EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security NUMBER 050 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Thursday, November 24, 2022 Le jeudi 24 novembre 2022 Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE November 24, 2022 Committee NUMBER 050 NUMBER 050 NUMÉRO 050 50 24 11 2022 2022/11/24 11:00:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security SECU Chair Mr. Ron McKinnon 1 44

(1100) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.)) :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 50 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 November 25, 2021, members are attending in person in the room or remotely using the Zoom application. I'll note that we have until 1:30 p.m., if it is the will of the committee to meet until that time.

Of course, everyone has the ability to move adjournment earlier, if there is a will to do so. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-21 ,

an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with regard to firearms. I would like to welcome back the officials who are with us today. They are available for technical questions regarding the bill. From the Department of Justice, we have Marianne Breese, counsel, Public Safety Canada legal services; Paula Clarke, counsel, criminal law policy section; 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. Thank you for joining us today. We will resume clause-by-clause. Amendment G-4 has been moved. I recognize Mr. Chiang.

Mr. Paul Chiang (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In our previous meeting, there was a great deal of discussion surrounding the list contained in G-46. Therefore, I'm seeking the unanimous consent of this committee to release the list of firearms contained in amendment G-46. To be clear, I'm not moving the amendment. I'm simply seeking the consent of the members of this committee to release the list contained therein, which includes all firearms contained in the definition we are discussing at this committee.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Chiang. Is it the will of the committee to do so? Is anyone opposed? Yes, Mr. Lloyd.

Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC) :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, something that Mr. Chiang said was somewhat confusing. He said he's not moving a motion, but he's seeking unanimous consent. Would he have to move a motion on this before seeking unanimous consent?

The Chair :

He's not moving G-46. He's just asking for the consent of the committee to release it publicly.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

But does he have to move a motion to ask the committee for unanimous consent to release this publicly?

The Chair :

Strictly, no; it's his motion. It's his privilege at stake here. He's willing to give it up. He has moved for unanimous consent, so that is the vote on the floor for us right now. Is there any dissent? Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) :

It's a question of clarification. If they're not moving it but they're introducing it for discussion, does that mean we can't say, for instance, “I move to remove X hunting rifle from this list”? I just want to be clear on what our powers are. If we can discuss it now but it isn't technically moved, can we not amend it?

The Chair :

We cannot amend it until it's moved. It can't be moved until later on in the bill. It is not being moved at this time. There's a lot of concern about what's actually in the list and so forth. I know you guys are rightly concerned about that, and you were asking the officials about it. It puts the officials pretty much in a box. They can't really tell you anything. Mr. Chiang is releasing his privilege, but he's asking for the consent of the committee to do that. Once again, I'll ask if there's any opposition to Mr. Chiang's unanimous consent motion. (Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The contents of motion G-46 are now publicly accessible. I would also note that in the version of the motion that had been previously distributed to the committee, somewhere around page 417—it's going to be really good bedside reading—the formatting went awry. The clerk has arranged for a reprint of it. It will have been distributed to all the members at this point. That being the case, I believe Ms. Damoff is next. Go ahead, please.

(1105) Ms. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.) :

Thanks, Chair. First, I want to get on the record that the Canadian Shooting Sports Association sent an email on Tuesday night that included a reference to the wording of the amendments that were submitted to the clerk and that have not yet been moved. As members know, these are supposed to be confidential until moved. This is a breach of parliamentary privilege. I have sent a message to the Speaker asking him to look into it. I just want members to know that our privilege was breached by these amendments being leaked. They have been shared publicly.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to make some comments on what happened on Tuesday. I listened to the Conservatives ramble on here, and I want to set the record straight. First, I want to make it clear that we are not going after hunters. We're looking to remove from our society weapons that were designed for the battlefield. This is something the U.K. did in 1988 in outlawing semi-automatic weapons. Australia restricted ownership of semi-automatic weapons in 1996, and New Zealand did so in 2019. The amendment is not a back door, as has been suggested.

It will codify in the Criminal Code assault weapons that were banned in 2020, and will make a clear definition for the specifications of these guns, which were designed for war. We're adding them to the Criminal Code to make sure that any future government will have to amend the Criminal Code to make these military-style assault weapons available again. Right now, as they are listed through order in council, any government could add or remove firearms as they see fit. Now the list is public thanks to my colleague's motion this morning. The amendment that proposes paragraph 84(1.2)(

g) is forward-looking. It provides an evergreen definition in the Criminal Code to ensure that new makes and models of assault-style firearms are unable to enter the Canadian market. The reason we need this amendment is to ensure that gun manufacturers can't tweak designs of prohibited weapons and have them available in Canada again. Codification and clear

definitions in the Criminal Code will ensure that manufacturers can't try to game the system to continue to sell weapons that by any other name would be prohibited. This also provides clarity. The Conservatives like to say that we ban guns because they look scary, which is not the case, but now we're providing a very clear definition not on the look of a weapon but on its very specific design specification. Let's get into some specifics here. A firearm capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy exceeding 10,000 joules is a high-calibre sniper rifle.

A firearm with a bore diameter of 20 millimetres or greater is a grenade-launcher. Hunters will still have firearms available to them to hunt. To say otherwise, as the Conservatives have been doing, is untrue. What will not be available are weapons designed for the battlefield. We're putting a clear definition in the Criminal Code for weapons that have no place in our society.

Let me remind the committee that we're less than two weeks away from December 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, the anniversary of the day on which a law-abiding gun owner with a legally obtained semi-automatic rifle separated the men from the women and slaughtered 14 women and injured 14 others at École Polytechnique. The gun lobby, when they were here, dismissed this attack as an outlier event. Sadly, it's not. The Quebec City mosque shooter had legally obtained weapons when he perpetrated

an act of hate and opened fire, killing six and seriously injuring five others. In the Dawson College shooting, the perpetrator had a restricted firearms licence and legally obtained a semi-automatic weapon that killed one person and injured 19. My colleague Mr. Chiang mentioned the SKS that was used on two police officers in Ontario just a couple of weeks ago. That's why since 2020 we have been taking action to ban these military-style assault weapons. That's why government amendment G-4 is essential in fulfilling our commitment to banning all military-style assault weapons.

Now it's up to the Conservatives to justify why these weapons designed for war should be legal again. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1110) The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Damoff. I believe it's Mr. Lloyd, followed by Ms. Dancho.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Mr. Chair, it will be Ms. Dancho.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that the Liberals have finally put some words on the record regarding their objectives. I have a couple of things to say. There's a lot to unpack from what Ms. Damoff said. She seemed to be equating the vile killer at École Polytechnique with hunters, and blaming hunters for the deaths of 14 people. Perhaps she can clarify whether she's blaming hunters who have legitimate hunting rifles. Is that what you're saying, Ms. Damoff?

The Chair :

You may answer, if you wish, Ms. Damoff.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Then I'd like to respond.

The Chair :

After a brief answer, we'll go to Mr. Lloyd and then Mr. Fortin. Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Thanks, Chair. I am absolutely not equating hunters with the perpetrator of that shooting. However, the weapon that was used in that shooting and others are included in this legislation and in this amendment. They are weapons that are not needed by hunters. They are weapons that are designed for the battlefield. There are still firearms that will be available for hunters, but I think it needs to be made clear—people seem to like to deny this fact—that the firearms used, the weapons used, at École Polytechnique were legally obtained.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you for the clarification. We're having a debate about the fact that hunters have hunting rifles that have hurt people. What concerns me is that the Liberals are able to use that argument for every firearm. I believe they're introducing this argument so they can have the ability to carry it forward for banning every single firearm model in this country. One that's on the long list they just now formally introduced and that we can now talk about is a model of .22 rifle. A .22 rifle is used for hunting birds or small rodents. This is possibly one of the most common styles of firearms.

Anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever about hunting rifles, whether they're a hunter or not, knows that to put a .22 on the banned list and call it a military weapon is very deeply misinformed. We're reviewing this list in detail, because there are so many firearms on here that are very commonplace. Ms. Damoff mentions the SKS. That is one of the most commonplace hunting rifles and is particularly popular in the indigenous community. She likened it to a weapon of war, like a fully automatic AK-47. The SKS is not that. It's disinformation to insinuate that it is.

Fully automatic weapons, which are weapons of war, have been fully banned in this country since the 1970s. I feel there is significant disinformation being spread. Equating hunting rifles, which have been used for over a century in this country, with weapons of war is straight-up lying. It's very insulting to insinuate that hunters in this country have weapons of war when they're perfectly legitimate tools that hunters have been using for well over a century—and much longer, in fact, particularly if you're talking about indigenous hunters, who have been hunting on this land for quite some time.

I'm not a firearms expert, though I would say that I know significantly more than Ms. Damoff about hunting. I have a lot of respect for hunters, coming from a hunting family. For her to say which rifles are good for hunting when she has no knowledge of hunting whatsoever, or respect for hunters, is something I find particularly offensive. We have been fielding hundreds of calls in the last number of days. The definition provided in this amendment casts a very wide and significant net. It's the most significant hunting rifle ban in the history of Canada. That's what's being done here, in the most underhanded way.

If the Liberals had any integrity, they would have brought this forward in the original bill. Then it could have been debated in the House. However, of course they did not do that. There could have been expert testimony brought forward during the witness testimony phase, but they did not do that. Why did they not do that? Did they not want to face proper public scrutiny? That's what this seems to be about. This isn't about safety. This is coming in light of new statistics that showing under the Liberal government, there's been a 92% increase in gang-related homicides in this country.

There's been a 92% increase since Prime Minister Trudeau took office. There's been a 32% increase in violent crime, which equates to 124,000 more violent crimes last year than in 2015—crimes such as rape, assault, stabbing and shooting. We know that with the firearm problem in this country, the vast majority of the issue, which is growing and of the utmost concern, is about the handguns that are being smuggled in illegally from the United States and being used by gangsters, gangs and criminals to hurt Canadians, particularly in our big major cities like Toronto and Montreal. Winnipeg is also experiencing this.

We have a real and legitimate issue on our hands. We also know that there are 3-D-printed guns. We can't talk about it, but we know that in the debate in the days to come, various amendments may address that. We can have that debate when it happens. Unfortunately, we couldn't have that debate in the House. I think the problem is that we are seeing a government that brings in successive soft on crime policies. We can talk about the bail reform from 2017 that contributed to the revolving door of criminals going in and out of jail. That's coming home to roost now, five years in.

