Gun control bill raises `red flag'

LIBERAL AMENDMENT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO REVOKE GUN LICENCES IN EMERGENCIES

OTTAWA • As the Liberals' controversial gun control bill saw itself forced out of committee early Friday morning, observers say the government's attempt to hurry the nearly year-old bill into law leaves behind too many questions.

Firearms policy specialist Tim Thurley expressed concern over the government's move to curtail debate in favour of moving passage along.

“The federal government said they would `take the time to get it right,' and took weeks to present a huge, brand-new amendment package that dramatically changes aspects of the bill,” he told the National Post.

“They then limited time to study it and forced MPS into a condensed series of meetings, limiting time for reflection.”

One concern is how the bill expands licence revocation, specifically so-called “red flag” laws, which would allow anyone to file an emergency weapons prohibition order in court against those who may pose a danger to themselves, or potentially provide firearms to somebody already under prohibition.

Bill C-21 would also allow Canada's chief firearms officer to summarily revoke firearms licences in cases of domestic violence, criminal harassment or protection orders.

Those subject to red-flag prohibitions must surrender their firearms to police, or be subject to “urgent” seizure orders through the court.

“These emergency weapons prohibition orders would help to address situations where an individual poses a risk to themselves, their family, or to public safety, including perpetrators of intimate-partner and gender-based violence, people at risk of suicide, and radicalized individuals,” read an online Public Safety Canada explainer.

Appeals, however, wouldn't be permitted in revocations related to court protection orders, or socalled “red flag” prohibitions.

Lawyer and legal commentary Youtuber Ian Runkle said that since these red-flag hearings are performed ex parte — without the subject of the seizure order in court — it opens the door to being used by abusers to further bully or intimidate their victims.

“So that order might be sought on complete lies or false information — and it still goes into effect before the other person has a chance to respond to it,” he said.

“That includes a police raid because the police are directed to seize that person's guns and search their property,” Runkle said.

This, he says, has the very real potential of being used by those looking to settle scores.

“That's concerning if you've got any sort of public presence, but also if you have a vindictive ex,” he said.

“Victims of abuse are potential victims here.”

Under previous legislation, Runkle said, orders were presented to the court by police officers, and only involved the cancellation of a firearms licence as opposed to full seizures.

And if seizure orders are cancelled by the court, Runkle said, the subject's firearms licence remains cancelled — undermining fundamental presumptions of innocence in Canada's justice system.

Thurley said sincere concerns over the red flag laws were brought up in committee, but haven't been addressed.

“It has real impacts on real people, especially marginalized groups such as Indigenous Canadians,” he said.

“We have working measures in place that are both effective and give people adequate recourse — C-21 is altering much of that in a punitive way.”

Runkle said that First Nations communities could be disproportionally impacted by these new rules — particularly if the new rules apply to bail orders.

“We know that Indigenous Canadians are targeted more often by police,” he said.

“I've had a lot of people who've been charged and ultimately cleared because it turned out that they were arrested without sufficient cause and without justification — they'd still face permanent consequences purely as a result of that process.”

Bill C-21 is just weeks away from reaching the one-year anniversary of its tabling in the House of Commons.

After passing second reading last June, the bill languished in front of the House public safety committee.

Motions tabled earlier this week by Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino ended that stalemate by limiting further committee discussions to two marathon 3:30 p.m. to midnight sessions, which wrapped just after midnight Friday morning.

Mendicino's motion limited committee discussion to 20 minutes per clause, with only five minutes allowed per party.

Any outstanding clauses still pending at 11:59 p.m. Thursday evening were deemed moved.

In addition, House consideration of the bill is limited to just one sitting day each for reports and third reading.

Runkle said the lack of clarity and transparency during the process was concerning.

“These amendments aren't released for public discussion until after they're already put through, which is part of the undemocratic nature of how this is being pushed on the public,” he said.

Earlier this year, the government was forced to walk back two wide-ranging amendments that Liberal committee members tried to quietly slip into C-21 last November — amendments that opposition parties, First Nations advocates and even Liberal MPS feared would outlaw millions of hunting rifles.

“(The public safety committee) was moving at a reasonable pace prior to the time allocation motion, especially given that the bulk of amendments are government amendments and not opposition slow-down techniques,” Thurley said.

“Committees are supposed to be where real work gets done, but watching the meta-discussion of filibustering at the initial time-allocated SECU meetings was like watching question period on sleeping pills.”

Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights Spokesperson Tracey Wilson described the marathon committee session as an example of how the Liberals treat public safety in Canada.

“Sloppy, rushed and theatrical,” she said. “After a year of Liberal delays, tabled amendments, withdrawn amendments, study of withdrawn amendments and an absent minister, Canadian democracy paid the price.”

She said Thursday night's meeting was little more than “beat-the-clock” speed voting without any provisions for debate.

“Whatever side of the debate you're on, this should concern everyone,” she said.

Mendicino's office was contacted by the National Post for comment.