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.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.
Is there any discussion on this amendment?
Mr. Melillo, did you want to comment on this amendment?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to pick up on some of the sentiment that Ms. Dancho was speaking to regarding the last amendment, but also, of course, in the context of this new one by my friend from the Liberals. I think it's important, when we're talking about the concerns that have been raised regarding the red flag laws and how they may impact the firearms used by many indigenous peoples for hunting, that we really don't overlook the magnitude of that.
I represent 42 first nations. I've been speaking with many residents and many community leaders and chiefs who have a number of concerns with this bill and who are urging us not to move forward. Some are certainly not—in fact, many are not, I'd say—Conservative partisans by any means. I recently had a very important conversation with Chief Rudy Turtle of Grassy Narrows in my riding. He ran against me in 2019 for the New Democratic Party. He took a lot of time to share his concerns about this legislation and urged me to continue the fight.
Just building off the sentiment that my colleague Ms. Dancho shared regarding the last amendment, I really wanted to bring that to the table and urge all my colleagues from all parties not to ignore the voices of indigenous hunters who are asking us to really take a second look at this and reconsider it entirely.
I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair. I'm sure some of my colleagues would like some time as well. I just really implore members of this committee to reconsider this course of action.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I would like clarification on the definition of “imitation firearm”. Does the proposed definition exclude ghost guns or not? Does it include weapons that can be made out of plastic?
What is the definition of “imitation firearm“?
4:20 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The definition of “weapon” is set out in section 2 of the Criminal Code. It includes a firearm or anything that can cause bodily injury, I believe. My colleague might have something to add to that.
This is an existing provision in the Criminal Code, and we are adding.... I keep saying “we”. The government is adding a consequential amendment to the motion that had passed earlier defining “firearm part”. That's the only thing that's being added into this existing provision, just for clarity.
My colleague Sandro Giammaria might add something with regard to “weapon”.
4:20 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
As to the definition of “weapon”, it includes things that are simply used as a weapon. It need not be originally a weapon but simply used as a weapon.
If I understand the question correctly, it focuses on—I'll just use the English term, if you don't mind—an “imitation firearm”. If that's the question, I can also add that “imitation firearm” is defined in section 84 of the Criminal Code. It's quite a simplistic definition. It's just anything that imitates a firearm.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you.
I'm sorry, Mr. Giammaria, but I don't know how to pronounce your last name properly.
4:20 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Oh, thank you for asking. It's Giammaria—like Tia Maria but with a “G”.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
My name is mispronounced every day of my life, so I always appreciate when people ask.
I just want to make sure, because I suppose I'm still not clear.... I wasn't here yesterday, and I know it was discussed. You mentioned regarding firearm parts that it's not the case that you would need a PAL to own a barrel or a slide after this comes into force. Is that correct?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
I believe it's contained in a motion that has yet to be moved. Having reviewed the entire package, I think eventually we'll see that it's the acquisition of a firearm part that is subject to a licence requirement.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
All right. We will perhaps get to that when we can fully discuss this at greater length.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Absolutely.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to G-20, which is in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As with the previous amendment, this amendment is going to add the words “firearm parts” to these sections of the code, which ensures that an officer can apply for a warrant to search and seize unlawfully held firearms parts.
Hopefully, we'll all be able to agree on this and keep moving forward.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.
Is there any discussion?
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've already mentioned the importance of combatting ghost guns and the importance of doing it promptly. We need to work through this. I'll be voting for the amendment.
I also wanted to respond quickly to Mr. Melillo and his reference to indigenous peoples. He's a bit ahead of himself, but there is an amendment that specifically relates to that:
The provisions enacted by this Act are to be construed as upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.
That of course will be up later on—