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.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Can we get a response from the clerk, please, just on the technicality of this, so I can be clear if I can move something?
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I have just consulted with the legislative clerk. We require unanimous consent to do this.
Do we have unanimous consent to stand this clause and proceed with it another time?
I see no unanimous consent, so we need to carry on with this discussion.
May 2nd, 2023 / 6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay, Mr. Chair, then I'm going to have to continue, because we need some more answers here, more clarity. We don't trust that there isn't something being pulled over gun owners right now. Given the track record of the Liberals on this committee and the minister, I think it's reasonable that we have this hesitation about this specific definition.
What is being done today just doesn't follow. It doesn't make sense, based on the rhetoric, that they would bring forward this forward-looking clause. I haven't heard any explanation of why that is being done.
I'm also not reassured that this firearms committee is not just a back door to banning the very long list they withdrew. It sounded like, from the minister yesterday, that it could be the case. Again, I don't know why he would announce these things together if we couldn't talk about it in the context of Bill C-21 today in this committee and get real answers about the composition of that committee and about high-capacity magazines. Why he would confuse people, I don't understand, given the mass confusion he created with these amendments a few months ago by convoluting these things. That's not on us; that's on the minister for doing that.
It's frustrating that we can't get clarity on what a firearms advisory committee would look like, what they're allowed to do and what the deal is with high-capacity magazines. Are Lee-Enfields being banned? Are tubular magazines being banned?
Just to be clear, Conservatives are quite disappointed. We cannot get the clarity for gun owners on this that they need, given their reasonable apprehension and fear, which was created over the last five months with amendments G-4 and G-46.
Mr. Chair, that's all I have at this time, but, again, I would urge you to urge the parliamentary secretary to talk to the minister about another technical briefing. That could certainly help things go along, especially considering that the good-faith measure to park this clause for now to get to the rest of the bill was not approved, which would have allowed us to get to the other important measures and get more answers in the interim. I think that it was a good-faith measure. It was certainly made in good faith.
I don't know why we can't do that, but anyway, that's all for now, Mr. Chair.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. Dancho.
We have Mr. Motz followed by Ms. Damoff, Madam Michaud and Mr. Julian.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I have a few questions for the officials. They've been asked before about other aspects of other bills and this one.
To the best of your knowledge, was there any gender-based analysis completed for this particular amendment?
6:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I believe I've answered this previously, but I might be incorrect.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
6:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Any analysis that is taken with respect to the motions or the bill would be solicitor-client privilege, but there are a variety of factors that we look at as counsel when we are developing policy. One of those factors is gender-based analysis.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Okay. That's a very political answer. Are you sure you're in the right role?
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
—that officials of the government are somehow acting as partisan individuals is not okay. There's a line we in this committee don't cross, and, to my mind, that's crossing the line.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.
I would recommend to Mr. Motz that he respect the witnesses.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I have great respect for these witnesses, contrary to what my colleague might suggest with the disinformation across the way.
What you are telling me, then, is that generally a gender-based analysis is conducted, but can you confirm, with this particular amendment, that there was a gender-based analysis conducted?
6:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can repeat my last answer and say that, when we look at developing policy, including motions such as the motions before the committee today, we do a variety of analyses, including a gender-based analysis. That would have been part of something we would have done.
6:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can't tell you, like I said, the outcome of that analysis. What I can say is that it does form part of our policy analysis when we are developing policy.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Okay. Thank you.
I take it when you talk about motions, you're talking about new stuff that comes forward. I suspect that's what you mean.
As part of that analysis you would do, was any evidence presented to those drafting this and to the department that showed that this particular amendment, G-3.2, would have a positive impact on public safety?
6:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Any statistical or evidentiary evidence that we would have in the process of the policy development, again, would be solicitor-client privilege and included within our analysis of the amendments.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm hoping that my colleagues across the way can, at some point in time, provide any such evidence that would suggest that this amendment would have a positive impact on public safety. I'm not sure that it meets that threshold.
Are there any statistics showing that these legally owned firearms are being used in the commission of offences that then would force the government to develop this type of a definition in this amendment?
6:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Can I ask which firearms you're speaking to?