Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Well, it's the chair's prerogative to rule each and every amendment as admissible or not.

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

On a point of order, we have not been able to say our piece on whether we feel it's in order or not.

Are you going to go through every single one without our even getting the opportunity, as Conservatives, NDP and Bloc, to say why we may feel this is out of order and out of the scope?

Are you just going to cut off that debate, Mr. Chair? Is that what we're understanding?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's not a debatable question.

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

As Mr. Lloyd said, you decided this was in order before we were even provided with an opportunity to say why we believe it isn't. You're now setting the standard that no one at this committee can argue for any of the amendments we believe are not in order.

Is that what I'm understanding is happening here? We can't say our piece on why we think this is out of order because you jumped the gun, in essence, and said, “This is in order and I say so.” I'm just being clear on what your position is on this. There are this many amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Let's back up here.

Mr. Chiang was moving it, which implicitly means that I considered it to be in order. Mr. Lloyd expressed a problem with that. I know you mentioned earlier that you had concerns about whether or not this amendment was admissible; therefore, I explicitly made a ruling—which is the chair's prerogative—that it is, in fact, in order, in my opinion. That's my prerogative.

I understand your perspective. The decision has been challenged by Mr. Lloyd. We have a motion before us on whether or not to sustain the decision of the chair.

Mr. MacGregor is next, I believe.

We seem to be entering into debate. We'll have a very brief....

We're not going to debate this. The chair has ruled.

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

You have to hear interventions before you can rule. You're like the Speaker of the House here. You have to hear interventions on any matter before the committee. That's what your requirement is. You can't pre-rule on something you believe to be in order. You can't. You have to hear why we think it isn't and why the government position thinks it is, and then you rule. That's how it works.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

A challenge to the chair is not debatable, but we're entering into debate on this. We need to vote on whether or not your decision is sustained; then we can get back to the business of the committee. This challenge is not debatable, and we need to vote on it.

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

The issue is that you made a ruling that wasn't even able to be made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

There is no issue. The chair has the prerogative to make this ruling. The chair has made his ruling.

The motion is before the committee on whether or not to sustain the decision of the chair, so—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I apologize for interrupting you,

Just to be clear, you did not hear arguments from us on why this is not admissible to this bill. You did not allow us that opportunity.

You made a ruling. You said it is your opinion that it is not, but you have not heard any perspectives on it, save for one. I want to make it very clear to committee members that you did not allow us the opportunity to make our case for why we believe G-4, which will impact hundreds of thousands of people, is not admissible to Bill C-21.

To be clear, your opinion is formed on a lack of evidence on what we would like to have brought forward, should you have given us that opportunity. However, you did not. That's just to be clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for your intervention.

We will proceed with the vote. Shall the decision of the chair be sustained? I think we should do a roll call vote on this.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

The decision of the chair is sustained, so the amendment is in order.

Mr. Chiang was in the process of moving the amendment.

Please start again.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

From my personal experience serving as a police officer for many years, I have witnessed first-hand the harms that assault weapons can do to our communities. The government has taken bold action to get these dangerous weapons off the streets. However, we have heard that new makes and models of firearms are continuously created to circumvent the current definition of a prohibited firearm.

During the witness testimony, this committee heard from a number of witnesses about the importance of this amendment, including the Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, the Coalition for Gun Control and PolySeSouvient.

Dr. Najma Ahmed, from the Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, discussed the ongoing use of an assault weapon in violent crime, saying that we must take a more comprehensive approach. She was quoted as saying:

A similar type of gun, the SKS rifle, which is not currently covered by the order in council, was used recently to kill two police officers in Ontario. A clear line must be drawn to ban all semi-automatic rifles as part of this legislation.

Furthermore, Ms. Wendy Cukier, from the Coalition for Gun Control, stated:

The second area in which we think the legislation could be strengthened is with respect to the ban on semi-automatic military-style weapons. We think that a definition should be included to make very clear the evergreen requirements for this legislation. We know from the 1995 orders in council that gun manufacturers will circumvent any lists that are provided, so it's important to have a clear definition, perhaps like those in the California laws, in the legislation along with the OIC.

