Evidence of meeting #66 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.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
We're not breaking any procedures. That is my question.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
No, not as far as I know, but if we are, I know we have excellent people who—
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
So you don't have to. You can just talk about it abstractly. Okay. That's good to know.
I think we're out of time. Thanks.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I'd like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That finishes new clause 12.1.
(On clause 13)
That brings us to G-26, in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In clause 13, we're updating the offences for which law enforcement is able to obtain a wiretap. In the bill, originally we were proposing to add the offence of “altering a cartridge magazine” as established in Bill C-21, “possession of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized” and “possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition”. The amendment we are proposing here is to add the newly created offence of “possession of computer data” to the list of offences that law enforcement would be able to seek a wiretap for.
This, again, refers specifically to the ability of criminals to print 3-D versions of ghost guns. Hopefully, given that there is widespread support for this on this committee and certainly among law enforcement, we will be able to dispense with all manner of shenanigans and get this thing passed quickly.
Liberal
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Can the officials inform the committee of what is meant by “computer data”? I don't understand the wide-reaching impact of this. Can you give me an example of what “possession of computer data” would be?
Counsel, Department of Justice
Pardon me. I'm just trying to identify the particular motion. There was a previous motion that enacted these offences.
The use of the term “computer data” plays a part in those offences. Firstly, it's already defined in the code.
In the context of the offences to which this motion refers, it refers to what I think we're commonly calling “digital blueprints”, that is to say, computer data capable of driving something like a 3-D printer from which a firearm could be derived. It's the digital file, if you like, that drives a 3-D printer and gives it the instructions to then print, let's say, the receiver for a handgun, for example.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you.
I'm sorry. Mr. Noormohamed made it seem like we've gone through this before.
Did we talk about computer blueprints previously in the bill? We did. What clause was that?
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
That was G-8. Okay. I was not present at the time, so I am asking some clarifying questions in that regard.
So that I am clear on it, anyone who possesses the computer program for a 3-D printed gun would be impacted by this, or is it just those who you can prove are going to use it for bad behaviour, we'll say?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Right. You added on the mental element at the end. Yes, they have to have a mental element for the purpose of trafficking.
If the person has this data and it is for the purpose of illegal manufacturing, then the person would be captured under that for the first offence. The second offence is the distribution offence, and the person would have to know that the data is going to be used to manufacture an illegal firearm. There is a mens rea element to both of those offences that must be met before someone is captured by these new offences.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay, so this an offence completely on its own and not an aggravating offence. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I may not understand the full difference there, but it's an offence on its own, not just an aggravating factor.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, that's correct.
They are new offences, computer data offences. There are two: Proposed subsection 102.1(1) is for possession for the purpose of trafficking, and proposed subsection 102.1(2) is for distribution—knowing that those are going to be used in illegal manufacturing.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
It's an offence that you can be charged with all on its own.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
It's very serious in that regard.
I think Mr. Dreeshen has some comments.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Thank you. I shouldn't take long.
When you talk about computer data, that is specific to the production of a gun through a 3-D printer. It's not information on how you might do it or something that you would get from Wikipedia or some sort of instruction. It is specific to the fact that you can use that data in order to generate something on a 3-D printer. Is that correct?
Counsel, Department of Justice
In essence, yes. I would just refer you to the text of G-8. It somewhat contextualizes the data that's referred to there: “computer data that pertain to a firearm”—and then there's an exclusion—“or a prohibited device”. It's computer data that pertains to either a firearm or a prohibited device that is “capable of being used with a 3D printer, metal milling machine”. Then you'll see a kind of residual clause—“or similar computer system”, so technologies that are similar.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
This is the computer data, then, coming from G-8 that they are referencing in G-26.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Yes.
I'll just make a point of clarification there. What you see in parentheses is the title of the offence, and it refers to the whole section. However, there are actually two offences in that section, and they don't have separate titles. The title doesn't explain the mens rea component and so on, so it's a bit of shorthand just to refer to the title of the section. Again, all this motion does is include it within the meaning of “offence” for the purposes of section 183 of the Criminal Code.