Evidence of meeting #50 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 firearm.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Lloyd, for your point of order.
I think we've seen considerable latitude to talk about our origins and our connection to this country, so I will certainly let it—
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I have another point of order. I would never deem to question the patriotism of any member of this committee. I would just urge my colleague Mr. Noormohamed not to make any implication that I, who also serve as a member of the Canadian Forces, am not a patriot of this country.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you for your intervention.
Mr. Noormohamed, the floors is yours again. Carry on.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to be clear that at no point am I questioning Mr. Lloyd's patriotism. It's quite the opposite. I know him to be a proud Canadian. I share many of the things he holds dear, but I do want to make a point here that I think is important as we talk about this amendment. When we speak about rights and we speak about the importance of rejecting revolution, we need to be clear that this is something we hold true on all the things we talk about. Whether or not it is rejecting those who sought to overthrow the government, we should be standing firm. What I want to say is very much about the idea of why, when we talk about freedoms, it's important that we understand limitations sometimes.
The Conservative Party was prepared to launch a niqab ban against women who chose to wear the niqab. They have been adamant in their fight against a woman's right to choose. Whatever we want to talk about when it comes to freedoms here, let's be very clear that this is not about that. This is about something very different. If we're going to go down the rabbit hole here of talking about freedom, I think it's really important to say that freedom is not a licence. We have to be very deliberate, when we are talking about guns and the violence that is perpetrated by those who choose to use guns as a tool of violence, to actually realize what some of these weapons are.
There was a lot of debate about the innocuous nature of the SKS. I think it's important for us to understand that in fact the SKS is a weapon that has been used in military conflicts. Let's take a look at what some of those military conflicts might be. This is by no means an exhaustive list. If people would like, I'd be happy to provide them with a much longer exhaustive list.
That exhaustive list, which I'll just pull up here, Mr. Chair, involves everything from the Donbass conflict that we've seen very recently all the way back to the Boer War. It's been used in Vietnam. It's been used in the Suez crisis. It's been used many times. It was used in 1990 through to 1995 in the Tuareg rebellion. It was used in the Soviet-Afghan war. It was used in the war in Abkhazia. It was used in the Algerian civil war. Therefore, it is patently untrue for people to say that this is not a weapon of war. It has been used by forces in war. Let's be very honest with people about what is actually going on here.
What I find remarkable, Mr. Chair, is that we have not heard one single speaker from the Conservative side look at this list and acknowledge any weapon on there that deserves to be banned. I'm listening to this and wondering, for folks who are so concerned about public safety, why they haven't gone through this list and said, yes, we actually agree that a large number of these should be banned. Is it because they believe every single weapon on these should have free and fair licence on our streets? I'd love to know that. I'd love to know if that's the case. If it is, I think that would give us something more to reflect on.
When we think about this view that we should be tougher on crime and that we should be tougher on weapons at the borders, let's just remind ourselves of the record. During the last Conservative government, over $1 billion—over $1 billion—was cut from law enforcement agencies. RCMP labs that were reviewing firearms and tracing evidence for police forces were slashed. Entire proceeds of crime units were disbanded. Resources were taken away from CBSA along with their ability to control the flow of illegal goods, including firearms at the borders, that our Conservative friends are so concerned about.
They talked about the crime prevention programs. In terms of the programs they talked about, before the 2015 election and the national crime prevention strategy, they let money lapse from those programs. They didn't fund $28 million of the money they said they were going to put into crime prevention. We sit here listening to how we've done this terrible job of not protecting our borders when in fact we've been trying to make back the ground that was lost under the Conservatives. In 2021 we put over $656 million back into the budget to keep this country safe, with $123 million for CBSA. We put money into tracing. We put money into making sure there was a mandatory tracing policy. The things we have had to do to reverse the total ignorance around law and order of the Conservative government of the past continue to work, and Bill C-21 is part of that.
The idea that the Conservatives are good on crime and law and order is absolute nonsense. Their record speaks for it. I will take no lessons from Conservatives who talk about the importance of protecting every single one of these weapons because it is somehow part of Canadian culture that we should be able to do this.
Let's talk about Canadian culture for a moment. Let's talk about the importance of Canadian culture. Yes, absolutely, hunting is a big part of people's lives. I want to take nothing away from Ms. Dancho's family or families like hers. They have a right to hunt, as do indigenous communities. Nobody is questioning that, but let's talk about this for a moment in the spirit with which Mr. Motz and others have spoken about it.
The Conservatives proposed a barbaric cultural practices line. Had that come through when they were in government, I wonder if today people who oppose hunting could say that hunting should be reported through their snitch line as a barbaric cultural practice.
Is that the road that we're trying to go down here? I don't think so. We're trying to be reasonable. I invite my Conservative friends to go through the list of weapons that is there and acknowledge, perhaps, that there are weapons on that list that should be banned. However, this idea that we should go to a world in which every single weapon should be on our streets because “guns don't kill people, people do” is absurd.
