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.

[Jérôme Gaudreault, Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise de prévention du suicide]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. I thank you very much for your invitation to come to speak to you about firearms control in the context of suicide prevention.

I am the director of the Association québécoise de prévention du suicide. The AQPS is a community organization that aims to promote and develop suicide prevention on the territory of Quebec. More specifically, we work to raise awareness among the population, and we make representations to elected officials so that measures are put forward and implemented to support suicide prevention. We also want to mobilize citizens and encourage them to take a position and rally in favour of this cause. In addition, we offer various training products developed for citizens, as well as for those who work in suicide prevention, and health professionals.

I will say from the outset that we have on several occasions expressed our position, which is in favour of better gun control. We in fact spoke out against the abolition of the federal long-gun registry in 2011. There are many studies that show that a series of measures to control firearms have a positive effect on reducing the suicide rate. I'll get back to that. In our opinion, Bill C-71 represents a step in the right direction, but we think that some of its provisions should be strengthened.

I'll say a few words about the state of suicide in Canada and Quebec. On this day alone, 11 people will commit suicide au Canada. In Quebec, there are 1,100 deaths by suicide annually. Among these, more than 125 are committed with firearms. There are 4,000 suicides in Canada each year and 1,000 of these take place in Quebec; that's a lot. Although there was a significant drop in the number of suicides in Quebec at the beginning of the decade, our society has not made any significant progress on this issue for close to 10 years.

As for those who are vulnerable to suicide, you must know that the suicidal person has not formally decided to commit suicide. Not only is his vision of things clouded by the suffering that he wants to put an end to, but he is ambivalent about his death up to the very last minute. That is why the method chosen by the suicidal person is so important, because the longer he or she delays, the more time there is for him to change his mind and obtain help. For each person who dies by suicide, we estimate that between 25 and 30 people make a suicide attempt that is not completed. If people do not complete the act, it is not because they are unable to commit suicide, but because they change their mind along the way.

Unfortunately, firearms are extremely lethal—their success rate is 96%—and that means that only very rarely does the suicidal person get a second chance. The firearm amplifies the impulsivity of the gesture and gives very little time to the person's friends or family members, to first responders or police officers, to intervene effectively and save the person's life. Statistical analysis and research shows that 80% of deaths by firearm are suicides. The weapons used are mainly non-restricted weapons, rifles or long guns. In 50% of suicides, less than 10 minutes go by between the beginning of the crisis situation and the suicidal act. When a vulnerable individual is in crisis, if he has easy and immediate access to a lethal weapon, the risk of suicide is much higher.

The risk of suicide is five times higher in homes where there are weapons. Hunting rifles are the most common type of firearm that is found in homes, and a large proportion of suicides using firearms are committed with a weapon the person does not own. It is recognized that deaths related to firearms constitute a major public health issue, and statistics show that in countries that have stricter firearms control, the rate of suicide using firearms is lower than the rate in countries that do not have such controls.

However, suicides can be prevented, and in order to reduce their number, it is necessary to implement a series of measures which, when applied simultaneously, create a context that is favourable to the prevention of suicide. According to the World Health Organization, reducing access to the means to commit suicide, such as firearms, is considered one of the most effective ways.

In order to control firearms effectively, those who own firearms must have a permit issued following a safety investigation. That is currently the case in Canada. We must also educate owners with regard to the safe storage of their firearms and the risks related to them. We can also say that that is the case in Canada. However, when we realize that one third of suicides with weapons are not committed by the firearms owner, we see that there are still some important gaps with regard to safe storage. The firearms also have to be registered. Registration is important because it facilitates the work of police officers and responders when they know that a person is in crisis and is thinking of suicide, and they can protect him against himself.

Currently, in Canada, there is no way of knowing how many weapons a distressed person may have in his possession. In order to ensure the safety of the occupants of a home, police officers have to have that information. This allows them to identify the legal owners, facilitates the traceability of weapons, and makes the owners more accountable.

