Public Safety Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was quite a development this morning on this issue. I don't think a lot of us were expecting what happened earlier. I'm pleased that my colleague from the Bloc still sees the value in having meetings, because one thing that we've seen throughout the past couple of months is that this is a wide-ranging and impactful piece of legislation, even though these particular amendments have been pulled. There were communities of interest that were not specifically.... I am thinking of indigenous first nations, Métis Canadians, as well as the fur trapping community.

I will be pleased to have an opportunity to bring back expert witnesses to talk about things that we're still dealing with in this bill, and the general impact of this kind of legislation on a very important part of Canada's heritage and a current part of our economy, as well.

I guess my question would be, if we can get it answered, regarding the one hour versus the four hours. Are we talking about four consecutive meetings of one hour each? I'm just seeking clarification on that one point.

On another point, should this subamendment pass, are we planning on starting these meetings immediately at our next scheduled meeting on Tuesday? Given that we have a weekend, Monday and Tuesday, so it's only a few days away, will there be an opportunity to get a witness list and give our witnesses time to plan to be here to speak to this legislation and the amendments?

Those are my two questions out of the gate. I know we have a speaking list. It's not a back-and-forth, but I'd be interested in hearing the perspectives of how we could move forward on this. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'll jump in here. The logistics of what happens if we pass this, depending on what amendment we end up passing, will have to happen once we figure out what we're doing.

In the event that a motion of the kind we're talking about here does pass today, I would probably propose a deadline of, say, Tuesday evening for witness lists. We would have to figure out what to do on the following meeting day. I'd propose to start witness testimony the following week. The clerk needs time to contact the witnesses, in any event, and to arrange technical support and, of course, witnesses would need time to deal with that.

I believe your intervention is done, Mr. Lloyd, so we'll go on—

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

There was just one additional point I was seeking clarification on. It was the four hours versus one hour amendment.

Mr. Chair, did you have any clarification on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

My understanding of the amendment was that, instead of four hours being allocated to hearing from the minister, there would be one hour to hear from the minister. That is my understanding. I am prepared to stand corrected if anyone wishes.

Next, we have Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, thank you to my Liberal colleagues. Amendments G-4 and G-46 really derailed any kind of progress that we could have made on Bill C-21. I have never seen such a groundswell of opposition coming from everywhere, really, all at once. There were some big questions about the procedural admissibility of expanding the original scope of the bill. With today's developments, we can get back to some constructive dialogue in looking at the original Bill C-21.

When you look at the package of amendments that we still have to go through, we still have a lot of work ahead of us. I agree with Mr. Noormohamed: We absolutely have to get ghost guns right. This is an increasing problem for law enforcement.

There are also some really important amendments that we have to debate—and, hopefully, pass—with respect to the yellow flag and red flag provisions of the bill. We know that the airsoft community is waiting patiently as well.

When I agreed to the 106(4) meeting, of course, we were at that time wondering about amendments G-4 and G-46 specifically. That's why it was important to have—in my opinion at the time—eight meetings and travel, so that we could get consultation, the consultation that we weren't able to have as a committee. With those being withdrawn, I still think it's going to be valuable for us to have additional meetings. It might help flesh out some of these concepts for us, so I will agree with what Ms. Michaud is proposing.

For Mr. Lloyd's benefit, the reference to the one hour was amending the original part that is a specific reference to the minister. Rather than four hours with the minister, it's one hour.

I think we're arriving at a consensus here. I will leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

On the list that has been passed to me by our honourable clerk, I believe we have Ms. Damoff, followed by Mr. Noormohamed, who will be followed by Mr. Motz.

Ms. Damoff, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues and, in particular, to Ms. Michaud for bringing this forward.

I like your timeline, Chair, in terms of witnesses. I think it would give us the opportunity next week at a meeting that we could have on Tuesday to finish off our Russia study. We probably all have forgotten where we even were with it, but if I recall, we had only about an hour or two left to finish that.

Then we could listen to organizations put forward from all parties to make sure we're listening.

We hear you. We think it's important to get this bill right. There are a lot of really good things in Bill C-21, but even the gun lobby has made comments about what the definition of a “military-style assault weapon” is. I would like to hear from people with suggestions on that. Is there a way forward to make sure that we're getting this right?

