Public Safety Committee on May 2nd, 2023

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

You don't have that information.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Not with me, no.

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

All right. I guess tied to this, with the consultations for this definition, to the officials who helped drafted this, were manufacturers consulted at all?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

There were broad discussions, engagements, that were done. Again, I'm here to support the review of the motion and the bill. I would invite you again to pose this question to the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Ruff, Ms. Damoff will respond if you wish.

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

Thank you.

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

First off, the question should be directed to the minister, not to me. I'm not here to answer questions.

You asked where it comes from. In every poll that I've ever seen.... I'll quote one. Ipsos did a poll that reported, “Eight in Ten (82%) Canadians Support Federal Government's Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons”. That was on May 28, 2020. It's available on their website. You can check that. It's public polling, so it's available for anyone who wants to look for it.

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

Did you say 2020?

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

That's one that I found. It's been consistent though, Mr. Ruff. It has been consistent for years.

You asked if polling was actually done. I have given you one. You can take a look. I would suspect the numbers have not changed very much from 2020 to 2023.

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

My question was around this definition. We're talking about this definition. “Military-style assault rifles” is not this definition. This is redefining what a prohibited firearm is.

The definition specifically speaks to what was discussed and brought forward under G-4, which is now withdrawn and rightfully so. We now have a new definition for prohibited firearms, based on what the minister announced yesterday and these amendments that were moved today by you.

I'm just asking for the consultation because that's exactly what you stated. That's fine. We don't have it. I just sort of wanted to get that clarified.

Specifically, I'll go back to the officials. If I heard correctly, from the understanding from the officials perspective, there were no manufacturers.... They are the ones that are directly impacted by this because this is a new definition in an amendment going forward for future firearms, not historical firearms. Therefore, I'm just trying to understand whether or not they were consulted because they're the ones who ultimately....

We have firearms manufactures and, again, they're not bad people. They're just producing a tool for hunters and sport shooters, etc. I'm just trying to seek the clarity on whether or not they were involved at all in the consultation process of coming up with this definition.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I would refer you back to the announcement yesterday that talked about how the “announcement follows engagement with Canadians across the country”. It lists the different types of groups and stakeholders that were engaged with during the intervening period.

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

I'll leave it at that, Chair.

To just go again to some of the questions, Ms. Dancho made a great analogy in talking about vehicles, but again I'm just concerned about going forward.

Let's take, for example, the Browning hunting rifle Mark II or Mark III that was caught up under the previous G-4 and is no longer caught up in this. If it was to be remanufactured to the same specs in the future—if Browning produces more of these hunting rifles—they will not be captured under this because no matter how they were originally designed historically, tied to magazine capacity, they're not part of this. This is just for future firearms only.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

That's correct.

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

Thank you. That's it.

Mr. Chair, I would request maybe a quick recess for a break for the members. I know we'd like to have a quick huddle and maybe a bathroom break.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I certainly support that. Is it okay for the committee to take a 10-minute break?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We are suspended for 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay. The meeting is resumed.

I hope we all had a nice chat and a little lunch. I know I did.

Thanks to all of you.

We are engaged in debate on G-3.2.

The floor now goes to Mr. Julian, who will be followed by Mr. Motz and then Ms. Dancho.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I've been here a while. I'm new to this committee, but I've certainly been on Parliament Hill for a while. I was in Parliament through the years of Mr. Harper's government and certainly at committee we would often receive amendments on even the same day. I appreciate that this time we've had 24 hours to digest the amendments, and we've had time to question, to appreciate our witnesses here and to get answers.

To start, we have spent well over an hour on one amendment. At that rhythm, I'm concerned that with the 145 amendments we have, it would take us through.... On the basis of what Ms. Dancho said at the beginning of this meeting, which was that the Conservatives would agree to the normal committee schedule of four hours a week, maybe making up occasionally for a day when Parliament does not sit—for example, with the Liberal convention this weekend and the Bloc convention in two weeks—at 145 hours and four hours a week, that takes us through to literally October 2024. That's not October 2023. It's October 2024.

I'm concerned about that because it.... I hope this is not a filibuster. I see some indications that it is. Some questions that are repetitive and some questions that are rhetorical. There's some debating that has nothing to do with the bill. That concerns me, because we did manage to adopt one amendment—a long time ago this evening, it seems—that deals with ghost guns, and we know that in some parts of the country the prevalence of ghost guns has increased 1,000% over the past year. That's 100% a month, Mr. Chair, so a delay of a month or two or 18 months, if we're continuing at the same rhythm, is something that, to my mind, is very concerning.

