Public Safety Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Is that just a PAL, or is it an RPAL as well?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

It will be a PAL, a possession and acquisition licence.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Okay.

We're trying to tighten up ghost guns. We should probably include RPAL, because a person with a PAL can acquire.... You're not supposed to have a handgun if you don't have an RPAL permit—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

May I suggest, Mr. Motz, that when those amendments come up, you could propose such an amendment?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Okay. Fair enough.

Speaking about ghost guns and the idea that we should have some changes to them, the motion is coming up. In fairness to Mr. Noormohamed, I have not reviewed too far ahead some of the amendments that are coming forward. I will reserve an opportunity to speak on this a little bit later.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

We will go now to Madam Michaud, followed by Ms. Dancho.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank Ms. Damoff for introducing this amendment. I won't repeat my colleague's and Mr. Julian's arguments. We saw firsthand the growing problem of ghost guns when we visited the Royal Canadian Mounted Police vault. It's high time we legislated on this. This is an emerging problem that police officers are facing. We've heard from many of the witnesses who have come before the committee about the urgency of legislating on this.

I will say no more, Mr. Chair. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We'll go now to Ms. Dancho, followed by Mr. Noormohamed, potentially.

Ms. Dancho, go ahead.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the remarks from Mr. Motz and others. I have also heard these things from police across the country. In fact, Winnipeg police have been hard at work. They just made quite a large bust of ghost guns, in fact dozens of them, that were going for $7,000 on the streets. I have talked to police forces and police officers who predict that this may overtake other firearms that are being smuggled in that we know are also very popular. Eight to nine out of 10 Toronto handguns used in crimes are smuggled. If criminals are able to easily print them, which is increasingly so, as we've heard in this committee and from police officers in our own private conversations, this may overtake that, actually.

I believe it's imperative, and I support measures to do so. However, I do have a couple of questions of clarification. I have two quick things. Other motions to amend are being brought forward, and I appreciate Mr. Noormohamed's allowing us to discuss those.

This one in particular simply adds “firearm part” to prohibition orders and other things. Is that correct? It's just amending some parts so far, and other amendments will kind of add “firearm part” to other areas of the Firearms Act. Is that a fair assessment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Noormohamed is nodding, as are the officials.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for translating that.

There's another thing I wanted to ask. I believe the NWEST and RCMP refer to firearm parts with a different term, as “essential components”. Is that correct? Do we want to be consistent with that? Is that important? I want to make sure we're not being inconsistent.

Within that, perhaps, is there a categorical difference between what the RCMP describe as an “essential component” and a “firearm part”, or are we talking about the same thing interchangeably?

[Phaedra Glushek]

This definition is for the purposes of the Criminal Code. I can turn to my colleague about how they would operationalize this definition.

The definition is with respect to two specific parts, the barrels for firearms and slides for handguns, which are the most common pieces that are used. If it were broader, it would include possibly all parts of a firearm. We wanted to limit the scope—not “we”, but the government—to those two that are the most difficult and common.

I'll turn to my colleague Kellie.

[Kellie Paquette, Director General, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you.

“Components” and “parts” are used interchangeably.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Noormohamed has already made his intervention.

Mr. Ruff, go ahead, please.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Super quickly, on the operationalization of this, how's that going to be done? To some extent, other things are serialized. There are ways to track things.

Is there any plan to do that? Basically, if it's tied to a piece of legislation or the Criminal Code, and you're finding that, for lack of a better term, the illegal firearm.... When somebody is not allowed to do it, if they're in possession of these parts and they don't have the appropriate PAL or RPAL, depending on the firearm type we're talking about, that's how the charge would be laid.

Is that how it's going to be operationalized?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Thank you for the question.

The answer is that, in future motions, you are going to see that it will require a PAL in order to acquire or import a firearm part, as defined, but the possession, like ammunition, is not going to be criminalized.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Are there any further interventions on this amendment?

Seeing none, is it the will of the committee to pass this amendment?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We go now to G-3.2.

We'll go to Ms. Damoff, please.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, colleagues, for supporting that amendment. It was an important one. I'm hoping I will get the same enthusiasm for the next amendment.

As we know, our committee has been working hard to engage Canadians from all walks of life about how we can do more to protect communities from gun violence. When we decided to pull amendments G-4 and G-46, we were clear that we were committed to listening to Canadians of all backgrounds to ensure that we get this important piece of legislation right.

We've heard extensively from different experts in the field and from people representing the entire country. At committee, we heard from and received written briefs from gun control advocates, indigenous leaders, academics, survivors of gun violence and medical professionals, who all supported legislation to ban military-style assault weapons. Canadians support our government's efforts to ban firearms that exceed safe civilian use.

Recently, our government received the final report of the Mass Casualty Commission, which examined the worst mass shooting in Canadian history. The MCC, as it's known, made a substantial list of thoughtful recommendations, including on gun control. It called on all governments to “help implement these recommendations, which will contribute to ensuring safer communities for everyone. We all have work to do. It is time to act.”

Mr. Chair, that's what the Liberal members of the committee intend to do. This proposed amendment before the committee aligns with the recommendations put forward in the final report of the MCC.

Today, Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control released a statement that highlighted how impactful these amendments will be. She said:

No law is ever perfect but Bill C-21 is a game changer for Canada and should be implemented as soon as possible. The law responds to most of the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission and the demands of the Coalition for Gun Control...which, with more than 200 supporting organizations, has fought for stronger firearm laws for more than thirty years.

The work of the MCC, the Coalition for Gun Control and our committee has led to this moment. The work we will do here today will make Canada a safer place to call home.

I'd like to get into what's included in the new technical definition proposed in this amendment, because it differs from the former definition that was put forward.

First and foremost, there is no list, so G-46 will not be reintroduced. This new definition is forward-looking only. It provides the clarification that gun owners need, and the protection that gun control advocates have long called for.

Let me be clear. The definition only applies to firearms that have yet to be created.

Second, in drafting the previous amendment, the French interpretation of “shotgun or rifle” was drafted as “fusil de chasse”. The literal translation is a “hunting firearm”, which is obviously inconsistent with the intention of the provision, and that wording has been removed.

Finally, the phrase “designed to accept” has been replaced with “originally designed with”. What we heard was that the previous language was too broad, and that any firearm with a detachable magazine could realistically accept another. After listening to that feedback, we updated our language.

Mr. Chair, the committee and Canadians now know how the new definition differs from the previous one, so I'd like to get into the technical definition we've put forward. The amendment reads:

(1.1) The definition “prohibited firearm” in subsection 84(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (d) and by adding the following after paragraph (d):

(e) a firearm is not a handgun and that

(i) discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,

(ii) was—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I have a point of order.

I'm sorry. I apologize for interrupting.

I believe the member misspoke. She mentioned, “a firearm is not a handgun”. I think she meant to say, “a firearm that is not a handgun”.

I mention it because I know it's important that we get this on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I heard the same thing. I think your intervention is correct.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm sorry. What did I say?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I believe you said, “a firearm is not a handgun”.