Public Safety Committee on May 11th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 67 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022; therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, May 9, 2023, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

I would like to remind all members regarding some specific sections of the motion adopted on Tuesday that have an impact on clause-by-clause consideration.

Amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

No more than 20 minutes can be allotted for debate on any clause or any amendment moved. These 20 minutes are to be divided to a maximum of five minutes per party, unless unanimous consent is granted to extend debate on a specific amendment. At the expiry of the time provided for debate on an amendment, the chair shall put every question to dispose of the amendment forthwith and successively without further debate.

If the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved. The chair shall put the question forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill.

Before we proceed, I would now welcome the officials who are once again with us. From the Department of Justice, we have Sandro Giammaria, counsel; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; Kellie Paquette, director general, Canadian firearms program; and Rob Mackinnon, director, Canadian firearms program.

Also, I would like to welcome the officials from the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, who are not at the table at this moment. From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Jeff Robertson, manager, inadmissibility policy unit, strategic policy branch. From the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, we have Pascale Bourassa, acting director general, directorate of security and safeguards; and Pierre-Daniel Bourgeau, counsel, legal services. These officials will join us at the table and be available to answer questions when we study the relevant clauses. CNSC is relevant to clauses 49 to 51. CBSA is relevant to clauses 52 to 63 and 67 to 69.

Thank you, all, for joining us once again. Your participation is critically important to us.

I note that Mr. Calkins followed by Mr. Julian are on the speaking list. Before we go into that, we have a couple of housekeeping items.

(On clause 15)

The first one is on NDP-1. The amendment of Ms. Damoff has a couple of grammatical concerns. I will ask the clerk to mention them. Perhaps we can change them on a unanimous consent basis.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk, please.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you will recall, yesterday the committee adopted a subamendment to NDP-1, the protection order. There was a new definition.

In French, in the definition of protection order, "S'entend une ordonnance rendue" should read "S'entend d'une ordonnance rendue."

At the end of the sentence, the accord is not done properly with the feminine gender. It should say,

"limitée."

We just need to add a “d” and an apostrophe at the start and an “e” at the end. That's all that would be required.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Do we have unanimous consent to effect those changes?

Agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's done. Thank you.

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

Can I ask a question on the clause, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Please be very, very quick.

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

I would need unanimous consent to do this. Folks weren't here last night—or maybe you were, Blaine—when Glen Motz was talking about courts not being the only ones who issue protection orders. Because of time limits, we didn't have a chance to amend that. I think we're actually not accomplishing what we wanted to accomplish because of the amendment I put forward. Because I used the word “court”, we're actually limiting what we can do. In addition, officials pointed out to me that we have not given them regulating powers.

I'm just wondering if there's unanimous consent for me to provide some wording to change that and fix it.

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

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Do we have unanimous consent on this matter?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I believe we do. Go ahead, please.

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

Is that okay?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I just want the same courtesy when I want unanimous consent.

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

Let's start out on the right foot here.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

All right.

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

I don't have it in front of me right now.

Is there wording we could add to it that would allow officials to still regulate? I think I came up with wording yesterday, actually, and then we were ending.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'll give you some time to find that and sort that out. We will consider that the matter will be addressed on a unanimous consent basis.

(Clause 15 allowed to stand)

There is another matter regarding another error we made. This was brought up by Mr. Paul-Hus yesterday. It's on G-21.

There is a discrepancy between the English and the French in new clause 11.1 on page 52 of the package. New proposed paragraph 117.05(4)(b) begins with the word “if” on the English side and...where in the French?

Why is the French side in English?

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

[Philippe Méla]

Mr. Chair, the change is only in the English version. Of course, on the French side you'll have the new English version.

It says both “if the justice is satisfied” and “where the justice is satisfied”, so at reprint there will be a problem. We won't know which one to put there.

I asked Ms. Mainville-Dale what wording would be preferable. She indicated to me that “where” would be the appropriate word on both sides.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

All right.

The request is to change that one word, “if”, to “where” in the English version.

Do we have unanimous consent to do so?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

(On clause 15)

Ms. Damoff, are you ready to go?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

This is on the amendment you made previously. We have unanimous consent for you to propose some changes.

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

Currently, it says “a court”—