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.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Chair, it's not a point of order. There's just so much noise at the back that I'm not sure the officials can actually hear what we're saying at the committee table.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's fair enough.
Would you guys at the back keep it down or take it outside.
Ms. Dancho, did you have...?
No.
Okay, we have Mr. Barrett. Go ahead.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thanks very much, Chair.
On the subject of firearm parts and specifically with respect to ghost guns, which, to pick up on a point that Dr. Ellis raised—the absence of serialization and the return of seized parts as part of an order—what is the effect on...?
I probably know in equal parts the same amount about the Criminal Code as the learned doctor beside me, but I'm going to take a leap that it is illegal to manufacture firearms in one's home. What then happens to the surrendered or seized manufactured part, a ghost gun? What happens to that non-serialized item, as affected by this provision in the Criminal Code?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think that's an unrelated question. With respect to this amendment, you had....
Counsel, Department of Justice
I appreciate the question, because it can be difficult.
As a point of clarification, these are preventative orders. That means they're based on a reasonable probability of something happening in the future, and these orders are offered or imposed by the court to prevent that from happening.
It's not similar to the circumstances I described earlier where in the course of a police investigation an item is seized and so on. It might be that a person who enters into one of these orders has to get rid of something they have, but that's a different set of circumstances.
I just wanted to clarify that point. These are preventative orders.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Through you, Chair, I appreciate that. Thank you.
One of these orders is issued, and a report is then made to the court via law enforcement that there's a reasonable belief the individual, against whom this order has been issued, is in possession of one of these parts.
What's the effect, then? Is the expectation that it would be voluntary surrender, or would that...? I imagine that a warrant would be issued, a search conducted and the parts would then be seized. Then once these conditions are lifted, though preventative in its initial stage, that non-serialized, home-manufactured or 3-D printed part does not get returned.
That's my question.
Counsel, Department of Justice
In the circumstances you've just described, you've described what is, effectively, a section 810 offence, so possession of something contrary to an order telling you that you're not to do that. There is a similar part III offence covering more or less the same subject matter, but....
I don't want to mislead the committee in saying that the investigative process that you described occurs in every case. That may not be the case. Investigative steps are at the discretion of the investigating agency, but it would be dealt with as a criminal matter.
In the way that I described earlier, if it formed the subject matter of a charge, at the end of a trial there's an opportunity to see those things forfeited. Usually that's what happens. They're similarly granted as a matter of course, in my experience. Once they're forfeited, again, they become subject to a disposal regime.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
If I understand correctly, it's a separate offence for them to have manufactured this firearm part, and in all likelihood another charge would be laid. As part of that charge, the court process would be seen through and then destruction would follow.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Are there any further interventions?
Seeing none, let us have our required division on G-34.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you.
I would also like to thank our clerk. There are changes taking place and it’s a bit like following a hockey game. It’s nice that he’s been able to identify everyone around the table.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Chair, I appreciated the committee's indulgence earlier. There was a little interruption from my phone. I had sent happy meals to my children, because it's McHappy Day, and that was a thank you message that wasn't supposed to play out loud. That's what that eruption from my phone was earlier. It was very happy kids supporting McHappy Day. I just wanted to apologize.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
One of the rules of this committee is that happy meals go to everybody.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I'll keep that in mind for later.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I'll move it.
I feel like I could push a button and repeat the same thing that has been repeated over 30 times so far. Earlier in this bill, we passed amendments to add firearm parts to the Criminal Code in order to respond to law enforcement and police services across the country who have indicated ghost guns are an issue.
All of these current amendments, including this one, are called coordinating amendments which add those parts to make sure that our Criminal Code is reflective of our earlier amendments to deal with ghost guns. This just adds two words.
Liberal
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I was saying, “question”. In other words, let's go to a vote.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
If you're saying “question”, I will have one.
I just wanted to check in the code. If I could ask the officials, please, Chair, I know we are just adding “firearm part” in subsection 810(3.02), but is there any issue with this particular...?
I'm trying to have a read of what it is in the code. Would 810(3.02) have a substantive change to its purpose with this added?