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.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Pardon me. It's G-21, which I believe is also on firearm parts. The same question applies. Is G-21 relevant to G-42? No, it is not.
Can you explain how it's different from G-20? Is it relative to a judge's authority?
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I'll let my colleagues from Justice talk with regard to the Criminal Code.
There are several packages of measures with regard to ghost guns. With regard to licensing and requiring a licence to acquire or import, that's in the Firearms Act. There are others for defining illegally manufactured firearms as prohibited firearms. That's in the Criminal Code. There are other consequential amendments with regard to firearm parts.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct. In the Criminal Code, we, the government, defined “firearm part” and have added it to several offences—for example, trafficking in firearm parts or smuggling in firearm parts—and in some of the procedural parts of the Criminal Code as well.
Sections 117.02, 117.04 and 117.05 are existing search and seizure provisions in the Criminal Code, so it's adding “firearm part” to those provisions to allow for the search and seizure of these parts. For example, if someone has committed a crime, they can use, I believe, this section to search for and seize firearm parts. It's adding to the existing provisions that already allow for warrant and warrantless searches, but it's just adding “firearm part”.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I have one more technical question. In the English version of amendment G-21, in proposed item (b), the wording begins with “if the justice”. In the French version, at the same place, it begins “where the justice”.
I’d like to know which wording is correct: “if the justice” or “where the justice”? The beginning is not the same. This could be important.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The same Criminal Code wording is retained, as currently written, to which we simply add “firearm parts”.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
In paragraph 117.05(4)(b) of the Criminal Code, does it say “if the justice” or “where the justice”? The amendment seeks to replace the language with something else, but the language is not the same in the English and French versions of the amendment. My English-speaking colleagues may note that the words “if the justice is satisfied” and “where the justice is satisfied” do not have the same meaning.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
You’re correct. It’s an error. The translation is missing.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
We should fix this problem before going any further, Mr. Chair. It’s important.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It’s a drafting issue. We would only change the English version, not the French version in this case.
You’re making me work hard today. As far as the passage you’re talking about, it’s a matter of writing style, which is a little different in the English and French versions. The phrase “firearm parts” is in the wording of subsection (4) itself. In French, since the phrase “de tels objets” is defined in subsection (4), there is no change to paragraph 117.05(4)(b) of the Criminal Code, which still reads:
where the justice is satisfied that the circumstances warrant such an action, order that the possession by that person of any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance, or of any such thing, be prohibited during any period, not exceeding five years, that is specified in the order, beginning on the making of the order.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Is that in the amendment we have before us?
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I don’t think I’m just stalling to waste time. In my opinion, this is an important point of law, unless it’s confirmed for me that everything is fine. The fact remains that in amendment G-21 before us, there are two different paragraphs in English, one that begins with “if”, and the other that begins with “where”.
I just wanted to know which one was the correct one. Which one should be included in the Bill? The one that starts with “if” or the one that starts with “where”?
That’s the nuance I am trying to clarify.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
“[W]here the justice is satisfied” is in the law now. I think the English version on the left side of the page, “if the justice”, is an updated drafting convention. Currently, we have “where the justice”. I think “if the justice” is the current drafting language.
I think we'd need to replace proposed paragraph 117.05(4)(b) in the French.
In the French version of the amendment, the same paragraph (b) should be inserted as in English. The reference to “firearm parts” is in subsection (4).
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
I believe that is a grammatical matter that will be sorted out as a matter of course, as I understand it.
Anyway, we are obliged to carry on.
Are all in favour of G‑21?
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chair, I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you all. That wraps up new clause 11.1.
(On clause 12)
Now we have G-22, which is in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This, again, addresses the issue of firearm parts, and in particular it exempts.... Public officers will continue to be exempted persons to allow them to do the normal functioning of their employment.
I would hope we have the unanimous support of everyone here, and if indeed we do, hopefully we can do without the performative theatre of a record vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.
Is there any discussion on this?
Go ahead, Mr. Ruff.