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.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's a barrel or a slide for a handgun, correct, but it's the same as other items that are listed in other prohibition orders, which is a fairly thorough description of things that cannot be possessed by a person who's entering a terrorist peace bond.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I appreciate the fact that we're trying to deal with ghost guns and that we can make a firearm with a 3D printer, other than the barrel, right? We want to prevent the barrel from being used as a ghost gun, but we're going to criminalize administratively people who have no 3D printer and no intention of building a firearm from a 3D printer.
I'm concerned that if an individual has a barrel of a firearm, that's going to now become a condition for a judge to consider. I just find that to be seriously problematic, unless we expand that definition and what the intent is really all about. I just don't understand why.... If we're saying that a barrel is used for a ghost gun, then that might give people some satisfaction, but I doubt it.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Hopefully, this is helpful: Basically, most of Mr. Noormohamed's amendments are adding the phrase “firearm part”. They go on through, and I've highlighted them all.
There is an amendment coming up that specifies exceptions, so that if you are the owner of a barrel or a slide for a legitimate purpose, you're not going to be covered by this. Exceptions are coming up and we just have to get there and go through the Criminal Code in order.
November 22nd, 2022 / 4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Are there further comments?
All in favour of amendment G-3?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 1)
We go now to BQ-1, which to my understanding is going to be withdrawn.
Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd, on a point of order.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
On a point of order, Chair, now that we've amended clause 0.1—that's what we just did—do we now need to have a vote on all of clause 0.1 before we move on to clause 1?
Liberal
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Those were new amendments that created a new clause, new clause 0.1. When those amendments were adopted, they themselves created the new clause. There's no need to adopt the whole thing at once. It will be incorporated into the act all together at once, afterwards.
For another clause, let's say clause 1, when there are amendments, at the end you would have to ask the question, “Shall clause 1 carry as amended?”
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you again.
I'll go back to what I was asking about at the beginning. If we begin clause 1 now, and if any amendment causes a lot of issues that may delay the progress of the rest of the amendments and the rest of the bill....
What we are asking for is more information on G-4. We cannot have a proper debate without fully understanding the impacts. Mr. Noormohamed did provide for us a G-4 definition of “firearm part”, which I appreciate. It was helpful. However, G-4—I don't know how else to talk about this without saying it—in essence bans most semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. That is incredibly significant. It will impact hundreds of thousands of hunters.
We need to be clear on what that is. We would like to ask for a complete list of the firearms, notably semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, that would be impacted by G-4 in order for us to make a substantive decision on the impact of this amendment.
Right now, this has been introduced—
Liberal
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
My point is, though, that maybe the committee might want to consider waiting on clause 1 until, say, Tuesday, when we can get a little bit more information.
If I could say, without being interrupted, what that information is, perhaps the government could provide it and then we can have a proper debate on Tuesday about clause 1. It sounds like we can't open clause 1 unless we're going to talk about all the amendments. What we're saying is that G-4 is going to hold up a lot of progress on this bill. We are asking for a complete list of the firearms impacted by G-4.
I could go on with some more information that we would like, but that in particular I think would be very beneficial in order for us to fully understand the impacts of G-4 on the hunting community in particular. Well over a million Canadians likely possess various models of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
If there's agreement with the committee, I say we park clause 1 until Tuesday or it will be a bit challenging, I think, to proceed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I will turn to the legislative clerk on this issue.
If we wish to stand clause 1, would we do that now by a motion, or would we deal with the amendments and then stand it at the end?
Legislative Clerk
It's better to do it all at once, because all the amendments come together—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Then we would stand clause 1 now. I believe the motion before us is to stand clause 1. Is that correct?
Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd, and then Ms. Damoff.
Conservative
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Is there a motion on the floor, Chair, to stand clause 1? I didn't hear one.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Yes. On a point of order, if we were to move this motion, I think we would want to know if the government would actually provide the information we're requesting. There's no point in our standing it and then bringing it back up at Thursday's meeting or next Tuesday's meeting without the information we're looking for. Do you know what I mean?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm trying not to get involved in the debate, but I do believe there's a comprehensive list in the proposed schedule that was brought in.
Ms. Damoff, go ahead.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I just want to say that for any of these amendments that we're going to deal with, we have officials here in the room. If there are any questions to be asked on any amendment that's been put forward, just as we have already done on the two we've had, we have the experts in the room who can answer the questions. If there are any questions on G-4 or G-5 or whatever amendment it might be, they are here to answer questions today.
We can move forward, Chair. We're not even at G-4. If the Conservatives don't want to bring a motion forward on delaying clause 1, then we should deal with BQ-1, which is the one that's in front of us right now.
Liberal
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I have one follow-up question.
To Ms. Damoff's point, do the experts have the list I asked for of all the firearm models that would be prohibited under G-4? Have you brought that today?