Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Before I get into my remarks, I also want to add my voice to those of my colleagues about the late Honourable Jim Carr.
It's funny how your relationship with a person changes over your parliamentary career. Jim and I are both from the class of 2015. In the first Parliament I served with him—the 42nd—I was often doing battle with him, in his role as Minister of Natural Resources, because of pipeline projects, which negatively affect the coastal British Columbians I'm so proud to represent.
I got to know a more personal side of Jim as chair of this committee. I think you can summarize him as tough but fair, and a very kind-hearted person. I think the people of Winnipeg South Centre were very fortunate to have him as their representative. I know his prairie colleagues, from all parties, will miss him. If his family is watching this, all I can say is that I offer my sincere condolences. The parliamentary family is going to miss him.
Rest in peace, Jim. You were a great chair.
Mr. Chair, I know those are big shoes to fill, but you have our confidence. It's not an easy committee to manage. I think you will be the first to admit that.
Colleagues, we have now had six meetings, at this committee, for clause-by-clause, and we are still stuck on clause 1. We're still stuck on the very same amendment we were six meetings ago. That's hardly a tale of parliamentary efficiency, or an effective use of tax dollars. I think the Canadian public rightly understands that.
I haven't had a chance to put my voice on the record on this, so I'm going to ask colleagues to indulge me for a bit, because I have a few things I want to get on the record.
What I would like to say first is this: In politics, as in life, trust is easily broken, but it's extremely hard to repair. The way this amendment landed has, frankly, been a complete and total abuse of process. The reason why we're hung up here is because we, as committee members, with our limited resources—especially on the opposition side—are now being asked to do a tremendous amount of extra work on a bill that should have been done on the government side.
To land this amendment in our laps at the eleventh hour, after we completed witness testimony.... I had no chance whatsoever to tailor my committee strategy based on an amendment that will affect long guns. I will tell you this. The irony is that—because I know how important Bill C-21 was to this government—if this amendment hadn't been dropped at the eleventh hour, we would be having a very different conversation right now.
We would probably be talking about how Bill C-21 was sent off to the Senate, and we would be conducting important work on Bill C-20. That's being held up by this mess of the government's own creation. Bill C-20 is an important piece of legislation that's going to create much-needed oversight, transparency and accountability in the RCMP and CBSA. That's something we've been talking about for seven years now.
I know there's frustration on all sides, but this was brought about by the government. It should have been anticipated, because it's like the Newtonian laws of politics: For every action, there's going to be an equal and opposite reaction.
I have to tell you that, correspondence-wise.... I have talked to colleagues from all parties, but some members of my caucus had not received one single piece of correspondence on Bill C-21 until this amendment dropped. Now, it's making up half their correspondence. The way it was rolled out is going to be a textbook example, for future generations, of what not to do when amending your own bill, of communication strategy, etc. The list is long.
I need to get on the record about how displeased I am, because I think it took for granted the important work we have been able to do at this committee.
To underline, Mr. Chair, just how egregious this was, as soon as the amendment came to our attention, I had my legislative assistant contact the Library of Parliament, because we wanted to get a sense of how amendment G-4 was going to impact firearms models. We also wanted to get a sense of how the scheduled list was going to compare with the May 2020 OIC. Our analysts, to their immense credit, produced a pretty amazing document. It was a very long Excel spreadsheet. However, they warned us that it was going to be incomplete, because they checked right away with the justice department and they confirmed that there was no such analysis to share with the Library of Parliament.
Here you have a government dropping this amendment in our laps, and its own department has not done an impact analysis. We're expected to suddenly take this work up with our limited resources as the opposition. That is a simple no-go.
In fact, Mr. Chair, I want to reference this, because when Bill C-21 was introduced on May 30, Minister Mendicino—I think it was in an exchange with reporters—made mention of an amendment they were thinking of bringing to the bill. This begs the question why the bill had to be introduced on May 30 if, already at that point, they were thinking of an amendment.
In the very first meeting we had, we had the minister for the first hour and we had departmental officials in the second hour. I have it right here, Mr. Chair. I asked the assistant deputy minister, Talal Dakalbab, in the last minute of questioning I had about the May 30 announcement of the amendment. I asked:
Can you inform this committee what specific section of Bill C-21 you're seeking to amend and what it is going to look like, so we have some heads-up notice on this?
His response was:
The only thing I could say is that you heard the same thing I did from the minister on TV. I can't comment any further on that one. I'm sorry about that.
An assistant deputy minister, on square one, at the very first meeting, was unable to comment on what was eventually going to be a huge amendment to a bill.