Here is some conclusive data on the effectiveness of firearms registries.

According to the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, between 1998 and 2011, the years when the Canadian long-gun registry was in effect, the number of suicides by firearm in Quebec went from 283 to 131, annually. That is a 53% drop. There was no substitution by other means noted either, since the number of suicides using all other means besides firearms also declined. That is 150 fewer suicides using firearms per year. There was a lot of talk about the cost of the registry, but the cost of suicide is also high for Canadian society. Studies assess the cost of a suicide to be between $600,000 and $1 million for the community.

We believe Bill C-71 should be amended in order to tighten eligibility criteria and strengthen background checks of individuals seeking to obtain, renew or maintain permits in their possession; include notification of upcoming purchases in the new monitoring procedures for non-restricted weapons; allow easy and quick access by police officers to data on arms sales without procedural obstacles, such as having to obtain a court order; reintroduce permits for the transport of restricted weapons so that they specify the exact locations where the presence of such weapons is permitted; prohibit assault weapons; revise provisions regarding large-capacity magazines so as to impose a real five- or ten-cartridge limit on non-restricted and restricted firearms; and eliminate loopholes and prohibit firearms that can easily be modified to get around the legal limit. In these ways, we fully support the recommendations of PolySeSouvient.

In conclusion, suicide is a preventable cause of death. It's not a random fact that the number of suicides in Quebec decreased by close to a third between 2000 and 2008. That important decline can be explained by the combined effect of a number of measures, including increased control of access to firearms. The decline in the number of suicides using firearms demonstrates that clearly.

Hundreds of Quebeckers and Canadians who seriously considered suicide are still alive today and happy to be alive, because in a moment of despair, they did not have access to this way of committing an irreparable act.

Thank you.

[Alexandra Laberge]

We think that what is included in Bill C-71 regarding the register is a good start, but we feel there should be more restrictions, as we said in the recommendations we made regarding family violence.

There's no doubt that bringing back registries is one of the best solutions to enable the identification of women who are vulnerable because their husband has illegal firearms. As for police intervention, we think that this could help women who are trapped in a cycle of violence. Police officers could know if the spouse owns a weapon.

[Heidi Rathjen]

We would like the bill to reflect the promise of the Liberal Party, which was to repeal the changes made in Bill C-42, which made authorization to transport restricted weapons pretty much automatic, not only automatic but allowed between a gun owner's home and any of the hundreds—depending on the province—of gun clubs, gun ranges, police stations, border stations, and so on.

This bill has taken out a few of those categories of places but, as we heard from the officials, wouldn't change anything for 96% of itineraries, meaning that a gun owner today with Bill C-71 could still be a member of a gun club in Toronto and end up in Ottawa with a handgun and be legal.

The way it was before Bill C-42, the way the Liberal election promise said it wanted to repeal it to come back to.... I have here a copy of the former articles, and just to quote:

A chief firearm's officer may issue to an individual an authorization to transport if the chief firearms officer determines that the transportation of a restricted weapon or prohibited firearm...between two or more specified places will not pose a threat to [public] safety....

The permit specifies the period for which the authorization is valid, the two places between which it can be transported, and the reasons why.

What Bill C-71 proposes is far from that. It will not change much in terms of the transportation of restricted weapons.

[Alexandra Laberge, Co-leader, Comité de travail Féminisme, corps, sexualité, image, genre et violences, Fédération des femmes du Québec]

Allow me to introduce myself briefly. I am Alexandra Laberge and I am an elementary and high school teacher. I am a volunteer member and activist with the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the Quebec women's federation or FFQ, and co-chair of the working committee on feminism, the body, sexuality, image, gender, and violence.

I would like to use the privilege of officially representing the FFQ here today, and the voices of the women and girls of Quebec—and the voices of the women and girls of Canada as well, I hope—to remind the government that firearms issues are women's issues.

