Evidence of meeting #66 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.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you.
I appreciate the intervention. We don't often hear from that member on this committee. I encourage him to speak up more, because we welcome his voice.
Can the officials explain to us how G-24 differs? Does this also impact pre-clearance officers?
5 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No. This provision is specific to the Canadian Forces or a visiting force of a federal or provincial department—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'm sorry. It's for individuals acting under the authority of the Canadian Forces or visiting forces. It is not for pre-clearance. There are specific provisions for specific classes of individuals, as my colleague has said. These are with respect to individuals acting on behalf of police forces, the Canadian Forces and visiting forces.
It's the same rationale as the last motion. It would exempt them from importing, exporting and possessing all of the items in the Criminal Code now, but the government is adding firearm parts to that to allow them to import, export and transfer firearm parts in the course of their duties only.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you for that clarification. You said those acting under the Canadian Armed Forces or police forces. Is that for a municipal police force and the RCMP?
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's limited to federal and provincial.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay, it's not municipal. It's OPP and the RCMP, and I believe Quebec has a provincial police force as well.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay, but it's not municipal ones. Is there a reason not to do that? I guess we don't have jurisdiction.
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Have there been consultations with municipalities on this? Are we at risk? If the Winnipeg police were to order a barrel or a slide, which of course they do to upgrade their firearms, and they don't have a PAL, will they be violating the law once this passes?
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Do you mean for municipalities?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Yes. You mentioned that this doesn't cover municipal police. Those acting under municipal police forces would not be covered by this. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Correct. I believe there was another provision, though, for police forces—the public officers. They are covered under a different provision in the Criminal Code. It's 117.07, I believe. There is another provision that covers other individuals acting for a police force or an academy, and they are covered under a different exemption.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you for that clarification.
When you say “acting under”, do you mean those who are employed by the CAF or employed by the RCMP or the OPP as subcontractors?
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's “under the authority”, so it may not be an employee specifically. It could be a contractor.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
It also includes those in the CAF, not just those subcontractors.
5:05 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I believe so. It's those who are “under the authority” of the Canadian Forces, which is the broad umbrella, in a sense.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay.
I may have to ask about this on the next opportunity, but I'll leave it for now and pick it up the next time.
Thank you.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Ms. Dancho, I'm not sure if you took my earlier remark as criticism. It was not meant as such. It was merely an observation that the time we spend here today and tomorrow is going to be burned the following morning. The more efficient we can be with our time.... If we can avoid dwelling on things we've already voted on and avoid dwelling on things we have yet to come to, it will help us get to bed before one on Friday morning.
I believe Mr. Noormohamed had his hand up.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
