Public Safety Committee on May 11th, 2023

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I'm wondering if the officials.... Does the government currently have the capability for the Governor in Council to be making regulations for the repurchase? I have a problem with the term “repurchase”, because it wasn't the government that sold the firearms in the first place. I think a better term would be “purchase of handguns by the Minister”. Is this something that we need to actually put into law in words? Doesn't the minister already have the authority to do this?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I'm sorry. Are you saying that the government has the authority to repurchase? I don't see that written in the clause.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I think that instead of talking about clause 45, Mr. Lloyd is already talking about amendment BQ-25, which I have not yet moved.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Oh, sorry. I had something wrong on my page here. My apologies. I withdraw.

(Clause 45 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

This brings us to BQ-25, new clause 45.1.

Madam Michaud, please move it.

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

Are you allowing me to move amendment BQ-25?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I think I have to disallow it, but you have to move it before I can disallow it.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know what you are going to tell me, but this amendment deals with the firearms buyback. The government has been talking about a firearms buyback for a long time, but they keep dragging their feet about providing details for the program so much as been said about. This has been stressful for firearms owners whose firearms might become illegal or prohibited. They don't know what will become of their firearm and whether they will be able to sell it back to the government.

I therefore wanted to move this amendment so the government would act quickly. However, given that it concerns the Treasury Board, I understand that it will be deemed to be inadmissible, Mr. Chair. I still wanted this to be quite clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme that would impose a charge on the public treasury. An amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, so it's inadmissible on that basis, unfortunately.

We'll carry on to—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Kristina, do you want to challenge the chair? I'll support you.

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

That's nice of you, but I respect the decision of the chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

If we did manage to pass it, the Speaker would yank it out quicker than you could think...unless we give him some of this pizza.

We have BQ-25.1 and BQ-25.2. Do you wish to move them so that I can rule them inadmissible also?

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

Mr. Chair, I had more hope for my next two amendments, but I understand your intention.

Nonetheless, I am going to talk about the intent behind these amendments. They are about creating a safeguard. We know that the government can put an unrestricted firearm in the category of restricted firearms, for example. We wanted it to be a bit more difficult to do the opposite, that is, to put a restricted firearm in the unrestricted firearms category. So the purpose of this amendment is to create a kind of additional safeguard by ensuring that this decision must be made by the House.

However, from what I understand, when a regulation is made by the Minister, for example, we, the members of the committee, receive the information relating to it and we can ask the Minister to come to testify on the subject. That is a somewhat interesting option, similar to the one the committee might choose if it wanted to study the report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the NSICOP, for example.

This is somewhat how I see this amendment, although it does not necessarily give us any power. The intent is to create a safeguard relating to declassifying restricted firearms. However, I will let you do what you have to do, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

All right. I had thought that this also imposed a charge on the treasury, but it doesn't. The notes say that it would be inadmissible because it goes beyond the scope of the bill. However, the House has given us enormous latitude and scope, so I think we'll debate this and consider it admissible at this point.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very grateful.

If my colleagues have questions, I invite them to ask them. That will be all for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Damoff.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This is the amendment that would refer regulations to the committee. Is that correct?

Perhaps the officials could tell us what the process is now for regulations that are passed. I think that would be helpful in understanding. It's my understanding that we....

I'll let you explain it. You'll do better than I would.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Thank you for the question.

I'll start in French to clarify some of the points that Madam Michaud made.

I want to point out that when the government makes amendments to classify a firearm, it is not applying the regulations relating to the application of the Firearms Act. The classifications are actually found in the Criminal Code, and when the regulations that allow them to be amended are applied, they come under the Criminal Code. However, the information about those regulations is not transmitted to the committee at present. So the information relating to the regulations that allow changes like the ones being considered to be made could not be transmitted to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Madam Michaud.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In view of the answer that Ms. Mainville-Dale has just given, I understand that I should perhaps have proposed these amendments when we were examining the part of Bill C-21 that related to the Criminal Code, and that now, these amendments do not really apply.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I would also like to point out that this is very unusual.

Under the normal regulatory processes, the statutory instrument gives the government or the Governor in Council the power to make regulations in accordance with the process in place.

Now I will answer in English with regard to what the normal process is for regulations.

Normally in legislation, regulation-making authority is given to the Governor in Council. The government uses those authorities to propose regulations. It goes to Canada Gazette, part I. Canadians are consulted, and they have a chance to make comments. Then it goes back for approval.

In the case of the Firearms Act, any regulations that are made under the Firearms Act are required to be not only tabled in Parliament but also referred to committees of both houses of Parliament. The amendments proposed here propose to change it to not both houses of Parliament but just the House of Commons. The current regulation-making powers in the Firearms Act require that the regulations be referred to a committee and after 30 sitting days “may be made”.

It's up to the committee whether it decides on, or makes, any interventions with the government. The change that is proposed here would require the approval of this committee, because it is only the House of Commons that is included in this proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You may carry on, I believe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since we have not much time left and not many amendments to examine, I will not move amendments BQ-25.1 and BQ-25.2. That way we will maybe save a bit of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I believe we have unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment and the next one.

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Clause 46 agreed to on division)

(On clause 47)

Is there a question on clause 47?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Yes.

Can the officials give us an explanation of the impact of this clause?