Evidence of meeting #119 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 licence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Now, the amendment is properly on the floor. The debate would be on the subamendment.
Is there any debate on that?
Ms. Damoff and then Mr. Motz.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
It was a question to the officials to find out what that does to this amendment, and if it provides direction to the chief firearms officer to not look at shoplifting charges. That's the concern that has been expressed.
Would it still capture someone who had a restraining order against their partner and no longer has that restraining order? Would they still be able to get a firearm?
12:35 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
First, just to clarify, none of these criteria would automatically mean that someone doesn't get a firearm. They're just mandatory criteria to be considered in determining whether it's desirable in the interest of the safety of any person that someone get a firearm.
With this added language, again, the CFO already considers if it's desirable in the present circumstances in the interests of safety as part of their overarching determination. Therefore, this would perhaps add some greater clarity that, with respect to this particular criteria, they also need to turn their minds to whether they currently pose a public safety risk.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Would that change be better placed elsewhere in that paragraph so that it doesn't only apply to...? If it's happening now, is it unnecessary?
12:40 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Again, I think subsection 5(1) is the guiding, overarching principle that they consider the current risk to public safety in their assessment. Again, this would perhaps add some greater clarity to paragraph 5(2)(d) when they're looking at all these past orders. The past order is not necessarily relevant if the person doesn't also currently pose a public safety risk.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to clarify that last statement, if I heard you right, it may be possible to put that same language in a different spot and it would be better for what we're trying to do for the entire section, or did I misunderstand what you said?
12:40 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Are you talking about putting that in a different spot in subsection 5(2), or do you mean to include something beyond paragraph (d)?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
No. If I understood you correctly, you said that if we took that language, it would apply elsewhere, but it's in paragraph (d). Did I take you to mean that if that same language were elsewhere in subsection 5(2), and not just inside paragraph (d), it would have better application?
The intent behind this, as told to my friends, is to ensure that those who would adjudicate as a CFO would have greater certainty or language around not allowing the broad strokes of misinterpretation of how this should look and how this should be interpreted. That's all we're trying to get at.
If you think it should be at a different spot from paragraph (d) and that it applies to all of them, then great. We would certainly defer to that. However, if you think it's best to apply it in paragraph (d), which is where we had our greatest concern, I certainly would defer to Pam or whoever would have impact. Unless, Ms. Robichaud, I misinterpreted what you said.
12:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I hope this clarifies. What is proposed now would limit what the CFO must look at with respect to no contact orders. The only effect of this current language is that it only applies to paragraph (d), and it would only limit the requirement that the CFO, when examining prohibition orders, no contact orders, must also consider whether or not.... There has to be a history, previous no contact orders, plus that person must continue to pose a risk to others. This would apply only to prohibition orders.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Okay. Then given what the other sections say, I think it's best left in paragraph (d), because I don't want to have that apply to paragraph (e), for example, that they pose a present danger to domestic violence situations. I think that takes away the exact intent of what we want on public safety on that issue. If you've ever been convicted or if you have something going on with intimate partner violence, then if you pose a threat, you should not have a licence. It doesn't mean it's current.
If we add that language to all of it, we water down the intent. I would suggest, then, based on what we've said, that it stay inside paragraph (d), because that was my concern.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Bear in mind, colleagues, we're writing legislation. We're not creating the Ten Commandments.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
It's the Ten Commandments for some people, Mr. Chair.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Not the 10 suggestions or the 10 hints?
May I call the question on the subamendment?
Ms. Damoff.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Just quickly, in listening to what the officials said and conferring with Mr. Fraser and Mr. Fragiskatos, just because they've been studying this legislation, they're saying it's already in here. Right? They did. They said it was already considered and not necessary.
I don't think we need to put.... If someone has had a restraining order, if someone has had a peace bond because there are concerns about terrorism, it's already being considered because of what's in subsection 5(1).
Is that not what you were saying? The CFO would look at whether it's a present public safety issue. This is what we want to ensure they're doing.
12:45 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
The general mandate of the CFO in considering eligibility under subsection 5(1) is to consider whether it is currently desirable in the interest of the safety of any other person that the person hold a firearm. Their focus is on the present risk in their overall assessment.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Is it necessary to make sure that they're doing that when it comes to any kind of order? Do we need to put it in here to ensure that they're doing it?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'll just point out that there are times when we put things into legislation for greater clarity. I think that is the idea here. We are putting something in for greater clarity and ultimate guidance to those who will interpret the law. That was the intent.
I hate to walk away from a fragile consensus. That might be interpreted as a hint from the chair.
May I call the question?
12:45 p.m.
A hon. member
Yes.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Excellent. Now we move to the amendment as amended. Do we want a recorded vote?
We haven't got to that yet. Mr. Calkins wants to speak.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Not to belabour the issue, but just for greater clarity, would we also like to add that same word “present” in proposed paragraph 5(2)(f), “for any other reason poses a present risk of harm to any person” for greater clarity?
If I see a willingness on the other side to accept that, then I'd happily move it.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting.
In proposed paragraph 5(2)(f), you're putting....
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I'm just looking across the floor right now to see, for the sake of consistency and on the same issue, if we should add the word “present” between “a” and “risk” in proposed paragraph 5(2)(f). I'm just looking. I'm not making the motion. I'm just looking to see if there would be consensus. What I'm proposing to move is “for any other reason poses a present risk of harm to any person”, just for that sake of consistency.
I'm not seeing consensus, so I won't move it.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
There's no consensus and no grammatical challenge.
I therefore ask for a recorded vote on the amendment as it has been amended.
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you, colleagues.
That brings us to PV-1. Given Ms. May's peculiar status, shall we say, and in light of the previous vote, I'm going to rule PV-1 out of order. That saves us a conundrum.
That brings us to CPC- 8.
Mr. Motz.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Chair, CPC-8 is an attempt to address the issue that we have just dealt with in LIB-1. As it was currently before the committee, the language that is used there.... Given our strict timelines, I did not have a chance to get it back to the drafters to make changes to it. I certainly was coming here to make an amendment to my amendment, which would include more of a broad ban for a conviction of anything related to a firearm or to offences related to violence against persons.
I think LIB-1 has covered off what my hopes were in CPC-8. For that reason, I would ask that CPC-8 be withdrawn.