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.

[John Hipwell, Past President, Wolverine Supplies]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, Matt and I would like to thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

We believe that matters of public safety and national security should be above party politics. We should endeavour to work on common ground. We speak from practical experience, and everything we present to you in our brief is fully supported by the 12 annexes that are included. We will always support improvements to our firearms control system if they improve public safety and national security, and are fair and practical. Sadly, Bill C-71 fails to achieve this.

Based on our practical experience, we present to you our brief on firearms classification. Here is a short summary.

[Matt DeMille, Manager, Fish and Wildlife Services, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, our 100,000 members, supporters, and subscribers, and our 740 clubs across Ontario, thank you for inviting us to talk about Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

My name is Matt DeMille, and I'm the manager of fish and wildlife services with OFAH. With me is Brian McRae, who is responsible for looking at the technical aspects of firearms policy for the OFAH.

The OFAH is the largest conservation-based organization in Ontario, but we also represent all possible firearms interests, including hunting, trapping, and recreational shooting. Additionally, we represent 56 shooting clubs that operate 80 licensed firearms ranges approved by the chief firearms officer.

We are the only fishing and hunting organization appearing before this committee, but our submitted brief that you have in front of you has been endorsed by our affiliates from coast to coast to coast. This includes the Yukon Fish and Game Association, Northwest Territories Wildlife Federation, British Columbia Wildlife Federation, Alberta Fish and Game Association, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, Manitoba Wildlife Federation, Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, Prince Edward Island Wildlife Federation, Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation. In total, our organizations represent approximately 345,000 Canadians.

In our time today, we will only be able to touch on a few highlights of Bill C-71. In our submitted brief, you will find a thorough analysis of each clause of the bill including background context, outstanding questions and concerns, as well as results from a survey conducted by the OFAH in April on Bill C-71, of more than 3,500 firearms users. We have copies of the full survey report if anyone is interested.

Bill C-71 was tabled as public safety legislation that would respect the firearms community. We don't believe this bill accomplishes either of those stated intentions and, as a result, we cannot support the bill as written.

Unfortunately, Bill C-71 is far too light on sound rationale and far too heavy on uncertainty to convince us it will truly enhance public safety. The paper-thin rationale has further undermined an already strained relationship between firearms owners and government when it comes to firearms policy.

To start, the government has overstated and misrepresented statistics to create a post-2013 Canadian firearms crisis that simply isn't true. In fact, long-term trends actually show overall firearms-related crime is on the decline. Whether deliberate or not, this tactic has sown skepticism in the need for such sweeping changes to firearms legislation. It's not off to a good start.

Next, the bill is intended to enhance public safety as part of a much larger policy initiative to tackle gangs and gun violence. On this, Bill C-71 is silent. A quick scan of the bill shows no direct reference to gangs, gun violence, organized crime, and illegal cross-border smuggling of firearms.

That quick scan also reveals that the bill is entirely focused on the law-abiding firearms community. It's not hard to see why 97% of respondents to our survey felt it is too focused on law-abiding citizens to provide any net gains for public safety. Firearms owners obviously feel unjustifiably targeted before even looking under the hood of this legislation.

Let's take a look at the specific elements of the bill, starting with enhanced background checks. The OFAH is not opposed to background checks that look back more than five years, but the government needs to convince us that this will actually increase public safety. Firearms owners are already one of the most vetted segments of Canada's population. Right now existing firearms owners undergo continuous eligibility screening through the Canadian Police Information Centre to verify there has been no criminal activity since acquiring their licence. It is our understanding in Ontario that the chief firearms officer is not limited right now in how far they look back for the criteria they use during eligibility assessments for licence applicants. It begs the question, are the proposals actually enhanced background checks?

Next, let's look at licence verification. Right now, responsible firearms sellers check to make sure buyers have a licence, and they already have the ability to call the Canadian firearms program to verify, if necessary. The OFAH supports the intent of licence verification as it protects the seller and ensures a legal transaction, but our support for the proposed change is dependent on a user-friendly process that incorporates an accessible, timely, and effective appeal system if verification is not granted. We also think it should end there. We have yet to see evidence that clearly shows any issues, such as illegal firearms sales, under the current process, or that the proposed reference number database could effectively assist police. How much will a reference number database cost, and will it actually enhance public safety?

