Public Safety Committee on May 11th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

Is everyone clear on this subamendment?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I didn't hear the subamendment.

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

Remove the words “has reasonable grounds to suspect” and change it to “determines”. That was what I was just asking the official about. That returns it to the original language in the clause.

Then change “may have” to “has” engaged. I think we all want to make sure that we are keeping women safe in instances of domestic violence and stalking, but we also have to put reasonable grounds in this bill that align with other parts of the bill and ensure that there is a balance. The 24-hour period, I think, is critical, and I think we all agree on that, or at least I hope we do, that the 24 hours is a really valid addition and needs to be done immediately.

Certainly there are instances in which women have been killed when it hasn't happened quickly. I'm just asking if we can change those wordings to, as the officials talked about, the balance of probabilities and something that is in other parts of the Firearms Act.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

The discussion now goes to Ms. Damoff's subamendment.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Madame Michaud for bringing forward this amendment, which is really a consolidation of a series of other amendments and puts them all in one place. That is very helpful.

The recommendation itself comes from the National Association of Women and the Law. You will recall, Mr. Chair, that when they came forward to this committee, they were very clear that we need to ensure that the chief firearms officer can intervene when he or she has reasonable grounds to suspect....

If we are talking about ensuring swift action in a dangerous situation, of which we have far too many examples, it seems to me that standing to the level of what the National Association of Women and the Law...would be really important. Though I completely understand Ms. Damoff's attempt and the spirit in which she offers the subamendment, I will be voting against the subamendment and voting for BQ-12. Certainly what we are seeing from organizations that are concerned about domestic violence is that we need to make sure the chief firearms officer can intervene when there are reasonable grounds, so I prefer to stay with the wording in BQ-12.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Perkins.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate everything that our colleagues around the table said on this very important amendment, the offer, and we totally agree on the 24 hours.

I have a question, and I'm not really sure who is the best person to answer it. It's on the subamendment and the amendment, and the subsequent ones that the chair said we would not consider if any of this passes. I have two basic questions. Which offers the best protection and is most likely to stand up in any kind of challenge in court in terms of its ability to survive this? We don't want to have to come back and try to amend the act again.

[Sandro Giammaria]

On the second part of your question, I'm going to take direction from the chair. As I think the chair alluded to earlier, I can't really answer questions as to legal validity or viability in a challenge.

However, I'd like to try to answer the first part of your question, so could you give it to me again, please?

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

I'm trying to figure out which one of these amendments provides greater certainty that any act of violence can be dealt with quickly in the wide variety of types of violence that could happen.... I want to know that one of these isn't narrowing, that it's broad enough to cover circumstances that we might see or not foresee that allow this to happen within 24 hours. Would that be the subamendment or the amendment?

[Sandro Giammaria]

I don't think I can speak to the circumstances in which it would come about, but I want to clarify that this is the administrative revocation of a licence. It's not a mechanism of emergency intervention.

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

They have to have reasonable grounds or Ms. Damoff's suggestion of “determines”. I am just trying to understand the difference.

I think you said it, but from the officials' perspective, which one is...?

[Sandro Giammaria]

I couldn't say which provides better protection. I can describe what they are in law, which is that they are evidentiary standards or standards of proof.

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

Are they different?

[Sandro Giammaria]

“Determines” is a bit higher—I would say a fair bit higher—than “reasonable suspicion”.

In fact, if it's helpful, I'll just quickly plot them on a range. Reasonable suspicion is the lowest; reasonable and probable grounds is slightly higher than that; and balance of probability is just slightly higher than that, if that helps.

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

The balance of probability is the highest?

[Sandro Giammaria]

Yes, it has been interpreted by the courts as meaning a balance of probability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry, Mr. Perkins. That's it.

Is there any further discussion on the subamendment of Ms. Damoff?

Seeing none, let us have the vote.

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

On division.

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

Pardon me, Mr. Chair.

Are you saying that the subamendment would pass on division or be defeated on division?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Well, that's a good point.

Mr. Shipley proposes that it passes on division.

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

Is this the subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's Ms. Damoff's subamendment.

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

I am going to leave that up to Ms. Michaud. There should be a recorded division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I think we need to have a vote on this.

Madame Michaud.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like a recorded division, please.