Public Safety Committee on May 9th, 2023

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

This particular amendment deals with deleting line 37 on page 3 to line 5 on page 4, deleting lines 15 to 17 on page 5, and replacing lines 34 to 37 on page 5 with the following:

110.1(3) or the warrant issued under subsection 110.1(5) shall—subject to any terms and

The whole idea of CPC-7 is to require a warrant to search and seize for ex parte hearings. It lowers the chance of malicious false claims.

The whole idea behind this is going back to the fact that the whole of the red flag laws should be done away with. This is exactly the issue that many people who spoke at this committee and who were against red flag laws were suggesting would happen if we don't put some measures in there to require some due diligence on behalf of those applying ex parte.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

Ms. Damoff, would you like to speak?

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

Yes.

Mr. Motz has mentioned a few times “malicious false claims”. I really do think it's unfortunate that women who complain about abuse are being tarred with “malicious false claims” and the presumption that women are coming forward with all of these false claims.

We're not supporting this amendment, but I do find it quite offensive that he keeps referring to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I have Mr. Motz.

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

What I find offensive, Mr. Chair, is the assertion that this is what I'm actually saying. Obviously, somebody's not paying attention or has a preconceived bias as to what it is that we're trying to do. If this bill actually tries to make women safer—make people who are facing domestic violence safer—then let's do that. Let's not just pay lip service to it. Let's not just do a little dance and try to make somebody happy.

Let's actually try to do it. The real world is that there are individuals—male and female, neighbours, whoever—who actually make false claims, with no evidence. What we're saying is that we need evidence to act.

We need to be responsible and judicious with our comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Are there any further interventions? I see none.

(Amendment negatived)

That brings us to CPC-8, also in the name of Ms. Dancho.

Mr. Motz, do you wish to go ahead with this?

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

In this one we're talking about clause 4 again. The amendment would replace lines 7 to 18 on page 4 with the following wording:

subsection (5) shall immediately make a return to the provincial court judge who issued the warrant showing the things or documents, if any, seized and the date of execution of the warrant.

It would also replace line 20 on page 4 with the following:

from a person against whom an order has been

That's against whom it's been “made”, obviously.

The idea here is that we know that law enforcement can already apply to conduct searches and seizure without a warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe that such a thing is necessary. There's no need for anonymous individuals to have this ability pre-emptively. That's the issue.

Again, this requires a bit of a softening from the current position so that both sides of this conversation have some assurances that the process is done fairly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Are there any further interventions? I am seeing none.

(Amendment negatived)

I believe, Madam Michaud, you wished to speak to clause 4 in general.

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

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This committee has talked a great deal about the “red flag” measure. We've had experts come and tell us more about the issue, particularly the impact the measure could have on people's lives. I must say that at first glance, it looked like a promising measure that would protect women. So I was very surprised when I heard women tell the committee that it wouldn't help them any more, and even that it could be harmful to them.

I want to read an excerpt from a letter the National Association of Women and the Law sent to the Minister of Public Safety on May 16, 2022, specifically addressing the “red flag” measure:

There is no support for downloading or eroding the responsibility of law enforcement and other government officials to implement gun laws. They are, and must remain, responsible and accountable for ensuring that firearms licenses are denied and revoked when there are potential risks to women. Citizens or other organizations, much less potential victims, should not be expected to put themselves at risk by going to court to request action that should be immediate and within the direct responsibility of police. It is widely recognized that women are in greatest danger during and after separation. Shifting the onus of enforcement to women and third parties, as Bill C‑21's “Red Flag” provisions attempt to do, is a guaranteed route to increased fatality. We do support efforts to use all mechanisms currently available in the system, coupled with additional powers and community education, to identify risks and to expeditiously remove firearms from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or any other person.

What this association is trying to say is that we currently have tools available to women and they do not need this additional tool, this “red flag” type of measure proposed in Bill C‑21.

They provide the following examples:

In the cases of the Portapique massacre, the Desmond family shooting and many other cases...people were aware of patterns of threats and violence against women. In some cases, police were in fact notified, but no action was taken. If women's safety is of genuine concern to your government, the following specific measures and interventions are required...

Most of the measures outlined by the National Association of Women and the Law are already in place. I'm going to save you the trouble of reading all of this, but I would encourage my colleagues, particularly those in the Liberal Party, to read the concerns that the association voices and the recommendations it makes.

This letter was written on behalf of several other organizations, which I want to take the time to mention. These are recognized organizations from all over Quebec and Canada. These individuals work directly with women who may be affected. They are on the ground and know the situation well, so I feel these are the individuals we need to listen to. They are YWCA Toronto, the Canadian Women's Foundation, Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children, Women's Shelter Canada, Calgary Legal Guidance, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action and the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. The letter was endorsed by many other organizations, such as the National Council of Women of Canada.