Next, let's look at retailer record-keeping. Record-keeping is something many businesses already perform as a best practice. The OFAH is not opposed to mandatory retailer record-keeping, but many firearms owners are concerned about the safekeeping and privacy of records as well as how records will be accessed by police.

To mitigate these concerns, we would like to see specific provisions added to establish security standards and penalties for non-compliance to ensure the privacy and security of personal information. Additionally, there must be strict guidelines for police accessing records to ensure that it is not used inappropriately.

Next, let's look at automatic authorization to transport. The OFAH cannot support the proposed removal of automatic ATTs. Bill C-71 should be amended to rescind this proposal.

During testimony to this committee on May 8, 2018, the RCMP indicated the number of ATTs issued for gun shows, 250, and gunsmiths, 131, in 2015, was an extremely small percentage of the overall 143,000 issued across Canada. That's only slightly more than a quarter of 1%. It's a different proposal but the same question: how can this possibly enhance public safety?

Next let's look at classification. The focus should not be on who is responsible. Rather, it should be on how firearms are classified. Form and function should determine classification, and not emotional responses to the appearance or perception of a firearm. One of our survey respondents stated, “Assault is the act of inflicting harm or threatening to do so. Assault is not a synthetic stock with a curved magazine and a semi automatic action.” Arbitrary classification of firearms is a significant concern.

Government should establish and adhere to a standardized process for classifying or reclassifying that is consistent, transparent, evidence-based, has full consultation with firearms users, and also has an effective appeals system. Bill C-71 should establish this requirement.

Lastly, let's look at the long gun registry records. A lot of confusion remains about the long gun registry records that exist today. Although we are being told that only the Quebec records still exist, the firearms community wants clear public statements on what records remain, how they can be used, and why the government is handing them over to Quebec after the Supreme Court decision. Transparency in this will help build trust.

In conclusion, it is becoming increasingly clear that Bill C-71, as written, is not likely to achieve the lofty goals presented for this proposed legislation. We are imploring this committee to ask tough questions and seriously consider meaningful amendments. Our opposition to Bill C-71 is not partisan. It is not emotional. It was not predetermined on principle. It was only after a thorough critical analysis that we arrived at the same conclusion for almost every proposal; it won't enhance public safety. The evidence simply doesn't support it.

Licensed firearms owners care about public safety as much as other Canadians. The firearms community is not against firearms legislation. If evidence shows a change is required to enhance public safety, then we will look at it objectively. First we need to ask ourselves, do we need more restrictions on law-abiding Canadians, or will that simply pull the easiest policy lever to say we are doing something for public safety? More red tape on an already highly regulated firearms community won't provide any appreciable benefit for public safety.

We applaud the government's commitment of $327.6 million over the next five years to combat gangs and gun violence, with the intent to spend $100 million per year once the first five years are up, but why is Bill C-71 silent on increased penalties for serious firearms crimes? Targeted legislated action toward gangs, not guns, would be a true complement to the funding committed by the government in 2017. This can be achieved with amendments to Bill C-71.

In the end, Bill C-71 has created confusion, concern, and eroded confidence in the government's approach to firearms policy. There has been very little convincing evidence to demonstrate a need for most of the proposed changes, and this has left the majority of the firearms community in opposition to the bill. If the government is serious about respecting the firearms community, then it can't move forward with Bill C-71 without significant amendments, amendments not only to help minimize the unnecessary scope of its impact on law-abiding firearms owners but also to introduce tangible provisions that directly tackle the stated intent of addressing gun violence. If nothing else, meaningful amendments would signal that government is listening to help rebuild some of the trust lost in this process.

Thank you.

[Vice-Chief Heather Bear, Vice-Chief, Saskatchewan Region, Assembly of First Nations]

Good morning.

First of all, to the committee, I'd like to say I'm happy to be here. I wish I didn't have to be here, but I'm greeting you from the beautiful, unceded and unsurrendered Treaty No. 6 territory in Saskatoon.

Bill C-71 is the subject of a great deal of controversy and commentary across Canada. First nations have a long history of using firearms in cultural activities in this country. In all legislative matters that may have the potential to impact aboriginal and treaty rights, the AFN continues to advocate and work with the governments to incorporate our perspectives into Canadian laws.

