Committee
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 12888
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Chair.
In line with Ms. Dancho's comments, your statement in the document you've given on consideration for clause-by-clause study says the following:
In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The Chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.
I would submit, Chair, that under the second reading of this particular bill, nothing in G-4 or the other one that was mentioned—it slips my mind at the moment—were ever talked about as being part of Bill C-21. As a result of that—
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Let me finish. As a result of that, Chair, I would suggest that we need to then maybe hold up all of clause 1, if that's part of it, until we get a proper ruling on whether that's admissible moving forward and whether this is a different scope from what the bill actually laid out in Bill C-21 when it was presented to the House in the first place.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
But based on what the clerk just said, sir, we can't take G-4 out of clause 1 unless we hold and suspend all of clause 1.
Did I understand you correctly, sir?
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Well, isn't that a little vague? Every other mention of a device here—ammunition, handgun, imitation firearm, import—has a definition around it in the definitions section. If we're going to say “a firearm part”, that could be anything that has no consequence to the use of a firearm, no ability to put public safety at risk, so don't you think we need something that shows what a “firearm part” really means?
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Well, I still have the floor.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
I have it right in front of me.
(3) For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms:
a) any antique firearm;
b) any device that is(i) designed exclusively for signalling, for notifying of distress, for firing blank cartridges or for firing stud cartridges, explosive-driven rivets or other industrial projectiles, and(ii) intended by the person in possession of it to be used exclusively for the purpose for which it is designed;
c) any shooting device that is
(i) designed exclusively for the slaughtering of domestic animals, the tranquillizing of animals or the discharging of projectiles with lines attached to them, and
(ii) intended by the person in possession of it to be used exclusively for the purpose for which it is designed; and
d) any other barrelled weapon, where it is proved that the weapon is not designed or adapted to discharge
(i) a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules, or
(ii) a shot, bullet or other projectile that is designed or adapted to attain a velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or an energy exceeding 5.7 Joules.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to confirm the actual numbers, because there is no section 2.1 of the Criminal Code right now. There's a section 2, but there isn't a section 2.1 in the most recent Criminal Code. I'm wondering if the wording is wrong.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
My 2023 version does not have it in it. You'll have to show me, because it does not have that in it. That's why I'm saying it makes no sense.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
I'm just curious. Can you go back and say what we've added again? With everything covered off and all underlined, it doesn't show us exactly. I'm trying to find what we actually added.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
That's it?
Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed: Yes.
Mr. Glen Motz: Then for our witnesses, what we're really saying here is that a judge, when he's making an issue under recognizance, can give a recognizance with a condition that a person cannot own or have possession of a firearm part—
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
—even if it's a nothing part. Based on this definition, it has to be a barrel of a firearm, which by itself is nothing.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
I appreciate the fact that we're trying to deal with ghost guns and that we can make a firearm with a 3D printer, other than the barrel, right? We want to prevent the barrel from being used as a ghost gun, but we're going to criminalize administratively people who have no 3D printer and no intention of building a firearm from a 3D printer.
I'm concerned that if an individual has a barrel of a firearm, that's going to now become a condition for a judge to consider. I just find that to be seriously problematic, unless we expand that definition and what the intent is really all about. I just don't understand why.... If we're saying that a barrel is used for a ghost gun, then that might give people some satisfaction, but I doubt it.
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
On a point of order, Chair, now that we've amended clause 0.1—that's what we just did—do we now need to have a vote on all of clause 0.1 before we move on to clause 1?
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
View Dane Lloyd Profile
CPC (AB)
Maybe I'll let Ms. Damoff go first.
Results: 1 - 15 of 12888 | Page: 1 of 860

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data