Public Safety Committee on May 11th, 2023

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

This is a coordinating amendment with an earlier amendment for reasons of protection of life under paragraph 20(a). The authority to issue authorization to carry for the reason in 20(a) is going to reside with the commissioner of firearms. Therefore, it's the commissioner of firearms who would revoke it.

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

What's the process that happens for that? What would cause somebody to need to have it revoked? How does that process work?

Does it go up the chain to what I believe you referred to earlier, which is that the commissioner of the RCMP is also the commissioner of firearms? They would be the ultimate person who would have to sign off on revoking it.

[Kellie Paquette]

They would no longer need protection of life, so they would no longer meet that threshold.

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

Where would that request be made, and how would it make its way up to the commissioner of the RCMP?

[Kellie Paquette]

There would be a full process.

Do you want to explain?

[Rob Mackinnon]

There would be a process that would provide the commissioner of firearms the information that the individual does not require the authorization to carry for the purposes of personal protection of life. They may have been issued that authorization to carry because they were not provided safety by a local enforcement agency, which is one of the reasons one of those things could be issued.

Maybe the circumstances changed and, therefore, were provided to the commissioner. The commissioner would therefore revoke the authorization to carry.

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

Does the commissioner not have that authority now, or does this modify it in some way?

[Rob Mackinnon]

Currently, the chief firearms officer has that authority, but this amendment provides for that specific purpose, so that the commissioner of firearms has responsibility for the approval and refusal of the authorization to carry. It's for that specific purpose.

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

It's in addition to the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins. We're done.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

Seeing none, I'll call for the vote.

We'll do a recorded vote.

(Clause 35 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(On clause 36)

We have a number of amendments on clause 36, starting with BQ-12.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ-12 deals with clause 36 of the bill. It talks about revoking permits in cases of acts of domestic violence. I believe this amendment is better written than several amendments that are trying to do the same thing—for example, amendments NDP-7, NDP-8, NDP-9, LIB-1, LIB-2, PV-4, PV-5, and PV-6. Those amendments are trying to do the same thing in several parts, while amendment BQ-12 does everything in the same amendment. I think it might be useful to proceed with this one.

In fact, amendment BQ-12 strengthens the measures to protect victims of spousal or domestic violence, and stems from a request made by the National Association of Women and the Law.

In its present form, Bill C-21, and particularly clause 36, provides that the chief firearms officer must revoke an individual's licence if they are "convaincu" that the individual has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking. In English, the chief firearms officer must "determine" whether such an act has taken place, which seems somewhat vague.

What I am concerned about is that the chief firearms officer is being given broad discretion: to determine whether they are satisfied that there has been domestic violence, or not. Here again, I think we should err by an excess of caution when there is this kind of risk.

I like the way the National Association of Women and the Law addressed this question, by saying it is important to recognize that a false negative, that is, failing to identify a domestic violence situation and not removing the firearm, is often more probable and can have more tragic consequences than a false positive. They said that the threshold is too vague and too high. It amounts simply to adding some items to section 70.1.

The bill as it now stands says: "If a chief firearms officer determines that an individual who holds a licence has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking, the chief firearms officer must revoke the licence."

I am therefore proposing that Bill C-21,in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 37 on page 23 with the following:

70.1 If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual who holds a licence may have engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking, the chief firearms officer must revoke the licence within 24 hours.

That really does strengthen what the chief firearms officer may do in cases of spousal or domestic violence, where they have reasonable grounds to suspect such a case.

Because this came up several times during consideration of this bill, which was a good thing, we have all come up with somewhat the same idea. Given that the NDP, the Liberals and the Green Party have made the same proposals, I hope they will be able to support this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for mentioning it. I should have mentioned that if BQ-12 is adopted, LIB-1, PV-3, PV-4, NDP-7, PV-5, NDP-8, CPC-20, LIB-2, PV-6 and NDP-9 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

The other way of looking at it is this. If we pass this one, we can save all those other ones.

We'll go first to Mr. Shipley, then Ms. Damoff, and then Mr. Perkins.

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

Well, as some good news tonight, Chair, I think we're going to be able to jump ahead, then, and save some time, which is nice for everyone.

This is obviously a very serious issue. Any time we're talking about domestic violence, we need to make sure we get this right. It's a serious issue that needs to be dealt with as quickly as we can.

My question is to the officers at the table.

The chief firearms officer is really not one person. It means the office of the chief firearms officer, I'm assuming. Let me get that part straight first.

[Kellie Paquette]

There is one chief firearms officer in a province, who is either federally or provincially designated, but there are firearms officers as part of that office.

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

Right, that's what I mean.

Why I'm asking that is just so I'm clear and everybody else is clear. There's really not just one person who could revoke the licence within 24 hours. Not every one person is available at all times. There are obviously vacations, holidays, weekends away and statutory holidays. That wouldn't affect this. It would still be doable.

[Kellie Paquette]

Yes.

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

Again, I'm not trying to split hairs here. I just want to be clear that, when we say that, it's not literal. I want to use the words “the office of the chief firearms officer”, but it isn't one person. It is an office of, to make sure this gets handled properly and correctly. That's what I'm trying to ascertain here.

[Kellie Paquette]

Yes. The Firearms Act refers to a chief firearms officer or a firearms officer. There are activities that a chief firearms officer can designate down to their staff.

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

Okay, that's great. That's all I wanted to clarify, to make sure that this can be done and is doable. We think this is a good amendment.

Thank you. That's all I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

I'm definitely supportive of the “within 24 hours” part of this amendment, and thank you for bringing that forward.

My question to the officials is about the difference in the wording from the original clause, “determines” and “has reasonable grounds to suspect”. My understanding is that there's a civil standard of proof around “determines”. I'm wondering if you could just explain to us what the difference is with the change that Madame Michaud has proposed.

[Sandro Giammaria]

Thank you for the question. I think it's quite useful in terms of illustrating this difference.

You're quite right that, in the context of a revocation of a licence, if that were to be, let's say, contested and eventually determined in a courtroom, the standard that would apply would be on a balance of probabilities, which for the layperson is like “50% plus one” certainty, so more likely than not. I think that's a good way of understanding what a balance of probabilities means.

Reasonable suspicion is a standard that's used throughout the code. It's definitely lower. In fact, it's the lowest known to criminal law. It really just means.... Well, first of all, we're talking about evidentiary standards, so with respect to the amount of evidence, obviously it's not just a question of quantity. The nature and quality of that evidence will matter. Effectively, it's a credible possibility that the thing suspected occurred or will occur, depending on how it's directed.

I should note here that it's modified by the subsequent language “may have engaged”, so that's the thing to be proved, a mere possibility that a thing may have happened.

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

What I'm hearing is that the way the bill was originally worded, with “determines” and “may have”, it still offers a number of protections if someone were going to have this happen. Is that what you're saying?

[Sandro Giammaria]

I can say that it would be consistent with other kinds of revocations that occur, be they for public safety-related reasons, irrespective of the type of victim, I suppose, or potential victim. That would be more consistent with what you see elsewhere in the Firearms Act.

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

I'm going to propose a subamendment to this, Chair, that would remove “has reasonable grounds to suspect” and return it to “determines”, and then change the words “may have” to “have”.