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.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Are there any further interventions?
Mr. Ellis, go ahead, please.
May 10th, 2023 / 5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here for this important legislation. I apologize for not having been here before.
We're talking about firearm parts. How are we identifying these? Do they all have a serial number on them?
What's the actual process? If we identify one—say it has serial number 12—do we know whether it's different from another part that has a different serial number? Are they all numbered or are they individual pieces? How do we know they're not the exact same thing that's been seen before?
5:55 p.m.
Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you for the question.
As defined in an earlier amendment—and my colleagues will help me with the exact number—a firearm part was defined as a barrel in a handgun slide, non-serialized.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Chair, if they're non-serialized, the question then becomes, how are we ever going to know if these parts show up again and again? Are they going to be destroyed after they're identified? Do you know the process for how we're going to get rid of them, in order to make sure they don't show up on the streets over and over?
5:55 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
It would somewhat depend on the circumstances.
Let's say, for example, the police come into possession of that part. If it forms the subject matter of a criminal case and is seized as evidence, there are existing provisions in the code that deal with the disposal of those things that serve as evidence in a file. Forfeiture and disposal are, I think, what you're alluding to.
Again, unless you have a particular set of circumstances in mind.... I could try to answer, but, as an example, that's how things seized for an evidentiary purpose are eventually disposed of.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thank you very much for that.
Again, I apologize. It's not my area of expertise, but, through you, Mr. Chair, you asked for a specific circumstance.
Let's say someone was shot with a weapon of some sort and that comes into evidence. I believe your colleague said they were non-serialized. These are parts with no number on them whatsoever, no identification.
Are weapons used in homicides always destroyed or not?
5:55 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Again, it would depend on the circumstances.
The regime I'm speaking to is in sections 490 and following of the code. That regime is a complicated one. It provides for people to apply to get property back if it's seized. Things like murder weapons.... That's a bit of an extreme example, so it's very unlikely to be returned, I suppose.
For those things that cannot be returned, yes, they are disposed of and usually by destruction.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Ellis.
Is there any further intervention?
We will therefore call a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go to G-30, also standing in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.
Mr. Noormohamed, go ahead, please.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Chair.
It’s quite simple. The purpose of this amendment is to add the words “firearm parts” to the list of weapons that an individual may be prohibited from possessing by a judge.
Again, it's very simple and goes along with everything we've been working on with firearm parts. Hopefully, we'll be able to move quickly through this and proceed with the further work of the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Pardon my brief absence.
This is G-31. Is that correct?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Pardon me. That's my mistake.
Can the officials add a little more meat to the bone regarding what Mr. Noormohamed introduced? What impact will this have and why is it needed?
5:55 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I can highlight the next two or three clauses adding “firearm part” to the peace bond. They are generally called peace bond provisions in the Criminal Code. They are preventative orders. In those orders, if issued by a judge, there can be conditions to abstain from various things. One of them is possessing firearms, weapons, etc. What the amendments would do is add “firearm part” to allow a judge to order one of these peace bonds to say that a person cannot possess a firearm part.
There are three or four different types. My colleague, Sandro, can speak to the different types, I believe, if you need more information on the different bonds.
6 p.m.
Conservative
6 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
They're somewhat set out in different motions. The code contains a few different peace bond provisions that apply to different circumstances.
Again, I think it's easiest to have reference to the code itself. Sections 810 and following are the peace bond regime, otherwise called a recognizance. This one amends subsection 810(3.1).
6 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
That's the “Sureties to Keep the Peace” section in the Criminal Code.
6 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
That's the general title for the section. Peace bonds in particular, as Michael mentioned, are a preventative order, which usually are entered into voluntarily by parties who seek to, let's say, quell a disagreement between them before it becomes something more than it should be.
I'm looking at the particular amendment. The first of these is the general peace bond. Subsection 810(3.1) is the section dealing with firearms. It allows for a condition whereby a person entering into a peace bond doesn't possess firearms.
Again, G-30 adds “firearm part”.That particular defined term can form part of an order made under that section.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I understand.
If this amendment were not to occur and the bill passed, what would the impact be legally on someone...or not be, I suppose would be the better way to put it.
6 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
It's more that a court would be incapable of issuing a peace bond that specifically dealt with firearm parts.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
More to the point which has been made, to be fair, it gives another tool, in this case to judges, concerning ghost guns. Is that accurate?
6 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Yes. The government's policy, at least as far as the term “firearm part” is concerned, seems centred around the ghost guns. If this would serve to keep firearm parts out of certain people's hands, for whatever reason, the policy seems to be that this will diminish the frequency of ghost guns.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you very much.
That's all the questions I have.
We have about a minute remaining, Mr. Chair. Is that correct?
