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.

[Dr. Caillin Langmann]

BillC-71, in terms of [Technical Difficulty—Editor] in 2016, this recent study.... There's not enough data to look at any effects from any newer legislation.

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

Dr. Langmann, can you clarify something for me?

Your research ended in 2016, so you did not actually look at the impact of Bill C-71, which included extended background checks and forfeiture of firearms to the crown under a prohibition order. Can you confirm that your legislation ended prior to the introduction of Bill C-71?

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

You talked about a ban, and you also talked in your speech about bills C‑71 and C‑21. In your view, legislative gaps in relation to gun crime need to be closed.

In your view, what are these gaps?

As parliamentarians, how can we contribute to the debate and propose legislative solutions to the government?

[Chief Evan Bray, Chief of Police, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of this distinguished committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I co-chair a CACP special purpose committee on firearms that's been tasked to study growing concerns related to gun violence in Canada from a public safety perspective.

The debate on firearms, as we know, is a very polarizing one that can be highly divisive and emotionally charged on all sides of the issue. The CACP believes in balancing the privileges of individual Canadians with the broader rights of society. As police leaders, we place a priority on public safety and the protection of the most vulnerable among us. The committee is comprised of numerous experts from across Canada, working together to understand the complexities of firearm crime in our country. The CACP is working closely with organizations like Public Safety Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Canadian Firearms Program.

Combining our expertise in guns and gangs, investigative firearms tracing, statistics and other things opens the door to enhanced collaboration and information sharing. The committee identified four key themes that will help guide our work over the next couple of years: strategic approaches, legislative initiatives, education and prevention, and data collection and information sharing. Over the past two years we've provided feedback on firearm-related legislation, such as bills C-71 and C-21, to improve what is a strict and responsible form of gun ownership in Canada.

While we should always strive for continuous improvement with legislation, we also need to find ways of reducing gun violence in our communities using the best evidence-based practices. How crime guns make their way into our communities, the types of guns being used for criminal purposes, the perpetrators using guns to commit crimes, and other areas related to firearms can differ greatly across Canada. To ascertain how, when, why and where firearms are being used to commit crimes in Canada, we need good data. To this end, the special purpose committee on firearms worked with the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics to ensure that good firearms data was being collected consistently across Canada. For example, in 2021, we set new standard definitions for firearms terminology related to shootings and crime guns. We also amended the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey to include new firearm codes that distinguish between seized, stolen and recovered firearms. The first results will be expected in the fall of this year.

Two large areas requiring further work are the origin of crime guns and firearm tracing in Canada. With our partners, we're conducting a study on the origins of crime guns to monitor trends and examine the effectiveness of policies and interventions. In parallel, we are also working to increase the uptake in capacity to complete firearm tracing. We want to understand the benefits and challenges with respect to the existing process in Canada to better inform operational steps and address legislative gaps related to gun crime. The issue is not law-abiding Canadians who want to own firearms. The issue really is people who are involved in criminal activity who are obtaining firearms through illegal means, such as cross-border trafficking, theft from legal gun owners and straw purchases. The absence of purchase records effectively stymies the ability of police to trace non-restricted firearms that have been used in a crime. Firearm tracing can assist in identifying the suspect in a crime and the criminal sourcing of that gun and any trafficking networks.

The disturbing trend in gun violence is largely related to gangs, lower-level street gangs and more sophisticated organized crime groups, so to stop it requires a whole-of-society approach. It starts with education and prevention early on to address the root causes that lead people to the gang lifestyle in the first place. It's about exit strategies for people in those lifestyles and leading them towards a healthier path. Finally, it's about enforcement and ensuring that we're going after the criminal elements who are perpetrating violence in our communities. We want to use proper investigative techniques, have them in place and have appropriate consequences for those who commit acts of violence.

In conclusion, we respect the debate that is occurring and understand the various positions on this issue. It's not our goal to punish law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals. Our goal simply is to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.

Thank you.

[Kellie Paquette]

Currently, restricted and prohibited firearms do require that validation of a licence. Through Bill C-71, as you've identified, for non-restricted firearms, it would be a requirement to have a valid licence and the registrar would validate that.

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

Thanks so much, Chair.

