Evidence of meeting #66 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I just want to say that this is an excellent amendment. It's one that's been well thought out. I believe it was a recommendation from the National Association of Women and the Law. We'll be happy to support it.
9:45 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The same is true for the Bloc Québécois. In fact, if we had been able to get there, we would have seen that BQ‑7 proposes exactly the same thing as NDP‑3. This is a request from the National Association of Women and the Law, so I will be supporting this amendment.
Thank you.
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Are there any further interventions?
Mr. Calkins, you have one minute and 39 seconds.
May 10th, 2023 / 9:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Can the officials explain the difference between the test of a conviction versus the test of having a protection order issued?
9:45 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
A conviction is recorded by the court.
I'll maybe lean on my colleagues from Justice to answer that in terms of.... The information is then entered, I believe, into CPIC.
I'll turn it over to my colleagues from Justice.
9:45 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
I would appreciate a bit of clarification of the question.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
The amendment actually has the same consequence, but I'm asking about the test to have a protection order granted versus the test that has to be met in a court of law to convict somebody. Those are different tests.
I'm wondering if you can just tell me—I sincerely don't know—what the test is that must be met in order for a court to issue a protection order versus a court to issue a guilty verdict, because those are completely different things for which the consequence is the same. I wonder if the consequence meets the tests appropriately.
9:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I might start and then turn it over to my colleague.
There's no definition in the Criminal Code for a protection order. This would bring a new definition into the Firearms Act for specific purposes. There are varying orders in the Criminal Code. Some are precharge; some are post charge, and some are after conviction. There are myriad types of orders.
If we're speaking specifically about sentencing orders, maybe my colleague can weigh in on what that does.
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Calkins is actually out of time. If you could give a quick answer, that would be good.
9:45 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
I'll do my best to be quick.
If I understand the question correctly, a conviction can be made out.... The test, so to speak, would depend on the particular charge. The elements of that offence have to be proved, depending on what offence the person is charged with. If I understand you correctly, you're asking about the evidentiary standard that applies in a criminal trial, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Equally, for the provisions under which a protection order may be granted, there may be many of those. The test for that particular order could change, depending on what the requirements of that legislation or specific provision are. That would include the evidentiary standard that applies. The provision that makes the order available would also tend to indicate the level of evidence that's required to prove that.
I could say, at least, that of the protection orders that I'm aware of, that's generally either reasonable and probable grounds or a balance of probabilities, depending on what that particular legislation shows.
If I understand the question, criminal trials operate by the highest evidentiary standard known to criminal law, and protection orders operate by lower standards.
9:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We're going to have to call that an answer. Thank you.
Are there any further interventions?
I see none.
If NDP-3 passes, BQ-7 cannot be moved, because of a line conflict.
Let's have the vote. All in favour of NDP-3? All opposed?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
BQ-7 cannot therefore be moved, because of a line conflict.
(Clause 16 as amended agreed to)
That brings us to new clause 16.1. That's G-41, which is in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.
Ms. Damoff, please.
9:50 p.m.
Liberal
9:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay. That takes us to clause 17.
(Clause 17 agreed to)
(Clauses 18 to 21 inclusive agreed to on division)
9:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Now we go to new clause 21.1 and amendment BQ-8.
The floor is yours, Ms. Michaud.
9:50 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For those who have just joined us, BQ‑8 is an amendment that is consistent with BQ‑3, which is intended to add the requirement to have a possession and acquisition licence to acquire a magazine in the same manner as ammunition. Three amendments have already been unanimously adopted by the committee. This amendment is really clear.
Therefore, I propose that Bill C‑21 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 18 the following new clause:
21.1 Section 25 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 25(1) and is amended by adding the following:
(2) A person may transfer a cartridge magazine that is not prescribed to be a prohibited device only if the individual holds a licence authorizing him or her to possess firearms.
This amendment is in the same spirit as the previous amendments. Its purpose is to request that a valid licence be required for the acquisition of a magazine. I hope that my colleagues will be consistent with previous positions and will be able to vote in favour of this amendment.
Thank you.
9:55 p.m.
Liberal
9:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I'm somewhat concerned that this is adding a lot of duplication to the Criminal Code, because it seems to me that a person may transfer a cartridge magazine that is not prescribed to be a prohibited device—so a legal cartridge—only if the individual holds a licence authorizing him or her. I believe we've already passed an amendment that people are required to have a licence to purchase a magazine.
I'm wondering, and maybe the officials could answer here, if there is anything in this amendment that really does anything, considering that we've already passed legislation requiring people to have a licence to purchase these magazines, and presumably to have possession of the magazines as well. It would seem that this is a duplication in the law.
9:55 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The previous motions with regard to BQ-3 and BQ-4 were really adding to the purpose of the Firearms Act. It talks about the intent and what the objectives are of the scope of the Firearms Act. BQ-5 added it to a list of items that one cannot possess, and then BQ-8 is actually where it says that you need the licence in order to transfer or acquire a cartridge magazine. They had different purposes, and it's not the other ones that actually added a licence requirement. This is the one that would add the licence requirement.
9:55 p.m.
Conservative
