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.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Just for clarity, we're talking about proposed paragraph (e). That refers to manufactured guns.
7:40 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There are two amendments, G-3.1 and G-3.2. Both of them, because of some drafting complications, are paragraphed with (e). “Unlawfully manufactured firearm” in the “prohibited” definition in G-3.1 is proposed paragraph (e), but the new technical definition is also proposed paragraph (e) in G-3.2. Maybe I have those backwards.
This amendment relates to the technical definition.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
The officials may be able to answer this question for me. Why was five years determined? Is there some reason specifically as to why five years was chosen as opposed to...? We're talking about ghost guns. They change. There'll be something else. Is five years an appropriate review period? Should it be sooner than that? Should it be later than that?
What's your assessment?
7:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think there are various options. In drafting, the government looked at various options and timelines, but I think it's open to Parliament to choose a time more or less than five years. I understand that five years is common.
7:45 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
This was a decision the government put forward in terms of the proposal and amendment. I would also note that the definition just talks about illegally manufactured firearms and not manufactured by a specific method, which is quite agnostic and therefore will keep up with the times.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
It wasn't something that the officials recommended. It was government that came up with the recommendation, which is the same thing.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I don't think the source of the recommendations is something they can comment on. I think that would be privileged.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
If that's the case, Mr. Chair, then I ask members of the government as to why they chose five years.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Committee members are not here to answer questions.
Suffice it to say that somebody decided this would be a good number, and we went ahead with that.
7:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Can I just add that it would give sufficient time for the new technical definition to be in place.
Did I speak out of order? I'm sorry.
7:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It would also give sufficient time for the government to see the impacts of the technical definition as well, so within a year of a new definition applying, prospectively. Five years would give more opportunity and more flexibility for the government to examine the impacts of that definition.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
You bring something interesting forward.
If a new type of firearm showed up on the market that really didn't qualify or, as was mentioned by your colleague.... Does this capture the new stuff? Does the five-year window start when the new one appears on the market, or is it every five years once this is passed?
7:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's one review five years after the day on which the paragraph comes into force.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When we're hearing about reviews, some people may think that in five years they're going to be reviewing a firearm or a handgun or something. This is a review of the paragraph. That's correct.
Could you explain which paragraph and what the review would perhaps look at as far as different parameters on that paragraph are concerned?
7:45 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The amendment relates to paragraph (e) of the definition of “prohibited firearm”. As I said, there are two paragraph (e)s. One is the unlawful manufacturing of firearms and the other is the technical definition.
It would be a review of that definition. How the House of Commons conducts that review we can't speculate, so I wouldn't be able to answer how that would be undertaken or completed.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
You mentioned unlawful manufacture. Does that only relate to ghost guns, or is that any unlawful manufacture of a firearm?
7:45 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It's any unlawful manufacture of a firearm.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative