Bill C-71 (Historical)

An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms

Part 1 of this Act amends the Firearms Act to, among other things,
(a) remove the reference to the five-year period, set out in subsection 5(2) of that Act, that applies to the mandatory consideration of certain eligibility criteria for holding a licence;
(b) require, when a non-restricted firearm is transferred, that the transferee’s firearms licence be verified by the Registrar of Firearms and that businesses keep certain information related to the transfer; and
(c) remove certain automatic authorizations to transport prohibited and restricted firearms.
Part 1 also amends the Criminal Code to repeal the authority of the Governor in Council to prescribe by regulation that a prohibited or restricted firearm be a non-restricted firearm or that a prohibited firearm be a restricted firearm and, in consequence, the Part
(a) repeals certain provisions of regulations made under the Criminal Code; and
(b) amends the Firearms Act to grandfather certain individuals and firearms, including firearms previously prescribed as restricted or non-restricted firearms in those provisions.
Furthermore, Part 1 amends section 115 of the Criminal Code to clarify that firearms and other things seized and detained by, or surrendered to, a peace officer at the time a prohibition order referred to in that section is made are forfeited to the Crown.
Part 2, among other things,
(a) amends the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, by repealing the amendments made by the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, to retroactively restore the application of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to the records related to the registration of non-restricted firearms until the day on which this enactment receives royal assent;
(b) provides that the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act continue to apply to proceedings that were initiated under those Acts before that day until the proceedings are finally disposed of, settled or abandoned; and
(c) directs the Commissioner of Firearms to provide the minister of the Government of Quebec responsible for public security with a copy of such records, at that minister’s request.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both witnesses for being with us today. We greatly appreciate your testimony. On this panel we have a sport shooting perspective and a hunting perspective. It's very good to hear from both of you.

Ms. Kiejko, I have a few questions for you concerning your experience.

We know, of course, the Liberals have brought forward successive gun bans. It began with C-71. Then there was the May 2020 OIC, which added hundreds of models. We then saw the so-called handgun freeze, which we know is a long-term ban. The latest ban is certainly one of the largest hunting rifle bans in Canadian history, and now we're talking about that since it has been withdrawn.

What I hear from sport shooters and hunters is that they feel they are being punished and attacked. As an Olympian who's represented Canada as a sport shooter on two occasions, and as someone from a family of Olympic sport shooters, I'm wondering if you could share your experience on the impact these successive bans have had on you.

[Lynda Kiejko, Olympian, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

My name is Lynda Kiejko. I am a two-time Olympian in the sport of pistol shooting. I am also president of the Alberta Handgun Association, which is an organization that fosters and promotes the ISSF, otherwise known as the Olympic style of competition. I come from a family of Olympians and pistol shooting. My father and one of my sisters were both Olympians.

I am very grateful for this opportunity to appear before the committee today. However, I'm also very angry and sad. I'm angry that my tax dollars are being wasted on policy that doesn't increase public safety. I'm angry that no matter how well I follow the law, the law keeps changing. These law changes are impacting me, and people like me, directly.

I take great pride in representing my country on the world stage, as do all athletes. I'm sad that due to the handgun ban, the order in council, Bill C-71 and this proposed legislation, I will not be able to represent Canada on the world stage. Athletes who come after me won't even have an opportunity to compete, as they will have no access to competition firearms.

I am angry this government has no concern for actual safety. If an actual effort were made to increase public safety, I likely would not be here as a witness. If you had the interest of public safety in mind, the measures you take would not affect me, a vetted firearm owner. Your measures would affect criminals. Nothing I see proposed in Bill C-21 or the withdrawn amendments makes measurable improvements to public safety.

Criminals have criminal behaviour. No matter what the law says, criminals will continue doing what they do. Instead of reducing crime, your handgun bans, orders in council and efforts to virtue signal that you're doing something have increased my paperwork by six weeks in order to represent Canada on the world stage. I now pay the government for the privilege of returning home with my guns, which are my property, on every return to Canada. The extra paperwork I do does not make you, my community or my children safer than they were before your measures were put into place. It is a waste of my tax dollars. Instead of preparing to compete against my peers from Ukraine, Greece, South Korea and France—among many others—I'm doing paperwork for the privilege of not being arrested or having my competition equipment confiscated at the border when I return home.

These measures also remove any opportunity I have to take up hunting, which is something my father did, and which is an inherent Canadian tradition. Not only do I need to have my PAL, but I need to take a hunter's safety course and plan out details of where I will hunt. Banning semi-automatic rifles removes this opportunity. Almost all hunters use semi-automatic rifles with the same magazine capacity as my competition handgun. The course that PAL holders are required to take, on top of hunter education courses, makes hunters and competitive shooters safer with firearms than the majority of the population. I am constantly having my background checked as a PAL holder.

I have small children. Firearm safety is very important to me. My firearms are not a public safety threat and neither am I; neither are my teammates, my family or my friends. The measures this government is taking will destroy competitive shooting sports in Canada. There are so many more than just the narrow few who make it to the Olympics. It will destroy our hunting culture, by which we provide for our own families.

As Canadians, we are all proud to see a Canadian competing on the world stage and bringing home a medal. That will end in the shooting sports because of the bans already put in place or currently being proposed. Removing a tool does not decrease violence. My sports equipment and hunting tools are not public safety threats.

Thank you very much.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before I get into my remarks, I also want to add my voice to those of my colleagues about the late Honourable Jim Carr.

It's funny how your relationship with a person changes over your parliamentary career. Jim and I are both from the class of 2015. In the first Parliament I served with him—the 42nd—I was often doing battle with him, in his role as Minister of Natural Resources, because of pipeline projects, which negatively affect the coastal British Columbians I'm so proud to represent.

I got to know a more personal side of Jim as chair of this committee. I think you can summarize him as tough but fair, and a very kind-hearted person. I think the people of Winnipeg South Centre were very fortunate to have him as their representative. I know his prairie colleagues, from all parties, will miss him. If his family is watching this, all I can say is that I offer my sincere condolences. The parliamentary family is going to miss him.

Rest in peace, Jim. You were a great chair.

Mr. Chair, I know those are big shoes to fill, but you have our confidence. It's not an easy committee to manage. I think you will be the first to admit that.

Colleagues, we have now had six meetings, at this committee, for clause-by-clause, and we are still stuck on clause 1. We're still stuck on the very same amendment we were six meetings ago. That's hardly a tale of parliamentary efficiency, or an effective use of tax dollars. I think the Canadian public rightly understands that.

I haven't had a chance to put my voice on the record on this, so I'm going to ask colleagues to indulge me for a bit, because I have a few things I want to get on the record.

What I would like to say first is this: In politics, as in life, trust is easily broken, but it's extremely hard to repair. The way this amendment landed has, frankly, been a complete and total abuse of process. The reason why we're hung up here is because we, as committee members, with our limited resources—especially on the opposition side—are now being asked to do a tremendous amount of extra work on a bill that should have been done on the government side.

To land this amendment in our laps at the eleventh hour, after we completed witness testimony.... I had no chance whatsoever to tailor my committee strategy based on an amendment that will affect long guns. I will tell you this. The irony is that—because I know how important Bill C-21 was to this government—if this amendment hadn't been dropped at the eleventh hour, we would be having a very different conversation right now.

We would probably be talking about how Bill C-21 was sent off to the Senate, and we would be conducting important work on Bill C-20. That's being held up by this mess of the government's own creation. Bill C-20 is an important piece of legislation that's going to create much-needed oversight, transparency and accountability in the RCMP and CBSA. That's something we've been talking about for seven years now.

I know there's frustration on all sides, but this was brought about by the government. It should have been anticipated, because it's like the Newtonian laws of politics: For every action, there's going to be an equal and opposite reaction.

I have to tell you that, correspondence-wise.... I have talked to colleagues from all parties, but some members of my caucus had not received one single piece of correspondence on Bill C-21 until this amendment dropped. Now, it's making up half their correspondence. The way it was rolled out is going to be a textbook example, for future generations, of what not to do when amending your own bill, of communication strategy, etc. The list is long.

I need to get on the record about how displeased I am, because I think it took for granted the important work we have been able to do at this committee.

To underline, Mr. Chair, just how egregious this was, as soon as the amendment came to our attention, I had my legislative assistant contact the Library of Parliament, because we wanted to get a sense of how amendment G-4 was going to impact firearms models. We also wanted to get a sense of how the scheduled list was going to compare with the May 2020 OIC. Our analysts, to their immense credit, produced a pretty amazing document. It was a very long Excel spreadsheet. However, they warned us that it was going to be incomplete, because they checked right away with the justice department and they confirmed that there was no such analysis to share with the Library of Parliament.

Here you have a government dropping this amendment in our laps, and its own department has not done an impact analysis. We're expected to suddenly take this work up with our limited resources as the opposition. That is a simple no-go.

In fact, Mr. Chair, I want to reference this, because when Bill C-21 was introduced on May 30, Minister Mendicino—I think it was in an exchange with reporters—made mention of an amendment they were thinking of bringing to the bill. This begs the question why the bill had to be introduced on May 30 if, already at that point, they were thinking of an amendment.

In the very first meeting we had, we had the minister for the first hour and we had departmental officials in the second hour. I have it right here, Mr. Chair. I asked the assistant deputy minister, Talal Dakalbab, in the last minute of questioning I had about the May 30 announcement of the amendment. I asked:

Can you inform this committee what specific section of Bill C-21 you're seeking to amend and what it is going to look like, so we have some heads-up notice on this?

