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.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

The motion mentions Bill C-71, Chair.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

It's relevant to this motion, in my opinion, simply because some of these issues for Bill C-71 are specific to what the government was intending to try to deal with inside of the bill, which unfortunately has failed miserably.

If we actually want to make Bill C-71 a bill that's going to impact public safety, let's bring it back to the committee. Let's study the things that both Ms. Damoff has in her motion coming up and Ms. Dabrusin has in hers, so we can actually study this. It could become something that will impact Canadians and not just a recommendation.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would propose that this committee call on the House to return Bill C-71 to the committee to complete the recommendation that's identified in this motion.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Okay. That's perfect. I'll just jump in.

Recommendations b) and c) were specifically referenced by the minister in his speech when he spoke to Bill C-71. We had some very fulsome discussions about the Bill C-71 legislation. All of the points raised in this notice of motion are about things that are more operational and perhaps regulatory. They're not legislative matters but things that are coming out of what witnesses have said, and what the minister himself referenced in his speech in the House as things that should also be considered.

I would propose that we adopt this motion.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you.

Chair, I'd like to give notice of a motion:

That, the Committee invite the Minister of Public Safety to appear before it, no later than Thursday, June 21, 2018, to provide an explanation of the discrepancies found in the list of individuals he claims to have consulted on Bill C-71.

Public Safety and National Security

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Export and Import Permits Act

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when speaking about Bill C-47, we must remind ourselves to mention the current regime we have in Canada regarding arms trade control. Since 1947, when Canada adopted such a control regime, the minister has had the ability to prevent the supply of military equipment to countries for a variety of reasons. These reasons include that they are security threats, are involved in internal or external conflict, or are under sanction by the United Nations. We have the ultimate control over the arms trade in Canada, and it is something we have always been proud of and will continue to be.

Canada can utilize a blanket ban on trade with at-risk countries through the use of the area control list. A blanket ban means that we use all the methods we have and all the tools to put tight control on arms and military equipment that can harm innocent civilians. Under the area control list, we have the Export and Import Permits Act. Through the Governor in Council, a country can be placed on this list. At the current time, for example, North Korea is on that list.

Again, our current protocol is very strong, probably the strongest the world has ever seen. On top of that, we already heavily restrict many specific items that may be of concern, including military and missile items and chemical or biological goods, just to name a few. Furthermore, Canada already tracks and records more than what is required under the Arms Trade Treaty. Our arms control system, as I said earlier, is very tight and very strong to be able to deliver beyond any threat that may occur anywhere those arms go, including any country, regime, or army, around the world.

We also know that the Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada collect information on exports from Canada of every single item that may be work-in-progress items or finished goods. We have those protocols in place, and as I said earlier, we are very proud of what we have been able to do.

Collectively, we are left with a process that amounts to little more than a virtue-signalling campaign by the government. It is unfortunate that politics gets into the issue. When we speak about our concerns and when we point out our views on this topic, the first thing that comes from the government is that this is fearmongering by the Conservatives, which, first of all, is not fair. It is not true that we are doing this. We are pointing out facts and logical positions we have taken for years. We have studied what we have and have made comparisons between what we are trying to adopt now and what we had before.

If this process is a total waste of time, then we must say so. We must protest and make sure that Canadians know about it so that at least they can understand what we are discussing here.

Speaking of Canadians, we know they want a strong arms control treaty, but guess what? They have one. It has been in existence since 1947. If we were to ask anyone out there, they would say that Canada has the best arms control regime or protocol in the world already, so why not adapt our existing one rather having to adopt another bill, another treaty, or other controls coming from another party, whether it is the United Nations or others? We represent the finest example of putting controls on such an important thing in the international community. Canadians need that clarification. Our job here in the House, as representatives of our constituents and every Canadian, is to clarify that and to make sure that Canadians know what the government is willing to sign onto in order supposedly to move us forward, and that it not take a backward step, as was said by some witnesses and in some of the consultations we had on our own.

This bill fails to address the potential adverse effects on law-abiding firearms owners. That area was discussed heavily at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. It is definitely an area the government has shied away from, even diminished, when it presented Bill C-47 in its current form.

Going back to Bill C-71, which is supposed to deal with those concerns, we know that when the Liberals introduced that bill, they confirmed that they were not concerned about the rights of hunters, farmers, and sports shooters. I recall at committee that we were trying to improve that area so that law-abiding Canadians would not fall victim to this whole process, but we were not able to achieve a result that would satisfy and take a fair stand when it comes to law-abiding Canadians, whether hunters, farmers, or sports shooters, who want to own firearms.

