Public Safety Committee on May 11th, 2023

[Kellie Paquette]

Yes, we would actually add it to one of the forms.

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

Okay.

On the form you were talking about yesterday where it's not listed, it would now be one of the options they would choose, so they would tick that off. The chief firearms officer would be looking for some kind of competence to return that firearm to the person and take it out of storage.

[Kellie Paquette]

Of course, we haven't operationalized it yet, but I'm envisioning that is probably what would happen, because it would be part of that form. It would trigger that eligibility process and a review. The CFO could request that the individual seek a medical form to obtain the ATT to bring it back—the authorization to transport it back to their residence. It's a little different from the ones right now, because it's usually a set time. I'm assuming, given that they check off that it's for an illness, the end date would not be determined up front.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

We go to Mr. Julian, followed by Madam Michaud. Mr. Noormohamed will have maybe 25 seconds left at the end.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Damoff asked a number of my questions.

It is possible, following this, that there could be a requirement to have a note from a medical doctor. That's something that would be contemplated.

[Kellie Paquette]

Currently, through a CFO, they do eligibility processes all the time, and I think given the circumstances of this it would trigger an eligibility review. Depending on the circumstances, they would most certainly, I would think in most cases, request or seek some input from their physician.

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

“They” being the authority...?

[Kellie Paquette]

Yes.

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

Okay.

That would be something that would be part of the regs later on or part of the application process.

[Kellie Paquette]

It's part of our eligibility process now. It's a continuous eligibility process. If something comes up throughout a licence-holder's five years, it always triggers an eligibility process. A chief firearms officer will evaluate the information that's coming in. Sometimes it could be an interview with the person, or it could be going back to the individual and asking the physician to answer some questions. It could be a number of things.

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

Thanks for answering those questions. I'll be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Several of my questions have already been answered.

A lot has been said about self-declaring. When I spoke with Mr. Ruff behind the scenes, he told me that some people are reluctant to get help because they are afraid of being reported. If they talk to a physician or a psychologist about a personal problem, that person might alert the authorities, who might remove the firearms.

Can it also be understood that way?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

In fact, if the individual has self-declared and surrendered their firearms, they can tell their attending physician. If the physician then checks with the authorities, they will be able to see that the firearms have been proactively surrendered.

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

Thank you.

I would also like to know what is understood by "similar problem." We are talking about mental illness here. I imagine that this means a post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or this kind of thing.

Is it too vague or is it obvious from the way it is worded?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I think we are talking here about someone whose underlying reason for self-declaring is perhaps not common. We are talking about mental health, but there may be other situations where self-declaring might be justified. It might be someone who themself declares proactively that they should not have firearms at home, for their safety and the safety of their family and friends, and decides to remove them temporarily.

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

Thank you.

I also want to thank Mr. Ruff for making me aware of this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Noormohamed, you have 25 seconds.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'll speak quickly.

I am really pleased that Mr. Ruff brought this forward. I've talked to him before, and I know he was very keen to make this happen. My only question, really, to officials is whether there are any concerns about an uneven application across the country by the CFOs with respect to the return of prospective firearms. How would we mitigate any risks there?

Other than that, this is a really excellent amendment, and I look forward to supporting it.

[Kellie Paquette]

Consistent application is always a concern, but we would clearly define standard operating procedures for everyone on how we envision it to operate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

We have Mr. Ruff, again, for two minutes and 52 seconds.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I'll be a lot shorter than that, Chair.

I want to thank everybody for what I anticipate is unanimous support. This is important. I can talk some more off-line, really, about the rationale of why I wanted to do this. This is all about keeping Canada safer and, at the same time, reassuring our firearms community.

In my final comments, I'd like to personally thank the permanent members of my party on this committee for allowing me the opportunity to partake. Firearms and this bill mean a lot to rural Canadians and all Canadians. My point is that they wanted to be here. It has allowed us to be here to speak up for our constituents. It means so much, and it means so much to my constituents.

I don't think there's a single issue, in my three years of being elected, that I've gotten more correspondence or feedback on, so the opportunity to participate in this debate has been greatly appreciated. I wish to personally thank the permanent members of this committee who have allowed me to be here tonight.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Ruff.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment? I am seeing none.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 18 as amended agreed to)

Thank you, Mr. Ruff, and congratulations.

At long last, we can proceed forward.

Next, we have new clause 30.1. BQ-10 is the next amendment.

Hopefully, we'll get through this, and then we can break for lunch.

Madam Michaud, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It will be relatively simple. For my colleagues who have just joined us, yesterday we unanimously adopted a number of amendments to require a valid licence for acquiring a cartridge magazine as is required for ammunition. There are still a few amendments to coordinate with that objective.

I am therefore proposing that Bill C-21 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 21 the following new clause:

30.1 Subsection 64(1.2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(1.2) The holder of a licence that is extended under subsection (1.1) must not, until the renewal of their licence, use their firearms or acquire any firearms, ammunition or cartridge magazines.

Everyone should support this amendment, which coordinates with the previous ones.

Thank you.