This testimony also supports our efforts to ensure that the definition of prohibited firearms is comprehensive and properly addresses the public safety of all Canadians. Given the demonstrated need for these amendments and the related testimony we have heard while questioning witnesses, I hope everyone will support these amendments to create a more comprehensive definition of a prohibited firearm and to improve the public safety of all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We have Ms. Dancho, please, followed Mr. Motz, who will be followed by Mr. Lloyd.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I'm going to read it just so that we're very clear about what it is we're talking about. This is the Liberal government's amendment to Bill C-21 that amends clause 1 by adding the following:

(1.1) The definition “prohibition order” in subsection 84(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

“prohibition order” means an order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament prohibiting a person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, firearm part, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things;

(1.2) The definition “prohibited firearm” in subsection 84(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (d):

(e) a firearm that is capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy exceeding 10 000 Joules, other than a firearm designed exclusively for neutralizing explosive devices,

(f) a firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater, other than a firearm designed exclusively for neutralizing explosive devices,

In particular, Mr. Chair, I would like to follow up my reading of this with some comments about (g), which reads as follows:

(g) a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed,

(h) any unlawfully manufactured firearm regardless of the means or method of manufacture, or

(i) a firearm listed in the schedule to this Part;

(1.3) Subsection 84(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“firearm part” means a barrel for a firearm, a slide for a handgun and any other prescribed part, but does not include, unless otherwise prescribed, a barrel for a firearm or a slide for a handgun if that barrel or slide is designed exclusively for use on a firearm that is deemed under subsection 84(3) not to be a firearm;

(1.4) Subsection 84(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“semi-automatic”, in respect of a firearm, means a firearm that is equipped with a mechanism that, following the discharge of a cartridge, automatically operates to complete any part of the reloading cycle necessary to prepare for the discharge of the next cartridge;

(1.5) Section 84 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) For the purposes of paragraph (f) of the definition prohibited firearm in subsection (1), bore diameter is

(a) in the case of a smoothbore firearm, the interior diameter of the firearm barrel, measured at its narrowest point, forward of the chamber and forcing cone and before the choke and any muzzle attachment; and

(b) in the case of a rifled firearm, the interior diameter of the firearm barrel, measured at its narrowest point, forward of the chamber, throat and freebore and before the crown and any muzzle attachment.

Mr. Chair, I find it important that we are being fully transparent on what this bill does. Just to be very clear, new proposed paragraph 84(1)(g) in essence bans nearly all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. When I conclude my remarks, I would like the experts we have here to provide the extensive list that I would assume they have, or would hope they have, of all firearms in Canada that would fall under this definition in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g).

Again, just to be clear, any centrefire or semi-automatic long gun that has a detachable magazine would be capable of receiving a magazine with the capacity of five or more cartridges. The way it's worded, it seems to be that it's only if it fits a magazine that has more than five cartridges, but the fact is that if you have a magazine that could fit four, it could also fit six, seven or eight. It's the slot for the magazine.

There may be some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that are not included in this, but just to be very, very clear, the Liberal government, with this amendment, is moving to ban almost all semi-automatic shotguns and rifles. We're talking bird hunters. Bird hunters use semi-automatic shotguns.

The Liberal government for seven years has been saying, “No, we respect hunters; we would never come after their firearms; it's not about that, but about the safety of our communities”, but with this amendment, there will be well over a million, and likely more, semi-automatic, perfectly reasonable, standard hunting guns that are banned. That is what we're debating today.

My colleague Mr. Lloyd mentioned the massive financial impact for this. I assume that the Liberal government, if this passes, will be providing some dignity to hunters—in rural Quebec, in the Maritimes, in rural Manitoba, in our urban cities, in northern B.C., etc.—and paying them for them.

We know that this also impacts the OIC. This has financial implications in that regard, but you've ruled that it's fine, even though there will likely be massive financial implications, possibly in the billions of dollars, because of proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g) and the rest of this amendment.

I am quite shocked, and I am shocked that it is in the scope of Bill C-21, even without the financial implications. Bill C-21 was sold to the public as a long-term, slow-burn ban. It's handgun-free, so to speak. It also talked about red flags and airsoft. It said nothing about an all-out war on hunters in Canada, which is what this is, Mr. Chair.

If you get a group of 10 hunters together, it's likely that 40% or half of the firearms they use are semi-automatic shotguns or files. Those are very standard hunting tools.

It's the same for farmers as well, particularly farmers who have issues with wild boars in their communities. We're seeing this increasingly in southern Saskatchewan and Alberta. They're coming in from the United States. They're extremely dangerous to livestock, to human beings and to dogs. If you are a farmer with this invasive species on your land—wild boars coming in from the United States—you're going to hope that you have a semi-automatic rifle or a shotgun as a tool to protect yourself, your livestock and the other animals you have on your farm.

