Evidence of meeting #67 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.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
On a point of order, Chair, if you review, I believe you included PV-9 in your description.
If you ask the clerks to review the video, we could find out if you said it or not.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm not inclined to do that. We just need to sort this out.
My understanding is that since we passed LIB-4, we cannot pass PV-9, and we cannot pass BQ-15.
If we want to do something else, we would have to have unanimous consent to do so.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
My point is that, had we known that PV-9 could not be moved, I suspect that Madame Michaud, Ms. May or someone would have amended LIB-4 to ensure that we did get “or otherwise lawfully disposed of”, because that is an extremely important part of what we are trying to change in this.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
My point is that we have passed LIB-4. If we want to go back and revise it, we require unanimous consent to do so.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Regardless of whether the video is showing that you did include PV-9 in it, I think it's just been a long day, and I would move adjournment of the committee.
9:20 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, but our instructions from the House don't allow us to adjourn at this time.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That wouldn't solve our problem either.
Let's suspend for a minute or two and get ourselves squared away here.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I call this meeting back to order.
The situation with LIB-4 cannot be resolved at this point. What is going to happen is the changes that need to be made in respect of these other amendments will be made at report stage in the House. We can't move them now, so that is something that will be taken up at....
Go ahead, Madame Michaud.
9:30 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it's unfortunate that we can't change the amendment, but I understand the reasons.
The present wording opens up the possibility of doing something with the firearm other than delivering it to a peace officer. We wanted to remove that ambiguity and specify that the firearm had to be delivered immediately to a peace officer.
The Bloc Québécois is therefore going to move an amendment at the report stage. I think it is possible to do that.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That is my understanding of the best way to go forward on this. Thank you.
I believe we can now proceed with BQ-16. I will note that with respect to BQ-16, if it is adopted, LIB-6, PV-10 and NDP-13 become moot, as they are identical. Also, if BQ-16 is defeated, so are LIB-6, PV-10 and NDP-13, for the same reason.
I see Madame Michaud, on BQ-16.
9:35 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At this point in the bill, it talks about justifications for exempting an individual from revocation of their licence in connection with a protection order.
The purpose of the amendment is simply to exclude employment from those justifications. This was requested by several groups, including Battered Women's Support Services and PolyRemembers. A number of women's groups expressed fears in this regard. For example, a violent spouse who is also a police officer could keep their firearm if they were subject to a protection order. We want to avoid creating more cases of violence.
Again, this is the same reasoning as for a number of other amendments: we want to sin by an excess of caution, rather than by too little. I know there are other similar or identical amendments, so there seems to be an intent around the table to remove employment as a justification.
I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment.
Thank you.
May 11th, 2023 / 9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I want to ask the officials about this, because I like the intent of it, and we had some witnesses who said that this was concerning to them. However, just because a CFO has the ability to use this as a reason to grant somebody a permit, it doesn't mean that the CFO is required to grant that person a permit for this reason.
Is that correct?
9:35 p.m.
Director General, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
That's correct.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Do the CFOs generally use a balance of probabilities to judge whether the person is a threat versus their need for a vocational livelihood? In those cases, if they are a threat, I would assume that the CFOs wouldn't give them a permit for this case.
Would that be correct?
9:35 p.m.
Director General, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I would assume the same, yes. They have a variety of tools at their disposal.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Generally, I trust the CFOs, because I think they always err on the side of public safety. I have yet to see any evidence that CFOs have been granting licences for the purpose of vocations to people who have been a danger and committed terrible acts. It just seems to me that it's prudent to give the CFOs the discretion to decide whether or not somebody is a risk if it's something that's important for their job and their livelihood.
We're talking about people's livelihoods. I think somebody at the committee said that they can just get another job. I thought that was a bit flippant of someone to say, because it's a tough economy out there. Especially for older people, it's very difficult to retrain, and especially when you've been in a career your whole life. To just say that they can just find another job really ignores the reality of many people's lives.
Of course, if they are a genuine threat to public safety, as the officials have said, the CFOs will not be granting this permit to people who are a threat to public safety. Generally, I would trust our public safety officials to make the right calls on these matters, unless I see strong evidence to prove otherwise.