Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to Ms. Damoff for at least attempting to clarify some language around some of what we heard at committee from some of our witnesses.
Before I get into some of this language, I want to make sure that we're all aware of what subsection 5(2) of the Firearms Act actually says. Subsection 5(2) says:
(2) In determining whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1)
—which is “a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition”. It continues:
a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 74, a provincial court judge shall have regard to whether the person, within the previous five years,
(a) has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of
(i) an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted,
(ii) an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code,
That is a gun crime. It goes on to say:
(iii) an offence under section 264 of the Criminal Code (criminal harassment) or,
(iv) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 5(1) or (2), 6(1) or (2) or 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
If I remember right, those have to do with trafficking offences and production.
It goes on to say:
(b) has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person; or (c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person.
That's pretty encompassing already. It provides a significant amount of strength to prevent an individual who has a history from even obtaining a PAL, which is what we're trying to prevent from happening here. If they already have a licence, a court order or the CFO can actually have that licence revoked and the firearm seized.
I'll look first to your change to (c). You've added “threatening conduct” as an amendment to (c). While I move through this, I can ask the officials about these one at a time.
I don't recall hearing a term like “threatening conduct” in law, criminally. Is there something that applies greater certainty to the other language that is already there, or is this redundant?