The RCMP mentioned the straw purchases. I'd like to go back, if I could, to the regulations in Bill C-71. When someone has come in to purchase a firearm and they have a licence, the seller is calling the RCMP. Do our regulations require that the RCMP check to see that it is a valid licence and make sure that it's not counterfeit?

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

That's great. Thank you.

I worked on Bill C-71 at committee. Prior to Christmas, we passed a motion to refer the regulations back to have them come into force. One of the things was that it would require someone selling firearms to check that the person purchasing a firearm from them had a licence. I was quite shocked that we weren't already doing that.

Can you confirm that these regulations we've put in place require someone selling those firearms to check that a purchaser of a firearm has a valid licence?

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

Thank you so much.

Thank you to the officials who are here today.

I'd like to quickly use the rest of the time we have. I had distributed a notice of motion on Bill C-71. I know that the Conservative Party had made some amendments.

I'll just read an amended motion into the record, if I can. I move—

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

Here's what I will tell you, Mr. Lloyd. The past president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police called Bill C-71, which strengthened background checks for prospective buyers, essential. The Conservative Party opposed it. You vowed to repeal it.

The current president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supported our prohibition of military-style assault rifles, saying, “it ensures the safety of our members when they respond to calls for service.”

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

—with regard to how to create safer communities. The Conservative Party opposed the assault rifle ban, Mr. Lloyd. We disagree. We think that, by banning assault rifles, we're going to create safer communities.

The Conservative Party objected to Bill C-71, which would ensure stronger background checks and verification to ensure that we are not allowing criminals to get their hands on guns. We think those steps are smart and prudent. They are informed by many experts, including frontline and executive members from—

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

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan, for your leadership on this issue, but also for mentioning PolySeSouvient. I just spoke with its representatives almost two weeks ago.

The government considers Bill C‑71 essential. It is a mechanism to introduce more measures and controls to combat gun violence. For example, there are background checks to ensure that people who buy guns do not have a history of violence and even to prevent those with a history of gender-based violence from buying them.

There are also mechanisms in Bill C‑71 to check the sales history of all firearms dealers. Now, we are asking this committee to study the regulations stemming from Bill C‑71, which has become law, and to take the next steps to protect everyone. This is such an important bill for our gun violence strategy.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also thank the minister for attending the committee today.

I would like to address the issue of Bill C‑71, which was passed in 2019 and was mentioned by the minister. This is really an important step forward for better gun control. I was pleased to see the first set of regulations introduced recently. However, in my riding, PolySeSouvient—PolyRemembers—and many other stakeholders would like to see these regulations strengthened to require the systematic verification of licences and other documents of all firearm purchasers, as well as an extension of the mandatory 90‑day retention of purchasers' licence information.

Could the minister comment on these potential changes and provide an update on the remaining Bill C‑71 regulations?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, committee members.

As we begin, I'd like to acknowledge that I'm joining you virtually from the traditional territory of the Algonquin.

It's an honour to make this first appearance before you in my new capacity as Minister of Public Safety. I look forward to collaborating with you.

I want to thank Ms. Michaud for presenting the motion to study gun violence to the House. We have seen too many tragedies in Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto and across the country. There have been too many lives lost.

École Polytechnique in Montreal, Quebec City mosque, Toronto on the Danforth, and Portapique in Nova Scotia, each of these tragedies was marked by senseless acts of violence with one common denominator—guns.

We can say we grieve for the victims and survivors, and surely our hearts go out to them, but words are not enough. Thoughts and prayers are not enough. Words have to be put into action, and that is what we are doing. Our government has taken decisive action by introducing stronger gun controls, investing in more policing resources and border enforcement, and by allocating funds for prevention strategies and community infrastructure.

We passed Bill C-71, which requires enhanced background checks to prevent those who have a history of violence from owning a firearm. Regulations under Bill C-71 have been referred to this committee. Once in force, they will help police trace illegal guns and ensure that firearms licences are verified. At a time when we have seen rates of gun-related gender-based violence and femicide increase, we owe it to survivors to do more. I urge members to deal with these regulations at the first available opportunity.

Canadians will also recall that our government introduced a ban of over 1,500 assault-style rifles, including the weapons used at École Polytechnique, at the Quebec City mosque and at Dawson College. For decades, grieving families and survivors had asked successive governments to prohibit these types of firearms. As my predecessor Minister Blair said at the time, “Enough is enough.”