Women's struggle against firearms is historical, global, and legitimate since firearms are primarily owned by men who victimize and make women vulnerable by how they use them. Our struggle dates back long before 2012, when the previous government passed Bill C-19.

In the years since then, we have suffered another affront as a result of Bill C-42, in 2015. Women mobilized and the public statements, briefs and actions, as well as the heartfelt cries of women who have suffered as a result of these bills have finally been heard by a Liberal government that has promised reform to the women of this country. We are confident that this government has heard us since we represent half of Canada's population and are the targets of the bullets fired predominantly by men.

Unfortunately, we do not think Bill C-71 will adequately protect Canadian women and girls. In our opinion, the government could do better than this bill to improve the safety of women and girls in Canada. We would like to take this time today to remind you of what these women and girls have concluded and what has been shown by various authorities and women's groups. We would like to give you recommendations that are the result of these women's reflections, which we consider legitimate and feasible, in order to help preserve the safety of women and girls in Canada.

As a volunteer, and at the same time as my work as a teacher, I have studied more than a dozen briefs, reports, and written demands by women, yet I have looked only at what has been produced since 2012, and in French only. Supported by reliable sources and recognized bodies such as Statistics Canada and the RCMP, these women have done an outstanding job in order to be recognized once again in the government's decisions on firearms. I hope that these documents, which have been reported in the media and are readily accessible, have been read and studied, but I have not been able to look at everything that has been done elsewhere in Canada. We could rely on the data from Statistics Canada, which are quite telling, or other government platforms, but women always have to work extra hard to assert their rights and, nowadays, their safety. That is why the Quebec women's federation insists on honouring this work by raising the main points that these women have taken the time to identify and that we officially support.

All the written briefs point out that firearms are a women's issue. Let us not forget that firearms are primarily owned by men and that, although they make up the majority of victims of homicide statistically speaking, women should not suffer as a result of firearms or laws that make it easier for men to harm them.

The Coalition for Gun Control, reports, for instance, that although men are more frequently the victims of homicide, women are about three times more likely to be killed by their spouse.

Let us recall the discussion in 2015 surrounding Bill C-32. More than 30 women's groups in Canada spoke out about the impact of Bill C-42 on the safety of women. Eighty-eight per cent of Canadian women were killed by a bullet that was fired by legally owned shotguns or rifles, the same weapons that some people do not consider to be the cause of gun violence.

Guns are fifth among the 18 main causes of death in domestic homicides.

Investigations of family violence, such as in the case of the children of Kasonde and Arlene May and the Vernon massacre, have shown the weaknesses of the old act. Changes to the current act have been recommended. Risk detection needs to be improved for gun licence applicants by using detailed questionnaires and requiring two references from the applicant, along with notification of the spouse. A gun registry should also be created because important information is missing from police databases.

Fifty per cent of domestic homicides end with the killer committing suicide, which shows that the key to protecting women and children is to thoroughly review gun licences and gun licence renewals. Eighty per cent of gun deaths in Canada are suicides which, for the most part, are committed by a rifle or hunting rifle that can be easily obtained.

In rural communities in western Canada, in particular, people are less in favour of gun control and the percentage of people with firearms licences is higher.

Women and children are especially vulnerable when there is a gun in the home. In Ontario, 55% of killers in cases of domestic violence had access to a firearm. The recent Small Arms Survey of 2013 studied the relationship between guns and domestic violence. It states among other things that while men account for the majority of victims and of those committing homicide using guns, the number of women killed, injured, and intimidated by guns in situations of spousal violence is significantly higher. Appendix D of the RCMP report states that some of those deaths could be prevented through stricter laws that prohibit persons found guilty of spousal violence from carrying a gun. Further, the report entitled “Homicide in Canada, 2011” shows that stricter firearms laws have protected women and children.

We agreed to appear today because we think the current government, through its actions and decisions, which support feminist policies, will finally consider the safety of women a top priority. We have chosen to take on this responsibility because what we are proposing will be analyzed by competent people and adopted for the safety of women in Canada.

