Public Safety Committee on April 25th, 2023

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask you a question about your intentions and about a part of the bill that is somewhat more technical, meaning large-capacity magazines. The bill adds another offence for modifying a magazine, for example by increasing its capacity to make it a prohibited device. On the RCMP's website, the maximum capacity for centrefire semiautomatic shoulder weapons is clear. It mentions a maximum capacity of five cartridges. For handguns, it's 10 cartridges.

There are of course some loopholes. There are magazines designed for 20, 30 or 50 rounds, some of which have a rivet to restrict the number to, let's say, five. These are legal because according to what is posted at the site, it's a permanent modification. However, it's very easy to simply remove the rivet. That's been done by several mass shooters. I understand that your intent, at least with this bill, is to prevent other incidents of mass slaughter in Canada, and I agree with you on that.

On the other hand, if we don't ban large-capacity magazines and prohibit weapons designed for magazines that can hold more than five or six rounds, then I believe we're missing the boat.

Do you intend to introduce an amendment to prohibit large-capacity magazines that have been permanently modified by means of a rivet?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think that Ms. Michaud has identified two options, one of which already exists in the current bill. There is a provision according to which one can “create a new offence for altering a cartridge magazine to exceed its lawful capacity”. This useful provision in Bill C‑21 directly answers your question.

But the question indeed remains: what can we as the federal government do about it? We are currently studying it. I think that it might also be possible in the short term to reach other decisions about the issue of large-capacity magazines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

Mr. Julian, you now have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to come back to the issue of indigenous rights.

Indigenous organizations took a strong stand against the amendments that were offered. You did say that you've been doing consultations and that the ministry has been doing consultations with indigenous organizations. I would like to know the character of those consultations.

I would also like to know what the recommendations are in terms of ensuring that indigenous peoples' rights—their traditional rights, section 35 rights—are preserved through this bill.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

We have, as I said at the outset of my last response to you, engaged directly with NIOs—national indigenous organizations—as well as directly with other communities and rights holders. The character of those conversations has been, I think, very focused and constructive in relation to the questions that have been raised vis-à-vis Bill C-21 and more specifically around some of the amendments that were originally introduced.

I would say that as a matter of ensuring that the lived experiences of first nations are reflected in this bill in the practical sense—when it comes to food security, when it comes to self-protection, when it comes to the preservation of traditions that are very much rooted in indigenous language, culture and history—I can assure you that those conversations have been meaningful. Our commitment is that this bill will in no way derogate from indigenous rights as they are captured under the charter or anywhere else. That, to me, is an important principle.

By the way, it is not just with regard to Bill C-21. When we think about the work that we are doing under the United Nations Declaration Act and the work that my colleague Minister Lametti is undertaking in the implementation of that act, we know that it is very important that we do this work in a way that is respectful of indigenous peoples.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

We used to have the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, which used to have the participation of indigenous peoples. That committee is dormant, dead. Is that one of the recommendations that has come back from your discussions, your consultations, with organizations of indigenous peoples?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I would say that the idea of re-establishing an advisory committee that can provide non-partisan advice to the government is a concept that has been broadly raised. I support it. I think that there is utility in having a dedicated group of Canadians from different walks of life, including those with indigenous perspectives, so that we can navigate the questions that this committee has been undertaking in its study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Be very fast, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

You say there's been a record number of illegal weapons seized after coming across the border. What was that number last year?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I'm going to defer to my colleagues on this. My best recollection off the top of my head was that it was north of 1,000, probably in the range of.... Let me see here. The number that I have here in front of me is 1,100.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We go now to Mr. Lloyd. Go ahead, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for coming.

We all witnessed the Mass Casualty Commission report that came out. The report seemed to echo a lot of the policies that your government has been promoting. However, I would ask, Minister, in the case of the Portapique killer, how would a gun ban have prevented somebody who smuggled firearms and didn't have a licence from possessing these firearms?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I'm glad you raised the question. I think it allows me to explain the rationale of our policy.

