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.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Before I begin, I want to clarify an answer I gave to Mr. Julian. There are actually 39 amendments that contain the same language, just for specificity. I want to be very clear so that my words are not misconstrued or taken out of context.
Again, in this amendment, we update subsection 810.02(7) of the Criminal Code. With this amendment we are simply intending to add the words “firearm part” to the list of weapons that a judge can prohibit.
It's really important, I think, that we continue to pass these things unanimously. The questions have been answered repeatedly by officials. I am hopeful that in the spirit of the work this committee has historically done—that is to say, by being co-operative and productive—we can pass quickly the amendments that we all agree to, and then we can move on to things where there are areas of contention.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you.
In the context of G-33, but in response to what I think was a good-faith hand being extended by Mr. Noormohamed, we have worked very well as a committee, but I do feel that came to an end when time allocation was called, Mr. Chair. Just to be clear, that goodwill is now gone.
For the officials, this mentions the Criminal Code subsection 810.02(7). Can you explain what area of the Criminal Code that is again, please, and the impacts that this will have on it?
6:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can start. Then my colleague can get into any of the details.
This again is another peace bond provision. There are different ones for different situations. This is dealing specifically with peace bonds relating to forced and underage marriage. If a judge is satisfied that the applicant has reasonable grounds to fear that a person will commit this offence, a judge can order a peace bond or order the person to enter into a recognizance.
In subsection 810.02(7) is a list of items that the judge can include that the person could not have or should abstain from, including firearms, etc., and this adds “firearm part” to this subsection. It allows a judge to also order that the person abstain from possessing firearm parts.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you.
This is a different section, obviously, of the Criminal Code from the previous amendments.
All 39 of the amendments that have the same words “firearm part” are impacting different areas of the Criminal Code. Is that correct? It's not just the Criminal Code, pardon me.
6:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
For the Criminal Code it's impacting various parts. Some are adding to offences. Others are adding to procedural elements in the code, and preventative orders, so offences, some procedures and some preventative orders.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
You said procedural orders on the last one? Changing and adding “firearm part” to the offence would have a different impact from a procedural order. Is that correct?
6:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
They are all consequential amendments to the original motion so they are all technical and coordinating amendments to those provisions.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Right, but you mentioned that a procedural order and an offence are two different things. Is that correct?
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay.
The significance of adding “firearm part” to one may not be the same as the other. Is that correct?
6:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Correct. It's a different scope. One is some offences and others are preventative orders. Others are procedural elements to bail, etc., so they are different, but they are all consequential to the original motion.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Right.
These 39 changes, while granted they have the same verbiage in each one, don't have the same impact. Is that what I'm hearing? They have the same impact in the context of each amendment that it's impacting, but it doesn't necessarily mean that one amendment is the same as the other. It impacts different areas of the Criminal Code.
6:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It impacts different provisions of the Criminal Code, yes. Those provisions, again, are varied, but they are all consequential.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you.
That's all for me, but I believe my colleague has more questions.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you, Chair.
To continue on that vein, certainly, if you're not a lawyer, I think it's important that we understand the ramifications of what we're being asked to do here.
Maybe the folks on that side understand the Criminal Code. I don't know. If they do great, but on this side of the House I will put it forward that I don't understand the Criminal Code. I think asking for some explanation with respect to that is not an unreasonable thing to do.
When we're passing legislation, I think it behooves all of us in this place to understand the legislation as best we possibly can, especially when some people are more laypersons at it than others.
I think to say that these 39 or 59 or 209, it doesn't matter—
6:30 p.m.
Bloc
6:30 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I’d like you to ask people who are not at the table to lower their voices a bit. That would help us better understand our colleagues’ questions and the officials’ responses.
Thank you.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Would the colleagues in the back keep it down, please.
Thank you.
Mr. Ellis, carry on.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Chair.
As I was saying, I think it's very important to understand the ramifications as best we can with respect to these things. Perhaps, as I was saying, my colleagues across the aisle are familiar with the Criminal Code. I am not. I don't apologize for that, but I think—
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm going to have to cut you off here. Your time is up.
Let us carry on with a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now on G-34.
Let's see if we can get through G-34. I think the food will be here very soon.
Mr. Noormohamed, go ahead, please.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In a surprise to no one, this amendment would update the section of the Criminal Code particularly related to individuals who may commit a sexual offence.
With this amendment, we are intending to add the words “firearm part” to the list of weapons a judge can prohibit an individual from possessing.
Again, I will note that this is a very simple, basic change that I am certain and hopeful everyone at this committee will support, and that we will do it without further delay.