We heard from law enforcement that the wrong types of guns in the wrong types of hands kill people. Sometimes guns in the hands of people inadvertently end up killing people. Let's get to the facts here. The facts are that the Conservatives are using this to raise money. They are using this to advance fear among Canadians and to divide Canadians. They talked about not having these politics of division, but that is exactly what this is about. When people are running through hallways, gleeful that this provides fodder for fundraising, we have a real problem.
I would argue that we have an opportunity here to actually, as we have done in this committee in the past, work together, to work together as we did on the ghost gun amendments—the first couple and the parts, rather—as I know we're going to because I know that Mr. Shipley and others on this committee believe strongly that we need to deal with some of these issues. We may have disagreements, but the beauty of this committee is that, if they disagree with an amendment, they have the right to work with other parties to defeat this amendment. However, they should not hold up the process of debating this and having meaningful conversation on this just because it serves a political agenda.
There are people in my riding who support this. There are probably people in my riding who oppose this. However, the overwhelming number of Canadians sent us to this place to deal with this in the way we have agreed to deal with it. I would really encourage the Conservatives, if they are opposed to this, to see if they can get the support of other parties. If they can't, let the will of Canadians move this bill forward. Let's actually get to the parts of this that we can agree on. Let's get some good legislation passed.
Let's not waste Canadians' time. Let's not create moments here for social media clips that allow people to go and raise money. Let's not use language like “Canadians are going to be up in arms” and “this is a declaration of war” because it's not. Using language like “it's a declaration of war” is not what Canadians want to hear from people who are elected. They want to hear that we can find ways to actually communicate with one another in a way that does not heat people up, that does not cause further friction or further animosity, and that does not cause people on social media to start to vilify people. That's not why we are here.
Again, as we think about what is the best path forward, I don't doubt that every single person on this committee actually cares about moving forward in protecting Canadians' lives. We may have different means. However, I take great umbrage to use of language like “this is a war against people” or “Canadians are going to be up in arms over this”. This is not right. We have seen the consequences of that when people like Ms. Damoff have been threatened. That is not okay.
If we are going to look at these amendments and talk about them thoughtfully, I would really encourage us all to, instead of questioning officials and asking for them for their personal opinions, ask them technical questions, as Mr. Lloyd did.
When I look at this list, I want to hear from my Conservative friends which of the weapons they actually think should be banned, which of the guns they think should be banned, so that we can actually start to save lives.
Let's have a conversation about substance. That is, in my view, the most important thing we can do. Canadians, frankly, deserve it. This should not be a database-building exercise for Conservatives. This should not be a fundraising exercise. This should be something that we look at as we have so many others things before this committee, something we should look at for ways that we can find common ground.
I want to be very clear. I speak for myself, here.
There is no sinister plot—at least that I have seen or that I am a part of—to take reasonable hunting guns away from those who have a right to hunt. This is not some sinister plot to punish indigenous communities, as the Conservatives assert. This is not some insidious plot to destroy the rich culture and heritage of Ms. Dancho's family. That is not what this is about.
To stir Canadians up into thinking that we are coming for the things that they hold dear is not right. What we are trying to do here is to take weapons that are used in wars and mass shootings to kill innocent people of all races and faiths.
We've sat quietly and listened to Mr. Motz wax poetic about how Minister Mendicino might have felt.
Let me tell you what I have heard from the victims of the mosque shooting and from other shootings like it. They felt that it was the responsibility of a government—Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat, Green, Bloc or otherwise—to protect them from the very tools that were used to murder them. That is what families of victims keep telling us. That is what our responsibility is, whether it is ghost guns, illegal guns at the border or many of the weapons on this list. Our job is to make sure we are protecting lives. Our job is to do our part—
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I apologize for interrupting.
I do have a few logistical questions about committee that I need to ask before we wind up for today. I don't know how long Mr. Noormohamed's going to speak. I do have some legitimate technical questions about meeting times to ask you about.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We are coming up to the end of our time. It is 1:25 p.m. We turn into pumpkins at 1:30.
I don't know, Mr. Noormohamed, if you're ready to pause there and maybe resume in our next meeting, or whether you want to carry on for a little bit longer.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I'm happy to pause and then continue at the beginning of the next meeting, if that is the will of the chair.
If there are logistical questions to be answered, then I'm happy to pause for those. I would, then, like to begin my time at the beginning of the next meeting.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
All right.
Ms. Dancho, let me just pre-empt, perhaps, what you have to say. The next couple of meetings will certainly be on this bill. They'll be in the regular timeslots at the regular time.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I apologize, Mr. Noormohamed, for interrupting.
I just want to address a few things, Mr. Chair. On Tuesday, and then today, there was additional time scheduled for these meetings. I recognize that we have those capabilities, and there certainly can be legitimate reasons for scheduling additional time.