His response was:

The only thing I could say is that you heard the same thing I did from the minister on TV. I can't comment any further on that one. I'm sorry about that.

An assistant deputy minister, on square one, at the very first meeting, was unable to comment on what was eventually going to be a huge amendment to a bill.

After that, given that the assistant deputy minister, a pretty high official in the department, was unable to provide details to me as a committee member—and I'm supposed to do my due diligence on a bill—and was unable to provide that information, I dropped it. I did that because there were other things in the bill—tangential things that I could see and comment on—that I had had the chance over the summer of this year to speak to my constituents about.

I made the effort this summer to visit the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association. I had some very frank conversations with people about the handgun freeze and what that would mean, and I took their comments back with me to try to make some fixes based on that feedback. These are law-abiding constituents who simply want to be able to practise their sport.

At no time, Mr. Chair, did I talk to people about their hunting rifles or their hunting shotguns, because again, that wasn't in the bill. It was not defended by the Minister of Public Safety during his second reading speech. I did not have the opportunity during questions and comments to ask the minister about that. I did not have the chance during my own second reading speech to talk about these things, because they were not in the bill. It is a complete abuse of process.

I have to say, I sit on three committees, and I've seen this happen in other committees, especially with consequential legislation. I'm going to cite Bill C-7 from the last Parliament. That was, of course, the amendments to our medical assistance in dying regime, which added track two for people whose death was not reasonably foreseeable.

In the debates on that, the first version of Bill C-7 included a continued prohibition for persons who had a mental illness as a sole underlying condition. The government even introduced a charter statement with Bill C-7, explaining why that prohibition should continue, because there was not enough knowledge and there were still some gaps in whether treatments would be effective.

What happened in that process, Mr. Chair, was that the Senate amended Bill C-7. They got rid of that prohibition and introduced a sunset clause, and then the government accepted it. They accepted it, so it became part of Bill C-7, and then they established a committee afterwards. Again, it put the cart before the horse so that we, as a committee, could study something that's already part of the law.

That's exactly what we are being asked to do at this committee. It is a proposed amendment to a very consequential bill and now we're being asked to do it after it's been proposed, again, having had no chance to speak to Canadians, having had no chance to speak to our constituents or any affected group. You can see why there's a strong reaction to this bill. The way it has been rolled out.... Honestly, I think I've said enough on that point.

I will also say that we've had some very helpful testimony from officials here, and they certainly have done their utmost—and I want to salute them—to walk this committee through many of the technical questions. The frustrating part of it is that they are limited to technical questions about the wording of the bill. If I want substantive questions answered about impacts, how this was developed or whether there are other options, they cannot speak to those parts of the questions.

There has certainly been a fair amount of misinformation, and I'll acknowledge, as Mr. Noormohamed has said, that some concerns out there about whether this make or model of shotgun will be on the list have been refuted. But, again, it goes to communication and rollout. The government should have done this from the get-go, to make the Canadian public understand exactly what its intention is.

The other thing, Mr. Chair, is that for some makes and models, after the May 2020 OIC was launched.... By the way, let's face it, the section of the Criminal Code that allows for those orders in council has been used by both Liberals and Conservatives, and we do have extreme policy lurches on both sides. For some people who might have owned a firearm that escaped the May 2020 OIC, afterwards they probably said, “My firearm is safe. The government didn't take it.” A lot of these are non-restricted firearms that are now being moved to prohibited. They're skipping a step: They're not even going into the restricted category; they're going straight to outright prohibited.

The government never explored other options. This is kind of the sledgehammer approach. There were never any other options explored. This could have been the homework that was so crucial to be done before the amendment was proposed. Could we have explored options such as tighter licensing requirements for semi-automatic firearms? I understand the concern that's out there. A semi-automatic firearm can discharge ammunition at a much faster rate than a lever action or a bolt action rifle can. I understand there are concerns and yes, there are some makes and models that have been used in horrible crimes. You could find a lot of non-restricted firearms that you could say the same thing about.

There's a requirement, Mr. Chair, for restricted firearms. Handguns all have to be registered. Did the government ever explore that as an option over the concerns that people have with some semi-automatic firearms? Again, we never had the chance to explore a middle ground here to find a compromise, and that's what we, as a committee, are now being forced to do.

There's another thing I want to put on the record, because I think last week's announcement by the Assembly of First Nations was a game-changer. For a government that has, in the seven years that I've been here, talked about how no relationship is more important than that with first nations, the unanimous resolution from the AFN should serve as a wake-up call.

I want to remind committee members that it was in the previous Parliament that we finally passed an act of Parliament to bring Canada's federal laws into harmony with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If you look at some of the articles of the declaration, it says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.

