Public Safety committee  Yes, we're not talking in this case about imitation firearms. We're talking about bullet-firing firearms. The computer data offences involve only firearms that can cause serious bodily injury or death, under section 2 of the Criminal Code. What this amendment would do is bring the two new computer data offences, which are possessing computer data for the purpose of making a firearm and, second, proposed subsection 102.1(2), which is distributing 3D printers, and add it into section 109.

Public Safety committee  No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the two new offences that were added to the Criminal Code and carried at the last meeting through an amendment.... I don't have the number in front of me. Those two new offences are possession for the purpose of manufacturing and distributing knowing that it will be trafficked, and those two offences are being added here.

Public Safety committee  A frame and a receiver in section 2 is considered a firearm—those two parts. Yes...“frame or receiver”.

Public Safety committee  Not a barrel.... A barrel and handgun slide would be defined as firearm parts.

Public Safety committee  The actus reus is actually doing that activity, yes. A prosecutor would definitely have to prove that someone did the sharing, making available or distributing of the schematic for the purpose of.... Those two elements would have to be proven. I understand the concerns.

Public Safety committee  May I add to my colleague's answer?

Public Safety committee  “Receiver” and “barrel” are already defined as firearms in section 2 of the Criminal Code. The definition of “firearm part” in G-3.1 adds these two additional parts—barrels and slides. Those four parts would be prohibited...sorry, not prohibited. I apologize to the committee. They would be firearm parts if this passes today .

Public Safety committee  No charter statement was done specifically on this offence. The charter statement was tabled back in June 2021, but we do an analysis of all the government motions, again taking into consideration the charter and charter impacts such as on free speech in terms of distribution of these types of blueprints.

Public Safety committee  Among other analyses that we do on motions—as I mentioned yesterday, gender-based analysis, etc.—yes, we do charter analysis on these provisions, on every initiative during our policy development.

Public Safety committee  I can absolutely appreciate that type of concern around accessing these types of schematics. For the proposed subsection 102.1(1) offence, which is the possession offence, where the person did it “for the purpose of manufacturing”, that is a well-known standard. Proposed subsection 102.1(2), which is the distribution offence, has language in it that says, “knowing that the computer data are intended to be used for the purpose of”.

Public Safety committee  That's absolutely correct, yes.

Public Safety committee  That's correct. There are two elements to any criminal offence, the mens rea and the actus reus. The mens rea in this case would be the purpose of manufacturing. Just having simple possession of a schematic, a drawing, etc. on your computer.... The intent is not to capture that by this offence.

Public Safety committee  In my review, and I recall looking, the closest offence that we came up with was the possession of child pornography. Accidentally accessing it, accidentally looking at it or viewing it.... You would need the requisite mens rea. Possession is defined in the Criminal Code in section 4.

Public Safety committee  Any statistical or evidentiary evidence that we would have in the process of the policy development, again, would be solicitor-client privilege and included within our analysis of the amendments.

Public Safety committee  Can I ask which firearms you're speaking to?