The key issues at stake in Bill C-71 are Canada's power to monitor the activities of gun owners, particularly extending their requirements for background checks; the imposition of restrictions on the transport of restricted and prohibited firearms; new record-keeping requirements for a retail business selling firearms; more power to the RCMP to classify firearms without ministerial oversight; and requiring private citizens to confirm the validity of the firearm licence of the recipient whenever a firearm is either sold or given away, in an effort to reduce gang and gun violence.

On these issues, first nations have expertise and hard experience to offer this committee, and also to the government and Canadians as a whole. While many first nations would agree that handguns, restricted firearms, and other weapons used by gangs should be taken off the streets, the core of this discussion is the balancing of federal laws and authorities with the perspectives of first nations and the aboriginal treaty rights affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. First nations as individuals and as nations will assert our fundamental cultural rights to hunt, fish, and trap. First nations have had a right to transmit their cultures to the future generations without outside interference.

With the promise to build on the nation-to-nation relationship with first nations by the Canadian government, opportunities to voice our concerns such as this are vital for not only the Canadian legal framework, but also for the country of Canada as a whole. Parliament needs to consider the impacts of this legislation on first nations at the earliest stages of the process. Bill C-71 has provisions that could adversely impact first nations' rights, and these provisions should be amended by this committee before the legislation proceeds to the next reading.

The proposed amendments to the Firearms Act raise serious constitutional concerns to first nations. Our first concern is that this bill does not incorporate or safeguard our aboriginal and treaty rights that might be impinged, such as our treaty right to hunt. Nowhere in this draft legislation does it state how the provisions of the bill will be implemented for first nations or on our reserves. It should be made clear that the first nations' hunting rights will be respected and that we won't need a transport certificate for any kind of hunting rifle, even those classified as restricted.

Our aboriginal and treaty rights are foundational and are affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. They take precedence over laws that apply generally to all Canadians. We ask Canada to protect our right to freely transport firearms on our territories and in the exercise of our hunting rights.

Our second concern is with the new transportation and transfer requirements for restricted and prohibited firearms. There are no guidelines for these new amendments and how they would apply to first nations. In particular, how would they apply to hunting purposes on first nations? Although most hunting rifles are currently not restricted, that could change under the classification system. These provisions will further affect the intergenerational transmission of our culture through the transfer of a firearm.

Future changes in the classification system could make currently non-restricted firearms become restricted. The RCMP has discretion to designate any particular firearm as restricted, prohibited, or non-restricted. On what basis will the RCMP make those decisions? Who will receive the classification to make sure that the hunting rifles remain unrestricted?

Concerning background checks, under the new rules, the entire life of a person who applies for a firearm licence will be examined, instead of just the past five years. First nations people are more likely to have criminal records due to systemic discrimination and other reasons I won't get into right now, but is it fair that a person could be denied a licence on the basis of a criminal offence committed 20 or 30 years ago? Does that really predict how likely he or she is to misuse a firearm today? Obviously we need to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals and people with serious mental illnesses, but why punish a person who made a mistake decades ago?

Canada says that Bill C-71 will reduce gang violence, but many gang members obtain guns illegally on the black market. The new rules affect law-abiding citizens and don't do anything to curb gang violence. The homicide rate in Canada for licensed gun owners is 0.6% per 100,000, which is one third the rate of the general population. Instead of placing unnecessary restrictions on the rights of licensed gun owners, Canada should do more to directly address gang violence. This means making sure first nations have the funding to operate their own police forces and that they are properly trained and equipped.

Bill C-71 brings in new firearms transportation laws, which will be an additional responsibility for first nations police services. Canada continues to designate our police services as non-essential and fails to provide enough funding under the first nations policing program. The first nations police agencies must provide a service equal to that of non-indigenous police services. This bill will further burden our police forces, and we will require more investment to uphold the enforcement requirements of this bill.

First nations police forces are also equipped with inferior weapons compared with gangs, and more training for certification of firearms used by other police forces must be made available to first nations police agencies. Currently, there are no provisions in the bill for increased funding for first nations police forces.

This bill proposes additional requirements for businesses to keep records of the sale of firearms and of purchasers. We have concerns around privacy provisions, which are not in this bill. In the event of a breach in security of these records, how will this legislation ensure the safety of confidential information? Records need to be kept for 20 years and are supposed to help authorities keep track of the sales and distribution of firearms. What about the rights of the people who purchase these weapons? Records should be kept in a locked, fireproof, and waterproof safe to which only the manager or owner of the business has access.

