Public Safety Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Noormohamed, please go ahead.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I will be extremely brief.

I have a couple of things to note. One is that there have been technical briefings that were held. At the last one, I understand there were only two questions asked. The great thing is that we have all but one of the officials who were on that briefing in the room today. I would invite those who are concerned to ask questions to the very same officials who are seated right there. I note that there hasn't been a whole lot of time given to actually asking questions of the officials, but a whole lot of talking. If we're going to express concerns about not being able to get information, we should avail ourselves of the individuals who are the experts and are part of this.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Mr. Noormohamed is misleading the committee. The technical briefing—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Dancho, please wait to be recognized. I take your point but it's not a point of order. We'll carry on with Mr. Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

We have officials in the room who are the ones who know what is going on the best in terms of the specific content. We have an opportunity to ask them questions. I think it's important that we avail ourselves of the opportunity, given that they are here sitting at 6:32 in the evening. We should take advantage of that.

Again, I would invite all to ask those questions. I do want to make one very important point to everybody who is watching this and following this. We've heard a lot of rhetoric about how people are coming after things like the Lee–Enfield. I want to be very clear about something. There are four elements to the technical definition. One is that it is not a handgun. Two is that it discharges centrefire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner. Then it's that it has a detachable cartridge with the capacity of six cartridges or more, and it is designed and manufactured on a day after this paragraph comes into force.

It is important that we not mislead people into thinking that something is happening that is not. I don't want to say much more than that, but if we're going to have thoughtful debate on these amendments, let's ground those conversations in facts because Canadians deserve that. If we're going to move forward on doing good gun legislation together, people need to be working from the truth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

We go now to Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of quick questions as we move along here. I think it was touched on a little bit earlier, but I will admit that I missed the point.

I need some clarification, and we're going to stick to the amendment here because that's what we're asked to do.

Regarding this amendment that defines prohibited firearm, I've already voiced my concerns that I don't think that it was very well written. I'm not going to go through that again.

What confuses me is that, if this is such a great definition of a prohibited firearm and this is the way forward and not going retroactively, at the same time, the public safety minister announced that there would also be a firearms advisory committee that will determine future bans of firearms that are presently owned by law-abiding Canadian gun owners.

If we have this definition and if we have this amendment that we've all talking about here now for hours and hours, why do we need it and what does this firearms advisory committee going to do when set up?

Perhaps someone on the extra panel could brief me on that.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

The intent that the minister announced is in the publicly available news release that was put out yesterday. I could read the news release, if you like, but it's outside of the scope of this bill.

They talk about re-establishing the Canadian firearms advisory committee to independently review the classification of existing firearms. They talk about a diverse membership, expert recommendations and appointing the committee with a certain amount of time to seek a recommendation within a certain amount of time after that.

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

Thank you.

I think your voice was very soft. Maybe I should have grabbed my earpiece. I apologize.

I heard the other side say that it has nothing to do with this amendment, but I disagree, because we're talking about firearms and the definition going forward. They both go hand in hand, and it's tough for me to make a decision on one amendment not knowing what the path is going forward. That's all I'm trying to bring up on that.

I do have some other questions, but I'll give the floor up for now, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

We'll go now to Mr. Motz, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, again, to our officials for your patience.

Concerning the definition based on this new proposed subsection 84(1)—and I read that before I came here today—what you're striking out is a firearm that is not a handgun and that discharges centerfire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner, which are hunting rifles and shotguns. It was originally designed—and I've heard from the RCMP, Ms. Paquette, the specifications of what originally designed means—with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more, and is designed and manufactured on or after the date on which this paragraph comes into force.

That is a potential definition.

Can our experts and those who are legislative assistants look at this particular one? Does this fit the definition or fit the moniker that has been placed on the demand of this government that they ban military-style assault firearms? Does this definition fit what you would commonly think was a military-style assault firearm?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

The definition as proposed captures technical characteristics of firearms that are, in the government's opinion, not suitable for civilian use and that pose a risk to public safety.

