EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security NUMBER 066 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Wednesday, May 10, 2023 Le mercredi 10 mai 2023 Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE May 10, 2023 Committee NUMBER 066 NUMBER 066 NUMÉRO 066 66 10 05 2023 2023/05/10 15:55:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security SECU Chair Mr. Ron McKinnon 1 44

(1555) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.)) :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 66 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Pursuant to the House order of Tuesday, May 9, 2023, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-21 ,

an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). I would like to remind all members of some specific sections of the motion adopted yesterday that have an impact on clause-by-clause consideration:

(ii) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(iii) not more than 20 minutes be allotted for debate on any clause or any amendment moved, to be divided to a maximum of five minutes per party, unless unanimous consent is granted to extend debate on a specific amendment, and at the expiry of the time provided for debate on an amendment, the Chair shall put every question to dispose of the amendment, forthwith and successively without further debate....

The motion continues:

(

v) if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. on the second day, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill....

Before we proceed, I will welcome once again the officials who are with us today. From the Department of Justice, we have Sandro Giammaria, counsel, and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; Kellie Paquette, director general, Canadian firearms program; and Rob MacKinnon, director, Canadian firearms program. Thank you all for joining us today.

Your participation is very important for the committee. Finally, with regard to the speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person. The clerk also has timers for each party, and we will rack up the times that each party has spoken. Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You sort of answered my question. My understanding is, as you said, that it's 20 minutes in total for each amendment. Is that correct, and is it five minutes maximum per party? Am I understanding correctly that someone is going to be timing each intervention of each member and then adding it up as we go to see how much each party member has spoken?

The Chair :

If you speak on behalf of your party for three minutes and Mr. Ruff speaks for a minute, it will accrue as four minutes for your party.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

If we go to Ms. Damoff and back to me, someone is going to be checking every second.

The Chair :

We'll have a speaking list. People will raise their hand if they want to speak. There's no requirement to speak, but if you do speak, you and your party are limited to five minutes per amendment.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm glad we're finally getting down to work here, because this is really important. I would suggest, as we normally do in the committee rotation, that we start with the official opposition, we go to the government, we go to the Bloc Québécois and then we go to the NDP in those five-minute periods. We can choose not to use them. I've certainly done my homework, so I won't be using my five minutes very often. In that way, we have a rhythm that is easier. For the five minutes the Conservatives have, they can decide to manage them as they wish. Then we'd go to the other parties, and after that, we would pass to the vote.

(1600) The Chair :

Mr. Julian, I have no problem with that, although it is debate and not questioning, so there may be a need for people to respond to one another, but we can try. Let's figure out what works. Let's start with the regular order of speaking and if people want to put their hands up otherwise, we can do that, provided we have time left. Ms. Dancho, you were wondering about this, I believe. If everybody doesn't speak, the time for the amendment will be less. No party gets more than five minutes.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Mr. Chair, I don't know how many times I'll say this today, but I agree in part with Mr. Julian that it may provide a bit of flow. That being said, one person may say something that we want to respond to or a response may be needed to clarify. Then it gets a bit complicated if we've already used our five minutes, to your point. However, you sort of said that already.

The Chair :

We can do otherwise by unanimous consent. If there's a need to extend the debate and the will to do so—it has to be unanimous—we can do so. I would suggest leaving a minute in the bank if you want to be able to respond to somebody. That's a way. Mr. Ruff, did you have a...?

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) :

You covered it there, Chair. A lot of these amendments are going to require minimal debate, but there are some where I think all parties are going to have some specific questions for the officials to get clarity. I'm hoping we can all work together. There are some amendments that obviously will require potentially more than the 20 minutes. I'm hoping we'll work collegially towards getting a resolution on those more substantive amendments. I fully acknowledge that there are shorter ones, but if one party has used its five minutes, let's....

The Chair :

We'll do our best. I'll do my best. I know the clerk will, absolutely. We are bringing food in from outside. It should arrive by 6:30. The snacks are from the agriculture committee, which we have displaced for this time. I guess it goes on our budget eventually anyway. Also, I don't propose that we sit in one solid block until midnight. We should take a break probably every hour and a half to two hours. If anyone needs a break more often, let me know and we'll do our best to accommodate that.

An hon. member: We'll do short breaks.

The Chair: Yes, we only do short breaks. Are any further interventions required? I think we're good. We left off yesterday at new clause 10.1. For this, we have amendment G-18 in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we left off yesterday, this is another coordinating amendment that addresses the issue related to firearms parts in respect of our conversations regarding ghost guns. This is being proposed to make sure there is consistency and to make sure that those who are subjected to a prohibition order will not be able to possess the parts they'd be able to use to build those guns. Hopefully we will be able to get unanimous support for this and keep moving.

The Chair :

Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just going to start our time. This is a new day and I want to make sure we have much participation from our side in this regard. For the officials, can you explain what we mean by a firearm part, please?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria (Counsel, Department of Justice) :

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 parts to add to that list. Let's say, for example, a

part is identified as specifically amenable to the creation of a ghost gun. That

part can be particularly isolated by regulation.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I just have a few follow-up questions. Can you give me an example of a new part that the government may add to that?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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 reduce the frequency of the creation of ghost guns, the government would have the ability to do that by regulation.

(1605) Ms. Raquel Dancho :

All right. Thank you very much. I know we've had some of this discussion, but just to be clear, if the government is able to add any part to that, it could.... If I think of any firearm, you could add a pistol grip to it. I'm just wondering about that because there are people who may have some of these components. I guess I'm just concerned that some aspects of this may be arbitrarily added and won't have anything to do with the issue at hand, which is to combat ghost guns. If somebody happens to have a pistol grip of a firearm but doesn't have a PAL and doesn't have any intention of having one....

I just don't want us to be targeting the wrong people. Do you have any concerns in regard to how to regulate this to ensure that we're not targeting the wrong people?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice) :

Just to clarify, we're speaking to the

section on firearm parts, which has already been passed through earlier motions, and this is a consequential amendment to the motion before us. We can't speculate on any kind of future regulations with respect to what the government may or may not prohibit in terms of firearm parts. What we can say is that these two parts are the most common parts in the illicit manufacturing of firearms. They are the most common and the most difficult to manufacture, in our understanding.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

That's understood. I think we all supported that and appreciate the severity of this and the need for it, certainly. This committee has been talking about ghost guns for the past year and a half that I've been on it. Again, my concern is that additional parts may be added that folks are not aware of. The message I am taking away is that the main parts are being added—barrel and slide. That's important, but the government could add any other component of a firearm, and people should be aware that they will not be able to.... They should be very careful when possessing parts without a PAL after Bill C-21 passes. Is that an accurate thing about which to warn the public?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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, but that's because it would otherwise be an offence to possess a firearm in the absence of a PAL. Nothing in the bill nor in the motions before the committee makes it an offence to possess a part without a PAL, so you don't need a PAL to possess a part.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC) :

Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify one point.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I believe you still have time.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

We have a minute left.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

I’m trying to understand why there’s a discrepancy between the English and French versions of amendment G-18. Indeed, the amendment is not applied in exactly the same place. In English it refers to

section 117.011(1)(a), and in French it refers to

section 117.011(1). Why is there a difference? Normally, the amendment should be applied the same way in French and English, in this case, in the same subsection.

[ English ]

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

In the process of drafting provisions in the Criminal Code—and this is an existing provision, so it's been here for several years—the difference between the French and English drafting in the revision is that sometimes there's paragraphing in the French that's not in the English. The context of the French and the English are the same. It's just not paragraphed, from my understanding of the drafting of the provision.

The Chair :

Thank you. Are there any further interventions? Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be supporting this amendment. I did want to flag that, in previous sessions of this committee around Bill C-21 , we had similar questions to those the Conservatives just asked. I wanted to flag that, and I will be flagging it. In the case where there is new information, I am certainly inclined—as are, I believe, the rest of my colleagues—to allow for an extension of the 20 minutes. In the case where the Conservatives are asking questions to which they have already received answers, it is pretty clear that the intent is more to draw things out than to elicit new information.

(1610) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Julian. I will generally not cut witnesses off if they are giving a response, but I will try to cut members off well before their five minutes, so there should be time for witnesses to answer. Are there any further interventions? Seeing none, are all in favour of the amendment? (Amendment agreed to [ See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (On clause 11)

The Chair: That brings us to clause 11 and amendment CPC-15, standing in the name of Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

We have an amendment to propose in this regard. Mr. Chair, it's the first amendment that I'm moving, so I'm not sure if I'll get the procedure right, but I will read it, and please correct me if I'm wrong. I move that Bill C-21 , in clause 11, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 15 with the following:

117.012 A provincial court judge shall, on application by

In essence, it changes “may” to “shall”.