After that, given that the assistant deputy minister, a pretty high official in the department, was unable to provide details to me as a committee member—and I'm supposed to do my due diligence on a bill—and was unable to provide that information, I dropped it. I did that because there were other things in the bill—tangential things that I could see and comment on—that I had had the chance over the summer of this year to speak to my constituents about.
I made the effort this summer to visit the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association. I had some very frank conversations with people about the handgun freeze and what that would mean, and I took their comments back with me to try to make some fixes based on that feedback. These are law-abiding constituents who simply want to be able to practise their sport.
At no time, Mr. Chair, did I talk to people about their hunting rifles or their hunting shotguns, because again, that wasn't in the bill. It was not defended by the Minister of Public Safety during his second reading speech. I did not have the opportunity during questions and comments to ask the minister about that. I did not have the chance during my own second reading speech to talk about these things, because they were not in the bill. It is a complete abuse of process.
I have to say, I sit on three committees, and I've seen this happen in other committees, especially with consequential legislation. I'm going to cite Bill C-7 from the last Parliament. That was, of course, the amendments to our medical assistance in dying regime, which added track two for people whose death was not reasonably foreseeable.
In the debates on that, the first version of Bill C-7 included a continued prohibition for persons who had a mental illness as a sole underlying condition. The government even introduced a charter statement with Bill C-7, explaining why that prohibition should continue, because there was not enough knowledge and there were still some gaps in whether treatments would be effective.
What happened in that process, Mr. Chair, was that the Senate amended Bill C-7. They got rid of that prohibition and introduced a sunset clause, and then the government accepted it. They accepted it, so it became part of Bill C-7, and then they established a committee afterwards. Again, it put the cart before the horse so that we, as a committee, could study something that's already part of the law.
That's exactly what we are being asked to do at this committee. It is a proposed amendment to a very consequential bill and now we're being asked to do it after it's been proposed, again, having had no chance to speak to Canadians, having had no chance to speak to our constituents or any affected group. You can see why there's a strong reaction to this bill. The way it has been rolled out.... Honestly, I think I've said enough on that point.
I will also say that we've had some very helpful testimony from officials here, and they certainly have done their utmost—and I want to salute them—to walk this committee through many of the technical questions. The frustrating part of it is that they are limited to technical questions about the wording of the bill. If I want substantive questions answered about impacts, how this was developed or whether there are other options, they cannot speak to those parts of the questions.
There has certainly been a fair amount of misinformation, and I'll acknowledge, as Mr. Noormohamed has said, that some concerns out there about whether this make or model of shotgun will be on the list have been refuted. But, again, it goes to communication and rollout. The government should have done this from the get-go, to make the Canadian public understand exactly what its intention is.
The other thing, Mr. Chair, is that for some makes and models, after the May 2020 OIC was launched.... By the way, let's face it, the section of the Criminal Code that allows for those orders in council has been used by both Liberals and Conservatives, and we do have extreme policy lurches on both sides. For some people who might have owned a firearm that escaped the May 2020 OIC, afterwards they probably said, “My firearm is safe. The government didn't take it.” A lot of these are non-restricted firearms that are now being moved to prohibited. They're skipping a step: They're not even going into the restricted category; they're going straight to outright prohibited.
The government never explored other options. This is kind of the sledgehammer approach. There were never any other options explored. This could have been the homework that was so crucial to be done before the amendment was proposed. Could we have explored options such as tighter licensing requirements for semi-automatic firearms? I understand the concern that's out there. A semi-automatic firearm can discharge ammunition at a much faster rate than a lever action or a bolt action rifle can. I understand there are concerns and yes, there are some makes and models that have been used in horrible crimes. You could find a lot of non-restricted firearms that you could say the same thing about.
There's a requirement, Mr. Chair, for restricted firearms. Handguns all have to be registered. Did the government ever explore that as an option over the concerns that people have with some semi-automatic firearms? Again, we never had the chance to explore a middle ground here to find a compromise, and that's what we, as a committee, are now being forced to do.
There's another thing I want to put on the record, because I think last week's announcement by the Assembly of First Nations was a game-changer. For a government that has, in the seven years that I've been here, talked about how no relationship is more important than that with first nations, the unanimous resolution from the AFN should serve as a wake-up call.
I want to remind committee members that it was in the previous Parliament that we finally passed an act of Parliament to bring Canada's federal laws into harmony with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If you look at some of the articles of the declaration, it says:
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.
Again, this goes to their relationship with the land, the resources that are on it, and the fact that hunting is not just something they do for fun. These firearms are tools and they provide for their families with them.
