A House of Commons committee meeting on Dec. 13 on the government’s controversial gun bill got tied up over proposals to extend the number of meetings to hear from more witnesses. But not before both NDP and Conservative MPs hammered the federal government on how it has handled the process.
Some MPs on the Public Safety Committee wanted additional meetings on the amendments to Bill C-21, including travel to northern locations to hear directly from indigenous hunters and others.
The committee ran out of time to finish voting on whether to hold more meetings. They had planned to meet again on Dec. 15 to finish the vote, but that fell through, which means the committee’s work is on hold until the House of Commons returns from its Christmas recess on Jan. 30.
During their final meeting of the year on the bill, both Conservative and NDP MP’s criticized the federal government on how it has handled the process. Conservative MP Raquel Dancho expressed concern over whether the outstanding issues would be resolved in the next meeting.
“If we’re not finished today … what happens if we don’t finish on Thursday [Dec. 15]?” Dancho said, before it was decided on Dec. 14 that the House would rise for the holidays.
“Then we would probably suspend again until the next opportunity,” said committee chair Liberal MP Ron McKinnon.
“When would that be?” asked Dancho.
“I don’t want to speculate, I think we should deal with Thursday and hopefully get it done on Thursday,” replied McKinnon.
“There’s no guarantee?” asked Dancho.
“There’s no guarantee, this is the Wild West we’re in right now,” said McKinnon.
“Thank you, Liberals,” retorted Dancho.
Her criticism was typical of much of the meeting.
NDP MP Alistair MacGregor spent more than 15 minutes criticizing the federal government’s handling of the amendments. The more than 400 pages were tabled at the committee in late November, when hearings on Bill C-21 were almost over.
“The way this amendment landed has frankly been a complete and total abuse of process,” said MacGregor. “The way it was rolled out is going to be a textbook example for future generations of what not to do ... to land this amendment on our lap at the 11th hour, after we’ve completed witness testimony … I know there’s frustration on all sides, but this was brought about by the government,” he said.
The NDP MP added that last week’s unanimous resolution by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) to oppose the amendments as an attack on the treaty right to hunt is a “game changer.”
“For a government that in the seven years I’ve been here has talked about how no relationship is more important than that with First Nations, that unanimous resolution from the AFN should serve as a wakeup call,” he said.
MacGregor also criticized the lack of time to look for compromises, such as stricter licencing requirements for hunters who have semi-automatic rifles.
“A lot of these are non-restricted firearms that are now being prohibited, they are skipping a step, they are not even going into the restricted category, they are just going straight to outright prohibited,” said MacGregor.
The debate over extra meetings was started by Bloc Québécois MP Kristina Michaud, who called for two extra meetings to hear from more witnesses.
Dancho argued two extra meetings was not enough, and proposed 20 extra meetings, including travelling to northern and rural regions to hear from people.
“Two meetings does not even cover the indigenous communities that deserve to be at the table,” she said.
MacGregor proposed a sub-amendment to reduce the number of meetings to at least eight, including travel.
After more discussion, the proposal was changed to exactly eight meetings, including travel. The change passed by a vote of 6–5. But the original resolution to have more meetings, now at eight, still had not come to a vote.
That brought more discussion, since having the committee travel might not be possible until April, because committee spending until then has already been set.
Liberal MP Taleeb Noormohamed questioned if that would mean the committee’s work would be stalled.
“If we’re saying we cannot actually travel until April, are we then saying that we are literally going to be sitting in abeyance until such time as we are able to travel?” he asked.
“The idea that we would sit, unable to move this legislation forward, at the very least until we return from whatever travel in April … I just don’t understand,” he said.
A last-minute motion by Liberal MP Pam Damoff to adjourn, which would have ended the proposal for more meetings, was also defeated by a vote of 6–5.
But the committee ran out of time to vote on the original motion, which leaves the committee’s work on C-21 on hold until the House resumes its session on Jan. 30.
