Thread by @TWilsonOttawa

#SECU live tweet thread. Meeting #49 study of #C21🇨🇦

Follow this thread ⤵️⤵️⤵️⤵️

November 22, 2022

Late start - but here we go. Chair welcomes everyone. This is the start of clause by clause. Witnesses will do Q&A but no opening statements.

Dancho begins. Asks about procedural issues, scope of bill. No further questions. They begin.

Dancho brings up amendment G4, G46: outside the scope of the bill. Dancho brings up amendment G4, which is a ban on almost all semi auto rifles and shotguns. Point of order by Damoff. Dancho agains brings up massive ban included in amendment?? Damoff objects, confidentiality

Dancho again proposes to set aside G4 (sweeping gun ban) and work on the others. Motz also objects to the new included gun ban amendment. No gun ban was ever discussed in C21.

Point of order MacGregor: wants to know if these amendments are permissible.

G1 carried.

G2: amendment to include “parts” as “firearms” in the criminal code. Another amendment defines “part” (cart before the horse)

Feed keeps freezing.

Taleeb says it’s slides, barrels not cleaning supplies.

Dancho still concerned no definition adopted yet

Public Safety official clarifies for Dancho. Motz says too vague. Taleeb says definition is in G4. Shipley wants to know where that’s written. Dancho clarifies, G2 mentions “parts” which is defined in G4. Asks about 84.3 of the CC. Motz has it. Reads definition.

Dancho asks officials about possession of “parts” without a PAL. Would not be an offence to possess, but would be to sell.

Debate ensues about gun parts. Officials respond to Dancho. A part would be the same as a prohibited device?

Vote (G2): carried

G3: Taleeb reads amendment, terrorism clause. Adds “part” to original charges. A judge could add a condition to not own “parts” to a terrorist peace bond. Debate continues.

Vote (G3): carries

Point of Order Dane Lloyd. Do we vote on clause 1 now?

Dancho brings up earlier issue (G4 gun ban) - impacts hundreds of thousands of hunters. Outside scope of bill.

Damoff on a point of order. Dancho wants more info on G4. Wants clause 1 parked.

Chair asks clerk for clarity. Says we can stand clause 1 for now and continue with rest of amendments. Lloyd on a point of order. Wants to know if they will get the new gun ban list. Damoff wants to continue with officials in room. Chair asks for a motion. Dancho asks for a list

Amendment Bloq1: add definition of prohibited weapon (assault style) in the criminal code. Lloyd asks for a definition of “military style”, “assault style”. Bloq say’s government could define through regulation. Motz agrees - we need a definition. No such thing.

Assault rifles are full auto, Motz clarifies they’re already prohibited. Large mags, already prohibited. Function not looks. Damoff says she has her own amendment for the definition.

BQ1: defeated

CPC1: amendment for airsoft - 25%+ brightly coloured, easily identifiable for LEO. Damoff clarifies bill part. Won’t support amendment. MacGregor says there are other amendments further in the list that will help.

Vote: CPC1 defeated

G4: here we go. Sweeping gun ban ⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️

Chair says G4 is admissible and relevant to C21. Dancho reads amendment. Chair wants to avoid reading it. Chiang reads the amendment. Lloyd on a point of order. Wants to debate scope after amendment moved. Lloyd challenges decision by chair (out of scope). Cost of buyback in play

Lloyd challenges chair decision. Lloyd points out chair deemed amendment in order without anyone saying it wasn’t. Dancho accuses chair of “jumping the gun” 😉

Motz says chair should hear interventions and not just preemptively rule on things.

Chair calls for vote.

Decision of the chair be sustained?

LPC: yes
NDP: yes
BQ: yes
CPC: no

Chair decision sustained. G4 stays

Chiang continues reading amendment G4. Quotes anti gun lobbyists wanting full ban on semi autos. Says gun manufacturers who build to comply with law, circumvent it.

Dancho continues reading it. This amendment codifies the 2020 gun ban into law, adding large list of others

This bans ALL semi autos that is “capable” of accepting mags more than 5, even if we don’t have them. So your hunting rifles and shotguns are banned.

None of this was debated in the House or testified about by the experts. Wow.

Hunting gun ban.

Motz continues. C21 was supposed to be about public safety, handgun freeze. Liberals snuck in a hunting gun ban in the 11th hour.

Motz explains just because we don’t have bigger than 5 mags, our guns “could” fit it … therefore banned.

Officials say Motz is correct. It would be a back door semi auto ban. Motz brings up how huge this gun ban would be.

Whenever a liberal tells you they’re not coming for your guns, they’re lying.

Motz says this amendment is ludicrous. It’s a sweeping gun ban. Says the violence in this country isn’t connected to legal gun owners.

Chair asks Motz to keep to questions for officials. Motz asks public safety for evidence.

“The definition was made on a policy decision made at the political level” - officials

Motz goes off. Asks for list of guns. Says large mags are already prohibited. No need to ban guns that accept them. He wants a full number of models and makes.

Officials say there is no list. They don’t have it. Motz wants the list prepared and provided. Clarifies this amendment bans most semi auto’s.

Reminder: none of this was ever part of C21, never debated, never spoken too.

This is greasy

Motz continues, discusses bore diameter, guns banned in 2020 OIC. Apologizes to officials for the position they are in.

Lloyd now. Asks who crafted this amendment. Confirms it was a political decision by the minister.

Lloyd asks about consultations. Officials point to 2019 consultations. Says the rest was developed in cabinet confidence.

Asks about charter compliance. Officials say it was done in June. The charter statement did not take into consideration this new gun ban amendment.

Lloyd brings up lack of consultation with indigenous. “The department has not engaged in any consultation on these amendments”

Lloyd asks about UNDRIP. Department says they decided for indigenous on the impacts.

Lloyd says Sec 35 hunting rights will be affected by this amendment.

Lloyd asks about prior consent. How could indigenous people consent to this secret gun ban amendment?

Asks about financial impact of adding 100’s of pages of guns to the 2020 gun ban? Will they be included in buyback?

Nobody knows.

Dancho asks why buyback question is “out of order”? Chair resists answering. Dancho says it’s his government who brought the OIC guns and these new ones into C21, they should answer.

Taleeb - point of order. Suggests Dancho move a motion to buy them back.

Lloyd brings up historical firearms, antique firearms, 10k joules.

Officials speak to re-enactments and celebrations, say yes, they’re banned

Officials clarify this amendment will come into force via regulation after legislation receives Royal assent.

Dancho wants officials compelled to provide list of guns affected by this new ban.

Back from short recess. Officials speak to newly banned guns, the “evergreen” definition designed to prevent new guns from being made. Dancho clarifies that this amendment includes the 2020 banned guns, but also includes many new ones.

Dancho interrupts officials speaking to what is banned. She doesn’t want it discussed. Lloyd argues back. Chair consults clerk, mutes mic. Chair says we can’t speak to it specifically. Motz argues back. Wants to identify some of those firearms.

Sorry, Damoff interrupted.

Dancho goes over classifications with officials. Officials confirm restricted are registered. Dancho says there are many “non restricted” that would now be prohibited. Yes. Dancho brings up buyback.