:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 64 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
We will start by acknowledging that 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. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill , an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).
The committee resumes the debate on amendment G-3.2. I will now welcome the officials who are with us today, once again.
From the Department of Justice, we have Marianne Breese, counsel, criminal law policy section; Paula Clarke, counsel, criminal law policy section; 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 Mr. Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; and Ms. Kellie Paquette, director general, Canadian firearms program.
Thank you for joining us again. We look forward to your valuable contributions as we proceed.
We will continue the speaking list from our last meeting. Mr. Motz had the floor. However, he is not present, so we will continue with Ms. Damoff, followed by Madame Michaud and then Mr. Julian.
Ms. Damoff, please go ahead, if you will.
We had an extremely frustrating meeting last meeting, in that we were two and a half hours discussing the amendment that I put forward and numerous other things that are not even part of this bill. I am hopeful that today we'll be able to move a little more efficiently. There are really important things in this bill beyond the amendment—colleagues know that—when it comes to police services, access to ghost guns, instances of gender-based violence, prohibition orders and also increasing the sentences for firearms offences that are listed to organized crime.
We have 146 to 150 amendments in front of us here today. I hope that for a number of them, we can go through them fairly quickly. I'm hoping we can be efficient and get through this at a relatively quick pace.
I will leave it there right now, Chair, until we hear from some of our colleagues and see how the meeting's going to go today.
I would like to thank the public servants for so readily making themselves available. Over the past few days and weeks, we have had many conversations that have led us to understand that no one definition will cover all possible scenarios. The Bloc Québécois understands how difficult it is to come up with a definition that meets everyone's criteria. If we were to speak to five different stakeholders, each one would give us a different interpretation or definition specific to their viewpoint; if we were to speak to one hundred stakeholders, we would get one hundred different definitions.
So that is where we are at currently. I did say it at our last meeting, but I would like to commend the government on having the courage to withdraw the last version of the amendment and undertake consultations with various groups. I think that is what should have been done from the get‑go.
Our party has also held consultations and, as I have just explained, it would be fair to say that each person that we consulted gave us a different definition. We understand that it is no easy task, but I do think that we could still try and improve the definition.
I would also like to highlight the withdrawal of the term “fusil de chasse” in the French definition, because even if it seems to be a minor detail, it will reassure many hunters who have better things to do in their lives than to follow the work of our committee. Simplifying the definition will also make communicating with the public easier.
I believe that this definition is acceptable, but as I said earlier, I think we can improve it. I would like the committee to look at possibly improving the definition, based on comments from civil society as well as the public servants who are here today, since the new definition was released last Tuesday.
The victims of the many massacres that have taking place in Canada are following our deliberations, as are as hunters, indigenous peoples and members of civil society; all of them deserve the best definition possible to protect the public and allow hunters to follow their passion unencumbered.
At our last meeting, Mr. Motz asked some good questions on the consequences of the wording used at proposed subparagraph 84(1.1)e)(ii), which talks about a firearm “originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more”.
First of all, the firearm is designed before it is put on the market. This means that “originally” is implicit. I'm not sure that you could suddenly say that a firearm becomes illegal if someone somewhere in Canada decided to sell a magazine with a larger capacity for it.
The way I interpret it, the current wording is about the intent of the manufacturer, which is pretty near impossible to determine. This means that we will consider the firearm as it was originally manufactured, i.e., the magazine that comes with the firearm. In other words, as I said during our last meeting, a manufacturer could sell a firearm with a magazine that takes five cartridges here in Canada and a few days or weeks later, sell a version of this firearm with a 30-cartridge magazine in the United States.
I have a few questions for the representatives from the RCMP.
How can we determine if the intent of the manufacturer wasn't always to sell a firearm with a 30‑cartridge magazine? Do you have access to the documents the engineers used when they designed a firearm, for example, or, given on the definition currently on the table, would you rather base your analysis of the firearm in its current state?
I don't know if my question was clear. Perhaps it would be better answered by Ms. Paquette.
:
The second thing that I'd like to talk about is the possibility that a firearm may be used with a magazine able to hold six cartridges or more, keeping in mind the original magazine design and therefore the manufacturer's intent before the firearm was launched on the market.
Here is the recommendation from the Mass Casualty Commission that reviewed the events in Nova Scotia.
