Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome, everyone.

Welcome to meeting 49 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). Today, the committee starts clause-by-clause consideration.

I'll now welcome the officials who are here with us this afternoon. They are available for questions regarding the bill but will not deliver any opening statements. We have, from the Department of Justice, Marianne Breese, counsel, Public Safety Canada legal services; Paula Clark, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy.

I thank you for joining us today.

I will now provide some guidance on the clause-by-clause consideration process for Bill C-21. Actually, I believe the clerk has distributed a document to everyone that gives the outline of how to proceed. We will start with clause 0.1, and we will go forward, but not backwards, typically, right?

Does anybody have any questions regarding the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill?

I'll recognize Raquel in just a minute.

We also have our legislative clerks here to guide us along our way, as well as our regular clerk, who is keeping an eye on us.

Ms. Dancho, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciated very much the one-pager you provided to us—I believe it was today—and I just wanted to confirm what a few things meant.

As you noted, a few of us are new to this process. This is, for example, the first time that I am doing clause-by-clause study for a bill, and I appreciated your mention that we will go through this process deliberately so that everyone understands what we're doing.

I did want to clarify a few things.

You mention in the second paragraph that “[t]he Chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill”. You also go on to say “or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown”.

Can you provide a little more insight into what that might look like, particularly on “if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown”? Is this saying that if there's any amendment or anything that brings in a financial component, it's out of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Actually, on that one in particular, I believe it's BQ-25 that requests that the Crown institute a “repurchase” plan, and that requires a charge against the treasury and it requires a royal recommendation. We, as a committee, aren't empowered to do that.

In general, if a change is not within the spirit and scope of the bill, it would be out of order as well. That will be determined on an amendment-by-amendment basis.

Okay? Are there any further questions?

Okay. Let's get into it.

The chair calls new clause 0.1. The first amendment we have there is G-1.

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

I'm sorry. I have one more question.

Now that you've clarified that for me, for one of the amendments—or two of them, actually—I'm a bit concerned about their scope. In particular, I want to say G-4 and G-46. We feel that they're quite significant changes, which they are. That's factual.

Since G-4 is up quite soon—I think it's the fifth or sixth amendment that we would be going through, so I'm assuming we'd be getting there quite quickly—we're wondering, given the substantial change they're proposing, if the government is able to provide more information.

If we could perhaps park those amendments into next week, then we can revisit them once the government has provided more information, in particular on G-4, which in essence proposes a ban on nearly all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, Mr. Chair—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

G-4 hasn't even been moved yet. Should we not be going in order? Don't these have to be moved in order to be discussed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, when we get to G-4, it has to be ruled as admissible or not.

We can defer dealing with a specific clause of Bill C-21—we can stand it and then come back to it—but we can't do that, as I understand it, with amendments. Amendments change things in the order—

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

I have a follow-up question.

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

Sorry. I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Hang on.

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

I have a follow-up question. Thank you.

What I'm asking, though, is that if it's moved, we can't park it until later. That's why I'm bringing this up now, before it is moved.

Again, that amendment would ban almost all semi-automatic shotguns and rifles—

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

I have a point of order again, Chair.

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

—so we're asking if the government can provide a little more information so that we can better understand the impact of it before it is moved, and then we can talk about it in more detail.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It will be when that time comes.

Go ahead on your point of order.

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

Chair, my understanding is that amendments are confidential until moved. We shouldn't even be having this conversation until they're moved. Each amendment is confidential. This is not a conversation we have before any amendment is moved on the floor. Is that not correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

As to confidentiality, that's probably correct. However, I think we're kind in the throes of it anyway.

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho, and then Mr. Motz.

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

There are a number of issues with a number of the clauses introduced. I believe I can speak about them if I'm not reading the entire amendment into the record right now. Can I not speak generally to what they're about before they're introduced?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We will deal with the amendments in order.

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

Okay. Well, what I am asking is that amendment G-4 is going to require significant discussion. Rather than hold up all of the amendments that come after it, what I am proposing, if the committee agrees, is that if I can ask for the information we would like before we consider G-4, we can park it until, say, Tuesday of next week, when the government has a chance to give us all of the semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that would be banned by that amendment.

If they can provide that so that we can consider that more fully, so that we're not holding up all of the other amendments, because, again, it's a very substantial change—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I understand—

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

Again, we can get into that today and hold up all the other ones or we can get more information and have a more fully informed discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'll ask the legislative clerk to speak to that.

We can't defer an amendment like that, can we? Could you give me guidance on that?

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When debate has started on an amendment, you can certainly stand it and study it later, but you cannot stand just one amendment. You would have to stand the whole clause and all the amendments linked to that clause as well.

In your example, it would be the whole of clause 1 that would be studied at the end or whenever you felt you had the answers you needed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

I'll go to Mr. Motz first. Go ahead.