Public Safety Committee on May 11th, 2023

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

I just have a question for the officials on how this is interpreted. I believe I'm working from a current copy of the proposed amendment by Mr. Julian. The correction that was just made, because I just got this now, was in the French language version, so there have been no changes in the English language version that would have been sent. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I believe that's correct.

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

It's changing now to read,

Authorizations to carry referred to in subsection 20(a) are not valid outside the geographic area set in the authorization by Commissioner.

Can you explain this to me, because I thought in the discussion that we had about these authorizations to carry that the authorization was granted by the chief firearms officer, not the commissioner.

Why are referring to the commissioner here, instead of the chief firearms officer? I'm just looking for some clarification.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

There's an amendment in the bill to centralize the authorizations to carry for personal protection, to centralize those with the commissioner. That was a clause, I believe, that was passed last evening.

Therefore, that one is to give discretion to the commissioner to set the geographic area according to the needs of that individual person. For people who will have an authorization to carry for reasons of their employment, the current process would exist where the chief firearms officer would be the one who would issue the authorization to carry.

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

I'm sorry. Could you just repeat that last bit, please?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

For people who have an authorization to carry for reasons of their employment, the current process would continue. That would be the CFO, the chief firearms officer of the province, who would issue it, and if they need to cross provinces, there's an agreement between the CFOs.

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

Thank you.

In the second part of the amendment, it says:

the geographic area set in the authorization by Commissioner.

The amendment that I was going to move, had I not been bumped by Mr. Julian, would have been to add “province or territory”, because not everybody lives in a province. In one part of the amendment here, we're talking about “the geographic area set in the authorization by Commissioner”, and then in the second part of the amendment, it says:

Authorizations to carry referred to in subsection 20(b) are not valid outside the province in which they are issued.

Not everybody lives in a province.

Even though the chief firearms officers have certain authorities that the commissioner doesn't have, the Northwest Territories is no longer part of the joint Alberta area. Do we need to have an amendment in order to make this valid and legitimate, one where we say the “province or territory” in which you reside?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

I would refer and rely on the Interpretation Act, in which “province” includes the territories.

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

We don't need to have that amendment made for clarification.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Are there any further discussions on Mr. Julian's amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Calkins, did you have another amendment to make?

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

No. My questions have been answered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll go back to Ms. Damoff.

Are we ready with Ms. Damoff's amendment?

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

We are, but do you want to carry clause 30, and then we'll go to mine?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's a very good idea.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We're doing a recorded vote.

(Clause 30 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 15)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We have Ms. Damoff's amendment, and then we'll get back to Mr. Ruff.

Ms. Damoff, your amendment is on your previous amendment to NDP-1. Are you ready to proceed?

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

I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Has that been distributed to the committee?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay. Carry on, please.

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

It would amend the first paragraph that we adopted yesterday. It will clean it up. It will allow officials to make regulations, but it will also expand who is issuing a protection order.

For the new one, I'll just read the first paragraph, Chair, if that's okay. Everyone has it. It would be that “protection order has the meaning assigned by the regulations (ordonnance de protection); but is intended to include any binding order made by a court or other authorizing entities in the interest of the safety or security of a person; this includes but is not limited to orders that prohibit a person from”.

I'm sorry. I think I might have an old one. Do I? I do.

Could you correct the words? I'm sorry. I took the one that the clerk sent me, but I believe that's not the most recent one.

It's “by a court or other competent authority in the interest of the safety or security of a person”.

I hope colleagues will support that. We've already passed the clause. This is just cleaning it up and making it more effective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm sorry. You're amending your previous amendment, the text of the previous amendment. Is that what you're doing?

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

It's the text of what we passed in NDP-1, yes.