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.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We'll have a recorded division.
(Amendment agreed to: 11 yeas; 0 nays [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This takes us to BQ-6.
Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.
9:15 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
BQ‑6 deals with the same subject matter as NDP‑2 and G‑1. I imagine my NDP colleague will be in favour of this amendment, which strengthens the “yellow flag” system.
We were fortunate to have representatives from the National Association of Women and the Law. This association also sent a brief, where a very good point is raised. Here's an excerpt:
The modification to section 5(2)(d) of the Firearms Act is also recommended to insert a safety bias into the granting of licences. A person may not currently pose a threat to their ex-partner (for example, if they are travelling abroad), or it may not be certain whether a person still poses a risk; when in doubt, the Chief Firearms Officer or the judge should err on the side of caution.
That's sort of the spirit of my amendment. We have to make sure we err on the side of caution, rather than the side of judgment.
Therefore, I propose that Bill C‑21 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 16 the following new clause:
15.1 Paragraph 5(2)(d) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(d) is or was previously prohibited by an order — made in the interests of the safety and security of any person — from communicating with an identified person or from being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place, and poses or could pose a threat or risk to the safety and security of any person;
I invite my colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment, which strengthens the “yellow flag” system designed to protect women victims of violence.
Thank you.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
On this amendment, if I'm not mistaken, the biggest change to what's already in the act is adding “or could pose”, is that correct?
9:15 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes, that's exactly right.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
One of the concerns that was expressed to me is that “could pose” is overly broad. How would the chief firearms officer determine what “could pose” versus what “poses”? In terms of how it's written in the bill, from a practical standpoint, how would “could pose” be interpreted?
9:20 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The CFO would take into consideration all of the key elements in order to determine the eligibility of the individual to hold a firearms licence. This could pose a public safety risk if the CFO decided that this was a risk to the individual having a firearms licence.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Is that different from “poses a risk”? The firearms officer already has pretty broad judgment over that. I'm trying to see how this changes it. I want to make sure people are protected. Generally, we're talking about protecting women here.
I'm wondering how this change in practical terms actually makes a difference, or whether it does or not. From what I understand, the CFO already has broad discretion in determining this.
Is this actually going to make a difference in interpretation?
9:20 p.m.
Director General, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
My understanding of how it's written right now, without this amendment, is that it provides that flexibility to a CFO to review a licence, to put something under review, so I don't think that “could pose” changes anything.
Do you agree?
9:20 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes, I do.
Under section 5 of the Firearms Act, they have the discretion to determine eligibility. Under the yellow flag situation, they're not revoking the licence; they're putting it under suspension because it “could pose” an issue for the individual to continue to hold a licence.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
On this change from “poses” to “could pose”, if we were to support it, it wouldn't really change how the CFO determined it. Is that right?
9:20 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
That would be my interpretation. As you've articulated, under section 5 the CFO has a pretty broad way of determining who would be eligible to hold a firearms licence.
9:20 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It just adds an element of the future. Today it's written in the Firearms Act in terms of “poses”, and it's in the present, and then this question of the future—“could pose” a threat—adds a different test, a different element, for the evaluation by the chief firearms officer.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
We'll go now to Mr. Lawrence, then Mr. Lloyd and then Mr. Blois.
Go ahead, please, Mr. Lawrence.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you very much.
I fully support the sentiment behind this. My problem is, with my legal training, I don't know if we've quite understood what the word “could” means.
I'll read from “britannica.com”, as it were, a definition, “to say an action or event is possible”. For example, there's a difference between “I have cancer” and “I could have cancer”. It really means if it's at all possible. That's the difference. Is it possible for you to pose a threat? That's a very broad term. Is it possible that I could become prime minister? It's possible, but perhaps not likely.
So “possible” includes unlikely, as well as likely. “Poses” means I have it. It means I have cancer.
I'm a bit troubled that we don't have a basic understanding of the English language with the officials.
Do you not understand the difference between “could” and having something? It means “possible”. Do you not understand that?
9:25 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Maybe I can speak to that.
The CFO has the authority to revoke a licence as a final state. If the chief firearms officer obtains information such that they have to conduct an investigation to further their decision on determining if they are going to revoke a licence, the “could pose” part of it is that part of the investigation. Until they've completed the investigation and revoked the licence, they have just cause for possibly revoking the licence, but they're going to suspend the licence under the yellow flag situation before they make the final decision.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Okay, so help me out with this.
I support the sentiment. We want to make sure we do not give PALs to people who do not warrant them. I want that clearly on the record.
Give me a situation between a person right now who wouldn't be caught, who's not in the “poses” category, but is in the “could pose” category? Give me an actual, real-life example.
9:25 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
A chief firearms officer gets advised that a situation has occurred with an individual who has had an event in association with section 5 but hasn't been formally charged. The CFO could be waiting for further information to revoke the licence. This circumstance would allow the CFO to legally suspend the licence until they get further information on the outcome of the investigation from the police.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Okay, so we have an investigation ongoing, and we have a potential allegation out there for that individual. That could be the difference between the “could pose”.... It's not as broad as perhaps I thought at first, which I'm very grateful for, because it's a broad category, “could pose”, but it's with an ongoing investigation in which there are allegations that haven't been proven.
Am I narrowing this down now? Okay.
9:25 p.m.
Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes. If you'd like to do a comparison, when a chief firearms officer receives a court order prohibition order, it's an automatic revocation. There is no “could pose” because the courts have decided that the individual cannot possess firearms. However, if a chief firearms officer gets information from law enforcement on an individual who happens to hold a licence, and the CFO, in that initial review of that information, determines that there is further work to be done, they could suspend the licence, legally, until they complete their investigation, which could result in either a reinstatement of the licence to valid or the revocation of the licence.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I have one last question, and then I'll leave it open.
Is there any clearer way of drafting it that would specifically cite an ongoing investigation?
Like I said, I support the sentiment behind this, 110%. I'm just a little concerned it could be overly broad.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm going to have to cut you off there. That actually calls for speculation about whether there might be a clearer way to do it.
You're out of time. I'm sorry.
Mr. Blois, you have 51 seconds.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
My quick question to the officials would be the following. If you said, “could reasonably”, I'm along the same lines as Mr. Lawrence, which is you're telling me that—I think the explanation you gave was great—right now it's on a balance of probabilities, and we're trying to move it to the dynamic where if there's any inference that there could be harm, then it's almost a precautionary principle.
Is that correct?