Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  It's more that a court would be incapable of issuing a peace bond that specifically dealt with firearm parts.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  As I read it, it amends paragraph 501(3)(h) of the Criminal Code to add the words “firearm part”. For a bit of context, that section provides a police officer who has arrested somebody with the ability to release that person on what's called an undertaking. As set out in that section of the Criminal Code, an undertaking can include a number of conditions, one of which is to not possess a firearm.

Public Safety committee  In essence, yes. I would just refer you to the text of G-8. It somewhat contextualizes the data that's referred to there: “computer data that pertain to a firearm”—and then there's an exclusion—“or a prohibited device”. It's computer data that pertains to either a firearm or a prohibited device that is “capable of being used with a 3D printer, metal milling machine”.

Public Safety committee  Yes. I'll just make a point of clarification there. What you see in parentheses is the title of the offence, and it refers to the whole section. However, there are actually two offences in that section, and they don't have separate titles. The title doesn't explain the mens rea component and so on, so it's a bit of shorthand just to refer to the title of the section.

Public Safety committee  Pardon me. I'm just trying to identify the particular motion. There was a previous motion that enacted these offences. The use of the term “computer data” plays a part in those offences. Firstly, it's already defined in the code. In the context of the offences to which this motion refers, it refers to what I think we're commonly calling “digital blueprints”, that is to say, computer data capable of driving something like a 3-D printer from which a firearm could be derived.

Public Safety committee  That was amendment G-8, as I recall.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  It's very similar to the immunities we just discussed. These immunities are for a particular class of enforcement. It's for pre-clearance officers, as I think Mr. Noormohamed mentioned. I can't say too much about them, but they're a class of peace officers who have duties specific to ports of entry.

Public Safety committee  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.

Public Safety committee  Yes. You'll see the list there, and I think, to Mr. Ruff's question, paragraph 117.07(2)(g) includes a member of “the government of a province or municipality who is prescribed to be a public officer”. I think the missing piece will be whether the people he's concerned about are so prescribed.