[English]
The federal government should amend the Criminal Code to prohibit all semi-automatic handguns and all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that discharge centrefire ammunition and are designed to accept detachable magazines with capacities of more than five rounds.
[Translation]
The definition suggested by the government is similar, but there's still a sizeable difference: it does not at all mention the possibility of a firearm being used with a magazine of six cartridges or more, but rather stresses the original design. As I stated earlier, and as Mr. Motz also indicated, at the end of the day, a semi‑automatic firearm's magazine capacity when the firearm is launched onto the market in Canada could become the deciding factor as to its legality or not, rather than the actual magazines that can be used with it.
A firearm originally sold with a 10‑cartridge magazine in the United States would be illegal in Canada, even if the magazine only held five cartridges. If the situation were reversed, however, that firearm would be legal in Canada. Even if the firearm was originally sold in the United States with a five cartridge magazine, and then a few weeks later the manufacturer put out a 30-cartridge magazine, and that firearm was then sold in Canada with a five cartridge magazine, the original design would indicate that it was a magazine holding five cartridges, regardless if lots of 30‑cartridge magazines were being sold south of the border.
Obviously, we have to keep in mind that the government's proposed definition does not apply to firearms currently being sold, but rather to future models, as Ms. Paquette has said. There would be absolutely no impact on existing firearms, whatever definition we choose. I don't know if our Conservative colleagues will pursue the same line of questioning, but did ask such a question at our previous meeting. The way I understand the definition is that the Lee‑Enfield rifle would not be included, because it currently exists and the definition will only apply to future models.
The argument that we have heard not to justify using the definition proposed by the Mass Casualty Commission is that if a magazine with a higher capacity were to be sold by a third party, i.e., someone other than the original manufacturer, it could be prohibited retroactively. But it's not true. From what we understand, the RCMP does not review the classification of a firearm unless there are legislative or regulatory changes. So that argument does not hold water.
Let's go back to the definition proposed by the commission, which seeks to prohibit firearms based on the possibility that they can be used with a large-capacity magazine, rather than the initial capacity intended by the manufacturer when the firearm is introduced to the market. Would such a definition really halt the flow of semi‑automatic firearms into Canada? We don't think so, because many semi‑automatic centre-fire guns with detachable magazines have already been designed so as not to be used with large-capacity magazines.
Let me give you a concrete example. I will try to describe the firearm. I do have an image before me, but I am unfortunately not able to use a visual aid. It is the Browning BAR Mark III rifle, a firearm that is legal in Canada right now. Obviously, the definition proposed by the government would not apply to this firearm, because the definition will be used going forward, but I am giving it as an example were there to be a similar model in the future. This semi‑automatic hunting rifle has a detachable magazine that can contain three or four cartridges, depending on the calibre used, either a .300 Winchester Magnum or a .308 Winchester, but it has not been designed to be used with a large-capacity magazine. The magazine housing is closed by a lip that keeps the magazine in place and there is no extrusion in the lip that would allow a large-capacity magazine to be used. In other terms, it would be physically impossible to use a large-capacity magazine without altering the firearm.
In this case, it is completely unreasonable to think that the manufacturer would sell larger capacity magazines for this model. If the manufacturer wanted to sell a larger capacity model in another country, it would design another model with specifications that would be slightly different for the magazine housing. That is precisely what Browning did in the United States by introducing a detachable magazine for the same firearm so that it could be used with a 10‑cartridge magazine.
In other words, according to the definition proposed by the Mass Casualty Commission, if the firearm was first marketed in Canada with a five‑cartridge magazine, the American version would be reviewed separately by the RCMP and would have its own number, because it wouldn't be the same model. In the case of the definition proposed by the government, the firearm would be allowed if and only if the original magazine did not take more than five cartridges. However, with the definition that I am referring to, the definition proposed by the commission, the firearm could not be sold in Canada because there would be no design constraints to prevent the use of a larger capacity magazine. I think that this is an important distinction because we are still talking about future models.
Now let's forget the American model and go back to the model which is sold in Canada, the BAR Mark III rifle with a three or four cartridge detachable magazine.
