Public Safety Committee on June 5th, 2018

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Just so I'm clear, I'm applying for a licence for the first time, and my whole criminal history is examined, and I'm found to be okay to receive a licence. But then every day from that day forward—you call it continuous evaluation—I am run against CPIC for a criminal record, to see whether or not I have any instances of criminality moving forward, do I not?

[Rob O'Reilly]

If I can correct you, sir. No, you're not run against CPIC. What occurs every day is this. There are approximately 400 offences under the Criminal Code that have what are called UCR codes associated to them. Those 400 offences can generate what's called a “firearms interest to police”, FIP. They are generated for every single Canadian, period. If a FIP is generated for an individual for one of those 400 offences, CPIC will check against the Canadian firearms information system to determine whether or not that individual is a client. If that individual is a client, and there is a match, then the information is forwarded to the program. Therefore, it's the reverse of what you've described. We're not checking CPIC. In essence, CPIC is checking us.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Right. Thank you for the clarification. I was curious to know exactly how that worked; I know very well how the UCR codes and CPIC work.

The concept that I was trying to get at is identical. Every single day, if I commit an offence, anybody who has a PAL, anybody who has a firearms licence, every single day, once that conviction has been secured in court, and the UCR codes are uploaded, then that cross-check is being done on someone's record moving forward in real time—or as real time as the courts and the UCR codes are put up into the system, which, unfortunately, as we all know, is not real time. Is that true?

[Rob O'Reilly]

Essentially yes. The CFOs are made aware of offences in real time that match those 400 UCR codes that do generate FIPs. Yes.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Okay. We already do a background check on criminality, which is what this amendment speaks to...a lot of what the act speaks to, the new bill. We're already doing full background checks on criminality going back to the beginning of a person's record and then real-time ones moving forward once you have a licence, right? How, then, does it work when an offence is committed? Could you explain that for the committee?

There's UCR code that identifies a problem with having a PAL. What do you do from that moment on to ensure that either that person's licence is revoked or...? How do you go through that process?

[Rob O'Reilly]

Basically, if an offence has occurred or a FIP is generated, it would be sent to the chief firearms officer of the jurisdiction where the individual resides. The CFO would look at the nature of that offence. In conjunction with that, he or she would look at, potentially, previous incidents that may have occurred, to establish whether the single offence merits more consideration, or if it is relatively minor, or if that offence needs to be looked at in conjunction with previous offences.

For example, if the offence were deemed to be relatively minor but it is an offence that has been repeated over multiple years, then we are seeing a pattern of behaviour. In that case, the entire pattern of behaviour would be taken into consideration. If the singular offence were significant enough—let's say it involved domestic violence of sorts or certain egregious violence—then the CFO may need to only look at that singular incident to make a determination of eligibility.

If it is determined that the individual is not eligible to own a firearms licence or should not be eligible to own a firearms licence—and I make that decision, because if the court issues a prohibition order, it's not really the decision of the CFO. If the CFO determines that the offence is such that the individual, in the context of public safety, shouldn't hold a firearms licence, he or she would revoke the licence. The individual would then have the ability to challenge that decision at a reference hearing. If they were unsuccessful, they would lose their firearms licence.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you for that.

This goes to conversations that I've had with some of my colleagues about what we're trying to really do from a public safety perspective with this bill. If we understand clearly how that process works, then the legislation.... You and I have been in the same business. If we remove the ability for an error...where someone has a PAL and doesn't get their licence taken away from them because of some human error. Should there be something in this legislation that makes it mandatory that the court orders it automatically for certain types of offences, as opposed to going through the process of a chief firearms officer eventually making that determination?

[Rob O'Reilly]

There are some where the courts are already making mandatory or non-mandatory prohibition orders. Where those prohibition orders are put in place—be it for a 10-year period or a lifetime—the revocation is automatic by virtue of the court order. It would skip all the necessary revocation hearings at that point, if I understand your question.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

This conversation probably applies to some amendments that are coming up.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Why don't we deal with it when they come up? Excellent.

Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to understand one thing, and I would like my colleagues from the other parties to explain to me the reasoning in question. We know that criminals who commit murder are sentenced to life in prison, but they can apply for conditional release after 25 years and, as a result, return to society.

However, on the other hand, people who in their youth have had little run-ins with the law will still not be forgiven after 20 years. However, criminals have the opportunity to get out of prison as quickly as possible, yet honest citizens who had slight problems in their youth will be subjected to a thorough background check, going back to their birth. I'm trying to understand the logic here, because it seems that we want to limit as much as possible the number of people who have licences, because it's so exhaustive. That seems very arbitrary to me.