We can talk about Bill C-5 , which was recently passed. The Liberals talk about gun crime, but they removed mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes. Firing a gun with the intent to hit someone with a bullet no longer means mandatory prison time. They have no integrity when they come here and talk about wanting to keep Canadians safe from gun violence, because under Bill C-5 , they are now allowing people who try to shoot other people.... They may not have to go to jail. They can serve house arrest from the comfort of their home.

(1115) It's very frustrating for me to hear Liberals attacking hunters, as I'm from a hunting community and have a hunting background and I care legitimately about solving the issue of violent crime involving illegally possessed firearms in this country. Again, for seven years we heard this Liberal government—the Prime Minister , the Minister of Public Safety , members of this committee—talk about how this isn't about hunters. We heard it today. However, on this list there are so many models of commonplace hunting rifles. Take anything made by Remington, for example.

Remington, Browning, Winchester and Benelli are firearm companies that specifically design hunting rifles. They cater to hunters. They don't cater to what Ms. Damoff called weapons of war. A Winchester gun is a hunting rifle. Many of those are being banned. Also, the back door permits all variants of them, so variants that aren't semi-automatic could be easily added. Many hunters own semi-automatic rifles—again, that's a very common, legitimate hunting rifle model—and many of them also own non-semi-automatic ones that are from Winchester or Remington.

This allows a back door, but as she said, the Liberals are just coming for semi-automatics. There is no buyback, by the way. There is no opportunity for anyone to be compensated for these very expensive hunting tools and farming tools. The Liberals are saying they're just coming for some of them right now, but the back door means they could come for all the variants as well. I think the problem here is that the Liberal Party has lost all ability to be trusted by hunters. First it was the OIC. They said they were not coming for hunters.

Then it was the handgun freeze. “Who needs a handgun?” That was their argument. Now it's legitimate hunting rifles. Again, if you get a group of hunters together, you'll see probably about half of them have some form of semi-automatic hunting rifle. It's very, very common. This is commonplace, to speak nothing of the heritage of many of these models. I'll share an example with you. My grandfather recently died. He had a very difficult last few months in palliative care at home during the pandemic.

In his dying months, he came to us with one of his firearms, for which he had saved up for a very long time when he was a young man. It would have been in the fifties. This firearm was probably his most prized possession, and it looked to be in mint condition despite being 70 years old. He bestowed it to my father. So many Canadian families have the very same special cultural experience with passing down an heirloom firearm, whether it is semi-automatic or not. Again, these are so commonplace. Millions of Canadian families will have had this experience with their grandfathers, their uncles or their fathers.

These are family heirlooms as much as they are tools. What this government is saying right now, given what they're doing so underhandedly and with no integrity, is that you can't have that anymore, and they're not even going to pay you for it. There's no democratic debate, and there's a sneaky amendment here at the end stage of the committee process with no regard for what this does to Canadian culture. Hunting has been a part of it since long before the Europeans got here.

Then firearms were introduced, and since then, firearms have been a thriving part of the hunting community in this country among both indigenous and non-indigenous people. As I mentioned, the SKS is a very popular hunting rifle in the indigenous community. I'm very interested to see what they think about this. We have this experience that I feel is being completely spat on: Well, too bad for you; we don't care that this is part of your cultural identity as Canadians. We don't care that this is part of the freedoms you enjoy. We're taking them from you and you don't get a say in it.

In fact, we're building the legislation in a way that's so broad we can take all your hunting rifles. As I've said, based on the commentary and arguments the Liberals are making, you could apply this to any firearm. They are now establishing an argument to ban every single lawfully owned firearm in this country. I'd love to hear them actually deny that, because they have yet to do so. It's very clear. They said they would never come for hunters, and now they have. There is no more trust between anyone who has any sort of hunting background and this Liberal government given what it has done here.

I was actually personally shocked. I was naive enough to believe they wouldn't come for hunting rifles, but they are now. It's incredibly significant. There are even shotguns on here. Shotguns for hunting birds are being prohibited. There's something that has been missing in this conversation, which really just started a couple of days ago. We haven't had a lot of time to talk about it. This bill has been on the floor for six months, and we're just now learning what the real intentions are here.

(1120) Something that hasn't been talked about is the raw utility of certain models of hunting rifles. I'm going to take Churchill, Manitoba, as an example, the polar bear capital of the world. We know polar bears actively hunt human beings. Polar bears are extremely dangerous wildlife in Canada. We are very proud of them, but they're very dangerous. The fact is that if you come across a polar bear, a cougar, an angry grizzly bear or a pack of wolves, for example, you'd better hope that you have a semi-automatic hunting rifle. It is your best defence against Canadian wildlife, which hunters come across often.

Thankfully, they have tools to protect themselves and their families, who they're hunting with. Thankfully, indigenous communities have tools to protect themselves. Thankfully, northern indigenous communities have tools to protect themselves. To say these are weapons of war, when they've been used as tools for hunting and protection against wild animals and to protect livestock, is disinformation. It is straight up lies. It is discounting the utility of firearms in this country that have been around for centuries.

We can also talk about wild boars, the very invasive and dangerous species that's spreading into southern Saskatchewan and Alberta. They breed very quicky and they're very sneaky. They can sneak up on you. Their tusks are deadly and they're very fast. If you are charged by a pack of wild boars, you'd better hope you have a semi-automatic hunting rifle with you. You'd better hope that you're able to defend your livestock, your farm dogs and your kids who are with you. Again, there is a utility factor in this that's being completely discounted.

The argument could be made that banning these versions of hunting rifles also puts hunters, farmers and those who live in rural and northern communities at risk. That should have been included. We could have had that robust debate in the House, with expert testimony, had we been given the opportunity, but now we have to do this in some filibuster because the Liberals are introducing this in an underhanded way. I feel that if they were able to stand on their arguments, they would have welcomed this through the House and through witnesses, but they know what they're doing.

This is hunting rifles now, hundreds of models of hunting rifles. When we have a Liberal government in power, it seems to, as I've said before, look down its nose at rural Canadians, eastern rural Canadians and northern Canadians, shaming them for the way they live, shaming them for generations of hunting heritage that we in the Conservative Party are proud of. Part of our Canadian identity is hunting, but now we have a government that is looking to ban hundreds of models of perfectly legitimate hunting rifles. They're calling them weapons of war. These are not AK-47s—fully automatic guns.

Again, I am not a gun expert, but various Remingtons, Winchesters and, I believe, some models of .22s are in here, and those are wild chicken hunting guns. To call those weapons of war is a complete lie. Again, we are fielding a lot of calls from people—from men, from women, from families who build their entire recreational life and all of their culture around hunting. Now they're just going to lose, what, half of their firearms? I think what Ms. Damoff said is they can use other ones. Who is she to say that? She doesn't know anything about hunting. She doesn't respect us.

I feel deeply disrespected by those comments. This is someone who does not respect hunters or the deep hunting culture we have in this country telling us what we need for hunting, for protecting our livestock and for protecting our families when we go for a walk in the Canadian wilderness. How could she possibly know what we need? It's very superior, condescending and paternalistic. Part of the reason that people get so fired up and don't trust this government is comments like that. How would they know what we need when they know nothing about how we live?

We have a lot of different perspectives that would like to come forward. We have technical questions. I appreciate that we're now able to talk about the list. There are a lot of technical issues with that list. I will soon turn it over to my colleagues on the speaking list, but I will just underline that this attack on hunters and the hunting community is completely unprecedented in Canadian history. If you want to talk about war, this is a declaration of war on Canadian hunters by the Liberal government. They're laughing, but that's how it feels. We feel that this is an all-out assault on how we live our lives.

They are taking something from us with no democratic debate and barely any oversight. We have to filibuster just to get a word in edgewise about how this is going to impact people, because we were not allowed that opportunity in the House of Commons. We were not allowed that opportunity with expert witnesses.

(1125) They are attacking centuries-old heritage in this country, and they're scoffing and laughing as if it means nothing to them. It means something to us. It means something to me. It means something to me on a very personal and deep level, and to be very honest, this feels like a personal attack. I'm not an avid sportsman, but I did grow up in a hunting family. All the people I grew up with had firearms; it was very common.

To see this kind of disrespect when we have done nothing wrong and when we have a 92% increase in gang-related homicides, and to see them coming for people like me and people like my family, speaks to misplaced priorities. As I mentioned, there is no buyback in here. Unlike the OIC—and we have debated that issue at length—the Liberals are not providing even a penny to these folks. It's just “They're banned. You can't use them anymore. Too bad for you.” That's what we're looking at right now.

If they do come back and change their minds and decide to have a buyback, right now some of the estimates are showing the OIC and the weapons ban will cost $5 billion. That will easily double given the hundreds of perfectly legitimate hunting rifles that would be banned. We're talking about probably at least $10 billion. Do you know how much good $10 billion could do if we actually targeted the problem, the 92% increase in gang-related homicides since Prime Minister Trudeau became the Prime Minister?

The 32% increase in violent crime is notably focused in our urban cities and on our porous border, which is letting gangsters and criminal elements smuggle handguns and already prohibited weapons from the U.S. into our cities so they can use them in their drug rings to hurt Canadians. Do you know how much $10 billion could do to stop that issue and their terrorizing of our urban cities? I think quite a bit. Ten billion dollars spent on hunters and people in rural Canada is not going to do a darned thing for that.

Given the gang activity, the criminals who are smuggling in those prohibited weapons from the U.S. are laughing at this. They're laughing right along with the Liberals because it's not going to make one modicum of difference to their lives. It will do nothing to impact them, but it will do everything to impact rural Canada and the culture that we hold very dear. This is just the beginning. Again, we're just learning about this.

We're trying to wrap our heads around the significance of it, but it is a fact that this bill comes after hundreds of thousands of hunters who are trained, tested and vetted and who are just as legitimate as any Liberal member here and just as patriotic. They love this country and they love the freedoms that it has provided them. This is just the beginning of what we're doing. We will stand up for our hunting community. I will stand up for my family, for where I grew up.

This is an all-out assault by the Liberals on the hunters in this country, and I look forward to the discussion we will have today and in the coming days. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the millions of hunters in this community, because as I'm hearing right now, the anxiety is extremely high, the upset is extremely high and the devastation of families is extremely high, and we're only a few days into this. Thank you.

(1130) The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Dancho. On my list I have Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Motz, but I think I missed Mr. Fortin earlier, so if it's okay with you guys, I'll recognize Mr. Fortin first. Then it will be Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Motz, Mr. Noormohamed and Mr. Shipley. [ Translation ] Mr. Fortin, you have the floor.

