Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging 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.

Pursuant to the House order of Tuesday, May 9, 2023, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

I would like to remind all members of some specific sections of the motion adopted yesterday that have an impact on clause-by-clause consideration:

(ii) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(iii) not more than 20 minutes be allotted for debate on any clause or any amendment moved, to be divided to a maximum of five minutes per party, unless unanimous consent is granted to extend debate on a specific amendment, and at the expiry of the time provided for debate on an amendment, the Chair shall put every question to dispose of the amendment, forthwith and successively without further debate....

The motion continues:

(v) if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. on the second day, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill....

Before we proceed, I will welcome once again the officials who are with us today. 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; Kellie Paquette, director general, Canadian firearms program; and Rob MacKinnon, director, Canadian firearms program.

Thank you all for joining us today. Your participation is very important for the committee.

Finally, with regard to the 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. The clerk also has timers for each party, and we will rack up the times that each party has spoken.

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You sort of answered my question. My understanding is, as you said, that it's 20 minutes in total for each amendment. Is that correct, and is it five minutes maximum per party?

Am I understanding correctly that someone is going to be timing each intervention of each member and then adding it up as we go to see how much each party member has spoken?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

If you speak on behalf of your party for three minutes and Mr. Ruff speaks for a minute, it will accrue as four minutes for your party.

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

If we go to Ms. Damoff and back to me, someone is going to be checking every second.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll have a speaking list. People will raise their hand if they want to speak. There's no requirement to speak, but if you do speak, you and your party are limited to five minutes per amendment.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad we're finally getting down to work here, because this is really important.

I would suggest, as we normally do in the committee rotation, that we start with the official opposition, we go to the government, we go to the Bloc Québécois and then we go to the NDP in those five-minute periods. We can choose not to use them. I've certainly done my homework, so I won't be using my five minutes very often. In that way, we have a rhythm that is easier. For the five minutes the Conservatives have, they can decide to manage them as they wish. Then we'd go to the other parties, and after that, we would pass to the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Julian, I have no problem with that, although it is debate and not questioning, so there may be a need for people to respond to one another, but we can try. Let's figure out what works. Let's start with the regular order of speaking and if people want to put their hands up otherwise, we can do that, provided we have time left.

Ms. Dancho, you were wondering about this, I believe. If everybody doesn't speak, the time for the amendment will be less. No party gets more than five minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't know how many times I'll say this today, but I agree in part with Mr. Julian that it may provide a bit of flow. That being said, one person may say something that we want to respond to or a response may be needed to clarify. Then it gets a bit complicated if we've already used our five minutes, to your point. However, you sort of said that already.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We can do otherwise by unanimous consent. If there's a need to extend the debate and the will to do so—it has to be unanimous—we can do so. I would suggest leaving a minute in the bank if you want to be able to respond to somebody. That's a way.

Mr. Ruff, did you have a...?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

You covered it there, Chair.

A lot of these amendments are going to require minimal debate, but there are some where I think all parties are going to have some specific questions for the officials to get clarity. I'm hoping we can all work together. There are some amendments that obviously will require potentially more than the 20 minutes. I'm hoping we'll work collegially towards getting a resolution on those more substantive amendments.

I fully acknowledge that there are shorter ones, but if one party has used its five minutes, let's....

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll do our best. I'll do my best. I know the clerk will, absolutely.

We are bringing food in from outside. It should arrive by 6:30. The snacks are from the agriculture committee, which we have displaced for this time. I guess it goes on our budget eventually anyway.

Also, I don't propose that we sit in one solid block until midnight. We should take a break probably every hour and a half to two hours. If anyone needs a break more often, let me know and we'll do our best to accommodate that.

[An hon. member]

We'll do short breaks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, we only do short breaks.

Are any further interventions required? I think we're good.

We left off yesterday at new clause 10.1. For this, we have amendment G-18 in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we left off yesterday, this is another coordinating amendment that addresses the issue related to firearms parts in respect of our conversations regarding ghost guns. This is being proposed to make sure there is consistency and to make sure that those who are subjected to a prohibition order will not be able to possess the parts they'd be able to use to build those guns.

Hopefully we will be able to get unanimous support for this and keep moving.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to start our time. This is a new day and I want to make sure we have much participation from our side in this regard.

For the officials, can you explain what we mean by a firearm part, please?

[Sandro Giammaria, Counsel, Department of Justice]

Sure. Thanks for the question.

In a previous motion, which I believe was carried, that term is defined expressly. If Bill C-21 becomes law, it will come to mean a barrel for any firearm or a slide for a handgun.

There is also an opportunity for the government to prescribe parts to add to that list. Let's say, for example, a part is identified as specifically amenable to the creation of a ghost gun. That part can be particularly isolated by regulation.

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

I just have a few follow-up questions.

Can you give me an example of a new part that the government may add to that?

[Sandro Giammaria]

I can't speculate on what a government might do in the future. The idea behind it is that if, for example, police identify a trend whereby a particular part is used in the creation of ghost guns, but it is not a barrel or not a slide, and limiting access to that part would help reduce the frequency of the creation of ghost guns, the government would have the ability to do that by regulation.

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

All right. Thank you very much.

I know we've had some of this discussion, but just to be clear, if the government is able to add any part to that, it could.... If I think of any firearm, you could add a pistol grip to it. I'm just wondering about that because there are people who may have some of these components.

I guess I'm just concerned that some aspects of this may be arbitrarily added and won't have anything to do with the issue at hand, which is to combat ghost guns. If somebody happens to have a pistol grip of a firearm but doesn't have a PAL and doesn't have any intention of having one.... I just don't want us to be targeting the wrong people.

Do you have any concerns in regard to how to regulate this to ensure that we're not targeting the wrong people?

[Phaedra Glushek, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Just to clarify, we're speaking to the section on firearm parts, which has already been passed through earlier motions, and this is a consequential amendment to the motion before us. We can't speculate on any kind of future regulations with respect to what the government may or may not prohibit in terms of firearm parts. What we can say is that these two parts are the most common parts in the illicit manufacturing of firearms. They are the most common and the most difficult to manufacture, in our understanding.

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

That's understood. I think we all supported that and appreciate the severity of this and the need for it, certainly. This committee has been talking about ghost guns for the past year and a half that I've been on it.

Again, my concern is that additional parts may be added that folks are not aware of. The message I am taking away is that the main parts are being added—barrel and slide. That's important, but the government could add any other component of a firearm, and people should be aware that they will not be able to.... They should be very careful when possessing parts without a PAL after Bill C-21 passes. Is that an accurate thing about which to warn the public?

[Sandro Giammaria]

Thank you for the question. It is an important one for clarifying, as I did yesterday, that a PAL won't be required to possess parts. As I explained, a PAL relieves someone of what would otherwise be a criminal act—possessing, for example, a firearm. A PAL allows you to do that, but that's because it would otherwise be an offence to possess a firearm in the absence of a PAL.

Nothing in the bill nor in the motions before the committee makes it an offence to possess a part without a PAL, so you don't need a PAL to possess a part.