Evidence of meeting #129 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David Christopherson  Hamilton Centre, NDP
Rob O'Reilly  Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Commissioner Jennifer Strachan  Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Stephanie Kusie  Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Glen Motz  Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC
Linda Lapointe  Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Good morning.

Welcome to the 129th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as we continue to study 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 the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. He is accompanied by officials from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, namely, Jennifer Strachan, Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services; and Rob O'Reilly, Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program.

Thank you all for coming today.

Just before we start, we have some short committee business from Mr. Christopherson.

11:25 a.m.

David Christopherson Hamilton Centre, NDP

Thank you so much, Chair.

I had an opportunity to talk to colleagues in both other caucuses and the government members. Mr. Bittle in particular was good enough to take the message the last time about asking the minister to come to talk about the new debate commission. My understanding is that Mr. Bittle has been successful in getting a message to the minister, and now back to us, that she is willing to meet with us at her earliest possibility.

Maybe, Chair, you could assume that there's unanimous support for us to organize that, and the clerk can work with the minister's office to arrange that at the earliest possible time. I thank both Mr. Nater and Mr. Bittle for letting us get past the issue of whether the minister should come or not—it's a side issue—and now we can focus on the substantive matters at hand. I thank Mr. Bittle for his efforts on his behalf.

Thank you, Chair.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you.

It's time for your opening statement, Mr. Goodale.

11:25 a.m.

Regina—Wascana Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear on this subject matter today, the question of privilege raised by Mr. Motz.

As you pointed out, Mr. Chair, I'm accompanied by Deputy Commissioner Strachan and Mr. Rob O'Reilly, Director of Firearms Regulatory Services within the Canadian Firearms Program.

I'm sorry our time is a bit constrained this morning because of the vote in the House, but the House is the House.

For me as Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, my key priority is ensuring the safety of all Canadians, and their confidence in the integrity of the government agencies that fall under my authority as minister. This includes the accurate use of departmental platforms to communicate information about all legislation, but in particular for the purposes of today, about Bill C-71. The subject matter is something that's important to me, Mr. Chair, because, as you will recall, in my previous roles, I have been a House leader in both the opposition and the government side, so procedure matters.

As outlined in the document entitled “Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector”, government agencies have a fundamental role in serving Canadians, their communities and the public interest under the direction of the elected government and in accordance with the law.

Government agencies are to operate with the knowledge that legislation comes from Parliament and no other authority in Canada. That being the case, it is essential that these organizations continue to accede to the legislative process. All government agencies, including the Canadian firearms program and the RCMP, are expected to demonstrate respect for Parliament's privileges and to act with integrity. Integrity alongside transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of good governance and democracy.

I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm categorically that the Canadian firearms program and the RCMP fully respect the authority of Parliament and the legislative process.

The mission of the Canadian firearms program is to enhance public safety by reducing the risk of harm from the misuse of firearms. To support these objectives, the Canadian firearms program uses online bulletins and website updates to communicate any changes in requirements to stakeholders as well as the general public.

Web updates are posted to inform about topics such as changes to the firearms licensing regime, modifications to the transfer process, revisions to classifications, changes to requirements for business and much more. These online updates are important to increase awareness among legal firearms owners and to increase compliance with the Firearms Act and the associated regulations.

On May 8, 2018, updates were made to the CFP website to inform individual owners and businesses in possession of certain Swiss arms or Ceská Zbrojovka model 858 firearms that classification changes had been proposed under Bill C-71.

As only certain Swiss arms and CZ858 firearms would be impacted by the proposed classification changes, the Canadian firearms program included information on the website to assist clients in determining whether their firearm would be impacted by the bill as introduced in the House, presuming that the legislation was finally enacted by Parliament.

The focus of the information was to provide an explanation of actions that would need to be taken by individuals by June 30, 2018, in order to be eligible for the proposed grandfathering provisions that were outlined in the draft bill. Information was also posted for Canadian businesses, as the regime proposed by Bill C-71 would have an impact on businesses that had firearms in their business inventory after June 30, 2018.

The objective was to allow these individuals and these businesses to be prepared and to avoid anyone inadvertently finding themselves in contravention of the law once it was passed. The updates related to Bill C-71 were done in good faith, and they were intended to encourage awareness and to educate stakeholders.

Following the publication of the information, concerns were flagged to the Canadian firearms program by the media and by other concerned citizens pertaining to the language that had been used in the web content to describe the status of Bill C-71. To immediately address those concerns, the Canadian firearms program consulted with relevant stakeholders and made revisions to the web content on May 30, 2018.