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to address this important Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I'm here to replace my colleague Kristina Michaud, who is on an overseas mission. The Bloc Québécois believes that Bill C‑21 is important. Like Ms. Michaud, I have had the opportunity on several occasions to talk about the importance of working effectively to prevent, among other things, shootings like those that took place in Montreal in recent months from happening in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. I think a lot of work needs to be done to counter the entry of illegal guns, the black market.

We've talked about this a number of times. I have often criticized and continue to criticize the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice for their laxity when it comes to illegal weapons. In that sense, I think my view is consistent with that of my Conservative Party colleagues. That said, I would like to return to Bill C‑21 . We have spoken on several occasions to ask for a clear definition of the weapons we want banned. That was part of the Bloc Québécois platform during the last election campaign.

It's virtually impossible to understand if the definition isn't clear, and we certainly don't want people to be confused about the legality of a weapon. They need to know which weapons are legal and which are not. I almost get the impression that the definition in G‑4 was written by the Bloc Québécois. I know that's not the case, since it's a government proposal, but I must say that it meets the Bloc's expectations. Now, it remains to be seen whether the definition is satisfactory. Obviously, we are always willing to discuss, but we must take the opinions of experts into account.

We have to make sure that we're working properly. I agree with my colleagues in the Conservative Party that there needs to be a clear and meaningful description of the weapons that need to be banned. We must give a clear definition of these weapons that we want to ban in order to stop their proliferation in Quebec and in Canada. Many Canadians suffer the dramatic consequences of the use of these weapons. The Bloc Québécois intends to vote in favour of G‑4. We support all efforts to put an end to the unfortunate shootings and misuse of firearms throughout Quebec and Canada. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fortin. [ English ] We'll go now to Mr. Lloyd, and then we will have Mr. Noormohamed, followed by Mr. Shipley. Mr. Lloyd, go ahead, please.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for coming. I will have some technical questions for you, as I did yesterday. Following up on the initial statement of my colleague Ms. Dancho, I really feel as though a red line has been crossed in this country with this amendment. In this country, we don't have a Second Amendment—and I think that is appropriate—but we do have a social contract that has existed for decades and for generations. It is a social contract between the Government of Canada and society, and part of that society is law-abiding firearms owners.

For generations, Canadians have accepted that regulation is an important part of cultivating a responsible firearms culture in this country and a very important firearms safety culture. Over generations, in response to exceptional instances and, in many cases, horrible tragedies, governments of all political persuasions have seen fit to put forward amendments and legislation to close gaps to try to prevent tragedies from happening.

However, whenever those laws were passed, there was always an understanding that there was no intention to target law-abiding firearms owners—hunters, farmers, sport shooters and gun collectors. There was always a great deal of deference put into legislative drafting, into having witnesses come and into creating legislation that ensured the social contract with firearms owners, with indigenous people and with hunters was preserved and protected. I think one great example of that—and this is going to be a technical question I'll ask, so I'll put it on your radar—is

section 117.15 of the Criminal Code.

Section 117.15 of the Criminal Code gives the Governor in Council the ability to regulate firearms. A subsection of that was passed in 1995, nearly 30 years ago, so it isn't a recent law but an old law. It says:

(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.

It is the law of the land in this country—and it hasn't been changed since 1995—that when the Governor in Council is in the process of changing the classification of a firearm to make it restricted or prohibited, they must consider whether that firearm could be reasonably used for a hunting or sporting purpose. I am concerned and will ask this as a direct question to the witnesses: How does amendment G‑4 interact with that provision of the Criminal Code? I think that's a very important question we have to answer today because, as I said, a red line has been crossed.

As much as I appreciate the opening statement from my Liberal colleague, who said that it was not the Liberals' intention to target hunters in any way, a number of shotguns and rifles have been explicitly named in amendment G‑46 that I think any reasonable person would see as hunting or sporting firearms. I think that's quite apparent. For this government to put forward this amendment without giving any thought to the law of the land really draws a lot of concern for me. One of these hunting and sporting rifles is the Benelli M3. It has a wooden stock and doesn't have a detachable magazine.

That's interesting because proposed paragraph (

g) of this amendment, which we talked about on Tuesday as the evergreen definition, talks about any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun with a detachable magazine that has the capacity to carry more than five rounds.

(1135) It's been long accepted—this is part of the social contract that I talked about—that we do not want high-capacity magazines in Canada, so there has always been a limit on centrefire ammunition: You cannot have a magazine that exceeds five rounds. Well, in Canada, we also don't have a huge firearms industry, and most hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns are manufactured in other countries.

Other countries don't have this five-round magazine rule, so even though in Canada you are not allowed to have a magazine that exceeds five rounds, all the firearms that are being banned were originally designed, for the most part, as far as I know, to potentially carry six, seven or even more rounds. In Canada, we currently have a ban. It's a criminal offence to have a prohibited magazine. It's a prohibited magazine if it carries more than five rounds. That has been a largely effective policy, and it has been accepted in this country for many years.

We can use these rifles that carry more rounds, but a law-abiding person would immediately cease to be law-abiding if.... No hunter would want to use any magazine that has a capacity higher than five rounds. However, now the government is saying they're going to approach this from the other end. They're not just going to ban magazines that can carry more than five rounds. They're going to ban any gun that could carry a magazine that has more than five rounds. In the process of adding that amendment, they're capturing an immense number of firearms, many of which are used for hunting and sporting purposes.

This is why I say a red line has been crossed. Are they banning all hunting and sporting shotguns and rifles? Certainly they're not, but that's exactly how this starts. This Liberal government will take incremental steps forward. However, I would submit that this is not an incremental step; this is a massive step. It's a step that was not talked about in the last number of federal elections in specific terms. The government has used very ambiguous terms, such as “military-style assault weapon” or “assault weapon”. I actually agree somewhat with my Bloc colleague, who said we all want a strong definition.

However, at no time was there consultation with the public, nor was there an election platform stating that the definition of an assault weapon or a military-style assault weapon would include semi-automatic or centrefire shotguns and rifles. That was never contemplated. That was not something we talked about at this committee. It was also not in the original Bill C-21 . It's not something we knew about, so we didn't know to ask witnesses about it and we didn't bring specific witnesses for it.

In a way, although this bill has a number of steps in the democratic process to go through before it potentially passes into law, the addition of this amendment at this stage impugns our democracy. It removed our ability at second reading, which took place and had a second reading debate and second reading vote, and at the committee stage in the House of Commons.... It has precluded our ability to bring in witnesses and experts to talk about this issue so we can debate it.

It was just table-dropped as an amendment after we completed our vigorous study, a study that I would submit did not go very well for the government. I think Bill C-21 was very poorly drafted. It was not well thought out. A number of the well-intentioned things the government put in it were later found to be extremely flawed. Witnesses from across the political spectrum noted that these things were flawed. I won't get into those specifics, but it became increasingly clear as we got to the end of the process that this bill would have to be amended significantly.

When the government recognized that these significant amendments were likely coming, it chose to table-drop massive new amendments that, in the words of one lawyer, amount to the most significant revision to the Firearms Act since the Firearms Act was passed in 1995. This is the most significant revision to the Firearms Act in the history of the Firearms Act, and it's not even being debated as its own stand-alone motion. It's being debated as an amendment during the clause-by-clause stage at committee. This is not how our democracy is supposed to work.

If this bill makes it to the Senate, there will be an opportunity for senators to look into it. However, the Liberal government, because of this last-minute, Trojan-Horse manoeuvre, has precluded my right as a parliamentarian and my privilege as a member of the House of Commons to study this bill and to debate it on its merits.

(1140) I'm stuck here at the clause-by-clause stage, when the train is already leaving the station, trying to get answers about what this is going to do. I think that raises some very serious implications for the legitimacy and the credibility of this legislation, the credibility of this amendment. I understand that some colleagues will say that they want....

In other parties, they want to vote for this, but surely they can recognize that it is a very bad precedent to set to allow any party or any government to add an amendment that was not conceived of in the original legislation, that was not discussed at all in the witness testimony and that was not brought forward until this late stage in the process. I'll move on from that and get back to the social contract. Canada is not the United States of America, and I think that is a great thing. My family left the United States—well, the 13 colonies—in 1783.

We fled from upstate New York together with our brothers and sisters in the Six Nations, the Mohawk nations. We left the Mohawk Valley of upstate New York to move to the Belleville region of Ontario. We were United Empire Loyalists, and we came to this country because we rejected the political ideology of the American revolution. We're friends with the Americans. They're our allies. We share many common values, but Canada was founded....

One of the founding peoples of this nation were the Loyalists, who came from the 13 colonies as refugees to this country with the indigenous peoples of upstate New York and other places, and with the members of the francophone Quebec nation who also.... There were entreaties from the United States to ask the Quebec nation to join in the revolution, and it rejected the revolution. This country was founded as a rejection of the revolution. I think that is a great thing because I am a Canadian patriot. I believe in this country. I believe in the reasons for which this country was founded.

I believe that we are a distinct society. We are distinct from the United States. That's why it actually offended me.... I do respect my colleague, Mr. Chiang, and his service in the police service, but it did offend me as a Canadian—when he moved this amendment and cited a Californian law—that we need to be implementing Californian, American-style laws in this country. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I can bet that the murder rate in the state of California by firearms is far greater than the murder rate in this country. That's something I'm very proud of in this country. We're a safer country.

We're by no means a perfect country, but we are a country that has better firearms laws than any state in the United States. For this Liberal member to come forward and cite an American law in the American context as a reason to pass a new law in Canada.... I think that's wrong because we are Canadians. We have our own way. We are distinct. We do not need American-style laws in this country. We do not need American divisive political rhetoric in this country. Do you know what? I think, frankly, it does.... I'm a big fan of George Grant and his work Lament for a Nation .

We have seen in his book that one of the theses is that the Liberal Party of Canada has always found political power by importing American cultural debates into this country. They are breaking the social contract. This has eroded the social contract in this country, and I'm going to say why this is super dangerous for our country, and why the result of the social contract being broken is so dangerous. However, first off, why is this Liberal government breaking the social contract with hunters and law-abiding gun owners? Is it because of public safety?

