Public Safety Committee on May 9th, 2023

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Motz is using the time allotted for debate on amendment CPC‑3 to talk more broadly about clause 4. I'd also like to make general comments about clause 4. I'm wondering when the best time to do that would be. Could I do it while we're discussing this amendment, for example? Should we instead ask questions about clause 4 right before it goes to a vote, after we've voted on all amendments to the clause?

What is the usual procedure? I'd like some clarifications.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We would normally speak on clause 3 when we're talking about clause 3, and on clause 4 when we get to clause 4.

This is CPC-3. I should note that, if CPC-3 passes, then CPC-4 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Anyway, we are engaged in a debate on matters relating to clause 4 of the bill. I would certainly urge all members to stick to clause 4 as much as possible. Thank you.

Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I certainly take exception to Mr. Julian's assertion that this is a filibuster.

We have heard—and you weren't here when this occurred—individual witness after witness try to urge the government to stay away from the red flag laws. Leave them the way they are. This bill makes a mockery of them, and it actually puts victims at risk. That's exactly why—

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

On a point of order, Chair, the amendment we're talking about is still looking at having “A member of the immediate family of a person or a person who resides with that person” being able to go to court. The Conservatives are not talking about deleting the clause. They're talking about limiting who can, and what they're doing is ensuring that an ex-partner of someone who abuses them or stalks them is not able to take advantage of red flag.

I think Mr. Motz needs to make up his mind. Either he wants to delete it or he's going to talk about CPC-3, which is still allowing a member of the immediate family to go to court to get the red flag, so it is actually keeping red flag, in spite of what he's saying.

I know that he says he's not filibustering, but he's talking about two different things. If he wants to keep to CPC-3 and make it relevant to what we're actually debating, that would be really helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I have Mr. Julian on the same point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Conservatives may be confused—they haven't done their homework on this bill—but they shouldn't be holding up the committee having not done their homework.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for your interventions.

I certainly would encourage all members to stick very closely to the clause we're dealing with.

I'm assuming that Mr. Motz will come back to that in quick order, I hope.

Mr. Motz, go ahead.

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

Thank you. I appreciate the enlightened interventions.

One of the things I want to make very clear is that I will acquiesce in the conversation about red flag laws, but I do not support them. I have never supported them. I will tell you why I don't support them. I don't support them because they will cause more significant harm to those who are seeking to be saved, those who are looking for intervention.

The current legislation, as it is written, is pretty adamant about what needs to be done. If the red flag laws remain in this bill.... I hope that the witnesses, whom all of you have heard, will make you realize that they actually put people at risk, as opposed to helping what you're trying to do, but if that portion of the bill passes, this amendment, CPC-3, is meant to soften that impact, to soften the requirements for that.

Again, like I said, I personally cannot support this. I'll get into that at a further intervention with regard to my experience in dealing with this exact issue.

That's all I have to say about CPC-3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

We go now to Ms. Damoff, who will be followed by Mr. Shipley.

Go ahead.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'll comment on a couple of the things Mr. Motz spoke about.

His amendment is limiting it to “A member of the immediate family of a person or a person who resides with that person”, so it's severely limiting who can go to court. While we did hear from women's organizations about red flags, I would point out that doctors came and were very supportive of it.

Halton Women's Place in my riding has women come to the shelter who are the spouses of police officers, so the option for them to go to the police is not an option. While I recognize that the police should be doing their job, these women are not comfortable calling the police, so we're leaving them without any tools to get that firearm taken out of the home. I recognize that other parties are not supportive of red flags, but I would point out that there are women who are in relationships and who can't rely on the police.

Mr. Motz, indigenous women are also subject to the section 7 right to life. I'll have more to say on that when we get to that particular amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

We go now to Mr. Shipley, who will be followed by Mr. Julian.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll bring this up now because the member opposite just mentioned how medical professionals are in favour of that. I'd like to read a few quotes to differentiate the opinion on that, if I may.

I will note that the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians were initially supportive of Bill C-21's red flag laws, but as of October 21 have reversed their position completely. They do not support the current provisions and prefer a reporting mechanism for physicians.

Mr. Alan Drummond of the CAEP tweeted, “the problem, as I see it, with Canada's proposed Red Flag Law is that it is heavy on the judiciary and court process and equally burdensome on the vulnerable for whom the process may seem intimidating and an exercise in futility.”

He also went on to say, “The government cannot expect the victims of Intimate Partner Violence, in a climate of fear, to initiate the onerous task of court proceedings and places yet another and unwelcome barrier to those seeking safety for themselves and their families” and “We are supportive of the concept of Red Flag Laws but not THIS Red Flag law.”

Dr. Atul Kapur of the CAEP stated:

...we have concerns that, in its present form, the language in the bill will have very limited effectiveness.

...We continue to maintain that this is far from the timely responsiveness that is required. We, as emergency physicians, must be able to report the incident or a patient at higher risk to the police directly in order to protect the individual and their friends and families. When minutes and hours count, taking days or weeks to act is indefensible.

This applies to patients who are at a high risk of suicidality, but do not reach the level of needing to be admitted to hospital. It also applies to patients with a history of dementia and impulsive behaviour, and particularly to patients whom we identify to be at risk of domestic or interpersonal violence.