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

Again, maybe I'll ask the RCMP, who are more into the classification of firearms. Does this definition fit anything to do with a military-style assault firearm?

[Kellie Paquette]

I have the same answer.

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

You have the same answer. Interesting. Again, that kind of proves my point that there is no such definition. There is no such firearm that exists in this country that isn't already prohibited—a military-style assault firearm.

I received an email on this exact issue earlier this week. I guess that would be yesterday. This fellow has 32 years serving Canadians, and he doesn't understand why in the world “assault” is being used to describe a firearm in Canada. This does apply to this. I hope at the end of this I never hear that ludicrous phrase used to describe firearms again in this country and what the Liberals are planning to do under their virtue signalling.

Anyway, he goes on to say, “Canadians need to be educated that there are six action types of firearms. Semi-automatic is one of the actions of the six and can be defined in the Firearms Act and regulations.” I won't go into the definition because you basically provided that definition here.

We know that fully automatic firearms are prohibited in Canada and have been for 40 years. Only Canadians who have them as a collector item are able to have those types of firearms. They cannot be taken to the range. They can't be transported without an ATT, and that ATT has to be issued by the CFO.

This gentleman went on to say that he has been doing his job as an instructor for the Canadian Armed Forces throughout his career, and he's a verification officer for the RCMP. He was really curious to know who the verification officers are who are describing firearms as assault-style, because it doesn't exist.

This is not pegged at you officials, because I know that's not a term you said. However, I suppose you're forced to defend it because the Minister of Public Safety, the Prime Minister and other individuals have virtue signalled to Canadians that the assault-style are the firearms they intend to take off the streets.

There's no such firearm category of the six action styles in this country is what this individual said, which I agree with, that aren't already prohibited. He's a Canadian firearms instructor, a Canadian firearms verification officer, a range safety officer and a canine handler. These are people who are in the field, who are operational, who deal with this stuff daily and who this government has caused confusion. They are certainly confusing the Canadian public on the use of terms.

As I said, my hope is that with this definition—and I don't know whether it will pass or not—no one ever uses that term again to describe the firearms that you're trying to prohibit, because this does not fit that category. You talk to military people, which my colleague beside me has been for many years, and they will tell you unequivocally that the firearms being branded with that name they would never ever take into battle, because their lives depend on it.

I just hope that, if there are officials here who have the ear of the public safety minister that they get that term out of his mind. It's driving people bonkers because there's no such term. It is fearmongering, nothing but fearmongering, to those in the Canadian public who don't understand the current firearm legislation and the strictness of our firearm laws and what they do for Canadians.

I will leave it at that for now, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Next is Mr. Ruff, please.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thanks, Chair. I have a couple of very quick points.

I know Mr. Julian raised the concerns about the debate that's ongoing and how long it's going to take, specifically because of his concerns around the increased threat across this nation with respect to ghost guns. I fully agree, and I think that's why you saw unanimous support for the amendment we just passed.

My question is for the officials. There is nothing preventing the current government from taking what is in this legislation tied to ghost guns and passing that through regulation tomorrow, is there?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

There are certain provisions or measures that are being proposed in here that need to be based in law. They are not ones that are to be included in regulations because you need the regulation-making authority to do so in terms of taking those regulatory actions. Some of them are actually necessary as part of the bill, if that's the government's and the legislature's intent.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I got you. That's a fair response. I respect that there are aspects of it that do require legislative change.

My second point goes more to the discussion of why there are some concerns and confusion around here. We already challenged you, Chair, on the scope of this, but it goes to the question around the tech briefing. I just want it clear for all Canadians who are watching or reviewing this.

On the tech briefing, we were notified very last minute. In fact, we received the link for those MPs less than 20 minutes before the brief actually occurred. I sent a follow-up, in fact, to the parliamentary secretary at the 45-minute mark asking where it was, and we had it.