The Chair :

Thank you.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Pardon me. This is concerning yellow flag laws.

The Chair :

Right. Okay. (Amendment negatived)

The Chair: That brings us to CPC-16, also in the name of Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill C-21 , in clause 11, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 15 with the following:

ceased to exist or were unfounded.

Again, these concern yellow flag laws, and I know that there was...although I was in the House dealing with the time allocation motion that was forced on us by the Liberals and NDP to limit our discussion today, and likely tomorrow. In the few minutes that I have to discuss this, now that I am here, I'll note that of course there were a number of concerns we heard from witnesses about red flag and yellow flag laws, and I found that very concerning. You'll remember, Mr.

Chair, that when this bill was first brought forward by the Liberals, or the second iteration of it was first brought forward about a year ago, I moved a motion in the House to split out the red flag and yellow flag provisions. I did that so we could take the politics out of it and quickly usher this part along, because of course I would support, particularly as a woman, provisions to ensure, in cases of domestic violence or threats, that women in vulnerable positions, particularly indigenous women and others, are protected and better protected from those who wish to do them harm.

That was shouted down by the minister when I tried to take the politics out of this. However, interestingly, when we brought it to committee, I was very surprised to learn that those with far more expertise in this regard did not fully support these provisions, or support them at all. Groups like PolySeSouvient, one of the most notable anti-gun groups in the country, did not support this at all—quite assertively. In fact, I was interested to learn that on Twitter they gave us a shout-out yesterday in support of our position on red flag laws.

I never thought I'd see the day, but I did appreciate the honest support from them in this regard and that we do, in fact, align on certain things. That was a good moment to see. We also heard from a number of indigenous leaders, notably women and women chiefs who came to committee to speak to this and Bill C-21 in general. Of course, they did not support Bill C-21 in any form, but in particular, they had concerns about the red flag and yellow flag laws.

To summarize what they said, the indigenous communities who came to committee—certainly some of them whom I heard—felt that because of issues of racism and other things, folks who are malevolent toward a given indigenous person or indigenous community could use the provisions in this bill against them to take away their firearms arbitrarily, without real reason. That is the sentiment I heard, and Conservatives and others heard, while at this committee.

We have a number of quotes supporting that from the people whom this was supposed to support in the first place, so I find it difficult for us as a committee to bring forward something that was supposed to support these groups when they're saying they don't want it at all. There were a number of other reasons given. This is just my

summary of the sentiments that I felt from them. I know the quotes were read yesterday, but it's certainly surprising that the Liberal government and the NDP.... The former person from the NDP who was dealing with this certainly signalled to me that they would not be supporting these measures because of what we heard. With the NDP in particular, that seems to have changed, and it's not clear why. I don't believe a clear case was made for why the NDP is no longer listening to the stakeholders we heard when they came to committee. Furthermore, we heard from Women and the Law, which I believe was a Liberal witness.

I could be corrected. They are law experts, from a woman's perspective in particular. They were brought to committee, not by our party, and did not support these measures either. There was also a French group from Quebec that stands up against violence against women. They did not support these measures. We heard from a number of women's groups who did not support these measures, saying they put way too much onus on a woman, the very people, I believe the intention was, that these measures were going to support.

I don't understand how in good conscience we could support this as a committee when the very people these measures were designed to support do not want them. They didn't want them quite strongly—not just subtly, but out there publicly at committee and on social media. I'm not convinced the committee is doing the work to protect the most vulnerable when these measures were meant to do that. As I said, I was originally supporting them until I heard from the people that they were meant to support.

We cannot support them without the support of the vulnerable, whom they were supposed to help, so we will be voting against them again today.

(1615) The Chair :

Thank you.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

That's said in favour of my amendment, of course.

The Chair :

Are there any further interventions? Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

Ms. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.) :

Just quickly, Mr. Chair, the amendment itself calls for the words “or were unfounded” to be added to the clause. Ms. Dancho spoke a lot about women, so I'll just say it's for women who already have a court order. It's implying that women are going to court and lying, so we will not be supporting the amendment, which is specifically to add “unfounded” to the clause.

The Chair :

The clerk says we have 45 seconds left.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. The consultations we did—and again I am not a legal expert—provided some clarity on the issue. It was an effort to address some of the concerns we had. What the member is implying is certainly not my intention and not correct from my perspective and from the consultations we did with legal counsel on this. The effort was to fix the mess created by this bill. The Liberals are not listening to the women this is supposed to help. I had a clear record of supporting this before I heard that the very people this is supposed to be helping don't support it. The legal counsel we received was that this would at least address it a bit, so that's why we are bringing it forward.

The Chair :

Thank you. Are there any further interventions? Mr. Julian, go ahead.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If Ms. Dancho is inferring that there is support for this amendment, I think that is inaccurate. I'll be voting against this amendment. I've read it through and done my homework in coming to committee. I am disturbed by some misinformation. Yesterday in the House it was implied by the Conservatives that the Liberal amendments the NDP forced them to withdraw were still active in some way. I found it unfortunate that the Conservatives would provide disinformation. In this case, as well, I disagree with much of what she asserts. I am going to be voting against this amendment.

The Chair :

Thank you. Are there any further interventions?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chair: You have no more time. That being the case, we'll have the vote on CPC-16. (Amendment negatived) (Clause 11 agreed to)

The Chair: This brings us to new clause 11.1. We will start with amendment G-19, standing in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

(1620) Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, we are dealing with issues related to firearm parts. This addition is going to allow an officer to execute a search of an individual's person, vehicle or premises when they believe they might have a firearm part that was unlawfully obtained and where they have the requisite conditions for a warrant but, by reason of exigent circumstances, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant. This is a continuation of the issues related to firearm parts. We hope we will have the ongoing support of all here to keep moving forward on these issues related to ghost guns, issues that are so important in our cities.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed. Is there any discussion on this amendment? Mr. Melillo, did you want to comment on this amendment?

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC) :

Yes.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Melillo.

Mr. Eric Melillo :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to pick up on some of the sentiment that Ms. Dancho was speaking to regarding the last amendment, but also, of course, in the context of this new one by my friend from the Liberals. I think it's important, when we're talking about the concerns that have been raised regarding the red flag laws and how they may impact the firearms used by many indigenous peoples for hunting, that we really don't overlook the magnitude of that. I represent 42 first nations.

I've been speaking with many residents and many community leaders and chiefs who have a number of concerns with this bill and who are urging us not to move forward. Some are certainly not—in fact, many are not, I'd say—Conservative partisans by any means. I recently had a very important conversation with Chief Rudy Turtle of Grassy Narrows in my riding. He ran against me in 2019 for the New Democratic Party. He took a lot of time to share his concerns about this legislation and urged me to continue the fight. Just building off the sentiment that my colleague Ms.

Dancho shared regarding the last amendment, I really wanted to bring that to the table and urge all my colleagues from all parties not to ignore the voices of indigenous hunters who are asking us to really take a second look at this and reconsider it entirely. I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair. I'm sure some of my colleagues would like some time as well. I just really implore members of this committee to reconsider this course of action.

The Chair :

Are there any further interventions?

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Yes, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Paul-Hus.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

I would like clarification on the definition of “imitation firearm”. Does the proposed definition exclude ghost guns or not? Does it include weapons that can be made out of plastic? What is the definition of “imitation firearm“?

[ English ]

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

The definition of “weapon” is set out in

section 2 of the Criminal Code. It includes a firearm or anything that can cause bodily injury, I believe. My colleague might have something to add to that. This is an existing provision in the Criminal Code, and we are adding.... I keep saying “we”. The government is adding a consequential amendment to the motion that had passed earlier defining “firearm part”. That's the only thing that's being added into this existing provision, just for clarity. My colleague Sandro Giammaria might add something with regard to “weapon”.

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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”. If that's the question, I can also add that “imitation firearm” is defined in

section 84 of the Criminal Code. It's quite a simplistic definition. It's just anything that imitates a firearm.

The Chair :

Are there any further questions? Ms. Dancho, you have one minute.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Giammaria, but I don't know how to pronounce your last name properly.

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

My name is mispronounced every day of my life, so I always appreciate when people ask. I just want to make sure, because I suppose I'm still not clear.... I wasn't here yesterday, and I know it was discussed. You mentioned regarding firearm parts that it's not the case that you would need a PAL to own a barrel or a slide after this comes into force. Is that correct?

