Public Safety committee  Maybe I can try to answer that. Normally that's the case, because possession absent a licence would otherwise be an offence in the case of, let's say, a firearm. If you look at the motions package or in the bill—and this is why this is an important question—nothing would make po

Public Safety committee  Sure. Thanks for the question. In a previous motion, which I believe was carried, that term is defined expressly. If Bill C-21 becomes law, it will come to mean a barrel for any firearm or a slide for a handgun. There is also an opportunity for the government to prescribe par

Public Safety committee  I can't speculate on what a government might do in the future. The idea behind it is that if, for example, police identify a trend whereby a particular part is used in the creation of ghost guns, but it is not a barrel or not a slide, and limiting access to that part would help r

Public Safety committee  Thank you for the question. It is an important one for clarifying, as I did yesterday, that a PAL won't be required to possess parts. As I explained, a PAL relieves someone of what would otherwise be a criminal act—possessing, for example, a firearm. A PAL allows you to do that,

Public Safety committee  As to the definition of “weapon”, it includes things that are simply used as a weapon. It need not be originally a weapon but simply used as a weapon. If I understand the question correctly, it focuses on—I'll just use the English term, if you don't mind—an “imitation firearm”.

Public Safety committee  Oh, thank you for asking. It's Giammaria—like Tia Maria but with a “G”.

Public Safety committee  Yes, that's right.

Public Safety committee  I believe it's contained in a motion that has yet to be moved. Having reviewed the entire package, I think eventually we'll see that it's the acquisition of a firearm part that is subject to a licence requirement.

Public Safety committee  Pardon me, Chair. If I could have a moment's indulgence, please....

Public Safety committee  I think it's helpful to clarify that by referencing the code itself. Subsection 117.07(2) provides the list of the defined classes of persons who constitute a public officer for the purpose of the immunities in that section.

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

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 specifi

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  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  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.