In addition, PolyRemembers made it clear to us how harmful this measure might be to women.

I want to clearly state that this is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against all clauses of this bill that deal with the “red flag” measure. Since clause 4 is the first that deals with it, I wanted to say it now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Next is Mr. Motz, followed by Mr. Paul-Hus and Ms. Damoff.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Since we we're talking about clause 4, with Mr. Julian's indulgence, I will continue to talk about why red flag laws are a problem, based on the testimony we heard at committee.

The Canadian Bar Association said this:

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.

The defence lawyer Mr. Friedman said the following:

The concern is that the courts will be flooded with people with complaints that have been investigated by the police and found to be meritless.

We don't need more backlog in our courts when the police are already taking extensive enforcement action on firearms public safety concerns.

He went on to suggest this:

Access to justice is an enormous problem right now.... We are waiting 12 to 18 months for a trial in those courts....

...by cutting out that screening mechanism of police investigation, we're essentially inviting people to flood the courts. They're almost all going to be self-represented individuals, which poses all sorts of other challenges.... They should be going to the police.

He went on to say the following:

[We're] basically creating a funnel such that the only people who are going to access that resource are people who have been denied by the police. They've been denied by the police because the police take their jobs very seriously.

...In almost 15 years of practice, I've never seen that. I've seen...far more overzealous police enforcement than absolutely non-reactive.

The Canadian Bar Association also added another couple of quotes:

Section 110.2(1) is particularly worrisome because of criminal charges that arise from s.110.1 weapons prohibition order. It’s unclear how a s.110.2(1) order denying access to information would apply with the Crown’s disclosure obligations under R. v. Stinchcombe, if criminal charges are laid against the subject of a s.110.1 weapons prohibition. Section 110.2(1) as written will make it ripe for Charter litigation surrounding an accused’s right to a fair trial and full answer and defence.

They also say this:

Police officers themselves are vulnerable to false complaints under these provisions. An aggrieved individual, who was arrested, can present a one-sided account of the interaction in court. There is no cross-examination or any ability to check records. Their identity can be sealed, preventing a further investigation. Under the current law, the initial seizure result is the revocation of licenses, which allows police or the military to continue to perform duties until they respond to the allegations. The new provisions would result in a firearm prohibition that removes the officer from active duty.

That was from the Canadian Bar Association.

There are two last ones.

The firearms expert Tony Bernardo from the Canadian Shooting Sports Association said the following:

...we've been living with red flag laws for 25 years now. This is not new. This is an enhancement of existing laws. For 25 years now, if someone were to make a complaint that they were being threatened with a firearm, the police would have the ability to come right that minute and remove the firearm. That's in Bill C-68, in the Firearms Act. That's been around for a long time.

A. J. Somerset, the author of Arms: The Culture and Credo of the Gun, put it this way:

If this is viewed as being a way of protecting people who are at risk, women in abusive relationships, for example, I think it's asking a lot of those people to figure out...how to go to...[court], how to make this application, how to make sure that application gets heard quickly.

Mr. Chair, it is abundantly obvious to me that these red flag provisions create more harm than they do good for those whom we are trying to protect who are vulnerable and who face domestic violence situations.

I will tell you, from first-hand experience from actually doing these investigations for many years, when police receive a complaint that there is a domestic violence situation, that situation—especially over the last 15 years plus—has been taken extremely seriously.

There is an immediate response. There is a fulsome investigation. There is authority to seize firearms immediately, to hold those firearms, to take statements from witnesses and to put the accused in custody, if there is evidence, and to have them before the courts on a bail hearing. Those provisions don't exist in these red flag laws. They actually create an opportunity for the abuser to continue to abuse and confusion for the victim. I'm astounded by what I see here. It's really a failed attempt to actually make a difference.

If a neighbour calls the police, currently we respond to domestic assaults. If a spouse or anybody else calls and believes that a person is in imminent danger, for example, we determine whether there are firearms in the residence. We determine the safety risk. We involve our victim services unit. We involve whatever resource we need to ensure the safety of this victim and then the proper dealing with the accused. The ability to report a spouse or a public safety concern with a firearm has existed since the Firearms Act was passed into law in 1995.

With the current legislation—outside of what is trying to be done here with this new Bill C-21—there are currently four escalating options that exist in law.

First, under the Firearms Act, the chief firearms officer can give notice to revoke a licence. The person may continue to keep firearms while disputing the revocation in court. This is a revocation of a licence, not a prohibition order.