(1625) Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

Yes, that's right.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Then the legal consequence of it is....

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

All right. We will perhaps get to that when we can fully discuss this at greater length.

The Chair :

That's it. Thank you. Are all in favour of G-19?

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Mr. Chair, can we get a recorded vote?

The Chair :

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

The Chair: That brings us to G-20, which is in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As with the previous amendment, this amendment is going to add the words “firearm parts” to these sections of the code, which ensures that an officer can apply for a warrant to search and seize unlawfully held firearms parts. Hopefully, we'll all be able to agree on this and keep moving forward.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed. Is there any discussion? Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've already mentioned the importance of combatting ghost guns and the importance of doing it promptly. We need to work through this. I'll be voting for the amendment. I also wanted to respond quickly to Mr. Melillo and his reference to indigenous peoples. He's a bit ahead of himself, but there is an amendment that specifically relates to that:

The provisions enacted by this Act are to be construed as upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.

That of course will be up later on—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Ms. Dancho, go ahead.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I believe we went through this before. This might have been in November. We had quite a big kerfuffle at committee about reading amendments before they were moved. Has that changed? Are we allowed to do that? I have a question on the firearm parts issues, so if we're allowed to—

The Chair :

For these particular amendments, the confidentiality has been waived.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. That's my mistake.

The Chair :

In general, the amendments that people submit are confidential until that's waived or until they move them.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you.

The Chair :

For all of the new amendments we've added in the last whatever...the confidentiality has been waived. [ Translation ] Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) :

I was wondering if the removal of confidentiality only applied to new government amendments or to all new amendments. You are confirming that it only applies to government amendments. Very well, thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Melillo.

Mr. Eric Melillo :

Thank you, Chair. I want to quickly respond to my friend from the NDP. I think there's a lack of clarity throughout this bill in terms of how it will impact indigenous peoples and indigenous hunting rights, as I've mentioned. I'm not asking him to take my word for it. I'm telling him that this is what I've been hearing from first nation leaders and chiefs from across the 42 first nations I represent. I'm going to continue to listen to them instead of listening to Mr. Julian.

The Chair :

Thank you. Are there any further interventions?

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Mr. Chair, we'd like a recorded vote, please. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair :

That brings us to G-21, which is in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

(1630) Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Carrying on the important work of getting ghost guns off our streets, we are amending this provision of the code to add the words “firearm parts”. It's going to ensure there's consistency and that those who are thought to be in possession of unauthorized parts will forfeit those parts if a judge finds it so desirable. We're hoping that everyone will move forward to pass this quickly and unanimously because it's an important tool in the arsenal of law enforcement.

The Chair :

Thank you. Is there any discussion? Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you. Mr. Giammaria, you mentioned there was another amendment coming for this provision. Now that I understand we can talk about all government amendments, can you specify which one that is?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale (Acting Director General, Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) :

It is G-42.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I'm sorry. What did you say?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

It's G-42.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

G-42 is in reference to every other amendment concerning firearm parts.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

There are several amendments throughout the package that refer to firearm parts. Some are consequential in the Criminal Code and others are with regard to requiring a licence to acquire and import a firearm part. The one on licensing is G-42.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. Is G-20 one of the ones that are in reference to G-42?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

No. G-20 is for the Criminal Code and it would allow a judge to issue an order, when there are reasonable grounds to believe there's a public safety risk, to forfeit the firearm part, and to issue a weapons prohibition order against the person from whom it was being seized for up to five years.

The Chair :

As a point of order, we've done G-20. We're on G-21.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Pardon me. It's G-21, which I believe is also on firearm parts. The same question applies. Is G-21 relevant to G-42? No, it is not. Can you explain how it's different from G-20? Is it relative to a judge's authority?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

I'll let my colleagues from Justice talk with regard to the Criminal Code. There are several packages of measures with regard to ghost guns. With regard to licensing and requiring a licence to acquire or import, that's in the Firearms Act. There are others for defining illegally manufactured firearms as prohibited firearms. That's in the Criminal Code. There are other consequential amendments with regard to firearm parts.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

That's correct. In the Criminal Code, we, the government, defined “firearm part” and have added it to several offences—for example, trafficking in firearm parts or smuggling in firearm parts—and in some of the procedural parts of the Criminal Code as well. Sections 117.02, 117.04 and 117.05 are existing search and seizure provisions in the Criminal Code, so it's adding “firearm part” to those provisions to allow for the search and seizure of these parts. For example, if someone has committed a crime, they can use, I believe, this

section to search for and seize firearm parts. It's adding to the existing provisions that already allow for warrant and warrantless searches, but it's just adding “firearm part”.

(1635) The Chair :

Mr. Paul-Hus, you have two minutes, please.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Thank you, Chair. I have one more technical question. In the English version of amendment G-21, in proposed item (b), the wording begins with “if the justice”. In the French version, at the same place, it begins “where the justice”. I’d like to know which wording is correct: “if the justice” or “where the justice”? The beginning is not the same. This could be important.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

The same Criminal Code wording is retained, as currently written, to which we simply add “firearm parts”.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

In paragraph 117.05(4)(

b) of the Criminal Code, does it say “if the justice” or “where the justice”? The amendment seeks to replace the language with something else, but the language is not the same in the English and French versions of the amendment. My English-speaking colleagues may note that the words “if the justice is satisfied” and “where the justice is satisfied” do not have the same meaning.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

You’re correct. It’s an error. The translation is missing.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

We should fix this problem before going any further, Mr. Chair. It’s important.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Do the officials have any comments on this?

[ Translation ]

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

It’s a drafting issue. We would only change the English version, not the French version in this case. You’re making me work hard today. As far as the passage you’re talking about, it’s a matter of writing style, which is a little different in the English and French versions. The phrase “firearm parts” is in the wording of subsection (4) itself. In French, since the phrase “de tels objets” is defined in subsection (4), there is no change to paragraph 117.05(4)(

b) of the Criminal Code, which still reads:

where the justice is satisfied that the circumstances warrant such an action, order that the possession by that person of any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance, or of any such thing, be prohibited during any period, not exceeding five years, that is specified in the order, beginning on the making of the order.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Is that in the amendment we have before us?

[ English ]

The Chair :

I think we have to draw the line there.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

[ Inaudible ]

[ English ]

The Chair :

Are there any further interventions? Seeing none—

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Point of order, Mister Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Paul-Hus.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

I don’t think I’m just stalling to waste time. In my opinion, this is an important point of law, unless it’s confirmed for me that everything is fine. The fact remains that in amendment G-21 before us, there are two different paragraphs in English, one that begins with “if”, and the other that begins with “where”. I just wanted to know which one was the correct one. Which one should be included in the Bill? The one that starts with “if” or the one that starts with “where”? That’s the nuance I am trying to clarify.

[ English ]

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

“[W]here the justice is satisfied” is in the law now. I think the English version on the left side of the page, “if the justice”, is an updated drafting convention. Currently, we have “where the justice”. I think “if the justice” is the current drafting language. I think we'd need to replace proposed paragraph 117.05(4)(

b) in the French. [ Translation ] In the French version of the amendment, the same paragraph (

b) should be inserted as in English. The reference to “firearm parts” is in subsection (4).

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

All right.

(1640) [ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. I believe that is a grammatical matter that will be sorted out as a matter of course, as I understand it. Anyway, we are obliged to carry on. Are all in favour of G‑21?

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Mr. Chair, I'd like a recorded vote, please. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair :

Thank you all. That wraps up new clause 11.1. (On clause 12)

The Chair: Now we have G-22, which is in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This, again, addresses the issue of firearm parts, and in particular it exempts.... Public officers will continue to be exempted persons to allow them to do the normal functioning of their employment. I would hope we have the unanimous support of everyone here, and if indeed we do, hopefully we can do without the performative theatre of a record vote.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed. Is there any discussion on this? Go ahead, Mr. Ruff.

Mr. Alex Ruff :

Thanks, Chair. I just want to make sure this has zero impact. My concern is about “public officers”. I'm assuming that all law enforcement falls under “public officer”.

A voice: Yes.

Mr. Alex Ruff: Yes, I thought so. We have our Canadian Armed Forces. We have our museum folks. The cadets are in there, and then the CFOs themselves. Does that include conservation officers as well, who are under provincial mandate?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

That's a good question. I'm not sure about provincial employees and if they have peace officer status, but this is for public officers. These are exemptions for federal entities in the scope of their employment or duties. It's for federal employees. The sections that are in the code right now, 117.07 to 117.08, are for visiting forces, Department of National Defence officials, police officers, academies, etc., who are able to be exempted from the Firearms Act regime, the licensing requirements and the Criminal Code offences that attach if they.... It allows them to carry and possess prohibited firearms, for example, to protect assets.

