Evidence of meeting #65 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
CPC-10 replaces line 26. Basically it is requiring judges to return firearms if the claims made in the application are unfounded. It's reasonable. In the due process of law, this is exactly what needs to happen.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'll add one more thing.
I am sitting here and I see Ms. Damoff shaking her head at the common sense of that. There are two sides to the justice system. If a complaint is found to be unfounded, there is no evidence to support an allegation. The firearms that were seized, lawfully to begin with, are to be returned to that individual who is no longer the accused, because there is no crime since nothing happened.
I think that needs to be very clear.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Motz.
Is there any further discussion?
Go ahead, Mr. Noormohamed.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
On this point, perhaps the officials can enlighten us.
On the point Mr. Motz makes, if there is no offence or if the claim is deemed to be unfounded, would the issue he raised be one of valid concern, or is the matter, then, deemed to be resolved?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think the issue of unfounded complaints is absolutely valid, as we've seen through the testimony from victims' groups, etc.
My understanding of the intent of this amendment is to include the “unfounded” language within the revocation provision, which is far past the time a judge would look at an application, as well as the reliability of the evidence and the applicant, and deem that to be vexatious or unfounded at that time. This is past the initial order that is or is not made. A decision has been made. If an order is made, this allows a judge to revoke it if those circumstances no longer exist.
It's a step later in the process, after the application and after a judge has already made an order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Are there any further interventions?
Seeing none, I suggest we go to a vote on this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 6 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to on division)
That brings us, with seven minutes to go, to new clause 9.1. We have G-16 in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, here we're updating the section of the code with the words “a firearm part” to ensure consistency and align with the other amendments that have been passed by this committee. Hopefully, we'll be able to move through it quickly.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 10)
Starting clause 10, we have G-17.
Go ahead, Mr. Noormohamed, if you please.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
If we look at clause 10, again, it's really a coordinating amendment to add the words “firearm part” based on past amendments. It's to provide consistency.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion on G-17?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next, we have CPC-11.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
CPC-13 is also withdrawn.
Next, we have CPC-14. Do you wish to move CPC-14?
Mr. Motz.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Chair, this is a lengthy one, and I certainly won't go through it. The intent here by replacing some of these lines and asking to make a return to a judge who has issued the warrant, the whole idea here is to ensure that it's removing the search and seizure without a warrant on one of these, on an ex parte, and the consequential changes. It lowers the chance again of those who might, for nefarious reasons, make a claim that is false.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on CPC-14?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 10 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
Mr. Julian, you have a point of order.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's two minutes before seven, and we've completed, after a week and a half of study, 10 clauses out of 73. Canadians can do the math. There are still 63 clauses to go. We've had the Conservatives filibustering throughout this period.
I would ask, with unanimous consent, that we extend this meeting until midnight. It seems to me that Canadians want us to do this work. The ghost gun provisions are needed immediately. I hope my Conservative colleagues will finally understand the importance of doing this work. Otherwise, the House of Commons will have to instruct this committee.
I move, by unanimous consent, that we continue to midnight.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
We have a request, by unanimous consent, that we extend until midnight.
Does anybody oppose this?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Julian, for your persistence and your optimism.
It being seven o'clock, I'd like to thank our interpreters and all of our committee members and all of the committee staff for sticking with us all this time.
Thank you, all.
We are now adjourned.