Again, this goes to their relationship with the land, the resources that are on it, and the fact that hunting is not just something they do for fun. These firearms are tools and they provide for their families with them.

There are many other articles that establish that states, like the Canadian state, have a duty to consult whenever they are implementing changes that affect that relationship and affect the way indigenous peoples can practise their traditions on their lands. We're being asked to do the consultation after the fact.

If we look at the actual law that was passed in the previous Parliament, it states that under the act, the Government of Canada will work “in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, [to] take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration”, as well as “prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration”, and develop annual reports on the progress and submit them to Parliament.

I would submit to this committee that, given the overwhelmingly negative reaction we have seen from indigenous groups, that has not been done. In the House today, when a specific question was asked of Minister Mendicino about the AFN resolution last week, he mentioned that he had spoken to them. That's not consultation with indigenous peoples. I'm sorry, but it's not. You don't announce a policy—an amendment to a bill—and then consult. It happens the other way around. That was obviously not done.

The other thing I want to mention is that we know that Canada, as a state, has a duty under the UN declaration. I don't think that has been met in this case. We haven't had a charter statement issued. I know that for the previous bill, Bill C-21, which was introduced in the 43rd Parliament, the government introduced a charter statement.

Given how expansive this amendment to the bill is—the fact that it is widening the net of what's going to be impacted—I would submit, Mr. Chair, that a charter statement is also needed for this additional section. I don't think a charter statement requirement for this amendment nor compliance with the declaration has been met.

There's been talk about the number of witnesses we need. I absolutely think two meetings are not enough. I think 20 might be too high.

As we've approached this meeting, I've been wondering, what if this had been a stand-alone piece of legislation? If Minister Mendicino felt so strongly about this amendment that he had taken the time to make his case in a 20-minute second reading speech, where we would have 10 minutes of questions and comments to ask him about that and where he could stand in the House to defend why this is a strong idea and why it should be passed in principle and sent to the committee, if that had been the case, then I expect we would have allocated the same number of meetings to such a substantive expansion of firearms legislation as we did to Bill C-71 and Bill C-21.

I would land on eight as a minimum. With eight meetings, I believe we would land somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 witnesses. You'd have to check my math.

We would want to hear from many of the witnesses we've already had on Bill C-21, because again, we never had the chance to ask them about the impact on long guns. We would want to hear from as many indigenous groups as possible. At a bare minimum, we're talking about the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council and ITK representing the Inuit up north. I know there's been mention of a premier. We want to hear from many of the provincial indigenous groups, as well.

We never had the chance to talk to the various police forces that were here about what their opinion is about this. In their experience in law enforcement, is this a massive problem? Is the way this amendment is worded going to help them do their job, etc.? The answer to that might be yes, but we never had a chance to get that on the record.

I would want to have people from my own riding. I was talking with a constituent today on the phone. He's owned firearms for most of his life. He's just bewildered by the fact that his firearm is suddenly appearing on this scheduled list. All he wants to do is have his firearm to be able to go out and hunt. He's ex-military. He knows how to handle a firearm.

It goes to the fact that we've never had the chance, as representatives—in our own ridings and across this country—to talk to people. I understand the intent behind the amendment, but it's an abuse of process to go about it this way. If you have an idea as substantive as this, and you're sure it's the right way to go, then do it the right way. Submit it to the parliamentary process, where it goes through a second reading and a full range of committee meetings, so we have the chance to adequately study it, with the runway to do so—where we can consult with legislative counsel, after hearing from witnesses on whether there might be some appropriate subamendments.

Mr. Chair, I would like to move a very small subamendment.

I agree with the Conservatives that travel will be necessary. I think this committee could benefit from having a lot of that hands-on knowledge. I would keep everything related to travel. My only change, Mr. Chair, would be that we change the number 20 to eight. That would be the bare minimum, because it's giving this substantive amendment the same respect we gave the previous bill, Bill C-71, and the current Bill C-21.

I will close there. I think I've put everything on the record that I needed to. Honestly, we are stuck in the mud right now, in our seventh meeting, precisely because of how this was rolled out. I'm sorry to my Liberal colleagues, but the blame for that lies squarely on their shoulders. They created this mess, and they have to find a way to fix it. It's not our responsibility, as the opposition. We're trying our best with our limited resources, but we do not have the vast and powerful resources of a national government with two departments—Public Safety and Justice. We don't have the ability to create broad, national surveys or go out and talk to people. I have me and my legislative assistant—two people. My caucus has less than 10% of the seats, and we're trying our best to find a way forward.

You have to understand that the reaction you're seeing, not only from members of the opposition but also from the public, is precisely because of how this landed. My Liberal colleagues have to wear that and take responsibility for that.

