Public Safety Committee on May 11th, 2023

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

No, that's right.

Concerning immunity, I don't really want to speak to what might violate their code of ethics. I think that is under provincial jurisdiction. I am not in a position to answer that question.

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

I would like to add one last thing on this point.

In the testimony we heard, this was discussed mainly for outside Quebec. I think the code of ethics in Quebec is already covered.

Both medical practitioners and emergency physicians have said that this was an important aspect. I think that underlines the importance of this measure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll ask for the recorded vote.

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

That brings us to BQ-11. If BQ-11 is adopted, NDP-5 becomes moot, as they are identical as far as the effect is concerned. Also, if PV-2 is defeated, so is NDP-3 for the same reason.

We go now to BQ-11.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The intent of this amendment is to strengthen the section that instructs the chief firearms officer to refuse or revoke a licence where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has been involved in acts of domestic violence.

The underlying intent of clause 36 of Bill C-21 represents a crucial improvement for women's safety, since its purpose is to create a provision that asks the chief firearms officer to refuse or revoke a licence for a person who engages in domestic violence. We understand that the chief firearms officer is being given discretion to determine, subjectively, whether there has been domestic violence or criminal harassment. However, I believe it should be circumscribed, in this case. The goal of this amendment is therefore to remove the chief firearms officer's discretion and require them to suspend the licence, rather than making it an option.

So it simply replaces "may suspend" with "shall suspend". This is how subsection 69.1(1) would then read:

69.1(1) If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that they have collected or received from any person, that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible to hold the licence, they shall suspend, in respect of that licence, the holder’s authorization to use, acquire and import firearms for a period of up to 30 days.

As I said, it simply removes the chief firearms officer's discretion. What we have heard from women's shelters and groups representing women is that it would protect women's safety better. I think it could have a positive effect.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is identical to amendment NDP-5, in fact, so I imagine that my NDP colleague thinks somewhat the same thing as I do.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Ms. Damoff, followed by Mr. Shipley, followed by Mr. Perkins.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to first say that we support the intent of the change and think it's important to change the word to “shall”.

I would like to offer a subamendment to the amendment, Chair, to change the word “suspect” to “believe”. It's a small change. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it's a slightly higher burden of proof, but not a significantly higher burden of proof. If we are requiring that the licence shall be suspended, I think we should be using just a slightly higher burden of proof in the law. It would still mean that if there were reasonable grounds to believe, a number of people would have their licences suspended.

I hope colleagues will support that small change, maintaining the change that Ms. Michaud has put forward, which would change it to “shall”. As I said, in the law this is just a slightly higher burden of proof. It's not significant, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm not on the same page here. You said “suspect” and there's no “suspect” in this amendment.

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

There is “reasonable grounds to suspect”, is there not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

BQ-11 proposes that Bill C-21, in clause 34, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 22 with the following:

they shall suspend, in respect of that licence, the holder’s

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

I have the wrong one. I'm sorry, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Maybe I have the wrong one.

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

No, I think it's me. You're right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay, so we'll withdraw your suggestion.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay, we go now to Mr. Shipley, followed by Mr. Perkins.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you.

My first question was going to be what's the difference between “suspect” and “believe”, but we don't have to...maybe later, when we get into that.

Maybe the officials could tell me what this amendment does.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

This is with regard to the yellow flags. It's not labelled like that in the bill, but these are the yellow flag provisions, whereby, if there are, as my colleague, Madame Paquette, was mentioning, concerns with regard to any number of questions of eligibility of the individual, then somebody could flag to the CFO, use the yellow flag, and say, I don't really think this person should have a...and detail the reasons, so these steps are not necessarily taken frivolously. Somebody, such as a business or a health practitioner, would call in and say, this person, for these reasons, perhaps should not be acquiring firearms, and the CFO would be able to suspend their licence after taking down the reasons.

That 30-day period that's proposed in the bill gives time for the CFO to do the investigation to see what further actions are necessary.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you. I'm sorry; I have one more.

I have a question as to why the French version is a lot longer than the English version. Is that just a straight translation, or is there something different?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

In terms of the use of words in French, the way we formulate ideas in French versus in English is different. We use different words, sometimes multiple words, to say what one word in English will do. It's not unusual. You'll see that throughout the text. There are a different number of words that are used to convey the same idea.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you for that. I just noticed this one was more so than others, so thank you for that answer. I'll pass the time to my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have Mr. Perkins followed by Mr. Julian.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just so that I'm clear, the way this works is that an individual can lodge a complaint to the chief firearms officer, and that is enough to suspend. Is there no court involvement?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

There is a task that is included in the measure that talks about “has reasonable grounds to suspect”, and I believe the motion that is on the floor is to change that to “has reasonable grounds to believe”. It's not just an automatic call that would suspend the licence. It's that there is a call; there is information that's given, and the CFO has reasonable grounds to believe that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible. In terms of looking at licence eligibility and saying that you're convinced—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

All right. I'm satisfied with that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have Mr. Julian, followed by Mr. Tochor.