Evidence of meeting #63 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was definition.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Shall the decision of the chair be sustained? If you vote yes, you are voting to sustain the decision of the chair. If you vote no, you're voting to set it aside. A tie goes to the chair.
I will ask the clerk to do a voice vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 4)
Thank you, all. The decision of the chair is upheld. As far as we are concerned in this committee, until it gets back to the House, it is in scope.
I have on my list Madam Michaud, followed by Mr. Motz.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I'm sorry. I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Just for the benefit of everyone here in the room and for the staff, will we go until 6:30, or is there an intention to keep going beyond that time?
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We have until 7:00, although I understand there's a hockey game that starts around 7:00—
6:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
—so we might want to see how we go. Passing this straight away will get you to the hockey game.
Next we have Mr. Motz, followed by Ms. Dancho.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Mr. Chair, I move that the committee report the following to the House: that notwithstanding the usual practices of the House, the committee request to the Speaker—
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Motz, we cannot have a motion at this time. We are engaged in a motion, Ms. Damoff's motion. Until we finish this motion, we can't entertain another motion.
Do you have any further remarks on this motion?
Ms. Dancho, please go ahead.
If we have a problem with sound, in my experience, cutting off your video might help, but let's see how it goes.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay. Please let me know. I apologize, colleagues. This has not really happened to me before.
I have a couple of questions or kind of a big question, I suppose, on this amendment. Just to be clear on what our caution is with this.... Liberals, or particularly the minister in his announcement, made it very clear: He is looking to ban what he has dubbed so-called assault-style weapons, a term that the government is trying to establish in this definition. He has said that these are designed for the battlefield and are unsafe for public use, which is what Ms. Damoff alluded to in her remarks as well, making these all sound very scary.
Of course, Conservatives and many firearms owners take issue with this, as we found in G-4 and G-46 that many commonly used firearms used for hunting were encompassed in what they were calling assault-style weapons. That was made very clear. Our caution is that, if this amendment is being brought forward, the definition of what they want to describe now is what they've been calling assault-style. This is now their definition. As I said, if they're so dangerous, why is there this...? It's not grandfathering, but I've been calling it, for lack of a better term, a forward-looking clause. If the Liberals are saying that they're too dangerous for public use—which, of course, we disagree with and firearms owners disagree with—why are they letting people keep them, and why are they having a forward-looking clause?
That's what we're not understanding. That's why we feel like there's something else going on here that we're not clear on, given the arguments that have been made for the last number of months and years by Liberals.
I'm not sure. I feel like that is, perhaps, more of a political question, so I don't mean to put the officials on the spot. However, that is our hesitation here, because of what was established in the last amendments and what the argument continues to be, including this announcement that the minister made yesterday, saying battlefield guns, “assault-style” weapons and all these slogans and words he's been using. Again, if they are so dangerous, why are you letting people keep them?
Perhaps Ms. Damoff can explain, and then perhaps we won't feel so cautious and will understand that this is really what it is, that you're letting everybody keep these. Is that what we're seeing here?
I just have one follow-up, and then I'll be done.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
If you're asking questions of Ms. Damoff, she's not here to answer questions. She's a member of the committee. She may engage in a debate as she wishes, and you may certainly ask questions of the officials.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I'm not trying to put her on the spot. I'm just trying to explain why we're being very cautious about this because it really doesn't make sense, Mr. Chair. I think that is obvious, given the rhetoric that we've heard from the Liberal government.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That is really a matter of what we're debating right now.
Anyway, if you wish to come back at this....
We'll go next to Mr. Noormohamed.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I did want to note that there have been no consultations through this committee process on this forward-looking clause. Had there been, we may have gotten more clarity on what exactly this means.
Again, it seems that there's a trick being pulled here because it just doesn't add up at all. There were no consultations done on this. When we were at G-4 and G-46, the government conceded that, because they were so significant as the largest hunting rifle ban in history, we were going to have eight consultation meetings as a result.
Now here we have a new definition, Mr. Chair, and no consultation on it that the committee gets to do. It just seems very strange.
The NDP did view this as out of scope before and the Bloc was open to that. It is just odd that we needed so much consultation on the prior one. Now we have a new one, yet we're not allowed to consult and we're being criticized for asking an hour's worth of questions on something that may be very significant. I'm not really clear on that.