We have two recommendations, which we are making jointly with “PolySeSouvient”.

The first is to prohibit anyone subject to a protection order from carrying a gun.

The second is to clearly prohibit anyone found guilty of spousal violence, rape or other sex crime from carrying a gun.

These recommendations would not eliminate gun violence against women, but our objective is more realistic. We are calling on the government to impose stricter regulations in order to reduce the number of women killed.

Carrying a gun is not a right; it is a privilege. It is logical and legitimate that people who are found guilty of a crime, especially crimes against women, should lose that privilege.

We want the government to take a clear stance on these two issues and show its support for the safety of women in Canada by adopting these two realistic and necessary recommendations.

In closing, we would like to mention the forgotten women and girls who suffer because of the right to carry a weapon, people who are not mentioned often enough and are never given the opportunity to be heard. According to Statistics Canada, indigenous women and girls have been forgotten for too long and suffer the consequences of guns more than non-indigenous members of both sexes combined.

The report entitled “Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile” shows that older women are also the victims of gun violence and are more likely than older men to be killed by a family member.

Finally, we must not forget transgender women, for whom no statistics are available as of yet.

In conclusion, I will draw a brief parallel with what is happening to women in the United States. Since the start of the year, there have been 22 school killings in the U.S. In Canada, we have also had our share of tragedies at educational institutions in which women were targeted in particular. Teachers, who are still part of a traditionally and primarily female profession, are offering an interesting perspective on women and men beyond the intimate sphere, the family, the public sphere or the workplace. Women are not safe because of the laws that allow people to own guns.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Good morning, everyone. It's 11 o'clock, and we are continuing the reference of Wednesday, March 28, Bill C-71.

We have with us two sets of witnesses. We have Fédération des femmes du Québec, coming to us by video conference, we hope, and we have PolySeSouvient, who are going to split their time among themselves as they see fit.

I will remind members of the audience that there are no pictures allowed during the hearings.

With that, I will ask those who are not here via video conference to speak first. Let's hope that those coming to us by video conference will join us shortly.

Ms. Rathjen, I'll turn the microphone over to you. I assume you will split your time as you see fit.

Public Safety

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have one more. This petition is with regard to Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms. These individuals say that the bill does nothing to tackle firearms violence but rather adds further red tape for law-abiding firearm owners. It does not provide the resources to front-line police forces to tackle the true source of firearms violence, which is gangs and organized criminal presence.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to scrap Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms, and instead devote greater resources to policing in Canada.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sure we would all want to reflect, on this particular day, upon the loss of Mr. Brown and the impact it has had on all members of the House of Commons, on all sides. I send my particular condolences to members of the Conservative Party, of which Mr. Brown was a very distinguished member.

As a side comment, I note that in recent days I've had the opportunity to talk on trade-related matters to a prominent American in the field of international trade, Mr. Robert Zoellick, who is a former U.S. trade representative and a distinguished American official in previous administrations. He observed that he had come to know Mr. Brown in Canada-U.S. relations and in fact had had the opportunity to visit with him in Gananoque, where Mr. Zoellick has some other connections. Mr. Brown left a very large footprint, and one that is much respected.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me back today.

Before I begin, I also want to take a moment to recognize all the people across this country who are affected by spring flooding in Canada, particularly in New Brunswick, but also in Kashechewan in northern Ontario and in various parts of British Columbia.

Members of the Canadian Coast Guard, the Canadian Armed Forces, the Canadian Rangers, Transport Canada, the RCMP, and others have been engaged in providing assistance. I'm sure that all members of this committee in particular would want to join me in expressing our gratitude for the hard work of all these intervenors from the federal departments and agencies, working in close collaboration with provincial and local authorities and agencies. We wish them well in the important work they're involved in. We're certainly hoping that everyone stays safe.

I'm joined today by some key people from within the public safety portfolio. You are very familiar with Malcolm Brown, the Deputy Minister of Public Safety. Brenda Lucki, the new Commissioner of the RCMP, is back with us for the second time in one week. John Ossowski is the President of the Canada Border Services Agency.

