Evidence of meeting #122 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Matthew Dubé
Are there any other interventions?
Mr. Spengemann, you have the floor.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, this is just a word of support for paragraph d). I think it was particularly the indigenous community who told us that storage regulations, or storage facilities and parameters, are a cause of concern. I would support both paragraphs a) and d).
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I'll just reiterate that we had an opportunity to put this more definitively in legislation rather than leaving it to the discretion of a regulatory process, which this Parliament and this committee would have no ability to influence, other than a gazetting period. That's my only rationale. I'm not arguing with the intent of what these say; I'm arguing, from a process perspective, about how paragraphs a) and d) should have been dealt with legislatively through Bill C-71 and not through the regulatory process.
Had we had an opportunity to have more witnesses, to hear from more people, and not rush Bill C-71 through the House and the committee process, we might have been able to give law-abiding Canadians certainty on firearms. Now they are going to be wondering what is going to be happening at the cabinet table and what will potentially come out of any regulatory changes that will be proposed, without having the scrutiny of Parliament to oversee it.
My issue is that of process, and not one of intent.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Matthew Dubé
If there is no further debate, we'll vote on the amendment to delete paragraphs a) and d).
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On the motion as amended—
12:30 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Matthew Dubé
—is there further debate?
Am I hearing a request for a recorded vote?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Yes, please.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:30 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Matthew Dubé
We have a third motion standing in the name of Mr. Motz, if you are so pleased.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Mr. Chair, I won't reread the motion. All of you have it in front of you.
I think what's fair to suggest is that the minister made some questionable remarks both in the House and to this committee, and there were enough to have raised a few eyebrows—pardon the pun.
When Bill C-71 was presented, there was some misrepresented use of stats by the minister that industry, Canadians, and academics called into question, namely that the minister used selective dates, as just a small example, to create a crisis that did not and does not exist.
Earlier this year, the minister appeared before this committee and stated emphatically over and over again that he could not discuss, for example, the Atwal issue, because it had national security concerns. Thanks to the media and some of our Conservative colleagues, the minister admitted in the House that there were in fact no national security issues, and that he effectively had failed to—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Now he's failed in his duty to report accurate information to this committee and to Canadians.
We find out that the list of people who were supposedly consulted on Bill C-71 is not accurate. To date, I'm aware of seven individuals who the minister has identified as having been consulted but who stated that they were not. That's from the list of witnesses that he has tabled in the House of Commons.
We know that the Assembly of First Nations, for example, has stated that they were not consulted, perhaps because the current government was afraid that they would say, as every other Canadian has said about the bill, that it doesn't work. It will do nothing to deal with gun violence and gang violence. It will certainly impact them as first nation individuals in their traditional hunting and traditional family practices.
The minister's list and his comment in the House and at the committee again raises serious issues about how much information we can take into account from the minister. Mr. Holland, who attends this committee sporadically, stated in the House, “[W]e take consultations very seriously. We spoke with first nations chiefs on the bill.” That would suggest the minister did consult with the first nations, but the Assembly of First Nations stated again that they were not consulted.
I would note that Mr. Holland also stated in the House, “There have been a tremendous number of witnesses.” He was referring to those who testified before committee. I can only assume he was amazed by how awesome it was to have 17 witnesses before this committee out of the hundreds who had wanted to be heard. Seventeen is really not a large number at all when you are dealing with a matter that impacts this many Canadians. I don't think that having officials testify in the place of Canadians who are impacted are those who should be considered an amazing number of witnesses.
When the minister appeared before this committee, I noted that he did not use the word “consult” once. He did not state that there had been extensive consultations on this bill. He did not state to this committee that Bill C-71 had wide consultations, as his parliamentary secretary did, and as he did on national security.
Once again, his parliamentary secretary spoke to the House and stated that there were “discussions in every corner of this country, including with first nations chiefs, chiefs of police, the firearms community, and others about how exactly the promises we made in the election platform might come to bear, might come to pass.”
Mr. Chair, I submit that a minister who appears at committee needs to be clear, accurate, and held to a high standard, more of a high standard than just appearing to be accurate.
If someone is to be consulted, then they should know that they've been consulted. I would seek that the committee have the minister appear before this committee Tuesday or Thursday of next week so that we do not have to return to our ridings and explain the misinformation that has been presented.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Chair, first, regarding Mr. Motz's intervention in terms of the minister using selected dates, I think my colleague Mr. Fragiskatos did a pretty good job of discrediting the academic who presented alternative statistics. I use the word “academic” lightly.
In terms of consultation, the minister had several meetings with the groups that Mr. Motz mentioned as not being consulted leading up to the bill's introduction. In terms of indigenous people, he did meet with the indigenous police, and the Assembly of First Nations appeared as a witness before our committee in order to get their voices heard on this.
We will not be supporting the motion that's before us.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I understand what my colleague is saying. However, regarding the government and ministers' transparency, the information we have is very worrying.
I'd like to point out that our committee is not concerned with poetry. We are the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In that capacity, our duty to Canadians is to shed light on this topic.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
The comment I was going to make adds no value to the camaraderie on this committee, so I will withhold it.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Matthew Dubé
That's very much appreciated.
Seeing no further interventions, I'll call the question on Mr. Motz's motion.
(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:35 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Matthew Dubé
We're going to go in camera to consider the ion scanner report in the 20 minutes we have remaining.
[Proceedings continue in camera]