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.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
No, it says, “by a court or other competent authority”.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
In the email that's been sent I have two different versions here, and nothing that I can see shows the changes. I know this was approved, but nothing shows the changes. Gauging from my colleagues, I'm having a bit of a difficult time.
I know that for us I want to thank our colleagues who are permanent members of this committee to allow us.... This is very important to our constituents. I appreciate the time they have given us to be a part of this. I apologize if I'm going back a little bit. Again, this is pretty critical to my constituents and I know for many of us, so I want to make sure that I'm following this properly.
In the email that I've been given, I have two different versions of new amendments, but nothing really highlights what the changes are.
Ms. Damoff, of the two you've sent us, can you tell us which one we're dealing with specifically on the change?
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
If you look at NDP-1 and the paragraph that begins with “protection order”, delete that whole paragraph.
Replace that paragraph with, “protection order has the meaning assigned by regulations (ordonnance de protection); but is intended to include any binding order made by a court or other competent authority in the interest of the safety or security of a person; this includes but is not limited to orders that prohibit a person from”.
Then the remainder of NDP-1 does not change.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Sure. I'll ask some questions on this.
Thank you for the clarification on what exactly the change is.
Could the officials tell us this? With the proposed change that's happening right now, everybody understands what a court is. What would be on the list, other than a court, of the other competent authorities?
5:50 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Thank you for the question.
Unfortunately, I can't provide a comprehensive list, but I can indicate that there are various forms of provincial legislation that include protection orders of various sorts. Those can include conditions that one not possess a firearm or any of, let's say, the conditions that are listed here. Those particular provincial statutes will set out who the issuing body is, so—
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Could you give me an example of something other than a court that could do this?
5:50 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
I can give you that. It's a pretty obscure example, but it's from New Brunswick. It's called the Intimate Partner Violence Intervention Act. It's referred to as an emergency protection order. The issuing body is a member of the provincial civil service. It's an administrative decision-maker.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Are there any examples where this competent authority could be in place without a statute, either federally or provincially?
5:50 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
That's difficult to answer. In terms of the words competent authority, I can indicate that those terms are used several times throughout the Criminal Code in reference to bodies that issue orders that are not specifically courts. Those are common terms. They're terms that have been used—
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I'm not worried if it's a court or not. I'm just worried that.... I don't know the answer to the question I'm asking.
Would anyone who is deemed a competent authority be a competent authority under a provincial or federal statute? How could a competent authority exist without a statute? Is it possible? Does it exist in common law? Does it exist in religious types of laws, or does a competent authority actually have to be in a statute?
5:50 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I would point to the first sentence where we say that it has the meaning assigned in the regulations. That would give the government time to develop and propose the regulations, consult and define exactly the types of competent authorities and types of orders.
That second clause would sort of signify the intent of the legislature to say what kinds of orders and protection orders are captured by the regulations. The intent, when this was proposed, was not to capture every single type of protection order, but those that were for the protection of victims of intimate partner violence and gender-based violence. By relying on that, and defining it in the regulations, the fact is that it's going to have the meaning set in the regulations.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Yes, but a regulation can't exist without a statute.
I guess the answer to my question is that there shouldn't be a competent authority anywhere that doesn't have the authority by regulation, be it a statute or be it the statute itself.
Without getting into detail, there are other types of ways we deal with justice, and other types of issues in Canada. I'm wondering if those would not be considered competent authorities. It would have to be by statute. I'm getting the sense that, yes, it would have to be by statute and, thereby, regulation.
5:50 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Again, that's outside of my personal scope of expertise, but I would rely on the fact that, if the government were to develop regulations, those questions would be answered and the meaning of competent authority would be sorted out.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the French version of clause 15 of the bill, it reads "ou une autre autorité compétente." I wonder whether we shouldn't write "ou toute autre autorité compétente."
Would that change something in terms of interpretation?