Following the question that was raised by the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner in the House, a further review of the website was undertaken and a complete set of edits was posted on July 3, 2018.

The language of the initial web content on Bill C-71 was not intended to assume the passage of the legislation, contravene the legislative process, or undermine the authorities of Parliament. The revised web content removed potentially misleading language and clarified the status of Bill C-71.

Mr. Chair, I believe the RCMP made good faith efforts to inform Canadians about the impacts of the legislation should Parliament pass it in its current form. Those impacts needed to be outlined for Canadians before the legislation was actually passed, as decisions would have to be made by those Canadians before the bill received royal assent. However, the website's original postings did not sufficiently convey the fact that Parliament was still considering Bill C-71 and that changes could be made to it.

We can see from the first update that the answers to the Q & A were changed to reflect what would happen if Bill C-71 were to be passed in its current form. In the second update, you can see that the questions in the Q & A were also revised and corrected.

Just as an example of this, Mr. Chair, in the original posting, the website asks how Bill C-71 affected individuals, and it answered that Bill C-71 would affect your CZ model 858 firearms in one of three ways. The second iteration of that same point contained a question from an individual trying to determine if his Swiss Arms or CZ model 858 would be affected by Bill C-71. In answer, the website stated that the information there was intended to provide guidance to firearms owners should Bill C-71 become law.

The final version, Mr. Chair, read as follows:

How would Bill C-71 affect individual owners of Ceská Zbrojovka (CZ) and Swiss Arms (SA) firearms?

Bill C-71 proposes changes that would impact some firearm owners in Canada. The information outlined below is intended to provide guidance to CZ/SA firearm owners should Bill C-71, as introduced in the House of Commons on March 20, 2018, become law.

You can see through those quotations the evolution of the language.

In endeavouring to keep Canadians as up to date as possible about the implications of legislation before Parliament, the RCMP did not sufficiently advise them that Parliament had yet to pass those changes. I believe, Mr. Chair, that it was an honest error and one that the RCMP corrected through the two updates to the site that I have referenced.

We apologize for the mistake and for any misunderstanding that resulted. We continue to be committed to providing Canadians with important information related to the requirements for firearms ownership in Canada. We commit to ensuring that this information will use clear language and accurately reflect the legislative process.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the members present here today who brought this issue to the attention of the House and who spoke to the issue as parliamentarians. You have defended the legislative process and emphasized the continuing importance of transparency and accountability in government agencies. I thank you very much for that.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll go on to the first round with Mr. Simms.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister and your officials, for coming.

The other day when we had Mr. Motz here for his testimony—it's his motion as you know—I started my line of questioning by offering an opinion. Shocking, I know.

My opinion was essentially about the fact that I'm very interested in measuring one's intent as opposed to one's actions. I'll preface that by saying that we deal a lot with Elections Canada here. If Elections Canada did not go through the motions of what was pending, then we would be in quite a bind if, preceding that election, working our way up to it.... There's a lot of groundwork to be done.

This particular situation is not divorced from that. I have a lot of gun owners in my riding, and the laws change. They go from registry to no registry, amnesty to no amnesty, and so on. Sometimes it's hard to keep up.

I appreciate the fact that you exercised due diligence to get this information out as quickly as possible so that people will be ready for it. I agree with you that the language used was insinuating something that did not exist. That's why I'm trying to think about the intent of this.

Mr. O'Reilly, could you talk about my comments? Was there an intention to do this? When was it brought to your attention that there is a method by which we pass legislation in this country and therefore we should defer to that when we're communicating what we do?

At the same time, I want you talk about the work you've done before Bill C-71 to get to that point.

November 1st, 2018 / 11:35 a.m.

Rob O'Reilly Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

As you can appreciate, there are many facets to Bill C-71. It is not the program's normal practice to speak to legislation that is before the House or the Senate. One element of Bill C-71 had the potential to impact firearms owners because of the date of June 30 that was written into the legislation.

Almost immediately after the minister rose in the House on March 20 and spoke to Bill C-71, the program started to receive telephone calls from firearms owners and individuals who were interested—if I can use that word—in these two particular firearms, the Swiss Arms and the Ceská Zbrojovka, as my Polish colleagues tell me it is pronounced—and that is the last time I'll use that—the CZ.

We almost immediately started to receive calls after the March 20 date, and felt at that point that it was important to start providing some information to Canadian owners.

We started working on a—

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

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

And you were cognizant of the coming into force part of the bill as well?

