Public Safety Committee on June 14th, 2018

[Tanya Dupuis, Committee Researcher]

With respect to your question on regulations and to which committee it would go, we verified the Firearms Act. In section 118 it says that the federal minister must lay before each House of Parliament a proposed regulation, and that once that regulation is laid before a House of Parliament, it must be referred to the appropriate committee of that House.

In 2012, this committee did study a firearms regulation that was referred to it.

There's another option as well. If it's a current regulation, it could go to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

The third option—

[Dominique Valiquet, Committee Researcher]

They would need to amend the act if it's a new regulation on something.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Ms. Damoff, did you want to respond to Mr. Spengemann's—

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

I got a little bit lost on this because we don't have the ability to legislate duty to warn. That was really clear. I asked whether it could be included, and we don't have the ability. I know when I brought it up with PolySeSouvient, they said, as well, that it's something they've pursued, but it's provincial, so it's not something that we can do.

I'm okay with what you're suggesting. I think what we're hearing is it's not happening now. I like adding that this is likely to put the lives of themselves or others in danger. I think that is an important addition. It was one that I think just got missed by mistake, but it is important to put in there.

I'm fine with what you've put forward, Sven.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, in light of what you've said, I'm wondering if it's even appropriate. If it's a question of there being a judicially elaborated duty to warn but it's just not being applied or enforced provincially, would my amendment then go in the right direction? The circumstances under which there must be a warning issued already exist; it's just that they're not being applied.

I'm more inclined now to withdraw my amendment in light of what you said. It may not answer what we need to answer, which is the fact that—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

I don't think your amendment was moved. It's being discussed informally at this point. If you're no longer interested in moving it, that's of course of your purview.

I have Monsieur Picard and then no other speakers.

Monsieur Picard, go ahead.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

The end result will be that the province will decide how they proceed with the concerns you have about...if they start talking to the police all the time, people will stop going to their medical counsellor. That's an issue. At the same time, that's why, to Mr. Motz's comment, I like the word.... I'm trying to be precise in English, but the last time I did that, I got into trouble.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

That is why we have excellent interpreters.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

The conditions of the diagnosis have to be as broad as possible. They must be preventive and not restrictive. That is why the notion of necessity appeared more restrictive to me than the word “likely”. I think that in French this would mean that there are conditions that are likely to put lives in danger. I suggest that we keep the word “likely”.

Perhaps the analysts could give us a hand and give us the English equivalent of the words “mettre sa vie en danger et celles des autres”. The purpose of my amendment is to replace the words that follow “to put” with “the person's life or that of others in danger”.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Mr. Picard has suggested an amendment.

To make sure I understood properly, I would ask you to repeat what you are suggesting, please.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

After the word “diagnosed conditions”, I suggest that we add “that are likely to put the person's life or that of others in danger”.

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

In English that would be “the lives of themselves and others in danger”.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

If I can do some freelance translating, I would probably say, “who have diagnosed conditions and is likely to put his or her life in danger, or the lives of others”.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

That's the idea.

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

Could you just say “the lives of themselves or others in danger”?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

You said, “themselves or others”.

Before I go to you, Mr. Motz, I'm just going to make sure we're clear on the language.

In French it says “posent probablement un risque pour sa vie et celle des autres”.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

It should say “and/or”. It would then say that he is endangering his life “and/or that of others”.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

The analysts are just going to see if that jibes with language that's currently in law.

In the meantime, while they look at that, I'll go to Mr. Motz, please.

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

In Alberta, for example, the Mental Health Act is what we use to give broad authority to arrest someone who poses a risk, so it's likely—that “likely” isn't there, but in this language it would have to be there—that they pose a risk to themselves or to others. The language, I think, in most mental health acts is along those lines: they pose a risk to themselves or others.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Colleagues, we're just making sure we get some wording that we can work with here.

In French, it already says that.

In English, what we have here is “persons who have diagnosed conditions that are likely to put their own lives and/or the lives of other people in danger”.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

It's the same destination, just different roads. I'm fine.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Ms. Damoff.

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

Could you repeat that in English, again?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Of course. I'm amenable to “their own life” or “their own lives”, but I'm assuming we'd go with the singular, “who have diagnosed conditions that are likely to put their own life and/or the lives of other people in danger”.

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

That's fine.