Public Safety committee  I'll just clarify. There is an inspection scheme in the Firearms Act, which is similar to inspection schemes in other legislation. Regulatory inspection schemes operate under a framework that is different from that which police investigating criminality operate under, for which t

Public Safety committee  Section 102 is an inspections power under the act and there is a specific provision, section 104, that deals with inspection of dwelling houses that would require a warrant to inspect a dwelling house. A warrant is not required to inspect a business.

Public Safety committee  Proposed subsection 23(3), yes, requires the reference number to be issued if they're satisfied. It doesn't specifically address a situation—

Public Safety committee  —where a reference number is denied.

Public Safety committee  I don't think the transaction is necessarily left in limbo. I think there's a distinction between informing the transferor that they are not being issued a reference number and informing the transferor that they're not so satisfied with respect to the eligibility. Rob could perh

Public Safety committee  Proposed subsection 23(5) wasn't intended to address the “Yes, we're issuing a reference number” or “No, we're not issuing a reference number”. It was intended to ensure that there is authority should the registrar, or the people acting on behalf of the registrar, need to go a bi

Public Safety committee  I was just going to clarify. Under the Interpretation Act, words in the singular in legislation also mean the plural, unless there's a contrary intent in the legislation. That's the standard. It's standard drafting convention to say “a” to refer to something in the singular, but

Public Safety committee  Section 12 identifies other firearms, but not with this level of specificity. They're in a more general category.

Public Safety committee  The general mandate of the CFO in considering eligibility under subsection 5(1) is to consider whether it is currently desirable in the interest of the safety of any other person that the person hold a firearm. Their focus is on the present risk in their overall assessment.

Public Safety committee  Again, I think subsection 5(1) is the guiding, overarching principle that they consider the current risk to public safety in their assessment. Again, this would perhaps add some greater clarity to paragraph 5(2)(d) when they're looking at all these past orders. The past order is

Public Safety committee  Are you talking about putting that in a different spot in subsection 5(2), or do you mean to include something beyond paragraph (d)?

Public Safety committee  First, just to clarify, none of these criteria would automatically mean that someone doesn't get a firearm. They're just mandatory criteria to be considered in determining whether it's desirable in the interest of the safety of any person that someone get a firearm. With this ad

Public Safety committee  Under the amended subsection 5(2), they're going to be removing “within the previous five years”, which means all of these criteria would be considered going back throughout the person's lifetime.

Public Safety committee  Neither this amendment nor anything in the bill impacts the current provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. All the current restrictions on access to records after the period set out in the act would continue to apply.

Public Safety committee  Yes.