Mr. Alex Ruff :

Obviously these provincial folks are authorized—your conservation folks, etc.—but they're not captured under this. What aspect exempts them? If Mr. Calkins were here, I know he'd know this right off the top of his head, but we don't have him today.

Ms. Kellie Paquette (Director General, Canadian Firearms Program, Royal Canadian Mounted Police) :

They are public agents.

Mr. Alex Ruff :

They're public agents. Is that a different aspect of the Criminal Code? We don't have that code number offhand. I can try to search it here online.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

We can get that for you.

Mr. Alex Ruff :

Yes, if you can find it. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. Hopefully we can shortly get some clarity here on this. That was important to flag to make sure that all of our legitimate public enforcement officers, for lack of a better word, have the appropriate coverage too. I want to make sure they're not missed out.

The Chair :

Thank you. Are there any further interventions? Go ahead, Mr. Dreeshen.

Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC) :

Regarding a public safety officer versus a police officer, there are distinctions between the two, and this simply says “public officer”. Are they dealing with the same definition?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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.

(1645) Mr. Earl Dreeshen :

Is that (g)?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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. The larger point is that nothing in G-22 changes the list of public officers who enjoy these immunities. All this does is give them immunity for certain activities with respect to firearm parts.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen. Are there any further interventions? Go ahead, Mr. Paul-Hus.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

I have another question along the same lines about the French and English versions. [ English ] The English says, “in the course of the public officer’s duties or employment”. [ Translation ] This passage is not in the French version. Why is that? Is it because those words are at the beginning of the paragraph and we can’t see them? You’re nodding yes. All right, thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. Are there any further interventions? Seeing none, shall we conduct the vote?

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Yes, please, a recorded vote.

The Chair :

Okay.

Mr. Peter Julian :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

We'll go to you after the vote. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: Mr. Julian, go ahead on a point of order.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Normally we have a recorded vote when there is a difference around the committee table. To call for a committee vote each time when we are all in agreement basically detracts from time that the Conservatives have said they want to take for the study. It's another technique for filibustering, and I find it really unfortunate.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Julian. It is a member's right to request a recorded division, and I won't opine on motives. That wraps up clause 12. Shall clause 12 as amended carry?

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I have a question.

The Chair :

Let's have the vote first.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I'm sorry. It's a quick point of order on the clarification of process. Are we not allowed five minutes per clause as well, or is that just for the amendments?

The Chair :

It says amendments and clauses.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay, so we have five minutes right now if we want to.

The Chair :

Well, we started the vote. Did you want to speak to this clause? Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Yes. That is what I'm saying.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

I don't believe that's correct, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

What is not correct?

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

I don't believe there is further time.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Can't you speak to clauses? That's not right.

The Chair :

Well, the motion says for each clause and for each amendment. I'm going to allow you to speak to it, because I think the more we can get together on this somehow, the better we'll move ahead. Go ahead.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could the officials just explain what this clause achieves in its entirety, in its amended form?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Clause 12 will add persons employed by the Bank of Canada or the Royal Canadian Mint responsible for the security of its facilities to the “public officers” provisions in the Criminal Code. It will allow them to be exempt from the requirements of the Firearms Act and the related offences, as with other federal bodies in the Criminal Code underneath the federal umbrella. It will also allow prescription power to do that in the future for other federal entities. Proposed paragraph 117.07(1)(

b) gives the government flexibility to add others in the future.

(1650) Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I just want to confirm that that's all the clause achieves.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Yes, that's all this clause achieves. The amendments are related to other sections in the Criminal Code. The “firearm part” being added is in different sections of the code, but this clause just adds the bank and the mint to the “public officers” provision of the code and allows for a prescription power.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

What is the purpose of adding them?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

It's to provide them an exemption so they can protect their assets and can have possession of and carry prohibited—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Just so I'm clear, someone employed by the government can carry a side arm because of clause 12.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

That's correct—a side arm, or a prohibited or restricted firearm. Because they're not governed by the Firearms Act, they don't need a licence or a registration certificate for those firearms. That allows them to carry and use those in the protection of their assets.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. Just so I'm clear, you said “restricted” and “prohibited”. They are the ones that no one is legally allowed to own, regardless of what licence they have. That's what “prohibited” is. Is that correct? That's for civilians. That's what I'm saying.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

That's correct. It's for the security only.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Can you give me an example of what a prohibited firearm in this context would be?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

I could. I just worry about giving information related to the bank and the mint in testimony, so I would say—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Is there an equivalent one used currently by an office-holder that we can look up somewhere else and that you can give as an example?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Yes. It's a C8, I believe—a carbine. They use those in the protection of their assets. It's a carbine. Previously, I believe...military C8.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

They are carbines, which are prohibited. I could not get a licence for one of these.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

That's right.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I know police have them.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek: That's correct.

Ms. Raquel Dancho: Police tours have shown me that. I would assume the military has carbines as well. To be clear, the objective is to ensure that the banks and the mint—actually, one of the mints in Canada is in Winnipeg, of all places, where I'm from—are allowed to carry carbines to protect their financial assets, in essence.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Just for clarification, it's not all banks. It's the Bank of Canada.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Oh, pardon me. It's not all banks. Is it just that one in particular?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

It's just the Bank of Canada as a federal entity. It's not all banks. It's just that one.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

That is not currently the case. Right now the Bank of Canada does not employ anyone who can carry carbines, but they will after this.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

They are carrying them now. They are covered under the current amnesty order under one of the paragraphs that allow them to continue to use them to protect assets. They have been continually able to use them under the amnesty order now to help protect assets.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Does the mint as well?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Yes, I believe so.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

It's just sort of solidifying what exists already.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Yes.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. Thank you. I think that's all my time.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Dancho. We're kind of learning the ropes here on how we're going to conduct this. Going forward, once we start the vote, we're going to finish the vote and carry on, but you're entitled to speak for any clause or any amendment.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I have a point of order, quickly. Are we not doing G-23, G-24 or G-25, then?

The Chair :

Let's finish this one. Then I'll answer your question as best I can. We will now go to the vote. Shall clause 12 as amended carry?

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

The Chair :

We'll have a recorded vote. (Clause 12 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

The Chair: This brings us to new clause 12.1 and G-23, which is in the name, I expect, of Mr. Noormohamed.

(1655) Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is dealing with parts that are used for the construction of ghost guns. It deals with the issue of pre-clearance officers. It's simply a provision that ensures they are not guilty of an offence if the only reason they're transporting, transferring or importing a firearm is that it's part of their employment or duties. We're amending this to include “firearm part”. Surely this should not be contentious. Surely this should not require a whole bunch of debate. Surely the will of the House to move quickly on this will be made whole.

The Chair :

Is there any discussion on G-23? Yes, Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you. Can the officials just confirm who this impacts? Can you add a little more meat to the bone of what Mr. Noormohamed explained?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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. As I understand it, there's a pre-clearance process, of which they are a part. They do have limited and geographically specific peace officer authority. If ever they're called upon to deal with, let's say, the context of smuggling or the like, they would be immune from dealing with firearm parts, as a police officer would, let's say, in more domestic circumstances away from a port of entry.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you. Are pre-clearance officers the CBSA officers we see when we come into the airport from the U.S.?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

It would be, for example, when you go to the Ottawa airport and Americans are here on Canadian soil pre-clearing you to enter into the United States. That's a pre-clearance officer.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Right now they're allowed to carry firearms. Is that correct?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

It depends on whether they meet all the conditions under the Preclearance Act.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

This just means that the ones approved to carry a firearm can now also have a firearm part. Isn't it implied when you have a firearm that you can also carry a firearm part?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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. As a point of clarification, there is the Preclearance Act, and pre-clearance officer is defined in

section 5 of that act. The

section in the Criminal Code that this motion amends expressly refers to that

section of that act, so the definition of pre-clearance officer is important.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay, thank you. The Preclearance Act,

section 5, describes what a pre-clearance officer is. That's already determined. This is, then, really doing a lot of, I suppose, due diligence, but I can't imagine a scenario in which a pre-clearance officer would have only a slide or a barrel.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

It also covers the importation of ammunition. Sometimes they'll purchase it or bring it across, and in those cases, we want to make sure they can purchase and import or export these items. It provides protection for them from those offences.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Oh, I see. If the pre-clearance officer needs to get a part for their firearm, they will be authorized to—

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

That's right. They can bring it in.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

—ship it in, carry it and have it in a box. Okay. Otherwise, without this, they are currently not able to do that.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Well, they could, but now, because the government has defined it, it has been added to all of the exclusion provisions to guarantee that they're not going to face any kind of criminal offence, and they don't need a licence. There will be a requirement for a licence for a firearm part, so they will not need to get a licence for that.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I see. This ensures that these individuals will be exempt from the

part coming up that makes you have to have a PAL, for example, to own a firearm part or to purchase one, sell one or have possession of one. If this did not pass today as part of the bill, they would be in trouble, so to speak.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

They could be, yes.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. As an aside, with my remaining few seconds here, I understand that the officials here today are not the ones driving this bus. You are doing the job, but you are not the government, and in that sense I appreciate what you mentioned. We understand this is not coming from you. You're doing your job—very well, by the way.

