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.

Criminal Code

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, Bill C-21 would also grant new investigatory powers by expanding the list of eligible firearms offences so that police can obtain wiretaps. Having worked in the criminal justice system and having worked as a federal prosecutor, I can attest to the fact that wiretap surveillance does allow law enforcement to interdict and to prevent crime before it occurs. By adding these powers, we are sending not only a clear message that if people are going to traffic guns illegally, they are going to face stiffer sentences and we are going to equip police with additional powers to stop them.

That is the second thing I wanted to highlight. The third thing I want to highlight is that we need to stop, once and for all, a simultaneous trend. We are seeing gender-based violence in our workplaces, communities, homes or wherever online. There is a trend between gender-based violence and guns. Between 2013 and 2019, the incidents involving gender-based violence and guns went up more than 30%, and that trend has continued.

What Bill C-21 would do, among other things, is introduce red flag laws. Red flag laws allow anybody to go to court to ask a judge to seize the gun or suspend the licence of a person who owns a gun if they pose a threat to anyone else or themselves.

This is a practical and effective tool that can reverse a negative trend by providing another protective mechanism. On the advice of organizations representing women and survivors, we added an amendment to the red flag laws to protect the identity of the person asking the court to apply this mechanism. This is one example of the work we are doing with communities affected by gun violence.

In Bill C-21, we also introduce yellow flag laws that would limit the discretion of authorities by requiring the automatic revocation of the gun licence of anybody who was subject to a restraining order or would be subject to a restraining order in the future. There, too, we listened very carefully to the groups that we engaged with in the formulation of Bill C-21.

There are a lot of other things that this bill does. There are some very specific provisions that would deal with the use of replica guns. These pose a significant threat, particularly for law enforcement who, when they are responding to gun calls, find it exceedingly difficult to distinguish between a real gun and a replica gun.

There are provisions that deal with the glorification of gun violence. I am sure that all members are concerned about the very targeted and concerted effort to make guns seem unserious, and to make guns seem like they could be abused recklessly by children and young people. No one should glorify violence. There are provisions within Bill C-21 that deal with that, as well.

As we looked at the various provisions we could introduce into Bill C-21, we consulted extensively. As I have said, we spoke with survivors' groups, women's groups and advocates: those who stand up for the rights of victims. We took their advice into very careful consideration. It is my sincere belief that as a result of those conversations, they would now see that advice reflected in the text of this bill.

We listened very carefully to law enforcement, particularly on the provisions that relate to illegal gun smuggling and deterring gun crime, and to providing additional authorities to them so that they could do their jobs by providing them with the tools they need. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has indicated that Bill C-21 would be a step in the right direction towards protecting our communities.

It is for that reason that I believe Bill C-21 enjoys the broad support of so many Canadians. It is not only those constituencies, but also big city mayors and rural mayors, with whom I met last week in Saskatchewan, who have come out in favour and said they supported Bill C-21.

It is my hope that we will study this bill with the urgency and the seriousness that it requires. It also has to be said that Bill C-21 has to be seen in the broader context of everything else that the government is doing, including introducing a national ban on AR-15s, which are assault-style rifles that have no place in our communities; taking the next steps that are necessary to introduce a mandatory buyback program, to get those guns out of our communities for good; following through with Bill C-71 to ensure that there are appropriate background checks, so that guns do not fall into the hands of the wrong people; and rolling out more quickly the $250-million building safer communities fund, so that we can address the root causes and social determinants of gun crime.

We need to do this as quickly as possible because of those survivors I referred to at the beginning of my remarks tonight. They are still climbing that mountain. They are still fighting their way to the top. It is a long journey, but the government is going to be there with them every step of the way. Bill C-21 is a very significant step in that direction. I hope that all members, after careful consideration, will support this bill. It is the right thing to do. It is how we will eradicate gun violence and protect all Canadians.

Public Safety

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank the hon. member for his passion on this issue and his advocacy on the issue. It is important. That is why we have brought forward legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We also put in place background checks when we introduced Bill C-71. We are investing in law enforcement to prosecute gangs and stop trafficking at the border.