No, because we've seen from the witnesses, from police and from people who are working in our inner cities, that these firearms—and we're talking about handguns and about fully automatic firearms that are heavily restricted or illegal in this country—are being smuggled in from the United States, a country with far different gun laws than we have, and they are being used to commit crimes on our streets. These are not law-abiding hunters and sport shooters. They're not using many of the firearms that the government has listed in G-46, like a Benelli M3 shotgun.

It wouldn't be used by people who are committing crimes on our streets. For the government to list that is a clear violation of our social contract.

(1145) Why are they doing that? It's because they have recognized that this is a divisive political issue that they can use to divide Canadians between rural and urban, and divide between Canadians who own firearms and Canadians who don't know much about firearms, who don't own firearms and who are afraid of firearms. They've recognized that this is a way to divide Canadians for their own political success. I think that's wrong, because we are eroding something that is very fundamental about our country. What is very fundamental to our identity as Canadians is that we have a social contract.

Firearms owners do not have explicit rights written into the Constitution of this country, but this country respects the rights of law-abiding firearms owners who follow the law, who go through the process, who get vetted by the Canadian firearms program and the RCMP, and who could have their guns taken at any time by the police, even without a warrant. If anyone calls into a police station with a claim that somebody is a threat to themselves or to others, the police have the power to act. That's something that doesn't exist in the United States. It exists in Canada, and I think that's a positive thing.

Speaking as someone who comes from a family of gun owners, we never had to be worried that our government was going to pass legislation that discriminated against us. We knew that, as long as we followed all these rules, these reasonable rules that have been accepted for generations and decades in this country, we would be respected by our government. It's only under this Liberal government that this social contract has been violated, and not for public safety reasons, which I think we could look into, but for purely political division reasons. It's purely for their own political gain.

I think that's shame on the Liberal Party of Canada. I know they have lots of members who live in rural areas who probably own firearms and probably are concerned about this legislation. I don't know how much consultation they did on this within their own caucus. I won't speculate on that. I don't know. It's just so shocking to me that they would cross this red line and that they would delve into the area of shotguns and rifles. Moving on, I see that the government.... Actually, it was one of my questions.

When I first saw this list of guns, the 310 pages or so, and G-46 came out, I was just really curious as to why the government was putting this list as an amendment to Bill C-21 . In looking at the list of guns, it quickly became apparent that a lot of these guns had just been copied and pasted from the May 2020 order in council. We have since discovered, based on testimony yesterday, that somewhere between 300 and 400 additional firearms have been added to the May 2020 list. Why would this Liberal government need to pass this as an amendment?

If these firearms are a threat to public safety, they could have the authority.... I guess I'll ask a quick question here: Does the government have the authority to add these firearms to the banned list using an OIC immediately?

(1150) Ms. Paula Clarke (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice) :

I'll start from first principles. The government has the ability to prohibit firearms through two means. The first means is through the power of prescription, which is set out in

section 117.15 and also set out in the definition of prohibited firearms. The second way is through legislation, which is what is being proposed here today. In terms of what you mentioned earlier, I will proactively respond to your question about the limitation on the Governor in Council when prescribing a firearm by order in council. The Governor in Council must be of the view that the firearm is not reasonable for hunting and sporting purposes.

Going back to the May 1 OIC, the regulatory impact analysis statement stated throughout it a number of times that the Governor in Council was of the view that these firearms posed too great a public safety risk to not be prohibited, to remain non-restricted or restricted. Going back to your original question, yes, the government could prohibit the additional firearms that are listed by regulation, but what is being proposed is that those firearms be prohibited here today through motions that would amend legislation.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

It would be more immediate for them to do it through an OIC. Would you agree that it would be a faster process to do it through an OIC rather than through legislation?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

It would be a faster process, but what's being proposed is that the process be part of the legislative process before Parliament.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

I appreciate that. That answer tells me that there is no urgent public safety need to ban these additional 400 firearms because the government has not banned them through an OIC, so it's willing to wait weeks and months, depending on how long before this legislation passes, to let these firearms be added to the legislation. That indicates to me that it's not because of any urgent public safety measure. If you can say, what are the other...? Ms.

Damoff stated that the reason they want to add this to the legislation is to prevent a future government—and, I think, a Conservative government, they said—from repealing it using an order in council. It is their intention to add this to legislation so that a future government would have to explicitly pass legislation to repeal it. Is that your understanding? Is that correct?

(1155) Ms. Paula Clarke :

That's correct. Any amendment with a definition of “prohibited firearm” that is set out in the Criminal Code would have to be amended in the future through the parliamentary process.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Are there any court cases ongoing right now that this would have an impact on?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

I cannot speak to any ongoing litigation.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Okay. It's just interesting to me that you mentioned a regulatory impact statement that the government used to say that these firearms were too dangerous, so they were not considered reasonable for hunting and sporting purposes. Is that a public regulatory statement?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

Yes, it is. It's attached to the regulations that were published on May 1, 2020.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Maybe you could send that to the committee. I'd appreciate that if you could. Is there anything in that regulatory impact statement that says...? Did the government just come out and say that it is its opinion that these are too dangerous? Was there any consultation done? Did the government provided any evidence to back up its assertion that these firearms are too dangerous?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

As my colleague mentioned two days ago, the government did undertake consultations in 2018. They were broadly based consultations, and there is a report that's published that sets out—

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

I am aware of that. I read it yesterday—thank you—after you noted that to me.

Ms. Paula Clarke :

Okay, so—

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

I would note that in that legislation there were never any direct consultations on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, though. Am I wrong? Was there ever...? I saw there was a survey where they asked a number of questions. Were there any questions about whether or not the government should ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

That is actually a question that I will defer to my colleague at Public Safety.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale (Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) :

With regard to what was consulted on in 2018 and what made the basis of that regulatory impact analysis statement, I would refer you to that regulatory impact analysis statement.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

I am having trouble hearing you. I did have my—

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

I'm sorry. Can you hear me now?

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Maybe my thing isn't working. You were faint. You were referring me to the regulatory impact statement, but are you aware of the government's consultation that took place, I believe, in 2019? Are you aware of that consultation?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

I am aware.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Are you aware of the contents of that consultation?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Broadly.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Are you aware of—can you confirm or deny—whether or not the government asked those they consulted whether they supported a ban on semi-automatic shotguns and rifles in that consultation?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

I cannot. I am here to provide information with regard to the motions that have been put forward, in terms of the impact of those.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Okay. Thank you. Are you aware that one of the survey questions—and I think it was a very leading question because we don't have a definition of what an “assault weapon” is—was whether more action needed to be taken to ban assault weapons in this country. Are you aware that 77% of respondents to the government's consultation said that they thought we had enough regulations or did not need more regulations for so-called assault weapons in this country? Are you aware of that statistic in that consultation?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

That's a question that I think I would invite you to pose to the minister .

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Yes. It seems that we have about as much luck getting answers from the minister as we are having today, but I thank you for your efforts to do that. A lot of concerns I have here are getting down into the consequences of this legislation should this amendment pass. How will the process work? Will they be immediately committing a criminal act by possessing these firearms?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

No. The proposed amendments to the definition of “prohibited firearm” would not come into force on royal assent. They would come into force by order in council, which means they would come into force at a later date.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Are there a prescribed number of days that the order in council has to come into effect?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

There are not.

(1200) Mr. Dane Lloyd :

It's like a sword of Damocles for firearms owners once this passes. Basically, the government doesn't need to regulate these things right away, but they could be holding it over their heads at any time, and at any time they could decide.... It could be 30 days after this passes. It could be two years after this passes. It's something they can hold over their heads for as long as possible, perhaps something they could hold over as something to bring up during an election—but I would never want to accuse them of that. It would also demonstrate that, perhaps, this is less about public safety and more about politics.

When the order in council is triggered, what will be the effect of that? Is that something still to be determined by the regulations?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

Future steps with respect to how the newly prohibited firearms would be treated have not been determined at this point. I would remind you, though, when the May 1 OIC came into effect, there was an amnesty order. That gave lawful owners an opportunity to either dispose of their firearms or, otherwise, come into compliance with the new law. They have a period of time during which they are not subject to criminal liability for unlawful possession, and then a decision would be made by the government as to how to move forward with the treatment of any newly prohibited firearms that would be included in this amended definition.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Without repeating everything you're saying, you're saying that the precedent this government has set, which is being implemented, is that there was an amnesty period following the May 2020...but you can't say for sure whether that is going to be what follows this one.

Ms. Paula Clarke :

What I was saying was that for the OIC of May 1, 2020, an amnesty order was included the moment the firearms became prohibited. Firearms owners were not exposed to criminal liability. There was an amnesty order in place. I cannot comment as to what would happen if there were an order in council bringing these provisions into force, but I can refer you back to what the government has done historically.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Thank you. I do appreciate that. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. There has been some concern that because the May 2020 OIC was passed via an OIC, it is subject to the laws of Parliament and it is below the law of Parliament,

whereas

an act of Parliament, which is what this proposed amendment would be doing, puts it on an equal step with other parliamentary laws. If the government were to set the precedent that they're going to ban these firearms in legislation, would that preclude their need to provide a statement, as I mentioned, in 117.15, that they believe this is not reasonable for use in hunting? Would they no longer need to provide that justification if they were to pass this through legislation?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

The justification that you're referring to applies to firearms that are prohibited by regulation. That's a limitation on the Governor in Council's ability to exercise their discretion to determine whether a specific firearm should be prohibited. The democratic process is what would be used to debate whether these firearms should be prohibited through legislation.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

I just want to confirm what you're saying. The Governor in Council rule does not bind the government, if they pass this legislation, from providing a justification about why these hunting rifles should be banned. It's a protection that exists only for the Governor in Council regulations, and not for legislation through Parliament. Is that correct?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

The ability of the Governor in Council to prescribe firearms is a delegated power that comes from Parliament.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Of course.

Ms. Paula Clarke :

When this provision was enacted, Parliament imposed a limitation on the Governor in Council as to what firearms could be prohibited.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Now the government is saying they don't want that limitation anymore because, as we have said, they want the power to ban hunting rifles. That's why they're circumventing this very reasonable limitation, I think, that existed in the 1995 firearms law. I think that just provides further evidence that this is really about giving the government the power to move forward and limit all sorts of new hunting firearms.

They're just going to do this through a legislative process instead of through a Governor in Council, where at least they would be held accountable and have to justify why these hunting rifles could not be allowed. Another follow-up is that the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights is still a law of this land. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is very important. However, the Canadian Bill of Rights says very explicitly that Canadians have the right to life, liberty, security of the person and also the right to enjoyment of property, which cannot be deprived except with due process of law.

