Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I would urge us all to focus on what we're doing here.

Mr. Julian, if you would—

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

I'm not quite done my intervention, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry. You're not finished. Okay.

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

To be clear, going back to the bill, this is a new clause. Is that correct?

[A voice]

Yes.

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

I guess we will vote on the clause afterwards, so I won't ask my question about the clauses that I have so far.

I will go to my colleague here.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I would like to inform my colleague Mr. Noormohamed, whom I don’t really know, that it is my parliamentary privilege to ask questions. A motion was voted on, and there were five minutes per party. So we can take the time we need to do our job. There is a kind of bullying every time he says he expects something. That’s just what it is. I’m not easily intimidated, but that’s still what he is doing.

I have one more question about the English and French versions. My colleagues are anglophone, and even my colleague next to me asked me why it wasn’t the same. There are fundamental differences. Why is it different in French and in English? The amendment in English is quite different from the amendment in French.

Can you explain why it is so different?

[Phaedra Glushek]

As I explained in a previous motion, this is amending an existing provision. The English and French drafting is sometimes different, depending on what is included in the provisions. Proposed subsection 491(1) is a full paragraph in the French version, but in the English it is broken down by paragraph.

The content is the same. It's broken down differently for drafting purposes. Sometimes it is done with the same paragraphs, and other times it's broken down. Just because of the way French grammar works in the drafting, it is all in one paragraph.

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

Knowing your answer, I will still ask the question because it can make a major difference. The meaning is always entirely maintained, but the fact remains that for the members of the Committee, it’s different. For my part, I read the amendment in French and my colleagues read it in English. Our teams review the amendments, but the fact remains that such questions arise.

Thank you.

[Phaedra Glushek]

I agree that this is very important. The French version is now the same as the one used in the Criminal Code. We just added the phrase “pièces d’arme à feu.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

I will be supporting the amendment, although I did want to respond to Ms. Dancho.

I have always found throughout my years in this place—and I had a lot of difficulties with the Harper regime and Ms. Dancho is aware of that—that public servants, regardless of whether we're talking about the former government or the current government, have been available.

Sometimes you have to be persistent to get answers for the questions you ask. That includes going back to the softwood lumber sellout, which I opposed. Many hundreds of pages of information were distributed, not with a lot of notice, but the public servants were always available to answer questions.

You have to be persistent; that is true. I find our public servants in Ottawa, in all ministries, are available, and they are able to answer questions. That would be my reply to her questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Are there any further interventions?

Ms. Damoff, go ahead.

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

I would point out that officials were here for days and days, and these questions weren't asked of them and could have been. The minister was in the House yesterday taking questions. These questions weren't asked.

There have been ample opportunities to get answers to questions on a bill and on amendments that we have had for quite some time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Are there any further interventions?

Seeing none, we shall conduct a recorded vote.

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

Next we have G-28, again in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

Mr. Noormohamed, please go ahead.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Chair, very simply, this relates to a series of matters that we previously discussed. It simply addresses the notion of firearm parts. It includes the applicability of the existing laws to include firearm parts.

Again, my earnest hope and request is that this committee move quickly on things that are going to help our law enforcement, which is looking for this to happen. I hope that we do not unnecessarily delay its passage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

Is there any discussion?

Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you very much.

This is a new clause, so perhaps the legislative clerk could make sure that I am correct in saying that we don't vote on new clauses. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We don't vote on the clause as a whole. Because 13.1 is a new clause, we won't get to a point where we carry the clause or not.

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

Understood.

Can the officials describe, in sum, what new clause 13.1 seeks to achieve?

[Sandro Giammaria]

As I read it, it amends paragraph 501(3)(h) of the Criminal Code to add the words “firearm part”.

For a bit of context, that section provides a police officer who has arrested somebody with the ability to release that person on what's called an undertaking. As set out in that section of the Criminal Code, an undertaking can include a number of conditions, one of which is to not possess a firearm. This would add “firearm part” to that condition, so a person arrested with a relevant offence could be released on an undertaking provided they agree to the condition not to possess firearm parts.

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

You mentioned that it amends the Criminal Code, just to be clear. Okay.

Thank you very much. That is, overall, what new clause 13.1 achieves.

Thank you, Mr. Barrett, for joining us today with your lovely children.

Just to be clear, G-28, which is within new clause 13.1, amends paragraph 501(3)(h). Is that correct?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

That's correct.

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

Overall, that section of the Criminal Code—I believe you mentioned it, but just to reiterate—focuses on what?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

When police have arrested an individual and they may release that person, as my colleague Mr. Giammaria said, on an undertaking and there are conditions they are being released on, one of the conditions currently says that they are not allowed to have a firearm. This would add firearm part to that undertaking.