Evidence of meeting #64 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 magazine.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Okay, so mens rea is there [Inaudible—Editor] the actus reus.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The actus reus is actually doing that activity, yes. A prosecutor would definitely have to prove that someone did the sharing, making available or distributing of the schematic for the purpose of....
Those two elements would have to be proven. I understand the concerns.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's probably along a similar.... I think it's very important, as we're moving this...that we're actually behind, not ahead. I saw high school kids making these things 20 years ago. What they could do with 3-D printers was incredible then. I think we're behind.
I think this is going to get challenged in court. I don't think it's tight. I think it's an attempt, but I think we'll lose. The bar is so high that I think you will get out of this one.
It's an attempt, and I agree with the attempt, but I think the charter rights lawyers.... It probably will have to be dealt with again. The bar is too high, and I don't think it will work.
Thanks.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'd like to ask the officials this, then.
The department does vetting, including under possible judicial challenges. Does this hold up?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Obviously, the advice we give to our ministers is protected by solicitor-client privilege.
As my colleague has indicated, we do a robust charter analysis of all draft legislation, including motions. I can't give you an answer to that without violating solicitor-client privilege.
NDP
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Do you mean that it's gone through the approval process?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes. Does that include having an analysis of what the impacts would be on the charter?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Whenever we draft legislation, we provide our ministers and decision-makers with a full suite of analyses, from a policy perspective and all relevant legal aspects.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
That's important for the committee to know.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
Seeing no more speakers, let us carry out the vote.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This brings us to G-9, which also stands in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.
Ms. Damoff will stand in for him.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I know he's going to be very disappointed he didn't get to move this.
As colleagues will see, I did my own little cheat sheet on how many were ghost gun amendments.
All these amendments are adding the word “firearm part”. Amendment G-9 is the same. I already said what I needed to say. There are multiple of these, so hopefully we can go through them fairly quickly.
This one is adding “firearm part” to importing and exporting. This is all existing legislation. It just adds “firearm part” to it.
I'll leave it there.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I did read some of the transcript of the last meeting.
“Part” means an essential part. Is that correct?
If somebody was talking about wood stock on its own, does that count as a firearm part?
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I believe a motion on Tuesday was for all barrels and handgun slides, as well as prescribed parts, so it is limited to those pieces.
Conservative
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
May I add to my colleague's answer?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
“Receiver” and “barrel” are already defined as firearms in section 2 of the Criminal Code. The definition of “firearm part” in G-3.1 adds these two additional parts—barrels and slides.
Those four parts would be prohibited...sorry, not prohibited. I apologize to the committee. They would be firearm parts if this passes today .
Conservative
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
A frame and a receiver in section 2 is considered a firearm—those two parts. Yes...“frame or receiver”.