Are members of the government, under the Governor in Council, bound by the Canadian Bill of Rights when they come up with policies to confiscate firearms? Are they bound by the due process of law in the Canadian Bill of Rights when depriving people of the enjoyment of their property?

(1205) Ms. Paula Clarke :

What I can say is that the Supreme Court ruled—I think it was in 1991 or 1992, in the firearms reference case—that there is no right in Canada to possess firearms.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

I don't disagree with you. However, in terms of property, if you are given the right to own a firearm as property—firearms are property as well—the government can't just seize that property except through due process of law. Would you say that is correct?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

Go ahead.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice) :

I think one of the questions is with respect to the federal criminal power. The reference regarding the firearms decision by the Supreme Court of Canada determined that firearms and the regulation of firearms falls within the criminal law power versus the provincial power over property. It also indicated that there was no right to firearms in Canada.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

But this is the Canadian Bill of Rights. This is a federal law, not a provincial law. Are you aware of the Bill of Rights? Is it still enforced in Canada? Does it still have power in this country, the Bill of Rights?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Yes, it does.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

What I'm getting at here is that it seems like the government, through the buy-back program and the May 2020 OIC, is trying to respect the bill of rights and say, “We're going to confiscate your property,” which is a violation of the bill of rights, “but we're going to make it up to you because we're going to compensate you for that property.” That happens all the time in this country through eminent domain laws. When people have their property seized to build a highway, the government has to compensate them for that. That's the due process of law.

However, if the government passes this amendment we're talking about today, G-4, is it notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights? Is the government saying that this will be notwithstanding the bill of rights protections for property rights?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

The criminal law falls under the criminal law power that is under federal jurisdiction. That's what I can point to when we speak about criminal law and this legislation that is being amended through the bill and the motions. It is under the federal criminal law power.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Yes, I understand that. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, because this will be

an act of Parliament and not a regulation, as we've already cleared up, this bill will be on an equal playing field with the Canadian Bill of Rights and, therefore, will not necessarily be subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights protections on property. What I'm submitting is that another additional reason the government is submitting this through legislation is not only, as they said, to prevent any future government from repealing these OICs, which they would have to appeal through legislation, but to relieve the government of any responsibility to compensate people for their firearms.

That's something that I think is very worrisome because, as I'm going to get into here in my next line of questions, it's very clear from a Conference Board of Canada report that the hunting, trapping and sport-shooting sectors were responsible for upward of $13.2 billion of GDP in this country in 2018. That represented about 0.6% of Canada's GDP at the time. That is an extremely significant amount of GDP. Hunting and sport shooting are a tourism industry. A lot of these people come in from the United States.

Can you tell us how this amendment would impact Americans who want to bring, let's say, a firearm that was listed under this amendment? Would they be able to bring that firearm up? Do they get an exemption? Obviously, they don't need to have a Canadian firearms licence to come up here as a tourist to shoot, so would they be required not to bring any firearms that would be covered under this amendment when they come here to sport shoot?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Thank you for the question. If the bill passes and it receives royal assent, the same rules that apply today would apply if you're bringing in a non-restricted firearm in terms of the processes and procedures. It's the same thing for restricted firearms. I believe you cannot bring prohibited firearms into the country. An American, for example, coming in to hunt would need to bring in a firearm that they could legally bring into Canada.

(1210) Mr. Dane Lloyd :

What you're saying is that, if this legislation and this amendment pass, and if a tourist was coming to this country to spend tens of thousands of dollars to hunt big game and only had these prohibited firearms, they would not be allowed to bring these prohibited firearms into the country. They would have to find a non-restricted firearm to bring into the country. Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

They would have to bring one in that they can bring in, or they would have to make arrangements to use another firearm.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

You mean to use a non-restricted or non-prohibited firearm. Is that correct?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

They would have to use whatever is legally allowed here in Canada.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

That's interesting. That's very concerning if the definition we're bringing in here is any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun that is capable of carrying a magazine of over five rounds. I know a lot of tourists who come to this country spend tens of thousands of dollars on one trip alone. They wouldn't be able to bring in their firearms, so they would choose not to come to this country in the first place. Has any economic analysis been done by the government on the impact that this amendment would have on tourism, like sports and hunting tourism?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

I don't believe there has been.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Okay. Thank you. The government hasn't even done an economic analysis on the impact of this sweeping new legislation, and that's just talking about tourists. Let's talk about Canadians. Over 1.3 million Canadian hunters in this country contribute to our GDP. They are taxpaying citizens and abide by the law. This generates economic activity in our country. We're talking about upwards of $13.2 billion. I believe this legislation could take a significant chunk of that out of our country, and the government hasn't even provided an economic analysis.

It just speaks to the fact that this has come very late in the committee process. We could have had witnesses. We could have asked the minister questions. We could have had people bring in economic analyses and we could have studied this. Unfortunately, we haven't. With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to cede my time to my colleague Mr. Motz. I know you found what I had to say very riveting and very educational. I thank you for giving me this time to speak to the committee.

The Chair :

Indeed, I found it intensely riveting and fascinating. Mr. Motz is recognized.

Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC) :

Thank you very much, Chair. I'm going to start by going back to the opening statement made by Ms. Damoff. For Canadians who are watching online right now or who will watch this at some point later down the road, I want you to go back to the very beginning of this particular meeting. I want you to listen to the comments made by Ms. Damoff. With all due respect to Ms. Damoff, the statement, which was obviously prepared for her, identifies the—

Ms. Pam Damoff :

On a point of order, Chair, I wrote every single word of what I said. For someone to imply that I didn't...I take great offence to that.

The Chair :

Thank you for that. Go ahead, Mr. Motz.

Mr. Glen Motz :

That's perfect. You're aware of the comments I'm about to make then. The statements that were made—now, admittedly, by Ms. Damoff—suggest the absolute and utter ignorance of the laws that we have in this country already and of the whole historical perspective of firearms and the use of firearms for hunting. It absolutely makes zero sense. It identifies, again, the lack of understanding that this member has—and the Liberals, for that matter, because they're the ones pushing this misguided legislation—on the firearms that are used for military applications. It flies in the face of common sense.

I can't imagine the emails we're going to get now, based on that statement. People are so frustrated with this government already and its misguided approach. I want go back to the reason why we're debating this particular issue. For those of you who may not be aware, or need to be reminded, we are dealing with a government amendment. It's called G-4 in our package. It's a government amendment to a bill. They wrote the bill and obviously found out that there were a lot of mistakes with the bill. They decided to add some things to it that they didn't want to have covered off at the front end.

That would be my perspective. When a bill is presented, it is able to be debated in the House before it comes to committee. Before this bill even came to the committee, we had an opportunity to debate the substance of the bill. This amendment, for example—I'll get to it in just a minute—was not able to be debated. It was not even included in the bill. No one knew it was even coming. However, I believe the Liberals knew exactly what they were doing. This is a backdoor process. It was done deliberately, in my estimation. I have an initial question for those officials who are here.

You were involved in creating Bill C-21 . Is that correct?

(1215) Ms. Paula Clarke :

That's correct.

Mr. Glen Motz :

In your initial creation of Bill C-21 , were there any conversations about this particular amendment in those initial conversations?

The Chair :

I would suggest to Mr. Motz that he's asking for probably confidential and privileged information.

Mr. Glen Motz :

They don't have privilege on that matter. They can answer the question directly, Chair, on when they were asked for information and when they started preparing these amendments.

The Chair :

I believe that the development of legislation at the cabinet level is subject to cabinet confidence. I'll certainly allow the witnesses to respond, if they wish.

Mr. Glen Motz :

Like on Tuesday, I believe the chair has a misinterpretation of what is and isn't allowed. I'll ask it a different way, then. When you prepared C-21 , the original version that came before Parliament, did you have, in the background, amendment G-46 and G-4, for example, that would expand the definition of a prohibitive firearm? Was that something that you were already working on then?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

I can't answer that question. That falls within solicitor-client privilege. I can answer any question related to the bill as presented in Parliament and any question related to the motions.

Mr. Glen Motz :

Again, as I told you before, with all due respect, if I'm pushing, it's not going to be on you. It's going to be about the government. You need to understand that.

Ms. Paula Clarke: I understand that.

Mr. Glen Motz: I sit on another committee, and I always find that when things get a little too hot, the government likes to hide behind this privilege that they've identified. It's rather interesting. I guess I can come to my own conclusions, and the Canadian public certainly will come to their own conclusions, about when this was actually thought of: Do you know what? Let's not put it in right away. If we put it in right away, we're going to have a huge debate on our hands.

The Canadian public is going to be up in arms—pardon the pun—about expanding the definition of prohibited firearm to include hunting rifles and shotguns that are, right now, before this passes, non-restricted firearms in this country. I think it was a deliberate attempt to mislead the Canadian public and mislead Parliament. This was planned. At any rate, this is for the public at home to see what we're talking about and why this is so disconcerting.

In G-4, which is a government amendment, one thing they're adding there is that they want to change the definition in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code to expand the definition of a prohibited firearm. They want to expand and add to the definition to include the following:

a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed

In effect, this eleventh-hour backdoor change to the definition of a prohibited firearm will render hundreds of thousands of firearms that are currently in circulation in this country—legally acquired, many of them non-restricted—to now be not restricted but completely prohibited. On a personal note, my grandchildren hunt. Their father has passed on some incredible legacy to them from his father about hunting. They hunt for food. They don't have regular beef in the fridge. They have antelope, deer, elk, moose and bear. Everything else that they can hunt, they hunt. It's a great legacy.

I'm so proud of what my grandchildren are doing and how my son-in-law is teaching them these skills. This year they got an antelope and a moose. They have other animals that they are seeking to fill up their fridges with. The firearms they use, legally acquired and legally possessed, are now going to be prohibited. Why? The suggestion earlier was that these firearms that exist and that we have on this list now are military. Strangely, they're using a military firearm for that. My grandson has a semi-automatic rifle, and I asked him recently why he has one. He said, “Papa, I care about my animals.

I don't want them to suffer. If I take an animal and he doesn't go down right away, I need to have access to make sure I can take him down in a humane way.” I find that to be pretty remarkable for a 14-year-old little boy. It just shows, again, the absolute and utter ignorance of this government and the members of this government with regard to this whole process of trying to identify these big, bad people who are the Canadian firearm owners who are somehow a risk to the Canadian public, and of having firearms that, in some cases, have been passed down for generations now all of a sudden be illegal.

