Public Safety Committee on May 11th, 2023

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't need all that time.

Like Mr. Julian, I'm a bit perplexed. We sat through a unanimous vote on effectively the very same amendment yesterday. I would love to understand why, all of a sudden, there seems to be opposition to voting for something that everyone on this committee unanimously approved yesterday. This seems to be a fairly straightforward process. I would love to actually understand, sincerely. This is not a question asked out of malice. I would love to understand this from my Conservative friends.

Why were they so willing to unanimously support something yesterday, but today are prepared to speak with such force and energy against the very same thing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

Seeing no further discussion, I would call the vote.

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

Could we get a recorded vote on this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Absolutely.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Congratulations. That is new clause 30.1

I suggest we break at this point for dinner.

Before we do so, I note that we stood clause 26 yesterday. I believe it was because of translation concerns. I'm not quite sure why. I'm going to ask, during the break, if we can figure out whether we can go ahead with that at this point?

Let's take a break for 15 minutes for dinner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting back to order.

Last night, we stood clause 26, because Madam Michaud needed some....

Mr. Shipley, do you have a point of order?

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

Thank you, Chair.

I just got here, so I'm not trying to jump in. I made an intervention earlier tonight, and I wanted to apologize to my colleagues, the officials, but especially to the interpreters, because I know they have a very tough job. I didn't wear my headset. It was kind of a rush. I had a couple of people who texted me quickly and called me that Mr. Noormohamed was concerned about my whereabouts. I didn't take the time to put on my headset, so I apologize for that, but I'm here now.

I would have apologized to him, but he's not here in person. That's unfortunate, but I wanted to especially apologize to the interpreters.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'm here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Madam Michaud, if you're ready, we can go back to clause 26 and clear that up.

(On clause 26)

We will start with BQ-8.1.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I first want to thank my colleagues for standing this clause yesterday. We had had some discussions behind the scenes and we were not sure whether the amendment was admissible, properly speaking.

I am going to explain the intent behind this amendment. We had this discussion several times when the officials appeared at the committee and we discussed what happened when a firearm enters the Canadian market. Is it checked by the RCMP first? Is it checked once the RCMP realizes the firearm is already on the market and has to be classified differently? Ms. Paquette told me this was in fact the case for non-restricted firearms when they entered the market.

There isn't really a process that requires them to go through the RCMP first. We decided that in order to avoid the definition we adopted a little earlier being circumvented with new firearms, a process for pre-authorization by the RCMP would be useful. It would be an additional safeguard before firearms enter the market.

Our intent and the discussions we have had with legislative counsel led us to word the amendment this way. I know it does not entirely cover the initial intent. That is why I want to get the officials' opinion about it.

I am going to read the amendment. We propose that Bill C-21, in Clause 26, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 19 the following:

A person may transfer or import a firearm only if it bears a Royal Canadian Mounted Police identification number.

I would like the officials to tell us how they interpret this amendment, what effects it would have, and whether it really expresses the intent I had at the outset.

Thank you.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Thank you for the question.

I needs to specify what identification number it is referring to. The amendment doesn't define what a Royal Canadian Mounted Police identification number is.

If I understand correctly, it means the identification number for the make and model corresponding to the one in the Firearms Reference Table.

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

If we adopted the amendment in its present form, would that create a problem for enforcing the law?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

What identification number it means could not be clearly determined, so it would lack clarity.

I would also like to point out that the government announced last week that it intends to make regulatory amendments to require that there be a Firearms Reference Table reference number.

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

Thank you.

We also tried to see whether it was possible to amend another clause in the bill by way of this amendment. However, the effect would be to amend the coordinating amendments concerning cartridge magazines, that I am going to propose later. Because there was excellent unanimity yesterday about adopting the provision about cartridge magazines, I didn't want to risk these amendments being negatived if I included that intent.

I don't know whether I need unanimous consent, Mr. Chair, but I would like to withdraw this amendment, while pointing out that the Minister has actually committed to making regulations under the Firearms Act to ensure that the firearms are classified correctly before they enter the Canadian market, by requiring a valid Firearms Reference Table number. That would ensure that the firearms are classified correctly and that the government is aware that there are new makes and mew models of firearms before they enter the Canadian market.

To do that, my intent was really to use the legislative route. However, I understand that it might be easier to do it by the regulatory route. So I really am counting on the Minister to fulfil this promise.

If it is agreeable, I am going to withdraw this amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Madam Michaud, I don't think you moved it, so I think you could withdraw it.

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

Then I withdraw it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Julian would like to speak.

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

I wanted to say the same thing. The Minister does have to commit to eliminating these loopholes. I think everyone agrees that they should not exist in a normal system...

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The amendment is withdrawn.

Mr. Shipley, go ahead on a point of order.

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

Thank you, sir.

There was just, I think, an issue in the translation. When Ms. Michaud was talking, the translation came through that we had unanimous consent on “chargers” yesterday. I'm not sure exactly what that means, so can we get some clarification if there was an error?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

The French term is "chargeur."

In English, it's a cartridge magazine.

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

Thank you.

It was coming through as a charger, not a cartridge. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Julian, go ahead on the same point of order.

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

I just want to point out that the Minister has assured us that it would be done by regulation. That is extremely important. I think the committee's message on this is very clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you. We can't commit the minister in such a way, but we can certainly carry the message back. I'm sure Ms. Damoff will—

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

Can I respond to that?