In addition to stronger gun controls, we've backed up law enforcement in our communities and at the border. We've invested over $300 million over five years, beginning this year, including $40 million to combat smuggling, $15 million for tracing, and over $21 million for CBSA equipment and intelligence sharing. We've allocated $250 million to fight guns and gangs violence on our streets. The results of these investments are clear: They are working. We've seen record gun seizures and arrests thanks to the hard-working members of the RCMP and the CBSA.

In Quebec, our investments have resulted in the hiring of 71 new police officers over the past year. This is in addition to the 19 prosecutors and 5 data specialists hired across the country in the past year.

At the border, we are continuing to work very closely with our provincial and American partners. Domestically, we have the integrated border enforcement team, which coordinates the RCMP and provincial police services through joint operations. When I was in Washington, D.C., about a month ago, I met with my counterpart, Secretary Mayorkas. We committed to attending the cross-border crime forum, as well as the joint firearms task force to stem the flow of illegal guns across our international borders.

Despite this progress, we have more to do. Now that we have banned assault rifles, we have to take the next steps and implement a buyback program. To all the survivors and advocacy groups, including PolySeSouvient and the Danforth Families, we are listening to you. We are going to make the buyback program mandatory.

When it comes to handguns, I hear what my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois are saying. I am aware of the motion passed by the National Assembly, and I will work with my counterparts in the province according to their needs.

It is a fact that the majority of gun-related homicides involve a handgun, and that's why our government is committed to investing one billion dollars to support those provinces and territories that want to ban handguns. We are going to increase criminal penalties for gun smuggling and trafficking, and enhance the capacity of police and border officials to keep illegal firearms and ammunition out of the country.

We cannot simply rely on the hammer of criminal law. Arresting, charging, prosecuting and sentencing are all after the fact. We need to prevent gun crimes from occurring in the first place, and that's why we're investing $250 million in a safe communities fund to create safer and more inclusive spaces.

Speaking of safety, I say this to our law-abiding gun owners: We know that you are responsible, prudent and respectful of the law. I want to assure hunters, farmers and target shooters that nothing we are doing is intended to diminish their lawful recreational activities. At the same time, we have a responsibility to work together to reduce gun violence. We cannot risk another shooting at a school, a place of worship, or at a police officer, or on women, or on any innocent life. Public safety is our top priority. Protecting human life must come above all else.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am committed to working with all of you to achieve that goal.

Thank you.

Firearms

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from petitioners across Canada.

The petitioners are concerned about Bill C-71. They are concerned about the treatment of firearms owners in Canada. They are calling on the government to treat firearms owners like every other Canadian across the country and not to target them.

Legal firearms owners are among the least likely people to commit crimes in Canada, and they are just asking to be treated like every other Canadian. As such, the petitioners are calling for the repeal of Bill C-71, and I look forward to the government's response to this.

Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

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

Madam Speaker, it brings me no great joy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑5.

The first thing I want to point out is that this bill is an exact copy of Bill C‑22, which was introduced and debated in the previous Parliament. Then there was an election, so now we have to start over. On second thought, maybe starting over is not such a bad thing, because if Bill C‑22 had been adopted in its entirety a few months ago, the mandatory minimum sentences for a number of important offences would have been reduced. At least now we have a chance to change things.

The main reasons that led me to become a Conservative MP have to do with public order, national defence, public safety and sound economic management. More than anything else, it was the Conservative approach to public order that really prompted me to become a Conservative MP. I was elected for the first time in 2015, but, unfortunately for my party, the Liberals won that time around and have been in power ever since.

Since 2015, we have witnessed drastic and tragic changes to how public safety issues are addressed. Victim protection has changed, and criminals have been given more rights. That really worries me.

Personally, I blame the Liberals, of course, but also the New Democrats, who, unfortunately, systematically support the Liberal approach. The Bloc Québécois tends to do that as well. As a Quebecker, I often have a hard time understanding how my Bloc colleagues can be so far to the left on these issues, but that is another debate. As I see it, the approach in Bill C‑5 is totally ideological and utterly incomprehensible.