(1220) I find that to be incredibly problematic, and it is an example, again, of how ideology trumps common sense. Again, this is not directed at you folks. I want to pick up on a comment that my colleague, Mr. Lloyd, spoke about with respect to the Canadian Bill of Rights in

Section 1 says:

It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(

a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

That's the key. Because as I understand what will happen, the fact that this deceptive Liberal government intends to try to push this through means that they won't have to then compensate anyone if they make all these firearms illegal, because that's the due process of law in this country. Would that be a fair assessment? By listing what originally was a non-restricted firearm as a prohibited firearm, and this is now prohibited, would mean that the government could take that property, because that follows the due process of law. Would that be a correct assumption?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

The government can bring before Parliament a bill that can prohibit within the federal sphere of jurisdiction. Compensation is a matter of policy and whether or not to compensate owners.

Mr. Glen Motz :

That's right, and I appreciate that, but let me try to ask this in a different way. The government will do this under the guise of public safety and due process. They're going to pass the legislation. It's going to be forced through without the proper debate in the House that should have and could have occurred. They're going to have support, I'm sure, from other opposition parties. Therefore, it becomes law. Then, because it becomes law, that property, which five minutes before becoming a law was able to be lawfully enjoyed in a non-restricted manner, now becomes prohibited.

That property can be seized by the government because it is no longer lawful, and it is seizable, if you will, because it was done through the due process of law. Am I correct in assuming that?

(1225) Ms. Paula Clarke :

Due process of law includes the parliamentary process by which Parliament decides which firearms may or may not be prohibited. Whether or not the government decides to compensate owners in the future is....

Mr. Glen Motz :

I don't want to get stuck on compensation, because that's a red herring. All I'm trying to get at is that contrary to the bill of rights, the way for the government to get around that is to make what was previously legal to possess, to own, and was lawfully purchased by millions of Canadians in this country.... Many hundreds of firearms listed here are non-restricted. They're using this due process law to actually prohibit a firearm, and that's how they're getting around the whole process of forcing people to lose their property. Would that be a correct assessment?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

If you're asking what the impact is of the legislation, its impact is that, once it comes into force, these items would be prohibited and would no longer be legal to possess or use.

Mr. Glen Motz :

That's fair, and I get the coming into force. I'm going to keep on my point a bit. I would make the suggestion that the government is using the due process of law to otherwise take and cause Canadians' lawfully obtained property to become illegal, and they're using that avenue as a way to circumvent the Canadian Bill of Rights. Would that be a fair assessment?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

I think as we've already answered, the Canadian Bill of Rights applies to federal legislation. Once federal legislation has been passed, that authorizes or permits that property rights are subsumed by the federal legislation. Then following that passage of legislation that could or would prohibit future firearms, anything that follows is done as a policy decision made by the government.

Mr. Glen Motz: I understand.

Ms. Paula Clarke: I don't think there's anything else we can add to your question.

Mr. Glen Motz :

Right, so I won't ask the question. I'll just make the statement. The Government of Canada has circumvented the Canadian Bill of Rights on lawfully obtained property by making that lawfully obtained property now prohibited and unlawful. That would be the fair way to say it. Let me ask you again a previous question about G‑4 and G‑46. On what date did you start working on G‑4?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

That particular question we would not be able to answer because it's subject to solicitor-client privilege, but what I can say is that the original bill that was tabled in 2019 did not have these amendments in it. The next thing I can say is that there were public commitments to ban further assault-style firearms by the government following Bill C-21 and, I believe, on the reintroduction of Bill C‑21 . That is what I can advise committee members in terms of conversations and public statements that have been made by the government.

Mr. Glen Motz :

Thank you. You made a very interesting statement. The government now had conversations about banning additional assault-style rifles. We all can show pictures of the list here. They're not.... I mean, the definition.... What is a military assault-style rifle? I know that's going to be coming up in some magic definition that's coming forward, but it's never been identified.

What I find interesting is the fact that, as legislation writers, you are asked to find firearms that are currently non-restricted in this country and make them prohibited administratively by the stroke of a pen and not with evidence that suggests that they are a danger to the public, not with evidence to suggest that the Canadians who own them are now a danger to the public but only because of some ideological push. You can choose to answer this or not, and you're wise enough, have been around long enough, to know whether you will or you won't.

However, those of you who may or may not have a PAL or an RPAL, those of you who may or may not hunt, do you not find this to be in conflict with what actually goes on in real life in this country, or do you have to put that aside?

(1230) Ms. Paula Clarke :

We're here to answer questions regarding Bill C‑21 and the motions before us.

Mr. Glen Motz :

That's a pretty definitive Bill C‑21 question.

Ms. Paula Clarke :

You're asking me a personal question.

Mr. Glen Motz :

That's fair enough.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. The officials are here not to give their opinion and not to justify policy made by the government. They're here to answer questions—

Mr. Glen Motz :

They'd have a tough time doing that. Wouldn't they?

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Mr. Motz, please don't interrupt me. They're here to answer questions—

The Chair :

Mr. Motz, Ms. Damoff is recognized on a point of order. Please carry on.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

They're here to answer questions on the legislation, not to offer personal opinions and not to offer opinions on the policy of the government. If Mr. Motz is going to ask questions, I will say that Mr. Lloyd was very much on point when he was doing that. Perhaps Mr. Motz can take some lessons from Mr. Lloyd on how to ask specific questions.

The Chair :

Thank you for your intervention, Ms. Damoff. I would certainly remind Mr. Motz that our witnesses today are here to answer technical questions on this bill and on the amendments as we are addressing them. They are, of course, government lawyers and are bound by solicitor-client privilege as well as cabinet confidence by times. Please try to keep within those boundaries and recognize and respect our witnesses on that basis. Mr. Motz, you still have the floor. Go ahead.

Mr. Glen Motz :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I very much do respect the witnesses who are before us, and I appreciate the refereeing from the sideline, from across the way. I do have a couple of questions. I was pleasantly pleased to see that Premier Scott Moe and our Alberta Minister of Justice Tyler Shandro have issued statements that in the coming weeks they will explore options on actions against this particular legislation and the government. We heard Minister Mendicino at the beginning of this study suggest that Bill C‑21 relies heavily on provincial co-operation.

How does the government plan to enact the sweeping ban, if you will, which will impact hundreds of thousands of Canadians all across this country, without assistance from the provinces? How do you envision seeing that happen? Does anybody have any ideas?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Thank you for your question. In terms of how the legislation would be implemented with respect to a prohibition, if it is passed, it receives royal assent and it comes into force, there will be legal ways by which to dispose of firearms, including surrender to police, legal export and deactivation.

Mr. Glen Motz :

I know you can't determine when the government is going to have this come into force, and I get that. That would indicate that maybe this is going to be a long-term process, and they're going to need to get their ducks in a row—pardon the pun—with respect to how to deal with potentially millions of now prohibited firearms. Would it be fair to say that is going to take time to do?

(1235) Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

I think it would be difficult for us to comment, given that there are a lot of theoreticals and hypotheticals when we are trying to answer that question.

Mr. Glen Motz :

That's fair enough. I don't remember if my colleagues asked this on Tuesday, but given the sweeping changes this would make to Bill C-21 and the idea that all legislation is supposed to be charter-compliant.... Bill C-21, I'm sure, has a charter-compliance component to it. Is that correct?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

That's correct.

Mr. Glen Motz :

Has a charter-compliance analysis been done on the amendments to this particular legislation?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

I believe that on Tuesday I answered the same or a similar question. There was a charter—

Mr. Glen Motz :

I'm old. I have a bad memory.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

That's okay—me too. A charter statement was tabled with the bill in June 2022. With respect to any legislation that the department brings forward, the Minister of Justice has a responsibility to ensure that it is compliant with the charter and in accordance with the Department of Justice Act.

Mr. Glen Motz :

Now my memory has come back, and your answer is almost identical to what it was on Tuesday. However, my question was whether a charter-compliance analysis has been done specifically on amendment G-4 and then in reference to amendment G-46, because G-4 proposed paragraph (

i) talks about the firearms listed in that schedule. Has a charter-compliance analysis been done on the expansion of Bill C-21 ?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Again, for any legislation or motions the government brings forward, any amendments to legislation that are before Parliament, the Minister of Justice is responsible for ensuring compliance with the charter.

Mr. Glen Motz :

Has one been done on the amendments? I am asking because I haven't seen it.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Any analysis that would be done at an official level would be subject to solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidence, in terms of the drafting and advice with respect to motions, etc., on legislation.

Mr. Glen Motz :

Can the Canadian public ever expect a charter-compliance document to be released on the amendments?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

There is an obligation to release a charter statement with the introduction of a bill only.

Mr. Glen Motz :

That's rather convenient; don't you think? It is very convenient. We can have a charter-compliance document prepared for a bill, and then we can completely change the bill. This is a firearm-freeze bill or a handgun-freeze bill—that's how it started—and now we're prohibiting hundreds of thousands of previously non-restricted firearms. The scope has completely changed. We're—

Ms. Pam Damoff :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the list was made public this morning. To say “hundreds of thousands” does not reflect what was in the list this morning, so let's be clear and stick to facts here.

Mr. Glen Motz :

There are hundreds of models, but it impacts hundreds of thousands of firearms across this country.

The Chair :

Ms. Damoff has the floor. Is your point complete?

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Yes, Chair, but when I'm speaking I would appreciate it if Mr. Motz would let me finish. I'm not interrupting him when he is speaking, so perhaps he would just give me the courtesy and respect of letting me finish my statement. There are not hundreds of thousands of firearms on the list that was made public today with Mr. Chiang's motion.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Damoff. I would urge Mr. Motz to recognize the speaker when it's appropriate. Carry on, please.

Mr. Glen Motz :

Thank you. Let me rephrase. There are hundreds of thousands of firearms impacted by the hundreds of models listed here. Is that correct? You guys in Public Safety probably have the firearms reference table memorized—don't you?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

With respect, my memory is good but not quite that good. The evergreen definition reflects the government's policy objective of enhancing public safety and ensuring that all assault-style firearms are treated the same in law. The definition captures many firearms that are already prohibited by regulation, but would also be forward-looking and capture ASFs that may come to market in the future. No list exists that identifies all of the firearms that would be captured only by the proposed definition in proposed paragraph 84(1)(g).