Second, a police officer or a CFO can apply to a provincial court for a prohibition order if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that it is not in the best interests of safety. Notice is given and the firearm owner can provide evidence and contest the order at a hearing.

Third, a police officer may seek a warrant for search and seizure. It can be done without notice, but it also cancels the firearms licence, and there is no prohibition until after a full hearing.

Fourth, in pressing circumstances, as I said previously, police have the authority to go straight to seizing a firearm if they deem it is in the best interests of public safety to do so, like ongoing domestic assault, a suicide attempt, etc. There is no firearms prohibition until the court hearing. If the police do this properly, they must go back through the warrant process.

What we heard at committee from witnesses was that this provision gives ordinary citizens in this country extraordinary powers to cause search and seizure of a legal owner's property with an “act first, ask questions later”. As we heard at committee, this is rife with opportunities for abuse.

As I said, police have authority to confiscate firearms on public safety grounds and can do so efficiently through existing legislation. We know that the courts are currently extremely backlogged, and the prohibition order that removes firearms without notice or dispute may potentially have grave impacts on military or police if it's not followed according to the existing law.

As I've said, the goal of any legislation, specifically around Bill C-21, should be the protection of Canadians—public safety. If we have a provision that is absolutely contrary to what the bill's supposed attention is, then why are we continuing to push it? I would suggest that the government should consider absolutely removing this clause. I can't support it—I won't support it—but the government should be looking at removing clauses with anything to do with red flag laws completely from this bill.

We have heard from countless witnesses, and I've only mentioned a few and read their testimony at this committee, who say, “Please stop. You're putting the people we work with, people in our communities, at risk by continuing to pursue red flag laws in this legislation. Stop it.”

With that, I would say that we need to do just that. We need to listen to the experts we had here in committee and actually defeat this clause in the bill.

Thank you.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

There's only one minute left in this committee meeting. A little bit like Charlie Brown with the football, I'm going to try one more time and ask for unanimous consent that we extend the committee meeting until midnight tonight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Do we have unanimous consent for this proposal?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We do not. I should point out—I should have done so earlier—that we can go until seven o'clock. We have a hard stop at seven o'clock. Is it the will of the committee to do so?

We don't require unanimous consent to do so. Certainly, in light of the fact that we've had delays due to votes and so forth and a delay starting, it is the inclination of the chair to carry on until a hard stop at seven o'clock.

If there's no strong objection to that, we'll go now to Mr. Paul-Hus on this clause.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The debate over Bill C‑21 is very political. We've had a lot of misinformation and accusations on both sides of the floor. However, when it comes to the “red flag” measure, one thing is certain: we're talking about facts.

First of all, I like to say that I agree with my colleague Ms. Michaud of the Bloc Québécois. We Conservatives came to the same conclusion. At first, we looked favourably on introducing the “red flag” measure, but we must admit that, according to the victims' groups themselves, the measure doesn't work at all.

I know I'm kind of repeating what my colleague said, but I want to say it in French, especially since I didn't understand everything he said.

I'm talking about organizations like the National Association of Women and the Law, for example. The committee heard from Heidi Rathjen, for example, of PolyRemembers, a prominent group in this debate, as we know. These individuals made it clear to the Liberal government that they shouldn't pass the red flag legislation because it's not good for women, for victims. Louise Riendeau of the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale said the same thing. If anyone knows what they're talking about here, it's the individuals who work with victims, with women who live in fear on a daily basis. It's important to consider what these individuals have told the committee.

On that note, I want to tell my colleague from the NDP that we're not filibustering, we're establishing key facts. Bill C‑21 goes beyond firearms. We're talking about regulations that directly affect victims. The Liberal government is pushing these regulations forward when we don't understand why. The Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party agree that this doesn't work, as the victims' groups have made clear.

The same thing goes for the police, who are responsible for enforcing the law. Police officers deal with women who call them because they are in trouble and afraid. They, too, say the proposed measure doesn't work.

With respect to Indigenous groups, it seems to me that we usually hear from them. I remember when I was a member of this committee and we were studying Bill C‑71, the Liberals didn't want to hear from Indigenous people about the transfer of firearms. It's strange, but I called one Indigenous person to appear and they explained to us that they did not feel the measure worked.

Committees have a duty to hear from everyone, especially when it comes to critical bills affecting public safety.

My colleague Ms. Damoff said earlier that physicians agreed. It's funny, they agreed at first, but after studying the issue, analyzing it and checking things out, they completely changed their minds. On October 21, the association stated that it could not support the measure, which did not work, and it gave its reasons.