When it comes to the issue of gun violence, this government is taking action, and I am proud to stand on the record that we have.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

We did include recommendations when we reported Bill C-71 back, so it must be possible to do that.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Just on your point, I recall doing this with another bill that we studied. When we studied Bill C-71 at the public safety committee, we sent it back with a note for the things that were outside of federal jurisdiction. I think it would be completely reasonable to send this bill back with a resolution from the committee that recognizes this, because it's not just with electronic monitoring. We heard testimony about how women are at risk when there's a lack of cell service.

It doesn't mean there's a requirement on the government to act on it, but I think it recognizes the concerns that we all heard, while not trying to get into provincial jurisdiction with the legislation or trying to make requirements, because this is also talking about the Attorney General. The rest of the bill is about judges considering e-monitoring, so I think we could come up with something about how, while this is outside the scope of the bill, the committee recognizes that a lack of cell service can put women at risk.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to that question. Businesses kept records about firearms purchases for many years, for decades, prior to the Harper government coming in and cutting that requirement. We know it is not a gun registry. We know police can use this tool. I remind hon. members of the amendment the Conservative Party put into Bill C-71 that says this is not a long-gun registry. It is in the bill, which the regulations have implemented.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, our government is firmly committed to building safer communities. To reduce gun crime, we must address the social conditions that lead youth to join gangs. That is why we are working closely with municipalities in Quebec and across the country, and with indigenous communities, to provide $250 million over five years to bolster gang prevention and intervention programs.

I would remind Conservatives that when we studied Bill C-71, they put forward amendments that would have removed punishment for making a false statement to provide a licence, tampering with licences, unauthorized possession of ammunition and more.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

You're absolutely right, Pam. It's about collaborating with my colleagues on this very important question, as well—and I do, with the public safety minister, the honourable Marco Mendicino. We talk often about this.

I represent Toronto Centre. I see a lot of firearms issues. I see a lot of gun violence. A lot of that gun violence is perpetuated against women and, sadly, girls more than I would like or am ever comfortable with.

Shootings are regularly the most commonly reported means of killing women and girls in Canada. It is as simple as that. From the Canadian Femicide Observatory's annual report, we know that for every victim of femicide, there are many more who have physically survived, but who are struggling mentally. They have gone through such trauma, layered trauma, that is still with them. It stays with them and it will impact them for life.

As the minister responsible for the development of the 10-year national action plan to end gender-based violence, I know that coercive control is a big part of this, too, and we see this. Law enforcement and our courts are not always educated on coercive control. We know that it puts more women at risk, so we must move forward with implementing Bill C-71, not only as a tool to strengthen our gun control laws, but as a way to prevent gun violence and domestic violence.

Might I just add this note? When I became the minister responsible for women and gender equality and youth, the first question I asked as Minister for Youth was, “How young? How do we characterize 'youth'?” I was told, I think, 15 to 29, and I said that's far too late. It's far too late for the kids on my streets. It's far too late for many kids across this country. We have to get to them sooner.

The bottom line is that a lot of kids are not seeing themselves. They're not seeing themselves in the education system. They're not seeing themselves as being part of society and being included. How do they get power? How do they take that back? Sometimes it's holding a gun. Sometimes it's perpetuating violence against others.

For me, it's things like mentoring and getting kids when they're younger. We say all the time, “If we can see her, we can be her” or “If you can see it, you can be it.” That means something. Showing kids they can attain goals and be who they need to be prevents the violence we see later. There is a correlation.

Firearms

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am tabling today deals with the important issue of firearms rights and firearms owners in my riding.

The petitioners are objecting to the backdoor gun registry that the government was working on with respect to Bill C-71 from a previous Parliament. They are very opposed to the government's approach with respect to targeting responsible firearms owners rather than targeting the gun smugglers and distributors of illegal guns who are, in fact, the real cause of gun crime in this country.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair. It is absolutely wonderful having you here in person. Thank you.

I just want to follow up a little bit on my colleague's question about Dr. Langmann, because I recall asking him a question when he was here, and none of his research goes past 2016. He has not done research on Bill C-71, the extended background checks. I know that the Doctors For Protection From Guns disputes his research. I'm just putting that on the record.

I have a question for Commissioner Lucki.

Commissioner, we had Evelyn Fox here as a witness. She lost her child to gun violence and she indicated that, when people apply for their firearms licences, only 10% of references are checked. She is not the first person I've heard say that when people are applying for their firearms licence, the background checks are not necessarily followed up on. Commissioner, could speak to that, please?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Rathjen, you mentioned certain shortcomings. I don't know whether you were referring to Bill C‑71 or Bill C‑21, which never saw the light of day, in the end. I'm talking about high-capacity magazines here.