(1700) The Chair :

Thank you. Are there any further interventions? Seeing none, we can conduct the recorded vote. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: I would like to point out to all members that the more efficient we are with our time, the less far into the wee hours of Friday morning we will have proceed. Let us carry on with G-4, standing again in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

A voice: It's G-24.

The Chair: I'm sorry. It's amendment G-24. Thank you.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

We have PTSD from G-4, Mr. Chair.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair :

Guilty.... Mr. Noormohamed, go ahead.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I'm going to move this one, Chair. To clarify, this, like so many other amendments, is adding two words, “firearm part”. In this particular section, again, nothing else is changing, but because we've added “firearm part” to the Criminal Code, we require in this particular case that certain persons be exempted from facing charges. This flows from the ghost gun provisions we all agreed to, and it's adding two words to existing sections. Nothing else is changing.

The Chair :

Are there any interventions? Ms. Dancho, go ahead.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I don't believe that G-23 had anything to do with ghost guns. We were just talking about the pre-clearance officers. I don't believe that impacts ghost guns in particular. It's just a measure to ensure that pre-clearance officers aren't.... Certainly, it impacts the ghost gun issue, but G-23 is not about ghost guns in particular. It's about ensuring pre-clearance officers can have a slide and a barrel and order them to fix their firearms. I want to note two things that I may have to repeat a number of times. On G-23, I wasn't aware of the context, and the officials did an excellent job of explaining the context.

Those are reasonable things to ask when we're changing the law to ensure we fully understand the impact of this. I was not familiar with the Preclearance Act or

section 5. Also, I was not familiar with the impact that this would really have in practice on pre-clearance officers. I'm not quite understanding the criticism when I'm asking legitimate questions for clarity. If I wanted to do a good old-fashioned filibuster, I'd start reading, I don't know, Bill C-71 , the Firearms Act in general or the daily headlines, but I'm asking legitimate questions. If other parties aren't interested in actually understanding the full context.... Or perhaps they know more about this than I do, and that's fine, but I will continue to ask questions so that I fully understand what we are voting on when we vote yes or no—

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer (Mississauga—Malton, Lib.) :

I have a point of order, Chair.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Gaheer.

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer :

I think talking about a filibuster is a filibuster.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Gaheer. Ms. Dancho, you still have the floor.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you. I appreciate the intervention. We don't often hear from that member on this committee. I encourage him to speak up more, because we welcome his voice. Can the officials explain to us how G-24 differs? Does this also impact pre-clearance officers?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

No. This provision is specific to the Canadian Forces or a visiting force of a federal or provincial department—

(1705) Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I'm sorry. What did you say?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

I'm sorry. It's for individuals acting under the authority of the Canadian Forces or visiting forces. It is not for pre-clearance. There are specific provisions for specific classes of individuals, as my colleague has said. These are with respect to individuals acting on behalf of police forces, the Canadian Forces and visiting forces. It's the same rationale as the last motion. It would exempt them from importing, exporting and possessing all of the items in the Criminal Code now, but the government is adding firearm parts to that to allow them to import, export and transfer firearm parts in the course of their duties only.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you for that clarification. You said those acting under the Canadian Armed Forces or police forces. Is that for a municipal police force and the RCMP?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

It's limited to federal and provincial.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay, it's not municipal. It's OPP and the RCMP, and I believe Quebec has a provincial police force as well.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Yes.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay, but it's not municipal ones. Is there a reason not to do that? I guess we don't have jurisdiction.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek: That's correct.

Ms. Raquel Dancho: Have there been consultations with municipalities on this? Are we at risk? If the Winnipeg police were to order a barrel or a slide, which of course they do to upgrade their firearms, and they don't have a PAL, will they be violating the law once this passes?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Do you mean for municipalities?

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Yes. You mentioned that this doesn't cover municipal police. Those acting under municipal police forces would not be covered by this. Is that correct?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Correct. I believe there was another provision, though, for police forces—the public officers. They are covered under a different provision in the Criminal Code. It's 117.07, I believe. There is another provision that covers other individuals acting for a police force or an academy, and they are covered under a different exemption.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you for that clarification. When you say “acting under”, do you mean those who are employed by the CAF or employed by the RCMP or the OPP as subcontractors?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

It's “under the authority”, so it may not be an employee specifically. It could be a contractor.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

It also includes those in the CAF, not just those subcontractors.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

I believe so. It's those who are “under the authority” of the Canadian Forces, which is the broad umbrella, in a sense.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. I may have to ask about this on the next opportunity, but I'll leave it for now and pick it up the next time. Thank you.

The Chair :

Ms. Dancho, I'm not sure if you took my earlier remark as criticism. It was not meant as such. It was merely an observation that the time we spend here today and tomorrow is going to be burned the following morning. The more efficient we can be with our time.... If we can avoid dwelling on things we've already voted on and avoid dwelling on things we have yet to come to, it will help us get to bed before one on Friday morning. I believe Mr. Noormohamed had his hand up.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

I'm good. Thank you.

The Chair :

Are there any further interventions?

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Recorded vote.

The Chair :

We're voting on G-24. Are all in favour?

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

He said “recorded vote”.

The Chair :

I didn't hear that.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Can we have a recorded vote, please?

[ English ]

The Chair :

Okay, a recorded vote is requested. That's fair game. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: That now takes us to G-25, which is also in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As in previous amendments, this one deals with firearm parts, particularly as they relate to exempted persons. Basically, the provision in the code says that a carrier is not guilty of an offence if the only reason they possess a firearm is for employment duties. What we are doing now is very simple. We are simply adding the words “firearm part”. Again, I hope we will be able to move through this quickly, pass it unanimously and do it in a way that demonstrates we are capable of not wasting time at this committee in getting this law passed.

(1710) The Chair :

Mr. Ruff, go ahead.

Mr. Alex Ruff :

Thanks, Mr. Chair. To the officials here, I have the Criminal Code here in front of me, and I understand, from a carrier perspective, the intent. My concern here is with the firearms industry in particular, because we've now exempted industry and the businesses that are licensed. I'm trying to understand this. Unfortunately, I don't sit on this committee full time, so I didn't hear all the testimony. I think this is more for the firearms program, from an awareness perspective.

It's not really a legal question, but are there parts of the industry out there specifically geared around the purchasing, carrying or transferring of these slides and barrels that aren't captured by your traditional means? My concern here is that we've taken a segment...by bringing this in. I want to make sure, from the carrier perspective—“transfer” is the wrong word, but I think you know what I mean—that we do that. From your background and the information, is there any part of the industry that could get left out here, so they get tied up and they're not covered?

Ms. Kellie Paquette :

There's nothing we can think of.

Mr. Alex Ruff :

I was just seeking that clarity, Mr. Chair. I think I'm good on my questions.

The Chair :

I have Mr. Dreeshen, followed by Ms. Dancho. Mr. Dreeshen, you have three minutes.

Mr. Earl Dreeshen :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm curious. When you lump a crossbow into this and speak of parts, what are you looking at? What components of the crossbow would be considered?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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.

Mr. Earl Dreeshen :

Is it just redundancy? Is that the way you look at it?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

The language around crossbows is a leftover from an old Criminal Code provision that was repealed, I believe, through the Statutes Repeal Act. It had a specific offence for crossbows as a result of an event that occurred about 15 or 20 years ago, when someone used a crossbow to.... I think they murdered a counsel. That was specifically added into the Criminal Code. Crossbow references were left in the Criminal Code after that offence was repealed. They are left over from that offence. I think it was subsection 97(1), which was repealed.

Mr. Earl Dreeshen :

My question was, as we're speaking about slides and parts of a gun...it is still there. I'm curious about how the two mesh.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

They're unrelated. It would be a weapon, but it wouldn't be a firearm part. It's not related.

