Evidence of meeting #49 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th 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.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it's important to read it out, given the considerable impact it will have on hundreds of thousands of Canadians, to be clear on what we're talking about today.
It is:
That Bill C-21, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 1 the following—
November 22nd, 2022 / 4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Chair, on a point of order, this amendment has not been moved yet, so we can't read it into the record.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
It is part of the record as it stands.
Anyway, it is under Mr. Chiang. Mr. Chiang, go ahead.
Liberal
Paul Chiang Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would now like to move the amendment G-4.
This amendment proposes a number of additional definitions to subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code, including definitions for “prohibition order”, “firearm part”, “semi-automatic” and “bore diameter”.
This amendment will also add subsections to the definition of a prohibited firearm to ensure that moving forward, all new makes and models of firearms that meet this definition are prohibited for sale in Canada.
From my personal experience serving as a police officer for many years, I witnessed first-hand the harms that assault rifles can do to our communities.
Liberal
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Chair, you have ruled that it is in scope, but now that it's being moved and in process....
The reason I'm interrupting is that once he's done moving it, are we not allowed to debate the scope question at that point? If he has completed moving it, is the scope question out? I am asking because I did want to bring up a novel point. It's a novel point that you possibly didn't consider when ruling that it is in scope.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The decision of the chair to rule it in or out of scope is not debatable. If you wish to challenge the ruling, you may do so. That is also not debatable.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Must I do it now, before he's finished moving it?
Conservative
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I just want to bring something to your attention, Mr. Chair. It's maybe not a debate, but you did say that it would affect the financial prerogative of the Crown.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Well, in your email document that you sent to us earlier, you said that you would rule any amendments out of scope if they offended the financial prerogative of the Crown. That was in the document you sent.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That is one reason for not having something admissible, but I don't see that in this bill.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
On that basis, Mr. Chair, I would submit that G-4, in adding a great number of firearms to the list of government-prohibited firearms, would affect the financial impact on the Crown, because the cost to buy back these millions of new firearms would be a massive cost to taxpayers.
I would argue that it's out of the scope of the committee because it does offend the financial prerogative and would require a royal recommendation. It is out of scope because it would have a massive impact on the financial cost to the Crown.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Very well.
The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
If you vote yes, you support the chair. If you vote no, you disagree with the decision of the chair.
I'll call that vote now. All who support sustaining the decision of the chair—
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, before we take the vote, we were not really provided an opportunity to debate this at all. You ruled on something and barely made the case for why this is in scope.
Mr. Lloyd made a good point. You're not providing us with ample opportunity to say at all.... There are a number of other things to consider that suggest this is out of scope, so how can committee members vote if they have not been fully informed of the possible implications of this? I'm not clear on why we weren't provided more time for—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Well, the decision of the chair is not debatable. The decision of whether to override the decision of the chair is also not debatable.
Mr. Lloyd moved to challenge the decision of the chair, so it's before the committee now as to whether or not that decision will be upheld.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
On a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, nobody challenged whether this was out of order. You proactively suggested that this could be out of order. You made a decision when there was no basis for making that decision because nobody had challenged whether it was in order or not. How could you proactively rule that something was in order if nobody challenged whether it was in order or not at the time?