There are many other articles that establish that states, like the Canadian state, have a duty to consult whenever they are implementing changes that affect that relationship and affect the way indigenous peoples can practise their traditions on their lands. We're being asked to do the consultation after the fact.
If we look at the actual law that was passed in the previous Parliament, it states that under the act, the Government of Canada will work “in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, [to] take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration”, as well as “prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration”, and develop annual reports on the progress and submit them to Parliament.
I would submit to this committee that, given the overwhelmingly negative reaction we have seen from indigenous groups, that has not been done. In the House today, when a specific question was asked of Minister Mendicino about the AFN resolution last week, he mentioned that he had spoken to them. That's not consultation with indigenous peoples. I'm sorry, but it's not. You don't announce a policy—an amendment to a bill—and then consult. It happens the other way around. That was obviously not done.
The other thing I want to mention is that we know that Canada, as a state, has a duty under the UN declaration. I don't think that has been met in this case. We haven't had a charter statement issued. I know that for the previous bill, Bill C-21, which was introduced in the 43rd Parliament, the government introduced a charter statement.
Given how expansive this amendment to the bill is—the fact that it is widening the net of what's going to be impacted—I would submit, Mr. Chair, that a charter statement is also needed for this additional section. I don't think a charter statement requirement for this amendment nor compliance with the declaration has been met.
There's been talk about the number of witnesses we need. I absolutely think two meetings are not enough. I think 20 might be too high.
As we've approached this meeting, I've been wondering, what if this had been a stand-alone piece of legislation? If Minister Mendicino felt so strongly about this amendment that he had taken the time to make his case in a 20-minute second reading speech, where we would have 10 minutes of questions and comments to ask him about that and where he could stand in the House to defend why this is a strong idea and why it should be passed in principle and sent to the committee, if that had been the case, then I expect we would have allocated the same number of meetings to such a substantive expansion of firearms legislation as we did to Bill C-71 and Bill C-21.
I would land on eight as a minimum. With eight meetings, I believe we would land somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 witnesses. You'd have to check my math.
We would want to hear from many of the witnesses we've already had on Bill C-21, because again, we never had the chance to ask them about the impact on long guns. We would want to hear from as many indigenous groups as possible. At a bare minimum, we're talking about the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council and ITK representing the Inuit up north. I know there's been mention of a premier. We want to hear from many of the provincial indigenous groups, as well.
We never had the chance to talk to the various police forces that were here about what their opinion is about this. In their experience in law enforcement, is this a massive problem? Is the way this amendment is worded going to help them do their job, etc.? The answer to that might be yes, but we never had a chance to get that on the record.
I would want to have people from my own riding. I was talking with a constituent today on the phone. He's owned firearms for most of his life. He's just bewildered by the fact that his firearm is suddenly appearing on this scheduled list. All he wants to do is have his firearm to be able to go out and hunt. He's ex-military. He knows how to handle a firearm.
It goes to the fact that we've never had the chance, as representatives—in our own ridings and across this country—to talk to people. I understand the intent behind the amendment, but it's an abuse of process to go about it this way. If you have an idea as substantive as this, and you're sure it's the right way to go, then do it the right way. Submit it to the parliamentary process, where it goes through a second reading and a full range of committee meetings, so we have the chance to adequately study it, with the runway to do so—where we can consult with legislative counsel, after hearing from witnesses on whether there might be some appropriate subamendments.
Mr. Chair, I would like to move a very small subamendment.
I agree with the Conservatives that travel will be necessary. I think this committee could benefit from having a lot of that hands-on knowledge. I would keep everything related to travel. My only change, Mr. Chair, would be that we change the number 20 to eight. That would be the bare minimum, because it's giving this substantive amendment the same respect we gave the previous bill, Bill C-71, and the current Bill C-21.
I will close there. I think I've put everything on the record that I needed to. Honestly, we are stuck in the mud right now, in our seventh meeting, precisely because of how this was rolled out. I'm sorry to my Liberal colleagues, but the blame for that lies squarely on their shoulders. They created this mess, and they have to find a way to fix it. It's not our responsibility, as the opposition. We're trying our best with our limited resources, but we do not have the vast and powerful resources of a national government with two departments—Public Safety and Justice. We don't have the ability to create broad, national surveys or go out and talk to people. I have me and my legislative assistant—two people. My caucus has less than 10% of the seats, and we're trying our best to find a way forward.
You have to understand that the reaction you're seeing, not only from members of the opposition but also from the public, is precisely because of how this landed. My Liberal colleagues have to wear that and take responsibility for that.
I'll close with that, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure my subamendment was, in fact, moved.
