Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Let's get to a recorded vote on this.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you.

We next come to T-36, which is moot because it relates to the schedule we have removed. That is withdrawn.

Next will be G-37, but the food has arrived.

I suggest we take a break and suspend for 15 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting back to order.

We were about to deal with G-37. It's in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

Ms. Damoff, did you want to move it?

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

Yes, I'll move it, Mr. Chair.

It's a coordinating amendment adding the words “firearm part”. It's similar to the previous 30 or so that we've had.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Shipley, go ahead.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you.

As I said earlier when I asked a quick question, I wasn't here earlier.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think someone mentioned that we're adding “firearm part” 50 or how many times?

[A voice]

It's 39.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Pardon me. It's 39 times.

Why are we adding something 39 times to this bill? Could the officials tell me why this is being added so many times? It seems a little repetitive to me. What's the purpose?

[Phaedra Glushek]

It's similar to other provisions listing firearms parts, crossbows, restricted weapons and prohibited devices. It's for consistency across the Criminal Code in terms of preventative orders, bail orders and conditional orders, when a judge can make an order prohibiting the possession of these items. It's for consistency. They're all consequential to the original definition of firearm part.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Let's say someone is watching at home and has just tuned in. Can you explain to them why this wouldn't have been in the original bill and why it's getting added now? Could you explain that to someone who is just tuning in right now?

[Phaedra Glushek]

We can't explain why something was or was not included in the original bill, which was in 2020. Officials can't speak to why or why not something was included. Those decisions are made when we are looking at policy issues and providing options to ministers. We cannot speculate as to why something was or was not done at a certain time.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you for that.

I probably worded that improperly. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to ask you that way. I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was that for someone who's new and is sitting at home watching this, they might wonder about the bill that's been made and that has gone through several readings and several discussions.

Maybe we can say this: How does this get added? Who has added this? Perhaps you can answer that.

[Phaedra Glushek]

Are you speaking to all the amendments or just the 39 times?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Just this one, where we said it 39 times.

I'm sorry. I'm going to write that down so that I don't have to ask you again. I do apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

This is a Liberal amendment. We're adding it as an amendment to the bill.

That's where they're all coming from, right?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

All 39 of these amendments.

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's just for consistency. These things are interspersed throughout the Criminal Code. You can't change it in just one place. You have to find them all, track them down and slay them.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

All 39 were added by the Liberals.

Would you say there was a—I hate to use this word, but I can't can't think of another one—“mistake” in the original bill that these now have to be added?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I think that asks the witnesses to draw some conclusions that they're not able to do. We always get bills, and various parties make amendments. We make changes and we make improvements. It's not about making mistakes or not.

If the officials wish to respond, they may do so.

[Phaedra Glushek]

I think I would just agree with the chair. We can't really comment on whether it was a mistake or not. What we can say is that it was introduced as part of this package before us.

That's all we can say as officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

You can carry on, but you have one minute left, followed by Mr. Motz and Mr. Lawrence, if there's time.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm wondering whether the officials can explain to me what “Paragraph 5(i) of Form 10 of Part XXVIII of the Act” is without me having to scramble through it. Do you know what that refers to specifically and what act we're actually changing to add this to?

[Sandro Giammaria]

Thanks for the question.

It actually bears relation to amendment G-8, which was previously carried. When asked, I explained that section 501 allows for the release of an arrestee on what's called an undertaking. As that pertains to G-37, form 10 is the undertaking. It's a set form.

You'll see that the paragraph that's amended is actually included in its entirety. This reads on the release document that people sign. You'll see that G-37 just adds the words “firearm part” to provide documentation for the substantive change made in G-28.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Unfortunately, you guys are done.

We go now to Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I've been here for only an hour, but my understanding is that the committee made a decision in principle on the substance of the parts of the bill. The firearm parts have been added to the bill.

Since the committee made that decision, all of these amendments are consequential to that original decision. You can't have a clause in the Criminal Code that talks about firearm parts in principle and then have the document the person needs to sign and fill out when issuing a release order not be consistent with the provision in the Criminal Code that talks about firearm parts. All of these votes are essentially just making those consequential amendments based on that original....

Now, the original decision could have been debated and we could have been for or against it. It was this committee that unanimously made that decision. All of the following things would be completely confusing and contrary to the Criminal Code if you didn't follow along and adopt all of the other amendments.

If that clarifies things, maybe we could then move on and adopt these amendments as my friend Mr. Julian has suggested.