11:35 a.m.

Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Rob O'Reilly

I was, yes, absolutely.

The program had been fairly involved with Public Safety in some of the early drafting of this legislation. I had appeared before parliamentarians with the minister on the night the bill was introduced. I was preparing for my appearance before SECU on this.

I was intimately aware of the evolutionary nature of the legislation, but we were faced with a growing need to provide some information that was increasingly starting to come into the program.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

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

Ms. Strachan, do you care to comment?

11:35 a.m.

Deputy Commissioner Jennifer Strachan Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

I'll preface this by saying that I've been working with the program since September. A lot of dedicated colleagues there strive to provide 24-7 information for Canadians. Not everybody can call. Their goodwill and honest intent are to provide information, and to do so under maybe a bit of a time crunch, recognizing in their haste to get the message out, that perhaps the language wasn't as tight as it needed to be.

I think we're very regretful. The irony of that is that the whole intent of the efforts by the staff was to assist Canadians, not cause any confusion.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK

Mr. Simms, I just ask to make a point. This is not the first time that a government has stumbled over the issue we're discussing today, and this applies to governments of all political stripes.

Maybe it would be useful if this committee could offer some technical guidance as to how public servants, when they're preparing public information that could anticipate legislation that has not received final approval by the House of Commons, should phrase themselves to make sure they are in fact being absolutely, precisely accurate.

Is there a form of wording that the committee would recommend for providing information in advance that public servants should use, to make it abundantly clear to Canadians that this is what would happen if the pending legislation were adopted? Maybe even through the use of technology there's some sort of coding that appears on a website that says something like “This information pertains to legislation that has not yet been enacted by the Parliament of Canada.”

It's not just with this issue, but with many issues that have stretched back many years through several parliaments and several governments. Is there a way you would recommend that public servants should all be guided by the same sorts of principles, to make sure the public is accurately informed?

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

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

Speaking of which, I'd love to, but apparently I'm out of time.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you.

Now we'll go on to Ms. Kusie.

11:40 a.m.

Stephanie Kusie Calgary Midnapore, CPC

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Minister, for being here today.

Minister, you elaborated quite significantly in regard to the “what”, and I feel as a committee we have been very well briefed on what happened. I think the reason we're here today is to get to the “how” and “why” this happened. You indicated in your summary that you believe this was an honest error, and I would say—and I think my colleagues would agree—that when an error occurs, certainly we all feel sorry about things, but I think it's more important that we learn why, and most important that we ensure that these things never happen again.

I've certainly heard you say this, but can you confirm, please? Are you personally concerned with what has happened here?

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK

I want Canadians to be accurately informed about everything the government does, and I am indeed concerned when there has been confusion. Yes.

11:40 a.m.

Calgary Midnapore, CPC

Stephanie Kusie

I appreciate that. Thank you.

With that concern, would you say that you agree and that you support our getting to the bottom of this issue and, in doing so, putting forward advice to prevent this from ever happening again?

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK

I would certainly welcome that advice, as I just indicated to Mr. Simms.

11:40 a.m.

Calgary Midnapore, CPC

Stephanie Kusie

Excellent. What personal actions did you take, Minister, after the question of privilege was first raised in the House?

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK

Obviously, I recognized, once Mr. Motz had raised his point, that there would be a parliamentary procedure that would follow. This is part of that parliamentary procedure, and I am very anxious, through that process, to devise ways in which this kind of problem, which has affected many governments over many years, can be avoided in the future.

11:40 a.m.

Calgary Midnapore, CPC

Stephanie Kusie

Now, after the Speaker's finding of the prima facie contempt, the Government House leader's parliamentary secretary, Monsieur Lamoureux, told the House, “the government regrets that the situation took place and has taken steps to rectify it.”

Can you elaborate in terms of the steps that were taken?

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK

I believe Mr. Lamoureux was referring to the revisions on the website that took place between the beginning of May and the first part of July, I believe it was, which I referred to in my remarks.

11:40 a.m.

Calgary Midnapore, CPC

Stephanie Kusie

You did. Thank you.

Were steps taken by any other department or central agency as a part of the effort to rectify the situation?

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Regina—Wascana, SK

I think what departments and agencies would be waiting for, in fact, would be the deliberations of this committee and any recommendations that you would make of a broad governmental nature, so that circumstances like this can be avoided in the future.

11:45 a.m.

Calgary Midnapore, CPC

Stephanie Kusie

What role do you personally play, Minister, in government publications with regard to legislative proposals you are sponsoring?