Public Safety Committee on Nov. 24th, 2022

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

What you're saying is that, if this legislation and this amendment pass, and if a tourist was coming to this country to spend tens of thousands of dollars to hunt big game and only had these prohibited firearms, they would not be allowed to bring these prohibited firearms into the country. They would have to find a non-restricted firearm to bring into the country. Is that what you're saying?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

They would have to bring one in that they can bring in, or they would have to make arrangements to use another firearm.

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

You mean to use a non-restricted or non-prohibited firearm. Is that correct?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

They would have to use whatever is legally allowed here in Canada.

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

That's interesting.

That's very concerning if the definition we're bringing in here is any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun that is capable of carrying a magazine of over five rounds. I know a lot of tourists who come to this country spend tens of thousands of dollars on one trip alone. They wouldn't be able to bring in their firearms, so they would choose not to come to this country in the first place.

Has any economic analysis been done by the government on the impact that this amendment would have on tourism, like sports and hunting tourism?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I don't believe there has been.

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

Okay. Thank you.

The government hasn't even done an economic analysis on the impact of this sweeping new legislation, and that's just talking about tourists. Let's talk about Canadians. Over 1.3 million Canadian hunters in this country contribute to our GDP. They are taxpaying citizens and abide by the law. This generates economic activity in our country. We're talking about upwards of $13.2 billion. I believe this legislation could take a significant chunk of that out of our country, and the government hasn't even provided an economic analysis.

It just speaks to the fact that this has come very late in the committee process. We could have had witnesses. We could have asked the minister questions. We could have had people bring in economic analyses and we could have studied this. Unfortunately, we haven't.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to cede my time to my colleague Mr. Motz. I know you found what I had to say very riveting and very educational. I thank you for giving me this time to speak to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Indeed, I found it intensely riveting and fascinating.

Mr. Motz is recognized.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm going to start by going back to the opening statement made by Ms. Damoff.

For Canadians who are watching online right now or who will watch this at some point later down the road, I want you to go back to the very beginning of this particular meeting. I want you to listen to the comments made by Ms. Damoff.

With all due respect to Ms. Damoff, the statement, which was obviously prepared for her, identifies the—

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

On a point of order, Chair, I wrote every single word of what I said. For someone to imply that I didn't...I take great offence to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for that.

Go ahead, Mr. Motz.

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

That's perfect. You're aware of the comments I'm about to make then.

The statements that were made—now, admittedly, by Ms. Damoff—suggest the absolute and utter ignorance of the laws that we have in this country already and of the whole historical perspective of firearms and the use of firearms for hunting. It absolutely makes zero sense.

It identifies, again, the lack of understanding that this member has—and the Liberals, for that matter, because they're the ones pushing this misguided legislation—on the firearms that are used for military applications. It flies in the face of common sense. I can't imagine the emails we're going to get now, based on that statement. People are so frustrated with this government already and its misguided approach.

I want go back to the reason why we're debating this particular issue. For those of you who may not be aware, or need to be reminded, we are dealing with a government amendment. It's called G-4 in our package. It's a government amendment to a bill. They wrote the bill and obviously found out that there were a lot of mistakes with the bill. They decided to add some things to it that they didn't want to have covered off at the front end. That would be my perspective.

When a bill is presented, it is able to be debated in the House before it comes to committee. Before this bill even came to the committee, we had an opportunity to debate the substance of the bill. This amendment, for example—I'll get to it in just a minute—was not able to be debated. It was not even included in the bill. No one knew it was even coming. However, I believe the Liberals knew exactly what they were doing. This is a backdoor process. It was done deliberately, in my estimation.

I have an initial question for those officials who are here.

You were involved in creating Bill C-21. Is that correct?

[Paula Clarke]

That's correct.

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

In your initial creation of Bill C-21, were there any conversations about this particular amendment in those initial conversations?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I would suggest to Mr. Motz that he's asking for probably confidential and privileged information.

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

They don't have privilege on that matter. They can answer the question directly, Chair, on when they were asked for information and when they started preparing these amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I believe that the development of legislation at the cabinet level is subject to cabinet confidence.

I'll certainly allow the witnesses to respond, if they wish.

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

Like on Tuesday, I believe the chair has a misinterpretation of what is and isn't allowed.

I'll ask it a different way, then.

