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]

I'm not sure who's going to be best positioned to answer this question, Mr. Koops, Mr. O'Reilly, or maybe Ms. Clarke. If this amendment passes in the context of the rest of Bill C-71 passing, would the firearms that are listed in the legislation become the same classification as they're highlighted in this legislation right now?

[Randall Koops]

They could through the Criminal Code regulations. So the Governor in Council could no longer downgrade the classification of a firearm. The power to downgrade was exercised twice in 2015 in relation to these firearms. The government is seeking, through Bill C-71, to give up or rescind that power, asking Parliament to take that power away from the Governor in Council. In the two instances where it was used, you question why the grandfathering would come in. The grandfathering comes in in those cases to allow the continued ownership by people who have bought those firearms in good faith under the existing rules of the day.

[Randall Koops]

The change, if I may, is that the Governor in Council would no longer have the ability to downgrade the classification of a firearm. That's the change being made in Bill C-71.

[Rob O'Reilly]

Bill C-71 does not change the role of the Canadian firearms program as it relates to determinations of classification. In fact, nothing is being given back to the RCMP. The Canadian firearms program, which is part of the RCMP, but not a law enforcement entity, has always had the ability to make determinations of classification, and will continue to do so. Bill C-71 does not change that.

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

I see.

Now, however, under Bill C-71, the RCMP will do the work of identifying and prohibiting firearms, since the government wants to leave that to it.

Wouldn't it be appropriate to delete the identified firearms from Bill C-71 and allow the RCMP to identify them where it seems appropriate?

[Rob O'Reilly]

I cannot speak to the political intent behind why these were included, which was your question. However, the reason these specific firearms are at issue is that prior to Bill C-71, they were determined to be prohibited firearms. As to why these firearms and not the firearm that you mentioned, sir, I think the answer was partly in your own remark, in the sense that you said it's almost identical. It isn't identical. Therefore, it would be classified differently from the W model that you had so indicated.

As to why there was a decision to bring this forward as part of Bill C-71, unfortunately I can't answer that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're asking that the list of firearms identified in Bill C-71 be deleted because it completely contradicts the government's objective. Bill C-71, a government bill, identifies firearms, four Czech firearms and 16 Swiss firearms. That's a political decision. At the same time, it's requested that the RCMP be responsible for doing this work in the future. There is already a contradiction here.

We have no idea why these firearms would become prohibited. I understand the example of the CZ 858 model. It's virtually identical to the WR 762 model, a firearm that will remain restricted. These are therefore arbitrary choices, and we would like to know why these firearms are included in Bill C-71 in a political manner before the RCMP is subsequently permitted to make the decisions.

Mr. Chair, I don't know who can answer my question.

[Rob O'Reilly]

No, they would not be illegal, however, the firearms themselves may not be eligible for grandfathering if Bill C-71 were to pass.

[Randall Koops, Director General, Policing and Firearms Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

It is a fairly common practice, particularly in relation to the Firearms Act. The firearms grandfathering provisions are all related to a point in time that the person possessed that firearm.

It also occurs in other types of legislation, most notably in tax legislation. The eligible day on which a person must own or not own certain shares or other types of investments is a day that is listed in the legislation, for the sake of transparency and to ensure that there are equal public signals sent to everyone who is engaged in that marketplace. That day is presented as a date that is not linked to coming into force, and does not presuppose coming into force or royal assent by that day. In fact, in the case of tax legislation it is often budget day, the day on which the government makes its intent clear.

The analogy in Bill C-71 is that the government has made a very clear intent about what would be the commencement day or the eligibility day, irrespective of when or if the bill receives royal assent and is brought into force.

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

So there follow the details for firearms owners to meet, which just coincidentally happen to be laid out in clause 3 of Bill C-71, yet there is no indication in that document that these are proposals before government, before Parliament, let alone in need of parliamentary sanction to be enforced.

Now in RCMP documents, we're talking about a publication that gives advice on how to avoid becoming a criminal. One of the passages I referred to earlier said, “They explain the grandfathering requirements and how to avoid...being in illegal possession of a firearm.”

Another passage was, “If your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited weapon.” The unlawful possession of a firearm can lead to a jail sentence of up to five years.

Now we've been very clear on this side and on the record about our concerns with the RCMP having arbitrary reclassifying authority for firearms, and that's why the previous government gave the Governor in Council an oversight role. Now, suddenly, with one blanket move, what dozens or even hundreds of thousands of people already possess is somehow deemed illegal, and the bill hasn't passed. We've seen this disrespect before, and this is an institutional history, unfortunately.