I have to mention that the former Conservative government requested that civilian firearms specifically be removed from the treaty in order to protect the interests of Canada's lawful firearms community. I recall Conservatives doing that. We did it in the House and at committee, and it fell on the deaf ears of the opposition at the time. It is unfortunate that we had to face that at the time. It is unfortunate that we have had to go through such difficulties. We are asking that it at least be fair. We are not asking for anything more than to be fair to hunters and farmers and, unfortunately, we have not obtained that.

The Liberals have decided to move forward with signing the ATT, with little or no consultation with lawful gun owners. They do not respect the legitimate trade in or use of hunting and sports firearms. Again, it bothers everyone out there, including us politicians, that despite the government's talk and advertising of consultation, saying that it is now the government that Canadians have been waiting forever for to consult with and ask questions of, we have been left with very little or no consultation.

The irony is that the government always says that it hears people and has consulted, as if it is the only entity doing politics, or working with, or representing, or listening to people. We do listen to people. We receive letters, complaints, and phone calls, and we know that the government is not listening enough. While this is not surprising, it is definitely a continuation of a disappointing pattern of disrespect and disregard by the government.

In short, this bill is unnecessary. The first time I spoke on this bill at second reading, I said it was ineffective, unnecessary, and for sure a step backward. It will never be a step forward. It will basically diminish what we have done for years. Our record shows that we are leaders with our current regime, that we are world leaders in legislating the Arms Trade Treaty. Here we are in 2018, and supposedly we are doing things to make improvements, but this is a step backwards and it is unnecessary and not fair. As I have said, it is unnecessary, unfair, and ineffective.

Upon its implementation, we would be worse off than we are today. For all of the reasons I and many of my Conservative colleagues have mentioned, this bill would not serve Canada, Canadians, and the world as the government is claiming. We will not support it.

Criminal Code

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-75, the Liberal government's justice reform bill.

Sadly, I cannot find a lot of good things to report about the bill to the House, to my riding, or to Canadians at large, for that matter. Like a number of the Liberal government's legislative measures, the purpose of the bill, as presented by the Liberal front bench, does not always match what the bill actually proposes to do.

In Bill C-71, the Minister of Public Safety used tragic shootings in the United States, shootings in Canada, and a guns and gangs summit in Ottawa to suggest he was putting forward legislation that would tackle illegal guns, gangs, and violent criminals. The sad reality is that the legislation he has proposed never once mentions gangs or organized crime, and does nothing to deal with illegal weapons and crimes caused by them.

Prior to that, the Minister of Public Safety had introduced Bill C-59, a bill he claimed would strengthen our national security and protect Canadians. Again, the reality was very different, as the bill would move nearly $100 million dollars from active security and intelligence work that protects Canadians to administrative and oversight mechanisms.

Worst of all, the Minister of Public Safety made bold claims about moving the bill to committee before second reading, stating:

I would inform the House that, in the interests of transparency, we will be referring this bill to committee before second reading, which will allow for a broader scope of discussion and consideration and possible amendment of the bill in the committee when that deliberation begins.

When it came time to actually consider reasonable, bold, or even small amendments, the Liberals fought tooth and nail to ensure the bill did not change in scope or scale. The results are poor for Canadians and for those who work in national security, more people looking over shoulders, tougher rules, more paperwork, and few, if any, benefits, as front-line efforts to protect Canadians only become more difficult.

Under Bill C-75, we see the same old story. The justice minister made bold claims that she would be helping address the backlog of cases created when the Supreme Court imposed a maximum time frame for cases. The minister made these claims. The legislation would improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system and reduce court delays. It would strengthen response to domestic violence. It would streamline bail hearings. It would provide more tools to judges. It would improve jury selection. It would free up limited court resources by reclassifying serious offences. It sounds like a great bill. Streamline the courts? Strengthen response to domestic violence? Provide more tools for judges? That all sounds fantastic.

Sadly, the Liberals are not achieving any of these objectives according to the legal community nor according to many knowledgeable leaders in the House. Does it shorten trials and ensure that we deal with the backlog? No. The minister appears to make this claim on the elimination of most preliminary hearings.

Preliminary hearings, according the Canadian legal community, account for just 3% of all court time. With an overloaded court system, eliminating a huge number of these hearings will only make a small impact. That impact, unfortunately, will be offset by potentially worse results.

Preliminary hearings are used and can often weed out the weakest cases, which means that more of the weak cases will go to trial if we eliminate the preliminary hearings. That will increase court times. Moreover, preliminary trials can deal with issues up front and make trials more focused. Instead, many cases will be longer with added procedural and legal arguments.

One member of the legal community called this bill “a solution to a problem that does not exist." That is high praise indeed. However, it is the changes to serious criminal offences that have many Canadians, not just the legal community, concerned.