When the questions came up, there were only two people, me and Mr. Motz, and we were restricted to one question each with a follow-up, and I had a pile. Before we knew it, the tech briefing was over. Again, I have nothing against any of the officials who were part of the briefing yesterday, but it was over so quickly. I know from talking to other colleagues, and this is my concern here, that this amendment was not debated.

We had that discussion at length on the previous amendments. This wasn't part of the original bill. We have not quite 338 MPs in the House of Commons right now, after the resignations. My point is that all sorts of colleagues, who represent Canadians right across this country, are still asking us questions.

Just to go back to the previous point, we do kindly request that the government and the parliamentary secretary consider offering another technical briefing opportunity for all MPs and not only for those who had the benefit of our wonderful officials here at the table.

I'll leave my remarks at that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

Ms. Dancho, please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much.

I have one question, and then I have a suggestion that may hurry this along, which committee members may be open to, but I'll come to that in a minute.

Just on the technical briefing, again, I want to impress how important it is that we get these answers. Mr. Noormohamed mentioned something about the Lee–Enfield. I haven't gotten a clear answer on how the Lee–Enfield and the Winchester rifle, model 1873, which has a tubular magazine, will be impacted by what the minister said when he announced this amendment concerning the high-capacity magazine permanent alterations.

These are legitimate questions. There are people who watch this committee and who have these questions. It is the minister's fault that he announced them at the same time perhaps—I don't know—but he made that connection himself. Therefore, that's why we've come to this committee looking for answers on whether the high-capacity permanent alteration announcement will impact tubular magazines and the Lee-Enfield.

It would put a lot of concerns aside if the government could be clear and if the Liberal members could be clear right now and guarantee to Canadians that tubular magazines and the Lee-Enfield will not be impacted by the minister's announcement yesterday. That would cause us to relax a bit because those are huge changes.

I want to suggest something to help us move forward. Mr. Chair, could you just come back to me?

I put this to Liberal members. If they wish to engage in this, can you guarantee to Canadians that tubular magazines and the Lee-Enfield will not be banned by the minister's announcement yesterday?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

I really need us to focus on this bill and this amendment. This amendment explicitly excludes firearms such as the Lee-Enfield, the SKS and all of those things. It doesn't apply.... It has nothing to do with any existing firearm. If you have those suggestions to make, by all means bring them up with the minister off-line or with the parliamentary secretary off-line. It's not really part of what we're doing in this meeting at this time.

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

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

I will go to my suggestion then.

Just to wrap up that point, it would provide a lot of clarity to Canadians who own those firearms if they knew that those were not being banned, and it's the minister's fault that he connected those two things yesterday in the announcement, just to be clear. The Liberal members do have an opportunity right now to denounce or to assure that these aren't being banned, but they have chosen not to.

I will go on to suggest that—Mr. Chair, you could confirm this—if we have unanimous consent to park this, we can actually get to the rest of the bill, and we can come back to this clause. We can get started on the other clauses, ghost guns and other things. I don't think there are a lot of issues forthcoming in other clauses.

Conservative members obviously have more questions about this and about the announcement yesterday. It may give me an opportunity to speak with the minister, or perhaps another technical briefing would come. When we do get back to this clause, if we decide to park it for a minute, that could go more quickly.

Again, we're very hesitant. The track record of the Liberals has not built trust concerning these new types of definitions, so we are hesitant. In the rest of the bill, the amendments don't look too bad. I don't think there will be any issues there.

I could put forward a motion that we pause this clause for now, and we can come back to it. We could get going on the rest of the bill. I could put forward a motion if there is willingness. If there's not, then I won't waste your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

A motion at this time would be out of order because we are engaged in a motion.

We can't park an individual amendment, if you will. We can stand the whole clause and return to the whole clause later on. That would stand all the amendments relating to that one clause that have not yet been processed.

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

I suppose that's what I'm suggesting, then, Mr. Chair, that we get on with it. Then Conservatives can get the answers we need and we're not wasting committee time.