Public Safety Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We're a little out of my area, but Mr. Julian might be able to respond to that.

My belief is that, before that should happen, the House would take action. The House leaders have considered this, and they will bring action to bring it into scope explicitly.

Failing that, if it is not done in due course, when we report back to the House, such elements that the Speaker might feel are not in scope at the time the bill comes back to the House, he could set them aside and possibly have them brought forward at report stage explicitly. I don't know.

I will defer to Mr. Julian, if he wishes to respond to this.

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

I'll defer to you, Mr. Chair, because you're absolutely right. Mr. Motz is right as well.

Ultimately, confirmation of scope comes from the House, so that is something that the House can choose to do. If the House has not confirmed that, the Speaker is the one who is governed to make that decision. That was certainly the trajectory we were taking a few months ago with the amendments.

I completely agree with your interpretation of this being in scope, but ultimately, if any party questions that, the House confirming scope is an important step to take.

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

If I may, Chair.... Thank you, Mr. Julian, for that.

I go back to Ms. Michaud's question. Hypothetically, given your ruling, if we continue to move down this path and then we find out in the weeks ahead that the House, the Speaker or both confirm that it's out of scope, what does that do to these amendments? What does that do to our discussion? What does that do to the bill?

Those are legitimate questions that we have to have answered before we decide to move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Those are all fair points.

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

Mr. Chair, does the clerk have a view on this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The Speaker will not rule on this matter until the bill is returned to the House. The Speaker regards what happens in committee to be matters for the committee to determine. Once the bill is complete and we report it back to the House, if there are concerns about scope then, those need to be raised with the Speaker in the House and the Speaker would deal with them appropriately.

What “appropriately” means is that, if he feels at that time that there were aspects we passed that were, in his view, out of scope, I believe he would back out those provisions. He might require them to be voted on explicitly at report stage.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

You're right, Mr. Chair.

We saw this under the Harper government a number of times, I believe, where ultimately the House confirmed the scope of bills while the committee was working through amendments. I'm certainly hoping it's not going to take us 18 months to work through the amendments, which is the schedule we've sort of set up today. I hope to be profoundly wrong in this regard.

That being said, the Speaker would not rule until there's a committee report when we have finalized the clause-by-clause amendments. The House can choose, during that period, to confirm scope.

It's an important discussion, but I think it's a bit premature because we have just started clause-by-clause again, and we have, according to my schedule, a heck of a lot of hours to go. The Speaker's ruling would only take place after we report, as you've pointed out, Mr. Chair. The House can choose in the meantime to confirm scope, which I think is quite possibly a very likely outcome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I have been advised by the legislative clerk here, who has done phenomenal work in taking these amendments that came in yesterday and over the last few days and putting them together.

Thank you for that.

In terms of my thoughts that, if the Speaker felt they were out of scope they could be dealt with at report stage, that's not the case. They would just be pulled from the bill at that time.

Is there any further discussion on this point?

We'll go to Ms. Damoff on this point, followed by Madam Michaud.

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

Mr. Chair, I've been on the speaking list for quite some time. I thought that I was after Mr. Motz.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You certainly are. In terms of the amendment, I was thinking that we're dealing with this particular subtopic, if you will.

If you wish to respond now to Mr. Motz's comments instead or in advance, after Ms. Damoff, Ms. Michaud and Mr. Motz again, presumably we'll get back to the amendment itself.

Do you wish to respond now or wait until that time?

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

I have a few clarifying questions left, not too many but a few.

I want to address a few of the things that have been said regarding a filibuster. Any suggestion that asking for an hour of questions after what, in its previous iteration, was the largest hunting rifle banning in Canadian history is kind of silly. This is what the committee is for. This was just dropped yesterday, and we're trying to understand what this is. It's very odd.

I know it's not technically a grandfathering clause, but I'm trying to understand the magnitude of this, because the last version of this was extremely serious and impacted the 2.3 million gun owners in this country and caused a country-wide uproar and mobilization of hunters, farmers and sport shooters.

I was thinking about an hour, maybe two or a few more—I don't know—to get perfect clarity on what exactly this means and the impact it's going to have. We're going to make sure that we get that clarity. I'll note that the first meeting we went through before this went forward was relatively short with peaceful orders. My expectation is that most of the amendments, assuming that there are no curve balls that we don't know about yet, will proceed in a very [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Madam Dancho, I think we've lost your audio.

The clerk advises me that your connection is very intermittent. We missed the last part of what you said.

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

I was wrapping up that point.

I want to also note that the last time we had this amendment, it had a very similar definition. In fact, it was almost the same. We originally called a vote to rule it out of scope, but the NDP voted against it. Then, in the House, the NDP most recently tried to—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have Madam Michaud on a point of order, please.

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

The interpreters are telling me the sound quality is keeping them from providing interpretation into French of Ms. Dancho's words.

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

I apologize, colleagues. I don't know why this is happening. My Internet connection is fine, and I have done all the latest tests.

How is it now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Speak a little bit more, and we'll see if it works.

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

Okay, I will try to speak slowly.

I'm also not clear on the scope. The NDP tried to move a motion in the House ruling that the last iteration, which was very similar, was out of scope, so I'm not clear why their perspective has changed. Perhaps they would like to add some clarity, but the definition is largely the same.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry. The quality of your sound is inadequate for interpretation.

I would say in response, if I may, that this not the same amendment. It is strictly forward looking, and that is the bottom line. It incorporates—

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

Mr. Chair, the definition of what—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

There are two things. First, Ms. Dancho is not getting interpretation, but I have a question.

Has someone challenged the chair's decision? If not, we should just go back to the clause that I've introduced. If there's no challenge of the chair, which I haven't heard yet, then we should get back to clause-by-clause and the amendment.

I'm sorry that someone can't participate virtually, but if the interpretation is not coming through, we can't just continue to take part. If there's no challenge to the chair, then we should just move on, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Chair, my interpretation is still not coming through.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Your connection is very sporadic.

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

I will log off and restart my computer program and hope [Technical difficulty—Editor] in the few minutes that I'm gone.

Thank you.