Public Safety Committee on May 11th, 2023

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Is this the police going to the CFOs saying that they require this information, give it to them, or is this when the CFO suspects that something is happening and they're calling the police and giving this information?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

It's the latter.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

It's the CFOs.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

That's right.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

What are the investigatory powers of the CFOs to determine that this is happening? How does this get flagged to the CFO?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

In terms of general trafficking, my colleague Ms. Paquette earlier spoke to this. If they were seeing a large number of purchases, unusual purchase patterns or registration patterns, they could say, “Well, perhaps we'll share this with local law enforcement for investigation purposes.”

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

As you know, it will be on division.

(Clause 39 agreed to on division)

(Clause 40 agreed to on division)

(On clause 41)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That brings us to CPC-22.

I note that if CPC-22 is adopted, BQ-19, LIB-9, PV-13 and NDP-16 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Mr. Lloyd, will you move CPC-22?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I'm happy to move CPC-22 forward on behalf of Ms. Dancho, who is not here at the moment.

It is to inform within 48 hours of a protection order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any discussion on CPC-22?

Madam Michaud.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleagues for moving this amendment, but I am going to propose an amendment that runs somewhat counter to it and is for a shorter time period. I will therefore be voting against CPC-22.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

Seeing none, we'll have a recorded division, please.

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

This brings us to BQ-19 in the name of Madam Michaud.

I will note that if BQ-19 is adopted, LIB-9, PV-13 and NDP-16 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

We want to change the words "without delay". My colleagues are proposing a 48-hour time limit. I propose to make it 24 hours. This is the time limit for informing the chief firearms officer that a protection order has been made, varied or revoked.

When I put this question to Ms. Martin, the executive director of Hébergement femmes Canada, she told me that "without delay" was somewhat vague and it had to be more precise. She thought this was a reasonable amendment.

Ms. Riendeau from Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale fully agreed about the 24-hour time limit. She said:

The information has to be provided quickly. In fact, if a violent spouse who intends to harm his family is allowed too much time, he can become a time bomb and end up acting out.

The proposed amendment is again from the perspective of ensuring greater safety for women victims of violence. I therefore hope that my colleagues will vote for the amendment. As we said, it is the same as amendment LIB-9.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I'm not sure which official would have the best experience with this particular case, but what is the common practice right now for the amount of time it takes when a protection order is issued and the CFO being informed?

[Kellie Paquette]

I'll start and then maybe hand it off to my colleague.

There are varying degrees of processes throughout the country. Some provinces actually receive these orders electronically and are able to process them very quickly. Others don't receive all of them at all. Some of them actually have to go to...is it provincial court?

I think I'll hand it off to Rob Mackinnon right now.

[Rob Mackinnon]

Just to follow up on Madam Paquette's comments, there are variations across the country based on volume as well as the means in which they receive the orders. They are prioritized, obviously, within CFO offices now, so there would be an amendment to our current standard operating procedures in order to meet this requirement.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

There are different processes across different provinces. Is this currently a provincial responsibility? Is that why?

[Kellie Paquette]

Yes, and all provinces have different systems, so there is not a common system.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Is there a constitutional concern here? I agree with the sentiment behind this. We had our own amendment to say 48 hours, so obviously we're not against it, but is there a constitutional provincial-federal...? Can the federal government dictate to provincial courts that they need to do something within a certain time period?

[Sandro Giammaria]

You'll see timing standards throughout the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is largely administered by provinces and applied by courts, so my answer is yes.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

Is there any further discussion on BQ-19?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Therefore, LIB-9 cannot be moved; PV-13 cannot be moved and NDP-16 cannot be moved.

Shall clause 41 as amended carry on division?