When you prepared C-21, the original version that came before Parliament, did you have, in the background, amendment G-46 and G-4, for example, that would expand the definition of a prohibitive firearm? Was that something that you were already working on then?

[Paula Clarke]

I can't answer that question. That falls within solicitor-client privilege.

I can answer any question related to the bill as presented in Parliament and any question related to the motions.

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

Again, as I told you before, with all due respect, if I'm pushing, it's not going to be on you. It's going to be about the government. You need to understand that.

[Paula Clarke]

I understand that.

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

I sit on another committee, and I always find that when things get a little too hot, the government likes to hide behind this privilege that they've identified. It's rather interesting.

I guess I can come to my own conclusions, and the Canadian public certainly will come to their own conclusions, about when this was actually thought of: Do you know what? Let's not put it in right away. If we put it in right away, we're going to have a huge debate on our hands. The Canadian public is going to be up in arms—pardon the pun—about expanding the definition of prohibited firearm to include hunting rifles and shotguns that are, right now, before this passes, non-restricted firearms in this country.

I think it was a deliberate attempt to mislead the Canadian public and mislead Parliament. This was planned.

At any rate, this is for the public at home to see what we're talking about and why this is so disconcerting. In G-4, which is a government amendment, one thing they're adding there is that they want to change the definition in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code to expand the definition of a prohibited firearm. They want to expand and add to the definition to include the following:

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

In effect, this eleventh-hour backdoor change to the definition of a prohibited firearm will render hundreds of thousands of firearms that are currently in circulation in this country—legally acquired, many of them non-restricted—to now be not restricted but completely prohibited.

On a personal note, my grandchildren hunt. Their father has passed on some incredible legacy to them from his father about hunting. They hunt for food. They don't have regular beef in the fridge. They have antelope, deer, elk, moose and bear. Everything else that they can hunt, they hunt. It's a great legacy. I'm so proud of what my grandchildren are doing and how my son-in-law is teaching them these skills. This year they got an antelope and a moose. They have other animals that they are seeking to fill up their fridges with.

The firearms they use, legally acquired and legally possessed, are now going to be prohibited. Why? The suggestion earlier was that these firearms that exist and that we have on this list now are military. Strangely, they're using a military firearm for that. My grandson has a semi-automatic rifle, and I asked him recently why he has one. He said, “Papa, I care about my animals. I don't want them to suffer. If I take an animal and he doesn't go down right away, I need to have access to make sure I can take him down in a humane way.” I find that to be pretty remarkable for a 14-year-old little boy.

It just shows, again, the absolute and utter ignorance of this government and the members of this government with regard to this whole process of trying to identify these big, bad people who are the Canadian firearm owners who are somehow a risk to the Canadian public, and of having firearms that, in some cases, have been passed down for generations now all of a sudden be illegal.

I find that to be incredibly problematic, and it is an example, again, of how ideology trumps common sense.

Again, this is not directed at you folks.

I want to pick up on a comment that my colleague, Mr. Lloyd, spoke about with respect to the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960. Section 1 says:

It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

That's the key. Because as I understand what will happen, the fact that this deceptive Liberal government intends to try to push this through means that they won't have to then compensate anyone if they make all these firearms illegal, because that's the due process of law in this country. Would that be a fair assessment?

By listing what originally was a non-restricted firearm as a prohibited firearm, and this is now prohibited, would mean that the government could take that property, because that follows the due process of law. Would that be a correct assumption?

[Phaedra Glushek]

The government can bring before Parliament a bill that can prohibit within the federal sphere of jurisdiction. Compensation is a matter of policy and whether or not to compensate owners.

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

That's right, and I appreciate that, but let me try to ask this in a different way. The government will do this under the guise of public safety and due process. They're going to pass the legislation. It's going to be forced through without the proper debate in the House that should have and could have occurred. They're going to have support, I'm sure, from other opposition parties. Therefore, it becomes law. Then, because it becomes law, that property, which five minutes before becoming a law was able to be lawfully enjoyed in a non-restricted manner, now becomes prohibited. That property can be seized by the government because it is no longer lawful, and it is seizable, if you will, because it was done through the due process of law.

Am I correct in assuming that?

[Paula Clarke]

Due process of law includes the parliamentary process by which Parliament decides which firearms may or may not be prohibited. Whether or not the government decides to compensate owners in the future is....