I think all members of the House could agree, or at least accept, that not all Criminal Code issues need to be treated the same and that threshold for punishment should also not be treated the same. However, Canadians expect that Ottawa will ensure we have safe streets, and that the law benefits all people like the law-abiding and victims, not just slanted in favour of the convicted criminals. The Liberals seem to be more focused on making life harder on the law-abiding and easier on criminals.

Under Bill C-75, the Liberals have provided the option to proceed with a large number of violent offences by way of summary conviction rather than an indictable offence. This means that violent criminals may receive no more than the proposed 12 months in jail or a fine for their crimes, crimes such as a slap on the wrist for things like participation in a terrorist organization, obstructing justice, assault with a weapon, forced marriage, abduction, advocating genocide, participation in a criminal organization, and trafficking, just to name a very few.

There are many more, but it bears looking at a few in particular. These are serious offences. Allowing these criminals back on the streets with little to no deterrence makes even less sense.

Assault with a weapon, as we know, is when someone uses a weapon that is not a firearm, such as a bat, a hammer, or any sort of item, to attack someone else. These are not minor occurrences. They are serious criminal issues that should have the full force and effect of the law. Abduction is another serious offence. It could involve children taken from parents or intimate partner violence, or it could be combined with a number of other offences for kidnapping and forced confinement.

In none of these scenarios are the victims or society better served when those responsible for these types of offences serve only a minimal jail sentence or receive a fine. The principle is that Canadians expect that our government and our courts will be there to ensure that criminals receive punishment for their crimes, and that good, law-abiding Canadians and those who have been victimized by these criminals are treated well and fairly.

However, the average Canadian cannot see how making sentences shorter on criminals would meet this basic test. The fact is that it does not meet that test. What it does is address another problem. It potentially reduces court backlogs with the promise of reduced sentences. Therefore, it solves the minister's problem. That is perhaps the part we should be looking at. The Minister of Justice is not here to solve her own problems; she is here to serve Canadians and fix their problems. As my colleagues have pointed out very clearly, there are other solutions, better solutions, in fact.

The minister has addressed the backlog with judicial appointments. I note that 20 have been made this year. However, that is not nearly enough to deal with the problems, as there are still so many more vacancies all across this land. The former minister of justice said, “in my six years as minister of justice, there was never a shortage of qualified candidates”. Therefore, it is not a failure of the judiciary. It is not that there are too many preliminary hearings. It is not that there are way more criminals, as crime rates overall have been declining. The problem resides almost entirely with the minister and the government getting more people on the bench and in the prosecutorial services.

As I have said in the House before, public safety and national security should be the top priority of the House and should be above politics, so that the safety and security of Canadians are put ahead of political fortunes. While the Liberals have said that public safety is a priority, they have said that everything else is their top priority as well. To have 300 or more top priorities is to have no priorities at all.

Canadians expect that the government will make them its top priority. Sadly, this bill fails the test to keep Canadians safe and deliver effective government. The legal community has said that this bill is deeply flawed and would hurt the legal system rather than help it. Police officers will likely see themselves arresting the same people over and over again as criminals get lighter sentences or fines on summary convictions. Therefore, the backlog will move from the courts to the policing community and back to the courts. How does that help the average Canadian?

In closing, I am of the opinion that Canada is going to be weaker after the Liberals leave office in 2019, and far weaker than when they entered office. Their wedge politics on the values test, pandering to terrorists, ignoring threats from China, targeting law-abiding gun owners, lack of leadership on illegal border crossers, and waffling on resource development continue to put Canadians at a serious disadvantage that weakens our public safety and national security and places undue strain on families and communities.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Chair, this just confirms what everybody in Canada who has been paying attention to this debate has known all along: that this is the fire, ready, and aim approach that the government has taken when it comes to firearms.

I find it regrettable that the motions for which we have just been given notice in front of this committee weren't given on day two of the standing up of this committee after the last election. I shudder to think of what Bill C-71 actually might have looked like had this committee had the opportunity to pursue these two notices of motion and had thoroughly studied and brought back some recommendations to the government for a bill that might effectively have reduced crime and actually improved public safety.

It seems a bit rich to me that with less than a year to go in the parliamentary calendar, this committee is going to be embarking on this. It sounds to me like the Government of Canada and this committee are pursuing a Liberal platform for the next election campaign rather than actually pursuing good legislation on behalf of Canadians.

This committee has also been tasked with a motion that was just passed unanimously in the House of Commons dealing with rural crime, and my guess is that will get short shrift when it's compared to these notices of motion, which I'm sure will be passed next week by the majority of members on this committee.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the committee's benefit, and given my role as vice-chair, I want to point out that there really has not been enough consultation on Bill C-71. Furthermore, as I have already said, the bill does nothing to oppose criminals; it attacks honest citizens.

