Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2023

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thanks, Chair.

Going back to the original point, these are non-serialized. Once again, I feel that I'm maybe hung up on this, and my apologies if you discussed it previously. However, if these are non-serialized, then how are we going to know that if they're returned to the owner, these are not going to end up back on the street again?

I guess that's my hang-up on all of this. If we're not destroying them and we really want these dangerous things to be off the street, then how are we going to know that it's not the same barrel of a gun, stock of a gun or firing mechanism that shows up over and over again? How are we going to ensure that? Is there a way to do that?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Thank you for the question.

The regime that's being proposed here is with regard to acquisition and import of firearm parts. Mere possession of a firearm part, i.e., a barrel or a handgun slide, is not going to be criminalized.

What this set of amendments would do is that when there are particular offences, and in this case a peace bond, it says that somebody may not in that case possess a firearm part, in amongst all of the other firearms or other items that they will not be allowed to possess.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Ellis.

Are there any other interventions on this amendment?

Seeing none, we will conduct a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will carry on with G-31 in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment updates subsection 810.01(5) of the Criminal Code.

This section of the act deals with sureties to keep the peace if there are reasonable grounds to fear the individual may commit another offence. If the provincial court judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for fear that an individual might commit another offence, the judge can impose upon the individual a condition of recognizance, prohibiting them from possessing a firearm, etc.

With this amendment, we are simply intending to add the words “firearm part” to the list of weapons a judge can prohibit an individual from possessing.

Again, given that this is a very simple amendment, I am certain we will pass this unanimously, and I hope that we can do it quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

We have Mr. Julian, followed by Mr. Barrett.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to ask my colleague a question.

We seem to have a pattern. It is a two-word amendment which, because of what we can only refer to as a filibuster, we have taken over two hours on. In each of these cases, the amendments are exactly the same. Is that not true? You're adding the same two words to update the provisions of the bill.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

If I may respond to my colleague, that is correct certainly for G-32, G-33, G-34, G-35, G-37, G-38, G-39, G-41, G-42, G-43, G-44, etc. The intention is simply, for avoidance of doubt, to add the words “firearm part” to what already exists. It's something that, as we have seen, is supported widely.

I thank Mr. Julian for that question so that we can certainly clarify exactly what the heck is going on here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for your intervention.

Mr. Julian, are you finished?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I'm more than satisfied, Mr. Chair. I asked the questions and got the information before I came tonight. I came prepared. I think most members of the committee did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Barrett.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

That was not provided to the rest of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Paul-Hus, please address your remarks to the chair.

Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Yes, it's unfortunate that the same opportunity to get information wasn't afforded to members of the official opposition. We're very excited for Mr. Julian that he has those connections.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

This was open to all members of the committee. That was open—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Hold on here.

Thank you, Mr. Julian, for your point of order. I guess it's a point of information, if anything.

Ms. Dancho has a point of order.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

That is not true, as we've established, Mr. Chair. I was not provided an additional briefing, despite asking for one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I don't think we have established that, but never mind. Let us carry on with the bill.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

No, Mr. Chair. I have a point of order.

When I asked the officials—

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor] point of order.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Well, then I will challenge the chair on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's not a point of order. It is debate.

Let's carry on.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Barrett on the same point of order.