Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs (44th Parliament, 1st Session)

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 29, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:31 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Senator Tony Dean (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I’m Tony Dean, senator from Ontario and chair of the committee. I’m joined by my fellow committee members whom I invite to introduce themselves, beginning with our deputy chair.

Senator Dagenais: Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.

Senator Plett: Senator Don Plett, Landmark, Manitoba.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: I am Senator Claude Carignan from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Richards: Dave Richards from New Brunswick.

Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: I am Marc Gold, a senator from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.

Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.

Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.

Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.

Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.

Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues, and we also have our committee’s clerk, Ericka Dupont. We’re going to pick up where we left off on Monday evening in our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), all in relation to the regulation of firearms in Canada.

Before we adjourned, we were considering amendments that would see a new clause 45.1 added to the bill. We have a handful of remaining amendments before us and a list of draft observations, which you should all have received for discussion later in the meeting. There is one observation outstanding. That will be tabled with the clerk today, and it will be considered on Monday, December 4, at which time I’m proposing that we would also vote on the bill as a whole.

While we will complete our clause-by-clause work today, we will have the final vote on the bill as a whole on Monday, together with the consideration of one observation, so that should be a relatively quick meeting. It’s my hope that we can also move through these items efficiently today. Once again, we have government officials here to answer technical questions, if they arise, from Public Safety Canada, Department of Justice Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I would now like to direct your attention to the next proposed amendment from Senator Boisvenu.

Senator Plett: Chair, I would like to just raise a little point, if I may.

The Chair: Yes.

Senator Plett: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for accommodating the final vote on Monday as well as the observations.

On that note, I would like to just put something on the record, if I could. I believe just the fact that we could reach an agreement to have the final vote on Monday and our observation speak to what I want to speak about a little bit.

I’ll only take a couple of minutes, Mr. Chair, but I’ve said this before and I want to say it again. Before this bill came to the house, the government was already saying that Senator Don Plett and the Conservatives were delaying this bill. Mark Garretsen said that. That was even before we got the bill in the house; we were already delaying it.

Yesterday, during Question Period in the House of Commons, the Minister of Public Safety again accused on several instances the Conservative senators of delaying Bill C-21. Today’s meeting again proves that what the minister said was false. Just for the record, colleagues, Bill C-21 progressed in the Senate in accordance with the schedule negotiated between the Liberal government, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Conservative opposition.

All meetings of the committee were scheduled by consensus between all members of the committee. The Conservative opposition has agreed to have meetings on the Mondays after break weeks, which we all know we need special agreement on, and we have agreed to that.

The Conservative opposition has agreed to extend the duration of committee meetings on Mondays to five-hour meetings, and the Conservative opposition has agreed to use this Veterans Affairs Subcommittee time slot on Wednesdays. I think the initial agreement was to have only two, and we agreed to continue in order to bring this bill through to a final vote.

As I said, if the committee can meet today, it is because the Conservative opposition agreed to that. At the beginning of the committee study, we agreed to start clause-by-clause consideration on the 27 of November of this month, which was Monday past, and finish it by December 4, which, as you just confirmed, is still our intent.

Contrary to the disinformation spread by Minister LeBlanc, clause by clause is progressing and should conclude within the timeline agreed to by all parties concerned. We all agreed, and we have not stalled this bill at any stage. We presented our amendments. We respectfully agreed with the outcome of every vote. We have raised no points of order. We have progressed in a very amicable way, I believe, chair, and it’s a tribute to your chairing these meetings and Senator Dagenais when he was in the chair.

I simply wanted to put this on the record, and, of course, if you think I am incorrect in any of the comments I made, you would, of course, be free to correct me. Thank you, chair, for the time, and I’m prepared to continue again, as we agreed, to move forward with the bill until the final vote, which will be held on Monday.

The Chair: We’ll leave that statement to stand as is. So let’s move on to the next proposed amendment from Senator Boisvenu, which is DNP-C21-45-50-27.

Senator Plett: Senator Boisvenu has been delayed a bit, so I will do the amendment.

