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]

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?

Criminal Code

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech. He is very learned and comes from a profession that understands things well. I did pass through law school at one time, but decided that another profession was of more interest to me, so my speech will probably be a little more the layman's type, and will probably have some rhetoric in it that I am sure he will rather enjoy.

I will be speaking on Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts. That is quite the title, and it probably should come as no surprise that it is an omnibus bill. It makes massive reforms to our criminal justice system, and in fact, it re-tables three bills already on the Order Paper: Bill C-28, on the victim surcharge; Bill C-38, on consecutive sentencing for human trafficking; and Bill C-39, which repeals unconstitutional provisions.

The government simply cannot seem to manage its legislative agenda. It waited until late in its mandate, and now Parliament is expected to rush through debate on these important matters.

What is apparent is that Bill C-75 is a big, complicated bill that is supposed to fix the issues facing our justice system. It does contain provisions that I could support. Repealing unconstitutional provisions in the Criminal Code is a positive proposal. Increasing the maximum term for repeat offenders involved in domestic violence also makes a lot of sense.

However, the bill also introduces a host of other issues. This legislation should have been split so we could have debated and voted on some of its parts, rather than as an omnibus bill. There is far too much here to be considered in such a short time. The Liberals promised they would not introduce an omnibus bill, but here we are.

We have known for a long time that our justice system is dangerously backlogged. A primary stated objective of Bill C-75 is to reduce delays in our justice system. The R. v. Jordan ruling, now known as the Jordan rule or principle, imposes strict timelines on criminal trials: 30 months for the criminals, and 18 months for the indictable.

This objective is very important. Thousands of criminal trials across Canada have been stayed, including murder trials, for going over the imposed time limits. We have seen the stories of individuals accused of horrendous crimes being let off because of massive delays in the court system. The problem is only getting worse, but this bill is finally supposed to do something about this serious problem.

Before I get into the details of this bill, I have to ask: Why has this government not taken steps to appoint more judges? It has been pointed out that the government has appointed many, but we still have 59 vacancies. Let us get them all filled so that we can improve the justice system. Appointing judges may have been a faster way to address the delays in our justice system, rather than forcing an omnibus bill through Parliament. I know that the Liberals have left appointments unfilled in other government agencies, but the judicial ones are critical. At the very least, they need to fill those. I am sure that is something they will do quickly, right?

The biggest red flag in this legislation is the hybridization of many indictable-only offences, done by adding summary convictions as a sentencing option. Simply put, serious crimes deserve serious penalties, but some of the offences listed in the bill are undoubtedly, to me and many of my constituents, serious crimes. These include participating in a terrorist group; impaired driving causing bodily harm; kidnapping a minor; possessing stolen property over $5,000, which is a huge concern in my rural riding; participating in activities of a criminal organization; municipal corruption or influencing a municipal official; committing infanticide; extortion by libel; advocating genocide; arson for fraudulent purpose; advertising and dealing in counterfeit money; and many more. There are a lot of serious crimes in here that are going to change. Many of these crimes are classified as indictment-only for a reason. They should not be punishable under a summary conviction, with a possible mere fine. That option has been included, and it should not be there.

The bill would also delay consecutive sentencing for human traffickers. Human trafficking is a severe crime. There is a cross-party committee dealing with this crime. It is a severe problem and deserves severe punishment. We know it is taking place in Canada. It is an international issue that needs to be combatted with all the tools at our disposal. Why would the government weaken our criminal justice system with these changes? We all need to address the backlogs in our courts system, but some of these measures just do not make sense.

In my riding of Bow River, we have been dealing with serious issues involving rural crime. I am happy that motion by the member for Lakeland, Motion No. 167, was passed last week in this House. I believe it will be an important step toward actually doing something about rural crime. The statistics show that crime in rural areas has increased significantly in all three prairie provinces. However, right on the heels of adopting this important motion, we have this bill taking two steps backwards. This is going to be hard to explain to the constituents in my riding who are dealing with constant rural crime. Residents across the country are going to be shaking their heads in disbelief at this one. I have heard from many constituents who have suffered break-ins, property theft, and threats to person. We have held round tables in locations in ridings across Alberta and heard from many people who are living in fear. They do not have confidence that the criminal acts taking place around their homes will be addressed. In many cases, the RCMP is simply stretched too thinly across the vast rural areas to respond promptly.

I am particularly concerned that this bill would relax sentences for crimes like possession of stolen property and participating in criminal gangs. It is hard enough to catch criminals engaged in rural crimes. In many cases, the criminals are long gone before anyone can show up to deal with them. When it takes police officers hours or until the next day to get to the scene, there is plenty of time to disappear. This is not like crime in a city where people reasonably expect police to show up on their doorstep in minutes. When criminals are caught, there is a reasonable expectation that they will face serious consequences for their actions. It is hard enough to convince people to report crimes when they occur. We encourage them to do so because it is very important for the statistics of the police services. The police need to know what is actually happening in communities, but people are afraid to report crimes, or they say it is a waste of time. The police need the statistics to make decisions related to how to best enforce the law, but my constituents do not always believe they will make any difference in the justice system anymore. It is going to be that much harder to encourage people to report rural crimes if this bill receives royal assent. At a bare minimum, people need to know that if they report a crime and the criminal responsible is actually apprehended, there will be serious consequences for that individual. We need real deterrents, not slaps on the wrist, to keep Canadians' faith in the justice system.

