Bill C-21

An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) increase, from 10 to 14 years, the maximum penalty of imprisonment for indictable weapons offences in sections 95, 96, 99, 100 and 103;
(b) establish a regime that would permit any person to apply for an emergency prohibition order or an emergency limitations on access order and allow the judge to protect the security of the person or of anyone known to them;
(c) deem certain firearms to be prohibited devices for the purpose of specified provisions;
(d) create new offences for possessing and making available certain types of computer data that pertain to firearms and prohibited devices and for altering a cartridge magazine to exceed its lawful capacity;
(e) include, for interception of private communications purposes, sections 92 and 95 in the definition of “offence” in section 183;
(f) authorize employees of certain federal entities who are responsible for security to be considered as public officers for the purpose of section 117.07; and
(g) include certain firearm parts to offences regarding firearms.
The enactment also amends the Firearms Act to, among other things,
(a) prevent individuals who are subject to a protection order or who have been convicted of certain offences relating to domestic violence from being eligible to hold a firearms licence;
(b) transfer authority to the Commissioner of Firearms to approve, refuse, renew and revoke authorizations to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) of the Act;
(c) limit the transfer of handguns only to businesses and exempted individuals and the transfer of cartridge magazines and firearm parts;
(d) impose requirements in respect of the importation of ammunition, cartridge magazines and firearm parts;
(e) prevent certain individuals from being authorized to transport handguns from a port of entry;
(f) require a chief firearms officer to suspend a licence if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the licence holder is no longer eligible for it;
(g) require the delivery of firearms to a peace officer, or their lawful disposal, if a refusal to issue, or revocation of, a licence has been referred to a provincial court under section 74 of the Act in respect of those firearms;
(h) revoke an individual’s licence if there is reasonable grounds to suspect that they engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking or if they become subject to a protection order;
(i) authorize the issuance, in certain circumstances, of a conditional licence for the purposes of sustenance;
(j) authorize, in certain circumstances, the Commissioner of Firearms, the Registrar of Firearms or a chief firearms officer to disclose certain information to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of an investigation or prosecution related to the trafficking of firearms;
(k) provide that the annual report to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness regarding the administration of the Act must include information on disclosures made to law enforcement agencies and be submitted no later than May 31 of each year; and
(l) create an offence for a business to advertise a firearm in a manner that depicts, counsels or promotes violence against a person, with a few exceptions.
The enactment also amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to, among other things,
(a) provide nuclear security officers and on-site nuclear response force members with the authority to carry out the duties of peace officers at high-security nuclear sites; and
(b) permit licensees who operate high-security nuclear sites to acquire, possess, transfer and dispose of firearms, prohibited weapons and prohibited devices used in the course of maintaining security at high-security nuclear sites.
The enactment also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to
(a) designate the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness as the Minister responsible for the establishment of policies respecting inadmissibility on grounds of transborder criminality for the commission of an offence on entering Canada;
(b) specify that the commission, on entering Canada, of certain offences under an Act of Parliament that are set out in the regulations is a ground of inadmissibility for a foreign national; and
(c) correct certain provisions in order to resolve a discrepancy and clarify the rule set out in those provisions.
Finally, the enactment also amends An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms so that certain sections of that Act come into force on the day on which this enactment receives royal assent.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you recognized, I am not a permanent member of this committee, so I didn't have the benefit of hearing all the testimony the members have heard throughout the study on Bill C-21 and, of course, on the proposed amendments. However, I want to give a perspective from my riding.

I certainly appreciate where Ms. Damoff is coming from and the idea that, if we open up exemptions too far, it could undermine the government's policy intention. I recognize it and appreciate it. I embrace the fact that we come from different parts of the country with different lived experiences and that we may approach this issue differently.

Let me be very clear: This bill has a number of very important measures and we need to get it through Parliament, because it would make a difference for public safety. However, I would be remiss not to speak to Mr. Julian's amendment, because I think there is merit in it. Whether it's through this amendment or not, I hope the government will consider ways to allow those competing competitively in other disciplines that are not Olympic sport shooting...such that there is recourse.