Secondly, I appreciate that Ms. Damoff mentioned a poll, but for the government's own consultation, when I asked for an information request on public consultations on Bill C-21, they provided us information on a $200,000 consultation. Of the 133,369 people who were consulted through that, 77% of them responded that nothing more was needed to limit access to so-called assault weapons and 81% said no to limiting more access to handguns.
This is $200,000 and almost 200,000 people consulted, and the evidence was quite clear from their response. It doesn't really add up with that one poll that probably polled about 1,500 people, maybe 400 even.... Just to be clear, the government's own evidence was not in favour of this from a public opinion side.
Lastly on that, Mr. Chair, we know that when the government says “assault-style”, they really mean hunting rifles. That was established in G-4 and G-46, which was why, it seems, the government withdrew them. It was established by hunting associations across the country. We have talked about a number of hunting rifles that are commonly used. The SKS, for example, is very commonly used as a hunting rifle in indigenous communities and others. It's just a bit frustrating in that regard.
It's not clear on capacity. I recognize that's been informed now. It's clear now. It's not in the bill, but magazine capacity does impact a lot of these firearms and it's disappointing we don't really get to ask any questions about that.
Also, I will ask a question on the firearms advisory committee.
Is this new firearms advisory committee included in the bill? When asked about banning the SKS, the minister said that they were referring it to this firearms advisory committee. Is that in the bill? Is that being brought forward through this bill?
That is for the officials.
6:25 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you.
I would refer to the news release that was published yesterday.
The intent to re-establish the Canadian firearms advisory committee was announced by the minister yesterday. The information about that is.... As part of that, we're waiting for instructions from the minister.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay, that's not being created through this bill, just to be clear.
6:25 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
May 2nd, 2023 / 6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chair, just to conclude, we were provided a technical briefing basically minutes after getting the slide deck for all of this. We are getting a lot of questions.
The minister is responsible for this because he announced, within the scope of Bill C-21, the announcements that we're talking about today.
I would appreciate, and I think members of the media, stakeholders and other members of Parliament would appreciate a fulsome briefing now that we've had a bit more time to digest what these amendments mean and what the capacity and magazine restrictions will mean. What is the makeup of this firearms advisory committee? Who is going to be on that? How was that decided? How can gun owners trust that it won't be biased?
These are basic questions that we need answers to.
As the lead on public safety, I would ask that you consult with the parliamentary secretary for public safety on providing another amendment. I believe there is time because we know now there won't be any more time for another public safety meeting this week, which we know Liberals are supportive of. That time's freed up, so why not have a technical briefing where we can ask more questions now that we've had time to digest this and have a few more answers from officials?
Mr. Chair, perhaps you can respond on whether you will have that conversation with the parliamentary secretary, and then I'm done.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you for your input.
We are focused on this bill and on this amendment.
I'm really going to focus our conversation on this bill and this amendment. Many of the things you spoke of are outside the scope of this bill. They're outside the scope of this amendment. They are certainly things that you can bring up with the minister going forward.
With that, I believe next on my list is Mr. Julian, followed by Mr. Noormohamed.
Mr. Julian, please go ahead.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be very brief.
Ms. Dancho has shown that she has had questions answered, because she's establishing a narrative around this particular amendment. She does say, and I take her at her word, that this isn't a filibuster. The repetitive nature of some of those questions or the questions that go beyond the bill are something that she says is helpful to her in doing the analysis of the amendment. I would ask her through you, Mr. Chair, if then, as I believe they should, the Conservatives consent to additional meetings. If that is indeed the case, if they have an understanding now of the amendment and if what they are trying to do is get answers, that is certainly their prerogative. What I find disturbing is at the same time as they're using up this committee time, which is their prerogative, they are refusing to have additional meetings. That's the problem, Mr. Chair.
If we're talking about a potential filibuster, or if that's the intent of the Conservatives, again, at this rhythm it will take us until October—not of this year but next year—2024 to complete clause-by-clause analysis of this bill. Ghost guns are right now at an epidemic level in certain parts of the country. The provisions in this bill that deal with ghost guns and crack down on criminals are needed. I hope that the Conservatives consent to those additional meetings because they're obviously needed. I don't object to their asking questions. I do object when they're clearly questions that have either already been answered, or that have nothing to do with the bill. I do object to that. I find that's not a useful use of our committee time.
If the Conservatives are not filibustering then I think they can show good faith by agreeing to a substantial number of other committee meetings so that we're not in this same position in October 2024 when law enforcement has said the provisions around ghost guns are needed now.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
No, I think we have to carry on with the proper.... I will put you back on the list.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative