EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security NUMBER 067 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Thursday, May 11, 2023 Le jeudi 11 mai 2023 Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE May 11, 2023 Committee NUMBER 067 NUMBER 067 NUMÉRO 067 67 11 05 2023 2023/05/11 16:35:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security SECU Chair Mr. Ron McKinnon 1 44

(1635) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.)) :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 67 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022; therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, May 9, 2023, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21 ,

an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). I would like to remind all members regarding some specific sections of the motion adopted on Tuesday that have an impact on clause-by-clause consideration. Amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. No more than 20 minutes can be allotted for debate on any clause or any amendment moved. These 20 minutes are to be divided to a maximum of five minutes per party, unless unanimous consent is granted to extend debate on a specific amendment.

At the expiry of the time provided for debate on an amendment, the chair shall put every question to dispose of the amendment forthwith and successively without further debate. If the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved. The chair shall put the question forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

The committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill. Before we proceed, I would now welcome the officials who are once again with us. From the Department of Justice, we have Sandro Giammaria, counsel; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy.

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; Kellie Paquette, director general, Canadian firearms program; and Rob Mackinnon, director, Canadian firearms program. Also, I would like to welcome the officials from the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, who are not at the table at this moment. From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Jeff Robertson, manager, inadmissibility policy unit, strategic policy branch.

From the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, we have Pascale Bourassa, acting director general, directorate of security and safeguards; and Pierre-Daniel Bourgeau, counsel, legal services. These officials will join us at the table and be available to answer questions when we study the relevant clauses. CNSC is relevant to clauses 49 to 51. CBSA is relevant to clauses 52 to 63 and 67 to 69. Thank you, all, for joining us once again. Your participation is critically important to us. I note that Mr. Calkins followed by Mr. Julian are on the speaking list.

Before we go into that, we have a couple of housekeeping items. (On clause 15)

The Chair: The first one is on NDP-1. The amendment of Ms. Damoff has a couple of grammatical concerns. I will ask the clerk to mention them. Perhaps we can change them on a unanimous consent basis. Go ahead, Mr. Clerk, please.

(1640) Mr. Philippe Méla (Legislative Clerk) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you will recall, yesterday the committee adopted a subamendment to NDP-1, the protection order. There was a new definition. [ Translation ] In French, in the definition of protection order, " S'entend une ordonnance rendue " should read " S'entend d'une ordonnance rendue ." [ English ] At the end of the sentence, the accord is not done properly with the feminine gender. It should say, [ Translation ] " limitée ." [ English ] We just need to add a “d” and an apostrophe at the start and an “e” at the end. That's all that would be required.

The Chair :

Do we have unanimous consent to effect those changes? [ Translation ] Agreed? [ English ]

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It's done. Thank you.

Ms. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.) :

Can I ask a question on the clause, Mr. Chair?

(1645) The Chair :

Please be very, very quick.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I would need unanimous consent to do this. Folks weren't here last night—or maybe you were, Blaine—when Glen Motz was talking about courts not being the only ones who issue protection orders. Because of time limits, we didn't have a chance to amend that. I think we're actually not accomplishing what we wanted to accomplish because of the amendment I put forward. Because I used the word “court”, we're actually limiting what we can do. In addition, officials pointed out to me that we have not given them regulating powers. I'm just wondering if there's unanimous consent for me to provide some wording to change that and fix it.

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP) :

Sure.

The Chair :

Do we have unanimous consent on this matter?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I believe we do. Go ahead, please.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Is that okay?

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC) :

I just want the same courtesy when I want unanimous consent.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Let's start out on the right foot here.

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

All right.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I don't have it in front of me right now. Is there wording we could add to it that would allow officials to still regulate? I think I came up with wording yesterday, actually, and then we were ending.

The Chair :

I'll give you some time to find that and sort that out. We will consider that the matter will be addressed on a unanimous consent basis. (Clause 15 allowed to stand)

The Chair: There is another matter regarding another error we made. This was brought up by Mr. Paul-Hus yesterday. It's on G-21. There is a discrepancy between the English and the French in new clause 11.1 on page 52 of the package. New proposed paragraph 117.05(4)(

b) begins with the word “if” on the English side and...where in the French? Why is the French side in English? Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

Mr. Philippe Méla :

Mr. Chair, the change is only in the English version. Of course, on the French side you'll have the new English version. It says both “if the justice is satisfied” and “where the justice is satisfied”, so at reprint there will be a problem. We won't know which one to put there. I asked Ms. Mainville-Dale what wording would be preferable. She indicated to me that “where” would be the appropriate word on both sides.

The Chair :

All right. The request is to change that one word, “if”, to “where” in the English version. Do we have unanimous consent to do so?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you. (On clause 15)

The Chair: Ms. Damoff, are you ready to go?

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Yes.

The Chair :

This is on the amendment you made previously. We have unanimous consent for you to propose some changes.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Currently, it says “a court”—

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) :

What clause is it?

Ms. Pam Damoff :

It's clause 15, Alex. NDP-1 is amending clause 15. After “a court”, we would be adding the words “or another competent authority”. Then, at the very end, we took out too much. I take complete blame for this. It should still include “orders that prohibit a person from”. That got deleted when we did the clause, I believe, so it doesn't really make sense. Is “orders that prohibit a person from” still there?

Mr. Philippe Méla :

No, it's not.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Okay. So it would be, “this includes but is not limited to orders that prohibit a person from”. The way it reads right now, according to what I submitted, it includes but isn't limited to “being in physical proximity” to a person. It just doesn't make sense. Again, this would be adding “or another competent authority”, and then, at the end, “orders that prohibit a person from”. As well, at the end, is there standard wording available that regulations would be made based on this? We don't want to take away officials' ability to make regulations, which I understand we've done in this clause.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale (Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) :

Perhaps I can make a suggestion.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Absolutely.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

The original clause was worded this way: “protection order has the meaning assigned by the regulations”. Then I would add the language that you're comfortable with, such as “which can include” or that kind of general intent, saying that this is what it's intended to capture but it has the meaning assigned by the regulations.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I'm good with that.

The Chair :

Mr. Calkins, do you wish to respond to this?

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

Sure, Chair, if it's okay. This seems to be a more substantive change than what we had originally expected. Could we get this in written format and distributed to the committee so that we can actually see it? I'm going back into this binder and I can't even find NDP-1. I'd like to actually see what's going on, if you don't mind.

The Chair :

Ms. Damoff, can we do that and come back to this once that's available?

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Yes. That's fine.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) :

Can we make sure that it is in both official languages, please?

[ English ]

The Chair :

I'm sorry. I didn't understand any of that....

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Can we make sure that the document we receive from Ms. Damoff is in both official languages, please?

[ English ]

The Chair :

We'll do our best.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Peter Julian :

I has to be done.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Yes. We will come back to that when everything is good. (Clause 15 allowed to stand)

The Chair: Monsieur Godin, go ahead on the same matter.

(1650) [ Translation ]

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC) :

Like my colleague, I am having a bit of trouble following. I am new to the committee. I just want to draw your attention to something. I don't know how the situation can be corrected. Maybe the legislative clerk can help us. If I am not mistaken, we talked about the "if" or the "where" in proposed paragraph 11.1(2)(

b) in amendment G-21, which is on page 52 of the amendments package. Also in that amendment, subclause 11.1(1) proposes to replace subsection 117.05(4) of the Criminal Code. So I'm talking about proposed subclause 11.1(4). [ English ] It says, “If, following the hearing of an application”. [ Translation ] In the French version, it says: " Le juge qui, au terme de l'audition de la demande, conclut ." The conditional is used in the English version but not in the French version. Can the legislative clerk confirm that everything is correct in the

interpretation?

[ English ]

Mr. Philippe Méla :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. [ Translation ] Yes, I can try to do that. We have to remember that when amendments are drafted by the Department of Justice it is done independently by anglophone and francophone drafters. It isn't a matter of translating from one language to the other; it is parallel drafting. In this case, the wording means the same thing in both languages. In English, it says: [ English ] “If, following the hearing of an application made under”. [ Translation ] In French, it says: " Le juge qui, au terme de l'audition ." So something is going to happen after the application. In practice, it says the same thing.

Mr. Joël Godin :

Thank you for your answer. However, we saw something relatively unique in the House of Commons today. We amended some commas and words in Bill C-13 . Ten motions were introduced by the government after the same work was done as we are doing here for Bill C-21 . I draw your attention to this because I want to make sure the same mistake isn't made. I would like us to make sure that the meaning is the same. This is a law, and there has to be as little as possible that needs to be interpreted and argued in court. I think it is important to point this out, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Godin. [ English ] As we wait for the hard copy that Madam Damoff is undertaking, Mr. Calkins I believe wants to move an amendment to clause 30. (On clause 30)

The Chair: Is this what you wish to speak to, Mr. Julian?

Mr. Peter Julian :

Yes, Mr. Chair. We could be looking at the same amendment.

The Chair :

I have Mr. Calkins on the list first. We'll let him go ahead. After we're done clause 30, I propose that we will go to Mr. Ruff, who will ask for unanimous consent to go back to clause 18 to do his amendment. Mr. Calkins, go ahead, please.

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

Thank you, Chair. Just to let you know, I have two amendments to this clause. I have to do them separately because they are separate issues. The first one I have to move simply because I did not have time in the five minutes to ask the question that I wanted to ask in regard to subsection 63(3), “Authorizations to carry”. What I propose is to remove the word “not” between the words “are” and “valid”.

It would read, in English, “Authorizations to carry are valid outside the province where the holder of the authorization resides.” My reason for moving that amendment is I would like to ask the department officials a question regarding what this clause intends to do. My colleague, Mr. Genuis, talked about people who lived in proximity to borders. I just want to understand it clearly. Is this authorization to carry that's being discussed here for personal protection or is it for things like trappers, for protection from animals?

Would it be for all of those or is it for those very rare instances where an individual is carrying a firearm for personal protection from another person or where law enforcement can't readily respond? Is it both or is it just the singular instance?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

It would cover all of the authorizations to carry for reasons under paragraphs 20(

a) or 20(b). As it normally works currently, the vast majority of them are for reasons of employment. For example, it's a security guard who carries a handgun for a bank cash transfer company. They have one in Ontario. There's an agreement that happens also, for example, with the Quebec CFOs, so that they can cross over to Gatineau and do their route across there. There's an agreement. It's still an authorization in the province in which it was issued, currently. That's what the intent was. It was to capture those situations. However, the way it's worded would limit it in terms of where that person resides.

I think the intent would be to maintain the current regime so there is a geographical reality to the authorization to carry.

(1655) The Chair :

I just want to point out, sir, that the clock is running. Can you move the amendment?

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

I did. I believe I said I want to withdraw the word “not” from the clause.

The Chair :

I missed that. I apologize.

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

I'm sorry, Chair, if I wasn't clear. I have a purpose for removing the word “not”. I appreciate your answer, but I want to speak specifically to those cases where it's not for the purpose of employment or the purpose of the course of somebody's job, like a trapper or an armoured car guard. I'm talking about those rare instances where an individual has been given an ATC for personal protection for whatever reason.

If I read this correctly, this clause, if it's not amended, would limit the person's ability to travel in their country with their protective device that they've been authorized to carry to the area of jurisdiction of that chief firearms officer only. They would essentially be—because I can't come up with the right words right now—imprisoned in their own area of jurisdiction. I'm asking you this from a charter perspective. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

section 6, mobility rights, every Canadian citizen is granted the ability to travel freely in this country, and under legal rights under

section 7, everyone is entitled to the right to life, liberty and security of the person. These people would be issued this authorization to carry for that life, liberty and security of the person premise. That security of the person premise only applies, then, to the jurisdiction of the chief firearms officer. It doesn't apply to the entirety of Canada. Is this clause charter compliant?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

As I said, the intent was to sort of mirror the language that was originally there and adapted because of the change of the authorization to carry for protection of life. We recognized yesterday that this did not capture the government's intent when drafting the motion. With regard to the charter, I will turn to my colleagues in terms of the implications.

Mr. Sandro Giammaria (Counsel, Department of Justice) :

Unfortunately, I don't think I can give charter advice, but just as a point of clarification,

section 6 of the charter is not a freedom of movement guarantee. It provides a right to enter a province and take up residence in that province, so it's narrower than I think maybe you characterized it as. It's kind of a bare right of freedom of movement. I just wanted to provide that correction.

The Chair :

Mr. Calkins, I'm going to have to cut you off there. Go ahead, Mr. Julian, please.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand what Mr. Calkins is trying to get at. I would not be voting in favour of his amendment, but I would like to offer a possibility, once we've considered his amendment, which is to add to the amendment “and/or works”, so clause 30 would read, “authorized to carry are not valid outside the province where a holder of the authorization resides and/or works”. We can double-check with the officials, but I believe that would cover border areas such as Mr. Genuis raised yesterday. That would be what I would offer if Mr. Calkins' amendment is defeated.

(1700) The Chair :

We can't go back to Mr. Calkins at this point. Is there any further discussion on Mr. Calkins' amendment? Seeing none, I will ask for a vote on Mr. Calkins' amendment.

An hon. member: A recorded vote. (Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: I know Mr. Calkins has one more amendment, but I think Mr. Julian had his hand up right after, so we'll take them in order. Mr. Julian, please move your amendment, and then we can come back.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Mr. Chair, I would move that we add “and/or works” at the end of the phrase.... However, I do want to check with the officials to make sure that's appropriate wording to resolve the issue that Mr. Genuis brought up.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

You could also consider mirroring the language that's in paragraph 20(

b) of the Firearms Act “for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation”. “Works” is a little simpler, but you could consider mirroring the language that is already in the Firearms Act.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Which would be?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

It would be “for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation”.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Okay. For use....

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

You could also consider, “for the questions for protection of life of that individual or other individuals”. If we could, I think I might want to take a few minutes with my colleagues—if that would be all right—just so that we could consider....

The Chair :

Does your amendment interfere with this amendment, do you think?

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

No.

The Chair :

How about we go with Mr. Calkins' amendment while you guys sort that out and we'll be efficient with our time. Madam Damoff.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I don't have a problem with that, but it probably involves asking officials questions and they can't answer Mr. Calkins' questions and ours if they're thinking about something, so I think maybe we should let them put their heads together, Chair.

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

They have to sort it out.

The Chair :

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes to get this sorted out.

(1700) (1735) The Chair :

I'll resume the meeting. Mr. Julian has the floor. Mr. Julian, would you like to reread your amendment?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That will be very different from what I just proposed. I want to thank the officials for producing the bilingual versions so fast; they are very high quality.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I'm sorry, Mr. Julian. Mr. Shipley, do you have an issue with translation?

Mr. Doug Shipley (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, CPC) :

No, but I have a point of order.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

Mr. Doug Shipley :

I hear Taleeb's concern about my attendance at the committee. I've been here virtually the whole time.

The Chair :

That's not a point of order. We need to keep that off-line. We're under way with Mr. Julian's amendment, and we need to carry on with it. Mr. Julian, please carry on.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I have a point of order, Chair. Mr. Shipley needs headphones if he's going to speak.

The Chair :

Absolutely. Mr. Shipley, you need your headphones. Mr. Julian, please continue.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to see you, Mr. Shipley. My amendment deals with subclause 30(3) of Bill C-21 . It reads as follows:

Authorizations to carry referred to in paragraph 20(

a) are not valid outside the geographic area set in the authorization by Commissioner. Authorizations to carry referred to in paragraph 20(

b) are not valid outside the province in which they are issued.

That creates two different ways of dealing with authorizations to carry, for paragraphs 20(

a) and 20(b).

[ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Julian, do you have that in hard copy, so we can distribute it to the committee? Is it already distributed? Okay. Madam Michaud.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Thank you for moving this amendment, Mr. Julian. Ms. Mainville-Dale, you have answered my question, but I just want to make sure I have understood correctly. This means that the provincial commissioner has the power to decide the outcome for the individual. Is that correct?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Yes, that's correct. When an individual needs an authorization to carry to protect their life, and let us agree that these are a few rare special cases, the commissioner will be able to establish a geographic range that is suited to their needs.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Perfect. So it falls within the commissioner's prerogative.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Yes, that's right.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

That's great. In the written version of Mr. Julian's amendment, there is an " à " missing in the last sentence, after " prévues " and before " l'alinéa ". Thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. Can we consider that corrected? There's an accent missing in Mr. Julian's French version. Madam Michaud, could you say that again, please?

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

In the last sentence of the French version, there is an "à" missing between the word prévues " and " l'alinéa " in the segment that reads " l'autorisation de port prévues l'alinéa ." We could correct that before voting on the amendment.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Julian, is that how you moved this?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Peter Julian :

Yes, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

We have more. Carry on, Mr. Clerk.

Mr. Philippe Méla :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. [ Translation ] There are other corrections that need to be made to the French version of Mr. Julian's amendment. In the segment that reads " L'autorisation de port prévues ," there should not be an "s" on the word " prévues ". In the word " établit ," the "t" should be replaced by an "e". And again, in the segment that reads " L'autorisation de port prévues ," there should not be an "s" on the word " prévues ."

(1740) [ English ]

The Chair :

Can we consider that those changes have been made and have been unanimously adopted?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you. The debate on Mr. Julian's amendment continues. Is there any further discussion on Mr. Julian's motion? Mr. Calkins.

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

I just have a question for the officials on how this is interpreted. I believe I'm working from a current copy of the proposed amendment by Mr. Julian. The correction that was just made, because I just got this now, was in the French language version, so there have been no changes in the English language version that would have been sent. Is that correct?

The Chair :

I believe that's correct.

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

It's changing now to read,

Authorizations to carry referred to in subsection 20(

a) are not valid outside the geographic area set in the authorization by Commissioner.

Can you explain this to me, because I thought in the discussion that we had about these authorizations to carry that the authorization was granted by the chief firearms officer, not the commissioner. Why are referring to the commissioner here, instead of the chief firearms officer? I'm just looking for some clarification.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

There's an amendment in the bill to centralize the authorizations to carry for personal protection, to centralize those with the commissioner. That was a clause, I believe, that was passed last evening. Therefore, that one is to give discretion to the commissioner to set the geographic area according to the needs of that individual person. For people who will have an authorization to carry for reasons of their employment, the current process would exist where the chief firearms officer would be the one who would issue the authorization to carry.

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

I'm sorry. Could you just repeat that last bit, please?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

For people who have an authorization to carry for reasons of their employment, the current process would continue. That would be the CFO, the chief firearms officer of the province, who would issue it, and if they need to cross provinces, there's an agreement between the CFOs.

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

Thank you. In the second part of the amendment, it says:

the geographic area set in the authorization by Commissioner.

The amendment that I was going to move, had I not been bumped by Mr. Julian, would have been to add “province or territory”, because not everybody lives in a province. In one part of the amendment here, we're talking about “the geographic area set in the authorization by Commissioner”, and then in the second part of the amendment, it says:

Authorizations to carry referred to in subsection 20(

b) are not valid outside the province in which they are issued.

Not everybody lives in a province. Even though the chief firearms officers have certain authorities that the commissioner doesn't have, the Northwest Territories is no longer part of the joint Alberta area. Do we need to have an amendment in order to make this valid and legitimate, one where we say the “province or territory” in which you reside?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

I would refer and rely on the

Interpretation Act, in which “province” includes the territories.

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

We don't need to have that amendment made for clarification.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

No.

The Chair :

Are there any further discussions on Mr. Julian's amendment. (Amendment agreed to [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: Mr. Calkins, did you have another amendment to make?

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

No. My questions have been answered.

The Chair :

We'll go back to Ms. Damoff. Are we ready with Ms. Damoff's amendment?

Ms. Pam Damoff :

We are, but do you want to carry clause 30, and then we'll go to mine?

The Chair :

That's a very good idea.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Thank you.

The Chair :

We're doing a recorded vote. (Clause 30 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4) (On clause 15)

(1745) The Chair :

We have Ms. Damoff's amendment, and then we'll get back to Mr. Ruff. Ms. Damoff, your amendment is on your previous amendment to NDP-1. Are you ready to proceed?

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I am.

The Chair :

Has that been distributed to the committee?

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Yes.

The Chair :

Okay. Carry on, please.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

It would amend the first paragraph that we adopted yesterday. It will clean it up. It will allow officials to make regulations, but it will also expand who is issuing a protection order. For the new one, I'll just read the first paragraph, Chair, if that's okay. Everyone has it. It would be that “protection order has the meaning assigned by the regulations ( ordonnance de protection ); but is intended to include any binding order made by a court or other authorizing entities in the interest of the safety or security of a person; this includes but is not limited to orders that prohibit a person from”. I'm sorry.

I think I might have an old one. Do I? I do. Could you correct the words? I'm sorry. I took the one that the clerk sent me, but I believe that's not the most recent one. It's “by a court or other competent authority in the interest of the safety or security of a person”. I hope colleagues will support that. We've already passed the clause. This is just cleaning it up and making it more effective.

The Chair :

I'm sorry. You're amending your previous amendment, the text of the previous amendment. Is that what you're doing?

Ms. Pam Damoff :

It's the text of what we passed in NDP-1, yes.

The Chair :

Okay. All right. Mr. Clerk, are you clear on this amendment?

Mr. Philippe Méla :

Did you remove the term “court”?

Ms. Pam Damoff :

No, it says, “by a court or other competent authority”.

Mr. Philippe Méla :

I don't have that.

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC) :

Thanks, Mr. Chair, just—

The Chair :

Just hang on a minute. I'm hoping we get back to—

Mr. John Barlow :

This is on Ms. Damoff's subamendment.

The Chair :

Okay. Carry on. We'll get this sorted out in the interim.

Mr. John Barlow :

In the email that's been sent I have two different versions here, and nothing that I can see shows the changes. I know this was approved, but nothing shows the changes. Gauging from my colleagues, I'm having a bit of a difficult time. I know that for us I want to thank our colleagues who are permanent members of this committee to allow us.... This is very important to our constituents. I appreciate the time they have given us to be a part of this. I apologize if I'm going back a little bit.

Again, this is pretty critical to my constituents and I know for many of us, so I want to make sure that I'm following this properly. In the email that I've been given, I have two different versions of new amendments, but nothing really highlights what the changes are. Ms. Damoff, of the two you've sent us, can you tell us which one we're dealing with specifically on the change?

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Sure. Do you have NDP-1 in front of you, John?

Mr. John Barlow :

I do.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

If you look at NDP-1 and the paragraph that begins with “protection order”, delete that whole paragraph. Replace that paragraph with, “protection order has the meaning assigned by regulations ( ordonnance de protection ); but is intended to include any binding order made by a court or other competent authority in the interest of the safety or security of a person; this includes but is not limited to orders that prohibit a person from”. Then the remainder of NDP-1 does not change.

(1750) The Chair :

Are you next, Mr. Calkins?

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

Sure. I'll ask some questions on this. Thank you for the clarification on what exactly the change is. Could the officials tell us this? With the proposed change that's happening right now, everybody understands what a court is. What would be on the list, other than a court, of the other competent authorities?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I can't provide a comprehensive list, but I can indicate that there are various forms of provincial legislation that include protection orders of various sorts. Those can include conditions that one not possess a firearm or any of, let's say, the conditions that are listed here. Those particular provincial statutes will set out who the issuing body is, so—

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

Could you give me an example of something other than a court that could do this?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

I can give you that. It's a pretty obscure example, but it's from New Brunswick. It's called the Intimate Partner Violence Intervention Act. It's referred to as an emergency protection order. The issuing body is a member of the provincial civil service. It's an administrative decision-maker.

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

Are there any examples where this competent authority could be in place without a statute, either federally or provincially?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

That's difficult to answer. In terms of the words competent authority, I can indicate that those terms are used several times throughout the Criminal Code in reference to bodies that issue orders that are not specifically courts. Those are common terms. They're terms that have been used—

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

I'm not worried if it's a court or not. I'm just worried that.... I don't know the answer to the question I'm asking. Would anyone who is deemed a competent authority be a competent authority under a provincial or federal statute? How could a competent authority exist without a statute? Is it possible? Does it exist in common law? Does it exist in religious types of laws, or does a competent authority actually have to be in a statute?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

I would point to the first sentence where we say that it has the meaning assigned in the regulations. That would give the government time to develop and propose the regulations, consult and define exactly the types of competent authorities and types of orders. That second clause would sort of signify the intent of the legislature to say what kinds of orders and protection orders are captured by the regulations. The intent, when this was proposed, was not to capture every single type of protection order, but those that were for the protection of victims of intimate partner violence and gender-based violence.

By relying on that, and defining it in the regulations, the fact is that it's going to have the meaning set in the regulations.

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

Yes, but a regulation can't exist without a statute. I guess the answer to my question is that there shouldn't be a competent authority anywhere that doesn't have the authority by regulation, be it a statute or be it the statute itself. Without getting into detail, there are other types of ways we deal with justice, and other types of issues in Canada. I'm wondering if those would not be considered competent authorities. It would have to be by statute. I'm getting the sense that, yes, it would have to be by statute and, thereby, regulation.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Again, that's outside of my personal scope of expertise, but I would rely on the fact that, if the government were to develop regulations, those questions would be answered and the meaning of competent authority would be sorted out.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Calkins. [ Translation ] Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the French version of clause 15 of the bill, it reads " ou une autre autorité compétente ." I wonder whether we shouldn't write " ou toute autre autorité compétente ." Would that change something in terms of

interpretation?

(1755) Ms. Phaedra Glushek (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice) :

Are you asking me whether we can add " ou toute ?"

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Instead of writing " ou une autre autorité compétente ," should we write " ou toute autre autorité compétente ?"

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Yes, we could do that. If it is explained in the regulations, it is correct to write " toute autre autorité compétente ."

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

If I understand correctly, that does not really change anything. At the very end of the subsection, it reads " à une personne de ," but I think the " de " is too much, since all the paragraphs start with " de " in the French version.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Did you wish to make an amendment? You're good. Okay. Is there any other discussion on this amendment? Seeing none, the clerk would like to read it back for the committee before we vote on it. Please go ahead, sir.

Mr. Philippe Méla :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just made a few changes that Ms. Damoff is aware of. The amendment would read, in English:

protection order has the meaning assigned by the regulations

—I removed the semicolon and “ordonnance de protection” because it's already at the end—

but is intended to include any binding order made by the courts or other competent authority in the interest of the safety or security of a person;

The rest stays the same. I changed the “of” for “or”, because it was misspelled there, and then I just removed the reference to ordonnance de protection , because it's already at the end in the reference to the French version. I did the same in French. It would read as follows: [ Translation ] Concerning " ordonnance de protection :"

S'entend au sens des règlements

I removed the words " ordonnance de protection ."

mais vise à inclure toute ordonnance contraignante rendue par un tribunal ou une autre autorité compétente dans l'intérêt de la sécurité d'une personne; cela inclut, sans s'y limiter, les ordonnances qui interdisent à une personne:

I have removed the preposition " de ."

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. I think we can take that as the definitive version. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. (Subamendment agreed to)

The Chair: Okay. That wraps up NDP-1 and its amendments. Let us redo the vote on NDP-1 as amended by Ms. Damoff.

Mr. Blaine Calkins: I'd like a recorded vote.

The Chair: Absolutely. (Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (Clause 15 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

The Chair: Thank you. I'll give the floor now to Mr. Ruff, who I believe will be asking for unanimous consent to take a look at his amendment, which pertains to clause 18, I believe. Mr. Ruff.

(1800) Mr. Alex Ruff :

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Before I do that, though, I maybe I should have done this as a point of order. I just think, in recognition of the tragedy that happened this morning, and especially considering this committee, we should just take a moment to recognize Sergeant Eric Mueller and his family and the whole law enforcement community for what they do on a daily basis to keep our communities safe. My personal thanks to Mr. Chiang for his many years of service as a law enforcement officer. It's terrible news when somebody makes the supreme sacrifice for their country and their community, so I would ask the indulgence of the committee just to take a quick moment of silence, Chair.

The Chair :

Absolutely. Is that the will of the committee?

Some hon. members: Agreed. [ A moment of silence observed ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Ruff, for bringing that forward.

Mr. Alex Ruff :

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to seek the committee's unanimous consent for me to go back and move an amendment tied to clause 18, which we discussed at length last night. I think we were in agreement that it wasn't in the appropriate spot.

The Chair :

Do we have the unanimous consent of the committee?

Some hon. members: Agreed. (On clause 18)

Mr. Alex Ruff :

Thanks so much, Chair, and thanks so much to the committee members. Everybody should have a hard copy. Basically the change now is going to happen in subclause 18(0.1). I move that Bill C-21 in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 17 with the following:

Paragraph 19(1)(

b) of the Act is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (iii):

(iii.1) wishes to transport the firearm to another individual or business who holds a licence authorizing that individual or business to possess prohibited firearms or restricted firearms for purposes of storage for the time necessary for the individual to address a mental illness or similar problem, or

Then it says at the bottom of that:

(1) Subsection 19(2.1) of the Act is replaced by

As I discussed last night with those committee members who were here, the purpose of this is to provide that clarity to the firearms community, so that they understand that if they're dealing with a mental health challenge, especially for veterans dealing with PTSD and others, they have an ability to have their firearm temporarily stored with another appropriately licensed individual. It's important they know that this is an option that's available to them and that it's quite clear to them. Then they can seek the help they need and not turn away from it.

As well, it provides initial clarity to our chief firearms officers across the country to know that this is an avenue, and from my discussions with the officials, especially within the firearms program, it would likely help them from a prioritization standpoint to address these types of requests when they come in. I'll leave my comments at that for now, Chair.

(1805) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Ruff. Now we go to Ms. Damoff, followed by Mr. Julian and then Madam Michaud. Ms. Damoff.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Thank you, Chair. I have to say, it's a pleasure having you here at the committee, Mr. Ruff, and I want to thank you for bringing this forward. I do have some questions for officials. I wonder if they could clarify for me, from a practical perspective, how this will work and how that person gets their firearm back because there's no requirement for.... If they have a mental illness, I'm assuming that the individual would determine on their own when they're competent to retrieve their firearm, but could you just go through the process of how this would work?

Mr. Rob Mackinnon (Director, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police) :

The individual would apply to the chief firearms officer for the authorization to transport for the purposes of temporary storage, as Mr. Ruff denoted, and the CFO would provide the time period that this firearm would not be in the possession of the individual who was originally in possession of it. The CFO would determine when the firearm would need to be removed from the temporary storage through the issuance of another ATT to move it from temporary storage back to the individual who had the firearm registered—the handgun registered. At that point, the CFO would make a determination regarding that individual around whether they still have the eligibility to hold that type of firearm.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

The amendment says that it would be stored for the time necessary for the individual to address a mental illness or similar problem. The individual's not disclosing that to the chief firearms officer. Is that correct? They're just saying that they want to store the firearm, and then.... I guess the worry I've always had with this—and it's not that I'm not going to support it—is that you have someone making a self-determinations on when they should have a firearm in their possession. One of the things we talked about at length is the risk for someone who has depression or PTSD. The whole reason Mr.

Ruff has brought this forward is so that they will seek help. My concern around this is that you're self-determining when you have a mental illness and when you are healthy enough to get that firearm back. Am I correct in interpreting that?

Ms. Kellie Paquette (Director General, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police) :

My understanding of this amendment is that they would self-declare, so that would trigger an eligibility process for sure. A CFO would review the situation when the individual requested the firearm back.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

In this amendment they don't have to self-declare. Is that right, or they do?

Ms. Kellie Paquette :

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

Ms. Pam Damoff :

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.

Ms. 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.

(1810) Ms. Pam Damoff :

Thank you very much.

The Chair :

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.

Mr. Peter Julian :

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.

Ms. 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.

Mr. Peter Julian :

“They” being the authority...?

Ms. Kellie Paquette :

Yes.

Mr. Peter Julian :

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

Ms. 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.

Mr. Peter Julian :

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

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Julian. [ Translation ] Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

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?

Ms. 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.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

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?

Ms. 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.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Thank you. I also want to thank Mr. Ruff for making me aware of this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Noormohamed, you have 25 seconds.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.) :

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.

(1815) Ms. 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 :

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

Mr. Alex Ruff :

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 :

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)

The Chair: 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.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

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.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. Is there any discussion? Mr. Calkins.

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

Thank you, Chair. I find this addition, this amendment, absolutely frustrating and infuriating. As a hunter, I sometimes wait eight to 10 years for the privilege of being able to pursue a hunt in my home province. I would be outraged if, through no fault of my own, the Government of Canada did not renew my possession and acquisition licence on time, and I drove 200 or 300 miles to a hunt that I payed $5,000, $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 for, just to find out that my magazine is faulty and I cannot go to the store and purchase a replacement one because of a clause like this.

The governing body that determines when an applicant gets their licence renewed is the one that bears the responsibility. The reason the extension of six months was added on was that governments typically can't meet the obligation of getting a firearms licence renewal processed in a timely fashion, even according to what the firearms centre says it does on its website. I deal with this in my office constantly. The number of people in this country who follow the guidelines on the website, do a renewal, and do not get their licences returned in time, who are now going to be....

It's punitive, absolutely punitive, to somebody who acts in good faith, not only in the acquisition of their licence but in the acquisition of their hunting permit and the purchase of a hunt. I'm asking the officials. If this clause becomes law, what we are saying, in essence, is that unless your.... You have to wait. It doesn't matter; the hunt will not wait for you. The season in the province or territory in which you are hunting will not wait for you. You might even only have a season of a week. As a matter of fact, in January of this year, I had a three-day elk hunt that I waited 10 years for.

Ten years I waited for that opportunity, and if I would have lost the magazine for my Savage rifle, if this clause had been law and I had been by myself. Because my PAL was in the six-month grace period, I would not have been allowed to go to the store and get a replacement magazine. Is that correct?

(1820) Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

In the circumstances you have just described, yes. You wouldn't be able to purchase a magazine. I would just like to point out that you wouldn't be able to use the firearm either, and that is already in the Firearms Act.

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

This is the point. I understand the notion, and I understand that she is making it consistent. But I want to make it clear to every hunter who is being told right now by members of other political parties that these laws are not going after you as a hunter, make it explicitly clear to you, as a hunter, that you will potentially be denied your hunt because you cannot use your gun, you cannot buy replacement ammunition and you cannot buy a replacement cartridge or any part of a firearm, even though through no fault of the hunter—

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Mr. Calkins said “will” and he said “potentially”. Could he, in his statement, just clarify what he means? Is it that it “will” or that it “potentially will”—because there is a difference there.

The Chair :

Thank you. I think that is debate, but if Mr. Calkins wants to clarify....

Mr. Blaine Calkins :

I just want to put it on the record, and I am being crystal clear. If I am not allowed, because I have applied for a renewal of my PAL and it doesn't get processed in a timely fashion, I will be denied a hunting season, even if I have paid upwards of thousands of dollars for a hunt, which I cannot get refunded. I think it is incumbent on the MPs who are here at this table to understand the consequences of not only this decision, but the decisions that have already been made earlier on. By denying somebody who, through no fault of their own is now going to be denied, perhaps, a once in a lifetime opportunity....

In some parts of this country, people wait their entire lives to get an opportunity for one specific hunt. As a matter of fact, in B.C., in terms of your opportunity to get a Roosevelt elk draw, you may never get one in your entire lifetime, and if you were to get one.... This particular clause is punitive, absolutely punitive, to the hunting community. I'll cede my time, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

We'll go now to Ms. Damoff.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Thank you, Chair. Could the officials just clarify this? We made an amendment last night to add the requirement to have a licence for a magazine. This is just updating a coordinating amendment to ensure that it's in compliance with the decision we made last night. Is that correct?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Yes.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I just want to remind the Conservative members, and in particular Mr. Calkins, that the vote in requiring a licence for a magazine was passed unanimously last night, including by Conservative members. I would like Mr. Calkins to go and look Reese Fallon's family in the face and tell them that the elk hunt is more important than her life, because the shooter on the Danforth did not require a licence to go and buy a magazine before he went and tried to slaughter people on the Danforth. I'm sorry that Mr. Calkins doesn't like this amendment, but Conservatives voted—

Mr. Blaine Calkins: Was that person a PAL holder waiting for a renewal of their licence?

The Chair: No cross-talk, please.

Ms. Pam Damoff: I have the floor, Mr. Calkins. You're complaining about not being able to do something and waiting for 10 years. Reese Fallon will never be able to get married. She'll never be able to have children, and you're complaining about not killing an elk. I'm sorry, Mr. Calkins, but I find that so offensive. I was very proud of members last night on this committee that we unanimously passed the amendment that Ms. Michaud brought forward to require a licence for magazines. All this is doing is changing something that's already in the law, to add magazines to it, and I would hope that members would support that.

(1825) [ Translation ]

The Chair :

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would point out that the Conservative members who were present last night voted unanimously for the first amendment regarding cartridge magazines and the subsequent amendments. There is no need to scare hunters. As Mr. Giammaria said, they would not be able to go hunting or use their firearms in any event. It is not our fault if the government is slow to renew licences or if the person applies or does things at the last minute. I find it a little offensive that Mr. Calkins is not even listening to the answers that are given to his questions. I invite him to vote in favour of this amendment. It is a coordinating amendment. There is nothing more to be said.

[ English ]

The Chair :

We have Mr. Steinley, followed by Mr. Julian.

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC) :

We'll turn down the political rhetoric a little bit here. I just have a couple of anecdotes from over the last couple of years. I wasn't here last night, obviously, so my question would be if the grace period has been shortened up for...?

Ms. Kellie Paquette :

No.

Mr. Warren Steinley :

How long is that grace period still?

Ms. Kellie Paquette :

It's still six months.

Mr. Warren Steinley :

I have a couple of anecdotes from the last couple of years. It happened to my neighbour, who is a very avid hunter and very law-abiding. He's had his guns and magazines and shells in his gun safe for the last three years, because throughout COVID-19 he had not been able to get the renewal of his RPAL or his PAL, through no fault of his own. Actually, at one point in time they said, because people weren't getting their mail through Canada Post.... He has had to send his application in twice now, and obviously that grace period was gone so he missed two years of hunting, through no fault of his own. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances where law-abiding—

The Chair :

I'm sorry, Mr. Steinley, but your time is up. Are there any further comments? Mr. Julian, go ahead.

Mr. Peter Julian :

I'm a little confused by the Conservatives on this. They voted for similar amendments yesterday, so I'm confused that, while they understood the sense of the amendments yesterday, today those same amendments provoke a completely different reaction. I've been somewhat dismayed by the intent of some Conservative members in the House to try to present the bill as still having the amendments that we forced the withdrawal of months ago. Conservatives tried to take credit for it, but now they seem to be, at least in the House, indicating that the amendments are still there.

I think that misinformation is not helpful at all. In this sense, I don't understand why they would vote for similar amendments yesterday and now say today that these are problems. It doesn't seem to be consistent at all. I do recognize that this government is slow in a whole range of areas, including on renewal of licences. That is true, and we've seen it in a number of different areas. I had similar concerns with the Harper government that was so slow in a whole range of other areas.

That is an administrative issue that I think does need to be followed up on, but it's different from considering the bill and considering the amendments that are before us now.

(1830) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Julian. We'll go now to Mr. Noormohamed. You have three minutes and 19 seconds this time.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't need all that time. Like Mr. Julian, I'm a bit perplexed. We sat through a unanimous vote on effectively the very same amendment yesterday. I would love to understand why, all of a sudden, there seems to be opposition to voting for something that everyone on this committee unanimously approved yesterday. This seems to be a fairly straightforward process. I would love to actually understand, sincerely. This is not a question asked out of malice. I would love to understand this from my Conservative friends. Why were they so willing to unanimously support something yesterday, but today are prepared to speak with such force and energy against the very same thing?

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed. Is there any further discussion on this amendment? Seeing no further discussion, I would call the vote.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Could we get a recorded vote on this?

The Chair :

Absolutely. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

The Chair: Congratulations. That is new clause 30.1 I suggest we break at this point for dinner. Before we do so, I note that we stood clause 26 yesterday. I believe it was because of translation concerns. I'm not quite sure why. I'm going to ask, during the break, if we can figure out whether we can go ahead with that at this point? Let's take a break for 15 minutes for dinner.

(1830) (1855) The Chair :

I call this meeting back to order. Last night, we stood clause 26, because Madam Michaud needed some.... Mr. Shipley, do you have a point of order?

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you, Chair. I just got here, so I'm not trying to jump in. I made an intervention earlier tonight, and I wanted to apologize to my colleagues, the officials, but especially to the interpreters, because I know they have a very tough job. I didn't wear my headset. It was kind of a rush. I had a couple of people who texted me quickly and called me that Mr. Noormohamed was concerned about my whereabouts. I didn't take the time to put on my headset, so I apologize for that, but I'm here now. I would have apologized to him, but he's not here in person. That's unfortunate, but I wanted to especially apologize to the interpreters.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed: I'm here.

The Chair :

Thank you. Madam Michaud, if you're ready, we can go back to clause 26 and clear that up. (On clause 26)

The Chair: We will start with BQ-8.1.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I first want to thank my colleagues for standing this clause yesterday. We had had some discussions behind the scenes and we were not sure whether the amendment was admissible, properly speaking. I am going to explain the intent behind this amendment. We had this discussion several times when the officials appeared at the committee and we discussed what happened when a firearm enters the Canadian market. Is it checked by the RCMP first? Is it checked once the RCMP realizes the firearm is already on the market and has to be classified differently? Ms.

Paquette told me this was in fact the case for non-restricted firearms when they entered the market. There isn't really a process that requires them to go through the RCMP first. We decided that in order to avoid the definition we adopted a little earlier being circumvented with new firearms, a process for pre-authorization by the RCMP would be useful. It would be an additional safeguard before firearms enter the market. Our intent and the discussions we have had with legislative counsel led us to word the amendment this way. I know it does not entirely cover the initial intent.

That is why I want to get the officials' opinion about it. I am going to read the amendment. We propose that Bill C-21, in Clause 26, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 19 the following:

A person may transfer or import a firearm only if it bears a Royal Canadian Mounted Police identification number.

I would like the officials to tell us how they interpret this amendment, what effects it would have, and whether it really expresses the intent I had at the outset. Thank you.

(1900) Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Thank you for the question. I needs to specify what identification number it is referring to. The amendment doesn't define what a Royal Canadian Mounted Police identification number is. If I understand correctly, it means the identification number for the make and model corresponding to the one in the Firearms Reference Table.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

If we adopted the amendment in its present form, would that create a problem for enforcing the law?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

What identification number it means could not be clearly determined, so it would lack clarity. I would also like to point out that the government announced last week that it intends to make regulatory amendments to require that there be a Firearms Reference Table reference number.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Thank you. We also tried to see whether it was possible to amend another clause in the bill by way of this amendment. However, the effect would be to amend the coordinating amendments concerning cartridge magazines, that I am going to propose later. Because there was excellent unanimity yesterday about adopting the provision about cartridge magazines, I didn't want to risk these amendments being negatived if I included that intent. I don't know whether I need unanimous consent, Mr.

Chair, but I would like to withdraw this amendment, while pointing out that the Minister has actually committed to making regulations under the Firearms Act to ensure that the firearms are classified correctly before they enter the Canadian market, by requiring a valid Firearms Reference Table number. That would ensure that the firearms are classified correctly and that the government is aware that there are new makes and mew models of firearms before they enter the Canadian market. To do that, my intent was really to use the legislative route.

However, I understand that it might be easier to do it by the regulatory route. So I really am counting on the Minister to fulfil this promise. If it is agreeable, I am going to withdraw this amendment, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Madam Michaud, I don't think you moved it, so I think you could withdraw it.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Then I withdraw it. Thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Julian would like to speak.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Peter Julian :

I wanted to say the same thing. The Minister does have to commit to eliminating these loopholes. I think everyone agrees that they should not exist in a normal system...

[ English ]

The Chair :

The amendment is withdrawn. Mr. Shipley, go ahead on a point of order.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you, sir. There was just, I think, an issue in the translation. When Ms. Michaud was talking, the translation came through that we had unanimous consent on “chargers” yesterday. I'm not sure exactly what that means, so can we get some clarification if there was an error?

(1905) [ Translation ]

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

The French term is " chargeur ." [ English ] In English, it's a cartridge magazine.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you. It was coming through as a charger, not a cartridge. Thank you.

The Chair :

Mr. Julian, go ahead on the same point of order.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Peter Julian :

I just want to point out that the Minister has assured us that it would be done by regulation. That is extremely important. I think the committee's message on this is very clear.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. We can't commit the minister in such a way, but we can certainly carry the message back. I'm sure Ms. Damoff will—

Ms. Pam Damoff: Can I respond to that?

The Chair: Sure. Go ahead on a point of order.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Just very briefly, Chair, Madam Michaud very kindly read what was said, and I certainly will give a commitment. I can't speak on behalf of the minister, but I will certainly speak on behalf of our side of the table and reiterate what the minister said. Absolutely, we will be doing regulations on the exact issue that Madam Michaud has put forward. It's in the record, and it is absolutely something we're committed to doing.

The Chair :

Okay. This is a fairly loose process here. It'll get tighter later. [ Translation ] We will now move on to amendment BQ-9.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unsurprisingly, amendment BQ-9 is a coordinating amendment concerning cartridge magazines. I won't repeat what I said before, although I would sort of like to do it anyway. I was surprised that a Conservative member was offended just now about a coordinating amendment concerning cartridge magazines, when the Conservatives voted for all the amendments concerning cartridge magazines and the coordinating amendments yesterday. I hope that this time my colleagues will be consistent with their vote yesterday.

This amendment amends clause 26 so that the act will state consistently that a valid licence is needed for acquiring cartridge magazines, just as is the case for acquiring ammunition and possessing firearms. I hope my colleagues will vote in favour of the amendment. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Michaud. [ English ] Is there any discussion on BQ-9? I am seeing none. (Amendment agreed to [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: That takes us to amendment G-43 now in the name of Mr. Noormohamed. Mr. Noormohamed, would you like to carry on? You're on mute. Try unplugging your headset and plugging it back in. It's IT-101: reboot, unplug it and plug it back in. Mr. Noormohamed, if you don't mind, I'll get Ms. Damoff to move it for you. Go ahead.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Thanks, Chair. Let me just check my handy list. Indeed it is another “firearm part” coordinating amendment to continue the good work that we were doing last night to make sure that all parts of what we're doing in Bill C-21 are complying with other acts. This is to do with ghost guns, and let's vote yes.

The Chair :

Is there any discussion on this amendment? Mr. Shipley, go ahead.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you. We have talked about ghost guns a lot, and I'm just getting back up to speed tonight, Ms. Damoff. Maybe the officials could tell me what this amendment would do in real life. How would this assist, going forward?

(1910) Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Thank you very much for the question. This motion would impose a requirement on individuals to have a valid firearms licence to import a firearm part. It specifies that an individual must, at the time of importation, have a valid firearms licence. It must be presented to a customs officer in order to import the firearm part, and the licence must be shown to a customs officer.

It would create a limited exemption to proposed subsection 38(1) for non-residents of at least 18 years of age if they declare the firearm part to a customs officer in the prescribed manner—and that's through a form and information—and a confirmed declaration would have the same effect as a valid licence for the purpose of importing a firearm part. I will remind you that “firearm part” was defined in an earlier motion as a barrel or a handgun slide.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Therefore, this amendment only pertains to bringing it across the border then. Is that correct?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Yes.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Would you be able to give me an example of how this amendment would function in real life?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Sure. For example, somebody is going to the United States, and when they are there they go and buy a handgun barrel as a part. For example, they have maybe a specialized firearm, and they need a barrel. As they come across the border they would declare, “I am bringing in a handgun barrel”, in the same way that if you bring firearms into Canada you must declare them upon entry into Canada. You would show that you have a valid PAL, your licence. The customs officer would note it, and you would enter.

The Chair :

Are you finished? Mr. Perkins, go ahead.

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC) :

Going further on Mr. Shipley's question, is it only when you physically go across the border? What if you're ordering online or by mail? Could you describe how that works?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

The same would apply if you apply by mail. When you go to pick it up, anything that you require a permit for.... Let's say you were ordering a firearm online. When you were to go and pick it up, you would have to show your firearms licence. You would have to confirm that you have a valid firearms licence in order to pick up your firearm. It's in the same way.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

Are the courier companies where you would pick this up trained to ask that? Do you do any spot audits of compliance? I was in the retail business for many years. We'd do what's called mystery shopping against standards. Do you do that in this case in order to ensure compliance?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

This would be up to our colleagues at the Canada Border Services Agency to apply, and they would apply the same process as they do for the importation of firearms in terms of verifying that people have a valid licence. It would extend to firearms parts that are defined as barrels and handgun slides.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

You haven't seen any reports in the past to show the effectiveness of this type of thing, or that they are or aren't complying when they come in now.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

I can't comment on the questions of compliance or non-compliance with the CBSA. I can tell you how it would be applied generally, and it would be the same process as for firearms.

The Chair :

Mr. Tochor, you have one minute.

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC) :

Thank you very much. Thank you to our fellow members here. I've been watching online, and this is my first availability to make it down to the committee. This amendment talks about the border, and that's seemingly a big focus of trying to stop illegal firearms and parts. Would this stop any illegal activity at the border?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

With regard to the trafficking of firearms and measures that are included in the bill, I will refer to materials that are available online with regard to measures that are going to strengthen with regard to trafficking. However, this specific motion has to do with addressing certain firearm parts that go into the manufacturing of illegal firearms or ghost guns—these are the parts that people don't necessarily make with a 3-D printer; they will go and buy these parts—and trying to prevent their entry into Canada.

(1915) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Tochor. Is there any further discussion on this amendment? Seeing none, I will call the vote. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (Clause 26 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0) (On clause 31)

The Chair: We are now back to clause 31. We have clause 31, clause 32 and clause 33. We don't have amendments for any these, I believe. Is it the will of the committee to adopt all three clauses at one time? No. Okay. Shall clause 31 carry?

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Are we going to have a chance to talk about this one?

The Chair :

Yes, if you need to talk about it. I'm sorry. I was getting in a hurry. Mr. Shipley, go ahead.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Again, I just have to read some notes here. We're talking about clause 31. Is that correct? It's just because we went back and now we're going forward again.

The Chair :

We're talking about clause 31, yes.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

This is where we're making registration certificates expire when their owners cease to own the firearm when the classification of that firearm is changed by

an act of Parliament. Perhaps the officials could just explain what this clause does in real life.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

This creates a new paragraph, 66(c), a third instance in which a registration certificate of a prohibited or restricted firearm becomes expired when the classification of a restricted or prohibited firearm changes as a result of, for example,

an act of Parliament or a regulation that is made under such

an act of Parliament.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

You say “expired”. Is that the registration that is expired? Is that what you mean?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

I mean the registration certificate, yes.

(1920) Mr. Doug Shipley :

How long does the original registration last before it expires?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

I will ask my colleagues at the RCMP.

Ms. Kellie Paquette :

It depends, but this change is specifically to do with, if something happens through Parliament that changes the classification of a firearm—for example, makes it a prohibited firearm—then the registration certificate would automatically expire.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Okay. You mentioned that “if something happens through Parliament”. Can you explain what you mean by that and give me an example of that?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

For example, if Parliament changes classifications of firearms that are, for example, restricted and makes them prohibited—if there were a change to the Criminal Code in terms of how it defines prohibited firearms—then when that provision comes into effect, the classification changes and the certificate would automatically expire. The second instance is when there is a regulation that changes the classification of a firearm. In that case, the registration certificate would also automatically expire.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you. I think my colleagues have something.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

Thank you. I just spent a modest amount of time on the finance committee talking about ministerial accountability. I'm sure everybody in Canada was watching my discourse and I'm sure every firearm owner watches intently every comma that happens in a parliamentary change. When Parliament changes the classification of a previously legal firearm, how would a legal firearm owner be notified that they now own a firearm that is no longer lawful? Secondly, what would then happen to that firearm?

Ms. Kellie Paquette :

When it's a registered firearm, the registrar will notify the licensee of the change of classification of their firearm.

Mr. Rick Perkins: By mail...?

Ms. Kellie Paquette: Yes, and by email if we have the email. We do that.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

For the second part of my question, what would happen to the firearm then?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

That depends on what was put in the change of that prohibition. For example, if Parliament or the regulation prohibited the firearm, it depends on whether an amnesty period is given. The firearm owner would then have to comply with whatever conditions had been made either by regulations or by Parliament in the act of Parliament.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

Thank you.

The Chair :

Mr. Tochor, you have 35 seconds.

Mr. Corey Tochor :

How does this make Canadians safer?

The Chair :

I believe that's not a question they can answer. Our witnesses are here to give us

interpretation of technical—

Mr. Corey Tochor :

I'll rephrase it. We have an individual who has unfortunately fallen on hard times and has turned to crime. They're out on the land and they have their firearms. This bill goes through. How does it stop that individual at all, or doesn't it?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Pardon me. Your question is that somebody.... I'm sorry. I missed the first part.

Mr. Corey Tochor :

In a hypothetical situation where an individual has a firearm and it expires but they are already down the path of criminal life, how would this actually stop them from carrying on with their firearm?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

If the firearm was one that was already legally registered—if it was, for example, a restricted firearm—and the Parliament or a regulation under

an act of Parliament changed the classification to prohibit it and they were.... I'm sorry. I don't understand.

Mr. Corey Tochor :

It expires, but what do they do?

The Chair :

Mr. Tochor, I think we have to draw a line there.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

We can add to our colleague's comments, if you like.

The Chair :

Could you do it quickly?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

If a person is in possession of a firearm and it is prohibited, then the possession and the use of that firearm would be prohibited, unless there was an amnesty or another way that the government would allow the individual to keep it.

Mr. Corey Tochor :

It doesn't keep them safer.

(1925) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Tochor. Is there any further discussion on this clause? Seeing none, I will ask for the vote.

Mr. Doug Shipley: I'd like a recorded vote. (Clause 31 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (On clause 32)

The Chair: We go now to clause 32. Is there any discussion on clause 32? Go ahead, Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's so nice to be back in here again tonight, isn't it? I missed you guys. On clause 32, just to recap this, this allows the commissioner of firearms to renew an authorization to carry a prohibited firearm and outline exemptions to handguns grandfathered in December 1998. My first question, because some people may not know this, is this: What is a commissioner of firearms?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

The commissioner of firearms is a statutory office that's created under the Firearms Act. That term is defined in the act. I'd refer the committee to

section 2 of the Firearms Act, where there's a definition of what the commissioner is.

Mr. Corey Tochor :

Is there one in each province, or is there a national one?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

There's one commissioner of firearms, and there are potentially many chief firearms officers of jurisdiction.

