Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2023

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I just want to make sure this has zero impact. My concern is about “public officers”. I'm assuming that all law enforcement falls under “public officer”.

[A voice]

Yes.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Yes, I thought so. We have our Canadian Armed Forces. We have our museum folks. The cadets are in there, and then the CFOs themselves.

Does that include conservation officers as well, who are under provincial mandate?

[Phaedra Glushek]

That's a good question.

I'm not sure about provincial employees and if they have peace officer status, but this is for public officers. These are exemptions for federal entities in the scope of their employment or duties. It's for federal employees.

The sections that are in the code right now, 117.07 to 117.08, are for visiting forces, Department of National Defence officials, police officers, academies, etc., who are able to be exempted from the Firearms Act regime, the licensing requirements and the Criminal Code offences that attach if they.... It allows them to carry and possess prohibited firearms, for example, to protect assets.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Obviously these provincial folks are authorized—your conservation folks, etc.—but they're not captured under this. What aspect exempts them?

If Mr. Calkins were here, I know he'd know this right off the top of his head, but we don't have him today.

[Kellie Paquette, Director General, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

They are public agents.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

They're public agents. Is that a different aspect of the Criminal Code?

We don't have that code number offhand. I can try to search it here online.

[Phaedra Glushek]

We can get that for you.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Yes, if you can find it. Thank you.

Thanks, Chair. Hopefully we can shortly get some clarity here on this. That was important to flag to make sure that all of our legitimate public enforcement officers, for lack of a better word, have the appropriate coverage too. I want to make sure they're not missed out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Are there any further interventions?

Go ahead, Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Regarding a public safety officer versus a police officer, there are distinctions between the two, and this simply says “public officer”. Are they dealing with the same definition?

[Sandro Giammaria]

I think it's helpful to clarify that by referencing the code itself. Subsection 117.07(2) provides the list of the defined classes of persons who constitute a public officer for the purpose of the immunities in that section.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Is that (g)?

[Sandro Giammaria]

Yes. You'll see the list there, and I think, to Mr. Ruff's question, paragraph 117.07(2)(g) includes a member of “the government of a province or municipality who is prescribed to be a public officer”. I think the missing piece will be whether the people he's concerned about are so prescribed.

The larger point is that nothing in G-22 changes the list of public officers who enjoy these immunities. All this does is give them immunity for certain activities with respect to firearm parts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen.

Are there any further interventions?

Go ahead, Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I have another question along the same lines about the French and English versions.

The English says, “in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment”.

This passage is not in the French version. Why is that? Is it because those words are at the beginning of the paragraph and we can’t see them?

You’re nodding yes. All right, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Are there any further interventions?

Seeing none, shall we conduct the vote?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Yes, please, a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll go to you after the vote.

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

Mr. Julian, go ahead on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Normally we have a recorded vote when there is a difference around the committee table. To call for a committee vote each time when we are all in agreement basically detracts from time that the Conservatives have said they want to take for the study. It's another technique for filibustering, and I find it really unfortunate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

It is a member's right to request a recorded division, and I won't opine on motives.

That wraps up clause 12.

Shall clause 12 as amended carry?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I have a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Let's have the vote first.