Public Safety Committee on May 9th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 65 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members whether they are participating virtually or in person.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms.

I will now welcome the officials who are with us once again.

Welcome. It's always good to see you.

From the Department of Justice, we have Sandro Giammaria, counsel; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; and Kellie Paquette, director general, Canadian firearms program.

Thank you for joining us once again today. Your participation is, of course, crucial to our deliberations.

I will now invite Mr. Julian to take the floor, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't intend to speak for a long time. I know that Bill C-21, particularly the issue around ghost guns, is something that law enforcement wants to take immediate action on. We need to move forward in a forthright manner.

I have a motion that was circulated to committee for the purposes of today's meeting. I move:

That the committee extend its meeting of May 9, 2023, until midnight for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21.

Mr. Chair, I heard yesterday in the House something that I felt was profound disinformation. It was said by the Conservative public safety critic that almost half of the amendments had been considered at committee, and that's simply false. As you know, Mr. Chair, since we started again, we've considered 12 amendments out of 151. You can do the math, as I have, Mr. Chair. I note that, at this rate, we simply would not have this bill back to the House for months.

Why is it urgent? We know, because of the delays.... These delays were caused by what I felt were the Liberals' misplaced amendments, which were done without consultation. Now we have the Conservatives filibustering, so they're also causing a delay. During that time, Mr. Chair, we've seen an exponential increase in the use of illegal, untraceable ghost guns across this country.

The House is seized by an expansion of scope, which will be important, but we need to provide law enforcement with the tools. We need to be targeting criminals. The withdrawal of the amendments means that those who would be targeted by this Bill C-21 are criminals, not law-abiding gun owners. It's important that we move in a forthright way.

I've been raising this issue, as you know, Mr. Chair, for a couple of weeks now, to vastly expand the number of hours. The committee has the ability to do that. I'm proposing that we do just that for the purposes of today's meeting—to meet until midnight.

I hope we can come to a consensus rapidly on this. I don't intend to draw it out if there are members who are opposed, but I do believe that it's an important step that we need to take for public safety. We need to move this bill forward, and we can't do that if it continues to be stuck in the committee.

Since it's taken so long to consider the initial amendments, it's important that we allow more time today for clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. That's what I'm proposing. I hope we have a consensus around this table about the importance of studying Bill C‑21 and passing it to combat the threat of ghost guns. The study has dragged on long enough. Now we need to move forward. That's why I'm introducing this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that although the motion contains a single sentence, the French version contains errors. For example, it includes an English word, and certain words are needlessly repeated. I know that Mr. Julian's French is very good, so he could have taken the time to write his motion properly in French. Unfortunately, he did not.

Before we debate the motion, I'd like to make sure that we have the necessary resources from the House. Personally, I don't mind if the committee sits until midnight. However, I'm thinking of the officials who are with us, as well as the interpreters and technicians.

Do we have the resources needed from the House to act on the motion, should we pass it? Perhaps the clerk could let us know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Perhaps if we do the motion orally, it would be adequate, because that is generally acceptable for motions, particularly shorter motions. Then you will get the interpretation. However, I will ask the clerk if it is possible to also send the complete motion in French.

We'll go to Mr. Noormohamed, followed by—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I made a comment first, but then I asked a question. Do we have the resources from the House to sit until midnight? I don't know if the clerk can tell us if we do or not. As I said, I don't mind being here until midnight, and I'm sure my colleagues are willing to do it as well. However, we mustn't forget that we also have officials, interpreters and technicians with us.

Are we able to act on the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry. I misunderstood your question earlier.

We have made the request for resources, and at this time, it is denied. However, if we pass this motion, we will send it back to the administration and they will get with the whips to decide whether or not they want to cancel other sufficient resources for us to proceed.

We can pass this if it is the will of the committee to do so. It doesn't mean that we will be able to sit until midnight. We will rely on the House whips to decide this. Is that fair enough?

