Evidence of meeting #118 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was firearm.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Chair, with all due respect to my colleagues, that's not what these amendments are about. They are not about process. They're arbitrarily line-drawing, and the very simple explanation from our side, in response to Mr. Viersen's assertion that we're on the opposite side of normal, is that a better decision will be made by the person reviewing the file if she or he has access to that information point.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I want to go back to what I believe to be a witness testimony that was tantamount to why this has arrived the way it has. We remember hearing the testimony of Ms. Irons, as horrific as it was, on what happened to her and her family. The suggestion was made that the individual should never have received a firearms licence. Well, she was absolutely correct. That individual, at the time that he received one, should never have received a firearms licence. If you look into that file, the reality is that the provisions in law were such that he should never have received a firearms licence. It was human error.
We can go back as far as we want, and there still exists the opportunity for human error. I think that's the part that there is some confusion about. That attacker had criminal offences in the past and would have been easily identified under the UCR codes, the unified crime reporting codes used by the RCMP. Those were in effect already. When he applied for a firearms licence, he would never have received one had someone not dropped the ball at some point.
As was indicated by Mr. O'Reilly, unless it's a court prohibition, there are still opportunities for someone—a person—to make a judgment error because they may not have the facts. We can go back as far as we want, but we still aren't going to eliminate completely the possibility of someone slipping through the cracks and committing a crime because they had access to a firearm and they had a licence, and they obtained that licence when they shouldn't have. I needed to add that. I think it's important for us to be aware of that information.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Seeing no further debate, those in favour of CPC-7.1?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment LIB-1, we have Ms. Damoff.
June 5th, 2018 / 12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
It's not often that, as members of Parliament, we have the opportunity to make an amendment like this amendment. I listened to the testimony we had from a number of witnesses, and I also had the opportunity to meet with Poly se souvient, and I spoke to the Coalition for Gun Control on the phone outside of the meeting as well. I proposed an amendment that reflects information we heard from them. I'll just briefly go over what the amendment includes, and I'm very hopeful that we will be able to pass this unanimously because it really deals with issues that are missing. While we extended the time for the background checks, we didn't change any of the criteria.
One of the things that would be added is if someone has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence and threatening conduct on the part of the person against any person—a very legal way of saying someone has displayed violent tendencies—has entered into a recognizance, which is a peace bond, under subsection 810(3) of the Criminal Code, and information that we also heard about posing a risk of harm to themselves or another person.
This amendment would also add that the background check would include threats or conduct communicated “by means of the Internet or other digital network.” That was something Poly se souvient and others talked about, the incidence of online hate and misogyny where people are posting on social media, and the ability for that to be included in the background check.
They indicated in testimony that they'd heard that from police and from people who work in the field of gender-based violence.
We also all received a brief from Dr. Sinyor at Sunnybrook Hospital in which he asked that we include an amendment that included “an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted”.
We heard, from the same submission that we received, that online behaviour and threats to themselves or others should be included.
The Coalition for Gun Control also asked for an amendment about threats to themselves and others and that background checks should include mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records.
This is the final one, from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. I thought Dr. Drummond was outstanding when he asked us to come back to what the issues were in terms of gun deaths in Canada. He said the issue for them is:
...not of access to firearms and whether ownership is the issue, but rather keeping guns out of the hands of individuals who are at risk.
...there is a fabulous amount of direct, incontrovertible science, both in The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association that talks about the association between guns, intimate partner violence, homicide, and suicide. There is no reconciliation; the science is very strong.
This amendment speaks to that, so I'm hoping that all of my colleagues are able to support it. I believe—and the legislative clerk could maybe clarify this for us—that if this amendment passes, Ms. May's amendment would be ruled out of order.
12:15 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
I did see a clear overlap, although I'm not sure that they are mutually exclusive. Maybe the official could look further into it. That was as far as my analysis went.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
My concern is that I don't want to pass this and exclude hers. If necessary, I think Ms. Dabrusin would be happy to jump in to subamend mine to include hers.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
It's in order until it's out of order. Both are in order at this point.
How it might get reconciled is possibly among the two or three of you.
Ms. May wants to speak on a point of order.
12:15 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes, Mr. Chair. I've had the benefit of talking with Ms. Damoff and Ms. Dabrusin. I'm very grateful for Pam's amendment. I think it's brilliant, and I hope it passes unanimously.
But if my amendment, which follows Pam's and deals with the issue of a record of threats of violence against an intimate partner...it would allow that to be a consideration, and it would have to be taken into account so it doesn't affect any charter lines here. We've reviewed it carefully in drafting my amendment. I'd be grateful to surrender my amendment to have it be part of LIB-1, if that works procedurally.
