Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I think we can get started. I see everyone in their places with bright shining faces. Let's hope that by the end of today the faces are still bright and shining.

(On clause 2)

Where we left off was with CPC-11 on Bill C-71. There was an informal understanding among committee members that there would be some discussions among members concerning LIB-1. I understand there have been those discussions and that a new LIB-1 has been circulated.

In order to proceed in an orderly fashion, LIB-1, as it currently exists, needs to be withdrawn. It can only be done with a unanimous vote. Do we have unanimity to withdraw the original LIB-1?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

(Amendment withdrawn)

That amendment is withdrawn. That therefore preserves CPC-8 and CPC-9, which was the deal.

Now I'm asking Ms. Damoff to move the new LIB-1, please.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Chair, I appreciate the indulgence of all of the parties, and especially your indulgence, Chair, on getting us to try to improve what was an important amendment.

We've gone back and worked with officials, with the legislative drafter, to come up with a new version that incorporates what Ms. May had in PV-1. We have put the spirit of her amendment into this new LIB-1.

Probably one of the important changes that you'll notice is the reference to peace bond. That specific peace bond that was previously in this amendment was removed, and it is replaced by new proposed paragraph (d):

is or was previously prohibited by an order - made in the interests of the safety and security of any person - from communicating with an identified person or from being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place;

That has actually broadened it. By putting in a very specific peace bond, I was perhaps limiting what would be considered in the background checks. By broadening it more, we are able to include other things that should be considered, like other peace bonds, like restraining orders. I'm wondering if officials could maybe comment on that.

Then, paragraph (e) incorporates the spirit of Ms. May's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Before I ask you to comment on the new LIB-1, am I working on the assumption, Ms. May, that PV-1 will not be moved?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, it gives me a chance to review the terms on which I appear before your committee in the motion you passed over my objections, which was not your fault.

The fiction is that every committee is the master of its own fortunes. However, somehow all committees pass identical motions all at the same time, saying that members in my situation have to appear if they want to put forward amendments that are substantive. I no longer have the right to do so at report stage, because I come to committee.

Part of that means I actually don't have the power to move my amendment at all; it's deemed moved. I cannot remove it either. However, I can convey to the chair that I'm extremely grateful to Pam Damoff for her efforts—we've conferred—and to Julie Dabrusin, for her efforts. If I had the power to remove my own amendment at this point, in favour of LIB-1, I would do so.

Sorry for having to complain about the onerous and anti-democratic nature of the motions that every committee has passed, but I am very grateful for the collaborative way in which this motion and amendment will move forward. I have no objection to having someone else at this table remove my amendment, but I don't have the power to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you. We'll see when we come to it as to whether it will be moved or not.

With that, you want to ask questions.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I do.

I also want to clarify that apparently in the French version, the word “déjà” is an issue, because it limits the consideration to the past not current. The suggestion is for “il lui a été interdit ”, as opposed to “il lui a déjà”.

I can't move that amendment, but I think my colleague beside me might. Is that right, that it's limiting it?

[Olivier Champagne, Legislative Clerk, House of Commons]

I'm not going to interpret the wording. If you want to move it as amended, you can do it.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Can I include it in what I have here in LIB-1?

[Olivier Champagne]

Yes. You're just moving it with that modification. That's fine.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

In the French version then, under (d)....

[Richard Hébert, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

The French version reads:d) il lui a déjà été interdit, au titre d'une ordonnance rendue pour la sécurité de toute personne, d'avoir des contacts avec une personne donnée ou de se trouver dans un lieu donné ou à une distance donnée de ce lieu;

We would like to replace the words “d'avoir des contacts” with “de communiquer”. I can pass this amendment to the chair.

Also, Mr. Chair, we have one more minor amendment. In the proposed text, paragraph (f) reads as follows:f) pour toute autre raison, il pourrait causer un préjudice à lui-même ou à autrui.

We would prefer the word “préjudice” to be replaced by the word “dommage”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madam Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Sorry to confuse this even more, but the analysts have suggested even different wording, here.

He proposes: “il lui est ou lui a”.

What we want to do is capture what is in the English version, which is the past and the present.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're getting a little confused here, as to amendments.

There are no changes on the second amendment that Mr. Hébert moved.

For the first one, you are effectively withdrawing that amendment and replacing it with this. Is that correct?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Can I ask the officials which is better in capturing what we want to do?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The officials generally don't read minds, but nevertheless, I have absolute faith in their ability....

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

No, these officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You mean those officials; I see. I suppose that's a legitimate question.

Mr. Koops, go ahead.

[Randall Koops, Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I think I'll read it out, in the interests of ensuring the French reflects as closely as possible the intent of the English. It would be for (d),

“il lui est ou lui a été interdit”.

On the third line of (d), as well, instead of

“d'avoir des contacts” , it would read “de communiquer”, as the hon. member proposes.

In addition, in paragraph (f), to correspond with the Criminal Code, we should normally use the word “dommage” rather than the word “préjudice”.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I take it that this is to try more effectively to align the English and the French, so that we have the same—

[Randall Koops]

It's to align the English and the French in the case of (d).

In the case of (f), it's to align the French with the consistency of the French vocabulary used elsewhere in that part, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Can I ask the legislative clerks whether they have what we think we have?

Our legislative clerk wants to have a minute to make sure it does line up.

Meanwhile, I think we know the sense of the amendments. I would like to call for debate on the amendment itself at this point.

Mr. Motz.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I'm waiting for my linguistic experts to arrive on the French-language issue. Given the clerks have to review it and this is the first time we've seen this, can we suspend for a couple of minutes to review it so we can have a more informed debate on it?