Bill 6 (The Safe Public Spaces (Street Weapons) Act)
Second Reading
From Hansard (31 March 2025)

To view this section on video, click here and start play at 3:21:20 PM.

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will now move second reading of The Safe Public Spaces (Street Weapons) Act.

This fall we announced a comprehensive plan to promote safer communities and neighbourhoods within the province. This bill forms part of that commitment. Items such as bear spray or large knives and machetes can be used as legitimate tools that serve important purposes. Unfortunately we continue to see incidents where these items are being used as street weapons. Mr. Speaker, this bill allows Saskatchewan municipalities and First Nations to choose to opt in to rules that will help ensure these items are used for their intended purpose and not as street weapons.

Part 2 of the bill prohibits persons from possessing street weapons in public urban spaces. Persons are also prohibited from defacing or altering street weapons or possessing an altered or defaced street weapon. People in breach of these rules can be charged with a provincial offence.

Part 3 of the bill provides peace officers enhanced powers to seize and impound street weapons from people in public urban spaces if the weapon constitutes a threat to public safety. These seizure powers exist whether or not a person is charged with an offence under the Act. This would reduce the immediate risk of the weapon being used in a harmful manner. If the owner is not charged or convicted of an offence under the Act, they may apply for return of the item; otherwise it becomes forfeited to the province.

These laws will apply to the individual municipalities and First Nations that choose to opt in to the legislation. This approach ensures that communities have flexibility to adopt these provisions based on their own unique circumstances. By opting in to the Act, municipalities and First Nations will give police officers the ability to tackle street weapons through uniform provincial rules and offences rather than relying on enforcement through individual bylaws or First Nation bylaws.

Mr. Speaker, this past February the government passed regulations to address the improper use of bear spray. This bill expands on those regulations and will replace them. This bill provides an additional tool for law enforcement that will help officers carry out their duties. The new rules ensure that large knives, bear spray, and other similar items are used for their intended purpose and not as street weapons.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of The Safe Public Spaces (Street Weapons) Act.

---

Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice
From Hansard (14 April 2025)

To view this section on video, click here and start play at 4:09:35 PM.

Clause 1-1

Chair B. McLeod: — We will begin today with consideration of Bill No. 6, The Safe Public Spaces (Street Weapons) Act, clause 1, short title. Minister McLeod is here with officials. And I would ask all officials, please introduce yourselves before they speak for the first time, as I’m sure you are aware of. But let the Hansard operator turn on the mikes for you and please don’t touch them. It causes a little bit too much hardness on the ears, so thank you for that.

Minister, please introduce your officials, and we welcome your opening comments. Minister McLeod.

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I am joined at the table. With me here is Neil Karkut, senior Crown counsel, legislative services; and Darcy McGovern, K.C. [King’s Counsel].

Mr. Chair, I would now offer opening remarks for Bill 6, The Safe Public Spaces (Street Weapons) Act. This bill allows Saskatchewan municipalities and First Nations to opt into rules to ensure that certain items such as knives and bear spray are not used as street weapons.

Part 2 of the bill prohibits persons from possessing street weapons in public urban spaces, defacing or altering street weapons, or possessing altered or defaced street weapons. People in breach of these rules can be charged with a provincial offence. Part 3 of the bill allows police to seize and impound street weapons from persons in public urban areas if the weapon constitutes a threat to public safety. These seizure powers exist whether or not the person is charged with an offence under the Act.

Mr. Chair, additional House amendments will be moved today. This February the government announced new measures to protect communities against illicit fentanyl and methamphetamine. As part of these measures, the proposed House amendments will add hypodermic needles, fentanyl, and methamphetamine as categories of street weapons.

Fentanyl can serve important medical purposes; however when used illicitly, it creates extreme risks for the public. Similarly needles serve a necessary medical purpose but also pose a significant public risk when used illicitly. Methamphetamine also creates unique public risks due to its extremely addictive nature. The amendments will allow police to seize these items from people in public spaces when they threaten public safety. If appropriate, police may also lay provincial charges. Appropriate exemptions are also added for individuals who require fentanyl or needles for legitimate medical purposes.

Mr. Chair, this bill will help improve community safety by ensuring large knives, bear spray, and other similar items are not used as street weapons. The bill forms part of our government’s comprehensive strategy to address public safety while also providing appropriate resources for individuals who are struggling with addictions and mental health issues.

With that, Mr. Chair, I welcome questions respecting Bill No. 6, The Safe Public Spaces (Street Weapons) Act.