Here are some examples of crimes for which Bill C-5 will reduce minimum sentences: robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting an unauthorized firearm; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of an offence; possession of a prohibited firearm; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence; possession for the purposes of weapons trafficking; and discharging a firearm.

If Canadians and Quebeckers were listening carefully to that list of the various crimes involving firearms, most people would say that that does not make sense and that reducing the penalties for such offences is out of the question. If people had a clear understanding of what is being debated today, if people were polled, the vast majority would say that this makes no sense and that there is no reason to reduce the sentences of criminals who commit these kinds of offences. That is what the average person on the street would say.

Of course, each member has a duty to represent their constituents, about 100,000 people on average. The Liberals are going to say that this is what people want, and the NDP will support them. Unfortunately, we Conservatives are in a minority. However, I can guarantee that if we asked Canadians about this, the majority, over 50% of them, would surely say they are against this type of measure.

We also must remember that the Liberals have had a change of heart. The offences I just listed were included in the Criminal Code in 1976 under the Liberal government at the time, which was led by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the current Prime Minister's father. Back then, the left and right saw crime very differently, and we can all agree that these were important measures that did the trick.

Today, over 40 years later, we are trying to understand why Pierre Elliott Trudeau's son has a totally different perspective on this issue and is taking his government in a direction that puts public safety in jeopardy.

What is more, Bill C‑5 deals on one hand with firearms and on the other hand with drugs. Let us be clear: We are talking about sentences for traffickers, not addicts or drug users. This is not at all about managing people who use drugs for various reasons and all the risks that entails. This is truly about traffickers, those who sell, produce and traffic in drugs such as heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth.

On that, I would like to read what my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton said in the House yesterday. I find it very relevant when we are talking about fentanyl. He said the following:

We have an opioid crisis in Canada today. Every day, approximately 20 Canadians lose their lives to an opioid overdose. It has increased by 88% since the onset of COVID, 7,000 Canadians a year. The Liberal government's solution is to roll back mandatory sentencing for the very people who are putting this poison on our streets, endangering lives and killing 20 Canadians a day.

That is the main issue, that ideological and philosophical approach to criminals.

As my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton so wisely pointed out yesterday, how are Canadians supposed to agree with eliminating harsh sentences for drug traffickers, the people who are responsible for the fentanyl that kills 20 Canadians a day? Where is the logic there? I cannot wrap my head around it, and neither can most of my colleagues.

I would like to hear my colleagues from other parties, like the Bloc Québécois members and even some from the Liberal Party, acknowledge that the Conservatives are right and that the government is going too far with Bill C‑5.

This is not the right way to tackle the problem. As I was saying, this has nothing to do with addicts. When speaking about people who use for various reasons, a Bloc member said earlier that we should be proactive in tackling this problem. To be proactive, to help drug users, we would have to go after the traffickers who get those drugs onto the streets and whose actions lead to the death of 20 Canadians every day.

What is worse, the Prime Minister appears to think all of this is okay. He does not seem to grasp the problem, and the government does not seem to be able to find the right approach. If this were based on facts or on some logic that people could get on board with, it would be fine, but no, the government seems to think its ideology is perfect. This is unacceptable.

I remind members that Bill C‑5 would reduce minimum penalties for crimes that involve the use of a firearm. There has been talk in Montreal about firearms and the trafficking of guns through the United States for several weeks now. People are bringing in weapons from all over the place and selling them on the black market. There are 14- 15- or 16-year-old kids using these weapons on Montreal streets. Toronto has had the same problem for many years. Quebec is now grappling with this issue, as firearms are becoming increasingly prevalent in Montreal.

While police, judges and the justice system try to find a way to control this problem, here in Ottawa we are debating a bill that, ultimately, tells gun traffickers that they need not worry, and that if they are arrested, they will not be sentenced and that everything will be fine; that it is no big deal if they sell guns; and that there is nothing to worry about if they buy and use guns. Bill C‑5 sends the message that traffickers should not worry, they can do what they want, they will only get a little slap on the wrist and it will not really be that bad.

The same goes for drugs. Usually, in a society where the rule of law, law and order, is important, people who are considering selling drugs should say to themselves that they will be put in jail for some time if they are caught, so they should perhaps reconsider.

