Okay, wait. I've got a speaker over here.
Evidence of meeting #68 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #68 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
How is it that an individual can be considered so unsafe for his own sake or for the sake of others that he can't have a weapon, and yet at the same time he is authorized to have a weapon for the performance of his duties as an infantryman, or in any other role that he might have that would have him using a weapon?
3:50 p.m.
Col Michael R. Gibson
Mr. Chair, briefly, that's why we pay judges: to exercise discretion on the facts of the case and in individual circumstances. As with any other sentencing option, there's a measure of discretion to take into account operational imperatives, operational needs, if they're appropriate in the circumstances.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I have Mr. Alexander, Madame Moore, and then Mr. Norlock.
Mr. Alexander.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thanks.
Yes, their rationale is very clear: if there is a danger of the offender having a weapon, the court martial will specify that the person not have the weapon. If there is not a danger of the person having those weapons, or any of the other items listed, and if the operational requirements dictate that the person carry a weapon or ammunition, they will carry the weapon. It is a balancing act that is present throughout this bill, and it crops up in many different forms. Military justice requires certain forms of behaviour and certain prohibitions when offences are committed and when convictions happen, but the special operational requirements of the Canadian armed forces require most members, regular and reserve force, to carry weapons when they're on operations. This satisfies both of those conditions.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I would just like to clarify something.
I assume that also applies to any weapons the person uses for sports, such as hunting. Does that also cover cases where the person's spouse owns registered weapons? If the spouse lives in the same home and the weapons are registered in their name, should all the weapons—or at least access to them—be removed from the home or only those that are registered in the military member's name? Regarding the relationship with civilian authorities, I would like to know what happens when someone is not allowed to carry weapons.
It would help me understand matters if you could clarify those issues a bit.
3:55 p.m.
Col Michael R. Gibson
Mr. Chair, I think the answer is contained in the provision itself:
If a court martial considers it desirable...it shall...make an order prohibiting the offender from possessing
The order is in relation to the offender, not to a spouse or somebody else cohabiting with him or her, and one would look to the general definition in law of “possession” to determine the ambit of that. I think that's briefly the answer.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Harris asked a question in the manner in which I would, because I always ask questions that I believe my constituents would ask, and my constituents would understand the following: coming from a paramilitary background, police officers from time to time.... It's more easily explained by saying a firearm is a tool of the trade. Whether a police officer or someone in the armed forces, that's a tool of their trade. They need that to do their job. It's part of their job. For that person to maintain their employment, they must carry their weapon as part of their uniform and the duties they may have to perform. While they're off duty, while they're not there, they can be prohibited from carrying that tool because it isn't necessary in their day-to-day life.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I hear a lot of what's called a self-fulfilling argument here, in that you're suggesting there are circumstances where you could do it. I hear what Mr. Norlock is saying. My question is this. Where it's decided that a person is a danger—as the bill says here, in the interests of safety of the offender or another person—enough to have the prohibition order, how could it be safe for the public, in the case of the police officer, for the same person to have a gun or a weapon when he's on duty? I would like to have an example of where that might actually make sense.
I hear what you're saying about tools of the trade, etc. It may be a case of an individual who got into trouble and it had nothing to do with his work or job; you want to isolate it from that, and you can satisfy somebody.... I don't know. It just seems to me that the ordinary person who is not a police officer, who is not a soldier, would have a lot of difficulty understanding how it is that a person who is a danger to himself or some other person and who requires a prohibition order should be competent and safe to have a weapon—and that's the default position: that they would continue to have a weapon in the course of their duties. I haven't had anybody explain that to me yet.
3:55 p.m.
Col Michael R. Gibson
Mr. Chair, very briefly, again, if one looks at the actual text of the provision, it reads, “in the interests of the safety of an offender or of any other person”.
In response to Mr. Harris, let's take the example of somebody who had spousal difficulties, had domestic violence difficulties, in the context of the base in Petawawa. The person whose interests are being considered is the offender's spouse. It may be perfectly safe and appropriate to carry a weapon in the course of duty while deployed to Afghanistan in an operational theatre, 10,000 miles away from that person whose safety is at issue. The point is, once again, that it comes down to counsel, prosecution, and defence to make the appropriate submissions on the fact to a judge, and the judge—he or she—will decide.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't agree with you. I have worn the uniform myself. A civilian who is psychologically unstable or uses a personal weapon improperly is usually suspended or loses their job. I have not come across any cases where it was deemed acceptable for unstable individuals to carry a weapon as part of their duties. In such situations, an attempt is made to take away their weapons and provide them with the help they need. A psychological assessment is then carried out to determine whether or not that person can continue to perform their duties. Drawing a parallel between the two situations does not seem very reassuring to me.
During one of my training sessions in the reserve, an individual pointed a C7—the equivalent of an M16 in the Canadian Forces—at the officers. He was seen doing that and pulled out of service, which did not take very long. Did that individual have any weapons at home? I don't know, but I simply wanted to say that, if an individual is unstable—even if we are talking about tools used by the Canadian Forces—it cannot be said that everything is going well in the performance of their duties. I really disagree. I have worn the uniform for most of my life, and I did not find working with such individuals reassuring. I would not want to work with someone like that. I would not feel safe at all, and I would also worry about my colleagues.
4 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair.
I hear my colleague's concern about the possible application of this section to other types of circumstances, where you have someone who is unstable, as he called it. I think you have provided an example that people might understand. There is a distinction where you're trying to protect someone: it's the safety of a particular person or circumstance that gives rise to the prohibition. There are circumstances in which an officer is under command, in the field, as you say, 10,000 kilometres away, which would be a different set of circumstances.
That was the kind of explanation I was looking for, sir, something that my constituents—as Mr. Norlock puts it sometimes—would understand. I think people might understand that, although I can see a lot of people would also think like my colleague.
Thank you, sir.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you.
Are there other comments?
(Clause 22 agreed to on division)
(On clause 23)
Are there any questions or comments?
Madame Moore.
4 p.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a technical question. In the bill before me, the analysts forgot to translate paragraphs 25(2)(a) and 23(2)(b). Could we come back to this when the provisions have been translated? I don't have it in French. I don't know whether it has been corrected since, but I don't have the translation, after line 27, of “any thing the possession of which”.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
This is common in bill drafting. Whenever you come to where they are changing just the English part—
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
—they do the explanation, which is subclause 23(2), but it does show it in English.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay, we're good.
Are there any other questions?
(Clause 23 agreed to)
(On clause 24)
We have amendment NDP-16, reference number 5993944.
Mr. Harris.