In the research we've done, we've found at least 10 previous occasions where this has occurred. So it goes without saying that it comes as absolutely no surprise that our national police force, unfortunately, would snub its nose at Parliament, or—and this I highly doubt—that the new commissioner would order this on her own without some approval from the Minister of Public Safety, rather than urging compliance with the rules of Parliament.

Now what's interesting is that I rose on this on a Tuesday. On Wednesday morning, that same website that the RCMP manages was changed, and it was changed back to the language that now would verify what we have been saying. I stood again on the Wednesday and said that it had been modified on the Wednesday, May 30, and the posting now has a disclaimer that Bill C-71 was a proposed law. In fact, when you print out that particular document from the website, it actually has a date stamp saying it was changed on May 30.

Again, this speaks to the whole idea that the RCMP has caused confusion with this bill by having an arbitrary date of June 30, and advising Canadians that this will come into effect then, when it hasn't even gone through this committee yet. As well, the conversations we had on Tuesday about an arbitrary date will add confusion.

I am recommending that this amendment falls in line with other bills where it fits with a reasonable time and there's no artificial deadline. It's when this bill comes into play at a prescribed date, whenever it is passed and receives royal assent.

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

Thank you, Chair.

CPC-12 is an amendment to remove all the references to a specific date, and amend it to be prescribed in regulations once the bill receives royal assent.

You'll see the motion is that, in clause 3, Bill C-71 be amended, (a) by replacing line 26 on page 2 with the following:

firearms on the prescribed date

Then (b), by replacing line 1 on page 3 with the following:

(i) the prescribed date, in the case where at least one of

Then (c), by replacing lines 17 to 18 on page 3 with the following:

(b) was registered as a restricted firearm on the prescribed date or, in the case of a firearm that was not a restrict-

Then (d), by replacing line 30 on page 3 with the following:

firearms on the prescribed date

Then (e), by replacing line 8 on page 4 with the following:

(i) the prescribed date, in the case where at least one of

Then (f), by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 5 with the following:

(b) was registered as a restricted firearm on the prescribed date or, in the case of a firearm that was not a restrict-

Now, members of this committee, the House of Commons, and the Senate all deserve the appropriate time to consider this and many of the other bills, as we know, to ensure that they meet the standard and meet the test of good governance, and are honest with Canadians. There are many who don't believe that this legislation is honest, or fair, or in any way deals with the issues that Canadians want—gangs and guns—or the issues Liberals claim it does. It seems only reasonable that artificial deadlines that the government is already trying to impose be replaced with a date after which it passes.

What's interesting is that on this particular issue of prescribing regulations once the bill receives royal assent, on our prescribed date, I rose last week on a question of privilege in the House about online publications that the RCMP, respecting Bill C-71....

The RCMP, on its website, presumed the adoption of this bill already. As a result of that, which is what led us to think this language was necessary, there is no caveat on the RCMP website, describing Bill C-71, that this legislation is subject to parliamentary approval. There is no acknowledgement of the parliamentary process at all. In fact, in my view, as I explained to the Speaker that day, it was contempt of Parliament.

Let me read a sampling of the content found in special business bulletin no. 93, that the RCMP had on its site. “Because...all CZ firearms will be impacted by changes in their classification, businesses will need to determine if their firearm(s) will be affected by these changes. Bill C-71 also lists a number of specific Swiss Arms (SA) firearms that will also become prohibited. If you own CZ/SA firearms, the steps below can help you identify whether your inventory of firearms is affected by Bill C-71. They explain the grandfathering requirements and how to avoid being in illegal possession of a firearm.”

That language is actually quite clear. Now, it has, “will be impacted”, “will become prohibited”, and “is affected”, not could be, may be, or might be. Later in the bulletin we read that:

Business owners will continue to be authorized to transfer any and all impacted CZ or SA firearms in their inventory to properly licenced individuals, until the relevant provisions of Bill C-71 come into force. For an individual owner to be eligible for grandfathering certain requirements must be met by June 30, 2018.

Now, you might think about the language about this bill coming into force, possibly conceding the need for parliamentary approval, so let me continue reading what the quote says.

From the same bulletin, “The proposed changes to classification status for CZ/SA firearms listed in Bill C-71 will come into force on a date to be determined by Governor in Council. This date is yet to be determined.”

I would contend that any conditional language one might read or infer in the RCMP's special bulletin document is left to the mind of the reader and, therefore, is a matter of cabinet discretion, not Parliament's discretion.