My NDP colleague said it should be okay, but that answer is too vague. Indeed, what can we rely on when we say “it should be okay”? What will be considered a problem and what will not? I would like to understand why the 20-year period is not considered sufficient in this case, when it is for a criminal. After all, once inmates have served one-sixth of their sentences, the law allows for temporary absences or day parole. In the same logic, why shouldn't good citizens who have had minor run-ins with the law in their lives also have a chance?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm going to speak to CPC-6 and CPC-7 now in the interest of time. There's nothing in the act that precludes you from owning a firearm even when they do look back for your lifetime. We're having regard to it, so it's taken under consideration. I had a constituent call me with that very question. I checked on it to ensure that when you're looking back for a lifetime, it's something that's considered. It doesn't preclude you from owning it.

Whether it's 20 years or 50 years, I suspect my colleagues on the other side would speak quite differently. I hear them often talking about returning ISIS fighters after 20 years. I'm glad to see that you now believe in rehabilitation and that type of thing, but I'm just saying it doesn't preclude you from owning it. So, whether it's 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years, which is the next amendment.... In effect, I think it's very important to look at it for a lifetime, and then the decision will be made as to whether or not that person should have a firearms licence.

We won't support this amendment and we won't be supporting CPC-7 either, because I think a lifetime is the appropriate time. I know that my colleagues here agree, and then the decision can be made based on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I have a note that CPC-7 is withdrawn. Is that correct?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support what my colleague said. I would add for those listening that it is important to understand that background checks do not target youthful mistakes, such as stealing a bag of candy from the corner store. What we are talking about here is a history of spousal violence and problems related to violent acts that are seen to be committed in society with firearms. There are no plans to penalize law-abiding gun owners in any way. That is an important distinction to bring to this debate.

Contrary to what my colleague reported, I did not say that it was vague. This need to keep things in perspective is precisely why this discretion exists. The background check precedes the background check that occurs when someone applies for a licence. Everyone understands that this amendment does not target people who have been delinquent in their youth, but rather individuals who, 20 or 30 years ago—the period covered by the amendment—were charged with serious domestic violence and who, at the age of 50, apply for a licence. I think it is important to set the record straight on this issue: we are not trying to complicate the lives of law-abiding people.

As my colleague Mr. Miller said, when we were talking about national security agencies, no law-abiding person should have to worry about this kind of check. I think the same logic applies to background checks.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Building on what Mr. Motz and Mr. Dubé said, my short answer to the question of Mr. Paul-Hus is, it's because we're giving them the right to legally buy a gun. It comes down to that. It's just that simple.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Motz.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Before Ms. Damoff gets excited about rehabilitation, an ISIS fighter, a returning ISIS terrorist, is not the same as someone who has punched somebody in a bar fight. With the two, we're dealing with opposite ends of a spectrum, so rehabilitation for the one is different from rehabilitation for the other. I just want to make that clear.

The concern I have with what's proposed in the bill, a full lifetime background, is that there's no comfort, there are no parameters, there are no rules around who is the arbiter of that. We can say that the chief firearms officer makes the decision, but are they equipped to look at what we heard from the emergency room doctors last week, who said they're prepared to provide some type of report on those who might have some issue? We're not just talking about criminality; we're talking about other types of activities that could put public safety at risk.

If you're saying we want a whole lifetime of checking to be done, we do know, moving forward, that might have a different impact from backwards, because police records are expunged by law. For things that could preclude someone from having a firearm, the records no longer exist in their entirety to make an informed decision. There might be a notation on a file of a common assault from the 1970s, yet when you try to find that file to figure out exactly what happened, it does not exist because it has been expunged.

Who makes the decision and what criteria they will use to make the decision has always been a concern of mine. I support, and I think we support, a reasonable check to make sure public safety is adhered to. That's reasonable. The Canadian public expects that. Your side has said, the same as we have, that law-abiding gun owners don't have an issue with that. The issue becomes, how far back do we go? What parameters do we set? What types of activities cause someone to either not retain their licence or have the inability to receive one? How far back, no one has said. What type of offence, no one has said. How does that even look and who makes the determination is always the challenge I have.

I've talked to constituents who ask me the same questions. It's reasonable, but there are so many unanswered questions. We don't know, and because we know there's going to be human error, we don't trust that it's going to be done with a balanced approach.

Therefore, I am hesitant about the full lifetime background. I know that isn't in this, but it is cause for concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I have a quick question for officials. Could the decision made by the chief firearms officer be subject to judicial review?

[Rob O'Reilly]

Yes, absolutely, unless the revocation is as a consequence of a prohibition order enacted by a judge. However, all decisions are reviewable by reference hearing.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])