The amendment is:

That Bill C-21 be amended on page 51 by adding the following after line 28:

45.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 118:

118.1 (1) If a proposed regulation may affect one or more Indigenous groups’, communities’ or peoples’ rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the federal Minister must, before the proposed regulation is laid before each House of Parliament under subsection 118(1), consult with a variety of Indigenous governing bodies and a variety of Indigenous organizations in order to take into account the unique circumstances and needs of those Indigenous groups, communities and peoples.

(2) If subsection (1) applies, the federal Minister must include with the proposed regulation laid before each House of Parliament pursuant to subsection 118(1) a report describing the consultations undertaken.

(3) The following definitions apply in this section.

Indigenous governing body means a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group, community or people that holds rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. (corps dirigeant autochtone)

Indigenous organization means an Indigenous entity that represents the interests of an Indigenous group and its members. (organisme autochtone)”.

Colleagues, this amendment is the same as the one proposed earlier in 112-24-25. However, whereas that amendment proposed to amend the Criminal Code, this amendment amends the Firearms Act.

Once again, I think it is useful to repeat what the minister stated when he appeared before our committee:

. . . We engaged with First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations, rural and northern communities, victims’ groups, and with the firearms community and sportspersons and sports shooters across Canada to hear their perspectives and to ensure that we respect their traditions and way of life. These consultations have informed our path forward.

It turns out that the government did absolutely nothing of the sort. I submit that, as parliamentarians, we cannot simply look the other way. We had numerous witnesses appear before this committee, including Chief Terry Teegee of the Assembly of First Nations; Paul Irngaut, Vice-President of Nunavut Tunngavik; and Chief Jessica Lazare of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake. They all told us the same thing. There were, in fact, no consultations with their people.

Will David, Director of Legal Affairs with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, was most explicit on the subject of consultations. He said:

Put simply, there was none. The minister had reached out and offered, and we had reached out and requested, but that consultation never occurred. We’re still waiting.

Now Indigenous peoples are very concerned about what this means going forward as the government goes into its regulatory process. My amendment simply mandates consultation on any regulation that may affect one or more Indigenous groups, communities or people’s rights as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act.

This amendment only mandates what the government has itself committed to in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Again, as I say, the government has already committed to doing this, and yet here they are not doing it. I ask you to send this government at least one clear message and support this amendment. Thank you, chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. Are there questions or comments, colleagues? I see none. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Chair: To get the formalities out of the way, if a roll call vote is requested by one senator, there has been a request for a recorded vote. I will ask the clerk to name all of the senators present who are entitled to vote at this time.

Ericka Dupont, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Dean, the Honourable Senator Boehm, the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, the Honourable Senator Cardozo, the Honourable Senator Carignan; the Honourable Senator Dagenais; the Honourable Senator Dasko; the Honourable Senator Deacon, the Honourable Senator Gold; the Honourable Senator Harder; the Honourable Senator Kutcher; the Honourable Senator Plett; the Honourable Senator Richards; and the Honourable Senator Yussuff.

The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, if any member present does not wish to vote, you may withdraw from the table now. The clerk will now call members’ names, beginning with the chair and followed by the remaining members’ names in alphabetical order. The members should vote yea, nay or abstain. The clerk will then announce the results of the vote. The chair will then declare whether the motion is carried or defeated.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Dean?

Senator Dean: Nay.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Boehm?

Senator Boehm: Nay.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?

Senator Boisvenu: Yes.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?

Senator Cardozo: Nay.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Carignan?

Senator Carignan: Yes.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Dagenais?

Senator Dagenais: No.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Dasko?

Senator Dasko: No.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Deacon?

Senator M. Deacon: No.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: No.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Harder?

Senator Harder: No.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Kutcher?

Senator Kutcher: No.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: Yes.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Richards?

Senator Richards: Yes.

Ms. Dupont: The Honourable Senator Yussuff?

Senator Yussuff: No.

Ms. Dupont: Yeas, 4; nays, 10.

The Chair: Colleagues, the motion in amendment is accordingly defeated.

Shall clause 46 carry?