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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to G-8, which also stands in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.
Ms. Damoff, please, go ahead.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I think all of us who visited the RCMP gun vault were shocked at how fast and easy it is to 3-D print the receiver, and also how readily available it is.
This clause sets about dealing with computer data and the computer system used in new offences. This is new. It is extremely important for addressing the rise in ghost guns. Back in the day, you needed a gunsmith to be able to create these receivers. It was literally within moments, minutes, while we were standing in the room, that the 3-D printing was able to happen.
Maybe colleagues have questions for officials to clarify this. These amendments will deal with adding offences to deal with 3-D printing. It will also make Canada a leader in the world when it comes to addressing ghost guns.
I mentioned this at our last meeting. When I met with Inspector Michael Rowe in Vancouver, he said that these weapons are the preferred weapon for hit men. They are becoming the preferred weapon of gangs. It gives us an opportunity as legislators to get ahead of organized crime instead of playing catch-up. It gives police the tools they need to be able to prosecute those who are manufacturing these firearms, sometimes in a home or a residential neighbourhood.
I'm hoping that colleagues will support this amendment.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I have some reservations and questions about this. I'll ask officials.
In a court of law, if you were in possession of something.... Just being in possession of schematics for the construction of a ghost gun, there's nothing criminal about that, so the government has to prove that the possession of these schematics is for the purpose of weapons trafficking.
Is that correct?
Phaedra Glushek Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's absolutely correct, yes.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I've had a number of civil liberties people and lawyers come to me and say that they are very concerned. For example, if somebody had a manual for how to construct a regular, conventional firearm that was a legal firearm, a legal design in Canada, that's not what's being dealt with here. You would have to prove that they were planning to distribute that schematic for the purpose of committing a crime.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct. There are two elements to any criminal offence, the mens rea and the actus reus. The mens rea in this case would be the purpose of manufacturing. Just having simple possession of a schematic, a drawing, etc. on your computer.... The intent is not to capture that by this offence. You would have to have that additional mens rea or the intent for the purpose of trafficking for the first offence.
As for the second offence, which would be the distribution of blueprints, you would have to have a mens rea of knowing that the blueprint, design or schematic would be used for the purpose of firearms trafficking, and it would have to be a firearm derived from the data.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Is there any precedence in our law for something like this, that the possession of a design for something, even if it is proven that it's for a criminal purpose, is a crime?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In my review, and I recall looking, the closest offence that we came up with was the possession of child pornography. Accidentally accessing it, accidentally looking at it or viewing it.... You would need the requisite mens rea. Possession is defined in the Criminal Code in section 4. It really lays out what possession would be in those cases. The courts, of course, would have....
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
We go now to Mr. Julian, followed by Mr. Ruff.
Mr. Julian, please go ahead.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll be supporting this amendment. Having had the opportunity to meet with the RCMP in Surrey, British Columbia, it was an eye-opener to see the extent to which a 3-D printer with the possibility of certain software plus legally-obtained firearms components, obtained without a PAL, and the possession of ammunition, all of these things added together.... Law enforcement officials indicated how difficult it was currently, with the current law, to do the appropriate follow-up.
As I've mentioned many times, and I know law enforcement has mentioned this as well, in the streets across this country, in certain regions like mine, ghost guns have increased exponentially over the course of the last year or two. This isn't an issue that is slowly developing, this is an issue that is exploding. There were 20,000 seized ghost guns in the United States, and the Biden administration is taking action. Canada needs to take similar action and equip law enforcement with the ability to crack down on criminals.
Essentially, Bill C-21 is becoming more of a bill that is cracking down on criminal behaviour. These ghost gun provisions are vitally important to that. We have to crack down on criminals, cut off their source, and make sure they do not have untraceable firearms. That's a danger to the public; there is no doubt. It's a danger to all of us, so I'll be supporting this amendment.
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thanks, Chair. My question is very similar. I have no issues with the intent behind this amendment at all, and I appreciate the clarification from the officials to Mr. Lloyd's questions around the intent and everything.
Has there been a charter statement done specific to this amendment? It obviously gets into some very vague, grey areas with all this lawyer stuff, which I don't profess to be an expert on.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No charter statement was done specifically on this offence. The charter statement was tabled back in June 2021, but we do an analysis of all the government motions, again taking into consideration the charter and charter impacts such as on free speech in terms of distribution of these types of blueprints.
Any charter analysis that would have been done has solicitor-client privilege, but we can say it wouldn't criminalize merely distributing or publishing, and it would not have an impact on free speech, because the person has to have possession with an intent.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
You are clarifying that a charter statement was done on the original bill. On this new amendment it wasn't, but there was analysis done. I fully acknowledge that you can't share it, but a charter analysis was done on this amendment.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Among other analyses that we do on motions—as I mentioned yesterday, gender-based analysis, etc.—yes, we do charter analysis on these provisions, on every initiative during our policy development.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Like my colleague, Mr. Ruff, I actually think this is the kind of stuff that we should be focusing on, rather than going after law-abiding firearms owners, but that's just me.
I have a couple of questions about this amendment. In my last job before I came here, I was a tenured faculty member, teaching computer systems technology at a local college. IT is something where I've forgotten more than I probably ever should have known in the first place. That was 17 years ago, and the technology has changed immensely.
I don't see the word “knowingly” in proposed section 102.1(1) or “with intent” in subsection (2). I'm a former computer programmer, a systems analyst, a database administrator. I don't know every file that is on my computer. I suggest that you who are sitting here as witnesses don't know every file that's on your computers.
Shouldn't we have some kind of language that says you must “knowingly” have this on your...? It would be very easy for anybody with any technical skill whatsoever—and that's not me anymore—to push a file to a computer, push a bot, push anything like that onto a device, and then all of a sudden you're circulating information, or your machine is circulating information, that you have no idea you're circulating. It happens when it comes to pornography, so it can happen when it comes to technical plans for firearms.
I just didn't see the language, so can somebody reassure me that “knowingly” and “with intent” are part of this amendment?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can absolutely appreciate that type of concern around accessing these types of schematics.
For the proposed subsection 102.1(1) offence, which is the possession offence, where the person did it “for the purpose of manufacturing”, that is a well-known standard.
Proposed subsection 102.1(2), which is the distribution offence, has language in it that says, “knowing that the computer data are intended to be used for the purpose of”. The mens rea element is set out in that proposed subsection. It is on the eighth line.