Mr. Earl Dreeshen :

Yes. It's a tool, I guess.

The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. Dancho, you have one minute and 15 seconds.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

This is subsection 117.09(3). Is that correct?

A voice: Yes.

Ms. Raquel Dancho: When amendments are moved, I understand we don't have to read the whole amendment, but do we not have to specify when we move an amendment what other act it impacts? It's just that it hasn't been done in the last couple of amendments that were moved by the Liberals, and I'm just wondering—for folks who are trying to follow this—should we not do that?

The Chair :

The amendment as written changes certain lines of the act before us.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

It's not a requirement when you're moving it.

The Chair :

Sometimes I will have a note that it affects something or other, but it's not—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

We're not breaking any procedures. That is my question.

The Chair :

No, not as far as I know, but if we are, I know we have excellent people who—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

So you don't have to. You can just talk about it abstractly. Okay. That's good to know. I think we're out of time. Thanks.

The Chair :

All right. Are there any further interventions?

Ms. Raquel Dancho: I'd like a recorded vote, please. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: That finishes new clause 12.1. (On clause 13)

The Chair: That brings us to G-26, in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

(1715) Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In clause 13, we're updating the offences for which law enforcement is able to obtain a wiretap. In the bill, originally we were proposing to add the offence of “altering a cartridge magazine” as established in Bill C-21 , “possession of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized” and “possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition”. The amendment we are proposing here is to add the newly created offence of “possession of computer data” to the list of offences that law enforcement would be able to seek a wiretap for.

This, again, refers specifically to the ability of criminals to print 3-D versions of ghost guns. Hopefully, given that there is widespread support for this on this committee and certainly among law enforcement, we will be able to dispense with all manner of shenanigans and get this thing passed quickly.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed. Ms. Dancho, please go ahead.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can the officials inform the committee of what is meant by “computer data”? I don't understand the wide-reaching impact of this. Can you give me an example of what “possession of computer data” would be?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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. It's the digital file, if you like, that drives a 3-D printer and gives it the instructions to then print, let's say, the receiver for a handgun, for example.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you. I'm sorry. Mr. Noormohamed made it seem like we've gone through this before. Did we talk about computer blueprints previously in the bill? We did. What clause was that?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

That was amendment G-8, as I recall.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

That was G-8. Okay. I was not present at the time, so I am asking some clarifying questions in that regard. So that I am clear on it, anyone who possesses the computer program for a 3-D printed gun would be impacted by this, or is it just those who you can prove are going to use it for bad behaviour, we'll say?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Right. You added on the mental element at the end. Yes, they have to have a mental element for the purpose of trafficking. If the person has this data and it is for the purpose of illegal manufacturing, then the person would be captured under that for the first offence. The second offence is the distribution offence, and the person would have to know that the data is going to be used to manufacture an illegal firearm. There is a mens rea element to both of those offences that must be met before someone is captured by these new offences.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay, so this an offence completely on its own and not an aggravating offence. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I may not understand the full difference there, but it's an offence on its own, not just an aggravating factor.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Yes, that's correct. They are new offences, computer data offences. There are two: Proposed subsection 102.1(1) is for possession for the purpose of trafficking, and proposed subsection 102.1(2) is for distribution—knowing that those are going to be used in illegal manufacturing.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

It's an offence that you can be charged with all on its own.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek: That's correct.

Ms. Raquel Dancho: It's very serious in that regard. I think Mr. Dreeshen has some comments.

(1720) The Chair :

Mr. Dreeshen, you have one minute and 42 seconds.

Mr. Earl Dreeshen :

Thank you. I shouldn't take long. When you talk about computer data, that is specific to the production of a gun through a 3-D printer. It's not information on how you might do it or something that you would get from Wikipedia or some sort of instruction. It is specific to the fact that you can use that data in order to generate something on a 3-D printer. Is that correct?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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”. Then you'll see a kind of residual clause—“or similar computer system”, so technologies that are similar.

Mr. Earl Dreeshen :

This is the computer data, then, coming from G-8 that they are referencing in G-26.

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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. Again, all this motion does is include it within the meaning of “offence” for the purposes of

section 183 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Earl Dreeshen :

Thank you.

The Chair :

Are there any further interventions? Very well, we'll go to a recorded vote. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: Shall clause 13 as amended carry?

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Mr. Chair, I have a question of clarification. Do we not have to go through the rest of it, like G-27 and the other things under clause 13?

The Chair :

Those are under new clause 13.1.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Oh, I see. Pardon me. That was my mistake. I would like to ask some questions about clause 13 overall.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms. Raquel Dancho: Thank you very much. Can the officials just outline, then, what clause 13 achieves, please?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

I'll start, and my colleague might weigh in. Clause 13 adds two serious firearms offences,

section 92 and

section 95, to

section 183 of the Criminal Code, which underlies the basis for which a wiretap can be sought for those offences. That's what this does. The motion would add the computer data offences to

section 183 as well, so a wiretap could be sought for serious offences that are sometimes linked with organized crime. It doesn't change anything in the existing

section with respect to authorizations. It just adds these to the definition of “offence” in

section 183.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you very much. I appreciate that very clear explanation. Mr. Chair, were we explained that in some other context? I know there would have been a technical briefing on the original Bill C-21 , but this wasn't included in that. Arguably, if it was included in the original bill, perhaps I could have had enough forethought to ask about this, but it was not. Was there an opportunity to have heard what we just heard from the official at some other time that I just don't recall?

The Chair :

I believe so, and I would urge you to ask the officials that question.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

We keep getting told that our questions are redundant, yet that is the first time I've clearly heard what clause 13 tries to achieve. I don't quite understand why the questions we're asking are irrelevant. That has not been explained to me, as the lead on this, at any time. It's not been in any briefing document. It was not explained by the member who moved it. I don't feel that asking those questions is redundant at all. In fact, I feel they ensure that the public is fully informed of what we're voting on and, beyond that, that we are fully informed of what we are voting on. Mr.

Chair, I'm not sure if there was a briefing we were offered that I wasn't aware of. My point is that I think this is the first opportunity we have had to fully understand—or understand even a bit—what the full implication of that is. I greatly appreciate the expertise and the very clear explanation, certainly. I know I have about two and a half minutes left. This saga has been going on since those infamous amendments were brought forward in November. We were asking a number of questions of the officials at that time, but I'll remind Mr.

Noormohamed that he filibustered for two meetings, during which he broke down exactly what a firearm is. At no time did I laugh at him or make fun of him for being redundant. I can't speak for others, but that was not something I did. I'll give him this: He was impressively speaking for two full meetings on his own. That's longer than I spoke in the House. I spoke for 90 minutes. He would have spoken for four hours of committee time.

(1725) The Chair :

Ms. Dancho....

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I have two minutes left, I believe.

The Chair :

I want you to focus on the clause.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

He did bring it up, so I feel I have the right to respond to his criticism of my questions thus far. He's welcome to think I'm idiot; my questions aren't very good, but I have learned—

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Noormohamed.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I'm going to pause my time.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

This is the second time Ms. Dancho has misrepresented what I have said. That's well within her prerogative. She can tweet about it. She can use whatever clip she wants.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I haven't tweeted about it.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

I have at no point insulted Ms. Dancho. I think that's very important, and I want that on the record. It is the prerogative of any member to ask questions at this committee, but it's also the responsibility of people to show up to committee having, at the very least, read the material.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed. I think we're getting way off into debate.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps Mr. Noormohamed can explain where we would have read that definition from the official.

The Chair :

This is not anywhere near proper debate on this clause.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Mr. Chair, to be fair, the Liberal member took his time to make that criticism of Conservative questions. I am responding to it. If I'm not allowed to respond, he shouldn't be allow to say it, which I don't agree with. He should be allowed to say it. He's very welcome to criticize me at length. That's fine, but again, he did speak for two full committee meetings, dragging this out further. There's this big urgency. He's responsible for delaying this by an entire week. I'd just like to point that out.

The Chair :

I would like to bring the attention of members to—

Ms. Raquel Dancho: Are you going to stop my time?

