Evidence of meeting #67 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.
8 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I will be supporting this amendment, BQ-11.
To my Conservative colleagues, I'd just like to remind them of the famous quip from Steve Martin, that people who speak French have a different word for everything.
8 p.m.
Conservative
8 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you.
I'm definitely not an expert in the French language. Everybody knows that. I mentioned the differences, but there is a significant difference, and even I can tell with my very limited French that the English one does not mention anything about 30 days, and the French one says 30 days, so there is a difference here in these two.
8 p.m.
Bloc
8 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I don't know whether I can answer my colleague's question, but there is an introduction just before what we want to amend.
In the English version, it says "replacing line 32," so that means that it is only that line that we want to change. The reference to "30 days" appears later in the subsection. As the officials said, we have a different way of writing in French. That is why it is longer in the French version, but it is exactly the same thing.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm going to ask our clerk to advise us.
You're saying essentially they're the same thing; they're just changing different lines of code. Is that correct? Would you agree?
8 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Well, I'm sorry. I know we're running out of time. I don't understand that, because one mentions 30 days and one doesn't. Can someone explain that to me?
8 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Can I read the clause in full? Proposed section 69.1(1) says:
If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that they have collected or received from any person, that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible to hold the licence, they may suspend, in respect of that licence, the holder's authorization to use, acquire and import firearms for a period of up to 30 days.
The proposal is to change “may” to “shall”.
8 p.m.
Conservative
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
It's just that the particular line that's being amended in the English doesn't affect the 30-day part, whereas the line that is being amended in French has to deal with that.
Who else is speaking on this point of order?
8 p.m.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Can she read that in French, though? I want to hear the French read out.
8 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
S’il a des motifs raisonnables de soupçonner, sur la base de renseignements qu’il a reçus d’une personne ou qu’il recueille, que le titulaire d’un permis n’y est plus admissible, le contrôleur des armes à feu peut, pour une période d’au plus trente jours, suspendre, relativement à ce permis,...
8 p.m.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
On a point of order, the translation isn't working.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
I do want to hear it in French, but I would like the translation into English—
8 p.m.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
—so it is a point of order that translation services were not working during that.
8 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I thought the purpose of the request was that it would be heard in French.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's what I understood as well. I think we're going into the deep end here with this point of order. I'm going to bring it to an end.
You have a minute to carry on with your intervention, Mr. Tochor. You can use it how you like.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Going back to the actual clause, what would it change from how the act reads now? What is the main difference for functionality? What would this actually change?