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]

Thank you, Chair.

One of the things this committee heard about, particularly in the testimony of Dr. Gary Mauser, Professor Emeritus, is the fact that in the past this bill has created a lot of paper criminals. This is a long-standing frustration of law-abiding firearms owners. This is actually why they're so up in arms and incensed with Bill C-71. Again, they feel that it is an attack on the law-abiding citizen rather than an actual focus on going after criminals, organized crime, contraband, and all of those things.

As Mr. Mauser pointed out in his testimony when he appeared before the committee, on average there are about 15,000 firearms charges and subsequent other Criminal Code charges that are laid as a result of these particular issues, so what I'm proposing—and I'm hoping my colleagues will see it—is that in the event that somebody finds themself offside with the law in the sense that it's only a paper crime for which there is actually no victim.... For example, a police officer goes to a house for an unrelated reason, sees a firearm that's not being properly stored, and lays a charge in accordance with the Criminal Code or the Firearms Act, when there is no victim.

We can have a debate or argue all the time about whether or not public safety is actually served by that, but I would appeal to the angels in the room. If we actually don't have a victim, we shouldn't be sending people to jail. We have enough people in this country who are committing crimes for which there are plenty of victims and for whom the rationale of giving them light sentences, parole, or bail is that we don't have incarceration space for them. That is a reality.

I'm proposing this amendment so that it can give at least some assurance to law-abiding firearms owners who, through something that might have happened inadvertently or a result of a misunderstanding of the legislation or what have you, find themselves.... Unless we actually have a victim or somebody who is harmed as a result of a violation of this act, we shouldn't be sending people to jail.

I'm moving this and hoping that the folks in the room see its reasonableness. This is a reasonable amendment. I'm all for cracking down on actual perpetrators, on people who actually commit offences and have the intention to either deprive people of their property or commit harm to another person, but for those who don't do that, I want to give them at least some small victory. The fact is that Bill C-71 is going to pass, much to their concern. I'm hoping that we can give them this victory, Mr. Chair. I think this is beyond reasonable, and it shouldn't be a partisan issue at the table.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'll likely get to that after I go through my thoughts on this.

This amendment is put forward by a rural Liberal MP who won his seat by a handful of votes and understands the travesty of justice that Bill C-71 poses for law-abiding firearms owners. He is seeking protection and amelioration for himself and some of his colleagues for what he knows is coming once this law is passed.

It's unfortunate that he's not here to present the motion himself tonight. On his behalf, I would like to challenge your ruling, Mr. Chair, because I don't believe this is beyond the scope. It fits in nicely with everything that we're discussing, which is licensing provisions and transaction provisions for the transfer of firearms between one licence-holder and another. This is paramount. The fact that this Bill C-71 changes how licences can be granted is certainly within the scope of this legislation.

Therefore, I believe that Mr. Bossio's addition through this amendment, which also changes how licence rejections can be appealed, is in order and should be allowed to be debated before this House. I would like the opportunity to do so and the only means I have is to challenge your ruling.

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

So you're telling me it's already provided in the Firearms Act. An owner who has new obligations under Bill C-71 is automatically protected by the Firearms Act.

Are you confirming that for me?

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

Thank you, Chair. I would like to move my amendment and debate it. I'm assuming I have the floor.

Mr. Chair, this amendment proposes a similar change, namely that Bill C-71, in clause 7, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 8 with “in the circumstances that may be prescribed or seven years after the records were transmitted to them, whichever is earlier.”

I'm proposing this because notwithstanding the evidence that we've heard here today about what might be a norm, my concerns are now exacerbated by the understanding that there is a proviso in the legislation that allows for an automatic extension of the 20-year period to something larger as a result of Canada assenting to the international trade agreement that was brought to my attention just now, which is CIFTA. Without knowing what that prescribed period or timeline actually is, the record-keeping norms we have in Canada would suggest a keeping of the records for seven years, which is how long we have to keep tax information and all other manner of documentation in terms of government record-keeping.

Notwithstanding virtually every rationale that a firearms vendor would have on behalf of whoever the supplier or the original manufacturer might be, I'm not aware of any reason to go beyond seven years for conditions of warranty or what have you. That is the normal reason for a vendor to keep that information on behalf of the manufacturer, in case there is a warranty issue, not particularly because it's a public safety concern.

Given the fact that the previous motion to reduce the 20 years down to 10 was defeated, and that the motion to get rid of the clause that would allow anybody to extend the 20-year period was defeated as well, I don't hold out much hope for this one, but I'd like to move it nonetheless.

[Randall Koops]

Yes, the international standard for keeping records is at least 20 years. The United States requires 20 years, and the same period is proposed in Bill C-71.

[Randall Koops]

I'd like to explain to you the nature of the impact that amendment would have in the context of Bill C-71 as currently drafted.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The purpose of this amendment is to require the registrar to inform the transferor if he refuses to provide a reference number. In its present form, Bill C-71 provides that the registrar may so inform the transferor. However, in amendment CPC-29.1, we propose to say that the registrar "must", not "may," so inform the transferor.

[Rob O'Reilly]

Because the business record-keeping requirements that are also introduced in Bill C-71 would obligate businesses to record their first point of sale. The first point of sale, presumably, in the example I'm giving, would lead to you as the person who acquired that firearm from a vendor in Manitoba, for example.

You would then be able to say that you are the current owner of that firearm or to suggest that you transferred the firearm to somebody and in doing so verified their licence with the registrar of firearms. You would be able to have it confirmed by the existence of a reference number attached to your licence, indicating that, yes, you indeed did verify the licence at that period of time. Then it would allow the chain of custody to continue to the other person attached to that reference number, namely, presumably, the buyer of that firearm.

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

It will be prescribed in the regulations. Do you have any idea of what that prescribed period might be? What would you be proposing to the minister upon the passage of Bill C-71? What would be the recommendation from the department to the minister for the prescribed period?

[Rob O'Reilly]

I'm sorry. I don't have exact numbers in front of me.

I know that the elements of Bill C-71 that were being proposed were subject to an implementation plan that would put appropriate human and monetary resources in place. I believe the costing of that would be part of a future Treasury Board submission.

[Rob O'Reilly]

The transfer number, as proposed under Bill C-71, would be kept in the Canadian firearms information system database, in a segregated database as part of CFIS.

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

Well, in fact, if they do not have a licence and they sell a firearm today, before Bill C-71, they run the risk of being criminally sanctioned and can receive a five-year prison sentence. Is that correct?

[Randall Koops]

That is not to suggest that transfers that are occurring now under the law as it currently stands are in any way illegal or deficient. It's that Bill C-71 proposes a change to the current process.

[Randall Koops]

Not at all.

Bill C-71 is proposing that there be a means of obliging vendors to verify that a purchaser has a valid licence. In turn, that vendor or seller, the transferor in the terms of the legislation, then has a reference number that proves they did their due diligence as required by law, and checked the validity of the licence of the purchaser.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, CPC-2 clarified what this committee almost unanimously has understood from the beginning, which is that C-71 is not a registry. I welcomed Mr. Paul-Hus introducing that amendment. I think that because we accepted that amendment, what he's talking about here, frankly, and in other amendments that follow is rendered moot.