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.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thanks, Chair.
We agree with the removal of “or were”, so that part isn't an issue.
We prefer the wording that the NDP and Bloc have put forward in the next amendments, so while we'll be voting against CPC-17 in favour of...I guess the NDP one will be the first that we get to, it's not because of the removal of the words “or were”. It's because we feel that the addition that is put into NDP-3 is important.
We'll vote against CPC-17 in favour of the next one.
9:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I agree with the sentiment that's expressed by CPC-17, but I think it's more specific if we add the additional elements that are in NDP-3. I also agree with the spirit of what CPC-17 represents, but I will be voting against so that we can get NDP-3. It does very similar things to CPC-17, but adds “convicted of an offence”.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We will get to PV-2 first, but it's essentially the same situation.
Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.
9:35 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My comments are similar to those of Ms. Damoff and Mr. Julian.
I have nothing against CPC‑17, but I find that NDP‑3 is more comprehensive. I prefer to drop CPC‑17 and vote in favour of NDP‑3.
Thank you.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay, thank you.
If there aren't any further interventions, as noted, if this passes then PV-2 and NDP-3 cannot be moved.
9:35 p.m.
A voice
It's also BQ-7.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
It's BQ-7 as well. In any case, there are consequences. Let's have the vote on CPC-17.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We'll have a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
CPC-17 is defeated.
Mr. Julian.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I received a text from Ms. May, who gave me the green light to move NDP-3, as she is not able to attend tonight.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
PV-2 is actually moved automatically by the House order.
However, if we defeat PV-2, we cannot then move NDP-3, because they are essentially identical. If we pass PV-2, we also can't pass NDP-3 because they are identical.
I suggest that if we want to get to NDP-3, we can remove PV-2 by unanimous consent.
Do we have unanimous consent to remove PV-2?
(Amendment withdrawn)
All right. It is removed, with apologies to Ms. May.
That brings us to NDP-3, in the name of, in this case, Mr. Julian, apparently.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. May sends her greetings. She hopes to be here at committee at some point. It probably won't be tonight, but she may be through tomorrow night.
NDP-3 is recommended by the National Association of Women and the Law and other organizations. It is perhaps similar to CPC-17, but would add an additional element, which is that an individual “is not eligible to hold a licence if they are subject to a protection order”—which is current—“or have been convicted of an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against their intimate partner or any member of their family.”
It addresses some of the concerns of CPC-17, but also adds those “convicted of an offence in the commission of which violence was used”.
I move NDP-3.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Thank you. This is something that's better, but I have some questions. You can agree with it, but I think it's always important to see how this is going to be implemented.
Maybe this is for the officials.
If someone goes to a protection hearing and they become subject to a protection order, what is the process by which a licence is revoked? Does the court communicate that to the Canadian firearms program? Does the spouse have to alert the Canadian firearms program that this order has been put in place?
How do you think that process would work?
9:40 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The chief firearms officer would obviously have to be advised by the court of the protection order, potentially by a similar process to the one that exists when the courts issue a firearms prohibition order. They advise the chief firearms officer directly. That's how we would envision the process to be, potentially.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
There already is a process in the case of firearms prohibition orders whereby you are alerted, so this would be a fairly straightforward addition for the court to alert.
9:45 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I believe section 89 of the Firearms Act tells the courts they have to advise the chief firearms officer directly of a firearms prohibition order.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
What would the process be?
Once the licence is removed, technically the person is in possession of firearms illegally. Is there a grace period while the police go in or while they have a chance to turn in their firearms to police?
Is there a potential that they could get charged for possession of these firearms between the time their licence has been revoked and the time the firearms are picked up by the police or by other means?
9:45 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
A revocation notice is issued by the chief firearms officer to the individual. It tells them that they have to dispose of their firearms in a certain way in a certain period of time.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
9:45 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It depends. In a lot of cases, the firearms have already been removed by law enforcement from the individual. It's usually as soon as possible, based on the circumstances.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I'd just hate to see a situation where maybe there was a 24-hour or 48-hour period and then something drastic happened because the process failed to take it into account.
We write these things in laws; they sound good and everyone can agree with them, but then when they're put into practice, sometimes they can have fatal consequences. It doesn't mean we shouldn't move forward with these laws, but I think it means we need to....
Looking at this legislation.... I'm not sure if you've seen this amendment before. Are there processes so that you think you can implement this in a safe way for the protection of all parties involved?
9:45 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes, we believe we can.