I'll close with that, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure my subamendment was, in fact, moved.

Judges Act

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to speak to Bill C-9 today. I know this is always an interesting topic, and I have spoken to it at the other stages along the way.

I commend the Liberals for taking on the issue of judge accountability. It seems like an interesting topic for me, given the fact that Conservatives are often critical of the decisions made by judges across Canada. We find their leniency to be annoying. We find the overturning of the mandatory minimum sentencing to be frustrating, and all of those kinds of things, therefore we think there needs to be accountability for judges along the way.

Then there is the issue of comments made by judges in public. We have seen that become an issue. There are also the actions judges may take in their personal lives that are beyond the pale. It is frustrating to the public that folks in a position of authority and a position of stature in our society would behave in such a manner. These are all areas in which we need to have a level of accountability.

The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke talked about the independence of the judiciary. That is an important principle, and the bill would maintain that, for sure.

The bill does a good job around personal behaviour accountability and accountability for comments made by judges outside of their role. It would not necessarily deal with accountability in terms of making judgments and things like that, so I would suggest perhaps there is an opportunity to go forward from here.

We will be supporting the bill. It is a good first step. We have heard from folks across the country around the appeals process. Conservatives put forward recommendations to not make the Supreme Court the final appeal process, but to make the Federal Court of Appeals the final appeal process, and I would have supported that as well.

Ensuring accountability for judgments is an interesting and more complicated area. For as long as I have been here I have been trying to come up with a solution for not only maintaining the independence of the judiciary but also having some sort of accountability for judgments made that are not in line with what the Canadian public agrees with. We have seen this very recently around sexual assault and people who are intoxicated. We have seen horrendous judgments from judges in that respect.

I understand there is the notwithstanding clause here, so that Parliament can pass legislation to clarify a judgment. However, we have seen how the Liberal government has been loath to use the notwithstanding clause and has condemned other governments for using it. The notwithstanding clause is an extreme measure, and it also comes with a five-year renewal process. I do not think that is necessarily a good process.

One of the more fascinating items that has come to my attention, and I throw this out there as more of a possibility, is around judge selection by having a panel of judges put forward. As I understand it, cases are generally assigned to particular judges along the way by a chief justice of sorts. There are jurisdictional regions from which cases come that are assigned to particular judges.

There might be an opportunity for the movement of culture within the decisions that are made by judges to put forward a panel of judges rather than one particular judge. Similar to jury selection, both the prosecution and the defence would then agree upon a particular judge. If three judges were put forward in a particular case, out of the three, the prosecution and the defence would have to agree on a particular judge.

That may in fact be the free market of judges, so to speak, a selection process that would ensure judges' accountability. Judges who were making poor judgments would not get as many cases, therefore it would be a kind of corrective action. I am not a lawyer. I am an auto mechanic, so there may be huge holes in this argument, but it seems to me that it is one way of providing judge accountability without going after the independence of the judiciary.

If this place deals with judges and their inaction or their overturning of laws, because there is an interface there, that would be problematic. Putting politics into the judiciary would also be problematic. We want an independent judiciary, and that is very important. I want to reinforce that. I just put forward the idea around the panel of judges and the judge selection process as a possible opportunity for another mechanism for judge accountability.

I am now going to turn my focus to more broader justice issues in this country. We saw the lowering of sentencing across the board in Bill C-71 and now in Bill C-5. We see how the removal or reduction of sentencing has led to an increase in violent crime across the country.

Folks come to me often about rural crime in their communities and how that seems to be on the increase. Some of it is not so much to do with the laws. The laws have not changed a great deal over the last seven years, but the attitude has. That is really what frustrates me about the Liberals. The Liberals' lack of emphasis on justice and their emphasis on the rehabilitation of the criminal but not on aid to the victims or survivors are the kinds of things that have really frustrated me. There is also the lack of taking seriously the crimes that happen in our communities.

I totally understand that there is a host of things, from our prison system to our justice system to our laws, that come into play. Then there is the administration of all of it. When people feel that the system will work, that their cases will be heard, that justice will be had and, if they are victims of crime, that the person will be taken out of their communities or their property will be returned to them, then there is an appetite to participate.

If none of that is seen to be happening, there is an increasing issue of people not being interested in participating in the justice system. That goes in either of two directions. It goes to desperation in terms of not feeling like their country cares for them, but it also goes to vigilantism, where people take things into their own hands.

The Liberals have completely failed in the administration of justice. It is mostly an attitudinal thing. It is not about the particular laws or the system. It is a lot about where they place their emphasis. We have seen, since the Liberals have taken power, that rural crime and violent crime across this country have been on an upward trajectory. That is because victims do not feel that they will get restitution for the problems they are facing. Criminals do not feel they will be held accountable either.

