Public Safety Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I just have a clarification on how the rest of the meeting is going to roll, so if the clerk and the chair can weigh in, and perhaps other members if there are any other plans.... Again, the Conservatives just found out about this minutes before the meeting was scheduled to start. We're just processing the magnitude of this as well.

Mr. Chair, I have a question for clarification and then just a follow-up comment. If this is moved, this unanimous consent motion, if we all provide UC and the Liberal motion to withdraw G-4 and G-46 is passed, it would mean that G-4 would be completely withdrawn and that G-46, the long list, would not be moved at any point. That's the clarification I need.

Following that, my understanding is that we would return to the debate on the 106(4) motion originally brought forward at the last meeting by Ms. Michaud to call for testimony—which was quite a long time ago—and we were debating that. The Conservatives wanted 20 meetings and travel. There was a lot of back-and-forth, and I believe we settled on a subamendment from Mr. MacGregor to the 20-meeting amendment, which said eight meetings and travel.

Just so I'm clear, if this passes, G-4 is withdrawn, G-46 will not be moved and we resume debate on witness testimony of those very amendments that are going to be withdrawn. Then we will resume the debate of what those meetings would look like, if any. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, irrespective of whether this unanimous consent motion is carried, the meeting today is to carry on the debate that we suspended back in December. We will continue where we left off.

As mentioned earlier, the current state of affairs on the motion as amended, as subamended, has been distributed to everyone. Once we finish this point of order we will resume that debate.

Mr. Noormohamed will have the floor, followed by Ms. Damoff, followed by Madame Michaud, followed by Mr. Badawey, if he were here, followed by you, Ms. Dancho. That's where we are. Where this debate goes at the end of the day is really up to the committee.

I will ask at this time if there is any dissent on—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Chair, I had just mentioned that I wanted you to come back to me after you answered my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Fair enough. Go ahead.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I went through the speaking order. After this passes it goes to the Liberals. There are several Liberal speakers, and then I believe you said Kristina and then it goes back to the Conservatives. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, we are continuing the speaking order as it was at the time we suspended the meeting.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

That's right. We have less than an hour to do that. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, we will be impinging on question period if we don't break early, I believe. If necessary, we will have to suspend again.

In any case, if we can get moving on Mr. Noormohamed's unanimous consent motion, then we can proceed into the body of this debate as before.

Is there any further intervention on Mr. Noormohamed's point of order?

Seeing none, I'll ask if the committee is in agreement with Mr. Noormohamed's point of order. I will ask if there is any dissent. If there is anyone who does not give consent to Mr. Noormohamed's unanimous consent request, please indicate.

(Motion agreed to)

We have unanimous consent on the motion as requested by Mr. Noormohamed. Thank you all.

As said, the text of the motion, as amended by Ms. Dancho, as further amended by Mr. MacGregor, has been distributed. Mr. Noormohamed has the floor, followed by Ms. Damoff, followed by Madame Michaud. I don't believe Mr. Badawey is present, but if he were present, he would come later. Then we have Ms. Dancho.

Having said that, I give the floor to Mr. Noormohamed to carry on the debate on the motion before us.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wish everybody a happy return back to nice, warm Ottawa.

I want to draw attention to a couple of things, and then I'm going to stop talking.

When we talk about the withdrawal of G-4, which has now happened, it's important to know that references to ghost guns were in that amendment. I really do hope we can find ways through our conversations over the next little while to bring that back. We had unanimous support for it. That is an important piece for us to get right. Law enforcement demands it of us, requires it of us, in order to keep Canadians safe. That is the type of thing that we really should be doing, and I know we can get that done together. I just want to put that out there, something that I know is a joint objective for everyone on this committee.

We have had a long history on this committee over the course of this session of working together to solve problems. I want to read something that I said on December 13. It is that, in order to get this bill right, Canadians need to know that we heard them, and it’s important for us to hear those voices that have not been heard and hear some of those voices that have been heard in the past. We have to get this over the finish line in a way that respects victims but also respects hunters, farmers and indigenous communities.

I really hope that through the conversations we're going to have in these additional meetings we will find ways to bridge these gaps together and that we remain committed to finding the right solutions for Canadians. The important thing here is to make sure we get information from others that have not been heard to get this right and to make sure this is done in the right way. I am very hopeful we'll be able to work together to achieve that, to make sure we pass responsible legislation that has a positive impact on the lives of all Canadians.

In respect of that, we had been having conversations about the number of meetings.

I know that my colleague, Ms. Michaud, is also tabling a motion.

I am going to stop talking now, so that we can get to hearing Madame Michaud's proposal on how we might move forward. I am going to stop there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

We go now to Ms. Damoff.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I am going to cede my time to Ms. Michaud.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At this stage, it's still extremely relevant to hear from witnesses who have not yet had the chance to be heard on the bill. So, I propose a subamendment that follows up on Ms. Dancho's amendment to my original motion, meaning the famous request under Standing Order 106(4).

I move that the amendment be amended by replacing the words “eight consecutive meetings“ with the words "four consecutive meetings", in the first paragraph. I also move to delete the words "and that these meetings include committee travel across Canada, as soon as possible, to rural, northern and indigenous communities to hear from impacted individuals." Finally, we would replace the words "for four hours", in the third paragraph, with the words "for one hour". Here's the proposed text, which you will receive as I read it:

That the Committee temporarily suspend the clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑21 and that it allocate four consecutive meetings to study the effects of Amendments G‑4 and G‑46;

That the Committee invite to testify the witnesses and experts that it deem necessary to hear in order to answer the questions raised by the new concepts added by the Amendments G‑4 and G‑46 and that the Committee proceed according to the usual routine rules for the invitations of the selected witnesses;

That upon completion of the testimonies, the Minister of Public Safety appear for one hour before the Committee resumes its clause-by-clause consideration where it had been suspended and proceed according to the usual rules pursuant to Standing Order 75 of the House of Commons.

That is the version you received, but we can change it as well. Since amendments G‑4 and G‑46 were withdrawn, we could simply replace the text that mentions them to "study the content of these amendments", for example. I'm open to suggestions, but we could leave the amendment as is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

I believe the amendment is in order.

We will carry on debate on Madame Michaud's original motion, amended by Ms. Dancho and further amended by Mr. MacGregor, which is now under the subamendment of Madame Michaud. That's where we are.

Do we have anyone who wishes to speak to this motion?

[The Clerk]

I see Mr. Lloyd, Ms. Dancho and Mr. MacGregor.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I have a point of order for clarification and then a comment when I'm on the list, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

With the original speaking order, I think we were down to you, Ms. Dancho. We have a clean slate now on this subamendment.

Do you want to go ahead of Mr. Lloyd?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I just have a point of order for clarification on the subamendment, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's over to you on a point of order on the subamendment.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

So that I'm clear on this, the subamendment will provide two things. The subamendment is proposing four meetings with no travel, specifically for the purposes of inviting expert witness testimony to provide feedback on the amendments that were just unanimously withdrawn. Those are G-4 and G-46.

That's my first question. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I believe that's correct. The intent here is to examine the concepts that were contained in those.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much.

Procedurally, unless Mr. MacGregor withdrew his subamendment, my understanding is that when you propose a motion, you can amend it and then subamend it, but you can't subamend a subamendment, or did I miss something?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That is correct, except that Mr. MacGregor's subamendment was passed, so we are back to a point where we are dealing with another subamendment of your amendment. We're not amending the subamendment.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll carry on. We're going to Mr. Lloyd, please.