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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
It's clause 15, Alex. NDP-1 is amending clause 15.
After “a court”, we would be adding the words “or another competent authority”.
Then, at the very end, we took out too much. I take complete blame for this. It should still include “orders that prohibit a person from”. That got deleted when we did the clause, I believe, so it doesn't really make sense.
Is “orders that prohibit a person from” still there?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Okay.
So it would be, “this includes but is not limited to orders that prohibit a person from”.
The way it reads right now, according to what I submitted, it includes but isn't limited to “being in physical proximity” to a person. It just doesn't make sense.
Again, this would be adding “or another competent authority”, and then, at the end, “orders that prohibit a person from”.
As well, at the end, is there standard wording available that regulations would be made based on this? We don't want to take away officials' ability to make regulations, which I understand we've done in this clause.
4:45 p.m.
Rachel Mainville-Dale Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Perhaps I can make a suggestion.
4:45 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The original clause was worded this way: “protection order has the meaning assigned by the regulations”. Then I would add the language that you're comfortable with, such as “which can include” or that kind of general intent, saying that this is what it's intended to capture but it has the meaning assigned by the regulations.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Sure, Chair, if it's okay.
This seems to be a more substantive change than what we had originally expected. Could we get this in written format and distributed to the committee so that we can actually see it? I'm going back into this binder and I can't even find NDP-1.
I'd like to actually see what's going on, if you don't mind.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Ms. Damoff, can we do that and come back to this once that's available?
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Can we make sure that it is in both official languages, please?
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Can we make sure that the document we receive from Ms. Damoff is in both official languages, please?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Yes.
We will come back to that when everything is good.
(Clause 15 allowed to stand)
Monsieur Godin, go ahead on the same matter.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Like my colleague, I am having a bit of trouble following. I am new to the committee.
I just want to draw your attention to something. I don't know how the situation can be corrected. Maybe the legislative clerk can help us.
If I am not mistaken, we talked about the "if" or the "where" in proposed paragraph 11.1(2)(b) in amendment G-21, which is on page 52 of the amendments package.
Also in that amendment, subclause 11.1(1) proposes to replace subsection 117.05(4) of the Criminal Code.
So I'm talking about proposed subclause 11.1(4).
It says, “If, following the hearing of an application”.
In the French version, it says: "Le juge qui, au terme de l'audition de la demande, conclut."
The conditional is used in the English version but not in the French version. Can the legislative clerk confirm that everything is correct in the interpretation?
4:50 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, I can try to do that.
We have to remember that when amendments are drafted by the Department of Justice it is done independently by anglophone and francophone drafters. It isn't a matter of translating from one language to the other; it is parallel drafting.
In this case, the wording means the same thing in both languages. In English, it says:
“If, following the hearing of an application made under”.
In French, it says: "Le juge qui, au terme de l'audition." So something is going to happen after the application. In practice, it says the same thing.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you for your answer.
However, we saw something relatively unique in the House of Commons today.
We amended some commas and words in Bill C-13. Ten motions were introduced by the government after the same work was done as we are doing here for Bill C-21.
I draw your attention to this because I want to make sure the same mistake isn't made. I would like us to make sure that the meaning is the same. This is a law, and there has to be as little as possible that needs to be interpreted and argued in court. I think it is important to point this out, Mr. Chair.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Godin.
As we wait for the hard copy that Madam Damoff is undertaking, Mr. Calkins I believe wants to move an amendment to clause 30.
(On clause 30)
Is this what you wish to speak to, Mr. Julian?
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes, Mr. Chair. We could be looking at the same amendment.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I have Mr. Calkins on the list first. We'll let him go ahead.
After we're done clause 30, I propose that we will go to Mr. Ruff, who will ask for unanimous consent to go back to clause 18 to do his amendment.
Mr. Calkins, go ahead, please.
