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.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Can we have a recorded vote, please?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay, a recorded vote is requested. That's fair game.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That now takes us to G-25, which is also in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As in previous amendments, this one deals with firearm parts, particularly as they relate to exempted persons. Basically, the provision in the code says that a carrier is not guilty of an offence if the only reason they possess a firearm is for employment duties. What we are doing now is very simple. We are simply adding the words “firearm part”.
Again, I hope we will be able to move through this quickly, pass it unanimously and do it in a way that demonstrates we are capable of not wasting time at this committee in getting this law passed.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
To the officials here, I have the Criminal Code here in front of me, and I understand, from a carrier perspective, the intent. My concern here is with the firearms industry in particular, because we've now exempted industry and the businesses that are licensed. I'm trying to understand this. Unfortunately, I don't sit on this committee full time, so I didn't hear all the testimony. I think this is more for the firearms program, from an awareness perspective. It's not really a legal question, but are there parts of the industry out there specifically geared around the purchasing, carrying or transferring of these slides and barrels that aren't captured by your traditional means?
My concern here is that we've taken a segment...by bringing this in. I want to make sure, from the carrier perspective—“transfer” is the wrong word, but I think you know what I mean—that we do that. From your background and the information, is there any part of the industry that could get left out here, so they get tied up and they're not covered?
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
There's nothing we can think of.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I was just seeking that clarity, Mr. Chair. I think I'm good on my questions.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I have Mr. Dreeshen, followed by Ms. Dancho.
Mr. Dreeshen, you have three minutes.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm curious. When you lump a crossbow into this and speak of parts, what are you looking at? What components of the crossbow would be considered?
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Again, “firearm part” is a term now defined to mean a barrel for a firearm or a slide for a handgun. Nothing in that definition implicates or expressly mentions crossbows. At least, as it's currently defined, it won't include parts for crossbows.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Is it just redundancy? Is that the way you look at it?
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
The language you see there is existing language in the code. You see that batch of devices, which includes crossbows, repeated severally. All this does is add “firearm part” to the batch that repeats severally.
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The language around crossbows is a leftover from an old Criminal Code provision that was repealed, I believe, through the Statutes Repeal Act. It had a specific offence for crossbows as a result of an event that occurred about 15 or 20 years ago, when someone used a crossbow to.... I think they murdered a counsel. That was specifically added into the Criminal Code.
Crossbow references were left in the Criminal Code after that offence was repealed. They are left over from that offence. I think it was subsection 97(1), which was repealed.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
My question was, as we're speaking about slides and parts of a gun...it is still there. I'm curious about how the two mesh.
5:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
They're unrelated. It would be a weapon, but it wouldn't be a firearm part. It's not related.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
A voice
Yes.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
When amendments are moved, I understand we don't have to read the whole amendment, but do we not have to specify when we move an amendment what other act it impacts?
It's just that it hasn't been done in the last couple of amendments that were moved by the Liberals, and I'm just wondering—for folks who are trying to follow this—should we not do that?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Sometimes I will have a note that it affects something or other, but it's not—