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.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.
Are there any questions?
We will go to Mr. Ellis, followed by Mr. Julian.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Chair.
Through you, I will continue along the same vein as before. There are a few things that the experts giving testimony have said that are somewhat confusing to me.
Originally, we were talking about non-serialized parts and ghost guns. I'm still not clear. I guess my question has two parts. One is about non-serialized, but we do know those parts could end up back in a criminal's hands and be reused to commit another offence. Am I correct in that?
6:20 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Again, I beg your indulgence, because I'm really not trying to be vague, but it would really depend on the circumstances.
If a firearm part is seized by police, and that forms the subject matter of a criminal matter that then goes to court and proceeds to trial, etc., at the termination of that trial, the Crown has the opportunity to make an application to the court that all those things seized by police, which would remain in police custody throughout the duration of that matter, are then forfeited to the Crown. When they are forfeited, they become subject to a disposal regime.
In the circumstances that I'm now describing, that part has no opportunity to go back into circulation.
Again, I can't account for all possible circumstances, but there are regimes in the code that deal with the problem that I think you're raising.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Through you, Chair, if I may, the obvious problem this is creating is there are parts of a firearm that have no serial number on them, which is what we're trying to address, which then means that in some circumstances—you've described the converse—in the obverse where that firearm part is not destroyed and it ends up back in the hands of the person who committed the offence.
As I think you mentioned previously, they could petition the court to receive their possessions back.
Am I correct in that particular part—not the firearm part—of the conversation?
6:20 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
As a general proposition, it is possible for a person from whom things were seized, who may or may not be the accused person, or for the true owner of the thing seized, who may or may not be the accused person, to make an application to the court to have things returned. There is a test they have to meet to do that. I would venture to say, if a person is freshly convicted of a criminal matter where the thing they are applying to have returned to them is the subject matter of that offence, it's very unlikely they would get it back.
Also, with things obtained by the commission of an offence—if they stole the part, for example—they were never the rightful owner of that, so they would have no opportunity to get it back. If they came to possess it through other criminal means, or if it's used in the commission of an offence.... Again, I'm doing my best to be of assistance, but it would very much depend on the circumstances.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Through you, Chair, I'm understanding what you're getting at. I understand that you're not intentionally trying to be obtuse. I do understand that part of what you're saying. That being said, my concern is if there is a chance that these firearm parts are going to end up back on the street, perhaps in the hands of the rightful owner, but they're non-serialized, then, in your opinion, does it not make sense to say all of these should be destroyed? There's no way to identify them.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I'll note that the witnesses can't really give their opinion on these things.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Chair, with due respect, I would like to hear what their answer is. They've given lots of opinions. That's part of what they're doing throughout the whole thing.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
They give their interpretations, but they can't reflect on opinions and advice and so forth.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I will ask them for their interpretation of that then. Does that make sense in your interpretation? We're going to, by virtue of this, with ghost parts.... They're still going to remain a significant difficulty here because of the nature of what they are. They're parts that don't have a serial number on them. I think your colleague used that terminology, “non-serialized”.
If they are non-serialized, how are we going to be able to track them if they end up in hands that can be used to potentially commit a crime again?
6:25 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
With respect, what you're calling an interpretation is still a request for my or our opinion about the validity of that. We're not here to answer for that.
I can talk about what this motion does and I can talk about what the inclusion of the words "firearm part" will do in section 810.011(7) of the Criminal Code. However, I don't think I can offer an opinion, or the kind of opinion, that you're asking for.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
I think that's what I'm trying to understand through you, Mr. Chair: exactly what it doesn't do. I think all of us should be concerned about that.
If we're concerned about ghost guns and what they're able to do and what they're not able to do, and what this legislation is able to do and not able to do, then I think we really should be concerned about that. If we're all sitting here and have a concern about ghost parts, then I think this is something that we need to address and to say that this is very important, that there are parts like that—
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We have to end there.
Are there any further interventions on this matter?
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I reread this section and reread the amendment. The hypothetical questions that are coming really are beyond the scope of the amendment.
I wanted to ask my colleague yet again how many of these identical amendments exist with the identical two-word change—“firearm parts”—added to the existing legislation. I think it's important for folks to know that the Conservatives are asking all of these hypothetical and often repetitive questions around a series of amendments that have the same two-word change and the same two words. Is that not true?
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank my friend for the question.
Indeed, over 40 of the amendments, in fact, the vast majority of them, which we've already passed and, indeed, the ones that are forthcoming, all are exactly that: They're adding the words “firearm parts”, point final.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We'll have a recorded vote, please, Mr. Clerk.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now go to G-33 in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.
Please go ahead, sir.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible—Editor]
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The food has not yet arrived and will momentarily. I propose that we carry on until then. We don't want to waste time.
6:25 p.m.
An hon. member
Let's keep going.
