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
Right now they're allowed to carry firearms. Is that correct?
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It depends on whether they meet all the conditions under the Preclearance Act.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
This just means that the ones approved to carry a firearm can now also have a firearm part. Isn't it implied when you have a firearm that you can also carry a firearm part?
Counsel, Department of Justice
No. It's a bit of a tricky question. If the part forms part of a completed firearm, of course, in that sense you're in possession of the part, but this targets when the part is apart from the firearm, by itself. That's the sense in which immunity is required when it stands alone.
As a point of clarification, there is the Preclearance Act, and pre-clearance officer is defined in section 5 of that act. The section in the Criminal Code that this motion amends expressly refers to that section of that act, so the definition of pre-clearance officer is important.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay, thank you.
The Preclearance Act, section 5, describes what a pre-clearance officer is. That's already determined. This is, then, really doing a lot of, I suppose, due diligence, but I can't imagine a scenario in which a pre-clearance officer would have only a slide or a barrel.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It also covers the importation of ammunition. Sometimes they'll purchase it or bring it across, and in those cases, we want to make sure they can purchase and import or export these items. It provides protection for them from those offences.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Oh, I see. If the pre-clearance officer needs to get a part for their firearm, they will be authorized to—
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's right. They can bring it in.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
—ship it in, carry it and have it in a box. Okay. Otherwise, without this, they are currently not able to do that.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Well, they could, but now, because the government has defined it, it has been added to all of the exclusion provisions to guarantee that they're not going to face any kind of criminal offence, and they don't need a licence. There will be a requirement for a licence for a firearm part, so they will not need to get a licence for that.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I see. This ensures that these individuals will be exempt from the part coming up that makes you have to have a PAL, for example, to own a firearm part or to purchase one, sell one or have possession of one. If this did not pass today as part of the bill, they would be in trouble, so to speak.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
They could be, yes.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Okay.
As an aside, with my remaining few seconds here, I understand that the officials here today are not the ones driving this bus. You are doing the job, but you are not the government, and in that sense I appreciate what you mentioned. We understand this is not coming from you. You're doing your job—very well, by the way.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Are there any further interventions?
Seeing none, we can conduct the recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I would like to point out to all members that the more efficient we are with our time, the less far into the wee hours of Friday morning we will have proceed.
Let us carry on with G-4, standing again in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.
Conservative
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I'm going to move this one, Chair.
To clarify, this, like so many other amendments, is adding two words, “firearm part”. In this particular section, again, nothing else is changing, but because we've added “firearm part” to the Criminal Code, we require in this particular case that certain persons be exempted from facing charges. This flows from the ghost gun provisions we all agreed to, and it's adding two words to existing sections. Nothing else is changing.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I don't believe that G-23 had anything to do with ghost guns. We were just talking about the pre-clearance officers. I don't believe that impacts ghost guns in particular. It's just a measure to ensure that pre-clearance officers aren't.... Certainly, it impacts the ghost gun issue, but G-23 is not about ghost guns in particular. It's about ensuring pre-clearance officers can have a slide and a barrel and order them to fix their firearms.
I want to note two things that I may have to repeat a number of times. On G-23, I wasn't aware of the context, and the officials did an excellent job of explaining the context. Those are reasonable things to ask when we're changing the law to ensure we fully understand the impact of this. I was not familiar with the Preclearance Act or section 5. Also, I was not familiar with the impact that this would really have in practice on pre-clearance officers.
I'm not quite understanding the criticism when I'm asking legitimate questions for clarity. If I wanted to do a good old-fashioned filibuster, I'd start reading, I don't know, Bill C-71, the Firearms Act in general or the daily headlines, but I'm asking legitimate questions.
If other parties aren't interested in actually understanding the full context.... Or perhaps they know more about this than I do, and that's fine, but I will continue to ask questions so that I fully understand what we are voting on when we vote yes or no—
Liberal
Liberal