Could you elaborate on these shortcomings, give us examples, if any, and tell us about the risk this could pose to public safety?

[Heidi Rathjen]

Thank you for the question.

Following the introduction of the former Bill C‑71, all of the key documents, all of the debates and all of the media coverage dealt with the RCMP's verification of the validity of the license. On the topic of verification, the documents indicated that the license numbers would be checked in the system to ensure that they were valid. This is not part of the regulations. The regulations only require the vendor to verify the photo and contact the RCMP. All that was required of the RCMP was that they be satisfied that the license was legal.

The wording used is problematic. The same was true of the language included in former Bill C‑19, where the requirement to verify the license was removed. It states that the seller must simply have no reason to believe that the buyer is not licensed. In this regard, the Barreau du Québec stated that it was extremely problematic to prove in court what a person had in mind.

It is a loophole that has the effect of cancelling the measure altogether. One can think here of what a future government might do. The Conservative Party, which was opposed to Bill C‑71, could require the RCMP to accept all applications without any verification. RCMP officials have testified before this committee that there will be a verification. I think it's a bit disingenuous to put that forward, because verification is an extremely subjective thing. All that is required of the RCMP is that they say they are satisfied.

In our view, this goes against what was promised. We found that Bill C‑71 was relatively weak. Yet one of the main reasons we supported it was precisely because it included this measure regarding license verification. The current draft regulations do not include this measure. So Canadians will not get the measure that was promised to them.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here. I regret that we do not have more time to discuss these issues. They are all outstanding witnesses who are very active advocates for gun control.

My special thanks to Ms. Rathjen and Mr. Benabdallah. I watched your webinar a few weeks ago, on the fifth anniversary of the massacre at the Quebec City grand mosque. The main point of that webinar was that, unfortunately, not much has been done by the federal government to control firearms.

I'll get right to the point.

Ms. Rathjen, I know that you've done a lot of work on the verification process used when someone wants to obtain a weapon. We were told by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, that they were going to proceed with the verification, and that would have been implemented in Bill C‑71. However, last summer, the draft regulations that were tabled rescinded the mandatory verification.

I'd like to hear your comments on the issue.

[Wendy Cukier, President, Coalition for Gun Control]

Thanks very much.

My name's Wendy Cukier. I'm the president of the Coalition for Gun Control, which is a network of 200 public safety community organizations and public health groups.

I am also the co-author of the book called The Global Gun Epidemic, with the past president of the American Public Health Association. I say that because I believe that a public health approach is the most appropriate way of looking at gun violence generally, and gang violence in particular.

When we think of gun violence, we can think of it as cancer. There are different forms. There's no one solution to all problems. If we're talking about domestic violence, if we're talking about suicide, if we're talking about mass shootings or if we're talking about gang violence, they all have a particular etiology or set of causes and solutions.

When we look at gang violence, I will say the following. I'm the head of the Diversity Institute and a full professor at Ryerson University. We've done a lot of work looking at the impact of disadvantage and inequality in Canada. There's no doubt that addressing the root causes of violence is absolutely critical. We know that certain youth are more at risk for gang violence [Technical difficulty—Editor] but that's not what I'm going to talk about today.

Today I'm going to talk about access to firearms, because while firearms do not cause violence, they increase lethality. The best example of this is a comparison between Canada, the United States, the U.K. and Australia. All of these countries have similar root causes. They all have inequality. They all have poverty. They all have racism. Canada, the U.K. and Australia have about the same rate per 100,000 of beatings, stabbings and other kinds of homicides. When it comes to gun violence, however, we see a profound difference. Last year, the U.K., which has twice as many people as Canada, had about 30 gun murders. Canada had 277, the highest number we've seen in many years.

The availability of firearms increases the likelihood that people will die. While it's true that when we look at the sources of guns that gangs use, we know that smuggling is part of the problem. We also know that the diversion of legal guns to illegal markets is a significant problem. Guns are diverted through theft, illegal sales and, in some instances, straw purchases. We saw in the last few days over 2,000 guns that were allegedly stolen recently. We've also seen a number of high-profile incidents like the Danforth shooting, where the gun that was used was from gang members and stolen in Saskatchewan.