The most important point, and I want this to be clear, is that indigenous people consider Bill C-71 unconstitutional as far as it concerns them. If indigenous people do not have to comply with the requirements of this bill, that will constitute a form of segregation from other Canadian citizens, who will be required to comply. I simply wanted to underscore that fact.

Thank you.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

No, I'm fine. We can continue.

This amendment isn't complicated. It simply concerns the terminology used in the title, "Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted." Bill C-71 proposes to replace the last part with "or Restricted." The purpose of this amendment is to replace this title with "Regulations Prescribing the Legal Status of Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components, Accessories, Ammunition and Projectiles."

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know you're fed up, but it's almost over.

We have worked hard to improve Bill C-71. Unfortunately, we have not achieved the desired result. What can I say? Next year, we'll be able to take back control.

I could read you a passage from page 972 of O'Brien and Bosc, which states that it is important that members who sit on the committees have a good working relationship and get along with each other. Members are appointed to a committee on a permanent basis to improve their skills and abilities. My NDP friend, for example, has been sitting on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for a long time, and he knows his business. On our side, we are improving day by day, and it's a pleasure for me to work with you. The fact remains that it will be different next year.

For the moment, let's get back to amendment CPC-47. We are asking that subsection 117.15(3) of the Criminal Code, which provides that a firearm may be prescribed to be a non-restricted firearm despite the definitions of the terms "prohibited firearm" and "restricted firearm," be retained. However, we maintain that subsection 117.15(4) of the Criminal Code, according to which a firearm may be prescribed to be a restricted firearm, should be repealed.

What I have said will change nothing, but it's nevertheless a pleasure for me to speak. My impression is that we, on our side, are the only ones who are warm.

Do you have anything to add?

[Randall Koops]

There are, in Bill C-71, two very different sets of coming into force provisions. There are the provisions that will come into force on royal assent. However, clause 15 is not among them.

As drafted, clause 15 related to the issuance of ATTs would come into force on a day to be determined by the Governor in Council. The amendment would substitute that discretion of the Governor in Council with, I believe, a three-year mandatory coming into force period. The intent of coming into force by order of the Governor in Council is to allow, just as you suggested, Mr. Motz, that the Canadian firearms program and chief firearms officers have adequate time to make the necessary arrangements in their systems but also in their practices and to ensure that the transition is smooth and orderly.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

This has to do with the deadline for the new ATTs, the changes in the rules that come into effect to allow a reasonable adjustment, which will take place well after the next election.

If you look at Bill C-71 in clause 15, we're talking about replacing line 23 on page 10 with the following:

prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm are revoked on the 3rd anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force, namely

Proposed section 135.1 revokes the ability to transport prohibited and restricted firearms and it makes that start as soon as the bill comes into force. This amendment would change the coming into force to allow a reasonable amount of adjustment time for the government to properly establish, fund, and operationalize their process for providing authorizations to transport.

Having spoken with some chief firearms officers and knowing that they are already underfunded and backlogged, I know that the ability to handle the expected influx of the requests as soon as the bill receives royal assent is somewhere between ridiculous and outrageous, depending on your expectations of the government.

I would therefore submit that should the government want to revoke the reasonable ATTs that exist today, they should take the time to ensure that the systems are in place first.

After making that statement, I would liken this to the Phoenix program, which the government was clearly told not to implement until it was ready, as well as the way we don't have a plan for the illegal border crossers. Perhaps we need to stop making the same mistakes over and over again, but I doubt that's going to happen. It seems to be a consistent practice that we're going to vote everything down that comes from a Conservative.

If I remember right, when Bill C-42came into effect, there was huge push-back from the RCMP and from officials from the firearms program, Mr. O'Reilly, about how it was not possible to get this act implemented and all the rules put in place and how you would need long-term timelines to make that happen.

I see with Bill C-71 that there's no indication of that, and yet we do know that there are backlogs for firearms officers, CFOs, and we know that there will be huge amounts of backlogs for them, and they are underfunded. I'm wondering what your take is on waiting, as the amendment says, until the third anniversary after this becomes law before the changes to the new ATTs take effect.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to applaud my colleague for presenting this amendment, because I think it speaks to where we find ourselves with the majority—97.3% of gun owners, based on the statistics—who have never committed a crime with their firearm. Because of a paper error, we potentially are going to create for them criminal records.

If public safety is the ultimate goal of Bill C-71, which we are told repeatedly that it is, then it would be reasonable to accept this amendment for an individual who has committed an infraction of which they are unaware, as we have said before, with respect to a paper infraction.

I can tell you from my experience in my previous life that when you come across someone who has committed a minor offence—a bylaw offence, a minor Criminal Code offence, a traffic infraction, anything—and they actually don't know that what they've done is wrong—