed a directive. Did it come from the minister's office, yes or no? It's a simple question.

Next, the committee has to determine whether the RCMP has a practice of posting information before it even becomes law. If the RCMP is following a procedure that isn't appropriate, the force must be asked to change it, simply put. The only goal is to fix a problem that has been identified. The idea isn't to put anyone on trial. If the problem ends up being political, the responsibility will fall on the minister. If not, all the better.

That means the committee has to speak with the RCMP. The RCMP commissioner's mandate letter, which was presented by the minister, is clear. The minister asked the RCMP commissioner to change the force's practices in a number of areas. This may be one of the issues that the commissioner will have to address.

The big problem is that, for the first time, the committee has to deal with a case like this, one involving firearms. As I said, we aren't talking about lobster traps or fishing on the high seas. We are talking about firearms. Canadians could have been impacted. Indeed, some people worry that, because of the information the RCMP posted, they won't be able to retain their firearms under the grandfather clause. This could have caused people problems.

I think my colleague made an important point. This is our privilege as parliamentarians. If we don't think a breach of privilege has occurred, we can call it a day and let the public servants carry on. If we aren't able to get to the bottom of the matter, what purpose do we serve? Absolutely none.

Do I still have time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have two minutes left.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I'm not a regular member of the committee, and I think I'd have problems if I were. When all is said and done, an important public safety issue was identified. We are talking about the management of firearms.

Mr. Motz, is the goal to put the minister on trial, or is it actually to get a clear answer as to why this happened?

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

Thank you for your comments and your question.

Not only do parliamentarians need clarity around what happened and an understanding of the steps that were taken or not taken for this to occur, but I think Canadians deserve this. This institution is our democracy in this country, and it's a model for the world. We need to take that seriously, and I know this committee will. In the moments that are left, it's important that beyond any apology that seems to be able to satisfy inquiry on these things, should that be the will of the committee, I think we need to look at how to prevent this from happening again.

In this circumstance, it affected the firearms community. In the next circumstance with a publication from government, it could be anything we can imagine that this Parliament deals with. As parliamentarians, we need to be concerned that the role of what we do here as legislators is not undermined or usurped.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much.

The Liberals have ceded their next spot to Mr. Christopherson.