The Chair :

Mr. Shipley has the floor. Go ahead.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you. I applaud the keenness of my colleagues tonight. I just had another question, because in Ontario—and I think you caught that at the very end—I'm familiar with the chief firearms officer. In this clause we're talking about the firearms commissioner or the commissioner of firearms.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Go ahead, Madame Michaud, on a point of order, please.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

One of our Conservative colleagues asked the officials exactly the same question a few minutes ago. Asking redundant questions slows the committee's proceedings down. I want the Conservatives to switch out every 15 minutes or so, but we are here and we would like things to move forward. I am therefore asking my colleagues to keep this in mind.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I quite understand. I think that is a fair point of order. The Standing Orders certainly do discourage repetitive sorts of things. We have Mr. Julian on a point of order, and then Mr. Perkins on the same point of order.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Just following on Madame Michaud's comments, the reality is that there has been a tremendous amount of repetition from the Conservatives, who are asking the same questions over and over. Now it's true that people change, but it's up to Conservatives to brief their incoming people to make sure that the work of this committee isn't sabotaged. We had to start late because Conservatives insisted on having four identical votes in the House that took an hour of House time to delay this committee. I just find it disquieting that, on an issue that is so important, there seem to be so many delaying tactics.

As you'll recall, Mr. Chair, I asked numerous times for us to meet more often as a committee. The Conservatives always refused that permission. They really need to be working hard on behalf of their constituents. That means not being repetitive, coming well briefed and having read the legislation as well. We've had indications that there are Conservatives who haven't even read the bill when they come forward to this committee. I hope that will stop and that they will work co-operatively with everybody so we have the best possible legislation moving forward.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Julian. I would point out that, the longer this kind of stuff takes, the longer we're here in the morning. Mr. Perkins, go ahead on the same point of order.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd say to Mr. Julian, the deputy Liberal House leader, that it is not anti-parliamentary to hold votes in the House of Commons.

(1930) The Chair :

Mr. Perkins, we're not allowed to disparage people, and calling Mr. Julian the deputy Liberal House leader is—

Mr. Rick Perkins: Well, he did sign the supply—

The Chair: Excuse me, the chair has the floor. I urge you to maintain your discourse in a respectful manner. Carry on.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

I'm sorry; I thought that was his official title. I think, when you go through clause-by-clause, to Madame Michaud's point, members of Parliament have a right to ask questions about particular elements. It's not repetitive when you're asking about different clauses. You may not like the fact that parliamentarians—

The Chair :

I think we're going into debate now, Mr. Perkins. The point of order is closed. Mr. Tochor, do you have a new point of order or is it the same point of order?

Mr. Corey Tochor :

Mr. Chair, it's relevant to it. The officials had to pause and talk among themselves to figure out the proper answer to the question, so it can't be repetitive if the witnesses don't even know. It refers to the act, and their answer was that it refers to the act, but in that clause, there's no reference to the act. We've highlighted—

The Chair :

I think we have information. I think we're getting into an argument. No more. This point of order is over. We have a new point of order from Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of quick things. First of all, many times in this committee, Chair, you have mentioned that you don't want us to go back and discuss things in the past, that we need to keep working forward. You've said that to us many times. My friend down the end here just mentioned votes that took place earlier, and he was allowed to mention things that happened in the past. I believe that Standing Order 18 prohibits reflecting on the decisions of the House.

The Chair :

That's correct. It's a valid point. I encourage us all to maintain a forward perspective on this. Thank you. That being the case, we are on clause 32. I believe Mr. Shipley was speaking to clause 32.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

I hate to do this to Ms. Michaud, but I wasn't here earlier. I agree that there was some delay. I need to know. I want to know what the difference is between the commissioner of firearms and the chief firearms officers for a province. How do they differ? That is where we left off last time. Officials, could you give me those details?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

If we refer to

section 2 of the Firearms Act, a chief firearms officer is defined, and the commissioner means the commissioner of firearms appointed under

section 81.1. Currently the commissioner of firearms is the commissioner of the RCMP.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

That's the commissioner of firearms. How are the provincial chief firearms officers appointed? Who appoints them? Are they appointed?

Mr. Rob Mackinnon :

In accordance with

section 2 of the Firearms Act, a chief firearms officer is designated by a provincial minister. If the provincial minister chooses not to designate, the federal minister will designate a chief firearms officer.

The Chair :

Mr. Tochor, do you have your hand up?

Mr. Corey Tochor :

Yes, I'd like a clarification on the commissioner and the order of appointments. Does the federal government fund all the offices in the same way, then, each commissioner? How is that funding determined? It's the minister who appoints the provincial one, but who funds it? Is it both, or just the federal?

Ms. Kellie Paquette :

There's only one commissioner of firearms, but if you're referring to the chief firearms officers of each province, it depends on whether they're provincially or federally appointed, designated. If they are provincially designated, there are contribution agreements that are drafted and signed off on by the minister of the province and the federal minister. They come to an agreement on funding to administer the Firearms Act.

Mr. Corey Tochor :

“Refers to the December 1998 handgun” is cut off my version. This is when they transferred to restricted firearms and guns.

(1935) Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

That's correct. That was through Bill C-68 .

Mr. Corey Tochor :

That was to address rising crime rates with handguns, I believe. This was before I got here.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

It was to create a licensing regime in the Firearms Act and do some transfers of responsibility between the firearms program and the criminal law policy sector.

Mr. Corey Tochor :

Was that the creation of the RPAL?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Bill C-68 , I believe, was when the categories changed. There was grandfathering at the time—in subclause 12(6), I believe.

Mr. Corey Tochor :

Since 1998, they—

The Chair :

Mr. Tochor, your time is up. Ms. Damoff, please.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

No, I didn't have anything further.

The Chair :

Is there any further discussion on clause 32?

Mr. Rick Perkins :

I want to ask one question.

The Chair :

Your time's up. In that case, we'll call a vote on that. I assume we want a recorded division. (Clause 32 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0) (On clause 33)

The Chair: Is there discussion? I have Mr. Perkins, followed by Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the previous clause, it was mentioned that the commissioner of firearms is the commissioner of the RCMP. Is that correct?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Yes.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

In the testimony of the recently retired commissioner of the RCMP before the Mass Casualty Commission in Nova Scotia, when asked about her knowledge as the chief commissioner for firearms, she said she didn't know the difference between prohibited and restricted firearms and that she hated to admit that. Is the current commissioner—I believe it's an acting commissioner—of the RCMP familiar with the difference between prohibited and restricted? If you don't know the difference between prohibited and restricted as commissioner of the RCMP, how do you carry out your duties?

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Chair, this has nothing to do with clause 33. Officials are not here to talk about the commissioner of the RCMP. We're talking about a bill that's before us.

The Chair :

I take your point. I believe it's a valid point on relevance. I would urge the member to—

Mr. Rick Perkins :

The relevance is that this is giving specific powers to the commission—

The Chair :

Please don't interrupt the chair. I would urge the member to stick to the thing. I assume you are going to get to it at some early point.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

I did. I finished it. The commissioner of the RCMP is given specific, additional powers under this clause. I want to understand if the commissioner, in exercising those powers, is required to know the difference between prohibited and restricted, since the previous one admitted she didn't. Read the testimony.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Clause 33 proposes a few changes. It proposes to replace the heading to add the words “and Suspension”, as well as require a CFO to refuse a licence to individuals who are not eligible. It allows the CFOs—the chief firearms officers—to refuse an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport for sufficient reason.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

Okay.

The Chair :

Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you, Chair. I was waiting for my light there. This clause states, “for any good and sufficient reason”. Could the officials give some concrete examples of what a “good” or “sufficient” reason is? Can you clarify that, please?

Ms. Kellie Paquette :

There are many examples, but the one that comes to mind is if there's a suspicion of...I'm sorry...if something is flagged to the CFO because there might be straw purchasing involved, like multiple purchases of firearms. To allow the time necessary to do an investigation, this is something that would be used to make sure they have the time to stop any further purchases and allow for an investigation to be done.

(1940) Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you for taking your time on that, because these answers are important. We want to get it right the first time. You mentioned when “something is flagged”. The word “something” is a little vague. I'm sorry. Can you explain to me what you mean by “something is flagged”?

Ms. Kellie Paquette :

Yes. That's okay. There are various forms of flags that come in. Someone could call. A business could call in this situation. It could be a flag from police. Maybe they got stopped. Maybe there was something in the description of that incident—the flag that they had multiple firearms. It could come in various forms.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you. The other thing you mentioned in that answer was “multiple purchases”. I wasn't clear on that. Someone can't purchase multiple...at the same time, or over a length of time. When does that start to get flagged, or nullified, if that's the right term?

Ms. Kellie Paquette :

I'm just using it as an example. There's not a maximum today. If I'm going into the business, and I've gone there, I don't know, every week for a month and I'm buying a couple of firearms each time, then that business may flag that. They may call the chief firearms officer and say, this person seems to be coming in a lot and buying more than I've seen, or it could be an association of businesses and they've seen Kellie Paquette go to all these various stores. That kind of information will drive something like this, to trigger an investigation.

The Chair :

I think I'm going to have to cut you off there, Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

I was just going to say thanks, because that was good information.

The Chair :

Okay, that's good. Is there any further discussion on clause 33? (Clause 33 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0) (On clause 34)

The Chair: We will start with CPC-19. I would note that if CPC-19 is adopted, NDP-4 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict. Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be voting against CPC-19. I do agree with the spirit of the motion that the CPC has offered. I think NDP-4 goes in the same direction, so in spirit we're aligned. I just feel—

The Chair :

I'm sorry, Mr. Julian, but I'm ahead of myself. I didn't give a chance for the motion to be moved.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Absolutely.

The Chair :

Mr. Shipley or Mr. Perkins. Would somebody like to move this motion?

Mr. Doug Shipley :

I'll move the motion.

The Chair :

Do you wish to speak to the motion as you move it?