These are our concerns regarding this proposed legislation. We will continue to uphold first nations' rights and continue our long-standing traditions of hunting, trapping, and gathering on the lands we have tended for countless generations. Unfortunately, the process for developing this legislation did not meet the federal government's duty to consult and accommodate. We stand with the many other Canadians who are not willing to forfeit their fundamental rights and freedoms, and who are asking that this government engage in more careful crafting of this important piece of legislation. Canada must do better and more to meet its constitutional and treaty responsibilities to first nations.

I would like to thank this committee for its efforts to listen to first nations. We would like to continue to work with the Canadian government on this important issue, and are open to providing more insights on gun legislation.

I'd also like to add that the overall perspective is that first nations have exclusive jurisdiction to govern and regulate any activity over their lands and people, including the use and regulation of firearms, but I also want to speak about the cultural perspective as a mother and a grandmother. When you look at our young men—my son, my nephews, my grandchildren—it's a beautiful thing when they have that rite of passage and can have a gun. It generally comes as a gift.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

Firearms Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege, which is in addition to the one I presented yesterday.

As you know, yesterday I raised a question of privilege regarding documents on the website of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police concerning the implementation of Bill C-71, a piece of legislation presently before the public safety committee. These RCMP documents presumed the passage of Bill C-71 without any concession to the fact that the bill is still subject to parliamentary approval.

In your deliberations on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I assume that you will visit the RCMP website to verify the content. I was advised today that the website has been modified as of today. The documents posted now have a disclaimer about Bill C-71 being a proposed law. In fact, I would note that when the document is printed out, it shows “date modified: 2018-05-30”, which is today. You may now add to the body of evidence presented yesterday this apparent admission of guilt by the RCMP by virtue of its modifications of its website, which reflects exactly the question of privilege that was raised yesterday. Covering things up after the fact does not make this right.

In summation, I would respectfully submit that a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament was clearly laid out yesterday, and the fact that the RCMP modified its website today confirms its acknowledgement of such.

Bill C-47—Time Allocation Motion

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again I stand in this place tonight disappointed. I guess the government realizes how little it has done throughout the year and now wants to rush through some of this legislation.

My constituents who are law-abiding gun owners in Battle River—Crowfoot know that Bill C-68, the long gun registry, was originally one of the reasons I got into politics. I want them to know that the government's priority tonight, before we break for summer, is to give the United Nations, not Ottawa, which would have been bad enough, the ability to make gun laws for my law-abiding farmers and ranchers, and also to take certain measures that, as we heard from the minister, the Liberals hope would show the world that we are leaders in the world if we just buy into this UN piece of legislation.

We are seeing two bills this year. We are seeing this one, Bill C-47, which the Liberals have moved closure on, but we are also seeing Bill C-71, which is basically a companion-type legislation. The Liberals bring both bills together, because they want to have power over law-abiding firearm owners.

I notice that the minister who is to shepherd this bill through the House tonight is not even here for the debate, or maybe I am not supposed to say that. However, it is unfortunate that another minister is doing standby duty for someone else tonight.

I would ask him to comment on the two pieces of legislation dealing with firearms, and why it is so vitally important that we move on this so quickly.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again with time allocation for yet another bill. I think we are now up to 36 or 37 uses of time allocation by a party that suggested in the last Parliament that such procedural motions were an “assault on democracy”. That is the quote of the parliamentary secretary, who is now one of the minions in charge of executing this policy. The hubris involved in that is unbelievable.

My question on Bill C-47 comes down to the reasonableness of the request of anglers, hunters, and first nation hunters who lawfully use firearms. All they wanted to see from the government was a basic recognition in the bill that lawful uses, such cultural use and sport hunting, would be exempt from the UN treaty. They were led to believe that would come, yet here we are. There is no such direct provision in the legislation, and the government is rushing through debate on Bill C-47, alongside its companion piece of legislation, Bill C-71.

My question is simple. Why not have a reasonable exemption for lawful use?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to contribute to the debate on government Motion No. 22, which is an important motion. It addresses the manner in which the House will continue to work between now and when we eventually reach the summer break. It is important because it will allow us to make additional progress in advancing the agenda that Canadians have elected us to do in this place.