As the vice-chair and the lead for the opposition on this committee, I would ask that you consistently reach out to me when you plan to schedule extra time. I do believe I deserve the dignity of being asked or at least made aware. I believe you mentioned it at the beginning today, although you did not do so on Tuesday, that if it's the will of the committee, then we can go over time. Again, I believe we should be making that formal and voting, if need be, to expand the time.
Mr. Chair, I know you've been the chair now just for a little bit.
I would appreciate that respect provided to me. If you're going to schedule extra time, then please check with me. I know that I can't veto your decision, but at the very least I would ask that you give me as much heads-up as possible. I'm not talking about the morning of or right before the notice goes out. I would like the dignity of being provided it as the vice-chair of this committee and the lead for the opposition.
I would ask that you provide me the respect of giving me a heads-up for that and ample discussion time. Then, if we have issues, we can vote on extending the time. If we don't, we can just carry on as we did today. I believe that is standard procedure.
I would just ask that you honour that, when it comes to me. I can't speak for the other vice-chairs, but perhaps they would like to be provided that respect as well.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Dancho, for your intervention.
Sometimes these things happen on very short notice. I know there are often delays in this place. For example on Tuesday, we were delayed by votes for half an hour. When time becomes available I'm inclined to take it. That time became available, actually, because I was in the process of trying to find time for the Russia study.
I take your points. I will try to do better going forward.
With that, we have two minutes left. I won't adjourn this meeting. I'll suspend it so that we can continue where we left off at the next meeting.
Mr. Noormohamed, you will have the floor at the beginning of the next meeting.
Is there any other business we need to hear?
1:25 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The meeting is suspended.
[The meeting was suspended at 1:28 p.m., Thursday, November 24]
[The meeting resumed at 3:52 p.m., Tuesday, November 29]
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Good afternoon, everyone. I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to the continuation of meeting number 50 of the House of Commons 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 regarding firearms.
I will remind you all that our meeting last Thursday was suspended. This is why no new notice was published and distributed.
Mr. Noormohamed was speaking, and the next name on the speaking list was Mr. Shipley. Mr. Ruff has put up his hand to speak following Mr. Shipley. Madame Michaud is after that. Then it's Mr. Zimmer. Let me update my list here.
Before we go further, I will now welcome the officials who are, once again, with us today—I thank you, all, for hanging in there with us. They are available for technical questions regarding the bill.
From the Department of Justice, we have Marianne Breese, counsel, legal services, Public Safety Canada; Paula Clarke, 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.
Once again, thank you all for joining us today.
We shall resume clause-by-clause. We are undertaking the debate on amendment G-4.
Mr. Noormohamed, the floor is yours, please.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
I'm getting the French translation through the English channel.
I don't know if anybody else is.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Could we check that?
We'll suspend for a couple of minutes while we get that sorted.
I believe that has been corrected.
Does anyone have a continuing issue with that? I think we're good.
Mr. Noormohamed, if you please, go ahead.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll continue where I left off last week. It feels like quite a long time ago.
I think a lot of us need to take a moment. We're all here, regardless of which political party we belong to, to do what we think is best to keep Canadians safe, to do what we think is best to get guns that are causing harm to people off our streets and guns that are causing pain and hardship to families out of homes without infringing on the rights of hunters. We want to make sure that indigenous communities have the right to hunt, as is, of course, their right.
I think we all took time this weekend to speak to our constituents, as I did. Many are very supportive of this, and many had legitimate questions based on some of the fearmongering that we heard from some members opposite last week.
I want to be very clear about something. We have a list that we have begun discussion of, and I think it's important for us to identify on that list which of those guns people are concerned about so that we can have meaningful conversation on those.
I want to begin by clarifying a few things with some questions to officials.
In the last meeting, Mr. Lloyd expressed grave concern about the Benelli M3. I'm wondering whether officials could let us know when, in fact, the Benelli M3 was listed as prohibited.
Any official who wants to take that question can.
3:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'm going off the top of my head. The Benelli M3 was prohibited, I believe, in the 1990s.
Just give me a second.
It's section 7 in schedule 1 of the existing regulations. These firearms were initially prohibited in the 1990s, but there is a list of firearms from the Benelli family that were excluded. That was done in the 1990s.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Just to confirm, this new amendment and this legislation are not being added net new. These were there in the nineties, just so we're clear.
3:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There are new Benellis that are added in the schedule, if you look at, for example, clause 7, I think.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
But speaking specifically to the M3, which was raised the last time by Mr. Lloyd, that was a pre-existing listing. Is that correct?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Okay. It would be incorrect, then, to say this was new.
3:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The family itself is prohibited. There are new ones. There are new makes and models that are included in the schedule too.
3:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
But as a family, they were initially prohibited in the 1990s.