Constituents contacted me about some pickup truck rolling into their yard. They went outside and there were people stealing scrap metal or copper right out of their yard. They confronted them, and the criminals said to call the police and asked what they were going to do about it. That is exactly what is happening in our communities. It comes from the tacit support for the movement to defund the police, from the lowering of sentencing across the board and from the lack of concern for the victim.

It is not a funding issue. We hear the Liberals saying all the time that they have more funding for all of those issues. It is not the funding that is the issue. It is the attitude. We see it over and over again.

The case in point is probably the border security issue that is tangentially attached to this. Under the Conservatives, we spent a lot less on border security. We also did not have a big problem with people coming across the border illegally. People understood that if they came across the border illegally, we were turning them right back around. When the Conservatives were in government, that was the case. That is my major frustration.

Last, I will talk a little about the firearms situation in Canada.

The Liberal government has let the veil slip. It has been trying to ban, confiscate, make illegal and criminalize firearm ownership in this country, full stop. The Liberals always deny that. They always say they are not doing that. However, they have now let veil slip and have put in an amendment to Bill C-21 that includes hundreds of hunting rifles. They were caught, and now they are saying they did not mean to and did not understand.

The Liberals are the ones who say they know how to define firearms. They are the ones telling us they have the experts on their side. They are the ones who said they paid for all the studies.

If they have done all of that hard work, how come hunting rifles are ending up on the list? They are ending up on the list because the Liberals have let the veil slip. They have been after everyone's firearms, not just the handguns, which we were fine with. We said that if they were going to do this, they were going to do this. We do not think criminals should have firearms.

However, when it comes to hunting rifles and farmers having the tools of their jobs, that is where we have drawn the line. We now know what the Liberals' plans are when it comes to firearm ownership in this country. They want to ban it. They want to criminalize it. They want to confiscate the firearms of everyday Canadians. That is extremely worrying.

This particular bill is about judge accountability, and I commend the Liberals for it. I did not think they had it in them to bring forward a bill on judge accountability. I am happy they have. I think judge accountability is something we need to ensure continues in Canada. I have put forward another mechanism for judge accountability, and I am looking forward to having more discussions on that as well.

However, I am concerned that the issues this country faces around justice and law and order do not come from the particular laws and systems that we have in this place, but from the soft-on-crime attitudes of the Liberals and their lack of concern for public safety. This has caused a dramatic decrease in the safety of everyday Canadians, with the running wild, the unaccountability and the lack of fear that we see from criminals in this country as they operate on the streets of Canada.

That is what I hear more and more from Canadians across the country. Criminals operate with impunity. People ask me about this all the time. Why do these criminals operate in broad daylight? Do they not fear the police? They do not.

We hear from Canadians over and over again that these criminals fear nothing in Canada. They do not fear the judicial system. They do not fear our police. We need to ensure that our police forces have the political backing to do what they need to do to take these guys off our streets. We have to make sure that the justice system takes these criminals off the streets and puts them away for a long time to ensure that our streets are safe. If we do not have safety in our communities, we do not have anything. That is the reality.

Safety and security are the fundamental building blocks of a stable and strong country, and we must maintain that as we watch other things fall apart in this country. That starts with the justice, law and order issues in this country, not to mention the inflation issues, the border security issues and the inability to get a passport. There is a whole host of other things that are falling apart.

We need to ensure that our justice system works and that we feel safe to walk around the streets of Canada. Therefore, I will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to questions and comments.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

Bill C-71 includes a licence-verification requirement, which means people have to verify with the RCMP before they transfer—

[Paula Clarke]

I can speak to Bill C-71 and the transfer requirements for individuals, which are that—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I'll move on to my next one before I run out of time. You're a bit confused. We're a bit confused in this room. You can just imagine the folks who own firearms and who don't have the expertise that we possibly do in this room, so I had better keep going.

Given that many, if not most of the firearms that are banned under proposed paragraph (1.2)(g) were previously non-restricted, it will certainly be a challenge to inform individuals of the new obligations and the status of their property. As was mentioned, with the end of the long-gun registry, presumably there is no way of contacting any individuals based on the firearms they own. However, under the system established by Bill C-71, which required all transfers of non-restricted firearms, even between two individuals, to be recorded with the RCMP, will that data be useful in tracking down the owners of newly prohibited firearms?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

You're being ignored by this government. This democratic government is ignoring the perspective of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have concerns about legislation that disproportionately affects them, and you guys can't even get a meeting. That's very disturbing to me.

The Liberal government has repeatedly said that their legislation doesn't target law-abiding firearms owners, but I think we've seen with Bill C-71, the handgun freeze, and now Bill C-21, that the primary impact of this legislation is solely on law-abiding handgun owners or law-abiding firearms owners. Why do you think that is?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the input from the witnesses, particularly from the witnesses who are experiencing the outcome of gun violence in the operating rooms and in the emergency wards.