Motion No. 22 will also position the House to build on the good work that has already been accomplished by the committees and the work that the committees have put forward. I want to highlight that this is not just work that government members on the committees are doing; this is work that all parties and individuals on committees have been contributing to in order to get the legislation back to this place so it can be voted on before the summer break. That is really important.

A lot of the debate today has focused around government legislation, that it is only about what the government wants. Through my participation at committees and the work I have been able to do, I have seen that quite often committees have the ability to work really well together, to collaborate together, to work on a less hyper-partisan level than we seem to experience in this place, and quite often do come to compromises. I know that happens for me and my colleagues at the defence committee. We should all take great pride in that.

The problem is that if we do not have this motion, if we do not extend the sitting hours, we will be put into a situation where all the work we have done basically gets put on the table until the fall. That is why it is so important to do this.

I would like to highlight some of that important work the committees have done. Before I get to that, it is important to stress the fact that during the 2015 election, the governing party now, the Liberal Party at the time, of which I am a part of, made a commitment to strengthen parliamentary committees. In doing so, we were committing a new government's respect for the fundamental roles that parliamentarians played on committees in order to hold government to account.

This commitment included in the mandate letter of the government House leader that under the government, the parliamentary committees would be be freer and better equipped with legislation. One of the things out of a whole host of things that committees do differently now is the chairs are elected freely by the members. They are not appointed by the government. It is done with a secret ballot that allows members to freely express who they are putting forward as their selection for chair.

One of the other changes to committee recently was with respect to the addition of putting parliamentary secretaries on committees, but not in a voting capacity, in a capacity that they could be there to contribute when necessary. On the defence committee, parliamentary secretaries do not play a very active role, but they are there so they can stay informed about what the committee is doing. By not having a vote, it removes any potential interference that one might see coming from the minister's office into the committee.

The Standing Orders that enabled all this were passed in June 2017. In my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the majority of the people in the House, they have given committees the ability to genuinely act in a more open, transparent, and free manner.

I would like to quickly highlight some of the important legislation that is currently before Parliament that runs the risk of not being voted on and to be completed and enacted before the end of this session.

The first one I would like to speak to is Bill C-59, which was before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The bill, the national security act, 2017, began in November 2017 and extended to clause-by-clause review in April 2018. This committee literally spent five or six months working on this legislation.

For anybody to suggest that the government somehow does not want committees to have full participation and input is absolutely ridiculous, when we consider the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security spent up to six months on the legislation.

Bill C-59 fulfill's the government's commitment to keep Canadians safe, while safeguarding the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Members might remember the bill that was introduced by the previous government, Bill C-51, which ended up with massive public outcry and complaints about its infringement upon the rights and freedoms of individuals. During the election, a commitment was made to ensure new legislation would come forward. Now we have seen upward of five to six months of committee deliberation on that work. It is important to note that the committee adopted over 40 amendments to bring greater clarity, transparency, and accountability to the bill.

Another bill before the same committee is Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms. We know this is another thing about which Canadians are extremely concerned. Bill C-71 would enhance background checks on those seeking to obtain firearms. It would make background checks in the existing licensing system more effective. It would also standardize best practices among retailers to maintain adequate inventory and sales records that would be accessible to police officers.

Bill C-71 would also ensure that a classification of firearms would be done in an impartial, professional, and accurate manner, consisting of resorting to a system in which Parliament would define the classes of authorities, but leave would it to experts within the RCMP to determine firearms classification specifically. The most important part of that would be leaving the political influence out of it.

As we can see, Bill C-71 is an important bill that would contribute to public safety. That is why it is so critical to ensure it has an opportunity to come back to the House to be voted on before we break for the summer.

The biggest bill, and in my opinion the most important bill that would do the most for Canadians, is Bill C-74, the budget implementation act. This bill would affect every Canadian from coast to coast. It would increase the opportunities for people to have a fair chance at success, in particular those who are struggling.

The budget implementation act would specifically introduce things like a Canada workers benefit to assist low-income workers. It would index the Canada child benefit to help nine out of 10 Canadian families. It would lower the taxes on small business. It would put in better supports for veterans. It is absolutely critical to have the bill work its way through the finance committee and the deliberations it has with Canadians throughout the country, so it can come back to the House and we can vote on it in a timely fashion.