There has been, over the last decade, a tremendous proliferation in the legal ownership of restricted weapons and handguns. There are now over a million legally owned in Canada by [Technical difficulty—Editor]. I want to underscore that we support the implementation of Bill C-71. We believe that licensing and tracking long guns is part of the solution and that we need a total ban on military assault weapons and that we need the buyback program.

Fundamentally, we need decisive action to stem the further proliferation of handguns in Canada. Part of that would be a ban on the import and sale of guns where the threat outweighs the utility. You don't use handguns for hunting. You don't need them for pest control on a farm. While arming for self-protection is apparently on the rise, it's not supported, for the most part, by Canadian law.

I want to reinforce one final point. You'll hear this person say, “Anyone can get a gun if they really want to”. You'll hear that person say, “Criminals don't register their guns”, and so on and so forth. I want to remind you that every illegal gun begins as a legal gun, either south of the border or in Canada.

[Heidi Rathjen, Coordinator, PolySeSouvient]

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Gun control is just one of many measures to reduce gun violence. There are different gun control measures that aim to prevent different types of crime, in all sorts of very different contexts. But since our group is made up of victims of mass shootings, our primary goal is to prevent similar tragedies.

The majority of mass killings are committed with legal weapons, mostly assault weapons, but also handguns. This is why we call for a ban on assault weapons and handguns, as well as a ban on high-capacity magazines.

And, given that the massacre at the École Polytechnique was linked to pure misogyny, and that mass shootings are closely associated with domestic violence, we also seek to keep guns away from violent spouses. Over two thirds of the mass shootings in the United States were perpetrated by aggressors that had a history of violence. That is why we are also calling for significant improvements in firearms licensing.

I will now touch on three areas that we feel need to be addressed.

The first is large-capacity magazines. The law passed in 1991 limited the number of cartridges in magazines to five for long guns and 10 for handguns, with some exceptions. Unfortunately, since then these exceptions, combined with new interpretations of the law and changes in the market, have accentuated major flaws in the laws and regulations.

Here are only two examples. First, the law allows magazines designed for more than the legal limit to be sold as long as a device blocks their number at the legal limit. However, according to the RCMP, these modifiable magazines are readily restorable to their full capacity. Many recent mass shooters legally purchased modifiable magazines and illegally converted them to their full capacity, including Justin Bourque, Richard Bain, Alexandre Bissonnette and Matthew Vincent Raymond.

The second is that the Conservative government in 2011 introduced a new interpretation of the 1991 law: If a magazine is not specifically designed for a gun in which it fits, it is exempted from the legal limits. There is zero public safety rationale behind this. In fact, the coroner who investigated the 2006 Dawson shooting said this loophole allowed the shooter to use a 10-bullet magazine for his restricted long gun, the Beretta Cx4 Storm, instead of a five-bullet one, suggesting that this could have made a difference.

The risks created by these flaws are as obvious as the urgency to fix them.

The second point I want to talk about is the verification of the validity of a potential buyer's licence. In 2015, the Liberals promised to reinstate the mandatory verification of a potential buyer's licence by the RCMP before the transfer of a non-restricted firearm. In 2018, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-71. The measure in the bill is described in official documents as follows:

C-71 provides that vendors must verify the firearms licence of the buyer, by contacting the Registrar of Firearms before transferring a non-restricted firearm. The Registrar would check the licence number in the Canadian Firearms Information System and issue a reference number if the licence is valid.

Running the licence number through the system is the only way to ensure that a licence is not counterfeit, stolen or revoked. A seller cannot check that themselves, and yet the regulations tabled last June require no such thing. According to the proposed regulations, once they check the photo on the buyer's licence, sellers will have to contact the RCMP to obtain a reference number authorizing the transfer. However, there is no obligation for a seller to provide any information whatsoever related to the buyer's licence to the RCMP, and there is no obligation stated anywhere in the laws and regulations that the RCMP has to run the licence number through the system.

This shocking loophole was confirmed to us in writing by Public Safety officials and to the Canadian press by a Public Safety spokesperson.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I agree with you on that.

Bill C‑71 and corresponding regulations are not clear about the verification process, and it is difficult to determine if it's well done or if all of the details that allow a person to obtain a firearm are checked.

I'd like to touch on another subject.

You've fought for a community approach instead of putting massive funds into law enforcement.

In your opinion, what do urban communities need to prevent criminal activity?