The Chair: —Standing Order 18, which suggests we not reflect on past votes of the House. That applies to committees as well. I think it relates to trying to keep the focus of the committee and the proceedings we undertake here forward-looking. Let's move forward and see if we can get this done. Ms. Dancho, you have two minutes left.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I only have one, but thank you very much. Just to make it clear, I agree with you, Mr. Chair. I would like to keep my comments to my questions, regardless of how mundane others may feel they are. I've been learning a lot, and the officials are excellent in their knowledge, but if there are further criticisms made that have nothing to do with the bill and that are, rather, criticisms of the way we're asking questions, I will take every opportunity to respond to them. Of course, that delays what we're doing here. I would like my questions to be technical ones, Mr. Chair, and I believe that's all the time I have.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Dancho. Ms. Damoff, go ahead.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I just want to clarify something so there's no misunderstanding. Amendment G-13 is not a new clause. It was in the original bill. There have been technical briefings, and we've all had the bill for many months. Amendment G-13 is an original clause in the bill, and the only thing that has changed is adding the new offence of possession of computer data, which is something I believe was unanimously passed. It's not that this is brand new, as was implied. This clause has been amended to deal with the issue of ghost guns.

The Chair :

Mr. Julian, please go ahead.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to deal with a bit of misinformation. The officials have been incredibly generous with their time, and not only at committee. In my case and in the NDP's case, they have been available to answer any questions about any of the bill's provisions or any of the amendments. A lot of work goes into preparing for committee clause-by-clause analysis. I wanted to thank the officials for being available, basically night and day, to answer our questions. It's not true that the only chance we get to ask questions about legislation is at the committee table.

A lot of time and a lot of availability have been provided by the officials, and they answered my questions, which meant I could come to this meeting prepared. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

(1730) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Julian. Are there any further interventions? Seeing none, we'll conduct a recorded vote. (Clause 13 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

The Chair: This brings us to new clause 13.1 and G-27, which is in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a simple amendment, and it should hopefully pass unanimously and without the need for a whole bunch of debate, but we shall see. We are amending this

section of the code to add the words “a firearm part” to ensure that any person who has committed a firearms-related offence related to firearm parts will need to forfeit these parts to the Crown for disposal.

The Chair :

Is there any discussion? Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a question for clarification, and I believe my colleague has some questions. Are the officials available outside of committee to answer questions? That is the first I'm hearing of it. I was just not aware. Can you confirm that they are available for our questions? Mr. Julian implied that he was able to ask questions outside of committee, and I wasn't aware that was an option. Is that an option?

The Chair :

I pick up the phone and talk to people I need to talk to. I expect Mr. Julian does as well.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Do you have their phone number?

The Chair :

No, not for these guys, but I'm sure I could get it if I wanted it.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. It's just so that I'm aware moving forward. This is quite important, actually. In this context, for any bill moving forward that you may be involved in, are you able to offer us your phone number, and would we be able to call you about questions we have?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

Any requests for assistance or to explain or provide technical briefings are funnelled through the minister's office. Then we will of course answer and provide any briefings.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. Mr. Chair, this is a bit of an issue. Last week or two weeks ago now—I'm losing track—when the minister first announced this, I asked for an additional technical briefing. That was not provided. Is Mr. Julian being provided—

An hon. member: [ Inaudible—Editor ]

Ms. Raquel Dancho: No, it was not provided. I asked very insistently at committee multiple times, and I was not provided an additional technical briefing. Now I'm hearing that Mr. Julian was. Is that the case?

The Chair :

I believe what you're talking about is outside the purview of the committee. I would urge you to bring that up with the department.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Mr. Julian brought it up, so I'm responding to something he brought up, Mr. Chair. This is news to me. I did ask for an additional technical briefing on the minister's latest announcement, which impacts this bill.

The Chair :

I expect Mr. Julian is very persistent, as we've seen.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

So am I, Mr. Chair, but I have not gotten the same results as him. Perhaps he can share with me, offside, what his secret is, because I was denied the additional technical briefing I asked for on the record. I believe the officials were here. I believe it was last week because I was virtual. I also asked you, Mr. Chair. My memory is coming back. I will put on the record again that I would appreciate an additional technical briefing on this, please. For the second time, I'm asking for an additional technical briefing.

The Chair :

Once again, this is not within the purview of the committee. It's not up to the chair of the committee to grant you additional briefings. However, you are well within your scope of authority, certainly as vice-chair and as critic, to ask the department for additional information.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you. It was implied that I wasn't doing my homework, but others had received technical briefings that we, the Conservatives, did not have access to despite asking for them.

The Chair :

I would urge us all to focus on what we're doing here. Mr. Julian, if you would—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I'm not quite done my intervention, sir.

The Chair :

I'm sorry. You're not finished. Okay.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

To be clear, going back to the bill, this is a new clause. Is that correct?

A voice: Yes.

Ms. Raquel Dancho: I guess we will vote on the clause afterwards, so I won't ask my question about the clauses that I have so far. I will go to my colleague here.

(1735) [ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I would like to inform my colleague Mr. Noormohamed, whom I don’t really know, that it is my parliamentary privilege to ask questions. A motion was voted on, and there were five minutes per party. So we can take the time we need to do our job. There is a kind of bullying every time he says he expects something. That’s just what it is. I’m not easily intimidated, but that’s still what he is doing. I have one more question about the English and French versions. My colleagues are anglophone, and even my colleague next to me asked me why it wasn’t the same. There are fundamental differences.

Why is it different in French and in English? The amendment in English is quite different from the amendment in French. Can you explain why it is so different?

[ English ]

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

As I explained in a previous motion, this is amending an existing provision. The English and French drafting is sometimes different, depending on what is included in the provisions. Proposed subsection 491(1) is a full paragraph in the French version, but in the English it is broken down by paragraph. The content is the same. It's broken down differently for drafting purposes. Sometimes it is done with the same paragraphs, and other times it's broken down. Just because of the way French grammar works in the drafting, it is all in one paragraph.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Knowing your answer, I will still ask the question because it can make a major difference. The meaning is always entirely maintained, but the fact remains that for the members of the Committee, it’s different. For my part, I read the amendment in French and my colleagues read it in English. Our teams review the amendments, but the fact remains that such questions arise. Thank you.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

I agree that this is very important. The French version is now the same as the one used in the Criminal Code. We just added the phrase “pièces d’arme à feu.”

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Julian, go ahead.

Mr. Peter Julian :

I will be supporting the amendment, although I did want to respond to Ms. Dancho. I have always found throughout my years in this place—and I had a lot of difficulties with the Harper regime and Ms. Dancho is aware of that—that public servants, regardless of whether we're talking about the former government or the current government, have been available. Sometimes you have to be persistent to get answers for the questions you ask. That includes going back to the softwood lumber sellout, which I opposed.

Many hundreds of pages of information were distributed, not with a lot of notice, but the public servants were always available to answer questions. You have to be persistent; that is true. I find our public servants in Ottawa, in all ministries, are available, and they are able to answer questions. That would be my reply to her questions.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Julian. Are there any further interventions? Ms. Damoff, go ahead.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I would point out that officials were here for days and days, and these questions weren't asked of them and could have been. The minister was in the House yesterday taking questions. These questions weren't asked. There have been ample opportunities to get answers to questions on a bill and on amendments that we have had for quite some time.

The Chair :

Are there any further interventions? Seeing none, we shall conduct a recorded vote. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: Next we have G-28, again in the name of Mr. Noormohamed. Mr. Noormohamed, please go ahead.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Mr. Chair, very simply, this relates to a series of matters that we previously discussed. It simply addresses the notion of firearm parts. It includes the applicability of the existing laws to include firearm parts. Again, my earnest hope and request is that this committee move quickly on things that are going to help our law enforcement, which is looking for this to happen. I hope that we do not unnecessarily delay its passage.

(1740) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed. Is there any discussion? Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you very much. This is a new clause, so perhaps the legislative clerk could make sure that I am correct in saying that we don't vote on new clauses. Is that correct?

The Chair :

We don't vote on the clause as a whole. Because 13.1 is a new clause, we won't get to a point where we carry the clause or not.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Understood. Can the officials describe, in sum, what new clause 13.1 seeks to achieve?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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. This would add “firearm part” to that condition, so a person arrested with a relevant offence could be released on an undertaking provided they agree to the condition not to possess firearm parts.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

You mentioned that it amends the Criminal Code, just to be clear. Okay. Thank you very much. That is, overall, what new clause 13.1 achieves. Thank you, Mr. Barrett, for joining us today with your lovely children. Just to be clear, G-28, which is within new clause 13.1, amends paragraph 501(3)(h). Is that correct?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale: That's correct.

Ms. Raquel Dancho: Overall, that

section of the Criminal Code—I believe you mentioned it, but just to reiterate—focuses on what?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

When police have arrested an individual and they may release that person, as my colleague Mr. Giammaria said, on an undertaking and there are conditions they are being released on, one of the conditions currently says that they are not allowed to have a firearm. This would add firearm part to that undertaking.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you very much. In which way is that different from G-27? It's a different part of the Criminal Code.

