Evidence of meeting #18 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 section.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
It should be acceptable.
I also apologize; I will have to suspend. There's some confusion about the clerk. I'm suspending now for 30 minutes for the staff change.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
I call the meeting back to order. We will resume.
We were at Elizabeth May's Green Party amendment to clause 6 before the break. We had finished our debates. I had no other speakers on the list.
I want to reiterate that if PV-1 is adopted, Conservative amendment 4, which is next, cannot be moved, as they amend the same line. It will be the same for other amendments when we have multiple amendments to the same clause.
If there are no questions on that, I'm going to ask if PV-1 shall carry.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I think everyone is familiar with our reasoning on this issue. I would remind everyone, because we just had that break, that in no way do I want people to think I feel a mandatory minimum penalty of one year is enough in this case. However, in the spirit of compromise—on the last vote, we almost had unanimity—I'm hoping that we would maintain a six-month mandatory minimum for the offence of weapons trafficking.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:40 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, I made a mistake: I voted against, but I wanted to vote in favour. I apologize for that.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
I think he can correct it. Yes.
(Clause 6 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 7)
On clause 7, we have Green Party amendment number 2. Again, if the Green Party amendment is adopted, Conservative amendment 5 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.
Shall Green Party amendment 2 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Moore.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
No one from the Green Party spoke to this.
We're dealing in Bill C-5 with amending a number of different provisions related to firearms and then provisions related to weapons. Sometimes people think of a firearm as a weapon, or a weapon as a firearm, and use the terms interchangeably, but in some cases the possession of a weapon does not include a firearm. In this case, I believe for this mandatory minimum penalty proposed by the Green Party, the removal would expand this to include a firearm when we're talking about weapons trafficking. In the legislation that's currently before us in Bill C-5, there are a number of very important measures that remove mandatory minimum penalties when it comes to firearms, but perhaps our witnesses could just speak to the distinction between weapons trafficking and firearms trafficking, which I think is important to this Green amendment.
6:40 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thank you for the question.
Very briefly, the three- and five-year MMPs for section 100, possession for the purposes of weapons trafficking, apply to firearms, prohibited devices and prohibited ammunition, and the one-year MMP applies to prohibited and restricted weapons. My understanding of the Green Party amendment is that it would repeal all of those MMPs in all cases, not only for weapons but also for firearms.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Shall Green Party amendment 2 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall Conservative amendment 5 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 7 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Brock.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
In keeping with the spirit of the Conservative amendments that you've heard Mr. Moore speak about, we're looking at a compromise.
We are not supporting the elimination of that particular mandatory minimum as contemplated by Bill C-5, but we recognize, again, the spirit behind Bill C-5 in terms of the objective of providing some recourse to the courts and to Crown prosecutors to exercise that discretion where required, but we also want to send a message to the community that should you engage in activities such as in the section that contemplates criminal behaviour, you can expect not to be treated leniently. You'll be expected to serve a period of incarceration.
We are reflective of the overall objective, and we feel that six months, as opposed to one year, is an appropriate compromise.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Shall we go for a vote on clause 7?
(Clause 7 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
We turn now to new clause 7.1, as proposed by the Green Party. It's Green Party amendment 3.
I'm deeming that inadmissible. I'll read it out this time, but on the other ones I'll just deem the ruling.
The amendment seeks to amend paragraph 102(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, which deals with the offence related to alteration of a firearm. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771 that “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill”.
Since paragraph 102(2)(a) of the Criminal Code is not being amended by Bill C-5, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.
(On clause 8)
We have Green Party amendment 4. Again, if it's adopted, Conservative amendment 6 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.
Shall Green Party amendment 4 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now have Conservative amendment 6.
Go ahead, Mr. Moore.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
This clause deals with importing and exporting prohibited, restricted and non-restricted firearm weapons and prohibited ammunition. The offence provides a mandatory minimum penalty of three years for the first offence and five years for a second or subsequent offences.
Other cases are prohibited and restricted weapons and components related to the manufacture of an automatic firearm. I think it's important to know that fully automatic firearms are not, in spite of what people might think, legal in Canada, even under our “restricted” category of firearms. We have “non-restricted”, we have “restricted”, and we have “prohibited”, and fully automatic firearms are not legal in this country.
There's a mandatory minimum penalty of one year for those who manufacture an automatic firearm. Clause 8 would remove that MMP.
It's for that reason that we are opposed to clause 8. I already mentioned that CPC amendment 6 is an effort to reach a compromise that says that if you're in the business of manufacturing fully automatic firearms in Canada, possibly to be used illegally, and if you're convicted of that illegal activity, you would serve a minimum of six months. That's an effort for compromise. That's why we have moved CPC amendment 6.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Morrison Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Are there any charter issues that have come up from our witnesses?
6:50 p.m.
General Counsel and Director, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We're not aware of any cases specific to the one-year MMP in which it has been found to be unconstitutional. We are aware of a lower court decision in Quebec finding the three-year MMP unconstitutional, but not one year.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Morrison Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Just for debate purposes, we're talking about somebody who can change a firearm to fully automatic, which is the heart of organized crime gang activity.
We all know. We sit in the House of Commons every day, and when we go home, we hear this every day. That's probably about as serious as it gets for a penalty for a firearm infraction.
I think we just have to have a look at this one and really think about it when we vote.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
This is debate only, with no questions. I'm putting it out to my Liberal colleagues to really reflect upon the purpose of this particular section and the type of criminal it's capturing. It is not capturing the indigenous first-time offender or the racialized Black Canadian offender. It's not targeting the low-risk offender. These are offenders who are knowingly engaged in a commercial enterprise to import and export weapons within our borders and internationally.
Please reflect upon the countless stories we have shared as politicians over the last several months, what we are reading in the papers, what we are seeing on the television about the floodgates being open and about the importing and illegal gun smuggling that's happening at our porous borders.
To my colleague Rob Moore's point, now we have drones that are circumventing our lawful borders to ensure that the commercial exchange of weapons continues.
We have to draw a hard line in the sand as parliamentarians and look at the type of criminal we are trying to capture here. We need to send a denunciatory message to these seasoned criminals that if they continue to do this, they will expect to go to jail—no ifs, no ands, no buts about it. This isn't a situation where they need to get a break. They have chosen an illegal enterprise and a way of life that is so opposite to what your government has been preaching to Canadians with the introduction of BillC-5.
Please give that some consideration.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I think the debate should be directed through you and not to members.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Randeep Sarai
Shall CPC-6 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 8 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 9)