Chair B. McLeod: — Thank you. I will now open the floor to questions. MLA [Member of the Legislative Assembly] Sarauer.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your opening remarks. I want to first start off by asking a few questions about the proposed amendments that will be moved later in this committee.

My first question is around the expansion of the definition of street weapon. As you had mentioned in your opening remarks, the expanded definition includes fentanyl, methamphetamine, and hypodermic needle related to issues around the usage of drugs in public spaces in communities right now. But it also includes hatchet, axe, hammer, sledgehammer, which are also additions, I believe, to the definition. Can you explain why these were also added?

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Certainly. The government recognizes that many items can be used as street weapons, but those items may also have legitimate legal purpose. So the items that you’re referencing, while they may have a legitimate legal purpose, could certainly pose a significant risk to the public if they’re in a public urban space. I see no reason why you would want an axe or a hatchet in the food court of a mall, for example, or a sledgehammer in a park. Things like that.

If they’re there for a legitimate purpose, then they are exempt under the Act. But where they pose a danger or a risk to the public, that is the reason that they would be included in the list.

Nicole Sarauer: — Do the police already have powers to seize any of these items if they are discovered on a person? Can you just speak a bit to the powers that police already have and whether or not this proposed legislation will enhance that power?

Darcy McGovern: — Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you to the member. The gap that’s trying to be dealt with here to a degree is, as you know, the list that’s there by and large includes items that . . . Carrying a hammer of course is in and of itself not a criminal activity, not something that would be subject to a seizure.

So what this does is try and introduce the idea that only where it’s a threat to public safety, which is the . . . As the member’s aware, in the purpose clause for the Act, the Act “applies to the possession, transportation and storage of items that may be used as street weapons in a manner that threatens public safety in public urban spaces.” And so that’s the niche that needs to be filled here.

As you know, you can’t have a hidden weapon under the Criminal Code. That could indeed be seized. But the problem you have is the gap where if you had your Gandalf sword, or if you had your other large . . . But to be more serious about it, if you were wearing body armour, which from a policing perspective sharply heightens the threat of violence, if you feel like you’re Superman and invincible, then the likelihood of inducing violence is much higher.

There may be legitimate uses for that body armour in certain circumstances, but if it’s in a circumstance where it threatens public safety, that’s the gap that this Act seeks to address.

Chair B. McLeod: — And just for the record, can I get you to state your name just for the record, so that it’s on there as well? Thank you.

Darcy McGovern: — Sure. Darcy McGovern.

Chair B. McLeod: — Thank you. MLA Sarauer.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you. You mentioned a few times in your remarks, Mr. McGovern, that this power will be allowed if it’s considered a threat to public safety. Is that threat to public safety defined in the legislation?

Darcy McGovern: — Not as such. That would be a matter of discretion for the police. As you know, we don’t have purpose clauses in every Act, but that’s the clear statement here that the minister wanted included as well, was that it applies where street weapons are used in a manner that threatens public safety in public places.

Nicole Sarauer: — I was just thinking that — you’re absolutely right, Mr. McGovern — that’s why this committee work is so important because we don’t often have purpose clauses. But we’re able to have these conversations about the purpose of the legislation and the bill in committee. So that should it be needed to be used in the future, it can. So thank you for that.

I did want to ask about the second proposed amendment, which is the expansion of 2-1 to include a subsection (6) and a subsection (7). Could you provide some context to those proposed amendments? It’s one proposed amendment, but the two clauses that are added at the end?

Neil Karkut: — Neil Karkut. This adds two carve-outs, or exceptions, from the addition of fentanyl and hypodermic needles as street weapons.

There are of course legitimate purposes that people would be carrying those items. So for example, in subsection (6) if you had someone who is a diabetic, that would allow them to continue to carry their needle with them in public because they need that for a medical purpose. And similarly with subsection (7), there are medical purposes where an individual would have fentanyl on them in limited cases. So for example a cancer patient might receive fentanyl through a patch. These exemptions just ensure they’re allowed to still have those items in public places for lawful medical purposes.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you for that. Going back to the definition of “street weapon” and, as has been discussed, the inclusion of body armour. There are other jurisdictions in Canada that regulate the sale of body armour in their provinces. Has there been a discussion within the ministry to regulate the sale of body armour in Saskatchewan?

Darcy McGovern: — Thank you. More recently there’s been less discussion of it. As you note, it has popped up in certain situations. And we feel like this is a less intrusive method of dealing with it where it’s a problem, rather than stepping in further to try and regulate the actual sale and the purpose for which it can be used. You know, we’re aware, and I know from previous conversations, you’d hear from bull riders and you’d hear from people who are taxi drivers who feel like they have a legitimate use for that.

