Public Safety Committee on May 11th, 2023

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Just to let you know, I have two amendments to this clause. I have to do them separately because they are separate issues.

The first one I have to move simply because I did not have time in the five minutes to ask the question that I wanted to ask in regard to subsection 63(3), “Authorizations to carry”.

What I propose is to remove the word “not” between the words “are” and “valid”. It would read, in English, “Authorizations to carry are valid outside the province where the holder of the authorization resides.”

My reason for moving that amendment is I would like to ask the department officials a question regarding what this clause intends to do. My colleague, Mr. Genuis, talked about people who lived in proximity to borders. I just want to understand it clearly.

Is this authorization to carry that's being discussed here for personal protection or is it for things like trappers, for protection from animals? Would it be for all of those or is it for those very rare instances where an individual is carrying a firearm for personal protection from another person or where law enforcement can't readily respond? Is it both or is it just the singular instance?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

It would cover all of the authorizations to carry for reasons under paragraphs 20(a) or 20(b).

As it normally works currently, the vast majority of them are for reasons of employment. For example, it's a security guard who carries a handgun for a bank cash transfer company. They have one in Ontario. There's an agreement that happens also, for example, with the Quebec CFOs, so that they can cross over to Gatineau and do their route across there.

There's an agreement. It's still an authorization in the province in which it was issued, currently.

That's what the intent was. It was to capture those situations. However, the way it's worded would limit it in terms of where that person resides. I think the intent would be to maintain the current regime so there is a geographical reality to the authorization to carry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I just want to point out, sir, that the clock is running.

Can you move the amendment?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I did. I believe I said I want to withdraw the word “not” from the clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I missed that. I apologize.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I'm sorry, Chair, if I wasn't clear.

I have a purpose for removing the word “not”.

I appreciate your answer, but I want to speak specifically to those cases where it's not for the purpose of employment or the purpose of the course of somebody's job, like a trapper or an armoured car guard. I'm talking about those rare instances where an individual has been given an ATC for personal protection for whatever reason.

If I read this correctly, this clause, if it's not amended, would limit the person's ability to travel in their country with their protective device that they've been authorized to carry to the area of jurisdiction of that chief firearms officer only. They would essentially be—because I can't come up with the right words right now—imprisoned in their own area of jurisdiction.

I'm asking you this from a charter perspective. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 6, mobility rights, every Canadian citizen is granted the ability to travel freely in this country, and under legal rights under section 7, everyone is entitled to the right to life, liberty and security of the person. These people would be issued this authorization to carry for that life, liberty and security of the person premise. That security of the person premise only applies, then, to the jurisdiction of the chief firearms officer. It doesn't apply to the entirety of Canada.

Is this clause charter compliant?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

As I said, the intent was to sort of mirror the language that was originally there and adapted because of the change of the authorization to carry for protection of life. We recognized yesterday that this did not capture the government's intent when drafting the motion.

With regard to the charter, I will turn to my colleagues in terms of the implications.

[Sandro Giammaria, Counsel, Department of Justice]

Unfortunately, I don't think I can give charter advice, but just as a point of clarification, section 6 of the charter is not a freedom of movement guarantee. It provides a right to enter a province and take up residence in that province, so it's narrower than I think maybe you characterized it as. It's kind of a bare right of freedom of movement. I just wanted to provide that correction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Calkins, I'm going to have to cut you off there.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand what Mr. Calkins is trying to get at.

I would not be voting in favour of his amendment, but I would like to offer a possibility, once we've considered his amendment, which is to add to the amendment “and/or works”, so clause 30 would read, “authorized to carry are not valid outside the province where a holder of the authorization resides and/or works”.

We can double-check with the officials, but I believe that would cover border areas such as Mr. Genuis raised yesterday.

That would be what I would offer if Mr. Calkins' amendment is defeated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We can't go back to Mr. Calkins at this point.

Is there any further discussion on Mr. Calkins' amendment?

Seeing none, I will ask for a vote on Mr. Calkins' amendment.

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I know Mr. Calkins has one more amendment, but I think Mr. Julian had his hand up right after, so we'll take them in order.

Mr. Julian, please move your amendment, and then we can come back.

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

Mr. Chair, I would move that we add “and/or works” at the end of the phrase.... However, I do want to check with the officials to make sure that's appropriate wording to resolve the issue that Mr. Genuis brought up.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

You could also consider mirroring the language that's in paragraph 20(b) of the Firearms Act “for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation”. “Works” is a little simpler, but you could consider mirroring the language that is already in the Firearms Act.

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

Which would be?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

It would be “for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation”.

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

Okay. For use....

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

You could also consider, “for the questions for protection of life of that individual or other individuals”.

If we could, I think I might want to take a few minutes with my colleagues—if that would be all right—just so that we could consider....

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Does your amendment interfere with this amendment, do you think?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

How about we go with Mr. Calkins' amendment while you guys sort that out and we'll be efficient with our time.

Madam Damoff.

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

I don't have a problem with that, but it probably involves asking officials questions and they can't answer Mr. Calkins' questions and ours if they're thinking about something, so I think maybe we should let them put their heads together, Chair.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

They have to sort it out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes to get this sorted out.