Mr. Doug Shipley :

No, but I'd like to read it out, if I could, please.

The Chair :

Go ahead.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

It's that Bill C-21, in clause 34, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 22 with the following:

have collected or received from a member of the immediate family of the holder of a licence or a person who resides with the holder, or an organization authorized to submit an application on their behalf, a peace officer or a medical professional, that the hold‐

That's it.

(1945) The Chair :

Thank you. Is there anything further?

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Yes, just briefly, we would like to narrow the use of “any person” to immediate family and medical professionals in this amendment.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Julian, we'll start you over.

Mr. Peter Julian :

I'll just say that I agree with the intent of CPC-19. I believe that NDP-4 is better. I'll be voting against CPC-19, not because I have anything against my Conservative colleagues but because I feel that NDP-4 is stronger and more effective in this clause.

The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. Damoff, please.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I agree with my NDP colleague.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

I think some of my colleagues are proposing to strengthen these tools in other amendments that will follow. Unfortunately, it seems to me that this amendment weakens the measure. I will therefore be voting against it.

The Chair :

Thank you. [ English ] Is there any further discussion on this amendment? Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

I have one quick question. Maybe the officials could tell me what the definition of “any person” would encompass.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

I think I would use the ordinary dictionary sense of “any person”.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Okay.

The Chair :

Seeing no further discussion, I shall call the vote on CPC-19. (Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

The Chair :

Thank you. The amendment is defeated. I will now go to NDP-4. Mr. Julian, if you please.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On NDP-4, you'll recall that this is recommended by both Doctors for Protection from Guns and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Both believe this measure would be appropriate. They feel they need to have protection under the law not to be found in violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, so this particular amendment would ensure that doctors can report when a person may be a danger to themselves or others. It is in the same framing as Mr. Ruff's amendment that we adopted earlier, which was an excellent amendment.

What we're doing is just providing additional supports and protection. I think that is something we can all get behind. What it would do is replace line 30 on page 22 in the clause with the following statement:

have collected or received from any person, including a psychologist, a psychiatrist, a nurse, a nurse practitioner or a medical practitioner, that the hold-

Then it continues as listed in the clause. Hopefully, we'll have a consensus around this, as we have through most of this exercise. This is an important additional level of protection for people, and it goes in the same sense as Mr. Ruff's amendment.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Julian. We'll go to Mr. Shipley and then to Madame Michaud.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you, chair. While I appreciate what took place earlier with Mr. Ruff's amendment, and I think that was a good amendment, I'm feeling that in this NDP-4, the term “any person” is a little vague, so I won't be able to support this amendment.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Shipley. [ Translation ] Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am genuinely wondering about the need for the proposed addition. To my mind, "a psychologist, a psychiatrist, a nurse, a nurse practitioner or a medical practitioner" are persons, so this addition is already included when it talks about any person. It does not give them more power. I see the intent behind this amendment, but does it give these people more authority? Not really, as I understand it.

(1950) Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

No, that's right. Concerning immunity, I don't really want to speak to what might violate their code of ethics. I think that is under provincial jurisdiction. I am not in a position to answer that question.

Mr. Peter Julian :

I would like to add one last thing on this point. In the testimony we heard, this was discussed mainly for outside Quebec. I think the code of ethics in Quebec is already covered. Both medical practitioners and emergency physicians have said that this was an important aspect. I think that underlines the importance of this measure.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Julian. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll ask for the recorded vote. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: That brings us to BQ-11. If BQ-11 is adopted, NDP-5 becomes moot, as they are identical as far as the effect is concerned. Also, if PV-2 is defeated, so is NDP-3 for the same reason. We go now to BQ-11. [ Translation ] Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The intent of this amendment is to strengthen the

section that instructs the chief firearms officer to refuse or revoke a licence where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has been involved in acts of domestic violence. The underlying intent of clause 36 of Bill C-21 represents a crucial improvement for women's safety, since its purpose is to create a provision that asks the chief firearms officer to refuse or revoke a licence for a person who engages in domestic violence. We understand that the chief firearms officer is being given discretion to determine, subjectively, whether there has been domestic violence or criminal harassment.

However, I believe it should be circumscribed, in this case. The goal of this amendment is therefore to remove the chief firearms officer's discretion and require them to suspend the licence, rather than making it an option. So it simply replaces "may suspend" with "shall suspend". This is how subsection 69.1(1) would then read:

69.1(1) If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that they have collected or received from any person, that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible to hold the licence, they shall suspend, in respect of that licence, the holder’s authorization to use, acquire and import firearms for a period of up to 30 days.

As I said, it simply removes the chief firearms officer's discretion. What we have heard from women's shelters and groups representing women is that it would protect women's safety better. I think it could have a positive effect. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is identical to amendment NDP-5, in fact, so I imagine that my NDP colleague thinks somewhat the same thing as I do. Thank you.

(1955) The Chair :

Thank you. [ English ] Ms. Damoff, followed by Mr. Shipley, followed by Mr. Perkins.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to first say that we support the intent of the change and think it's important to change the word to “shall”. I would like to offer a subamendment to the amendment, Chair, to change the word “suspect” to “believe”. It's a small change. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it's a slightly higher burden of proof, but not a significantly higher burden of proof. If we are requiring that the licence shall be suspended, I think we should be using just a slightly higher burden of proof in the law.

It would still mean that if there were reasonable grounds to believe, a number of people would have their licences suspended. I hope colleagues will support that small change, maintaining the change that Ms. Michaud has put forward, which would change it to “shall”. As I said, in the law this is just a slightly higher burden of proof. It's not significant, though.

The Chair :

I'm not on the same page here. You said “suspect” and there's no “suspect” in this amendment.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

There is “reasonable grounds to suspect”, is there not?

The Chair :

BQ-11 proposes that Bill C-21 , in clause 34, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 22 with the following:

they shall suspend, in respect of that licence, the holder’s

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I have the wrong one. I'm sorry, Chair.

The Chair :

Maybe I have the wrong one.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

No, I think it's me. You're right.

The Chair :

Okay, so we'll withdraw your suggestion.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Yes.

The Chair :

Okay, we go now to Mr. Shipley, followed by Mr. Perkins.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you. My first question was going to be what's the difference between “suspect” and “believe”, but we don't have to...maybe later, when we get into that. Maybe the officials could tell me what this amendment does.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

This is with regard to the yellow flags. It's not labelled like that in the bill, but these are the yellow flag provisions, whereby, if there are, as my colleague, Madame Paquette, was mentioning, concerns with regard to any number of questions of eligibility of the individual, then somebody could flag to the CFO, use the yellow flag, and say, I don't really think this person should have a...and detail the reasons, so these steps are not necessarily taken frivolously.

Somebody, such as a business or a health practitioner, would call in and say, this person, for these reasons, perhaps should not be acquiring firearms, and the CFO would be able to suspend their licence after taking down the reasons. That 30-day period that's proposed in the bill gives time for the CFO to do the investigation to see what further actions are necessary.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you. I'm sorry; I have one more. I have a question as to why the French version is a lot longer than the English version. Is that just a straight translation, or is there something different?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

In terms of the use of words in French, the way we formulate ideas in French versus in English is different. We use different words, sometimes multiple words, to say what one word in English will do. It's not unusual. You'll see that throughout the text. There are a different number of words that are used to convey the same idea.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you for that. I just noticed this one was more so than others, so thank you for that answer. I'll pass the time to my colleague.

The Chair :

We have Mr. Perkins followed by Mr. Julian.

Mr. Rick Perkins :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just so that I'm clear, the way this works is that an individual can lodge a complaint to the chief firearms officer, and that is enough to suspend. Is there no court involvement?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

There is a task that is included in the measure that talks about “has reasonable grounds to suspect”, and I believe the motion that is on the floor is to change that to “has reasonable grounds to believe”. It's not just an automatic call that would suspend the licence. It's that there is a call; there is information that's given, and the CFO has reasonable grounds to believe that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible. In terms of looking at licence eligibility and saying that you're convinced—

(2000) Mr. Rick Perkins :

All right. I'm satisfied with that. Thank you.

The Chair :

We have Mr. Julian, followed by Mr. Tochor.

Mr. Peter Julian :

I will be supporting this amendment, BQ-11. To my Conservative colleagues, I'd just like to remind them of the famous quip from Steve Martin, that people who speak French have a different word for everything.

The Chair :

Thank you. We go to Mr. Tochor.

Mr. Corey Tochor: I'm going to give my time to Doug.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Thank you. I'm definitely not an expert in the French language. Everybody knows that. I mentioned the differences, but there is a significant difference, and even I can tell with my very limited French that the English one does not mention anything about 30 days, and the French one says 30 days, so there is a difference here in these two.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Go ahead, Madame Michaud, on a point of order.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

I don't know whether I can answer my colleague's question, but there is an introduction just before what we want to amend. In the English version, it says "replacing line 32," so that means that it is only that line that we want to change. The reference to "30 days" appears later in the subsection. As the officials said, we have a different way of writing in French. That is why it is longer in the French version, but it is exactly the same thing.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I'm going to ask our clerk to advise us. You're saying essentially they're the same thing; they're just changing different lines of code. Is that correct? Would you agree?

Mr. Doug Shipley :

Well, I'm sorry. I know we're running out of time. I don't understand that, because one mentions 30 days and one doesn't. Can someone explain that to me?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Can I read the clause in full? Proposed

section 69