However, I'll provide some examples of firearms that are already prohibited in regulations by make and model that would be captured by the proposed qualitative definition. Those include the AR-15 rifle, the Ruger Mini-14 rifle, the CZ858 rifle, the Beretta Cx4 Storm carbine and the Norinco M305 rifle. I'll also provide some examples of firearms that are prohibited in the regulations by make and model but would not be captured by the proposed qualitative definition. For example, the Armi Jager AP74 is not centrefire. The DPMS A-15 Panther Pump Rifle is not semi-automatic.

The Mitchell Arms M16/22 is not centrefire. The Rock River Arms LAR-15 pistol is not a rifle nor a shotgun, and the SIG MCX Rattler Pistol is neither a rifle nor a shotgun.

(1240) Mr. Glen Motz :

I will ask the question in a different way. The order in council from May 2020 prohibited most of the firearms that you have already listed. Is that correct?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

It captured about 1,500 named makes and models.

Mr. Glen Motz :

There have been hundreds of firearms added to the firearms program in the two and half years since the order in council was put out.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

As to the criteria that were put out, as they were reviewing the Canadian firearms program and reviewing the firearms reference table, they performed a manual update of that table to reflect the same criteria for identifying firearms that meet those criteria.

Mr. Glen Motz :

It's interesting that in what you read, which is a department position you have at Public Safety, there's an arbitrary definition that seems to suggest the firearms now being considered for prohibition are somehow military-style assault rifles. Is that true? That's the wording you read to us. There are two or three sentences on that. Can you just reread them for me, please?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Do you mean the definition that is being proposed in proposed paragraph (g)?

Mr. Glen Motz :

No, not in proposed paragraph (g). I have that in front of me. I'm talking about what you just read about your department's position on why you're prohibiting some of these weapons or firearms or why you have them on your list. It's specific to Public Safety.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

The evergreen definition proposes a qualitative definition that would prohibit firearms that meet the definition. The definition includes a rifle or shotgun.

Mr. Glen Motz :

No, I'm not talking about what's in proposed paragraph (g). I'm talking about the statement you read from the department at the very beginning of your intervention in your response back to me.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Proposed paragraph (

g) reflects the government's policy objective of enhancing public safety and ensuring that all assault-style firearms are treated the same in the law.

Mr. Glen Motz :

That's the one I'm looking for. Thank you. A firearm that right now is a non-restricted firearm is going to be classified as a prohibited firearm because some ideologue somewhere said that it's a military-style assault weapon. That's really what we're saying here. Is that right?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

There is no definition of “assault-style firearm” in law.

Mr. Glen Motz: I didn't think so.

Ms. Paula Clarke: What there has been, to date, is the ability of the Governor in Council to establish criteria on which the OIC of May 1, 2020, prohibited a list by make and model of firearms. This criteria, which was publicly stated after the introduction of the bill, made clear that the factors that were looked at were that the firearm was capable of sustained, semi-automatic rapid fire. It had to be of a tactical or military design with the capability of accepting a large magazine, which would be an oversized magazine—therefore, above five.

(1245) Mr. Glen Motz :

Okay, but having a magazine in a firearm like you described, over five, is a prohibited device in this country already.

Ms. Paula Clarke :

You are correct. The magazine itself is a prohibited device. What the May 1 OIC sought to prohibit is the firearm that can receive the prohibited device.

Mr. Glen Motz :

Wow. I know what it's asking for, what it's suggesting. Do you not consider that a significant overreach, really, of what the design is? Firearms need to be classified, like I said on Tuesday, by what they can do, not by what they look like. You said they look like....

Ms. Paula Clarke :

No, I didn't. What I said was that the firearms were prohibited according to what they can do, which is the semi-automatic, sustained rapid fire, based on a military or tactical design and capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine.

Mr. Glen Motz :

What you're describing, really, is a fully automatic firearm.

Ms. Paula Clarke :

What I'm describing is a semi-automatic version of a military or tactical design firearm.

Mr. Glen Motz :

In Canada, that semi-automatic firearm right now has a maximum capacity magazine allowable under law of five.

Ms. Paula Clarke :

One way in which public safety is taken into consideration with respect to firearms is that limitation on magazine capacity. The government has made a decision to further ban assault-style firearms to further protect public safety by also prohibiting the firearms that can accept oversized cartridge magazines.

Mr. Glen Motz :

In preparation for this bill, which began a couple of years ago, I'm sure, was there any evidence provided that supports the government's decision? We always hear this government brag, in words only—not necessarily in action but in words—that they base their decisions on evidence. They call it evidence-based decision-making. What I think they probably adhere to mostly is actually decision-based evidence making. There are 400 firearms now on this list. On the other list that came out in May 2020, there were 1,500, plus hundreds more since then. Did they provide you with any factual evidence that all of them pose a significant risk to public safety?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

That's the determination based on the ability of these firearms to perform sustained rapid fire based on the semi-automatic capability combined with—

Mr. Glen Motz :

That's not sustained rapid fire.

The Chair :

Mr. Motz, please—

Mr. Glen Motz :

When you look at a—

Mr. Tony Van Bynen (Newmarket—Aurora, Lib.) :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, he should allow witnesses to finish their statements. It's rude to interrupt them.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen. I was just about to say that. Mr. Motz, if you ask a question, please wait for the answer.

Mr. Glen Motz :

Thank you. What I'm hearing you say is that, because we don't have a definition of a military-style assault weapon, which is a made-up term by this government, we will now try to fit firearms into that definition. In so doing, we have identified non-restricted firearms in that list because of someone's misunderstanding of firearms and the laws that we have in this country. I've talked to Canadian military and American military folks who laugh at this definition. A military-style assault rifle is a rifle that is capable of fully automatic fire and has large-capacity magazines.

That's a military-style assault rifle by any definition. What this government is trying to do through this legislation is to go from a handgun-freezing bill to an all-encompassing bill of “let's just eliminate all firearms”. That's basically what they're doing. They are including now a whole brand and a whole type of firearm that otherwise was non-restricted, with little thought to the impact that has on the culture and heritage of many Canadians. I wanted to ask you a question specifically about variants, if I could.

Ms. Paula Clarke: Sure.

Mr. Glen Motz: How does the department, or you as the drafters, define a variant?

(1250) Ms. Paula Clarke :

The way a variant is interpreted is based on a plain-language

interpretation of the meaning, which is then applied by technical experts as they examine a firearm to see if it comes from the same family as a firearm that is already prohibited pursuant to the regulations. There is no definition in the—

Mr. Glen Motz :

There is no definition in legislation.

Ms. Paula Clarke: No.

Mr. Glen Motz: Yet it's used throughout the firearms reference table.

Ms. Paula Clarke: Yes.

Mr. Glen Motz: You said it was common.... What was the term you used? It wasn't common knowledge—

Ms. Paula Clarke :

It was the common uses of the term.

Mr. Glen Motz :

How did we get from a designed firearm, manufactured the way it is, to its being all of a sudden on this prohibited list? How do you get a variant of that? Is it from a manufacturer, or is it from individuals themselves doing the variant? How would that look?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

This technical question is outside my lane. That's a question that's best directed to the Canadian firearms program. What I can tell you is that they do look at a range of factors when making their technical determination, including manufacturing information and marketing. Again, I would indicate that this question should be answered by the Canadian firearms program.

Mr. Glen Motz :

That's fair enough. From your earlier testimony, and the way this act reads and what this government's history has been, of the 500-plus firearms that are listed in government amendment 46, what you're telling me, basically, is that all the variants, every possible variant known to mankind now or into the future, will be prohibited in terms of anything related to those 500 firearms here. This list is not exhaustive. Am I correct in saying that? Right now this is an exhaustive list, but that doesn't mean the government can't continue to keep adding firearms to this, as they've done with the order in council. Is that correct?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

The list is exhaustive to the best of the knowledge of the Canadian firearms program. The term “variant” would capture any firearms produced by manufacturers in the future that would be essentially from the same family as the firearms currently prohibited. That is to prevent manufacturers from changing the name of a firearm that is essentially the same as a firearm that's prohibited.

Mr. Glen Motz :

What that effectively does in legislation is this. Of the 500-plus firearms listed in this particular amendment, which the Liberals are adding now to the already couple of thousand firearms that are prohibited under the order in council, every possible variant moving forward is automatically prohibited. You used the word “manufacturers”, so this is mostly related to manufacturers. Hunting rifles and that whole industry, that whole practice as we now know it, will basically end under this legislation if it passes. Is that what I'm hearing you say?

Ms. Paula Clarke :

I can answer legal questions.

(1255) Mr. Glen Motz :

Yes, please do.

Ms. Paula Clarke :

The proposed schedule—the firearms that are listed—that you have in front of you,

schedule 1, lists all of the firearms that are currently prohibited in the regulations. Added to those are all of the known variants. Those were included for transparency, so that when Canadians look at the schedule, they will know what firearms are prohibited based on the best knowledge of the Canadian firearms program. That's what's been done so far with respect to variants.

Moving forward, in the future, should a manufacturer choose to produce a firearm that is essentially, for all intents and purposes, the same firearm that is prohibited in the schedule, that would be captured by the term “variant”, and then that firearm would be prohibited. That's to ensure that manufacturers are not able to manufacture a firearm that is essentially the same as a prohibited firearm.

Mr. Glen Motz :

The bottom line here again—and I'll use the term, and this is not necessarily a question, to give you a break, but a statement—is that the government is not looking at the function of a firearm. It's looking at what it looks like. I guess a case in point about why we ask about the variant is that the Mossberg 715T. It's a .22 calibre rifle. It's identical in structure and operation to the Mossberg 702 rifle. The one difference is that, where the Mossberg 702 has a traditional wood-looking stock on the exterior, the 715T has a plastic shell that's designed to look like an AR-15.

We've effectively said that this government is classifying firearms by how they look. If they look scary, we're going to make sure that we prohibit them. That was a lot of what the order in council was about, and it certainly is something that causes consternation now. What's interesting is that, on Tuesday when this was released to the public by the fact that the motion was made here at committee, there were a significant number of people from around the country who went out and shared the concerns of the public. I know that my phone calls and my emails have certainly picked up about this issue.

The Canadian public feels deceived. We had many ministers and members of the government speak in Parliament, at this committee, and elsewhere about how they're not going after hunters and sport shooters, how they're not going after any of these, how there would be no impact on them, how they're trying to make the public safe and how they're trying to deal with gangs and criminals. I don't know how many gang members are worried about this legislation. We don't seem to be focusing any attention on what gangs are doing. I know Ms.

