Evidence of meeting #49 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.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I'm not necessarily opposed to adding this, but I don't feel that we have done substantial study on it. There's no definition as of right now, although it is proposed. Later it may be adopted. As of right now, there is no definition, and I don't know whether the definition that has yet to be adopted but is proposed in your amendments would be an accurate one. I'm not enough of a firearms expert to rule on that.
I'm not clear what the impact of this amendment will be, in particular if any incoming definition of “firearm part” is not fulsome or is too extensive. Is there a possibility that we may be criminalizing firearms owners who have gun holsters or gun cleaning tools or the like?
I'm not a firearms expert, but I am concerned about the broader implications of this and that we did not have extensive testimony at committee to make the case that this is needed or to help us define the best definition for “firearm part”.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With reference to Ms. Dancho's comment, this really speaks to the testimony that we had, from a variety of different policing forces, related to ghost guns. This speaks to the elements that were discussed, including trigger assemblies, slides and barrels. This is not meant to deal with cleaning supplies and other such items.
I believe that clarification is there, but this speaks specifically to those elements that could be used to create a gun at home.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Yes, I suspected that, so I appreciate that this is the rationale behind it. I think we're all concerned about ghost guns. At least I've made it clear that I would like to move forward with efforts to deal with that growing problem.
Again, I'm not sure. The definition hasn't been adopted. We can't exactly talk about it, because it's forthcoming, as has been mentioned. There is no definition right now. There's no guarantee that your definition is going to be adopted. My concern there, then, is that we may be putting something in that could be interpreted....
Perhaps the law clerks can answer. If we pass this and a definition is not adopted through this process, how would that be defined? Would that have to be defined in the courts? Would that be defined in regulations if the government's amendment includes the definition of “firearm part”?
I'll turn it over to you.
4:10 p.m.
Phaedra Glushek Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This is a consequential amendment to other motions that will be before it. Proposed section 2.1 sets out words and expressions that when used for the purposes of the Criminal Code will have the same meaning as the definition in section 84. If the definition in section 84 is struck down, this would have no corresponding definition. It would be in this section without a corresponding definition.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Well, isn't that a little vague? Every other mention of a device here—ammunition, handgun, imitation firearm, import—has a definition around it in the definitions section. If we're going to say “a firearm part”, that could be anything that has no consequence to the use of a firearm, no ability to put public safety at risk, so don't you think we need something that shows what a “firearm part” really means?
4:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, there is a definition, in section 2, of “firearm part”. There is a definition that correlates to the current offences and provisions dealing with firearms.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
For further clarification on the point of concern, of course, the definition that Mr. Motz may be looking for is in amendment G-4, proposed subclause 1(1.3). It talks about what a firearm part specifically means. It means:
“firearm part” means a barrel for a firearm, a slide for a handgun and any other prescribed part, but does not include...a barrel for a firearm or a slide for a handgun if that barrel or slide is designed exclusively for use on a firearm that is deemed under subsection 84(3) not to be a firearm;
It's a very specific definition. It's there for folks to look at.
November 22nd, 2022 / 4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
I have a point of order. I'm new to this too, so could you just slow down, Mr. Noormohamed? If you're going to give references, could you just take a second and tell us the number you're on? You just need to go a little slower and tell us where you're referencing it from. Thank you.
I barely got to the page in time.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We're all a little bit new to this. Some of us who have been around for a few years haven't done clause-by-clause consideration for several years now. We'll hopefully muddle through.
Ms. Dancho, go ahead, please.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Just so I'm clear, your amendment G-2 mentions “firearm part”, which you're defining, as you've just read, in your amendment G-4, which is a forthcoming amendment, which I assume you will be moving. You've read the part on “firearm part”, which I'll conclude for you:
“firearm part” means a barrel for a firearm, a slide for a handgun and any other prescribed part, but does not include, unless otherwise prescribed, a barrel for a firearm or a slide for a handgun if that barrel or slide is designed exclusively for use on a firearm that is deemed under subsection 84(3) not to be a firearm;
Okay. That's understood, but what is subsection 84(3)? Can we be a bit more specific? It's saying it's for some guns but I think not for other guns. Can we just be a bit more clear?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Subsection 84(3) is a reference to the Criminal Code. I don't have that text in front of me.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I have it right in front of me.
(3) For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms:
a) any antique firearm;
b) any device that is (i) designed exclusively for signalling, for notifying of distress, for firing blank cartridges or for firing stud cartridges, explosive-driven rivets or other industrial projectiles, and (ii) intended by the person in possession of it to be used exclusively for the purpose for which it is designed;
c) any shooting device that is
(i) designed exclusively for the slaughtering of domestic animals, the tranquillizing of animals or the discharging of projectiles with lines attached to them, and
(ii) intended by the person in possession of it to be used exclusively for the purpose for which it is designed; and
d) any other barrelled weapon, where it is proved that the weapon is not designed or adapted to discharge
(i) a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules, or
(ii) a shot, bullet or other projectile that is designed or adapted to attain a velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or an energy exceeding 5.7 Joules.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Yes, I believe so. I appreciate that the definition later on in G-4 has been read into the record.
Just to be clear, are we voting on now adding this? Again, it's mentioned in, I think, 30 different amendments—or is it 20?
Perhaps our folks here can explain the impact. Let's say that someone right now doesn't have a PAL but has a slide for a handgun. Right now, you don't need a PAL to have one, but with this amendment, you will. Is that correct?
That's a no. Okay. Could you please elaborate?
4:15 p.m.
Paula Clarke Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The proposed amendment would add a requirement that for a firearm part—which would be a barrel, a slide for a handgun, or any other prescribed part—to be transferred to another person, that other person must possess a firearms licence. It would not be an offence to possess the firearm part. It simply applies to the transfer.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Is that for this amendment specifically, or are you talking about all of them that they've brought forward? They're inserting “firearm part” into several areas of the Criminal Code, so does what you shared with us just now apply to all of them or just this one?
I'm asking—
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I think we can really only speak to the amendment before us right now.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Just so I'm clear, if this passes and if I have a slide for a handgun and I provide it to Mr. Lloyd, but he does not have a PAL, he and I would be violating the Criminal Code.
4:15 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The transferor would be violating this requirement because they are not confirming that the other person has a firearms licence.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay. Would he be in violation because he received it?
4:20 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
He could be in possession of property obtained by crime, technically.