Instead, the government is telling them that there is no need to worry, that they can sell drugs to young people and that it is not serious if 20 people die every day. In my view, it defies logic.

The bill also refers to conditional sentences and house arrest. It is as though the Liberals want to empty jails completely by sending inmates to serve their sentences at home.

The bill contains a long list of crimes for which sentences will be decreased, including criminal harassment, sexual assault, abduction of a person under 14, trafficking in persons, motor vehicle theft, and breaking and entering, all of which are not minor crimes. Instead of being jailed, offenders who commit these crimes will be told to stay home and celebrate. That means a person who has committed a sexual assault could be under house arrest in a neighbourhood close to the victim. That is just ridiculous.

Let us get back to firearms. Last month, the media reported that the integrated RCMP Cornwall border integrity team had commenced a firearms smuggling investigation after a boat crossed the St. Lawrence River and made landfall near Cornwall, Ontario. The criminals unloaded three large bags from the boat into a vehicle and departed the area. The RCMP conducted a roadside stop of the vehicle and seized a large number of firearms, including prohibited and restricted weapons and high-capacity magazines. Inti Falero-Delgado, a 25-year-old man from Laval, Quebec, and Vladimir Souffrant, a 49-year-old Montrealer, were placed under arrest.

Under Bill C‑5, the two individuals involved in this arms trafficking and smuggling incident would not receive minimum sentences. It is unlikely either of them would go to prison. They would probably get a conditional sentence or, at worst, serve their sentence at home. That is how it works in real life because, in real life, criminals always think about the possible consequences of their crimes.

Criminals are aware that the government keeps reducing the penalties. That is why there has been a 20% increase in violent crime in Canada since the change of government in 2015. Criminals who want to commit a crime or live a life of crime will benefit from the measures the government is proposing. The hardened criminals will influence the younger ones and tell them not to worry because the Prime Minister's government made sure that things would not be so bad for them.

The other point I would like to raise has to do with systemic racism, which the government claims this bill will help to combat. It is not relevant to say that this will have an impact on Black and indigenous communities and other racialized groups. These groups may be proportionally overrepresented in prisons, but the notion of crime should not be related to race because that does not change anything. A crime is a crime, regardless of the skin colour of the person committing it, whether they are Caucasian, Black or indigenous. As soon as a crime is committed with a weapon, then race should no longer be a factor. The government is pulling the wool over people's eyes by saying that this bill will combat systemic racism. It is a false debate. There is no connection there.

We need to consider other solutions when it comes to incarceration and overrepresentation. Reducing sentences will not solve this problem. On the contrary, it will give just about any group more leeway to commit crimes, since they will be less concerned about the fear of incarceration.

I have a very concrete example of this. Three or four years ago, Bill C-71 was introduced to enhance gun controls. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security at the time, and I was the one who asked representatives from indigenous groups to come and share their thoughts on the bill. I would remind the House that it is because of Bill C‑71 that gun owners are now required to apply for a number from Ottawa to sell a gun or transfer it to someone else.

That approach to public safety is debatable, but that is what we have, so that is fine. I asked indigenous people to appear before the committee to tell us what they thought. They were very clear that they felt it was irrelevant. The indigenous representative from Saskatchewan made it clear that there was no way a father wanting to follow tradition and pass his gun on to his son would contact Ottawa and ask for an authorization number. No one would do that.

My first reaction was this: Any time someone has two hands and picks up a gun, it is a public safety issue, regardless of whether the person is indigenous, White or Black. In my view, race has nothing to do with public safety. The fact remains that, until we hear otherwise, Bill C-71 does not apply to indigenous people. I had asked the former minister of public safety, but he did not have an answer.

They want to play with these ideas to get a message of openness across in the media. However, when I am talking about public safety, I prefer to have the facts: When someone picks up a gun and shoots, race becomes irrelevant. These are very sensitive issues, and I hate when the Liberals use them to try to score political points and make themselves out to be the best and most open of the parties. In reality, that is just not true.

I will finish by saying that Bill C‑5 is a bad bill because it is trying to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes and make them believe that it will solve systemic racism. In fact, all it will do is help criminals commit more crimes, and it will do nothing to help Canadians.