Only third‑party businesses could possibly manufacture alternative larger capacity magazines. There again, the firearm would have to be altered in order to be used with such magazines. There is therefore a far lower risk that such large-capacity magazines would be manufactured south of the border for this type of firearm. In other words, by replacing the expression “was originally designed” by “is designed to accept”, this firearm would be legal and it would be very unlikely that such large-capacity magazines would be manufactured south of the border.
The government argues that if such a larger capacity magazine was to appear on the market, it will retroactively prohibit this type of firearm. My response is that the RCMP will not review a firearm unless changes are made to legislation. I don't think you can argue that we have to consider possible negative impacts not foreseen by users or manufacturers, because that is simply not the way the classification system works.
I therefore come back to the recommendation made by the Mass Casualty Commission, which is to prohibit the possibility that a firearm can be used with a large-capacity magazine. This is contrary to what the government is proposing, i.e., concentrating on the original intent of the manufacturer. In other words, we are talking about a physical limitation baked into the firearm, as opposed to an intent, which can only be proved if you look at the chronological order in which magazines for that firearm are sold on various markets.
Let's put pressure on the manufacturers so that they obey the law, rather than open the door to potential loopholes.
That is why I am going to submit a subamendment to the government's G‑3.2 amendment. The clerk already has copies of the subamendment to distribute to all my colleagues. I hope that my colleagues will support it. I think that it will improve the bill and it will assuage the concerns expressed to us by the survivors of the far too many massacres that have taken place in Canada.
I can read out the subamendment or wait until everyone has a copy.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank you for giving us a few minutes to look at the subamendment. Given that this is more or less what was proposed in November, I cannot support it. There were many parts of the amendment submitted in November that were not easy to understand. I know that the department has done a good job with its consultations. But even if I know that the subamendment is being tabled with the best of intentions, I don't think it meets the objective of providing the clarity that we need in this clause.
I will therefore vote against the subamendment.
[English]
I want to address as well the issue of time within this committee. We accomplished one amendment in two and a half hours on Tuesday.
You know as well as I do, in terms of the math, that 145 amendments at two and a half hours each is 390 hours. I've suggested before that we need more hours per week to really engage in this issue, particularly in light of the urgency around ghost guns and the fact that law enforcement is looking for these measures.
It seems to me, if you talk about that number of hours, 390, and only four hours a week, we're talking about 90 sitting weeks. As I suggested on Tuesday, at the pace we were going we wouldn't have completed clause-by-clause until October 2024.
Given that we didn't complete that amendment at the end of the day on Tuesday, we're actually talking—surprisingly, Mr. Chair—about October 2026. It would take about three and a half years at our current pace to go through clause-by-clause on this bill. Given the importance of protecting victims of domestic abuse, ensuring that ghost guns are tackled at a time when we're seeing an exponential rise in the number of ghost guns, anecdotally, across the country.... Certainly in the United States, where they compile those statistics, we're seeing a marked increase in the number of ghost guns, which is why the Biden administration has cracked down and over 20,000 ghost guns have been seized in the past year.
This is an emergency. I agree that the government made a mistake in tabling amendments back in the fall that were not clear and have led to this delay.
I think two wrongs don't make a right. We really need to proceed with this study and get the clause-by-clause completed so that law enforcement has the tools it needs to combat criminals who are using ghost guns and untraceable weapons.
I'm hoping I get unanimous consent on this, Mr. Chair.
I would like to propose, by unanimous consent, because that's the only way it can happen, that we request an additional 20 hours of hearings next week. That would mean 24 hours of committee hearings next week to go through clause-by-clause. I don't believe we can wait years before this bill is finally adopted. We need to move forward.
I hope we will get unanimous consent in order to do that, to request an additional 20 hours of committee time next week to add to the four hours that are already scheduled.
Now that we have the subamendment question resolved, I still have some questions. I'm hoping the committee and witnesses will grant me some latitude, because I wasn't here for the previous discussion on this amendment. From what I see here, I have some questions. I am a gun owner. I have trust issues, as a gun owner, frankly, with a process that provides a definition yet still provides another way to circumvent the definition.
If I read this amendment correctly in the context of the current law, it simply adds the paragraph, after paragraph (d) in the Criminal Code, in the definition of a “prohibited firearm” and the one paragraph that would be before it. Paragraph (d) says, “any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm”. That's the other process.
