Evidence of meeting #17 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-14.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
In that context, the answer would be no. It would not apply.
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct. It's going to be contextual.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I have a question, Mr. Chair, if I may. It can be for Mr. Taylor or anybody else.
Setting aside the subamendment, BQ‑10 refers to sections 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100 and 102 of the Criminal Code. As I understand it, all of these sections concern offences committed with a firearm, but can in no case be interpreted as an offence related to the storage of the firearm.
Earlier, you explained that someone may be authorized to possess a firearm at home, but their firearm is at the cottage. We can all agree that this does not make that person a hardened criminal. I want to make sure we don't mess this up.
Is there a section in that list that you think is problematic or would not constitute a violent offence?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The offences in part III are really about possession, careless use or use of a firearm to commit offences.
I gave the example of section 95, an offence that targets possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm in an unauthorized way when it's loaded. Section 88 is possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.
They're not use offences in the way that some of the other Criminal Code provisions contemplate use. I gave the example of section 244.1. That is where somebody discharges a firearm, with intent to cause bodily harm.
We know that the courts have said that any offence involving firearms creates a public safety risk. There is an inherent danger where criminal conduct involving firearms occurs. Whether that conduct is use or whether that conduct is illegal possession, the criminal law framework around firearms is meant to minimize public safety risk.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
So, if I understand correctly, I would violate section 95 if, for example, I had authorization to possess a firearm at my home but kept it at the cottage. That would be an offence under section 95. Is that what you mean?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's right.
The offence targets unlawful possession. An individual may be authorized to possess a restricted firearm, for example, but their authorization is limited to possession in a certain place, in a primary residence, for example. They may decide to take their firearm to their cottage, and they may not be authorized to do so. It's in those cases where an offence like section 95 would apply.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Section 95 aside, let me explain what the other offences look like to me, as a layperson. To be clear, I don't even have a gun licence, and I've never gone hunting, so I'm not a firearms expert. However, based on what I've read, it seems to me that the other sections are all about firearms use offences that are violent or dangerous. They're about committing an offence with a firearm or importing, trafficking or manufacturing firearms.
Do I understand correctly that all the other sections except section 95 are fine?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think it ultimately depends on the objective. I go back to what I said previously. The courts have recognized that with the criminal offences in relation to firearms that you've just described, there is an inherent risk associated with this behaviour. Carrying a concealed firearm in public, carrying a weapon while attending a public meeting, weapons trafficking, those are all behaviours that maybe don't involve the use of a firearm, in the sense that I described earlier, but that involve a firearm as an element of the offence. Again, the concern is around the inherent risk associated with certain conduct involving firearms that doesn't comply with requirements around possession or storage.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I can just speak to section 95 briefly. I am a firearms owner. I make a point of knowing these laws very well. The one important caveat in section 95 that speaks to intent is that it's possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition. That is what makes it more than just a regulatory infraction. There is an intent in having the firearm where you shouldn't, and also in having it with the ammunition, when normally part of the regulations on restricted and prohibited firearms requires them to be separate. I think it is very right that is included in the list Monsieur Fortin has put forward.
I just wanted to clarify, based on something you told Monsieur Fortin, Mr. Taylor.
You distinguished between possession and use. From what you've said, there is an argument, I believe—and I'm hoping you can just tell me one way or another—that Ms. Lattanzio's subamendment, which is limited only to use and trafficking, could actually exclude, or be argued to exclude, the offences that only refer to possession. That would be 95, 96 and several others on this list as well. Am I understanding you correctly?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes. I think that's where I would go back to something Ms. Reynolds said a bit ago about the contextual analysis. The existing definition of “violent offence” in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, I think, arguably also addresses those circumstances.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you.
Did you have something to add, Ms. Reynolds?
Acting Senior Counsel, Youth Criminal Justice Division, Department of Justice
Yes. Section 91 appears to be more of a possession and could involve, maybe, not complying with licensing requirements. If that is falling now as being deemed presumptively as inherently violent, if that's the intent of the motion and the proposed amendment, I just think that's for consideration: whether the intent is to capture the nature of that type of conduct as inherently violent and to be treated as the most serious offences in the YCJA.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall the subamendment proposed by Ms. Lattanzio carry?
(Subamendment agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall BQ-10 as amended carry?
(Amendment as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clauses 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63 carry?
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
No. I just want to get our bearings straight, since we had an amendment pass on division. I don't want to look at 59 alongside everything else.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Do you want to pass clause 59 on division and then get the rest of them passed?
(Clause 59 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 60 to 63 agreed to)
(On clause 64)
Liberal
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me explain the purpose of BQ‑11.
Clause 64 of BillC‑14 would add section 49.1 to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In French, it reads, “S'il décide...".
The issue is that the two versions don't match. In English, it says, “The youth justice court shall give reasons for any...”. I think the wording is problematic.
For clarity, in BQ‑11, we propose the following wording: “Le tribunal pour adolescents fait inscrire...”. That better reflects the meaning of the word “shall” in English. It is mandatory, not optional.
That is why we are proposing BQ‑11.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Shall BQ-11 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])