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.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
On Tuesday, I heard mention of Ms. Irons and her situation. Unfortunately, I don't know the circumstances regarding that case.
To your more broad question, I definitely cannot answer that in terms of whether it will prevent. All I can say is that the language that is being proposed more inclusively brings to the attention things that others feel should be taken into consideration in terms of making an eligibility determination.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Mr. Chair, I have just one question. It's likely for Mr. O'Reilly, although whoever wants to can answer it.
As the scope of this widens—and the intent is for it to widen so that we can increase public safety—right now the length of determining the eligibility on an initial application or on a renewal for a firearms licence already is somewhere in the neighbourhood of.... I think that on the website the last time I looked, it was suggested that you should apply at least six months in advance in order to make sure that you have continuous eligibility to possess your firearms on a renewal.
As the scope widens and the discretion broadens on this, we have proposed paragraph 5(2)(f):
for any other reason, poses a risk of any harm to any person.
That is a kind of catch-all. The CFO is basically given great breadth to exercise any investigation that he or she wishes to.
Has the department come to any determination, should this bill come to pass or when it comes to pass, about what the investigative length will look like for an application or a renewal, and what are going to be the increased costs? If we're going to look at more things, it's going to take more time. It's going to take more resources to meet the standard of delivery if we want to keep it at the point where renewals should only take three months, for example. Can you give the committee any indication of what that looks like?
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I can say that the intention of the program is to maintain the service standards we have in place and that any amendments proposed under Bill C-71 not lengthen the period of time by which an individual is going to be applying for a licence. I can't speak to the exact resourcing because, again, when we had preliminary discussions on the bill, these particular elements weren't necessarily in play, but the intention of the program is to maintain those service standards.
As I've answered before, what we're talking about now under subsection 5(2) in terms of what must be more broadly considered is the “must” be considered. That doesn't mean that in many cases these things weren't considered beforehand. Most CFOs in doing a determination of eligibility are trying to do as thorough a job as possible now. While this may require them to look a little bit more broadly, the intention is to maintain the service standards we have in place.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Will that not require an increase in resources, then?
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Quite possibly, but I can't say that I've done the full evaluation in terms of the resource implications from a human resourcing perspective relating to these new elements.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Calkins.
At this point I'm seeing no further interest in debate. I see the mover, however, having a conversation with Mr. Motz. I would like to call the question.
In the interests of committee harmony, I will hold off calling the question if in fact there is some substantive conversation. I could suspend for a minute. I would hope that at the end of the suspension I can call the question.
With that, we'll suspend for two minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Ladies and gentlemen, can we come back to order. This has been a very long two minutes.
Does the mover, wherever she might be, have anything to share with the committee?
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
The mover has a question and would like some guidance from Mr. Fraser on some potential wording, but also on the impact it would have.
In paragraph (d), if there were something along the lines of “is or was previously prohibited by an order and currently poses a public safety risk”, what would the impact of including that be, and would it make any change in terms of how the chief firearms officer reviews this?
That could be to whomever is dealing with this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Please read that framing again so that we're all aware of it, as some have not heard that phrasing before.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Could Sean give you better wording than I could, because—?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Well, Sean will have to move it, because you can't move your own amendment.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Certainly.
I stand to be corrected on this, but the language that I think would capture it would have to come after the second dash in paragraph (d), and would have to read something to the effect of the following. I'll just read out the whole thing.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
is or was previously prohibited by an order—made in the interest of the safety and security of any person—and poses a threat or risk to the safety and security of any person presently
Then it continues on.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
In reading the entirety of paragraph (d), I think the language we're trying to add would be better at the end of it. When we say “communicating with”, it's an order that was made “from communicating with an identified person or from being at a specified place or within a specified distance from a place”.
All of that should be there and included the way it is, and at the end of that, “and presently poses a risk—
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
—“and presently poses a threat or risk to the safety and security of any person”.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes, at the end. All of that language is at the very end.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
First of all, we all understand the location of the framing and the framing itself, so the next stage would be to ask that it be formally moved as an amendment to the current amendment being debated.
That is moved by Mr. Fraser and seconded by Mr. Motz.
Our legislative clerks wish to have very specific wording.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Okay.
At the end of paragraph (d), before the semi-colon, I move that we add the following language:
and presently poses a threat or risk to the safety or security of any person