Notwithstanding all the discussion we're having about paragraph (e) being added to the “prohibited firearm” definition in the Criminal Code under subsection 84(1), there is still an ad hoc way to declare a firearm, whether it meets or doesn't meet the definition we're debating today, as a prohibited firearm, as has always been the case. I think that's what genuinely frustrates law-abiding firearm owners. It's a “stroke of a pen” method somebody somewhere can use arbitrarily...that other process.
I'm putting on the record, as a gun owner, that I am genuinely frustrated that we're spending so much time discussing a definition for which there is a process to completely circumvent the definition. That's why I don't have any trust. Even if we come to a general consensus on this definition, this isn't the only way in which I can, as a purchaser, an owner, anybody who is a business owner or manufacturer.... There is no way of knowing, by reading the law—if this amendment is passed into it—whether or not a long gun will still be prohibited, restricted or otherwise.... It is frustrating to me.
I have some questions, because it deals with Remington firearms. I'll just use them as an example. Remington is getting back into business. They've made the 742, the 7400 and the 750. For the people here today as witnesses, you know which firearm I'm referring to, don't you? It's generally known as the Remington semi-automatic hunting line among their rifles. We all agree on that. Am I correct? Do you guys know which gun I'm talking about?
Ms. Paquette, do you understand that? Okay.
That gun has obviously been designed. It's been in use for decades. Would we generally agree with that sentiment? The 742 was replaced in production by the 7400, which was then replaced by the 750.
Generally speaking, would you agree with what I'm saying?
:
The magazine issue is a completely separate issue, in my opinion. Unfortunately, we don't actually have clarity, and the first thing we should be getting clarity on before we discuss any of these legislative changes is the one that actually deals with magazines. All we have right now is what we currently have in regulation, plus what the has said they're going to do. This means that I'm now guessing, as a parliamentarian, what that magazine legislative change or regulatory change might look like.
Remington are now getting back into the business. They've made announcements saying that they're going to create a new line of firearms. Hypothetically speaking, I'm assuming they're not going to reinvent the wheel. Let's say they create a model 800, with small design changes. It's not the 742, it's not the 7400 and it's not the 750. Let's just give it a number; let's say it's the 800, a semi-automatic rifle. They're going to manufacture a four-round magazine, a 10-round magazine and a 20-round magazine and introduce it to the marketplace.
I'd like your interpretation of this piece of legislation, if it came to pass into law, for a Remington 800, if that's what they decide to call it, designed and manufactured after this becomes law, if they come to the marketplace with that and they get the patent after this becomes law. That Remington 800 now comes with a four-shot magazine, a 10-shot magazine and a 20-shot magazine, because it will probably be interoperable on the platforms, as almost the whole 700 platform is. What would be your interpretation? Would it be your advice and recommendation, to either an order in council or whatever the process may be, that this firearm, the Remington 800, be prohibited?
:
Yes. Thank you, Chair. Your language is very articulate.
I just want to be clear that I'm not trying to put anybody here in an unfair.... I'm not being hostile in any way, shape or form. I'm trying to take comfort in the fact that if the derivative of, say, the 800...because we have history with that particular firearms manufacturer. We have the 742 and the changes to the 7400. We have the changes from the 7400 to the 750. Remington has not reinvented the wheel; let's be honest.
That's why I pursued that line of questioning as our hypothetical example. I understand, but I have to predict what this law is going to do in the future. It's my job as a parliamentarian to know how changing the law affects the future, so I have to ask hypothetical questions. I think I'm being as fair and reasonable as possible.
I actually believe that if Remington came out with an 800 model that had as minor changes to it as the 750 did compared with the 7400, because Remington originally designed cartridge magazines with 10 and 20 rounds in it, test (ii) would be met. However, it has to meet all three, right? We already know that it meets test (i), because it “discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner”.
We all agree that it meets test (i), and I think it meets test (ii), so the only hope for Remington, then, to get the Remington 800 on the marketplace in Canada would be that it doesn't meet test (iii). If it's designed and manufactured, that model.... I think we have had this discussion about the model. If that model “is designed and manufactured on or after the day on which [the] paragraph comes into force”, and the example I gave you was that this model is designed and comes onto the marketplace after this comes into force, in my opinion you're going to have a hunting rifle that is now prohibited in Canada.
