Evidence of meeting #54 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 point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.
What is the difference between adjourning the meeting and suspending it? If the meeting is suspended, will we be able to continue discussing this request under Standing Order 106(4)? If it’s adjourned, will we be unable to do so? In both cases, will we be able to continue the discussion at the next meeting, regardless of when it happens?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's correct. If we adjourn, this matter is closed and we carry on with another Bill C-21 clause-by-clause next time.
A motion to adjourn has been made.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Could we have a recorded division?
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The motion to adjourn is denied.
We will suspend until Thursday.
[The meeting was suspended at 5:33 p.m., Tuesday, December 13, 2022]
[The meeting resumed at 9:35 a.m., Friday, February 3, 2023]
December 13th, 2022 / 5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome back to meeting number 54 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
We resume once again, acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. I am calling from the traditional unceded territory of the kʷikʷəƛ̓əm people and the shared traditional territory of the Katzie, Tsleil-Waututh and Stó:lō people who have called this land home since time immemorial.
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. The meeting is public.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee commenced consideration of the request by at least four members of the committee to discuss their request regarding the need to rehear witnesses on the proposals contained in amendment G-4 to Bill C-21.
I remind you that our last meeting on December 13, 2022, was suspended; therefore, no new notice was published and distributed.
The debate on December 13 was suspended on the amendment as amended, moved by Ms. Dancho on the original motion of Kristina Michaud.
The text of the amendment and where we are in the subamendments was distributed by email yesterday afternoon.
I see, Mr. Noormohamed, that you have your hand up. I believe you have a point of order.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On a point of order, I'm going to seek unanimous consent of the committee for the following motion. I move:
That in relation to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), amendment G-4, currently under consideration by the committee, be deemed withdrawn; and that amendment G-46, which has not yet been moved, be deemed withdrawn from the package of amendments.
Just to be clear, it is not our intention to move amendment G-46.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm seeking guidance from you and the clerk. Is it admissible to move a motion on a point of order? I don't believe that it is allowed under our committee rules.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Strictly speaking, to move a bare motion on a point of order is not allowed; however, he's asking for unanimous consent. As you know, we can do many things with unanimous consent that we couldn't do otherwise.
It is up to the committee whether or not to give such consent. I ask for that determination at this time.
Is it the will of the committee to grant unanimous consent to the request by Mr. Noormohamed?
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Could Mr. Noormohamed read it into the record one more time? It's just that the point of order blanked out the last part of that. I just want to make sure I'm getting it clearly.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Just to be clear, Mr. Chiang would have done this, but his headset is not working. I just want to make sure that's also stated. It reads as follows:
That in relation to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), amendment G-4, currently under consideration by the committee, be deemed withdrawn; and that amendment G-46, which has not yet been moved, be deemed withdrawn from the package of amendments.
It is not our intention, as I noted, to move amendment G-46.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Given the significance of this amendment and the impact on several million people in Canada, I would ask that it be provided in written form and translated, and that a hard copy be given to all members of this committee immediately.
If that's agreed to, then we will provide unanimous consent from the Conservatives.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I believe that's possible.
Mr. Clerk, I wonder if you could arrange that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Ms. Dancho, do you require that distribution to occur before we have the decision on unanimous consent?
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Just a commitment that it will happen in the coming minutes....
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Very well. I understand that it is in progress, and Mr. Clerk will follow through as soon as time permits.
Mr. MacGregor, go ahead on this point of order.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I do have a copy. I appreciate the clarification. My understanding is that it is G-4 and G-46. I am definitely prepared to give my consent to that.
As members of the committee know, I also was going to move a motion today to refer this matter to the Speaker to get a ruling on the admissibility of these amendments procedurally. I appreciate the Liberals' taking this step, and I will give my consent to this motion.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
We have Ms. Dancho on a point of order, followed by Madame Michaud.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to put on the record what we're talking about in case those watching who are impacted by this are not entirely familiar with it. It's a bit inside baseball when we say “G-4” and “G-46”.
In very short order, G-4 was the amendment brought forward by the Liberals that created a new definition of a firearm that would be prohibited, notably, the semi-automatic rifles or shotguns with magazine capabilities of greater than five cartridges. It also, in essence, would codify the May 2022 OIC definition of prohibited firearms: notably, a 20-millimetre bore diameter, and a firearm capacity of 10,000 Joules or greater.
Notably, amendment G-46 would have codified every prohibited firearm that has been permitted over the last 30 years. As well, it included building on the May 2020 OIC. It included adding about 400 new models to that list, along with a number of other firearms that did not fall under the May 2020 definition but were added to the list nonetheless. Again, that was the amendment that was several hundred pages long, with several hundred models of firearms that were newly banned, in addition to those that had been banned in the last number of decades.
That's just to be clear to those who may not have the inside baseball information about what G-4 and G-46 were.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Dancho.
I would like to further clarify your clarification. The G-4 wasn't proposing to prohibit firearms that were capable of taking larger magazines, but those that were designed originally to accept larger magazines.
Madame Michaud, go ahead, please.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank my colleague, Mr. Noormohamed, for tabling his motion. The proposed amendments were problematic. We said so from the beginning. The Bloc Québécois is always in favour of prohibiting military-style assault weapons. However, our opinion is that the proposed amendments went beyond the scope of Bill C‑21.
We're still determined to cooperate on this bill, which deals with handguns. However, it would be useful to hear from additional witnesses. They could tell us, for instance, how we could proceed with prohibiting ghost guns and maybe military-style assault weapons. However, that might go beyond the scope of Bill C‑21.
I am inclined to be cooperative as we move ahead. I'm looking forward to restarting study of this bill, once we've heard from additional witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Michaud.
Seeing no other interventions on this point of order, I would ask if—
I'm sorry. Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.