There was no testimony about this whatsoever. It will impact hundreds of thousands of hunters, Mr. Chair, and farmers who use these as completely legitimate tools. It was not discussed or debated at all. Nothing in here is about an attack on hunters, and yet here we are, in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g). Every promise that has ever been made by the Liberal government that it is not going after hunters has been completely and utterly thrown out of the window. There was not a single witness who we were able to provide who was asked about the impact of this, whether it's on safety or whether it's on the impact of our firearms hunting community.

This is no longer about sport shooters and their handguns. This is about hunters and farmers who use semi-automatic shotguns to go goose hunting.

I was quite shocked, and we had to do a considerable amount of research in the last few days to understand if we were really seeing this correctly. I wanted to believe the Liberal government when it said that it wasn't going to attack hunters and farmers and the tools they use, to say nothing of indigenous communities, who often use semi-automatic rifles to hunt. They're very popular, in fact, in the indigenous community. We had them here. We were not able to consult them on this.

I have a lot to say on this. I wanted to introduce this off the bat. It's just to say, Mr. Chair, I was quite shocked that the Liberal government is looking to attack our hunting community in Canada.

I find it very insulting, personally. It's a personal attack on the people I grew up with, who are law-abiding citizens who use these as perfectly legitimate tools. They passed them down for generations. Now, if this passes, those will be illegal, and we didn't even have the chance to invite witnesses to debate this properly.

It has nothing to do with handguns. It has nothing to do with the handgun freeze. This is an attack on hunters, Mr. Chair, and I'm deeply concerned about it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I certainly echo the comments of my colleague Ms. Dancho. The whole idea behind the premise of Bill C-21, the Liberals told the public, was public safety: It was all about public safety.

When the bill was debated on second reading to first come to this committee, nowhere did the government have this in any of their conversations. They've tried to assure Canadians now for a number of years that their attack on firearms and firearm owners in this country is legitimate and is only for public safety, when we've all seen—and clearly see—it has nothing to do with public safety.

To go back to the point I made earlier, this particular bill, when debated in the House, included none of this.

It included none of this. This is brought in at the 11th hour because the Liberals knew that if this were to be debated in the Canadian public, which this impacts, it would be shot down. Witnesses would come by the dozens and would speak against it.

Now I will challenge Ms. Dancho's comment. This doesn't affect hundreds of thousands: This affects millions of Canadians and millions of firearms. There are millions of Canadians who hunt and sport shoot. What I would like to do for some time is to go to our legislators here in the room and ask some questions.

Can you tell me the intent behind this? I'll start with item (g) here, proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g):

a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed.

Okay. As I read that, having grown up with firearms, I'd say that many firearms that are semi-automatic can't accept magazines that are different from the five-round mags; we know that anything above in this category is a prohibited device. You can't have a magazine in this category that you're talking about with a magazine greater than five rounds, but for firearms, by their simple design, can a magazine be available that has more than five? Sure. Does it fit that firearm? Sure it does, and that's already a prohibited device, as listed in the code already.

Why this is there shows me only one thing: Any firearm that is capable of receiving a magazine greater than five rounds is now going to be a prohibited device. Please tell me that isn't so. If the language that you've written here is wrong, then let's change it.

Go ahead, Ms. Clarke.

[Paula Clarke]

You are correct in how you have interpreted the wording of the description that would be added to the definition of firearm—

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

In essence, then, the Liberal government has tried to back-door this. This is not a reflection on you; they asked you to do something. However, they back-doored something they've said all along: “We are never going to go after industry or the hunters and farmers who have these types of firearms.” What you have done, in essence, is create a whole class of potential criminals, because they have a firearm that has the capability of receiving a magazine that can hold more than five cartridges. That's what you're saying.

With proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g), we have now created an administrative offence for a gun that's been in existence for decades and decades, and that has no history of public safety issues. We've now made millions of Canadians criminals, because they have a firearm. In reality, as Ms. Dancho indicated, if there are 500,000 of just one type of firearm in existence worth $600, then, by a conservative estimate—we're talking small “c” conservative—it's billions of dollars for that alone.

First of all, I don't understand your ruling, Mr. Chair, on how this fits with anything. It's like you have some direction, and you have to try to push this through, no matter what. I tell you, this is absolutely wrong.

