Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #94 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was version.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #94 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was version.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I think this is the last one for me.
On page 8, there's an amendment to the Criminal Code regarding prohibited devices. I understand the reason for this provision is to allow a firearm that would otherwise be prohibited to be legally held if a person is participating in international sporting competitions. It says, “governed by the rules of the International Shooting Sport Federation”, which is the new name. The previous name was the International Shooting Union.
What I want to be clear about is substantive. If the definition of the firearms they use for their organization stays the same, this amendment would simply reflect that this organization has changed its name from the International Shooting Union to the International Shooting Sport Federation, and that's fine. That's all well and good. However, my question is this: Does anyone know whether the definition they use that we're importing into the Criminal Code has changed as well, or is it simply the name of the organization?
If it's the definition of a firearm that's changed, it would impact individuals who are currently legally possessing these firearms for shooting sports. They would no longer be in compliance with the law if the definition being used by the International Shooting Sport Federation is different from the definition used by the International Shooting Union.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you, Mr. Moore.
Do we have somebody with a bit of expertise on that particular clause?
Welcome, Mr. Giammaria.
Noon
Sandro Giammaria Counsel, Department of Justice
Thank you.
My name is Sandro Giammaria and I am counsel with the criminal law policy section at the Department of Justice.
To clarify, the clause referred to speaks about a particular component of a handgun, not the firearm itself. What we're talking about is the barrel of a handgun, not the entire completed firearm. It would help to know that a barrel that measures 105 millimetres or less is a prohibited device in Canada because it forms part of a firearm that is itself prohibited, a barrel being a part that you can swap out or otherwise create a firearm with. Back in 1998, the barrel itself was deemed to be a prohibited device.
This speaks to a carve-out or an exception to that with respect to firearms used for international sporting competitions, but it pertains only to the barrel. The issue you identified—a discrepancy between the sport federation's definition of a firearm and the Criminal Code's definition of a firearm—is not engaged here.
To put a final point on this, it is just the nomenclature of the organization that's changing here. That's the long and short of it.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you very much.
Members, are there any further comments, questions or clarifications you would like to have addressed by our expert panellists and staff in the room?
No? That's fabulous.
Let me then ask this: Shall I report clauses that are not agreed to unanimously to the House? If so, which ones?
I think, Madam Gladu, you had one.
Noon
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Indeed, clause 35 is the only one I object to. Otherwise, I support the rest.
Noon
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Yes. What I took note of as discussion around substantive versus non-controversial are clauses 13, clause 33, clause 34 and clause 35, but someone else may have another.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you, Mr. Moore.
There are four clauses.
Is there anyone else? Speak now.
Okay.
Thank you very much, panellists. We'll ask you to come back another time a few years down the road.
[Inaudible—Editor] three minutes, or would you like me to go through what we would like to do Thursday and conclude that?
On Thursday, we have the—
Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Everybody has agreed to that. I'm sorry. Maybe I was asleep.
12:05 p.m.
An hon. member
It was just head nodding.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Yes, for this particular process, that is the only thing that I have to ask.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
There are four clauses that are being reported to the House as not agreed to unanimously—clauses 13, 33, 34 and 35.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you.
Committee, on Thursday we have the sponsor of the bill appearing. The clarification that I as the chair and the clerk are seeking is whether or not you would like to have witnesses for the second hour, or if not, would you like the sponsor for two hours or one hour?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I would suggest that I think what we've done in the past would be one hour for the sponsor and then witnesses in the second hour.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Okay. That was completely heard. That is the norm. Thank you very much.
If anybody has any specific witnesses, can we ask you to contact the clerk? I don't think we need to—
Go ahead, Mr. Garrison.