Turning to a second document where the issue of this amendment comes up, entitled “How would Bill C-71 affect individuals?”, we see additional presumptuous language. A lot of it mirrors what I quoted from special business bulletin number 93. Other passages, however, include, “If your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited firearm.”

The language used, “was”, seems as if Bill C-71 is a document from the past, not a bill currently before a parliamentary committee.

Later in that same document, it says, “To qualify for grandfathering of your currently non-restricted or restricted CZ/SA firearm*, the following criteria must be met:”

Now there follows a list of details for firearms owners to meet, which just coincidentally happens to be laid out in clause 3.

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

Chair, just to echo the comments that were made by my colleague, we do know from the stats from Statistics Canada and other studies that have been done, that current licensed firearm owners pose the lowest risk to public safety, lower even than those who don't have a PAL. Those who don't have a firearms licence have a greater probability of committing an offence than those who do. I believe it was by one-third.

We do know that less than 3% of those who have a firearms licence, based on the evidence of testimony that was provided to us at this committee, have actually ever committed a criminal offence once they've had a PAL.

The intent of this is to ensure that those who should not have a firearm on first instance don't receive one, which is what we have currently in legislation. The current legislation and even the proposed Bill C-71 will ensure that if someone does have a licence and commits an offence, they then will have that licence removed or be unable to renew it and have their firearms taken away.

What this does, however, for individuals who have a licence already, and as has been said, who already go through the most stringent scrutiny of any law-abiding group in our society, is make it unnecessary to have a full lifetime check moving forward. It should only be applied to those who are receiving a firearms licence for the first time or those who have let it lapse for more than a year and have to reapply. That's reasonable. Firearm owners are not opposed to background checks that weed out those who pose a threat to public safety.

The issue is how it would be applied if you have, as Mr. O'Reilly said, 2.1 million PAL licences in this country, or thereabouts. At the five-year renewals—and there's no costing around this—someone now will have to do a full background check for the lifetime of that individual, and they may have had a licence for 20 years, but now, all of a sudden, we're going to impose this on them, and it is a cost. It is a delay.

I'd like to have our officials weigh in to provide some clarity as to whether or not this sort of application makes sense and upholds the intention of keeping firearms away from those who shouldn't have them and prevents unnecessary and onerous background checks on those who are already qualified.

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

Okay, because we don't have any evidence to suggest that people who have had a firearms licence for 20 years and have reapplied successfully two or three times.... I don't know why my colleagues across the way would be unsupportive of this. This is probably going to be an amendment that will, politically, gain the most wins for my colleagues who are proposing this bill in the first place. I don't sense that there's any public safety value added, as just mentioned by Mr. O'Reilly, so I'm wondering why there wouldn't be consent to pass this amendment.

As one of the few people at this table who actually has a possession and acquisition licence, I'm continually vetted. I get checked out every time I reapply for my licence. It's only valid for five years and I'm going to have a lifetime history of having that licence, hopefully. I'm not sure why, the next time I go to reapply for my licence, somebody is going to go back to when I was 18 years old. It doesn't seem to make any sense, when I've established 20 years of credibility as a law-abiding licensed firearms owner.

This is kind of the crux of why Bill C-71 is not being accepted broadly by the current law-abiding firearms community, and I wholeheartedly suggest the government reconsider this. There's no evidence to suggest that this is going to add anything to public safety whatsoever.

[Rob O'Reilly]

I can say that the intention of the program is to maintain the service standards we have in place and that any amendments proposed under Bill C-71 not lengthen the period of time by which an individual is going to be applying for a licence. I can't speak to the exact resourcing because, again, when we had preliminary discussions on the bill, these particular elements weren't necessarily in play, but the intention of the program is to maintain those service standards.

As I've answered before, what we're talking about now under subsection 5(2) in terms of what must be more broadly considered is the “must” be considered. That doesn't mean that in many cases these things weren't considered beforehand. Most CFOs in doing a determination of eligibility are trying to do as thorough a job as possible now. While this may require them to look a little bit more broadly, the intention is to maintain the service standards we have in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I think we can get started. I see everyone in their places with bright shining faces. Let's hope that by the end of today the faces are still bright and shining.

(On clause 2)

Where we left off was with CPC-11 on Bill C-71. There was an informal understanding among committee members that there would be some discussions among members concerning LIB-1. I understand there have been those discussions and that a new LIB-1 has been circulated.

In order to proceed in an orderly fashion, LIB-1, as it currently exists, needs to be withdrawn. It can only be done with a unanimous vote. Do we have unanimity to withdraw the original LIB-1?