This only affects the firearms that exist now or any variance that might come out in the future, as with the order in council of May 2020. We had a few firearms on that list. Then, as the days, weeks and months went by, the firearms centre added more and more firearms. Now, in this bill, we see again hundreds and hundreds of firearms added that make absolutely no sense.

We have to keep going back to remind ourselves that this is about public safety. That's what the Liberals tell us Bill C-21 is supposed to be all about. Please tell me. Show me the evidence. Mr. Chiang brought this motion forward, and I respect his service. I have 35 years in policing as well. I don't see how anything in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g) is going to have any substantive impact on public safety, period.

If we don't impact public safety, what are we wasting our time for? Seriously, what are we doing here? It is absolutely ludicrous that we have this broad-brush—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Motz, I would encourage you to ask some questions they can answer.

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

I can add commentary before I get to my question.

—this broad-brush approach to confuse those in Canada who think the Liberals are actually doing something for public safety. If they were doing something for public safety, with all the money they've poured into this over the last number of years, since they came to power—seven years—we wouldn't have had 174 additional violent homicide offences in the last year over the year before. We have a problem in this country, and it isn't the lawful gun owners. This bill does nothing but target law-abiding Canadians—nothing.

Where in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g) do we talk about ensuring that criminals are the focus of this? Are you going to make all these changes to definitions in subsection 84(1), trying to add parts to firearms prohibition orders or update the definition of a prohibited firearm by taking out “or”? We're talking about including prohibitive firearms that have a muzzle energy exceeding 1,000 joules, which is like big-game hunting in Africa. All the stuff we're talking about...a bore diameter greater than 20 millimetres.

Where is the evidence that says these firearms...? What's happening, right here, in this list of firearms.... Does everything about this in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g) actually improve public safety?

You've been asked to make this legislation, and it's obviously based on something—some evidence, somewhere, that says we have a problem in this country and we have to identify these firearms because they are a danger to the public. Can you tell us what evidence there is to support this legislation, please?

[Paula Clarke]

The definition was based on a policy decision that was made at the political level.

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

Right, so it's a Liberal policy that says, “We want to get rid of firearms. We want to attack legal firearm owners, so this is what we're going to do arbitrarily.”

I feel sorry for you guys. I really do. You've been put in this tough spot. Seriously, you've been put in a very difficult spot to do the will of the masters, who suggest that we're doing all this fancy stuff for public safety, and they've done diddly-squat for public safety, diddly-squat. I'm embarrassed for them, embarrassed, and they themselves should be embarrassed.

Mr. Chiang, I have all due respect for you. This is not an amendment that's going to do anything for public safety—nothing, nothing whatsoever.

All the firearms listed here, as Ms. Dancho asked.... I would really like to know, as she asked.... I would ask that you guys do that. Are you able to provide this committee with a list of the firearms listed in the schedule that fit the definition under proposed paragraph 1(1.2), which says that it's a semi-automatic rifle or a shotgun, because it applies to either one, and has the capacity or the ability to accept a magazine that has greater than five rounds in it, five cartridges. That would include many of them.

The fact is that we already know that, for most of this, if you have a magazine that exceeds the legal capacity, it's already a prohibited device in this country as it is, yet we're going to make something more illegal, because the criminals are going to be very concerned about making sure that they don't have a firearm capable of having a magazine that can take more than five. No.

Do you have a list? How many of those on this list...? Give me a number. We'll want the whole volume, the models and makes of all of them that fit proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g). Can you provide those for us?

[Phaedra Glushek]

To answer the committee member's question, we do not have a list of firearms with us.

What I can speak to is what this motion before you does. What this motion before you does is amend the definition of “prohibited firearm” to add what is currently in the classification regulations and bring them in.

It's a definition. The definition includes proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g), which is a definition of.... It's an evergreen definition.

I do not have the list. We do not have the list with us. I understand that there are other motions that might be brought before the committee, but we don't have that with us.

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

With the chair's indulgence, I would certainly ask that if you have that list and you can prepare it and provide it to the committee at your earliest convenience, that would be awesome.

I appreciate the fact that proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g) in all of these makes adjustments to section 84(1) of the Criminal Code. I get it, but then they become a prohibited weapon. That becomes a prohibited weapon. Is that right?

In proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g), you're defining what (g) stands for under a prohibited firearm, and proposed paragraphs 1(1.2)(e), (f), (g) and (h) are all going to be amended. Is that right?

[Phaedra Glushek]

That is correct.