This is a big step forward, and I think we need to be listening to each other. I hope Canadians are heartened when listening to the conversations around this table, where all four parties are agreeing to work together, co-operate and actually listen and hear each other. I can't guarantee that we're going to agree on everything moving forward, but we certainly are agreeing on where we are today.

I again thank Madame Michaud for the changes and, in addition, for having the minister come for one hour, because I think that's adequate to where we are.

Thank you to everybody.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

We will go to Mr. Noormohamed, who will be followed by Mr. Motz.

Mr. Noormohamed, go ahead.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Speaking to Madame Michaud's subamendment, I think the change in respect of the time with the minister from four hours to one hour is important. This is about hearing from Canadians. I know the minister would love to come and spend four, 16 or 32 hours with us, as he is wont to do, but this is about hearing from Canadians.

As Ms. Damoff said, we have to do this in a way that gives comfort to hunters, indigenous communities, sport shooters and the airsoft community, but also to those who have been victims of gun violence. It's to make sure that we come to this in a way that gives everyone some degree of satisfaction not only that they have been heard, but also that the process that was followed was a good one.

Mr. MacGregor and I have had many conversations about this. Process is important and doing things the right way to make sure we can solve the problem that we are trying to solve in a thoughtful, considered manner is what Canadians deserve. My hope is that, through the work that Madame Michaud has proposed in the subamendment, we will move a long way down that road.

As we've said, there are provisions we know we can all agree on. It's important for us to find the time and space to do that. We're not going to agree on everything and that's okay. Nobody expects us to agree. If we all agreed, there would not be a government and an opposition. It is important to make sure that we hear those points of view from the folks we disagree with on both sides of this conversation.

I said earlier that we were committed to doing this properly, getting this right and doing it in a way that respects people's rights. I remain committed to that. I know all of us in this room are committed to that. My hope is that, through these conversations, we bring forward witnesses that will share thoughtful and meaningful perspectives and we try to make this process as non-partisan as possible.

What we are trying to do is consequential to the lives of Canadians in a variety of ways. At the end of the day, it is about keeping our streets and communities safer and about making sure that we don't create hardships for people.

I want to make sure that we do this right. I want to make sure that we as a team—all of us—do this in a way so that, whatever the outcome at the end, we can all say the process was a good one and the conversations were meaningful and fruitful. Whatever side of this debate people are on, they should feel that their voices were heard and well represented in these conversations.

If we can do that, I think we will end up with good legislation that may not fully satisfy everyone but satisfies the expectation that Canadians should have of us of being able to deliver good-quality public policy that may not always be perfect, but that is very strong and very good.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

We'll go now to Mr. Motz.

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the comments.

I think it's important that Canadians understand.... I just heard Mr. Noormohamed, and I trust that he was genuine in moving forward on this bill, but we need to look back at why we had this in the first place.

It's because the Liberals did exactly the opposite. They failed to respect people's rights. They failed to consult indigenous people. They failed to consult with farmers and hunters. They failed to do any of that, and they tried to push some legislation through that didn't go through debate in the House at all. It didn't get studied at committee. It was thrown in at the 11th hour during an amendment in the clause-by-clause phase of this bill. I don't think Canadians will forget that.

I hope there is no iteration of any of what was in G-4—other than ghost guns—and G-46 that comes back under Bill C-21 again. This is because Canadians—where I come from and across the country, and I've heard from thousands of them—have lost trust in this government on this issue and many others. I believe them. I believe these people. I've seen for myself.... I struggle with trusting the motivations behind what comes out of this government's legislation.

If we're talking about true public safety, I don't think there will be any opposition in this committee on matters that actually make a difference for public safety and that target those who are committing crimes in our country. Namely, these are criminals who smuggle their firearms in and use illegal firearms, not those who are part of Canada's law-abiding firearms community.

As we go back into Bill C-21, I am hopeful that we keep in mind the sport shooter community and the airsoft community on some of these amendments that have to happen. I am hopeful, as you said, Mr. Noormohamed, that there is a spirit of co-operation on this committee moving forward on that.

The other thing that I'm struggling with is why we wouldn't want the minister here for a two-hour meeting. I don't think an hour is enough. He's had a significant role to play in this. It's reasonable that he comes to explain why we find ourselves in this spot, and why G-4 and G-46 were pushed forward in the first place.

