Evidence of meeting #89 for Status of Women 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 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
We're back.
We've gone through this, and we're going to let you know that there are a few different consequential things.
There is clause 6, which has G-9.
We introduced G-10, but there is also a consequential issue here. It is a consequential change. Because I had already presented it, we need unanimous consent to stand clause 6 as well.
(Clause 6 allowed to stand)
(Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to)
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
That's a new clause, 10.1, that you're referring to. It's amendment G-14.
If you want to present G-14, Marc or Sonia, go for it.
We're at the very end, at 10.1. This one flew, because so many things were consequential.
We're now at the last one, G-14. This is a new amendment.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
I'm going to open the floor and allow Sonia to put it forward.
Next, we will have Leslyn, and then we can carry on.
Go ahead, Sonia.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
It is a coordinating amendment, but it is not consequential to any other amendments. That's what that is.
Go ahead, Leslyn.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I actually see this very differently. When you look at G-3, clause 2, under.... I don't even know how to read this.
In proposed subsection 810.03(8) on page 2 of the committee stage document, you will see that there's a reference that.... Proposed subsection 810.03(8) completely changes subsection 810.03(7), which references the firearms section. That actually doesn't make any sense. It changes it to subsection 810.03(9), which is not the firearms section.
When you go farther down to proposed subsection 810.03(11), you'll see that it does it again when it speaks about “the defendant makes an application under subsection (10)”. It's changing.... It's amending the firearms section.
This G-14 deals specifically with the firearms section. Technically, the firearms section in these two provisions should be dealt with before you contemplate anything dealing with G-14, because G-14 contemplates that Bill C-21 must be introduced prior.
It may be moot if you deal with the firearms section. You can't deal with this without dealing with those two amendments first.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
I'll come back to you, Marc.
I'm going to throw this over to the officials.
Could you give us your two cents' worth on this?
5:20 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This amendment, G-14, would make some changes to ensure that some of the changes in previous clauses line up with Bill C-21, and the previous clauses include clause 2. There's a condition that would be proposed under the new peace bond provision. Currently, it's proposed subsection 810.03(9) on page 4 of the bill. That's a list of conditions the defendants would have to comply with, or potentially comply with, if they're on a peace bond.
In that list, the words “firearm part” are missing. “Firearm part” would be added by Bill C-21.
I don't exactly know all the rules, but I don't believe it can be debated, since it deals with that clause. We haven't changed the numbering in that clause yet. This provision proposes new numbering to reflect a motion that would have passed.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, it is, on clause 2.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
I will allow two more comments, but just to finish the ruling on that, I think I have it.
We're going to Marc, then back over to Leslyn.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Just quickly, Madam Chair, I think this is simply technical, and I don't know about the aspect of clause 2, but essentially when we are looking at ensuring the two bills' language, I don't see that amendment G-14 takes away from Bill S-205. If I understand it correctly, it just aligns the two bills, and it doesn't take away or add. I thought this was a simple amendment.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
It is simple. The only thing is, as they indicated, there are some consequential amendments, because of clause 2 in there.
Leslyn, you have the floor.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I thank Chelsea for her clarification. I think it's imperative from a statutory construction perspective that we deal with clause 2, because if you look at provision in subsection (8), you see that it actually changes the entire meaning. It changes it from looking at the recognizance section to looking at the firearms section, so there are two different things that are spoken about. If that section actually changes, then it's going to have an impact on amendment G-14 also. That's why I think it's imperative that we deal with clause 2 before we can make this amendment. It's connected.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
You're absolutely right, Leslyn. As we've indicated, clause 2 cannot be done, though, because we're waiting for a translation. Once we have that, we can do so.
Instead, we will not be able to continue with the bill today. We'll have to look at everything else. Everything will have to be stood, because we'll need to wait for the official translation so that we can do clause 2. Then, from clause 2, everything else will be able to roll.
Are there any questions before we leave?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Karen Vecchio
Go for it, Emmanuella. You see that I have the hammer in my hand.