I had mentioned I think the area of concern here which, as I said, is where you are making individuals feel like they’re invincible. And that has a real tendency to increase the level of violence. If you know the other person’s wearing body armour, you may be less inclined to punch that person. You might be less inclined to use a knife. And I think that’s the escalation of violence that body armour represents that we’re trying to get at here.

Nicole Sarauer: — I wanted to ask about the definition of “private place.” I note that in subsection (a) it includes the words “genuinely and actually,” in that it says a private place will mean “any of the following places that are genuinely and actually occupied as a private residence.”

Can you speak to why those particular words — “genuinely” and “actually” — are used and what the legal implication will be, if the ministry knows yet at this time, on the operation of this legislation?

Darcy McGovern: — I think the intention with this was to make very clear that we do recognize that some of these objects will be legitimately used. Knives of a certain size are absolutely used in a private place. The concern with that was to not have that be an offhand justification for having a bunch of people carrying pepper spray, and saying that, you know, we all live here. This is the place where we’re at.

And so there’s an intent here to establish it. I don’t view it as a term of art, per se. For example, we’re not suggesting that “genuine” and “actually” reflects a particular case law, as much as we hope it will reflect legislative intent with respect to the provision.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you. So just to clarify, just so I understand, I believe this is what you just said. There is no case law around those phrases at this time that you’re aware of.

Darcy McGovern: — Not that I’m aware of.

Nicole Sarauer: — Yeah. Thank you. Can you speak to who was consulted in drafting this legislation?

Hon. Tim McLeod: — Thanks for the question. In the preparation for this bill we did consult with the chiefs of police, the leaders of SUMA [Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association], SARM [Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities]. We met with Indigenous leaders, Métis Nation. Had consultation with other leaders, including FSIN [Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations] and Saskatoon Tribal Council.

So a lot of conversation around interested parties who were all committed to making our communities safer. And some of the feedback that we received, in particular from SUMA and SARM, were part of the reason why we have introduced an opt-in clause, where some communities may wish to have this piece of legislation apply in their municipality, some may choose not to. But it will be made available to all municipalities and First Nations and the leaders of those communities can choose to opt in or not.

Nicole Sarauer: — Did anybody from policing express any concerns with respect to this legislation?

Darcy McGovern: — I think it’s fair to say, and as the member knows, the police will tend to look for as much support legislatively as they can. This is something, you know, they view as more tools in the tool box. It’s positive in that regard. It won’t be a substitution for criminal law, nor should it be. That’s an appropriate response where there’s criminal behaviour. But I think the policing agencies view it as one of a part of steps in the other direction.

As I mentioned, we have that anomaly where, under the law, if I have a knife on my belt and you can see it, it’s not a concealed weapon. But I don’t have an appropriate usage for it, and it doesn’t have to be, you know, in a sheath. And so what we’re hoping to be able to do is to pick up that anomaly, and I think they appreciated that.

Nicole Sarauer: — Apologies for moving back. But moving back to the definition of “private place,” a stakeholder asked me to ask the committee whether tents located within a homeless encampment, for example, will be considered a private place.

Darcy McGovern: — I think, as the member can well appreciate, it would very much be a case-by-case factual consideration. And I think, you know, the wording in the provision would have to be parsed with respect to the circumstances, with respect to the individual. And you won’t be surprised that certainly this wouldn’t be an environment where we would suggest that there would be a fixed answer in every circumstance.

Nicole Sarauer: — Can you explain to the committee how this legislation compares to legislation that may or may not exist in other jurisdictions?

Neil Karkut: — This particular piece of legislation is I guess taking a bit of a lead in this area. There are some other jurisdictions, both at the provincial and municipal level, who have dealt with street weapons. So for example, Calgary has a similar rule at a municipal bylaw level where you can’t carry knives above a certain length or you may face consequences for that.

Manitoba has passed The Long-Bladed Weapon Control Act, which takes a bit of a different approach there, more focusing on some of the rules around retail sale. But they have not included rules along these lines yet of the public carrying those weapons or street weapons in public.

And there are a few other municipalities, for example Vancouver and Edmonton that have passed certain bylaws that deal with bear spray, for example. So you see a mix of different approaches at both the provincial and municipal level.

Nicole Sarauer: — Thank you. No further questions.