Dancho mentioned earlier the billions of dollars that this particular bill will actually cost if the government considers any confiscation plan whatsoever. I don't think it will. I think it'll just ram this through and screw the public. Forget the Canadian Bill of Rights. It will take property, make it illegal and, in that way, circumvent any responsibility it has to compensate people for this. However, just think of what that would do. If we had even $1 billion that we would give to legitimate programs that make a difference on.... Kids get involved in gangs.

My friend Marcell Wilson from the One by One Movement, who we had here in committee on.... They're making huge inroads in the Toronto area. The porous areas of our border, law enforcement knows right now, are the main vehicles by which smuggled firearms enter this country. We need to have those resources deployed there to deal with the smuggled firearms out of the U.S. and to deal with kids' getting involved in gangs in the first place. You know, a couple years back, the now Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino and I were on—and, Pam, I'm sure you'll love this— Political Blind Date .

I know it's an odd couple, but Marco and I were on a blind date together. I'm not too proud to say it, but he's actually not a bad guy if you get rid of his politics. Anyway, the idea was that TVO did this particular program, and we talked about firearms. I had the privilege of having Marco out in my riding in Medicine Hat, Alberta.

We went to a certified firearms instructor, and he provided an abbreviated lesson on what firearms are about, how safe the industry is, what rigour people have to go through to get a PAL, and how much increased that rigour is when you get to an RPAL, a restricted possession and acquisition licence. I have both, by the way.

(1300) Marco went through this, and even during our presentation, the firearm instructor had students handle firearms so they would have familiarity with them. Marco refused to participate, and that was his choice. Then we went out to a gun range, the Medicine Hat Rifle and Revolver Club, a great club in Medicine Hat run by a great group of people. We had some people from industry, some hunters there. We had some gun shops there and we had some individuals who participate in various sport-shooting disciplines there. The idea was to show Marco Mendicino what rigour they go through for safety on the range.

It was great. Then I had the privilege of going down and seeing Marco in his riding. We went down to a number of different areas. Lawrence Heights was one of them. We played a little basketball with some street kids and we had a great time. There was one thing that really struck me. We went to a housing project where a young mom recounted the story of her two young daughters. I believe they are both under the age of eight, and they were shot in a gang shooting. Thankfully, they were not killed, but I'm sure they will both have trauma for a lifetime.

I asked this lady what we, as legislators in Parliament, should be doing to make a difference for public safety in this country, seeing as she and her family were front and centre in being victims of this. Unfortunately, this particular dialogue wasn't aired. They still have it on their tapes, but it didn't air, which I'm not surprised about. She said, “You know, the gang bangers in this city are not afraid of law enforcement. They are not afraid of the law. Nothing happens to them.” I said, “So how do we change that?” Marco was getting very nervous by this stage.

She said, “There needs to be serious accountability by those people in this country who use firearms in the commission of an offence, and there is not. There is no accountability for them.” I find it rather disconcerting that, again, we have a bill in front of us that does little. It's like lipstick on a pig. It looks as though it does something beautiful, but it actually makes no difference to public safety. That's not your fault. You have to do the dance to the music that your masters play, and I get that.

However, as I said on Tuesday, I'm very concerned about what this will do to an industry that contributes, as has been indicated by my colleagues, significant dollars, billions of dollars, to our GDP and that impacts the lives, careers and businesses of a multitude of Canadians, tens of thousands of Canadians. Millions of Canadians who have the exact firearms that the government is trying to prohibit here, which have now become worthless, will overnight be turned into administrative criminals. That's what they should be called. They will become administrative criminals. Why? They didn't commit an offence.

They didn't go out and harm anybody. They are not a risk to anybody, not at all. It's because, on a piece of paper, somebody said they didn't agree that these firearms should be owned by anyone. They can't find any evidence to show that the 514 firearms and their variants listed are a danger to the public. Guns aren't a danger to the public. People are. The people's use of them is. That's what we have to try to do.

I would be joining government in supporting any legislation that we could work together on that would say that we have a problem with gangs, we have a problem with smuggled firearms, we have a problem with reduced sentencing, and gun crimes aren't taken seriously. We have a revolving-door justice system that keeps people out of jail more than it keeps them in.

(1305) I remember when I started policing in 1980—that's probably before you were born, Paul—we had a thing called the Bail Reform Act that actually did something. It was called reverse onus. Paul would remember that. If I charged somebody with a criminal offence, and that person was able to get out on bail, they had conditions and those laid out a whole series of—

The Chair :

Mr. Motz, this is all very interesting, but you're wandering around. Could we get back to G-4?

Mr. Glen Motz :

Absolutely. What the Bail Reform Act did back then was provide that a criminal be accountable. If they were released on a condition, whatever that might be, and they reoffended, the onus was then on that criminal to show why they should be released. Now that whole system seems to have shifted so that the criminals no longer have to show why they shouldn't remain in custody if they reoffend. It's up to the Crown—the police—as to why that individual should remain in custody. It's gone backwards.

When we get in government, I'm anxious to see you ladies working to try to change some of those things, so stay tuned for that. That's something I look forward to. Anyway, I will cede my remaining time to Mr. Shipley.

The Chair :

Thank you. You don't have time to cede. I will recognize Mr. Noormohamed, followed by Mr. Shipley. Mr. Noormohamed, please go ahead.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a lot to unpack from this filibuster that we were promised we would not have to sit through, because we were told by our Conservative friends that they intended to move forward on this and not delay it unreasonably. It's good to know where we are. I want to begin at the very beginning, in fact, with what Ms. Damoff said at the beginning. On January 29, we're going to be marking the anniversary of the shooting at the Quebec City mosque. I want to remind everyone that the weapon that was used for the heinous murders committed there was acquired legally.

Despite those who may believe that's it's okay to consider these things outliers and that we shouldn't legislate to stop outlier events, that attack and others like it have caused irreparable damage to communities, not just in Quebec City but Muslim communities across this country. When we do talk about the impact of firearms violence, we can't forget why this legislation is so very important. Ms. Dancho spoke about her grandfather, and I want to express my condolences to her. I was very close to my grandfather. These are important memories for us to hold on to.

I want to share something that my grandfather taught me, as somebody who was very lucky to have come to this country. He said that the beauty of Canada is that Canada evolves. Canada is a dynamic country, and Canada's evolution as a country has made it better. When Ms. Dancho talks about Canadian culture, I think it's very important to know that Canadian culture evolves over time, as we embrace the richness of its diversity, as we embrace the richness of the diversity that we learn from indigenous communities in this country, from those who have been here since Mr.

Lloyd's family came from the 13 colonies, and from when my family came 50 years ago. When we talk about the evolution of this country, let us remember that there was a time in this country when women couldn't vote, when indigenous people couldn't vote, when indigenous people needed passes to come off reserves, when we imposed head taxes, when same-sex marriage was not allowed and when racial segregation was the order of the day. I think it's really important for us to understand the importance of evolving, and that we learn from the past to make a better future.

In my opinion, this legislation and this amendment do that. The beauty of our legislative process, Mr. Chair, is that, if the Conservatives think this is a terrible amendment, they have the ability in this minority Parliament to work with two other parties to defeat this amendment. That is their right. That is the beauty of this parliamentary process. It is not to hold up the will of Canadians. It is their opportunity to work with other parties to defeat this amendment if they don't like it, but my goodness, Mr. Chair, we are here to try to save lives. We are here to try to do what is right.

We are not here to take away weapons from hunters who use the weapons that, as Ms. Damoff rightly stated, are available for the purpose of hunting. This may be a surprise to many on the Conservative side, but there are hunters who support this legislation. There are those of us who may not be gun owners who understand that, for those gun owners for whom this is important, their rights are important as well. What this bill does is very different from what the Conservatives are asserting it's doing.

I also want to note the glee with which Conservative staffers were literally bouncing around in the hallways thanking people for how much fodder this was going to create for fundraising opportunities. I am surprised and disappointed that the party that purports to be in support of law and order would use a debate around keeping Canadians safe as an opportunity to raise money. I think we should all take a good, long look and reflect on what that actually says about the nature of the conversation here. Mr. Lloyd rightly spoke about the importance of freedoms, but it's very striking to me that, when Mr.

Lloyd spoke about being a Canadian patriot and about rejecting revolution, I didn't see him speaking about rejecting the convoy, rejecting his colleagues who were there—

(1310) Mr. Dane Lloyd :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Mr. Chair, this is a direct response to what Mr. Lloyd said.

The Chair :

Mr. Lloyd is recognized on a point of order.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

I don't see any relevance to this, Mr. Chair. This isn't related to the amendment at all. Now he's talking about the convoy.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

If I might be allowed to finish, Mr. Chair, you'll see where I'm going with this.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd, for your point of order. I think we've seen considerable latitude to talk about our origins and our connection to this country, so I will certainly let it—

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

I have another point of order. I would never deem to question the patriotism of any member of this committee. I would just urge my colleague Mr. Noormohamed not to make any implication that I, who also serve as a member of the Canadian Forces, am not a patriot of this country. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you for your intervention. Mr. Noormohamed, the floors is yours again. Carry on.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to be clear that at no point am I questioning Mr. Lloyd's patriotism. It's quite the opposite. I know him to be a proud Canadian. I share many of the things he holds dear, but I do want to make a point here that I think is important as we talk about this amendment. When we speak about rights and we speak about the importance of rejecting revolution, we need to be clear that this is something we hold true on all the things we talk about. Whether or not it is rejecting those who sought to overthrow the government, we should be standing firm.

What I want to say is very much about the idea of why, when we talk about freedoms, it's important that we understand limitations sometimes. The Conservative Party was prepared to launch a niqab ban against women who chose to wear the niqab. They have been adamant in their fight against a woman's right to choose. Whatever we want to talk about when it comes to freedoms here, let's be very clear that this is not about that. This is about something very different. If we're going to go down the rabbit hole here of talking about freedom, I think it's really important to say that freedom is not a licence.

We have to be very deliberate, when we are talking about guns and the violence that is perpetrated by those who choose to use guns as a tool of violence, to actually realize what some of these weapons are. There was a lot of debate about the innocuous nature of the SKS. I think it's important for us to understand that in fact the SKS is a weapon that has been used in military conflicts. Let's take a look at what some of those military conflicts might be. This is by no means an exhaustive list. If people would like, I'd be happy to provide them with a much longer exhaustive list. That