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.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay.
Before we go to the vote, I should advise that BQ-6, PV-1 and NDP-2 are essentially the same, so if we pass this, the others become moot.
I will call—
May 10th, 2023 / 9:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, they are actually separate, because one of them says that they “presently pose a risk”, and the other one says that they “did pose a risk”, so they are actually distinct.
I believe they are distinct motions, but I would maybe defer to the legislative clerk.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
If we pass this one, we can't pass those. It's moot—isn't that right?
9:30 p.m.
NDP
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay. With all that being said, let us conduct a vote.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 16)
Thank you, all.
We'll skip PV-1 and NDP-2.
I've been advised there are some more refreshments in the back if we want to suspend, but I'm proposing that we go for another half-hour before we do that.
All right. We go now to CPC-17. That is in the name of Ms. Dancho.
Mr. Lloyd, do you wish to move it?
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I'll move it.
Do I need to read it into the record, Mr. Chair?
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was speaking to the National Association of Women and the Law and other groups earlier on when we were going through this bill, and concern was expressed because protection orders are usually decided by consent between both parties. There was concern that if we pass laws that are too heavy-handed, which say you must revoke a licence or you must do all these things if somebody has ever been subject to a protection order, it would actually result in more contested hearings over protection orders. Certainly we wouldn't want to increase the contestation of these protection orders. I think having them mostly consensus-based is a positive thing.
Sometimes the situations are very fluid. I believe that we need to trust in the discretion of our chief firearms officers and the Canadian firearms program to determine whether somebody who has previously been subject to a protection order is truly a threat to public safety, so I think this has merit.
I want to talk to one of the witnesses who might know some things about this.
Generally, when somebody has been subject to a protection order, that comes up in the screening process. Is that not true? What process do you do?
I apologize if you've already explained this, but what's your process? Is it a balance of probabilities? How do you determine whether or not that is a barrier to somebody getting a firearms licence?
9:30 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
You are correct. The chief firearms officer would be made aware of protection orders against an individual through the courts. The CFO, under section 5, would take that element and any other element that they would have had to investigate for the individual's eligibility to hold a licence.
I can't speak to the exact details of how the protection order would have made the CFO decide to take an action against somebody holding a licence, because the protection order information would vary.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Just to clarify, I'm not talking about people who are presently subject to a protection order. This is talking about people who were previously subject to a protection order.
Is that information, that they were previously subject to a protection order, shared with the CFO when somebody's applying for a licence or getting their licence renewed?
9:35 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I don't know, actually.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I guess that's something we generally have to disclose, if I can remember the form right.
9:35 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
You are correct, actually. I think there are personal history questions on the application that ask the individual if they have previously been subject to a protection or restraining order.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Do the CFOs, as a general practice, grant these licences to people who have been subject to a protection order, or does it vary?
9:35 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It would vary based on circumstance.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
In general, in practice, what's your experience?
9:35 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I can't generalize on an answer to that.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Thank you.
I just want to reiterate that it was raised to me by a number of advocacy groups that because protection orders are usually decided on a consent basis, introducing this could have a negative consequence in terms of making people fight these protection orders at court and making it a much more adversarial process than it needs to be.
Generally, I think we should trust the discretion of our chief firearms officers and our able civil servants, who obviously would have an interest in protecting the public and ensuring that people who are truly a danger to society don't have access to possession and acquisition licences. I think that this is a positive amendment that everyone can get behind.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
