Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I certainly appreciate the goodwill the committee has developed among all parties. As I mentioned, the reason behind the Thursday evening meeting was that the motion to try to fit in the minister arose at a time when I thought we were going to have the minister on Thursday morning. In order to keep our schedule, I was able to find another meeting slot that was available. Our clerk was able to get that approved through all of the administration processes, as well as getting all the whips on board with it.

As I have said, it's not cast in stone. When the opportunity came for the minister and commissioner to come yesterday, and we were able to secure the slot from another committee, it certainly became an extra meeting that we didn't necessarily need to have, but it's all set up and ready go if we want to take it.

I certainly appreciate the goodwill. I don't want to do anything to thwart that, but it kind of arose because of trying to fit everything in. Since it's there, I guess that's my argument. It's set up. We don't have to take it, but it's an option for us to do so if we wish.

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

May I just ask a final question?

When were the witnesses invited? They have already been invited, have they not?

When did those invites go out?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes. Those invitations started to go out last Thursday. When, as I mentioned to Mr. Motz and Mr. MacGregor last Thursday, we were expecting to meet this coming Thursday evening because of the ministers, the clerk started to try to set that up. They need a certain lead time to do that, so he started setting it up then.

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

Just to be clear, as of last Thursday, there was this plan to have a Bill C-21 meeting on Thursday night.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It was, at that point, still tentative, because we weren't absolutely sure we were going to be able to lock it down. We weren't absolutely sure what was going to go on with the minister or the commissioner. It was tentative. I mentioned it to Mr. Motz and Mr. MacGregor on Thursday.

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

Okay.

Mr. Chair, I would just ask that in the future, you have those conversations with me as well, so I can be in the loop.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Absolutely.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Motz, please.

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

Thank you. There are a couple of things.

First, could the clerk read the motion from last meeting, when we made the decision to have an extra one, please? I think that will clarify a lot of misunderstanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I don't think there's any misunderstanding.

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

No, there is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I know that the motion allowed for—

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

For an extra meeting, and we had an extra meeting on Monday. Is that correct? That was exactly the point of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, but it doesn't include our deciding as a committee to go forward with yet another meeting.

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

Okay.

The other thing is, like Mr. Shipley, I'm involved in the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of the Emergencies Act. That happens on Thursday night as well. Ms. Bendayan is on that committee too. I too wish to participate in the Bill C-21 study, but I will be at the Emergencies Act meeting, so I won't be here that night.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I understand, but as I've said, it is a matter for the committee to decide today, whether we don't go ahead with that....

Madame Michaud.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that you acted in good faith when you wanted to reserve a time slot.

We heard Commissioner Lucki and the minister on Monday, but I wasn't aware that we had slowed down our study of Bill C‑21. I thought we could continue meeting in our usual time slots this week.

What is really worrying me is that we are getting closer to the date that amendments have to be tabled. I don't know what the other parties think, but we are not quite ready yet. Procedures must be followed with the legislative clerks to ensure that our amendments are admissible. That is what is worrying me.

I understand that we want to speed up the study, but if I look at the last work plan that was submitted by the clerk, we still have plenty of dates in December. If some members are worried that we won't be able to finish our study on Bill C‑21 before the holiday break, I would answer that there are still quite a few time slots available during our regular committee hours.

We all agreed in good faith and we have discussed the motion for a few minutes now. Why the change without any consultations?

I am mainly worried about tabling the amendments. On which date will we be able to do so if we have a meeting Thursday evening? From what I understand, we are no longer meeting on November 17th.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Well, I'm also proposing that we bring amendments forward, because we will have more time.

We have to abandon this room shortly.

I see Mr. Lloyd wants to speak, and I think then it's Mr. Motz.

I'm hoping we can discuss the matter of the deadline for amendments, maybe on Thursday morning, depending on what we decide for the evening. I'm wondering if—because we are getting pushed for time here—we could have a quick vote on whether to go ahead with the meeting on Thursday evening.

Would that be acceptable to you, Mr. Lloyd, or do you need to speak to—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I just want to say one thing quickly.

We talk a big game about trying to make a work-life balance in this place and trying to help families. I have a two-month-old. I'm not trying to do an appeal to pity here, but having an additional meeting on a Thursday night—booked with very short notice—does a considerable disruption to my life and to my family.

I have been at every single meeting we have had on Bill C-21 and I've been very involved in this process. I just feel it's somewhat.... I understand what you've done, Chair, in trying to find an additional meeting, because there was the possibility that the minister would take up our Thursday morning meeting, and I respect that. I'm not trying to derail Bill C-21's timeline in any way, but to have an additional meeting on Thursday to accelerate this is not something that I gave my consent to, and frankly, is disrespecting my work-life balance.

I understand if members of the committee want to have a vote on it, and want to do that, but we talk a big game about having a work-life balance with family, and if we're going to vote to just override that for some members because some people want to accelerate this, then I guess those are just empty words.

That's all I have to say about that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The point isn't necessarily to accelerate it. It's the fact that we have this meeting slot that became available to us through this whole process I described. I personally don't want to waste it. It potentially would accelerate the study a little. It would give us more time to do amendments, in any case. I believe Ms. Damoff would like to speak, and I would really like to get to a vote on this if we could. Did you wish to speak? Go ahead.

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

I know we're short on resources, so we can just vote if you prefer, Chair.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like an answer to my question, because that will help me vote.

If we hold a meeting on Thursday evening and we lose an entire week that could be used to prepare amendments to be tabled, my vote might be different.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It doesn't have to. The current date for amendments was a week later than that, but it would allow us as a committee to decide if we're able to get our amendments sooner, to accelerate that as well. This decision is simply whether or not we have the meeting on Thursday. Whether we do the amendments sooner or later is a whole other question.

Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

We're starting to see patterns in the testimony. There are three big areas of contention: airsoft, the red flag laws and witnesses being on both sides of the handgun freeze. We're very aware of what the possible amendments to this bill will be, and I don't know if we're going to hear anything different.

I'm speaking as someone who is a member of three committees. I'm okay with meeting on Thursday night. I know that may not make some of my colleagues happy. I already had Thursday blocked off anyway. I'm one of those lucky people who has a committee on Friday morning, so I'm not getting out of here until Friday evening anyway. I would be okay with finishing up witness testimony this week. However, I think Ms. Michaud's point about the amendments and the date those should be received by bears some serious consideration by this committee.