I will give you an example. Our former warden in the municipality of East Hants is Jim Smith. He appeared before this committee. He represents Canada and participates around the world in IPSC-related events. One of his colleagues was just representing Canada and lost a handgun. Air Canada, the airline, actually lost the gun. Right now, there's no recourse for that gentleman to obtain a new handgun and continue to compete.

There's a tension on both sides of this. I heard about the idea of a pile-on and I think that is legitimate. I think that has to be examined before we can move forward. However, at the same time, as Mr. Julian talked about, this is an internationally federated body. If there is one organization outside of Olympic shooters this committee and indeed this government should consider, I think it's IPSC.

Mr. Julian went to great lengths, I think, borrowing from some of the work Mr. MacGregor did, to highlight that [Technical difficulty—Editor].

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

Thank you, Chair.

I mentioned before that this is a policy area where the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party don't agree.

We had Ken Price from the Danforth Families for Safe Communities here. I remember Ken saying that it's a decision about how you want to move forward as a country.

The Liberal government has put forward a bill that will freeze handguns. We haven't banned them. We have put forward a freeze.

In fact, I will give credit to Ken Price. I remember very distinctly having a meeting with him. He said, “Look, I would love to have handguns banned tomorrow. We've had too much devastation on the Danforth, but maybe we freeze them and it will take them out of circulation eventually.”

The amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party would open this up. We've already allowed an exemption for a pathway for potential Olympians. However, even the International Practical Shooting Confederation said they expect their membership to grow considerably if there is an exemption that allowed it. The concern, of course, is that people who want to get around the handgun freeze will join IPSC.

Allowing an Olympic stream opens it up far too broadly. I know the New Democratic Party, and Mr. MacGregor in particular, felt quite strongly about this, but it's something we feel very strongly about too.

Ken Price said this when he was here at committee:

In terms of a control measure or being able to say what kind of gun should be used or not, or there being a risk that the number of those guns will grow because suddenly somebody is an IPSC elite shooter, we're just very skeptical that that could be managed. We think it undermines an objective we have.

Thank you to Mr. Julian for the work he has put in on this committee and on this bill, but this particular amendment is not one we're able to support.

I would also remind colleagues that handguns are not something that.... I think the vast majority of Canadians, when they're polled, support what we're doing in Bill C-21. I see that Mr. Kurek doesn't quite agree with me there, but that's the truth. When you ask Canadians whether they support a freeze on handguns, they do support it.

There is this idea that we need to expand what's in the bill after doing a review within government of the best path forward. We could have chosen a path that didn't allow this Olympic stream, but we decided that we would put this in there. There will be regulations developed on how that path moves forward.

It's very important that we move forward with this and that we decide what kind of country we want to be and how safe we want to be. While I know my Conservative colleagues don't agree with me on that, we feel that this is in the interest of public safety. I think we need to listen to what the Danforth families said and listen to what they went through with a gun in a gun-shop in Saskatchewan that was stolen. This isn't a gun that was smuggled across the border.

I'm sorry, but how much time do I have, Chair?

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

Just briefly, Chair, this is one of the central pieces of Bill C-21. It's a policy difference that we have with the Conservative Party of Canada. It's something we are quite proud to be introducing.

We won't be supporting this. It's something that, as a policy, we are deciding to move forward on. We won't be supporting this amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ-14 again amends clause 36 of Bill C-21.

Its purpose is to offer no other choice other than to deliver the firearm to a peace officer, and it also establishes a 24-hour deadline for delivering a firearm, except in compelling circumstances.

However, I will not be moving it, because the intent of the next amendment, LIB-4, is somewhat the same, and it is less stringent. I therefore choose the Liberal Party's amendment.

I will not be moving amendment BQ-14.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you.

I would like to move CPC-21.

This is a very important piece. This is what we feel would define domestic violence, so I would like to read this into the record, Chair. I almost called you “your worship”.

The amendment is that Bill C-21, in clause 36, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 23 the following:

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), domestic violence means conduct, whether or not it constitutes a criminal offence, by a family member towards another family member, including conduct by or towards an intimate partner, that is violent or threatening or that is part of a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour or that causes that other family member or intimate partner to fear for their safety or the safety of another person, and includes:

(a) physical abuse, including forced confinement, but excluding the use of reasonable force to protect themselves or another person;

(b) sexual abuse;

(c) psychological abuse;

(d) financial abuse;

(e) threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person;

(f) threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property;

(g) harassment, including stalking;

(h) the failure to provide the necessities of life; and

(i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property.

I won't say any more about this. I think this is an important amendment, and we'll see what my colleagues and roommates in here feel about this themselves.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ-12 deals with clause 36 of the bill. It talks about revoking permits in cases of acts of domestic violence. I believe this amendment is better written than several amendments that are trying to do the same thing—for example, amendments NDP-7, NDP-8, NDP-9, LIB-1, LIB-2, PV-4, PV-5, and PV-6. Those amendments are trying to do the same thing in several parts, while amendment BQ-12 does everything in the same amendment. I think it might be useful to proceed with this one.

In fact, amendment BQ-12 strengthens the measures to protect victims of spousal or domestic violence, and stems from a request made by the National Association of Women and the Law.

In its present form, Bill C-21, and particularly clause 36, provides that the chief firearms officer must revoke an individual's licence if they are "convaincu" that the individual has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking. In English, the chief firearms officer must "determine" whether such an act has taken place, which seems somewhat vague.

What I am concerned about is that the chief firearms officer is being given broad discretion: to determine whether they are satisfied that there has been domestic violence, or not. Here again, I think we should err by an excess of caution when there is this kind of risk.

I like the way the National Association of Women and the Law addressed this question, by saying it is important to recognize that a false negative, that is, failing to identify a domestic violence situation and not removing the firearm, is often more probable and can have more tragic consequences than a false positive. They said that the threshold is too vague and too high. It amounts simply to adding some items to section 70.1.

The bill as it now stands says: "If a chief firearms officer determines that an individual who holds a licence has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking, the chief firearms officer must revoke the licence."

I am therefore proposing that Bill C-21,in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 37 on page 23 with the following:

70.1 If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual who holds a licence may have engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking, the chief firearms officer must revoke the licence within 24 hours.

That really does strengthen what the chief firearms officer may do in cases of spousal or domestic violence, where they have reasonable grounds to suspect such a case.

Because this came up several times during consideration of this bill, which was a good thing, we have all come up with somewhat the same idea. Given that the NDP, the Liberals and the Green Party have made the same proposals, I hope they will be able to support this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

BQ-11 proposes that Bill C-21, in clause 34, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 22 with the following:

they shall suspend, in respect of that licence, the holder’s

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The intent of this amendment is to strengthen the section that instructs the chief firearms officer to refuse or revoke a licence where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has been involved in acts of domestic violence.

The underlying intent of clause 36 of Bill C-21 represents a crucial improvement for women's safety, since its purpose is to create a provision that asks the chief firearms officer to refuse or revoke a licence for a person who engages in domestic violence. We understand that the chief firearms officer is being given discretion to determine, subjectively, whether there has been domestic violence or criminal harassment. However, I believe it should be circumscribed, in this case. The goal of this amendment is therefore to remove the chief firearms officer's discretion and require them to suspend the licence, rather than making it an option.

So it simply replaces "may suspend" with "shall suspend". This is how subsection 69.1(1) would then read:

69.1(1) If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that they have collected or received from any person, that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible to hold the licence, they shall suspend, in respect of that licence, the holder’s authorization to use, acquire and import firearms for a period of up to 30 days.

As I said, it simply removes the chief firearms officer's discretion. What we have heard from women's shelters and groups representing women is that it would protect women's safety better. I think it could have a positive effect.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is identical to amendment NDP-5, in fact, so I imagine that my NDP colleague thinks somewhat the same thing as I do.

Thank you.

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

Thanks, Chair. Let me just check my handy list.

Indeed it is another “firearm part” coordinating amendment to continue the good work that we were doing last night to make sure that all parts of what we're doing in Bill C-21 are complying with other acts. This is to do with ghost guns, and let's vote yes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It will be relatively simple. For my colleagues who have just joined us, yesterday we unanimously adopted a number of amendments to require a valid licence for acquiring a cartridge magazine as is required for ammunition. There are still a few amendments to coordinate with that objective.

I am therefore proposing that Bill C-21 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 21 the following new clause:

30.1 Subsection 64(1.2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(1.2) The holder of a licence that is extended under subsection (1.1) must not, until the renewal of their licence, use their firearms or acquire any firearms, ammunition or cartridge magazines.