I have so many more examples of other legislation before committee right now. However, for all of these reasons, it is so important we pass the motion now to allow us to sit later into the evenings so we can ensure we complete the work Canadians have put us here to do.

I want to take two more minutes to speak specifically to the amendments that have come forward today. I know there has been a lot of discussion about the proportion of time being spent on government business versus the proportion of time being spent on opposition motions and opposition days. This is not about proportioning of government versus opposition. This is about ensuring we can put more items on the agenda. That is why it is important to ensure we sit later into the evenings so we can do exactly that. The items I am speaking about are ones that have been collaborated on in committees by all members of all parties of the House.

That is why I personally cannot support the amendments. I do not think that they are particularly good amendments, because they are not going after what we need to do, which is to examine more pieces of legislation, as opposed to proportionally growing the amount of time that each political party gets, which is unfortunately the partisan nature that this debate has been put into.

With that, I see that we are approaching the end of the debate on this matter. I would like to leave an opportunity for people to ask questions. I am happy to entertain those at this time.

Firearms Act

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

Mr. Speaker, turning back to today's question of privilege, I am rising because these online government publications presume the adoption of Bill C-71 by Parliament. There is no caveat given by the RCMP that the legislation is subject to parliamentary approval, and there is no acknowledgement of the parliamentary process at all, in fact. This, in my view, is nothing but a contempt of Parliament.

Page 14 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, explains contempt as follows:

As in the case of a Superior Court, when by some act or word a person disobeys or is openly disrespectful of the authority of the House of Commons or Senate or of their lawful commands, that person is subject to being held in contempt of the House of Commons or Senate as the case may be; therefore it will be seen that the Senate and House of Commons have the power or right to punish actions that, while not appearing to be breaches of any specific privilege, are offences against their authority or dignity.

Page 81 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, adds:

The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly.

Let me read a sampling of the content found in “Special Business Bulletin No. 93”.

To begin with, we see:

Because not all CZ firearms will be impacted by changes in their classification, business 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) firearm 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 quite clear. It is “will be impacted”, “will...become prohibited”, and “is affected”, not “could be”, “may become”, or “might be affected”.

Later in the bulletin, we read:

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, before one might think that the language about the bill's coming into force possibly concedes the need for parliamentary approval, let me continue reading:

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 the Governor in Council. This date is yet to be determined.

It is my respectful submission that any conditional language one might read or infer in that document is left, in the mind of the reader, to be, therefore, a matter of cabinet discretion, not Parliament's.

Turning to a second document, entitled “How does Bill C- 71 affect individuals?”, we see additional presumptuous language. A lot of it mirrors what I quoted from “Special Business Bulletin No. 93”.

Other passages, however, include:

If your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited firearm.

It says, “was listed”, as if Bill C-71 was a document from the past, not a bill currently before a parliamentary committee.

Later we read:

To qualify for grandfathering of your currently non-restricted or restricted CZ/SA firearm, the following criteria must be met....

There follows a list of details for firearms owners to meet, which, just coincidentally, happens to be laid out in clause 3 of Bill C-71, yet there is no indication that these are proposals before Parliament, let alone in need of parliamentary sanction to be enforced.

A leading ruling on the presumption of parliamentary decision-making concerning legislation is the ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser, on October 10, 1989, at page 4457 of the Debates, in respect of the implementation of the goods and services tax.

The impugned advertisements in that case contained similarly unequivocal language, such as “Canada's Federal Sales Tax System will change. Please save this notice”, and, the GST “will replace the existing federal sales tax”.

In this instance, Mr. Speaker Fraser did not find the prima facie case of contempt. However, he could not have been more clear when he stated, and I quote:

I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous. This is a case which, in my opinion, should never recur. I expect the Department of Finance and other departments to study this ruling carefully and remind everyone within the Public Service that we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy....

A vote on this issue might not support the very important message which your Speaker wishes to convey and which I hope will be well considered in the future by governments, departmental officials and advertisement agencies retained by them. This advertisement may not be a contempt of the House in the narrow confines of a procedural definition, but it is, in my opinion, ill-conceived and it does a great disservice to the great traditions of this place. If we do not preserve these great traditions, our freedoms are at peril and our conventions become a mockery. I insist, and I believe I am supported by the majority of moderate and responsible members on both sides of this House, that this ad is objectionable and should never be repeated.