I take it on good faith that this is not a filibuster. I certainly hope it is not. I see many signs that indicate to me that it may well be. I certainly believe that we've all had time to consider the amendments. We've had time to question the witnesses as well and to get answers to those questions, and I think those answers have been very clear.

I'll express my concern, Mr. Chair, that if there is a need to advance on this.... I do understand and I agree with Ms. Dancho that the delay we've had over the last few months was caused by the government tabling amendments that had not been appropriately vetted. That is true, but two wrongs don't make a right. If the Conservatives are then delaying things, in my mind, in a way that means that we can't get to the important amendments and work through them in a forthright way, I'm concerned that we're delaying this bill even longer at a time when the ghost gun provisions are urgently needed by law enforcement and when law enforcement has called for that urgently.

I wanted to raise that concern. As I mentioned, this amendment is very clear to me, and I'll be voting in favour of it.

I wanted to flag two things.

One is that I'm beginning to sense that there is a filibuster, and I hope I'm wrong. Secondly, though, Mr. Chair, I think the idea that we would be restricted to just doing the normal committee schedule of four hours a week at the rhythm we're going right now in terms of amendments simply won't allow the effective consideration and the moving forward with this bill that are required.

I wanted to express my misgivings through you, Mr. Chair, to the committee. Hopefully, we will start moving forward on these things.

Through you, I want to express my appreciation to the witnesses. They've given very fulsome, very complete and very clear answers. I think we should take those answers and, as a committee, be effective in moving forward on this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

If it's any help, I think this is a really significant amendment. I'm hopeful we won't need to extrapolate this amendment into all of them. That being said, of course as we go forward, as things develop, we will do what we need to do. We go next to Mr. Motz.

Mr. Motz, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

To Mr. Julian's point, and to yours that you just made in your intervention, I would agree. I think because of the importance of this particular definition and the impact on this bill and the impact on law-abiding firearms owners in this country and on manufacturers and the entire industry, if you will, this is something that we have to go through with some vigour and we need to discuss all aspects of it and understand it completely. The suggestion that since we're taking a long time on this particular amendment this is how it will be all of the time is simply untrue. I think we can be quite judicious on some of the other amendments moving forward.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I am hopeful there will be some time to further digest this definition, but it doesn't appear as if there's any willingness by some of the other parties to do that. I will go back to something that I started with Bill C-21 when we first began our debate back in the fall. That has to do with scope. I've had conversations with many people on both sides of the aisle since Bill C-21 was introduced. You know, Bill C-21 was introduced as a handgun bill. It was debated in the House of Commons as a handgun bill, yet the majority of our debates at this particular committee since the new definitions have come out have had to do with long guns and shotguns, and they're completely out of scope.

If I understand parliamentary process, it would be reasonable, on the expansion of the scope, to go back to the House to be determined whether it is in scope, or the government could decide to put something forward so that it could be debated in the House and then brought back here to committee and we could continue to have this conversation. In fact, that may be something that the government should consider—actually bringing this definition and the new additions to this bill back to the House for debate.

Unfortunately I tried to do this last time on a motion. You ruled it to be in order and within scope. I disagreed and some horsepower in the House disagreed with you as well. That's still an opportunity that exists. Canadians heard us in the House debating a bill about handguns. Now, for the last six months or so we've been talking about long guns and shotguns and hunting rifles and things that impact a wider range of Canadians than the handgun freeze or ban or buyback process does. Now we're involving the livelihood of Canadians, the pastimes of Canadians and sustenance for Canadians who are now impacted by this particular bill.

My suggestion is that we give consideration to the fact that this definition and some of the amendments to this bill are out of scope. That would be a motion that I would present to this committee—that it be sent back to the House to have determined whether or not it is in scope and have the Speaker make that ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I have not ruled specifically on this amendment in this meeting. However, I have heard arguments on both sides of this question over the days, over the months. I'm inclined to maintain consistency with the previous decision that it is in scope and carry on from there. If, later on, the House feels it is not in scope, it may happen in due course that the House will address that issue. I certainly look forward to that should that be required. At the moment, I will rule that the matter is in scope at this time.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.

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

I have a question about what you just said. If we complete the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, but then the Speaker of the House rules that one of the items is out of scope, what happens at that point? Can you help me understand that?