I don't hold fellow committee members from across the way in contempt because of it. They're doing what their party asked them to do. However, I think the minister needs to answer for what happened and why G-4 and G-46 were put into this bill at the time that they were.

The last thing I would add is that I also support the idea of making good use of our time on Tuesday and Thursday until we can get witnesses here to continue on with this study. The Russia study, as you said, Ms. Damoff, would be an appropriate use of our time.

I think we're going to be hard-pressed to get the witnesses who have to be here in four meetings. There are a lot of them, on all sides of this issue, and I think there will be some great witnesses whom we need to hear from. I'd personally like to see more than four meetings and, certainly, two hours with the minister, not one.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

We go now to Mr. Lloyd. Go ahead, please, sir.

Is Mr. Lloyd not there? Do we have any other speakers?

Mr. Shipley, please go ahead.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It's nice to see everybody back after our long absence.

It has been a relief to see what's taking place this morning because, when I was back in my riding, I heard a lot about Bill C-21. I was just talking with my staff this morning about the number of emails we are still getting about it.

I have multiple questions about how we got here. I'm happy we got here; don't anybody get me wrong. There must have been some light that went off or a moment of realization during the holidays.

Mr. Noormohamed discussed before we came in today that he went in and got his PAL. I hope that's not a secret, Mr. Noormohamed. I'm breaking your bubble on you, but there it is. Maybe you learned something there or maybe you heard from the hunters in that room as to how happy or unhappy they were about this. I was certainly hearing it day in and day out. Good for you for educating yourself on that issue.

I also know that the minister did a large, cross-Canada tour discussing it with many hunting groups. I saw many of his pictures. It looked like he was definitely dressed up for the weather in many of them. I read some of the clips. I don't think he was received warmly at all of his stops. It sounds like he was perhaps getting a bit of an earful.

I agree with my co-member here, Mr. Motz, about the two hours to have the minister in, because I would like to hear about some of those discussions he had. We've talked about doing a Canada tour. Our members opposite weren't too keen on that. Your minister did that for us, which was interesting because before Christmas we were all told that the tour would not be beneficial. It was interesting to see the minister do such a large tour. That's the exact same thing we wanted to do.

Once again, it's nice to see this getting taken out. There will be a lot of hunters and farmers, not just in my area but across Canada, who will be relieved to see this.

I do believe we need to have the minister here for two hours. One hour just isn't enough. We see what can happen with time, like this morning. We had problems getting our equipment set up. That could easily turn into half an hour.

Mr. Motz, you mentioned it, but I think we need a subamendment. You didn't put it in the subamendment. Did you?

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

I did not yet.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

You can subamend it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

As a matter of process, we can't. We are in a subamendment. We can't do another subamendment at this time.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

With that, I will cede the floor.

I think Mr. Motz has some more things to add.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Please go ahead, Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

This is just a matter of curiosity. When we left in December, Mr. MacGregor from the NDP proposed a subamendment and changed the amendment to eight meetings. The committee made a decision on the number of meetings.

Now this new subamendment seeks to change the committee's previous agreement on the number of meetings. I'm just wondering if the clerk or the chair can rule on whether this subamendment is actually in order, given that we already agreed on this back on December 13 or somewhere around there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I would be happy to.

We passed Mr. MacGregor's subamendment, as said. However, time has gone by and events have gone by. In any event, this is a substantial amendment. It is in order. I have already ruled on that. We can subamend one by one as long as we want. We can't do repetitive things, but this is not such a case. It is in order.

I see no further speakers on the list. Are we prepared to vote on this amendment?

[The Clerk]

It seems that we are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Seeing no further speakers, we should call the vote on this subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Are there any further amendments to this motion as multiply amended?

Seeing none, that concludes our business. I am wondering though if—

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, we voted on the subamendment. Do we not have to vote on the actual motion as amended now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You are quite correct. I thank you for your intervention.

Yes, Madame Michaud's subamendment has passed. If there is no further subamendment, we will now go to Ms. Dancho's amendment as amended. Ms. Dancho's amendment is fundamentally superseded by this subamendment. However, we do have to go through the form and vote on Ms. Dancho's amendment as subamended.

Are there any further interventions on this?

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

For clarification, can we have an understanding that the minister will come at the very end of witness testimony? Would that be appropriate?