Subsequent rulings have distinguished other factual scenarios from the 1989 ruling, and, I submit, are distinguishable from the circumstances I am rising on today.

On March 13, 1997, at page 8988 of the Debates, Speaker Parent held that a policy-promotion campaign concerning anti-tobacco legislation did not give rise to a prima facie contempt, but the Chair added the following advice, and I quote:

...where the government issues communications to the public containing allusions to measures before the House, it would be advisable to choose words and terms that leave no doubt as to the disposition of these measures.

That advice was put into practice by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in its promotional materials respecting Bill C-50, leading to the 2008 ruling by Mr. Speaker Milliken, which I cited in my opening comments, that there was no prima facie contempt.

More recently, your immediate predecessor ruled, on September 28, 2011, at page 1576 of the Debates, that a procurement solicitation for advisory services for the implications of certain scenarios for the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly was “part of a planning process that might be expected in contemplating the possibility of the repeal of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.”

Last year, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on May 29, 2017, at page 11560 of the Debates, that advertisements to hire the leadership of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, then a matter before the House as part of a budget implementation bill, was not a contempt, because some, but not all, of the government's job postings conceded that parliamentary approval was required. In the ruling, the Chair said:

I was looking for any suggestion that parliamentary approval was being publicized as either unnecessary or irrelevant, or in fact already obtained. Otherwise put, I was looking for any indication of an offence against or disrespect of the authority or dignity of the House and its members.

As it turns out, I think the most relevant ruling in respect of the facts before us today is that of Mr. Speaker Stockwell, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, given on January 22, 1997, in respect of a government pamphlet explaining municipal reform legislation, not unlike the purpose of the RCMP' s internet guidance. In finding a prima facie contempt, Mr. Speaker Stockwell held:

...I am very concerned by the Ministry pamphlet, which is worded more definitively than the commercial and the press release. To name but a few examples, the brochure claims that “new city wards will be created”, that “work on building the new city will start in 1997”, and that “[t]he new City of Toronto will reduce the number of municipal politicians.

How is one to interpret such unqualified claims? In my opinion, they convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or was a foregone conclusion, or that the assembly and the Legislature had no pro forma tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and lawmaking process, and in doing so, they appear to diminish the respect that is due to this House. I would not have come to this view had these claims or proposals—and that is all they are—been qualified by a statement that they would only become law if and when the Legislature gave its stamp of approval to them.

In the RCMP documents, we are not talking about standing up a crown corporation, or hiring a government consultant, or even promoting an anti-smoking campaign, nor are we talking about new tax rules or changes to local government. We are talking about a publication that gives advice on how to avoid becoming a criminal. How much more serious can one get than that? This is not hyperbole.

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 was, “lf your SA firearm was listed in Bill C-71, it will be classified as a prohibited firearm.”

The unlawful possession of a firearm can lead to a jail sentence of up to five years. That is pretty serious stuff.

Conservatives have been clear and on the record about their concerns about the RCMP arbitrarily reclassifying firearms. That is why the previous government gave the Governor in Council an oversight role. Basically, what happens is that law-abiding owners who follow all the rules and regulations with respect to their firearms are suddenly, because of one meeting of some bureaucrats, declared criminals for possession of an illegal weapon, when they have owned and used that weapon for sport shooting or hunting for many years. Suddenly, with one blanket move, what dozens or hundreds of thousands of people already possess is somehow deemed illegal.

We have seen this disrespect for law-abiding Canadians from the RCMP before. The RCMP has acted in contempt of Parliament several times before. There is an institutional history of it, as a matter of fact.

On February 16, 1965, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP's arrest of an opposition member of Parliament. On September 4, 1973, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP interrogation of an opposition member. On March 21, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP's electronic surveillance—spying, in other words—of an opposition MP. On December 6, 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP misleading a former minister concerning the information he provided to opposition parliamentarians.

On December 1, 2004, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the RCMP blocking MPs' access to Parliament Hill. On April 10, 2008, Mr. Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege following the false and misleading evidence given to the public accounts committee by the RCMP's then deputy commissioner.