Mr. Chair, I thought you'd probably want to know that the three of us have discussed it. I can't move my amendment or accept a friendly amendment. It's here deemed as moved based on the terms of the motion that you know I hate so much, but I'm here and I have this amendment and I'd be very happy to see it brought in as a subamendment, if that's the will of the committee.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Before I call on you, I just want to clarify where we stand. I understand that both are in order. Both are properly before the committee. However, there may be some legal overlap or inconsistency that needs to be worked out if both pass, as might be anticipated. I'm not quite sure how the committee would then deal with the inconsistency until the officials had an opportunity to reconcile two amendments.
I'm proposing that we continue with your amendment, and we debate your amendment because, as it stands, it is in order, and it is properly presented. A number of people wanted to speak to it. Then we'll see after that whether Ms. May is still moving her amendment.
Mr. Viersen.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I'm happy to support this amendment, but we look for some change. I'd look for a friendly amendment, particularly around section (d) where it says, “has entered into”. I'd like to see something more like “is currently under recognizance”, because you can be placed in recognizance for a whole wide range of things that may not necessarily affect the decision. It may not have anything to do with violence or anything like that.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
That's properly before the committee. It certainly is an appropriate amendment.
In terms of voting, we will deal with your amendment first and then Ms. Damoff's.
We'll continue the debate with Mr. Motz.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
My comments are in line with the amendment and my colleague's comments about peace bonds and how one can be subject to a peace bond. The concern is that one can receive a peace bond, not generally, but in some circumstances, outside of any concern of violence against a person or anything along those lines.
I think it's important that we have proper language around what will entail the consideration of a peace bond. You can add language such as, “a peace bond subject to some of the UCR codes” that have been talked about. You can receive a peace bond for something like not attending a certain location because of prolific shoplifting, so that shouldn't preclude someone down the road from ever having access to a licence.
I support the intent of this as long as we have the language clear. As Mr. Viersen has indicated, that a person is presently subject to a peace bond, and then that peace bond is relevant to a violent offence against a person, which is really what we're trying to get at; that is, a person who poses a risk to someone else, which is what Ms. May has proposed in hers, and what your intent is here, Ms. Damoff. If we're able to make some adjustments to the language, I think we can certainly support that.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
There is a subamendment, but I would like to speak briefly to Ms. Damoff's amendment, the main amendment. I am very pleased that this has been presented. As Ms. Damoff said, this is an amendment that everyone could agree on. It responds to several comments we have heard.
Unless I'm mistaken, there was a lot of talk about organized crime and street gangs at the last meeting. I certainly don't want to minimize the need to address those problems. It is extremely important to do so. Domestic violence, threats and suicide were also mentioned, especially in the digital age. The amendment doesn't deal directly with that, but suicide has often been left out of the debate. This is really important. I am very pleased to support my colleague's amendment.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to raise two points. First, we agree in principle. If you accept our subamendment, we will agree. However, I would like the officials to tell us if this is already covered in the evaluation, in another act or as part of verifications. Are we adding something that already exists?
12:25 p.m.
Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Proposed subsection 5(2) includes certain offences already that must be taken into consideration. The amendment would add additional offences to the class of those that must be taken into consideration.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Okay. Thank you.
To complement what my two colleagues have mentioned, I would say that it is important to make some distinctions with respect to the peace bond. The words “has entered” should be replaced by “is currently”. Many people have been given good behaviour orders for really minor offences. If we don't change the wording, these people won't have access to that. Let's not forget that indigenous people are often the subject of good behaviour orders, more than the average person. They already say they don't recognize this law. But we are adding a problem to those already living in these communities.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
I have two comments. The first concerns the amendment and the second, a subamendment that I want to propose.
How would you like me to proceed?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
No, no. A subamendment to the first part. I have two separate comments, but I want to make sure that I don't lose my turn.
With regard to the amendment, the difference between “has entered” and “is currently” makes a big difference depending on the history of the person. I will remind you of the case of Fabrikant in Montreal, the university teacher who ended up shooting someone at the university because of copyright issues and an intellectual dispute.
This is a case in which he should have and he could have been subject to a peace bond because he was a bit too aggressive verbally and bullied the person. He might have ended up using a peace bond. This peace bond would represent the kind of issue in which someone appears to be not that dangerous, but at the end of the day he ended up shooting someone.
I think the dimension of past issues should remain a consideration with regard to the final result. Maybe our guests would comment on my comment. Thank you.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal