This bill is from the 42nd Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2019.
Ralph Goodale Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-71s:
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Speaker's RulingFirearms ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Carol Hughes
There are 28 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-71. Motions Nos. 1 to 28 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the Table.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 28 to the House.
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
moved:
Motion No. 1
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 2
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 3
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 4
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 5
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 6
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 7
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 8
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 9
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
Motion No. 10
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 11
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 12
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
Motion No. 13
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Motion No. 14
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 15
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 16
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 17
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 18
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 19
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
Motion No. 20
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
Motion No. 21
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
Motion No. 22
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
Motion No. 23
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
Motion No. 24
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
Motion No. 25
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 27.
Motion No. 26
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
Motion No. 27
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 29.
Motion No. 28
Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-71 at report stage.
In my opinion, Bill C-71 is like a bad play. Let me explain. First, with regard to parliamentary work, the government shut down debate at second reading. What is more, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security asked that it be allowed a sufficient number of meetings and witnesses, but the number of meetings was cut short. From the start, the government did not want to debate Bill C-71; it just wanted to impose the bill on us.
This bill was introduced for marketing purposes. We saw the government doing just that. The Liberals told themselves that they would introduce a bill on firearms to win votes and to get the Conservatives all worked up and drive them crazy. Well, we decided not to get all worked up. We have been smart about this. We looked at what was happening and we saw that it was not working.
Ultimately, Liberals in rural ridings are only hurting themselves. Those people are not fools. Canadians are not fools. Law-abiding Canadians can see that this bill plays politics by targeting the wrong people. It targets hunters and sport shooters while giving street gangs and real criminals a free pass. The Liberals tried to impress, but they ended up shooting themselves in the foot, no pun intended.
This also marks the return of a version of the gun registry, which was abolished a few years back. The Liberals resurrected a very insidious approach, in the form of reference numbers and records that gun retailers have to keep. When a retailer closes, the government takes possession of that information. Reference numbers are kept forever. The Liberals say there is no registry, they swear they are telling the truth, but all the elements are there. In a moment, I am going to talk about the amendments we proposed to fix these problems. All our amendments were rejected.
In order for us, the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, to do our job properly, we asked for at least seven meetings. We conducted an analysis and examined what had been done by the minister's much-vaunted committee. Incidentally, the Liberals provided a long list of witnesses they said they had consulted, yet those people said they had never been consulted, despite appearing on the list. That is another problem the minister needs to consider.
We, the members of the committee, determined we needed seven meetings to do our job properly. The Conservatives had a list of 21 witnesses representing a variety of perspectives, from firearms advocates to civil rights defenders. There was a little bit of everything. We wanted to do a good job, but the Liberals cut the number of meetings down to four and limited us to seven witnesses. We had to make some tough choices. The Liberals raced through the study of the bill. We were hoping to get things done so everyone would be happy, but it did not work. The government was in a mad rush to get it over with, because constituents in rural Liberal ridings were getting on their case, and rightly so.
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness created a committee to discuss guns and street gangs. As I said at the beginning of my speech, all the focus is on hunting weapons instead of street gangs. I do not know what happened between the minister's consultations and the tabling of Bill C-71, but the bill contains absolutely no mention of street gangs. This has yet to be cleared up. It is a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes. Maybe one day we will find a solution.
When the minister introduced the bill, he wanted to scare people. He spoke about the serious problem of the rise in crimes committed with firearms in Canada. What he did not say was that the Liberals were using 2013 as their reference year. In the past 10 years, 2013 was the year with the fewest crimes in Canada. He spoke about a surge in crime, but the crime rate was returning to its usual levels. They used the 2013 statistics to indicate that there was an surge in gun crimes and that something had to be done about it. However, crimes are not committed by hunters and sport shooters, but by street gangs. Nevertheless, there is nothing about that.
The other serious problem, as I pointed out at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, concerns first nations. As much as the Liberal government cares about all issues that affect first nations, it did not consult them and is now to some extent ignoring the problem. In committee, a representative from Saskatchewan told us that first nations would not abide by Bill C-71, first, because it is unconstitutional, and second, because guns are traditionally handed down from generation to generation. Canada's first nations are saying that Bill C-71 does not apply to them and that they will go to court to have it declared unconstitutional if the government tries to impose it.
What are we to do, then? The Liberals introduced a bill that does not address the issue of street gangs and that indigenous people are going to disregard. The only ones left are the hunters and sport shooters, who will once more be subject to stricter gun controls, which are already the strictest in the world.
The first nations issue is not a partisan matter, but it is very troubling. When we return in the fall, we need to clarify that, because the fact that indigenous peoples are not concerned about Bill C-71 and are not following the rules is problematic. We cannot have one type of security for one group of individuals and another type for other groups. We must all be on equal footing.
Our committee meetings to ask witnesses questions were limited, but we still did our work. We brought forward 45 amendments to Bill C-71. We took our work seriously. I will list a few of them, so that Canadians can see that they were reasonable.
First of all, we addressed the issue of firearms classification. It is currently the government that determines which firearms are restricted or prohibited, but Bill C-71 puts that entirely in the hands of the RCMP. We proposed an amendment that would give the minister the authority to change the classification of firearms based on recommendations from the manufacturer and the RCMP. Thus, we are proposing that the RCMP and the manufacturers still do their jobs, but that the government retain the power to make certain decisions to prevent the RCMP from making all the decisions, without the government being able to intervene.
Then, there are the chief firearms officers, who will be able to visit the premises of firearms retailers and check their records without a warrant. The government can therefore enter into the place of business of law-abiding retailers with no particular reason other than they sell arms. I believe this needs justification and a warrant.
Now, I want to talk about the date. Today is June 18, and on June 30, a list of 20 prohibited firearms will come into force, even though the bill is still being debated in the House. The firearms that will be prohibited are currently restricted. We are not even at third reading, and the Senate has not yet studied it. We asked the government not to set a fixed date and to implement the act once the bill passes, but the government rejected this legitimate amendment.
As for the list of firearms, the RCMP will now decide which firearms are prohibited, but the bill lists the firearms that will be prohibited. The government lists the firearms in the bill, even though it says that the RCMP will draw that list sometime in the future. This makes no sense. We proposed another amendment to fix this.
Lastly, I want to talk about the reference number that will be required for a transaction. This number will be retained and recorded. This government is therefore creating a registry, no matter what it claims.
No matter what the government said, it is bringing back some form of registry through the backdoor.
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on this bill and for his work on the committee.
I wonder if the hon. member could remind us why the Conservative Party put forward an amendment to remove punishment for such offences as making a false statement to procure a licence or to procure customs confirmations, tampering with licences, unauthorized possession of ammunition, non-compliance with a demand to produce a firearm, contravention of conditions of licences, and trafficking in firearms. That was one of the amendments that was put forward.
I was reading comments from Mr. Randall Koops at committee, where he enumerated all the offences for which the Conservatives as a party were putting forward that there be no punishment, yet even after he enumerated them, the Conservative members of the committee voted in favour of that amendment. Of course, we voted against it, because we think there should be penalties for trafficking in firearms.
I wonder if the member could explain to the House why the Conservatives wanted to remove penalties for those offences.
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, but I admit that I do not remember the 45 amendments. Was it a Liberal amendment or a Conservative one? I believe she said it was one of ours, but it was not. Thus, I cannot answer because, unfortunately, I do not remember that amendment.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, in my riding, North Island—Powell River, there is a lot of serious concern about the bill. I thank all the people from my riding who are sending emails and letters.
One thing that has been brought forward to me is about having access to the gunsmith with one's PAL card. Right now, people could be out using their guns, and if something happens and they are concerned, they have the ability to transport them to a gunsmith to get the issue remedied. However, with the changes in the legislation, one thing that concerns me is that this would be removed.
A lot of people in my riding share the concern about shooting a gun that does not work. It is a live gun. How does one store it to protect one's family or keep it safe when one travels? Then one has to ask to transport it again. Having a live gun in one's home is a major concern.
I wonder if the member has a similar concern, and if there is anything in these amendments that would protect Canadians in this way. Could the member share a little about what he heard in committee?
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Indeed, what she asked about was one of the 45 amendments that we moved. It does not make sense to legitimate gun owners who will no longer be able to have their guns repaired. They have to do different things, and they always need a reference number or other number to do such and such a thing. We moved an amendment to avoid this type of situation, and the government rejected it.
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his obvious knowledge of the bill. He knows the harm that it could do. Again, it would be attacking not gang crimes and the underworld of illegal firearms, but law-abiding firearms owners. That seems to be the pet whipping horse of the government.
The member across the way tried to imply that we were soft on crime, which is absolutely not the case. Everybody in this place knows that.
Why does the member think that the government, once again, instead of doing what it said it would do to fix gang crime, illegal firearms, and that kind of thing, at the end of the day is attacking only law-abiding firearms owners?
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I believe that the answer is a lack of courage. It is easy to go after hunters, sport shooters, people who obey the law, but it is not easy to go after criminal groups. There are many, many ways of illegally bringing guns into the country or procuring guns. We know what the answers are, but there are answers that the government would rather not talk about. I think that there is a lack of courage to admit certain things.
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight to speak to this important legislation.
During the last election, we made a promise to take pragmatic action to strengthen the laws governing firearms use in Canada. Bill C-71 upholds this commitment to introduce sensible new measures on firearms, and that includes the commitment not to reinstate a federal long-gun registry. From the start, the bill has been guided by the priorities of protecting the public and communities, supporting law enforcement, and ensuring that law-abiding firearms owners are treated fairly and reasonably. I am pleased to note that, through the bill's progress, those priorities were reaffirmed by a broad range of stakeholders, partners, and individual Canadians.
Before the bill was introduced, the government heard from many groups and individuals with diverse experiences, backgrounds, and perspectives. That includes members of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee and consultations with many groups, both in person and by phone. In March, the government took the additional step of hosting in Ottawa a national summit on gun and gang violence, with stakeholders and partners from across Canada.
All of this engagement helped to shape not only the bill itself but also the package of new measures complementing it. That package included committing up to $327.6 million over five years, and $100 million a year thereafter, to support a variety of initiatives specifically aimed at gang activity and gun crime. Bill C-71 is only one part of the package, but it is a critical part of it. I am pleased to see that it has now been strengthened through the House debates and committee review.
I was personally very pleased to introduce an amendment to the bill in collaboration with my colleague, the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which addresses the need to protect survivors of intimate partner violence and reduce the lethality of suicide attempts. In my research on firearms in Canada, I realized that there were two very important aspects of the firearms debate that were not being talked about enough: intimate partner violence, commonly known as domestic violence, and suicide.
In its 2016 annual report on domestic violence, the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario reported that 26% of deaths related to intimate partner violence involved a firearm. I also heard from stakeholders that 80% of all firearms-related deaths in Canada are suicides. Clearly, both of these factors need to be a central part of any conversation around Bill C-71.
I had numerous conversations with many national stakeholders, as well as local stakeholders in my riding, Oakville North—Burlington, which helped shape this amendment, and I would like to thank those who provided thoughtful and important insights.
Specifically, my amendment would add to the criteria that must be considered when determining eligibility to hold a firearms licence. The amendment would add the criteria of threatening conduct and non-contact orders, and add more explicit language around risk of harm to self and to others. Officials confirmed that the amendment would strengthen the criteria around licensing and add greater clarity to existing laws, so that people who are considered to be at risk of harming themselves or others would be prohibited from owning guns.
For example, if a woman has a restraining order against her abusive ex-partner, and the ex-partner legally owns firearms that he uses to threaten her safety, the chief firearms officer would now be explicitly required to take this into consideration when reviewing his eligibility for a licence. The amendment also specifies that violent or threatening conduct can include threats made on social media and other online forums.
To be clear, the amendments specify that, when considering eligibility for a firearms licence, what must also be considered are expired orders prohibiting the possession of firearms where there was an offence in which violence was used, threatened, or attempted against an intimate partner or former intimate partners.
This should reassure Canadians that, in the interest of public safety, the process through which a person could obtain a firearms licence includes a more comprehensive consideration of eligibility factors. Explicitly including the concept of harm on that list, which includes self-harm, may also have important impacts.
It is an absolute tragedy that 80% of firearms deaths in Canada are suicides, and while suicide prevention is a whole-of-society issue, there are meaningful actions we can take through legislation. This is one of those actions. Prevention experts agree that limiting access to guns for those at risk of suicide is part of the solution, along with access to mental health support. I was very proud to introduce the concept of harm through my amendment, so that it is clearly identified in the bill before us.
I will also point out that the additional new criteria introduced in the amendment reflects the types of violence that predominantly target women, for example, harassment and cyberviolence. In the online space, women are often targets of intimidation and propaganda. Young women and girls are impacted disproportionately by cyberviolence, bullying, and harassment. Adding these new factors updates our laws to reflect and address today's realities. It is consistent with the government's gender-based violence strategy.
Other amendments add some clarification to the bill. For example, the committee amended clause 1 to make it clear that the government will not recreate the federal long-gun registry. This was an important amendment put forward by the Conservative public safety critic and accepted by the committee. We now have that clarification right in the text of the bill. Indeed, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe stated during committee proceedings, “Everybody at this table agrees that this is not a registry”.
I will point out that the bill never included any components that would have permitted or required the registration of non-restricted firearms. While this amendment does not change the effect of the bill, I am confident it can provide reassurance that the long-gun registry will not be reinstated.
Finally, another amendment to clause 5 adopted at committee will help clarify that a person meeting the conditions to transfer a non-restricted firearm can transfer more than one. In practice, the amendment changes the word “a” in the bill to “one or more”. In fact, it is proposed that the bill does not limit the number of non-restricted firearms that can be transferred providing the conditions to do so are met, but once again, the bill is now clearer on this issue. It now spells out specifically that a valid licence and valid reference number attesting to the licence's validity can support the transfer of ownership of one or more non-restricted firearms.
I am grateful that all parties have played an important role in the close scrutiny of this bill. The bill started off on a solid footing. It already strengthened current laws around eligibility to hold a firearms licence. There is a new requirement for licensing authorities to consider specific information from the applicant's history throughout their whole life rather than the previous five years, as was the case prior to Bill C-71.
Bill C-71 improves licence verification, requiring anyone selling or giving a non-restricted firearm to verify the validity of the recipient's firearms licence. It improves record-keeping requirements among firearms businesses, requiring them to keep records of sale for non-restricted firearms. Responsible vendors already do this. However, making it mandatory will not only set in law what they already do, it will also provide police with an additional tool to track non-restricted firearms used by criminals.
The bill strengthens the regime around the transportation of restricted and prohibited firearms. It creates a more consistent approach to classification, responsibly leaving technical determinations on the classification of firearms to experts.
Today we have new measures with added benefits: enhanced background checks, greater certainty that no federal registry will be created, and welcomed clarification on the transfer of non-restricted firearms.
Canadians from all walks of life have told us this legislation will make a difference. It is one part of a larger package that will help make our communities safer and give law enforcement officers the tools they need to do their job.
I want to thank the members on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, all those who provided testimony and comment, and my colleagues in the House for helping shape this important legislation along the way.
I want to give special thanks to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for working with me to ensure that the amendment we put forward was reflective and would ensure that intimate partner violence would be fully recognized in Bill C-71.
I encourage all members to join me in supporting this bill.
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I guess our perceptions of this bill are very different on opposite sides of the House because many of the things the member talked about were already in the legislation, particularly the eligibility with respect to those who have been involved in any kind of domestic violence or a threat to their partners. In the past it revolved around actions and activities that have taken place rather than our own perception. I am wondering if she is talking about trying to prevent suicide, and trying to prevent some of this behaviour.
The amendment that she made lends itself to thinking about perceived conduct, about perceived threats, and perceived harms. I wonder if she can tell me who is going to be making the decisions on whether someone is eligible or not. People who come from outside into a situation often do not know the people. Who is going to be making those decisions? Does she not have a concern that she is not talking about actions here? She used the word “factors” a number of times, these perceived factors. Who is going to be wise enough to be able to put her amendment into action?
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, the decision continues to rest with the chief firearms officer. Officials from the department who were at our public safety committee meetings confirmed with us, as I mentioned in my speech, that the amendment adds the criteria of threatening conduct. In the past, it was necessary that a conviction be in place. This language broadens that to threatening conduct, non-contact orders like restraining orders, and puts more explicit language around risk of harm to self or others.
Officials confirmed with us that it would strengthen the background check provisions, but it all does continue to rest with the chief firearms officer.
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the work she has been doing at committee. Throughout the study of this bill, we heard about the challenging issues of suicide and violence against women, and domestic violence in particular. We hope these issues will be addressed with the amendment which I supported.
The member raised an interesting point and I want to hear more about it. It is the notion that sometimes when legislation is being developed one is looking at what could be said for greater certainty. One of the things that Bill C-71 attempts to do, and I think some of these amendments attempt to do, is to essentially take practices that already exist, whether it is background checks or in record-keeping at point of sale, and create certainty in the law so that when law enforcement officers go into a shop, they now can assume it is likely there will be records. The idea now is that with the law they will have more certainty of that.
I would ask the member to comment on the importance of distinguishing between radical new measures and creating certainty in law, which is also an important part of how we work on legislation.
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has put the words together quite well, as he often does. It has been quite a pleasure to work with him at committee.
For greater certainty is exactly what a number of these measures do in the bill, to ensure that law enforcement officers do have the tools they need. Many of these things were being done. In particular with background checks, it has provided greater certainty. In terms of keeping records, as I mentioned, many vendors already do what is being talked about.
My colleague is correct in saying that the bill in front of us is providing greater certainty on what is being done in a number of cases.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, this is rather interesting. However, it still leaves me kind of puzzled when we look at all these new pieces in this legislation that actually affect people who are law-abiding firearm owners. It goes after them to put in more bureaucracy and adds more burden in the fact that they own a firearm. The people it does not affect are the true targets who we should be looking at: gangs and rural crime.
Can the member tell me what is in this legislation that will actually have an impact on gangs and their access to guns, and rural crime and the access to guns?