Did you still need the motion that was moved orally?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

In that case, Mr. Paul‑Hus, the floor is yours.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My colleague from the Bloc Québécois has a very good point: the motion is only one sentence and it couldn't even be written properly.

Could my colleague from the NDP read the correct version and French, out of respect for the official languages?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I will ask Mr. Julian to do so. We're a little bit out of sequence, so after Mr. Julian we will go back to Mr. Noormohamed, Mr. Shipley and then Mr. Motz, I believe.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Michaud and Mr. Paul‑Hus are right, an English word was left in the French version inadvertently.

I want to say that I'm proud to speak French and that, in the past, I have pointed out French errors in texts submitted by the Conservative Party and even the Bloc Québécois. I feel a little awkward having introduced an NDP motion with errors in it.

If we also remove the words that are repeated, the French version of the motion reads as follows:

Que le Comité prolonge sa réunion du 9 mai 2023 jusqu'à minuit pour faire l'étude article par article du projet de loi C‑21.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The clerk has advised me that the error happened in the Clerk's office—not his office necessarily but the Clerk's office.

We go now to Mr. Noormohamed, please.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Never mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You're good...? Okay.

Mr. Shipley.

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

Just quickly, I have to make a comment here. Thank you, Chair.

I'm just a little bit confused, which is easily done. We seem to be putting the proverbial cart before the horse again. We're going to sit here right now—and I'm all good to sit here until midnight. I have nowhere to go. I'll stay all night you want. I'm looking forward to it.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

No, tomorrow night is the Leafs game.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

We have all kinds of time tonight. I love spending time with my colleagues well into the evening. There's no issue, but we're sitting here now and we're talking about trying to get through Bill C-21. Right now, we're talking about a motion that you just said we don't have resources for. Why are we doing things backwards again? Why don't we jump into Bill C-21 and get through this?

What is the point of debating a motion that we don't have the resources for? Maybe the chair can illuminate me on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

At this moment we don't have resources for it, but if we pass the motion, it could be that we will. However, that will be up to the whips.

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

I understand that.

Again, parliamentary procedure is not always my strongest point. We have people who can do that type of thing.

This is how we got here in the first place, by dropping amendments at the last minute that weren't reviewed properly. This has happened a couple of times now, as far as the Conservatives are concerned, and it's happened a couple of times with major amendments.

Today we're getting a motion that might happen, it might not, but we're sitting here wasting time when we could be on Bill C-21 talking about whether we're going to go again.... I'm getting tired of putting the cart before the horse. I'm here to do work. I'm here to do what people elected us to do, and that is to pass good legislation.

Mr. Chair, once again I'm a little frustrated and I wanted to voice that concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for your introduction.

This motion was, of course, properly notified to the committee and so forth.

I have Mr. Motz next.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I find it interesting as well. As my colleague Mr. Shipley indicated, the resources tonight are difficult. We are sitting in the House until midnight and there are other committees that are sitting late as well. Again, I find it astounding that we would consider a motion for which we don't even know whether it's going to be possible to sit past our 6:30 time slot.

In any event, why is it necessary to be in the spot that we're in? Why did Mr. Julian feel it was necessary to put a motion forward?

I want to reiterate and correct his assertion that we're not halfway through. If you look at the amendments before us, there are 25 of them that add the words “firearm part” in the clauses coming forward. I don't see that taking 20 meetings.

Let's actually talk about the meetings. On January 31, there was no meeting and no good reason was given for why we didn't have a meeting. February 3 was the meeting where the amendments were withdrawn, so we know why we didn't have a meeting on January 31. On February 7, we did the Russia study, not Bill C-21—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, since the Conservatives are obviously filibustering this motion, as I signalled earlier, I intend to withdraw it.

If the Conservatives are going to be blocking this again, as they have over the last two weeks, it doesn't make sense to encourage another filibuster on top of the filibuster they've already been engaged in.