Dr. Atul Kapur also stated:

Placing the onus on victims of interpersonal violence or on a family member of a depressed person or demented parent is largely unworkable and an unwelcome hindrance to getting the guns temporarily out of the homes of those in crisis.

Also, the Canadian Bar Association stated:

Some have argued that the proposed provisions are a useful suicide prevention tool. We find that the deployment of tactical teams and subjecting mentally ill people to high stress situations with possible criminal consequences is not a suitable means of handling this issue. In fact, it poses the very real risk that mentally ill individuals will not seek help and instead conceal issues fearing that their doctor, psychiatrist, or any other person might seek these heavy sanctions against them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

We go now to Mr. Julian, followed by Monsieur Paul-Hus.

Mr. Julian, please go ahead.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Briefly, Mr. Chair, we have Conservatives speaking to the wrong amendment. I think we're at the point where the House will have to direct this committee. It has been weeks now. We've been unable to get additional committee hours. We are seeing, as well, the fact that Conservatives aren't speaking to the amendment. They're speaking to a different amendment. This kind of filibuster, given the importance of getting the bill through, and given the importance law enforcement has attached to the ghost gun provisions coming through....

I think it's time the House....

I know you're doing the best job you can, Mr. Chair, but the Conservatives just want to stop up this bill. They're not wanting to bring it through. I think that's clear to everybody who's been watching the deliberations of this committee for the last couple of weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Paul‑Hus, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe the Conservative Party does some quite meaningful work. We put forward amendments that are designed to make things better. I am not a permanent member of the committee, and what I find most fascinating is that we seem to forget the victims' groups themselves have made it clear that there are issues with the “red flag” regime. So I don't see why the government won't budge and is fighting what we're proposing. I should point out that Ms. Rathjen, the spokesperson for PolyRemembers, has clearly stated that the regime doesn't work. Louise Riendeau of the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale said the same thing, and others have too.

We're trying to see if we can make some changes. The amendments seek to change things that even the victims say don't work. The Conservatives are there to defend the victims. So it's strange that we have to fight the Liberal government. It's often portrayed like it's the other way around. Anyway, we're proposing amendments based on what we heard from victims' groups. I am sponsoring Bill C‑325 and I'm currently meeting with some of those groups. Their representatives constantly tell me that the burden is always on the victims, and that's what we're trying to avoid. That's why we want to remove the “red flag” measure, because it doesn't work.

To answer my colleague from the NDP, I'd say that we're not wasting our time here. This is fundamental. Victims are the primary people affected by this bill, but what they've told us is being dismissed. So we're working on proposing amendments to improve things, but we don't seem to be getting much receptivity here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Next will be Mr. Shipley, followed by Ms. Damoff, followed by Mr. Motz.

Mr. Shipley, go ahead.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Chair, I have to make an interjection to what Mr. Julian suggested after my speaking.

To my honourable colleague, the member across from me, Ms. Damoff, brought up that doctors were supportive of it and you didn't say a word—not a word.

I have some information in front of me. You mentioned that we haven't done our research, but I obviously beg to differ. I mentioned four or five paragraphs that proved that doctors were against it. You took great offence to what I said.

Sir, I will look you in the eyes and tell you I'm not filibustering. I'm trying to do my job.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Please speak through the chair.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Chair, that was through you.

I am not filibustering. We have a job to do. We've been elected to do this. I could sit here and talk about this all day, but I'm not going to.

I'm just sick and tired that every time we say something, Mr. Julian defends the Liberals on their side. They were saying the exact.... It was not exact. It was actually the opposite. We're debating. That's what we're here to do.

It was fine when Ms. Damoff brought up the medical doctors. There was no issue there. Our side is trying to counter that and it's a big problem.

I take offence, Chair, to what was said last time after I finished. I just wanted to get that off my chest. We can carry on, but I am not filibustering. I'm trying to prove some points and do my job.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

I think we have Ms. Damoff and then Mr. Motz.

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

I'll go back to the fact that the Conservatives have still not talked about CPC-3, which is the amendment in front of us. Perhaps they should have moved to delete the whole clause, because that's what they seem to be debating.

CPC-3 says that only an immediate family member or someone who resides with a person is able to get a court order. I wonder if the Conservatives could explain to the committee, in CPC-3, why they feel that only immediate family members should be eligible and not, for example, a woman whose ex-partner is stalking and threatening her. This is the amendment that we have before us.

The Conservatives haven't put forward an amendment to delete clause 4. That's all they've talked about.

The amendment says that it's only an immediate family member. Could they perhaps speak to their amendment and explain to the committee why someone who is no longer living with an individual who continues to harass and stalk and threaten them should not be part of the bill?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Motz, you're up next, if you wish.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I will take the first part of this intervention to address Mr. Julian.

This committee waited for six and a half weeks. Your assertion that we are filibustering is actually rather offensive. As Mr. Shipley said, we have a job to do.

Your party, your rural members, probably won't be here the next time around if this is voted through as it is right now. That's the reality. That's what we're hearing from NDP rural ridings across this country. If that's the route you want to take and want to act as the Liberal House leader, then you go ahead and do that. It will be at your own demise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Speak through the Chair, if you will, please.