Public Safety Committee on Nov. 24th, 2022

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

I don't want to get stuck on compensation, because that's a red herring. All I'm trying to get at is that contrary to the bill of rights, the way for the government to get around that is to make what was previously legal to possess, to own, and was lawfully purchased by millions of Canadians in this country.... Many hundreds of firearms listed here are non-restricted. They're using this due process law to actually prohibit a firearm, and that's how they're getting around the whole process of forcing people to lose their property.

Would that be a correct assessment?

[Phaedra Glushek]

If you're asking what the impact is of the legislation, its impact is that, once it comes into force, these items would be prohibited and would no longer be legal to possess or use.

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

That's fair, and I get the coming into force.

I'm going to keep on my point a bit. I would make the suggestion that the government is using the due process of law to otherwise take and cause Canadians' lawfully obtained property to become illegal, and they're using that avenue as a way to circumvent the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Would that be a fair assessment?

[Paula Clarke]

I think as we've already answered, the Canadian Bill of Rights applies to federal legislation. Once federal legislation has been passed, that authorizes or permits that property rights are subsumed by the federal legislation. Then following that passage of legislation that could or would prohibit future firearms, anything that follows is done as a policy decision made by the government.

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

I understand.

[Paula Clarke]

I don't think there's anything else we can add to your question.

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

Right, so I won't ask the question. I'll just make the statement.

The Government of Canada has circumvented the Canadian Bill of Rights on lawfully obtained property by making that lawfully obtained property now prohibited and unlawful. That would be the fair way to say it.

Let me ask you again a previous question about G‑4 and G‑46. On what date did you start working on G‑4?

[Phaedra Glushek]

That particular question we would not be able to answer because it's subject to solicitor-client privilege, but what I can say is that the original bill that was tabled in 2019 did not have these amendments in it.

The next thing I can say is that there were public commitments to ban further assault-style firearms by the government following Bill C-21 and, I believe, on the reintroduction of Bill C‑21. That is what I can advise committee members in terms of conversations and public statements that have been made by the government.

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

Thank you.

You made a very interesting statement. The government now had conversations about banning additional assault-style rifles. We all can show pictures of the list here. They're not.... I mean, the definition.... What is a military assault-style rifle? I know that's going to be coming up in some magic definition that's coming forward, but it's never been identified. What I find interesting is the fact that, as legislation writers, you are asked to find firearms that are currently non-restricted in this country and make them prohibited administratively by the stroke of a pen and not with evidence that suggests that they are a danger to the public, not with evidence to suggest that the Canadians who own them are now a danger to the public but only because of some ideological push.

You can choose to answer this or not, and you're wise enough, have been around long enough, to know whether you will or you won't. However, those of you who may or may not have a PAL or an RPAL, those of you who may or may not hunt, do you not find this to be in conflict with what actually goes on in real life in this country, or do you have to put that aside?

[Paula Clarke]

We're here to answer questions regarding Bill C‑21 and the motions before us.

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

That's a pretty definitive Bill C‑21 question.

[Paula Clarke]

You're asking me a personal question.

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

That's fair enough.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The officials are here not to give their opinion and not to justify policy made by the government. They're here to answer questions—

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

They'd have a tough time doing that. Wouldn't they?

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

Mr. Motz, please don't interrupt me.

They're here to answer questions—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Motz, Ms. Damoff is recognized on a point of order.

Please carry on.

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

They're here to answer questions on the legislation, not to offer personal opinions and not to offer opinions on the policy of the government. If Mr. Motz is going to ask questions, I will say that Mr. Lloyd was very much on point when he was doing that. Perhaps Mr. Motz can take some lessons from Mr. Lloyd on how to ask specific questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for your intervention, Ms. Damoff.

I would certainly remind Mr. Motz that our witnesses today are here to answer technical questions on this bill and on the amendments as we are addressing them. They are, of course, government lawyers and are bound by solicitor-client privilege as well as cabinet confidence by times. Please try to keep within those boundaries and recognize and respect our witnesses on that basis.

Mr. Motz, you still have the floor. Go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I very much do respect the witnesses who are before us, and I appreciate the refereeing from the sideline, from across the way.

I do have a couple of questions.

I was pleasantly pleased to see that Premier Scott Moe and our Alberta Minister of Justice Tyler Shandro have issued statements that in the coming weeks they will explore options on actions against this particular legislation and the government.

We heard Minister Mendicino at the beginning of this study suggest that Bill C‑21 relies heavily on provincial co-operation. How does the government plan to enact the sweeping ban, if you will, which will impact hundreds of thousands of Canadians all across this country, without assistance from the provinces? How do you envision seeing that happen?

Does anybody have any ideas?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Thank you for your question.

In terms of how the legislation would be implemented with respect to a prohibition, if it is passed, it receives royal assent and it comes into force, there will be legal ways by which to dispose of firearms, including surrender to police, legal export and deactivation.

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

I know you can't determine when the government is going to have this come into force, and I get that. That would indicate that maybe this is going to be a long-term process, and they're going to need to get their ducks in a row—pardon the pun—with respect to how to deal with potentially millions of now prohibited firearms. Would it be fair to say that is going to take time to do?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I think it would be difficult for us to comment, given that there are a lot of theoreticals and hypotheticals when we are trying to answer that question.

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

That's fair enough.

I don't remember if my colleagues asked this on Tuesday, but given the sweeping changes this would make to Bill C-21 and the idea that all legislation is supposed to be charter-compliant.... Bill C-21, I'm sure, has a charter-compliance component to it. Is that correct?

[Paula Clarke]

That's correct.