Evidence of meeting #118 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was firearm.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I have really nothing to add at this point, to tell you the truth.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I have questions for the officials. My understanding is that my amendment was a recognizance under subsection 810(3) of the Criminal Code, which deals only with violent offences and distributing threatening information. Can you clarify for me what exactly—I'm not a lawyer, but I understood that that was what the amendment was covering.
12:30 p.m.
Paula Clarke Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The amendment before us now would add one type of peace bond or recognizance that would have to be considered. There are other types of recognizance in the Criminal Code. This would relate primarily or only to domestic assault and property offences, but there are other ones such as for serious personal injury offences. There's a recognizance order that carries a higher penalty if breached. The other ones relate to criminal organization offences, terrorism offences, forced marriages, and then there are other peace bonds—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I'm sorry, but I'll just stop you there. That's what this one covers?
12:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No. This one covers only one type, which would be for domestic assault and property offences. Because you're specifying a particular type of peace bond, it would be limited to only peace bonds made under section 810, which would be in relation to threats against property and threats against a person.
If a person had concerns that their safety or the safety of another person related to them or their property was in danger, then this is what that peace bond would apply to, but any peace bonds made under other provisions in the Criminal Code would not apply, because you're specifically setting out one type of peace bond.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I don't know if that changes my colleagues' thoughts on their subamendment or not, because it doesn't have to do with shoplifting.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I have a suggestion for the committee, because we do seem to be a little stalled here and I'm cognizant of our time. We have an amendment. We have a subamendment and we have an anticipated subamendment and a further amendment, all of which are potentially reconcilable.
My proposal to the committee is that we suspend discussion on these at least four items and that we move on to clause 3. After all, we haven't even finished clause 2. I'm cognizant that we will probably have to use additional time to get through clause-by-clause. I can't move without unanimous consent to that proposal, and I'm mindful that both Mr. Motz and Mr. Paul-Hus are on the speaking order.
If there were some ability—off-line, if you will—to reconcile the issues then possibility you wouldn't feel the need to speak, would you, Mr. Motz?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I just have a question. You had mentioned moving on from clause 2 to clause 3, but CPC-8 and CPC-9 are also under clause 2.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Yes. I'm proposing suspending everything with respect to clause 2, only because a number of ideas are in play, all of which appear to be complementary and possibly reconcilable.
Yes, Ms. Damoff.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
We still have 25 minutes. Could we suspend for five minutes and perhaps talk off-line?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
The reason I'm not suggesting that is, (a), the loss of time, and (b), Ms. May's amendment. Although it is procedurally fine, substantively it may create legal issues that officials may wish to look into for wording purposes. It's not just a case of ordering. It's making sure that when we do reorder, it actually flows in a consistent fashion so that when people are looking at what we did, we won't find contradictions within ourselves.
That's why I'm suggesting that a five-minute one-off while we suspend won't work. It might need a little more than that.
Mr. Motz.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Mr. Chair, I know it's rare that I would agree with you on things, but I will in this circumstance, only because I think it's important that we get some clarity around the subsections of section 810. The way this is worded, I don't think it even covers off what you're hoping it covers off, because we have the wrong subsections of 810. We limit ourselves to property offence issues—
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I know, but we've missed a whole stack of other ones that we need to include in here that are violent offences.
Ms. May's amendment also then can play into that—I agree with the chair—and we might be able to cover off a number of these. My CPC-8 speaks to similar issues of including violent offences against persons. Let's just take our time and get it right as opposed to trying to rush it through. That would be my suggestion.
I know I rarely—
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I don't know who's more disturbed, that you agree with me or I agree with you.
12:35 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Seeing no real dissent, I propose that we move on to clause 3, and that, at the next sitting of this committee, we commence our deliberations on LIB-1, along with PV-1, CPC-8, and CPC-9, all of which are alive, along with the amendments and potential subamendments.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
(Clause 2 allowed to stand)
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
So we're putting that off until the next committee meeting for verification or confirmation.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
So, we'll begin the next meeting with consideration of amendment LIB-1.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Just so everyone knows what's on the table, though, do you want to hear what Michel wanted to change? It's a French-to-English thing.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I guess there's no harm on a proposed amendment that is not in order, but I just.... The issue is that, really, we are potentially changing three or four things so that it's all reconcilable and we can get to the goal that we have a unanimous clause.
So I don't think it's necessary that you do that. I know Mr. Picard well enough to know that the force of his personality will insert itself in any discussions.
Yes, Mr. Paul-Hus.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
To clearly summarize LIB-1, if I understand correctly, there is a subamendment proposed by the Conservatives and another that will be put forward by the Liberals. Clarification is also being sought on the new charges of violence and assault, including forced marriage and terrorism, which Ms. Clarke mentioned in her speech. We will therefore be able to shed light on this.