Everyone should support this amendment, which coordinates with the previous ones.

Thank you.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thanks so much, Chair, and thanks so much to the committee members.

Everybody should have a hard copy. Basically the change now is going to happen in subclause 18(0.1).

I move that Bill C-21 in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 17 with the following:

Paragraph 19(1)(b) of the Act is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (iii):

(iii.1) wishes to transport the firearm to another individual or business who holds a licence authorizing that individual or business to possess prohibited firearms or restricted firearms for purposes of storage for the time necessary for the individual to address a mental illness or similar problem, or

Then it says at the bottom of that:

(1) Subsection 19(2.1) of the Act is replaced by

As I discussed last night with those committee members who were here, the purpose of this is to provide that clarity to the firearms community, so that they understand that if they're dealing with a mental health challenge, especially for veterans dealing with PTSD and others, they have an ability to have their firearm temporarily stored with another appropriately licensed individual. It's important they know that this is an option that's available to them and that it's quite clear to them. Then they can seek the help they need and not turn away from it.

As well, it provides initial clarity to our chief firearms officers across the country to know that this is an avenue, and from my discussions with the officials, especially within the firearms program, it would likely help them from a prioritization standpoint to address these types of requests when they come in.

I'll leave my comments at that for now, Chair.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to see you, Mr. Shipley.

My amendment deals with subclause 30(3) of Bill C-21. It reads as follows:

Authorizations to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) are not valid outside the geographic area set in the authorization by Commissioner. Authorizations to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b) are not valid outside the province in which they are issued.

That creates two different ways of dealing with authorizations to carry, for paragraphs 20(a) and 20(b).

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you for your answer.

However, we saw something relatively unique in the House of Commons today.

We amended some commas and words in Bill C-13. Ten motions were introduced by the government after the same work was done as we are doing here for Bill C-21.

I draw your attention to this because I want to make sure the same mistake isn't made. I would like us to make sure that the meaning is the same. This is a law, and there has to be as little as possible that needs to be interpreted and argued in court. I think it is important to point this out, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 67 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022; therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, May 9, 2023, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

I would like to remind all members regarding some specific sections of the motion adopted on Tuesday that have an impact on clause-by-clause consideration.

Amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

No more than 20 minutes can be allotted for debate on any clause or any amendment moved. These 20 minutes are to be divided to a maximum of five minutes per party, unless unanimous consent is granted to extend debate on a specific amendment. At the expiry of the time provided for debate on an amendment, the chair shall put every question to dispose of the amendment forthwith and successively without further debate.

If the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved. The chair shall put the question forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill.

Before we proceed, I would now welcome the officials who are once again with us. From the Department of Justice, we have Sandro Giammaria, counsel; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; Kellie Paquette, director general, Canadian firearms program; and Rob Mackinnon, director, Canadian firearms program.

Also, I would like to welcome the officials from the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, who are not at the table at this moment. From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Jeff Robertson, manager, inadmissibility policy unit, strategic policy branch. From the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, we have Pascale Bourassa, acting director general, directorate of security and safeguards; and Pierre-Daniel Bourgeau, counsel, legal services. These officials will join us at the table and be available to answer questions when we study the relevant clauses. CNSC is relevant to clauses 49 to 51. CBSA is relevant to clauses 52 to 63 and 67 to 69.

Thank you, all, for joining us once again. Your participation is critically important to us.

I note that Mr. Calkins followed by Mr. Julian are on the speaking list. Before we go into that, we have a couple of housekeeping items.

(On clause 15)

The first one is on NDP-1. The amendment of Ms. Damoff has a couple of grammatical concerns. I will ask the clerk to mention them. Perhaps we can change them on a unanimous consent basis.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk, please.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, which is an important one. This is such a busy time for the House of Commons.

Tomorrow, we will deal with third reading of Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages.

On Monday, we will resume report stage debate of Bill S-5, which would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

On Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, we will be dealing with report stage and third reading of Bill C-21, which, as we know, is the firearms legislation.

Thursday, May 18, will be an allotted day.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Monday, May 15, for the consideration in a committee of the whole for all votes under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.