Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2023

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify one point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I believe you still have time.

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

We have a minute left.

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

I’m trying to understand why there’s a discrepancy between the English and French versions of amendment G-18. Indeed, the amendment is not applied in exactly the same place. In English it refers to section 117.011(1)(a), and in French it refers to section 117.011(1).

Why is there a difference? Normally, the amendment should be applied the same way in French and English, in this case, in the same subsection.

[Phaedra Glushek]

In the process of drafting provisions in the Criminal Code—and this is an existing provision, so it's been here for several years—the difference between the French and English drafting in the revision is that sometimes there's paragraphing in the French that's not in the English. The context of the French and the English are the same. It's just not paragraphed, from my understanding of the drafting of the provision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Are there any further interventions?

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be supporting this amendment. I did want to flag that, in previous sessions of this committee around Bill C-21, we had similar questions to those the Conservatives just asked. I wanted to flag that, and I will be flagging it.

In the case where there is new information, I am certainly inclined—as are, I believe, the rest of my colleagues—to allow for an extension of the 20 minutes. In the case where the Conservatives are asking questions to which they have already received answers, it is pretty clear that the intent is more to draw things out than to elicit new information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

I will generally not cut witnesses off if they are giving a response, but I will try to cut members off well before their five minutes, so there should be time for witnesses to answer.

Are there any further interventions?

Seeing none, are all in favour of the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 11)

That brings us to clause 11 and amendment CPC-15, standing in the name of Ms. Dancho.

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

We have an amendment to propose in this regard.

Mr. Chair, it's the first amendment that I'm moving, so I'm not sure if I'll get the procedure right, but I will read it, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

I move that Bill C-21, in clause 11, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 15 with the following:

117.012 A provincial court judge shall, on application by

In essence, it changes “may” to “shall”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

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

Pardon me. This is concerning yellow flag laws.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Right. Okay.

(Amendment negatived)

That brings us to CPC-16, also in the name of Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-21, in clause 11, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 15 with the following:

ceased to exist or were unfounded.

Again, these concern yellow flag laws, and I know that there was...although I was in the House dealing with the time allocation motion that was forced on us by the Liberals and NDP to limit our discussion today, and likely tomorrow.

In the few minutes that I have to discuss this, now that I am here, I'll note that of course there were a number of concerns we heard from witnesses about red flag and yellow flag laws, and I found that very concerning.

You'll remember, Mr. Chair, that when this bill was first brought forward by the Liberals, or the second iteration of it was first brought forward about a year ago, I moved a motion in the House to split out the red flag and yellow flag provisions. I did that so we could take the politics out of it and quickly usher this part along, because of course I would support, particularly as a woman, provisions to ensure, in cases of domestic violence or threats, that women in vulnerable positions, particularly indigenous women and others, are protected and better protected from those who wish to do them harm.

That was shouted down by the minister when I tried to take the politics out of this. However, interestingly, when we brought it to committee, I was very surprised to learn that those with far more expertise in this regard did not fully support these provisions, or support them at all.

Groups like PolySeSouvient, one of the most notable anti-gun groups in the country, did not support this at all—quite assertively. In fact, I was interested to learn that on Twitter they gave us a shout-out yesterday in support of our position on red flag laws. I never thought I'd see the day, but I did appreciate the honest support from them in this regard and that we do, in fact, align on certain things. That was a good moment to see.

We also heard from a number of indigenous leaders, notably women and women chiefs who came to committee to speak to this and Bill C-21 in general. Of course, they did not support Bill C-21 in any form, but in particular, they had concerns about the red flag and yellow flag laws.

To summarize what they said, the indigenous communities who came to committee—certainly some of them whom I heard—felt that because of issues of racism and other things, folks who are malevolent toward a given indigenous person or indigenous community could use the provisions in this bill against them to take away their firearms arbitrarily, without real reason. That is the sentiment I heard, and Conservatives and others heard, while at this committee.

We have a number of quotes supporting that from the people whom this was supposed to support in the first place, so I find it difficult for us as a committee to bring forward something that was supposed to support these groups when they're saying they don't want it at all.

There were a number of other reasons given. This is just my summary of the sentiments that I felt from them.

I know the quotes were read yesterday, but it's certainly surprising that the Liberal government and the NDP.... The former person from the NDP who was dealing with this certainly signalled to me that they would not be supporting these measures because of what we heard. With the NDP in particular, that seems to have changed, and it's not clear why. I don't believe a clear case was made for why the NDP is no longer listening to the stakeholders we heard when they came to committee.

Furthermore, we heard from Women and the Law, which I believe was a Liberal witness. I could be corrected. They are law experts, from a woman's perspective in particular. They were brought to committee, not by our party, and did not support these measures either.

There was also a French group from Quebec that stands up against violence against women. They did not support these measures.

We heard from a number of women's groups who did not support these measures, saying they put way too much onus on a woman, the very people, I believe the intention was, that these measures were going to support.

I don't understand how in good conscience we could support this as a committee when the very people these measures were designed to support do not want them. They didn't want them quite strongly—not just subtly, but out there publicly at committee and on social media.

I'm not convinced the committee is doing the work to protect the most vulnerable when these measures were meant to do that. As I said, I was originally supporting them until I heard from the people that they were meant to support. We cannot support them without the support of the vulnerable, whom they were supposed to help, so we will be voting against them again today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

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

That's said in favour of my amendment, of course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Are there any further interventions?

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

Just quickly, Mr. Chair, the amendment itself calls for the words “or were unfounded” to be added to the clause. Ms. Dancho spoke a lot about women, so I'll just say it's for women who already have a court order. It's implying that women are going to court and lying, so we will not be supporting the amendment, which is specifically to add “unfounded” to the clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The clerk says we have 45 seconds left.

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

Okay.

The consultations we did—and again I am not a legal expert—provided some clarity on the issue. It was an effort to address some of the concerns we had. What the member is implying is certainly not my intention and not correct from my perspective and from the consultations we did with legal counsel on this.

The effort was to fix the mess created by this bill. The Liberals are not listening to the women this is supposed to help. I had a clear record of supporting this before I heard that the very people this is supposed to be helping don't support it.

The legal counsel we received was that this would at least address it a bit, so that's why we are bringing it forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Are there any further interventions?

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If Ms. Dancho is inferring that there is support for this amendment, I think that is inaccurate. I'll be voting against this amendment. I've read it through and done my homework in coming to committee.

I am disturbed by some misinformation. Yesterday in the House it was implied by the Conservatives that the Liberal amendments the NDP forced them to withdraw were still active in some way. I found it unfortunate that the Conservatives would provide disinformation.

In this case, as well, I disagree with much of what she asserts. I am going to be voting against this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Are there any further interventions?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You have no more time.

That being the case, we'll have the vote on CPC-16.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 11 agreed to)

This brings us to new clause 11.1. We will start with amendment G-19, standing in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, we are dealing with issues related to firearm parts. This addition is going to allow an officer to execute a search of an individual's person, vehicle or premises when they believe they might have a firearm part that was unlawfully obtained and where they have the requisite conditions for a warrant but, by reason of exigent circumstances, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant.

This is a continuation of the issues related to firearm parts. We hope we will have the ongoing support of all here to keep moving forward on these issues related to ghost guns, issues that are so important in our cities.