Before I do that, and if you'll permit, Mr. Lloyd, I would hope that we all join in expressing our condolences and support to the families of Portapique and Truro, some of whom I have met with, including people like Nick Beaton, who lost his wife, who was pregnant at the time—

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

Minister, we all grieve for the families, but, Minister, I had a direct question for you.

How would a gun ban have prevented the Portapique killer from accessing illegally smuggled firearms without a licence? How would it have prevented him from having those firearms?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

The short answer is that by putting in place a ban, we reduce the possibility and the likelihood of there being any of these types of firearms in our communities, and that's the difference. The Conservatives believe that not having a ban somehow translates into safer communities. The Conservatives, respectfully, are fundamentally wrong on that point.

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

We need policies that actually take crime down and take criminals down, not policies that are virtue signalling, Minister.

The killer was in possession of illegal firearms without a licence. The police knew that the Portapique killer had access to firearms, and they weren't acting, so how would having a ban do anything to prevent criminals from accessing firearms?

Currently in this country there are bans on criminals possessing firearms without a licence as it is, yet criminals continue to access firearms. Bans don't seem to be working, Minister. How do you think this new so-called ban on so-called assault-style firearms is going to be any different?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Lloyd, and if I may, Mr. Chair, I would make two points in response, which I think are quite revealing. One, Mr. Lloyd, is that you referred to other practical steps. We put $450 million into CBSA for border security. Your party voted against those provisions. I've seen that technology at work. You're hearing about the progress on seizing illegal guns.

The other thing, Mr. Chair, is that calling a national ban on assault-style firearms “virtue signalling” completely misses the mark and is disrespectful to every Canadian who has lost a loved one as a result of those firearms.

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

Mr. Chair, what is disrespectful to Canadians is putting forward divisive political policies that are designed only to help the Liberal Party win elections instead of putting forward policies that will actually combat violent crime in our communities. That is what is disrespectful to victims.

Canadians, especially gun-owning Canadians, are committed to supporting any legislation that will have a positive impact on reducing violence and gun crime on our streets. Those who own guns legally in this country have a vested interest in ensuring that our streets are safe, because every time a gun crime is committed by a criminal in this country, it casts suspicion on the millions of legal firearm owners who have hunted peaceably and have used their firearms peacefully from generation to generation. Every time a criminal commits a vile act, these millions of hunters, these millions of gun owners, are demonized by your government.

You have spoken of these nebulous special interest groups and their desire to have no laws whatsoever in this country. That is the kind of political rhetoric that gets in the way of our being able to have a responsible debate. No serious person in this country is saying that we should have no firearms laws. No serious person in this country is saying that we need to have Second Amendment-style American laws in this country. That is not the political consensus that Canadians expect, yet we are led by your government to believe that these are real debates that are happening.

These are not real debates that are happening. The real debates that need to happen—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You have one minute.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, the truth of the matter is that it's not just this government that supports a national assault-style firearm ban and taking additional steps. It's the Mass Casualty Commission. It's law enforcement, as you heard earlier from Mr. Schiefke. It's Canadians who have lost loved ones, and indeed it is the vast majority of Canadians. That is what I have heard consistently.

It is also from responsible gun owners with whom I have engaged.

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

That's not what we heard from groups like the Edmonton Police Association. It's not what we heard from the National Police Federation, which is saying that these so-called assault-style firearm bans are only going to divert resources away from the real action that is needed to get criminals off of our streets. That is the action that we, as Conservatives, are committed to implementing so that we can ensure that these repeat violent offenders, who, under your leadership, Minister, seem to be getting out of jail and back out on the street in record numbers faster than ever in order to commit violent crimes over and over again.... We need to stop the revictimization of Canadians by Liberal revolving-door justice policies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

The minister may answer.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

If that were true, then I would certainly hope that the next time the government puts an appropriation and support for law enforcement at our borders and in our communities and for preventing crime and providing additional mental health supports, the Conservatives will support it, but the fact of the matter is that historically to date they have not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We will go now to Mr. Chiang. Mr. Chiang, go ahead please, for five minutes.