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.

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

All right.

This is a very important amendment.

Mr. Chair, even if the Liberals adopt the bill as it stands, the fact remains that, despite the amendment we adopted on Tuesday, this is a kind of registry because the established concept is consistent with that of a registry. At the same time, I'm pleased to see that the Liberals have voted to add a line to the bill providing that this is not a registry, but, in actual fact, what is here will nevertheless stand.

I received a letter from a Calgary couple, Mr. and Mrs. Delamont, who had an idea for a way to simplify the process. We were short of time, we had four meetings, and we didn't really have enough time to do everything we wanted to do and conduct a good study of Bill C-71. Our travel was also denied.

Amendment CPC-23 eliminates the obligation to issue a reference number and requires only that the transferor's licence be verified as valid. That would be enough, somewhat as we have just done with amendment NDP-2.

Adding verifications and reference numbers is merely one way of restoring, once again, a kind of verification, a kind of registry—we'll call it what we want.

[Rob O'Reilly]

No, except that what would be occurring under Bill C-71 when an individual is issued an ATT to a gunsmith for repair, the ATT they would be receiving would be to that specific gunsmith at a specific window of time. The ATT they would be issued would indicate their place of residence, the gunsmith to which they are going, and the period of time of validity. It wouldn't simply be added to the licence automatically.

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

What I've had gun owners tell me—and what you've confirmed for me, basically—is that, by changing the ATT rules, we're suggesting that there's a public safety risk in taking my firearm to a gun shop or a repair shop. If there were not a public safety risk, we wouldn't be here today, unless there's some other motivation.

There's no evidence to support that suggestion at all—zero. No witness at the committee and no evidence I've ever read would suggest that there is a reason because this does not pose a public safety risk. If it doesn't pose a public safety risk—and C-71 is supposed to be all about public safety—why are we doing this?

[Rob O'Reilly]

That's correct. Right now, we will be operating our call centre staff— the individuals who would issue authorizations to transport—nationally, from 9 a.m. until 7 p.m., Monday to Friday, I believe.

Part of our implementation strategy for C-71 will be the creation of an online portal, which will allow individuals to electronically make application for an authorization to transport.

[Randall Koops]

When he was before you he talked about the intent as being preserving, for firearms owners, the automatic ATT for the vast majority of reasons for which they would transport their firearms: to bring them home, and bring them to and from the range, for those that are authorized to go to the range.

Of all the many purposes for which one can transport a firearm, the other types of activities are less frequent and the minister has proposed, through Bill C-71, that some of those activities no longer be automatic, for example going to the border with a firearm. That is not as frequent an occurrence for most firearms owners as either taking the firearm home or taking the firearm to the range.

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

Right. What I'm getting at is this. A law-abiding gun owner will “trigger-lock” their firearm, put it in a locked case, and they will transport it out of sight, in all circumstances unless it's impossible to do so, generally in a trunk or something thereabouts.

This isn't just thugs running around transporting their firearms, as Mr. Holland had suggested in the House. There are clear rules. Those rules apply and are followed by law-abiding gun owners.

I'm curious to know what we hope to accomplish. I go back to you, Mr. Koops, on this. What did we hope to accomplish by restricting the ATTs? I'm still unclear. We had no identifiable issues with individuals who are legally transporting their firearms. You are putting more restrictions on them now under Bill C-71.

If this bill, which the minister told us was ultimately about public safety.... You said it limits their ability to travel from point A to point B; they don't travel around with them. Quite honestly I know thousands and thousands of lawful firearms owners who transport their firearms legally and they don't travel around indiscriminately. I'm at a loss to know why the current legislation has gone to such lengths to try to remove ATTs because there's no evidence to support that this will actually improve public safety.

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

Mr. Chair, may I remind you of what our expert witness, Superintendent Paul Brown, acting director general of the Canadian firearms program at the RCMP, said. In his opinion, Bill C-71 entails a problem related to the transport of firearms.

The purpose of our amendment is to simplify the transport of firearms for manufacturers, agents, and chief firearms officers and in the case of gun shows. These people need to be able to circulate with these firearms without having to request specific authorizations to transport them each time.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm simply trying to get a clearer understanding of the process. You are giving us information that you're relying on to make decisions. I understand.

However, the fact nevertheless remains that the subject is important. Is there any reason for government amendments. I think it's important to take into account indigenous people living in remote regions. I was simply trying to understand why you've come to such a firm decision without giving us the slightest opportunity to correct our amendment. If there is a lack of clarity, that can be corrected.

Basically, the indigenous point of view is extremely important in the context of Bill C-71. We saw that during Ms. Bear's testimony. They are even prepared to challenge its constitutionality. So we're trying to add elements to improve it.

In the interests of clarifying matters, shouldn't we be allowed to move an amendment to the amendment?

[Randall Koops]

I think because in this case they are the only ones that were deemed to be something other than their classification, using the deemed provisions in 2015. If Bill C-71 repeals the deeming provision, these are the only families of firearms that are affected.

If you look in section 12 of the Firearms Act, you see a whole series of classes of firearms that over the years have been made eligible for grandfathering, both the owners and the firearms. They are usually tied to a specific date or a specific class of firearm. In this case, the new addition to section 12 is simply the two families of firearms that were deemed to be something else in 2015. The specificity that would be added to section 12 around them is in relation to the specificity with which they were deemed to be something else.

[Rob O'Reilly]

They're the only ones identified under these new clauses, which would form part of section 12 under Bill C-71.

[Randall Koops]

Mr. Chair, I think what's being provided for in the statute is the grandfathering status of those firearms. The statute also then provides that the deeming provision under which they were deemed to have been something other than what the Criminal Code would have provided for is being repealed. That does not touch their individual classification. They revert to the original classification. They are listed here in this section in relation to creating the ability for the firearm and the owner to be grandfathered if Bill C-71 comes into force.

[Rob O'Reilly]

I think I understand the question you're asking. Should Bill C-71 not advance, the deeming status of these firearms would remain; and these firearms would remain deemed as non-restricted or restricted depending on barrel length. They could not arbitrarily be reclassified as something else, because they are deemed to be non-restricted or restricted.

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

Are you suggesting that the legislative reclassification of these firearms that's in Bill C-71 right now is different from what the RCMP is recommending?

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

My question for you is this. If this amendment passes, notwithstanding that the rest of Bill C-71 passes in its current form, how would it change the classification of these firearms?

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

What I'm suggesting to you is the minister has come before this committee and said that parliamentarians and the Governor in Council ought not to be the ones making the decision on the classification of firearms. Yet in this legislation, this is a political decision.

Mr. O'Reilly has distanced himself from suggesting that it was the department that brought forward this proposal of a change in Bill C-71, which means that this is a political decision to include this list of firearms, which happens to be the same list that was changed in the 2015 classification that was granted an amnesty with the provisions of Bill C-42 in 2015.

Am I right or am I wrong?