My first question will be for Dr. Langmann.

I understand that you appeared before the guns and gangs committee and I'm aware that you completed some research. Did that research reflect on the impact of Bill C-71, which included background checks and forfeiture of firearms to the Crown under prohibition orders? What was the date or time of your research?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

When you came before the committee before on Bill C-71, you voiced your concerns that Bill C-71 may be detrimental to first nations' ability to pass on their culture and heritage in Canada. Do you want to elaborate on how Bill C-21 may or may not have a similar impact?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Regional Chief Teegee.

Both of you have mentioned a bit of concern with Bill C-21.

Vice-Chief Bear, you mentioned with Bill C-71 when you came before the committee that you were concerned it would impact the ability for indigenous peoples to pass along their culture of hunting and trapping.

I would appreciate it if you'd both elaborate on that as well.

Go ahead, Vice-Chief Bear.

[Vice-Chief Heather Bear, Fourth Vice-Chief, Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations]

Thank you. I'm speaking from the beautiful unceded, unsurrendered Treaty 6 territory this morning.

Thank you for asking the FSIN to appear as a witness on this important hearing regarding firearms legislation.

The FSIN promotes and protects the interests of 73 first nations in the province of Saskatchewan, and we are committed to honouring the spirit and the intent of the treaties, as well as the promotion, protection and implementation of treaty promises. I wish to speak today about the first nations' inherent, treaty and constitutionally protected rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather, and the continued struggle that our people face when it comes to systemic racism.

The assertion of our right to hunt is fundamental to the treaty promises that were made to first nations. We understand that Bill C-21 is being put forward to address public safety concerns and includes a freeze on hunting, red flag and yellow flag laws, provisions to prevent the smuggling and trafficking of illegal firearms, the prohibition of air guns and changes to the Criminal Code.

First nations are aware of safety concerns when it involves the protection of vulnerable people and likely have no issues with the freeze of handguns, or red flag laws, as our first nations are plagued with poverty, addiction, gangs and a drug crisis that seems to be worsening every day. It's one of the reasons we call for resources to establish our own legal systems, which include tribal police forces. When it comes to the safety of our nations, we support legislation that protects our women and LGBTQ+ persons and our citizens.

While we recognize the need to have the provisions to protect individuals who may be in immediate danger, when it comes to the yellow flag laws and the Criminal Code changes, there are concerns that these provisions could be abused to target first nations citizens. This is especially concerning for treaty sustenance hunters, who will be impacted by the yellow flag laws when they choose to carry a licence. The legislation provides that anyone can contact a chief firearms officer, a CFO, to report someone under the yellow flag regime. It could lead to the potential abuse of this section by having someone complain to a CFO with little information, thereby triggering an investigation.

Everyone in Saskatchewan knows that tensions are high between private land users and treaty sustenance hunters. It is therefore concerning that some private land users could report anyone they see out hunting—which many do already—and that the sustenance hunter could have his licence revoked and his guns confiscated. When guns are confiscated from sustenance hunters, it impacts them and their families when they have merely been trying to put food on the table.

When guns are confiscated it may also impact the whole nation, especially those who hunt for ceremonial purposes, in that sometimes we only need traditional food for ceremonies. These ceremonies include feasts. We also hunt to feed our people at funerals and to celebrate. We hunt for a lot of gatherings and occasions, so when you confiscate guns, you are doing a whole lot more than just taking away a gun.

If there are no safety issues and there is no issue of domestic violence or any kind of violence, then taking away a gun impacts our nations and our citizens' ability to assert our inherent, and treaty and constitutional rights. We also view our guns as a tool of our first nations sustenance hunters.

Now we know that this new law is about revoking a licence, but many of our hunters do not get a licence because their treaty did not require a licence for our people to hunt. First nations people have an inherent and treaty right to hunt, and do not require a licence or PAL to assert that right. Despite this, our hunters are harassed by conservation officers and the RCMP.

While the intent of Bill C-21 is to address public safety issues, I would recommend amendments to ensure that it is clear in the legislation that treaty hunters do not need a PAL or a licence when asserting their inherent, treaty and constitutional right to hunt. This is the reason we did not agree with some of Bill C-71, and this new legislation is another piece of imposed law that we have to deal with, especially when our people experience systemic racism. We know that our people are overpoliced and are overrepresented in the legal systems and jails. This new law talks about an exception for sustenance hunters, but we know that if a first nations person is asking for an exception to allow him to hunt, many judges would have a hard time letting that happen, because our people are not treated fairly and are assumed to be guilty of something.

Canada needs to do better at addressing the systemic racism that exists in the colonial system. Canada needs to change these systems so that our people are treated equally.