Am I missing something, or is there, Mr. Daly, some way...? It would be nonsensical to have a Remington 800 be labelled prohibited and a model 750, which is virtually identical, be legal in Canada. Are we going to have that scenario, potentially? How would the law be interpreted so that something that seemingly asinine wouldn't happen?
:
It is absolutely appropriate, Mr. Chair, to speak of the time that has been spent on this amendment, as the member knows.
The amendment itself is seven sentences. It was received days ago. I recall getting a 500-page omnibus legislation during the Harper government years, which we were debating 24 hours later. Now we're days later and a seven-sentence amendment is not being moved through at a time when we have 145 other amendments waiting after that. It is pretty clear to me that what we're experiencing is a full-on filibuster. Given the size and scope of the important issue around ghost guns and what law enforcement is calling for, I think it's a real problem. We'll have to find other solutions to this filibuster.
On the amendment itself, I thank the officials. They've been very clear in terms of answering the questions. To my mind, in some cases, we're talking about questions that have been repeated, or they're rhetorical. Hypothetically, when we know we have legislation and regulations follow, things are implemented. To get to the point where we're asking questions that are more proper for the latter stages, after the passing of legislation.... I don't feel that is the right way to go.
I flag the incredible amount of time it has taken this week, at a time when the committee should be moving forward. If the Conservatives are not willing to schedule additional committee meetings, I think we have to find other solutions to this.
I'll be voting in favour of this amendment.
Perhaps Ms. Damoff's intervention might not be necessary, but we'll see.
The Conservative position is that this definition remains flawed for many reasons, including the reasons eloquently brought up by my colleague Mr. Calkins. There is some uncertainty in this definition. The definition also leaves it open that hunting rifles and shotguns will be banned on a go-forward basis.
Also, this government has seemingly left the door open through a proposed advisory council and a mandated parliamentary review on a definition. We don't know what those will recommend, but it's certainly leaving the door open for a future revised definition that would go forward and ban hunting rifles and shotguns. We should remember what the said not too long ago, which was, “[T]here are some guns...that we're going to have to take away” that are used for hunting purposes.
Conservatives will continue to hold this Liberal government to account. We will continue to stand up for law-abiding hunters and sport shooters so that their hunting rifles and shotguns will not be taken away.
In order to assuage the concerns Mr. Julian has brought up on numerous occasions, I will say that Conservatives are ready to vote on this matter.
Thank you.
I just want to get on the record and clarify that this amendment in front of us will not ban hunting rifles. To speculate on future firearms that may or may not be banned and give the impression that we're trying to ban hunting rifles, ban.... These are firearms that don't exist.
There tend to be clips that get out there, often including me, that then give the impression that we're doing something we're not. We are not banning hunting rifles. I want to be very clear on that.
I want to thank colleagues for the work they've put in to this. I'm pleased to hear that we're going to get to a vote, so I will end it there.
I would like a recorded vote, though, Chair.
Okay. In that vein, we have until six, but I think if we go to 5:45 p.m., it will be the full two hours that we were allocated.
Is that okay with everyone?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay.
Carrying on, next on our list is NDP-0.1. I will note that if this motion is adopted, BQ-2 and CPC-2 cannot be moved, because they affect the same line.
We have Mr. Julian, please.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief.
I will flag that the original NDP member of this committee, , proposed this amendment, and it is his birthday today. I hope that is additional incentive for members of the committee. I'm sure he would be pleased, as would the airsoft community.
We're talking about very serious issues here. We have the framework, in terms of this bill. I've mentioned previously the issues around airsoft, the issues around the manufacturers' loopholes, which would be tightened up with the amendment that we just adopted. These are important and serious issues.
What has been flagged by the airsoft community—and these are folks who enjoy airsoft in a recreational way—is the concerns around the bill's treating them in what is really not an appropriate way.
The intent of the amendment would be to take clause 1 out, and basically that still allows the government to look at a possible regulatory approach. We understand that the government has the ability to set regulations. Members of the airsoft community have been very open, as you know, Mr. Chair, in coming before this committee, and in talking with members of this committee to say they're open to regulations around airsoft, but the reality is that the current clause 1 would have a serious impact on airsoft practitioners, as well as a number of businesses across the country.
On behalf of , who has been a strong champion of those who are airsoft practitioners, I'd like to move the amendment. Hopefully it will receive support from all members of this committee.
