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.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The standing order is published. It's available on the website. It's Standing Order 18. I would urge you to look it up.
We're going to carry on—
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
You're ruling my comments out of order, so I would like to hear what the standing order says.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I am not ruling your comments out of order. I urged you to focus on what we're doing.
We're going to carry on with this vote now.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Sir, am I allowed to make the remarks I made or not?
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
You made the remarks you made, but there's one second left in your time, so we're done.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
You deduct from my time if I'm interrupted by the chair—
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We stop your time when the chair intervenes.
You were at 0.1 seconds when I intervened, so we're going to carry on. The orders of the House are that each party gets five minutes on a debate. You have four minutes and 59 seconds done, so unless you can wrap it all up in one second, I think we'll call it a day.
Is there any further intervention from any other party?
Seeing none, let us conduct the vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you.
It's in general and not related to Bill C-21.
How are the breaks working? We're here for nine hours. When do we have bathroom breaks and when are we having eating breaks?
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
As I mentioned, I figured we'd wait a couple of hours.
We are expecting food to arrive in half an hour, at 6:30. I was thinking for this first break to wait until the food arrives and then take a short break.
Is that acceptable?
Okay.
Let us carry on with G-29, which is, oddly enough, in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Mr. Chair, it's very simple.
This amendment proposes to update subparagraph 515(6)(a)(viii) to include the words “a firearm part”. It ensures consistency with other coordinating amendments. It should be relatively simple and straightforward.
With the goodwill of all here and the fact that these have passed unanimously, it would be wonderful if we could continue to pass them unanimously and not further delay the important work of this committee.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.
Are there any questions on this amendment?
Mr. Paul-Hus, go ahead.
You have the floor.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I will gladly vote on the amendment when we are ready to vote. To the extent that we have relevant questions to ask, we think it’s important to raise them. Perhaps we don’t have the same level of intelligence as others, but we…
5:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Those are not my words, Mr. Paul-Hus.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
You never ask yourself questions. Don’t you have any?
5:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I agree with everything.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Very well.
My question, about the English and French versions, was forwarded to me by the research teams. I think this question is fundamental.
How can one explain such a discrepancy between the wording of the two versions? You can’t have a short amendment in one language and a long amendment in the other, when the English and French versions of the Criminal Code were similar before.
As I was saying, perhaps we don’t have the same level of intelligence, but we don’t understand what accounts for this major discrepancy, in this particular case.
5:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It’s the same explanation I gave you ten minutes ago.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
An amendment to change the Criminal Code is being proposed. Why is there such a big difference in the wording? What is changed is similar in French and English.
5:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In the French and English versions, we simply added the words “firearm parts” in English, and “pièces d’arme à feu” in French. That’s the only change that was made.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Why isn’t the wording the same in the amendment?
5:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The layout of the text in both languages may vary in the Criminal Code. There may be one paragraph in French and five or six in English. That’s how the drafters compose the text.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
As far as the content goes, there is no change, aside from the “firearms parts” wording.
Is that correct?
5:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That’s right, the content is exactly the same, except that the words “firearms parts” were added in English, and the words “pièces d’armes à feu” were added in French. That’s the only change.