On March 15, 2012, your immediate predecessor, Mr. Speaker, found a prima facie case of privilege when the RCMP denied MPs access to Centre Block. On September 25, 2014, another prima facie case of privilege was established related to the RCMP's denial of access to Parliament Hill. On May 12, 2015, two incidents of MPs being denied access to Centre Block by the RCMP led to yet another prima facie case of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, you have also needed to deal with these issues. On April 6 and 11, 2017, you found prima facie cases of privilege flowing out of MPs' access being denied by the Parliamentary Protective Service, an organization that, of course, has a clear legal relationship with the RCMP.

Even on the Senate side, the RCMP was found to have committed a prima facie case of contempt by Mr. Speaker Kinsella, on May 8, 2013, following its efforts to thwart parliamentary task force members from appearing as witnesses before a committee.

It goes without saying that it comes as absolutely no surprise that our national police force would snub its nose at Parliament yet again. Even more distressing is that the minister responsible for the RCMP, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is one of the most experienced members of the House and a former House leader. The minister should be urging respect for Parliament by his officials. The RCMP is not above the law and not above the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, if you agree there is a prima facie case of contempt here, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege about online publications of the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, respecting Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms. These documents, found on the RCMP website, were brought to my attention yesterday, which is why I am rising today, the earliest opportunity after I became aware of the documents.

On another question of privilege concerning advertising, Speaker Milliken ruled, on May 29, 2008, at page 6276 of the Debates:

In this case, as in others, it is not so much that the event or issue complained of took place at a given time, but rather that the members bringing the matter to the attention of the House did so as soon as practicable after they became aware of the situation.

Turning back to today's question of privilege, I am rising because these online government publications—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

This is just a point of clarification, Mr. Chair.

In case there was confusion on my question about the retention of personal information, my point was that nothing in Bill C-71 creates a centralized database of personal information that would be held by government.

In case there was a question about that, that's what I meant to say. I'm sorry if there was confusion.

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

Thank you very much.

Dr. Drummond, I want to thank you very much for bringing us back to what's important here, and that is saving lives. Do you think Bill C-71 will save lives?

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

Thank you for the question.

No, I do not see anything in Bill C-71 that will reduce or work to reduce gun crime by violent people who are either suicidally inclined or criminally inclined. This bill merely multiplies the hurdles that already law-abiding, already vetted people must endure to transfer, to buy, and to own firearms.

Bill C-75 deals with punishment, the incarceration of people who have committed crimes. Most criminologists would argue that we need to keep focused on the violent criminals, not the good people.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Dr. Drummond. I will make a statement that we support the idea that the whole idea of firearms safety is about ensuring that public safety is the driving force behind that. Having the ability to ensure that those who should not have firearms do not acquire firearms is certainly part of that process.

Mr. Mauser, I will finish my questions with you.

According to your research, firearms licence holders are approximately one-third less likely to commit a firearms crime than a member of the general public. Having said that, I have two questions. In your opinion, do you see anything in Bill C-71, which is before us, that really addresses gun crime? Do you think that the combination of approaches we are seeing proposed in Bill C-75, reducing the sentencing for gang membership, is appropriate given what we're trying to accomplish in Bill C-71?

[Supt Gordon Sneddon]

The only record is in relation to restricted and prohibited firearms. Non-restricted firearms are detailed in Bill C-71.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Calkins is not here, Mr. Chair, but he did note a few moments ago that he has a desire to hear from gun vendors, which I think is important, but I can put them on the record right now. There is at least one gun vendor, and I have spoken to others who have not spoken publicly, but who are in favour of Bill C-71, who see no problem with it, who do not believe that it's a gun registry. In fact, I would like to read into the record the thoughts on Bill C-71 that one Ontario gun vendor has. His view on the bill is:

[T]here's not been a real big change on the actual aspect of logging the customer's information and keeping on record what they've purchased. We already do it with ammunition, now they're just asking us to do it with guns. By doing it with guns we're going to give the police and the community the tool to begin to track where guns are purchased, how they're being trafficked and how they're being used, so that's not a bad thing.

He continues by saying, Mr. Chair, that Bill C-71 “just gives the police a starting point when they have to investigate a crime”.

Under Bill C-71, as we've heard, at the point of sale, the date of purchase is now going to be required to be kept by gun vendors, as well as the firearms licence number, and the make and model of the firearm.

With that in mind, I would like to ask the police representatives here the following questions:

Under Bill C-71, is sale record information overseen by the RCMP in any way, yes or no?