Canada needs to work with us on bringing back our own laws. Canada needs to provide the resources so that we can establish our own systems.

Canada needs to be mindful of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to our ability to practise our ways of life. That includes hunting for sustenance and ceremonial purposes.

Canada also needs to take note of articles 2, 5, 11 and 15, and play an active role in preventing the ongoing systemic racism and injustices experienced by first nations every day.

If Canada can do all that, we will achieve true reconciliation.

Thank you.

[Heidi Rathjen, Coordinator, PolySeSouvient]

Since we have little time, I'm just going to focus on some of the key amendments we are hoping to convince the committee to adopt.

The first amendment we are eagerly awaiting is one that was promised by Minister Mendicino on the day this bill was tabled, that is, to introduce a comprehensive ban on assault weapons, including those that were not captured by the May 2020 orders in council.

The second is in terms of domestic violence. Remove clauses 4 to 12, which introduce American-style red flag measures. That is not needed, relevant or helpful in the Canadian context.

The third is to strengthen the wording of clause 36 of the bill, instructing chief firearms officers to refuse or revoke a licence when they determine an individual has been involved in “domestic violence or stalking”. It should not be up to one person to subjectively determine whether or not such an occurrence has taken place, as the definition varies, and also because some provincial firearms officers have been appointed—literally appointed—to protect gun owners' rights.

The fourth is to amend clause 36 of the bill to exclude employment as a justification for exempting an individual from licence revocation linked to a protection order.

The fifth is to include an expansive definition of “domestic violence” to include all intimate and family violence, including non-physical forms like coercive control and threats of suicide.

The sixth, regarding handguns, is to limit the current blanket exemptions from the handgun freeze for businesses in order to exclude gun clubs and gun ranges, and exempt only retailers who provide handguns to police or security firms, and only for those specific handguns.

The seventh is to restrict the exemption for Olympic shooting disciplines to those that are currently on the program of the Olympics. Failing to provide other legislative solutions, limit the exemptions to coaches and athletes who currently compete, train or coach in handgun-shooting Olympic disciplines, instead of the blanket exemption for any and all future beginners. In addition, the exemption should apply only to handguns that are used in Olympic disciplines. We would obviously strongly oppose any expansion of the exemption beyond the Olympic exemption.

The eighth is to amend the bill to ensure continuous eligibility for the Olympic exemption—not a lifetime exemption, as it is written now, by requiring an annual letter to the chief firearms officers. This principle of continuous eligibility should also apply to the legal qualification to owner-restricted weapons.

The ninth is magazines. Do not neglect the issue of large-capacity magazines. The government has promised regulations to ban magazines that can be converted to their full illegal capacity, as has been done by a number of mass shooters. This is a good thing. However, there are many other exemptions and loopholes that also need to be eliminated.

Finally, we hope the committee will push for rapid drafting of regulations alongside the bill. Experience has taught us that regulations can make or break a measure. Providing draft regulations in a timely manner is a way to be transparent on how these measures will look once implemented. It took four years to enact regulations after the tabling of Bill C-71. This is scandalous and should not be repeated.

Justice

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we have been serious about protecting Canadians since we got elected. Our number one priority is to keep Canadians safe, and that is why we have introduced common sense firearms legislation, such Bill C-71 and and Bill C-21, which is at committee right now. These would keep Canadians safe. These measures are supported by Canadians, and we hope that the hon. members across the way will support us in this legislation.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much.

My first question is for the RCMP. We've had some conversations around “red flag”. The minister answered some questions.

I recall that when we studied Bill C-71, the Conservative Party opposed lifetime background checks. At the time, they were not supportive of any kind of a reporting system for mental health issues, yet we know that 75% or 80%, I think it is, of people who die by firearms are dying by suicide. Also, we know that women in particular are at risk when there's a firearm in the home. There's data that strongly supports the risk to women when there's a firearm in the home.

One of the things we did in Bill C-71 was that we extended to lifetime background checks. We listened to witnesses like Dr. Alan Drummond and Alison Irons, who talked about the need to strengthen red flags. We do have something in the bill that is better than what was in the previous version of Bill C-21, because people can remain anonymous.

That said, we also know that it's up to a judge to issue a prohibition order, and we don't control how a judge decides in a case. If a woman does go to court for that red flag, she can do it anonymously or through a women's shelter and she can appeal to the court, but we're relying on a judge to issue a prohibition order.

I was really heartened when I saw the mandate letter that was given to the RCMP that was also going to resource the chief firearms officer to ensure that calls are responded to promptly, and also, in working with local police services—in my area, it would be the Halton police service—ensure that if someone is reporting an issue with someone who has a firearm, whether that's for mental health or for gender-based violence, it's responded to in a timely manner.

Could you update us on how important that work by the chief firearms officer is and how we are progressing on that?