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

This is a new clause to add.... This was not something that was originally foreseen in Bill C-21 . However, when the decision was made to make amendments for ghost guns, including firearm parts, it's adding all of those consequential amendments to various parts of the Criminal Code.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

On that point, just to confirm, the original format of Bill C-21 that we had before these amendments were introduced did not include provisions on ghost guns. Is that correct?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

That's correct.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

It was not a priority of Bill C-21 to do anything concerning ghost guns. Is that correct?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

I cannot speak to questions on the government's priorities.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

The priority of ghost guns was not reflected in Bill C-21 in any way prior to these amendments being introduced.

The Chair :

Again, the witnesses can't speak to that matter.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I'll just try again. It's just so I'm aware and so people are aware, because ghost guns have been brought up as the primary reason why we need to have this time allocation and why we can only ask five minutes of questions per party, per amendment and per clause. Ghost guns, ghost guns, ghost guns: We must have heard that a hundred times in the last number of meetings, yet it was not in the primary bill. Is that correct?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

The measures with regard to ghost guns were not part of the original bill.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Those are all of my questions for this amendment.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Noormohamed.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

I have one brief comment, Mr. Chair. I think it's important for it to be on the record that part of the process of amendments is to improve legislation. Part of the time that was taken was to ensure the legislation was improved. The fact that those guns are being added to this legislation at the request, the direction and the behest of law enforcement is something that should not be taken lightly. We should all be embracing that.

(1745) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed. Are there any further interventions? Mr. Barrett, please.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Thanks, Chair. I would say there's a difference between taking something lightly with respect to ghost guns.... If this has been adopted as a priority of the government and then it time allocates the issue of addressing it, that doesn't suggest that [ Inaudible—Editor ] approach.

The Chair :

I'm going to interrupt here, again. I draw all of you to Standing Order 18. In addition to not disrespecting other members and so on and the royal family and all that stuff, it's to not reflect on the decisions of the House. The House has passed this to us in this form at this time. It did so for whatever reasons were argued and voted on in the House. It does us no good to reflect upon that here today, now.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Am I not allowed to speak about what happens in the House?

The Chair :

Standing Order 18 says we're not supposed to reflect on votes in the House. The point is that we need to look forward. We need to not question how we got here at this time. Do that wherever you want, but not here. We've voting on this bill—

Ms. Pam Damoff :

On a point of order, Chair, is this counting towards their five minutes?

The Chair :

Well, as I'm talking, it's not. Mr. Barrett, go ahead on a point of order.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

With respect to your intervention on my remarks, I've watched many hours of this committee and I've been watching today. I've heard reference to other decisions that have been made in the House, not specific to this particular decision. That standing order does not expressly prohibit discussion of only this motion that was adopted by the House. If it is the practice of this committee, of which I'm not a regular member, that we can't discuss any decision of the House, then I think that will shape future discussions at this committee quite considerably, including Mr.

Julian reflecting before on things that happened eight years ago in the House during his comments to Ms. Dancho. I just need some clarity on what we're not allowed to say at this committee. I'm not a regular member here, so I didn't appreciate that at SECU you're not allowed to talk about what happens in the House of Commons.

The Chair :

My comments were not about SECU. They were about the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, to which we are bound. We have done all kinds of things in all committees that I've been on that have kind of pushed the boundaries sometimes. I'm just trying to get everybody to focus on what we're doing here today. We're trying to get through Bill C‑21 . I'm a night guy, so I'm okay. I can go until four in the morning on Friday; that's fine. If we can be efficient with our time, we can get through this and get it done.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Mr. Chair, on that point of order, could you share with me what the standing order says precisely or perhaps have the clerk read it? I have been a parliamentarian for five years and this is the first time I've encountered this kind of resistance to what was frankly not a combative remark, but just a simple reply in debate.

The Chair :

I didn't mean it as a combative response either. I'm trying to focus the committee on the work that we're doing here today. Let's not reflect on what happened in the House and so on. Let's just buckle down and get this done.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Could you share that standing order?

The Chair :

The standing order is published. It's available on the website. It's Standing Order 18. I would urge you to look it up. We're going to carry on—

Mr. Michael Barrett :

You're ruling my comments out of order, so I would like to hear what the standing order says.

The Chair :

I am not ruling your comments out of order. I urged you to focus on what we're doing. We're going to carry on with this vote now.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Sir, am I allowed to make the remarks I made or not?

The Chair :

You made the remarks you made, but there's one second left in your time, so we're done.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

You deduct from my time if I'm interrupted by the chair—

(1750) The Chair :

We stop your time when the chair intervenes. You were at 0.1 seconds when I intervened, so we're going to carry on. The orders of the House are that each party gets five minutes on a debate. You have four minutes and 59 seconds done, so unless you can wrap it all up in one second, I think we'll call it a day. Is there any further intervention from any other party? Seeing none, let us conduct the vote. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

On a point of order, I see Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you. It's in general and not related to Bill C-21 . How are the breaks working? We're here for nine hours. When do we have bathroom breaks and when are we having eating breaks?

The Chair :

As I mentioned, I figured we'd wait a couple of hours. We are expecting food to arrive in half an hour, at 6:30. I was thinking for this first break to wait until the food arrives and then take a short break. Is that acceptable? Okay. Let us carry on with G-29, which is, oddly enough, in the name of Mr. Noormohamed.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Mr. Chair, it's very simple. This amendment proposes to update subparagraph 515(6)(a)(viii) to include the words “a firearm part”. It ensures consistency with other coordinating amendments. It should be relatively simple and straightforward. With the goodwill of all here and the fact that these have passed unanimously, it would be wonderful if we could continue to pass them unanimously and not further delay the important work of this committee.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed. Are there any questions on this amendment? Mr. Paul-Hus, go ahead. [ Translation ] You have the floor.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

I will gladly vote on the amendment when we are ready to vote. To the extent that we have relevant questions to ask, we think it’s important to raise them. Perhaps we don’t have the same level of intelligence as others, but we…

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

Those are not my words, Mr. Paul-Hus.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

You never ask yourself questions. Don’t you have any?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

I agree with everything.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Very well. My question, about the English and French versions, was forwarded to me by the research teams. I think this question is fundamental. How can one explain such a discrepancy between the wording of the two versions? You can’t have a short amendment in one language and a long amendment in the other, when the English and French versions of the Criminal Code were similar before. As I was saying, perhaps we don’t have the same level of intelligence, but we don’t understand what accounts for this major discrepancy, in this particular case.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

It’s the same explanation I gave you ten minutes ago.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

An amendment to change the Criminal Code is being proposed. Why is there such a big difference in the wording? What is changed is similar in French and English.

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

In the French and English versions, we simply added the words “firearm parts” in English, and “ pièces d’arme à feu ” in French. That’s the only change that was made.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Why isn’t the wording the same in the amendment?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

The layout of the text in both languages may vary in the Criminal Code. There may be one paragraph in French and five or six in English. That’s how the drafters compose the text.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

As far as the content goes, there is no change, aside from the “firearms parts” wording. Is that correct?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

That’s right, the content is exactly the same, except that the words “firearms parts” were added in English, and the words “ pièces d’armes à feu ” were added in French. That’s the only change.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

All right, thank you.

(1755) [ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. Are there any further interventions? Mr. Ellis, go ahead, please.

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC) :

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?

Ms. Rachel Mainville-Dale :

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.

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

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?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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.

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

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?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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.

The Chair :

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 ])

The Chair: We'll go to G-30, also standing in the name of Mr. Noormohamed. Mr. Noormohamed, go ahead, please.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

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. [ English ] 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.

The Chair :

Is there any discussion? Ms. Dancho, go ahead, please.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Pardon my brief absence. This is G-31. Is that correct?

The Chair: This is G-30.

Ms. Raquel Dancho: 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?

Ms. Phaedra Glushek :

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.

(1800) Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Yes, please. Thank you very much.

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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).

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

That's the “Sureties to Keep the Peace”

section in the Criminal Code.

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

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.

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

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?

Mr. Sandro Giammaria :

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.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you very much. That's all the questions I have. We have about a minute remaining, Mr. Chair. Is that correct?

The Chair :

That's correct. We'll go to Mr. Ellis for 55 seconds.

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

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?

Ms. 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 :

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 ])

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

(1805) Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

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 :

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed. We have Mr. Julian, followed by Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Peter Julian :

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