Evidence of meeting #65 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.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Maybe we can get through clause 5, so let us go to amendment G-15, which arrives next. That is in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I have said before, we have a series of amendments here that deal with ghost guns. This is another amendment that deals with firearm parts, and this, as we all know at this committee, is an important element in making sure that we get ghost guns off the streets to make it harder and harder for folks to manufacture these guns that are being used in crimes.
I know that we have widespread support for this. Again, this amendment deals with that, so I'm hopeful that we will have unanimous support to move forward.
Thank you.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Are there any further interventions on amendment G-15?
Mr. Motz, go ahead.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to understand this amendment clearly. We are adding “firearm part” in amendment G-15 specifically here. That's the only thing we are adding under section 111 of the act.
I mentioned before—and I've been asked about this and I don't know the will of the committee to consider it—that if we're prohibiting.... We agree that ghost guns, obviously, are an issue that has to be addressed appropriately, but we're just talking about firearm parts here. I'm wondering whether, if it's illegal to have a firearm part, we should be adding something in there about “unless you have a PAL or and RPAL”.
There should always be that provision available there because someone who has a PAL or an RPAL is allowed to have those firearm parts in the right circumstance for the right firearm, unless I'm mistaken. I don't think I am on this issue.
6:40 p.m.
Sandro Giammaria Counsel, Department of Justice
Maybe I can try to answer that.
Normally that's the case, because possession absent a licence would otherwise be an offence in the case of, let's say, a firearm. If you look at the motions package or in the bill—and this is why this is an important question—nothing would make possession of a part without a licence an offence. That criminalization or, rather, the prohibition created in the code and then the permission that's granted in the Firearms Act via a licence that applies to firearms.... That system won't apply to parts, so what I think you'll see in some of the other motions is that the only requirement with respect to a licence for a firearm part is that the person who wishes to buy one be the holder of a valid licence. However, possession of the part itself is not touched by either this or anything else that is proposed.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Are there any further interventions?
Mr. Paul‑Hus, the floor is yours.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
My question is for the officials.
Does the amendment to remove the definition of “provincial court judge”? We had a question about that.
If so, why? What does that accomplish?
6:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can't answer the question whether it's this clause or....
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
6:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The definition of provincial court judge is being repealed from, I believe, section 112, but it's being integrated into the clauses for the red flag regime. It just moves the definition through the clauses. It's not being removed completely; it's being repealed and re-enacted in clauses 4 and 10.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Are there any further interventions?
That being the case, all in favour of amendment G-15...?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to on division)
Clause 6 is a whole bunch of stuff. I'm inclined to call it a night. It's a good place to stop.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm just going to try one more time, Mr. Chair. We've done five clauses out of 73. I think it's fair to say that we're not making progress in the way that Canadians expect of us, so I would move for unanimous consent to extend this meeting until midnight.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Julian. I admire your persistence.
Do we have unanimous consent to extend this meeting until midnight? It requires a majority of consent to adjourn. Mr. Julian has asked for unanimous consent to carry on until midnight. Do we have unanimous consent?
6:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We don't. I think a motion to adjourn has been de facto made by the chair. I guess we'll have a vote on that to see if the will of the committee is to carry on for 10 more minutes.
Go ahead, Mr. Shipley.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
I'm just curious. The member down the way keeps repeating himself. Is he filibustering this meeting? I'm just trying to figure out what's going on. He keeps challenging you. You've said many times that we have a hard stop at 7 p.m. Many times he keeps asking to extend that. I just want to know if he's filibustering this meeting.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Mr. Chair, in the spirit of the fact that we are sort of getting some things done, we have 14 minutes left, and we have the resources until 7 p.m. Is there a will in the room to work until at least 7 p.m. and be able to put some more miles on this and just try to do the best we can?
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I think we'll have to have a vote. We need a majority.
A motion to adjourn is always in order, and we've fallen into that. All in favour of adjourning at this time, please raise your hands.
(Motion negatived)
There you go. We shall continue until 7 p.m.
Thank you for helping me get through all that.
(On clause 6)
That being the case, we shall start on clause 6. We shall start with CPC-9, which, again, is in the name of Ms. Dancho.
Mr. Motz, do you wish to move this, or is there someone else?
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
This has to do with the question the officials were asked about the removal of.... “A provincial court judge shall, on application” is the addition here to clause 6, and we're changing it from, “may” to “shall”. The idea here is that it requires a justice, a judge, to return firearms seized if the conditions that caused them to be seized in the first place are no longer applicable.
That's the wording change there. It puts more definitive language around the requirement of the justice.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We won't be supporting it. We should be giving judges discretion.
I'm just going to leave it at that. We're not going to support it.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, I will call the vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now go to CPC-10, which is again in the name of Ms. Dancho.
Go ahead, Mr. Motz, if you please.