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.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I think it's incredible that the member would talk about our filibustering. If you look at the time taken by members opposite and Mr. Julian, you'll see they have taken the majority of time to filibuster themselves. I find that rather rich.
Anyway, I will continue, unless Mr. Julian wishes to actually withdraw his motion.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I believe that is the intent, although he can't actually make a motion to do so because we're engaged in this motion.
I think we require unanimous consent to withdraw the motion. If there is no objection, we can consider the matter withdrawn.
Is there any objection to Mr. Julian withdrawing his motion?
(Motion withdrawn)
The motion is withdrawn. We will therefore carry on with clause-by-clause on Bill C-21.
We left off at the last meeting at the end of clause 2, and we're starting clause 3.
(On clause 3)
First up is Mr. Noormohamed, with G-11.
Please go ahead, sir.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There's not much to say on this other than to note a couple of things.
First, G-11, of course, will now look specifically at the matters related to how we address the problem of ghost guns, which I know every single member of this committee is concerned about.
We've heard from police forces across the country. In my own community of Vancouver, the VPD have been very keen that we act and act decisively. The reason we need to get moving on this entire piece of legislation, as my friend opposite noted, is so that police services have the resources they need to get these types of guns off the streets to keep our communities safer.
I hope that all members will support this amendment and others that are related specifically to it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.
Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all in favour—
I'm sorry. I have Mr. Motz, followed by Madam Michaud.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'm sorry. Perhaps I'm confused.
Was there any discussion on this amendment?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Taleeb, I'm just trying to find it here. We are replacing what in the act...? All of the underlined in G-11 is replacing paragraph 109(1)(b)...? I didn't bring my Criminal Code, so I don't have the....
May 9th, 2023 / 4:30 p.m.
Phaedra Glushek Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Mr. Chair, I can answer that for the committee.
Thank you.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you.
Do you have a Criminal Code that I can borrow, by the way?
4:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I do, and it's for 2023. It's not for 2021, as opposed to the last ones I brought.
4:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This amendment would add the two new computer data offences to section 109 of the Criminal Code, which is the mandatory prohibition order. It just adds it to the list of offences in paragraph (b) for which a mandatory order must be made following conviction of one of these offences. The order can be made between 10 years to life, depending on whether it's a first offence or a second.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Do you have any further interventions, or do you wish to have a minute to look at that?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I just want to confirm something here, Chair, if I may, please.
They've added it in paragraph (b).
4:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's adding proposed subsections 102.1(1) and 102.1(2). Those are the new computer data offences that have already been moved and carried.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Right. Okay, so now does this change impact...? This is just the manufacture of ghost guns, obviously, but does this actually include the parts required?
4:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That is a related motion. I think we can speak to that. That's coming.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd simply like a clarification on the amended paragraph 109(1)(b) in clause 3, which refers to subsection 85(2) of the Criminal Code.
The intent is understandable with respect to ghost firearms, as they are manufactured weapons that can be fired. However, when we talk about an “imitation firearm”, is that a toy? “Imitation” means that it can't be fired, right? I just want that to be clear.
4:30 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, we're not talking in this case about imitation firearms. We're talking about bullet-firing firearms. The computer data offences involve only firearms that can cause serious bodily injury or death, under section 2 of the Criminal Code. What this amendment would do is bring the two new computer data offences, which are possessing computer data for the purpose of making a firearm and, second, proposed subsection 102.1(2), which is distributing 3D printers, and add it into section 109.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