I'd like to understand why the Liberals are maintaining a pro-“red flag” position. Let's remember that we're not talking about weapons here. I know the Liberals like to do some marketing and speak specifically of the tool the firearm is. This is really about protecting victims in their relationships with spouses. Everyone is saying that we shouldn't do this because it's dangerous for victims. Why won't the Liberals budge?

As I said, this measure was introduced because at first we thought, myself included, that the idea made sense, but in the end we realize that it doesn't work. Why not just remove it?

That's why, as my colleague Mr. Motz said, we will vote against this clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Paul‑Hus.

We'll go now to Ms. Damoff.

Please, go ahead.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Just before I start, I wonder if officials could tell us what sections we're losing if we delete the red flag provisions.

[Phaedra Glushek]

I would like to clarify with respect to my earlier testimony—and I apologize to the committee—that it's clauses 4 to 11, which would include both the emergency weapon prohibition order and the emergency limitation on access order. It would be clauses 4 to 11.

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

Thank you.

I recognize that the other parties are not supporting this provision in the bill. I actually hope the Conservatives will listen to all of the same groups that they quoted here today, like PolySeSouvient, Coalition for Gun Control and Dr. Alan Drummond, as we're dealing with other parts of the bill, because they've selectively pulled quotes from them. Halton Women's Place sent a letter to this committee in support of red flag provisions. The Doctors for Protection from Guns also sent information and appeared at committee in support of it. There is a difference of opinion on it.

I remain of the belief that this would be one more tool in the tool box that would be available to doctors and also to women who are unable to go to the police. The Doctors for Protection from Guns said:

We support the proposed “red flag” law. Family members, physicians and concerned individuals must have access to an efficient process to quickly have firearms removed from someone who may be at risk to themselves or others.

In Canada, suicide accounts for about 75% of gun deaths. A gun in the home increases adolescent suicide rates by threefold to fourfold. Evidence from other jurisdictions shows that “red flag” laws are effective in reducing firearm suicides.

Most people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. This is why restricting access to lethal means saves lives. Suicide attempts with a gun are almost uniformly fatal.

That was from Dr. Najma Ahmed.

I am disappointed and I appreciate the comments that were made about women's groups. I've met with them multiple times on this provision, and we've agreed to disagree, but we are taking a tool away from women like those who go to Halton Women's Place, who are living with police officers who are using their firearms to threaten them.

Anyway, Chair, I will leave it at that. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

I will go now to Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you to the member opposite for your passionate words. I hear what you're saying, Ms. Damoff. We've sat here through I don't know how many meetings and hours. There have been a lot. You mentioned a couple of groups, Ms. Damoff, who were supportive, but we have pages and pages and have heard testimony from stakeholders who almost unanimously feel as though the red flag measures are going to be costly, ineffective and redundant.

I do have to rely on my good colleague Mr. Motz, who has been in policing for 35 years, and I'm sure Mr. Chiang has a lot more information and expertise on this than I do, as, quite frankly, maybe a lot of people around this table do. I can't speak for everybody, but we have to rely on them and we have to make our best decisions on the information that we've been given. If we don't listen to the witnesses who came in to speak to us, then what really are we doing and why are we bothering bringing them in?

Under section 117 of the Criminal Code, police services have the authority to act immediately with or without a warrant when there's a genuine concern for public safety. The police currently have the power to seek a warrant to seize firearms in several circumstances. These powers are currently sufficient and preferable.

Red flag measures lead to secret hearings and complaints, in which the complainant is prevented from mounting a defence and afterwards is barred from seeking access to information related to a prohibition order. Canada's court system is already significantly under-resourced and backlogged. This measure is ineffective in an emergency because the process of going before a judge to get a prohibition order as proposed to that in Bill C-21 will take at least a day if not a lot longer in some areas. Red flag measures are likely to lead to significant charter litigation surrounding the accused's rights to a fair trial and a full answer in defence.

All we can do, Chair, is make our best decisions, and I won't be supporting this today. I do feel this is going to hinder going forward. I think what's on the books currently is a better option. That's just from what I have heard from all of the witnesses and, as I said, from some of the experts who I am here with. I can't support this today and I'll leave it to the rest of my colleagues to listen to what their words are.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

Are there any more interventions?

Seeing none, I'll ask for a recorded vote.

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Thank you, all.

I should have mentioned that the question was “Shall clause 4 carry as amended?” Anyway, I believe it has carried.

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

How was it amended, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It was amended by all those other amendments that we did. Amendment G-14, for example, was an amendment to clause 4.