Public Safety Committee on April 25th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian. That brings the first round to a close.

We'll start the second round with Mr. Shipley. Please go ahead. You have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today with us.

I liked that you said in your opening remarks that we're going to have some constructive dialogue today, so let's have some right now and lay it all out on the table.

We're not going to talk about the technical side today. Today we're going to try to figure out where we are, how we got here and where we're going tomorrow.

Minister, you stood up in the House multiple times and stated that opposition parties that were concerned with your poorly planned amendments to Bill C-21 were spreading misinformation. However, on February 3, when you withdrew your amendments, your own government House leader stated that “there were gaps and problems in the amendments. That's why we've retracted them.”

Could you now please admit that the genuine concerns Canadians had about these amendments were not baseless misinformation?

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

Mr. Shipley, I have zero regrets about advancing smart, effective gun policy.

I've heard loudly and clearly from Canadians that it's important that we continue putting in place the types of policies that will protect communities from assault-style firearms. This is not abstract, and you know this, Mr. Shipley, because you and I have spoken about this.

Those assault-style firearms have visited upon communities in Nova Scotia and Quebec and elsewhere the most indescribably difficult consequences and losses and tragedies. That is why the Mass Casualty Commission called on the government to strengthen our gun laws when it comes to assault-style firearms. That is why I'm prepared to work with you and every other party and parliamentarian so that we can protect Canadians. That is the opportunity and the responsibility we have now.

Mr. Shipley, I hope we can do that work together.

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

We certainly can.

However, Minister, again, we said we were going to have constructive dialogue. I didn't once bring up a model or a type of firearm. I'm not talking about that today. I'm trying to figure out how we got here and how much we were told about this misinformation. I think we can all agree that maybe there wasn't quite as much misinformation as people were being led to believe and that there were some facts in people's concerns.

Sir, we heard from many different groups that there was not enough consultation done before these amendments were brought out. I found it very interesting that once the amendments came out and there was a large uproar over them, that....

The amendments were introduced in November 2022. In January 2023, you took it upon yourself—and I saw your social media—to take a tour across Canada. You called that a consultation tour. I find it interesting that the tour was taken after the amendments were taken out.

I'd just like to know if this was really a consultation tour, or was this a sales and promotion tour?

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

Mr. Shipley, if you want this to be constructive, let's not be cynical. I was doing consultations before and after the amendments.

The fact of the matter is this: At the end of the day, the two visions we have before us right now are about putting in place gun laws that will see fewer, and ideally no, assault-style firearms—which were designed for a battlefield—in our communities. That's versus the policies that have been advanced by you and the Conservative Party of Canada, which would make them legal again.

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

That's not true.

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

We think that's wrong.

[An hon. member]

That's absolute BS.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

On a point of order, can we let the minister speak?

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

If he speaks the truth, sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Motz, you're out of order.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Minister.

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

I have nothing to add to that answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

I'm going to Mr. Shipley. The time is running.

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

Thank you. I hope I'll have a bit more time.

Thank you, Minister. I have one more question for you, sir.

You mentioned the consultations you were doing, and I'll take you at your word for that. In February, though, multiple sources spoke to the Toronto Star about your approach to Bill C-21, which related that:

As the amendments landed, Mendicino was testifying before the public order inquiry commission, and the usual normal briefings and communications plans that would have been attached to such a legislative move fell by the wayside

Minister, you are the minister. You're the top guy of the social...of safety here.

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

Were you going to say “social media”? That's definitely not true.

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

No, that's not. I'm the last one to mention social media.

Do you take responsibility for the disaster Bill C-21 has been?

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

Mr. Shipley, we have an opportunity now to take a good bill and make it even stronger.

I take umbrage at some of the comments that were not made on the record by your colleague Mr. Motz. It is very clear. The Conservatives have said repeatedly that they would repeal legislation that this government has put into place, including Bill C-71 and Bill C-21 when, hopefully, it passes and becomes law. The consequence of that is we will have weaker, not stronger, legislation when it comes to keeping assault-style firearms off our streets and out of our communities.

Mr. Chair, that is why the Mass Casualty Commission has called on this government to make sure that we take those next concrete steps to keep those guns that were designed for a battlefield out of our communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

We go to Mr. Noormohamed for five minutes, please.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister and officials, for being here with us today.

Minister, we've heard now from our colleagues about your travels. They are clearly more cynical than some of us about what you heard.

Perhaps you could take a brief moment to share with us what you heard and how it's shaped your thinking in terms of the path forward, particularly on two things. One is whether there's a need for a technical definition of what an “assault-style firearm” is. Second, if you were to meet Grandpa Joe today, what would you say to him to reassure him that in fact you are not going after his hunting rifle?

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

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

I've always liked that reference, because I actually have a Grandpa Joe. There is a Nonno Joe in our family.

I would say to them that we respect them. I have met many hunters and gun owners, and this is where I think the disinformation has led to a toxic debate. What we want is a constructive debate that is based on the facts, and the facts are that there are guns that were designed for a battlefield, and this government took historic steps by introducing an order in council in 2020 that relied on objective characteristics like the 20-millimetre bore diameter and the 10,000-joule threshold. Those are physical characteristics that now provide clarity and predictability in the classification of makes and models by our colleagues in the enforcement community.

The Mass Casualty Commission, which was born out of the worst shooting tragedy in the history of this country, has called on the government to look at this issue and take additional steps to strengthen our laws when it comes to assault-style firearms. I think there can be a responsible discussion on what those physical characteristics look like so that we can be clear, consistent and up front with all Canadians on how we do this work.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

There's a lot we've heard. There's a lot of information we've heard. There has been some confusion. I think we would all acknowledge there were some challenges and there was some confusion.

I want to take a minute for you to differentiate for us some of the confusion that may have been caused by circumstance, in terms of the amendments, from some of the misinformation you have referred to, which was spread by forces and folks who did not think we should go down this road. If you could take a minute to briefly differentiate between the two, I think that would be very valuable for this committee.

I'd then like to go back to the question about Grandpa Joe and how we reassure people like him that you are, in fact, interested in something very different from taking away his hunting rifle.

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

Let me start at the end, and if we have time, I'll come back to the first part of your question, Mr. Noormohamed, because I think the latter is very important.

As part of this work, it is extremely important that we talk to Canadians and that we listen to them. People come from many different walks of life when it comes to the responsible use of firearms. We have hunters, sport shooters and communities within first nations and indigenous communities. We have listened very carefully to them and, to be perfectly honest with you, the majority understand what the government is striving to achieve here, which is safer communities, by excluding guns that were designed for wartime and have no recreational purpose.

Going forward, I think that if we anchor this debate in facts, if we have a discussion that is civil and if we do not resort to disinformation—the kind of disinformation that crowds out anybody, not only in spaces like this, but online.... It is next to impossible to have a conversation or a debate about firearms legislation online. That is because of the toxicity that is being driven by special interests that have no desire to have a responsible debate, but rather see this as a binary choice between having responsible laws that protect Canadians from gun violence and virtually no laws at all.

I think that is one of the most important reflections that we as parliamentarians have to continue to use to inform the way we do this work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed. You had twelve seconds left, but I'm going to take it back.

I'm giving the floor now to Ms. Michaud for two and a half minutes.