I want to thank Mr. Julian on behalf of . I know he did a lot of work on this.
I would like to give a shout-out to the airsoft industry, which was incredibly willing to work with us to regulate the industry.
I have concerns about gas-powered airsoft rifles. It was something we saw at the gun vault. I have concerns about their ability to be converted.
While we won't be able to support the amendment, we won't stand in your way.
My understanding is that the government can provide regulations on the issues that you mentioned, Mr. Julian. The industry came here and told us that they're fine if we look at regulating age, transportation and storage. They don't want these airsoft to get into the hands of kids, be taken to a school and used to kill a child because they're carrying their parent's airsoft rifle.
I want to thank the industry sincerely, because they were incredibly good to work with. They were very concise and came with solutions.
Thank you for bringing this forward, Mr. Julian.
I would like to thank Mr. Julian for tabling this amendment, as well as , with whom the committee had worked previously on this important issue.
As Ms. Damoff stated, when we visited the RCMP's vault, we were able to see how easy it is to convert an airgun into a real firearm, because the components of a firearm fit easily into the housings of an air gun. However, as my colleagues have mentioned, I think it would be a step too far to prohibit air guns in bill .
Moreover, when industry representatives came to testify before the committee, they were very conciliatory and said they were open to the idea that the industry be regulated. I will quote part of the opening statement given by Mr. Brian McIlmoyle, the director of ASIC, the Airsoft in Canada association, when he testified before the committee:
We believe the best means to mitigate these risks is an 18‑plus restriction on the purchase of airsoft, which would prevent children from buying airsoft without parental knowledge. In addition, a legal acknowledgment of risk or waiver, when signed and combined with some clear educational material, will impress upon parents and young adults the importance and very mortal responsibility of owning airsoft gear.
He also stated that he was willing to go further and made the following proposal:
[...], ASIC has studied a self-regulatory system similar to the United Kingdom's Airsoft Retailers Association and the UK's Violent Crime Reduction Act, which stipulates membership in an airsoft association in order to possess airsoft. This kind of measure would require a higher administrative overhead, but there is a feasible appetite for it within our community.
To which he added:
These measures benefit from joint positions with the FSAQ, or Fédération Sportive d'Airsoft du Québec; the AABC, Airsoft Association of British Columbia; and the CSAAA, the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association.
By the way, I would just like to thank the FSAQ, which helped us in our work.
Mr. McIlmoyle ended his presentation with this:
We suggest that this committee empower the Governor in Council to work with consulted bodies such as ASIC to more comprehensively and exhaustively defined “ replica firearm” and/or “airsoft” through regulation. We hope today that the committee can work with our community to develop a solution.
I now have a question for the public servants.
Are you able to confirm that the government is currently able to regulate airsoft guns without these guns being expressly mentioned in bill ? Is there something in the bill right how that would allow the government to regulate airsoft guns?
:
Thank you. This is going to be a question for officials.
I note that the legislation that it is seeking to amend draws the distinction between “replica” firearms and “antique” firearms, so it does not apply to antique firearms, as far as I understand it. The definition of an antique firearm is a firearm that was produced before 1898. That seems to be the date.
We received witness testimony, a brief, from the Toronto Artillery Foundation. It operates a number of old, World War II era, post-1898, 25-pounder cannons that are used for public ceremonial purposes. I think these have tremendous value for ceremonies. We have the 21-gun salute here on Parliament Hill as a tourist attraction.
I just want to get some explanation from the witnesses here. Does this impact those 25-pounder...would they be classified as firearms? They wouldn't be given an exemption under “antique”. What is the state of those cannons in this amendment?
:
I actually meant to say that before I got carried away with saying, “The motion is carried.” I'm so excited with all the motions we've been passing in the last few minutes.
I want to also join with you in wishing a happy birthday. I expect the whole committee would like to wish Mr. MacGregor a happy birthday. One more successful trip around the sun is always good news. Thank you, all.
BQ-2 cannot be moved because it affects the same lines.
CPC-2 cannot be moved.
That brings us to G-5.
Oh, yes, there's a very important part that I missed.
Shall clause 1 carry?
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we will go to G-5, which is standing in the name of .
Ms. Damoff.
Because my colleague is not here right now, I'm going to do what Mr. Julian just did and move it on his behalf. I know it's an issue that both he and Mr. Schiefke care a great deal about.
