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.
Conservative
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to confirm the actual numbers, because there is no section 2.1 of the Criminal Code right now. There's a section 2, but there isn't a section 2.1 in the most recent Criminal Code. I'm wondering if the wording is wrong.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There is an existing section 2.1 in the Criminal Code. It comes right after the main definitions that apply throughout the Criminal Code. It's a very short definition that indicates that the terms used in the code are also for the purposes of part 3 of the Criminal Code.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
My 2023 version does not have it in it. You'll have to show me, because it does not have that in it. That's why I'm saying it makes no sense.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Do you have the Martin's 2023? It should be on page 25.
Conservative
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No, it's on page 25—section 2.1 of the Criminal Code.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's in the very beginning of the code, section 2.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Chair, if I could just read this in sum, because I think....
Here's my concern with this. I think we're elevating “firearm part”, which I think begets a bigger discussion. Again, as I said, I think we're all interested in addressing the issues of ghost guns, but it does put it in right alongside “ 'ammunition', 'antique firearm', 'automatic firearm', 'cartridge magazine', 'crossbow',” then “firearm part” now, “'handgun', 'imitation firearm', 'prohibited ammunition', 'prohibited device', 'prohibited firearm', 'prohibited weapon', 'replica firearm', 'restricted firearm' and 'restricted weapon', as well as 'authorization'....”
I'm just concerned that we're elevating a slide for a handgun up to something that is a prohibited weapon. We're now classifying those the same in this regard.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's not about the classification of a word, or a part or a barrel. It's a definition of a term that would apply both in section 2 across the Criminal Code and in part III. It's a consequential amendment just to add it to the list of defined terms that are found in section 84.
November 22nd, 2022 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Right, so this is probably my last comment, but what I'm saying is that if Mr. Lloyd didn't have a PAL and I provided him with a restricted handgun—let's say I provided him with any prohibited firearm—and now, because of this, if I also provide him with a slide for a handgun, they're equivalent in this regard now.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
What I understand this amendment to be doing is adding “firearm part” to proposed section 2.1 of the Criminal Code. That just adds it to the list of already defined terms in section 84. This doesn't have a substantive change in terms of the firearm part; it's adding it as a consequential amendment to the motion, to section 84.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there further discussion? Okay. Let us have a vote on G-2.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to G-3, which also, I believe, is in Mr. Noormohamed's name.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment continues the creation of a new clause 0.1. It deals with terrorism amendments.
It will add the term “firearm part” to the Criminal Code. One thing the judge shall consider of recognizance is whether it is desirable or in the interest of public safety to prohibit a person from possessing firearms. It's a new coordinating clause added before line 4 on page 1.
The only change we're making to the code is adding the term “firearm part”. The according amendment is needed based on the new definition of “firearm part”, which we are adding too, as we just discussed.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm just curious. Can you go back and say what we've added again? With everything covered off and all underlined, it doesn't show us exactly. I'm trying to find what we actually added.
Liberal
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Then for our witnesses, what we're really saying here is that a judge, when he's making an issue under recognizance, can give a recognizance with a condition that a person cannot own or have possession of a firearm part—
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
—even if it's a nothing part. Based on this definition, it has to be a barrel of a firearm, which by itself is nothing.