Chair B. McLeod: — Seeing no more questions, we will proceed to vote on the clauses. It will just take a moment to get myself ready here. Clause 1-1, short title, is that agreed?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

Chair B. McLeod: — Agreed. Carried.

[Clause 1-1 agreed to.]

Clause 1-2

Chair B. McLeod: — Clause 1-2. And I recognize Minister Martens.

Hon. Jamie Martens: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to move an amendment to clause 1-2 of the printed bill to:

Strike out the definition of “street weapon” in Clause 1-2 of the printed Bill and substitute the following:

“ ‘street weapon’ means any of the following:

(a) a knife;

(b) a sword;

(c) a machete;

(d) a hatchet;

(e) an axe;

(f) a hammer;

(g) a sledgehammer;

(h) body armour;

(i) an explosive device;

(j) a hypodermic needle;

(k) fentanyl;

(l) methamphetamine;

(m) a wildlife control product;

(n) any other prescribed item”.

Chair B. McLeod: — Minister Martens has moved an amendment to clause 1-2. Do committee members agree with the amendment as read?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

Chair B. McLeod: — Carried. Is clause 1-2 as amended agreed?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

Chair B. McLeod: — Carried.

[Clause 1-2 as amended agreed to.]

[Clauses 1-3 to 1-5 inclusive agreed to.]

Chair B. McLeod: — Clause 2-1, is that agreed?

Some Hon. Members: — No.

Chair B. McLeod: — Clause 2-1 is not agreed. The clause is defeated.

[Clause 2-1 not agreed to.]

[Clauses 2-2 to 6-1 inclusive agreed to.]

Clause 2-1

Chair B. McLeod: — I recognize MLA Martens.

Hon. Jamie Martens: — Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to move an amendment on the clause 2-1 of the printed bill.

Add the following Clause before Clause 2-2 of the printed Bill:

“Street weapons prohibited in public urban space

2-1(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), no person shall possess a street weapon in a public urban space.

(2) Subsection (1) does not render it unlawful for a person to possess an item that may be used as a street weapon in a private place occupied by that person.

(3) Subsection (1) does not render it unlawful for a person to possess an item that may be used as a street weapon for the purpose of transporting the item from the place at which it was lawfully obtained to a place where it may be lawfully stored or used or from that place to another place where the item may be lawfully stored or used.

(4) Subsection (1) does not render it unlawful for a person to possess a wildlife control product in a public urban space if:

(a) the person demonstrates that there was a reasonable risk of threat to the person’s safety by wildlife in that public urban space at the time that the person was found in possession of the wildlife control product; and

(b) the wildlife control product in the person’s possession is designed to protect persons against the threat . . . [possessed] by that type of wildlife.

(5) Subsection (1) does not render it unlawful for a person to possess a knife in a public urban space if the person:

(a) requires the knife for the preparation of food in the public urban space; and

(b) reasonably demonstrates that the knife does not constitute a threat to public safety.

(6) Subsection (1) does not render it unlawful for a person to possess a hypodermic needle in a public urban space if the person:

(a) either:

(i) requires a hypodermic needle to administer a valid and lawful medical or veterinary treatment; or

(ii) is in possession of the hypodermic needle on behalf of a person who requires the hypodermic needle to administer a valid and lawful medical or veterinary treatment; and

(b) reasonably demonstrates that the hypodermic needle in the person’s possession does not constitute a threat to public safety.

(7) Subsection (1) does not render it unlawful for a person to possess fentanyl in a public urban space if the person:

(a) either:

(i) has a valid and lawful prescription for the fentanyl; or

(ii) is in possession of the fentanyl on behalf of a person who has a valid and lawful prescription for the fentanyl; and

(b) reasonably demonstrates that the fentanyl in the person’s possession does not constitute a threat to public safety”.

And I ask for a recorded division.

Chair B. McLeod: — All right. Minister Martens has moved new clause 2-1. Do committee members agree with the amendment as read?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

Chair B. McLeod: — Minister Martens has asked for a recorded division. And I will exercise my opportunity to a deliberative vote, which is the first time I’ve gone through this so bear with me.

All those in favour of the motion please raise your hand.

The motion is carried. Thank you. A unanimous vote in favour. Yeah. Thank you.

[Clause 2-1 agreed to.]

Chair B. McLeod: — His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: The Safe Public Spaces (Street Weapons) Act.

I would ask a member to move that we report Bill No. 6, The Safe Public Spaces (Street Weapons) Act with amendment. MLA Martens moves. Is that agreed?

Some Hon. Members: — Agreed.

Chair B. McLeod: — Carried.

---

Back to 2024/2025 Session