We've already passed one amendment to do with ghost guns, 3-D printed firearms, or, as I think the police call them, privately manufactured firearms. We have a whole bunch of these.
So that you know, Chair, I'll move them in Mr. Noormohamed's absence, unless Mr. Schiefke wants to move one.
This is incredibly important for law enforcement. I hope everyone can agree. What these amendments do is add the words “firearm part” to different sections of legislation to ensure that these privately manufactured 3-D printed guns are not able to be used in the commission of crime.
I think all of us who visited the RCMP gun vault were shocked at how fast and easy it is to 3-D print the receiver, and also how readily available it is.
This clause sets about dealing with computer data and the computer system used in new offences. This is new. It is extremely important for addressing the rise in ghost guns. Back in the day, you needed a gunsmith to be able to create these receivers. It was literally within moments, minutes, while we were standing in the room, that the 3-D printing was able to happen.
Maybe colleagues have questions for officials to clarify this. These amendments will deal with adding offences to deal with 3-D printing. It will also make Canada a leader in the world when it comes to addressing ghost guns.
I mentioned this at our last meeting. When I met with Inspector Michael Rowe in Vancouver, he said that these weapons are the preferred weapon for hit men. They are becoming the preferred weapon of gangs. It gives us an opportunity as legislators to get ahead of organized crime instead of playing catch-up. It gives police the tools they need to be able to prosecute those who are manufacturing these firearms, sometimes in a home or a residential neighbourhood.
I'm hoping that colleagues will support this amendment.
I'll be supporting this amendment. Having had the opportunity to meet with the RCMP in Surrey, British Columbia, it was an eye-opener to see the extent to which a 3-D printer with the possibility of certain software plus legally-obtained firearms components, obtained without a PAL, and the possession of ammunition, all of these things added together.... Law enforcement officials indicated how difficult it was currently, with the current law, to do the appropriate follow-up.
As I've mentioned many times, and I know law enforcement has mentioned this as well, in the streets across this country, in certain regions like mine, ghost guns have increased exponentially over the course of the last year or two. This isn't an issue that is slowly developing, this is an issue that is exploding. There were 20,000 seized ghost guns in the United States, and the Biden administration is taking action. Canada needs to take similar action and equip law enforcement with the ability to crack down on criminals.
Essentially, Bill is becoming more of a bill that is cracking down on criminal behaviour. These ghost gun provisions are vitally important to that. We have to crack down on criminals, cut off their source, and make sure they do not have untraceable firearms. That's a danger to the public; there is no doubt. It's a danger to all of us, so I'll be supporting this amendment.
Like my colleague, Mr. Ruff, I actually think this is the kind of stuff that we should be focusing on, rather than going after law-abiding firearms owners, but that's just me.
I have a couple of questions about this amendment. In my last job before I came here, I was a tenured faculty member, teaching computer systems technology at a local college. IT is something where I've forgotten more than I probably ever should have known in the first place. That was 17 years ago, and the technology has changed immensely.
I don't see the word “knowingly” in proposed section 102.1(1) or “with intent” in subsection (2). I'm a former computer programmer, a systems analyst, a database administrator. I don't know every file that is on my computer. I suggest that you who are sitting here as witnesses don't know every file that's on your computers.
Shouldn't we have some kind of language that says you must “knowingly” have this on your...? It would be very easy for anybody with any technical skill whatsoever—and that's not me anymore—to push a file to a computer, push a bot, push anything like that onto a device, and then all of a sudden you're circulating information, or your machine is circulating information, that you have no idea you're circulating. It happens when it comes to pornography, so it can happen when it comes to technical plans for firearms.
I just didn't see the language, so can somebody reassure me that “knowingly” and “with intent” are part of this amendment?
It's probably along a similar.... I think it's very important, as we're moving this...that we're actually behind, not ahead. I saw high school kids making these things 20 years ago. What they could do with 3-D printers was incredible then. I think we're behind.
I think this is going to get challenged in court. I don't think it's tight. I think it's an attempt, but I think we'll lose. The bar is so high that I think you will get out of this one.
It's an attempt, and I agree with the attempt, but I think the charter rights lawyers.... It probably will have to be dealt with again. The bar is too high, and I don't think it will work.
Thanks.