They talk about Alberta judges, and yes, we are short of judges, but here is the other side of it. I have spoken with legal people and they say that the number of crown prosecutors is drastically short. There are few crown prosecutors willing to do it. As the number of crown prosecutors has decreased, there are fewer of them who will work on this huge workload. The average caseload that crown prosecutors have is twice what it used to be years ago. Legal aid lawyers are quitting. The pay they are getting has decreased, or they are not being paid at all. If they are moving to summary convictions, two years less a day, the jails are full. I have seen downloading from governments before; this is a huge download from the federal government to the provincial governments. They are going to download into the provinces' judicial systems by changing convictions from indictable to summary convictions. As the prosecutors have told me, they have been told to clear the docket and keep only the very serious cases and kick all the rest of the cases out, not to take them to court but to get the charges dropped, to kick them out.

There is a joke around the provincial jail system that if there is an arrest for car theft, the officers should make sure their car is locked when the criminal goes out the door, because the criminal is likely to steal their car to go home. With the shortage of prosecutors, the time that is available to put people in jail for two years less a day is a huge download to the provincial system.

It is especially wrong that this bill is being introduced at the same time we are considering Bill C-71. That bill would do nothing to address rural crime and gang violence. Nothing in it would make a difference to the criminals using illegal firearms. All the bill does is target law-abiding firearms owners with new, poorly designed, heavy-handed regulations.

Farmers in my riding make use of all kinds of firearms on their property. Firearms are basic to rural life in many cases. I have heard from many constituents who are very concerned about Bill C-71. Why would the government treat farmers like criminals, while reducing sentences for rural criminals at the same time? Summary convictions and fines are just kicking the cases out, because there is no time to deal with them.

Again, it makes no sense. The government's agenda is looking increasingly incoherent, especially from the perspective of rural residents. Will these measures do anything to reduce the backlog? No. They are just downloading the problem on the provinces. Just as Chrétien did with the transfer payments, the current government is going to do it with the judicial system to download to the provinces.

Our legal institutions are overwhelmed by the number of cases that need to be addressed. The bill could stretch them to a breaking point, as the crown prosecutors in Alberta told me. We could have many more cases thrown out for taking too long. Jordan's principle is going to come in and many people will walk the street because of it. In other words, criminals will walk. That is not a result anyone wants to see, especially when rural crime is involved. It is deeply painful for victims of crime and it is dangerous for the Canadian public at large to lose faith in the justice system, like the rural residents in my constituency.

The government seems to be dumping more problems on provinces and municipalities. It leaves them to clean up the mess. We have already seen how the government has done this with cannabis legislation. Its approach has left provinces and municipalities scrambling to accommodate the new laws and pay for their implementation.

I have heard from town councillors across my constituency how concerned they are about the cannabis legalization and how they are going to pay for it. They do not know how the small towns and villages will handle all the issues that are coming down the pipe, just like the carbon tax. The Alberta Urban Municipalities Association has expressed grave doubts about how its members are going to get ready for legalization. It has been conveying these concerns to the government for a long time, but the Liberals are not listening.

The federal government simply punts its problems on to subnational governments and claims to have taken action. That is exactly what it did with the cannabis legalization, and that trend is continuing with Bill C-75. We need real leadership, not just passing the buck to the provinces.

The legislation would weaken our criminal justice system by relaxing the sentences for many serious crimes. That list was not even the extent of it. It is a very broad bill. It downloads the delays in our court system onto the provinces. It also changes the victim surcharge, which is a deeply disappointing departure from our former government's priority of putting victims first. It would remove the requirement of the attorney general to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances. It would remove the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence. It would delay consecutive sentencing for human traffickers, and that is wrong. It would make our justice system more like a revolving door than it is now. It would make rural crime in my riding and across Canada even harder to deal with, and it would make people not trust the justice system.

We need to deal with the problems in our justice system, but this is not the way to do it. This is simply a huge, poorly designed bill. It would make many changes that I simply cannot support.

[Randall Koops]

One at a time is correct, but still, it would not cause the pool to diminish over time, which is the intent of Bill C-71.

[Randall Koops]

Parliament to date has only enacted one situation where the ownership of prohibited firearms passes from one generation to another, and that is in the pre-1946 handguns, the so-called war trophy exemption. The intent in Bill C-71 is that, in the firearms affected by this bill, like the other circumstances where Parliament has legislated to provide for grandfathered ownership, that grandfathered ownership only be available to a certain class of firearms and to a certain class of the current owners. Also, the intent is that the pool stays fixed in time, and that pool does not increase over time through bequests, legacies, or inheritance.

[Randall Koops]

I think that if we've understood it correctly, as we read it for the first time, it would propose to extend the grandfathering regime to the heritors or estate of a grandfathered owner.

Currently what's proposed in Bill C-71 for the firearms in question is that this class of grandfathered owner not pass that status on. That grandfathered status continues for the life of the owner but does not exist beyond it. There are, as you know, certain circumstances in the Firearms Act where a grandfathered firearm can be inherited, but the intent in Bill C-71 was that the particular firearms not be eligible to be passed on through grandfathering status.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

My final question, Chair, if I may, would then be to clarify. In other words, the situation with the firearms that are listed in Bill C-71 would be the same as any change in classification to a more restricted category currently, as far as the business is concerned.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I was just wondering, since grandfathering is essentially what's already deeming in the law as it's currently written—putting aside Bill C-71—had a weapons classification been changed, then the deeming provision would have operated the same way as it would under Bill C-71 without this amendment. Is that correct?