Jennifer Oades is the new Chair of the Parole Board of Canada. The board is busy this week in Ottawa, involved in training sessions for members of the board as they go about their important work across the country. We also have Anne Kelly, Interim Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, and Charles Lowson, Acting Deputy Director of Operations at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

I am very proud of the essential role all of these leaders and their organizations play in protecting Canadians and our rights and freedoms.

Some of these people were with me recently at the G7 meetings of foreign and security ministers in Toronto. Canada was proud to host that particular gathering, and we look forward to hosting the upcoming leaders' summit next month in Charlevoix. I am pleased to say that G7 countries stand absolutely united in dealing with the various security threats we all face, from terrorism and human trafficking to cybercrime and beyond. Canada also took the opportunity to promote gender equality and women's rights at those meetings in Toronto. Gender equality and security absolutely go hand in hand. That's a top priority for our G7 presidency, and an overarching theme for all G7 discussions in the meetings we are hosting this year.

Mr. Chair, the skilled women and men of the public safety portfolio ensure that we are all well placed to respond to evolving threats. Our parliamentary responsibility is making sure they have the resources to do so. That, of course, brings me to the topic of this meeting, which is the main estimates for 2018-19.

Portfolio-wide, the total authority sought here will result in a net increase of $857.2 million. That is 9.8% more than in the main estimates last year. I'll touch briefly on just a few of the highlights.

First, speaking about the G7, these estimates include $233.5 million for G7 security across the public safety portfolio. Last time I was here to discuss the estimates, I mentioned that we would be glad to provide security briefings about the G7 to Mr. Paul-Hus and Mr. Dubé. I understand those briefings have happened.

Work is well under way in coordination with provincial and municipal authorities to ensure that everyone in Charlevoix and the surrounding areas is safe and secure. I am also aware that there will likely be people engaging in demonstrations during the G7. Our government will always defend the democratic rights of Canadians to demonstrate and protest, provided that it happens peacefully and within the bounds of the law.

Canadians also expect police officers to maintain public safety while respecting the law and professional codes of conduct. To that end, I would welcome the expected observers from Amnesty International and the Ligue des droits et libertés.

The main estimates also include an increase of $48.6 million for CBSA. That funding will go to immigration and security screening, border processing, and inland enforcement. This is part of our commitment to ensure that the border remains secure while open to the expeditious flow of legitimate trade and travel.

Border Services officers are professionals who do a difficult job, prioritizing security while treating people with humanity and compassion. I thank them and members of the RCMP for being so adept at handling what has recently been a very challenging border situation. It is, in large part, thanks to the RCMP and CBSA, as well as their colleagues in IRCC, that public safety is being maintained, that Canadian law is being applied, and that our international obligations are being upheld.

The estimates also include $41.1 million in increased funding for the first nations policing program. This is part of the investment we announced in January of almost $300 million over five years, which is the largest increase in funding for the first nations policing program since its inception almost 30 years ago.

I am pleased to report that of the 42 agreements with first nations that have been due for renewal, 29 are either signed or in the very final stages of completion, and officials are working very hard at the remainder.

There's also an increase of $18.9 million in funding for the correctional service, and another $1.3 million for Public Safety Canada, to manage vulnerable offenders appropriately and effectively within our corrections system. That refers particularly to people with mental illness, as well as indigenous offenders and women. We know that our correctional system needs to be world-class, at both security and rehabilitation, because that is the best way of reducing recidivism and keeping communities safe.

There is an increase of $20 million for the national disaster mitigation program, to increase resilience so natural disasters don't cause as much damage as they might otherwise.

There is $19.1 million to build capacity to address drug-impaired driving, which includes officer training. There is $23.4 million for the memorial grant program. This is a new program that will provide $300,000 to the families of police officers, firefighters, and paramedics who have died as a direct result of their duties. This program is effective as of this past April 1.

Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is, as you know, a very large portfolio. I am aware that your committee has had a full plate recently, too, studying the correction system as well as national security legislation, and you've now begun studying Bill C-71, related to firearms.

I cannot promise that the pace is going to slow down. In all likelihood, it will go in the opposite direction and get faster. I can promise, however, that our government will continue to prioritize public safety while at the same ensuring that Canadian rights and freedoms are well protected. It is the men and women at this table who represent the leadership of the public safety portfolio, and everyone they represent, who make such a huge contribution every day and work so hard to make sure that Canadians are safe and that their rights and freedoms are protected.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gun Control

[Rhéal Fortin, Québec debout, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-71 is a real feather in the government's cap. The Liberals found a way to disappoint both those who want to restrict access to firearms and those who want to make it easier.

In attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable to win votes, the government completely missed the point: what is the purpose of gun control? It is supposed to keep guns out of our neighbourhoods. Why then, is there not a word about assault rifles like the one used at the Quebec City mosque on January 29, 2017?

Gun control is also supposed to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Here again, there is not a word about people with serious mental illness accessing guns, not even the merest mention of conversations that need to happen with the provinces.

The government tried to sit on the fence, so it should come as no surprise that it is now sprawled on the ground.

[Paula Clarke]

Let's distinguish between asking for records with regard to an individual for a criminal investigation and the regulatory requirement or the regulatory power of a CFO to enter a business, to investigate, and to ensure that records are being kept in order to comply with the licensing requirements that the business is subject to.

In the course of a normal criminal investigation, Bill C-71 does not provide any additional investigative powers to law enforcement. If there's a criminal investigation under way, the crown and the police would still have to do an assessment of the privacy interests that are at stake. Normally, or very often, this requires a production order, so you go to court. You would have to prove that there are reasonable grounds on which to believe that an offence has been or will be committed, and at that point, you would receive judicial authorization.

With respect to firearms businesses, there is the regulatory power to come in and investigate, to ensure that the records are being kept. If that happens, there could be a charge under section 101 of the Firearms Act, and if in the course of reviewing these records, they come across evidence or suspected evidence that there could have been a criminal offence that may have taken place, then it is no longer a regulatory power. You would have to apply normal standards for criminal investigation.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the officials for being here. They've been here for the whole time. The minister has now left, but in response to the questions I asked previously, the minister indicated that one of the purposes and motives of Bill C-71 is the ability for the government, or the police, or law enforcement agencies to trace a firearm back to its original owner, whereupon I basically said that means there has to be a registry because we're not going to run a query against the wind. I mean, it has to be information that's kept some place. You can call it a repository. You can call it a registry. You can call it whatever you want. There's a repository of information that's transaction-based.

The minister was very clear that the purpose behind that was in order to trace that. However, Mr. O'Reilly, you just suggested to this committee that in a person-to-person transaction—so if I were to sell my firearm to Mr. Fraser over there—none of the information with regard to the firearm will actually be kept, only the reference number.

If that's the case—

[Randall Koops]

Bill C-71 will close that loophole.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Koops or Ms. Clarke, I'm just curious to know if sections 101 to 105 of the Firearms Act are impacted at all by Bill C-71.

[Rob O'Reilly]

It's the same situation with those handguns now. The limitations that are in place around the usage of those firearms at a range would remain the same under Bill C-71.

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

All right.

The second question I have is about the authorizations to transport. This is in subclause 4(3) of Bill C-71. The reason I am looking at it is it refers to handguns that are grandfathered specifically under subsection 12(6.1). I was wondering why there was a specific addition made in respect of those types of handguns for the automatic authorization to transport.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to shift gears to some different sections we haven't been looking at today. I was curious to begin with the sections of Bill C-71 that concern the grandfathering of the CZ rifle and Swiss Arms. The reason I raise it is that I saw there was a date for the grandfathering of June 30, 2018.

Could you comment on why that date, being a future date, was chosen for the grandfathering?