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.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
You have liaison personnel to communicate with the minister, I expect.
Are you able to clarify?
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I just want to clarify something. A technical briefing is different from asking officials questions. A technical briefing is available. It's set up and was set up for the new amendments for all parties. The officials are made available at a specific time for all parties to attend, and the Conservatives were invited.
Ms. Dancho asked for an additional technical briefing, which would have required all parties to be available. The things that Mr. Julian and Ms. Michaud are talking about are reaching out with specific questions on the bill.
Also, as I pointed out, these officials have been here. I have lost track of the number of hours they've been before us and available for questions on this bill. It's not like there have not been ample opportunities to ask questions of these officials, and I thank them for the work that they do. There have been many opportunities offered to everyone to ask them questions and to reach out with questions.
Technical briefings are different. Ms. Dancho, for whatever reason, was not able to attend. I don't know if she was at the previous briefing that was held on the amendments, but it's different to imply that the Bloc and the NDP are getting special privilege. It's just not true.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you for the clarification.
Do you have further comments on your point of order?
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Yes, then I just want to point out that, for the technical briefing hosted just the other week, we had an hour's notice, and that hour was also the minister's press conference, which, of course, we needed to watch. We had an hour's notice minus 30 minutes, of course, of the minister speaking and answering media questions. It was not an opportunity for me to ask questions; it was the media, so I had half an hour of time upon being alerted to this, and we were in the middle of other things.
I don't believe it's a fair assessment to say that we were given ample opportunity to fully understand the impact of those specific amendments a few weeks ago, and then ask robust questions minutes later at a technical briefing.
6:15 p.m.
An hon. member
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm going to end this point of order right here. We've had enough discussion on this matter, which is not a point of order. It is debate. It is not a matter for this committee to determine or decide. It is well beyond the purview of this committee, so hopefully we can get past this.
I urge the members to take their concerns to the department.
Ms. Dancho, I would invite you to carry on with your questions on this amendment, if you have any.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Yes, just to confirm, if we're taking the point of order out of there, I believe we're a minute and 14 seconds into our five minutes. Is that correct?
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thanks, Chair.
Could the officials explain the practical application of this amendment by a provincial court judge, please?
6:15 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Like the previous motion, it amends a section within the peace bond regime, in particular section 810.01 and of that, subsection (5). An 810.01 peace bond is for organized crime offences, the intimidation of justice system participants or journalists. In other words, it's a particular peace bond directed at a particular kind of offence, but that section is similar to some of the surrounding sections in that it has all of the same ingredients.
Subsection 810.01(5) is the provision that deals with “shall not possess a firearm”, etc. This motion would add “firearm part” to that list of things a person, under this kind of peace bond, could be prohibited from possessing.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thanks for that.
Has there been any research completed on the opportunities that Crown attorneys would have previously endeavoured to apply a provision like this, or have been unable to effect a prosecution? Would they have had greater success with their prosecutions had this tool been available to them?
6:15 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That question, if I understand it, is around using this particular provision in each court. We would not have that information, because it would vary between the courts from province to province. We would not have that information, unless my colleague can correct me.
6:15 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
I don't disagree with that at all. Some jurisdictions are different in Canada, although it's usually the police who determine what charges get laid. If you are speaking about Crowns and how they use some of these tools and so on, it may be that other actors determine which course a matter takes, whether a charge gets laid or whether a peace bond is available.
I'm not trying to be vague, but it would depend very much on the circumstances.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
What are the sentencing guidelines for someone who breaches a recognizance of this nature, or would breach a recognizance with respect to a firearm part if this amendment were passed and the legislation were to be passed?
6:15 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Speaking generally, breaching a peace bond is an offence under section 811 of the Criminal Code, but depending on the circumstances or the facts that make out that breach, other offences might apply. If you're asking in particular about the offence applicable to a peace bond breach, it's section 811. I don't have the other offences from memory. I apologize. I'll just have to look those up.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm going to have to start being a little more brutal on time. Your time is up.
6:15 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
As an indictable matter, the maximum sentence is four years. As a summary matter, it falls by way of summary conviction or summary punishment.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you very much.
Are there any further interventions?
Seeing none, let us conduct the vote.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I request a recorded division.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Mr. Chair, I want to be clear. On the continuation of the previous clause 13.1, it updates subsection (7) by adding the words “firearm parts” to the list of weapons a judge can prohibit an individual from possessing.
Surely to goodness all the questions about this have been answered. I imagine not, however, but in the eternal optimistic hope that I provide for this group, I am sure we'll be able to move through this quickly.