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.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
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”.
4:40 p.m.
A voice
Yes.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
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?
4:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
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.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
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.
May 10th, 2023 / 4:40 p.m.
Kellie Paquette Director General, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
They are public agents.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
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.
4:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We can get that for you.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
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.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Are there any further interventions?
Go ahead, Mr. Dreeshen.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
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?
4:40 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
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.
4:45 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen.
Are there any further interventions?
Go ahead, Mr. Paul-Hus.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Are there any further interventions?
Seeing none, shall we conduct the vote?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
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.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
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?
