Bill C-21 (Historical)

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;
(c) deem certain firearms to be prohibited devices for the purpose of specified provisions;
(d) create a new offence for altering a cartridge magazine to exceed its lawful capacity; and
(e) authorize employees of certain federal entities who are responsible for security to be considered as public officers for the purpose of section 117.07.
The enactment also amends the Firearms Act to, among other things,
(a) limit the possession of firearms listed in the regulations made by Order in Council P.C. 2020-298 of May 1, 2020 and registered as SOR/2020-96, and of non-restricted and restricted firearms that become prohibited by regulation;
(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) impose requirements in respect of the importation of ammunition;
(d) require that the holders of a licence authorizing the possession of a handgun comply with the requirements and prohibitions relating to the storage and transporting of handguns within a municipality in which a by-law establishing those requirements and prohibitions is in force if the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is notified of the by-law in the prescribed manner, and provide for exceptions to that requirement;
(e) require that the Commissioner of Firearms maintain a publicly available list of the municipalities in which such requirements and prohibitions apply;
(f) authorize 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 or registration certificate has been referred to a provincial court under section 74 of the Act in respect of those firearms;
(h) 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;
(i) 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
(j) create an offence for a business to advertise a firearm in a manner that depicts, counsels or promotes violence against a person.
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.

Criminal Code

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting evening and an interesting debate, but we need a little history when we are talking about guns.

The Chinese invented gunpowder, and by the 10th century they figured out how to put it in bamboo and invented guns. By the 13th century, we had the old metal barrels attached to them. By the 17th century, we figured out how to do muzzle loaders. By the 20th century, there was the Lee-Enfield gun and the Ross rifle. In the First World War, Canadians were quickly dumping the Ross rifle, a beautifully made Canadian gun that had no place in the trenches of World War I, so they could find a Lee-Enfield. By the way, we still use that rifle in an indigenous context, and the rangers in the north are still using the Lee-Enfield rifle. The Canadian Ross rifle is long gone. Today, the most popular hunting rifle in Canada is the .30-06 Springfield gun.

I have shot a .30-06. I am not an avid hunter, but I have shot most guns. When I grew up, as kids we started with air rifles and then moved up to BB guns. Yes, we had those, and our mothers always warned us that we were going shoot each other's eyes out eventually with those things. We were pretty good at taking them apart, putting them back together, finding other parts and making them work. However, we did progress to the bigger guns as we got older.

To the point we are talking about, the Prime Minister has said, “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”. That is concerning, in a sense. Some people say we are out there spreading falsehoods and not talking about the truth, but when the Prime Minister says that, people get a little concerned.

There is a list of places in my riding. There is the Bassano Gun Club, the Brooks & District Fish & Game Association, the Brooks Pistol & Smallbore Rifle Club, the Mossleigh Gun Club, the Taber Pistol & Revolver Club, the Taber Shooting Foundation, the Vauxhall Fish & Game—Rod & Gun Club, the Hussar Fish and Game Club, the Milo gun range and the Vulcan and District Gun Club. These are shooting groups within my riding.

There is a report out there about violent crime. It said that of all instances of violent crime in Canada, a rifle or shotgun was present in 0.4% of cases. There is a lot of violent crime, a 32% increase, but very little has a rifle or shotgun.

It has been said many times in the House today that the Liberals introduced legislation by order in council. They have put about 1,500 types of guns in there. That did not go so well, so finally they introduced legislation, Bill C-21, about a year later. Then it headed to committee stage, and at the end of the committee stage, the Liberals dropped in a bunch of amendments, 500 pages' worth of them. We pushed back, and they withdrew those. Then they finally introduced more legislation.

We can tell that legislation is really flawed when the government brings in a zillion amendments to its own legislation. It is nuts. We can tell how flawed it is through the process that has been going on for three years. It is not well-designed legislation and will not work in the end.

Last, the Liberals put in an advisory committee. What is the advisory committee for? It would get to define more stuff afterwards. What? It is not in the legislation, other than that it is there. More consultants are going to be hired to figure out how to do an advisory committee.

The root cause of this, in my mind, is legislation that has been passed, Bill C-75, on bail reform. The police, whom I have met with a lot over the years, for rural crime in particular, work really hard to solve crimes and find criminals. However, after the police get the criminals charged and go to all that work, those guys are out in the parking lot in their vehicles before the police can get out of the courthouse. They are out there stealing another car before the police can get out of there.

The bail reform bill the minister announced today does not go anywhere near covering the problems we have with Bill C-75. Violent crime is up 32%.

I want to talk a bit more about the organizations in my riding. One of them is the Brooks Pistol & Smallbore Rifle Club. It had an economic study done. It found that for events in 2021, $337,000 came in from non-residents to this one gun club in my riding. The economic output for that year for one gun club was $1,088,000. That is one club out of the many I listed. Some 46% of people spent more than $500 a person in my community on accommodations and food. This is what those organizations do and this is what the government wants to get rid of.

Sport shooting furthers youth in firearms training, local hunter education, and safety in firearms and handling courses. There is a place where the local police and conservation officers come for their training and recertification, but this legislation would get rid of it. Sport shooting is a huge part of our communities. I listed the different places in my riding where people learn how to properly use sport shooting equipment. What this piece of legislation is going to do is eliminate them.

How about Canada-wide, as that is one constituency? Regarding the impact on sport shooters in Canada, according to a survey conducted in 2018, Canadians spent an estimated $8.5 billion on hunting and sport shooting, with Albertans accounting for more than $1 billion of that number. A survey also found that the recreational firearms industry accounted for 48,000 jobs. Small businesses that have an inventory of things to support sport shooting are now going to lose part of their businesses. Part of their businesses, the government says, is going to be illegal. Sport shooting is done.

Sure, we will grandfather the people who have them. However, what we will have is a bunch of old people like me left in the gun clubs because that is who will be left with the guns. New youth will not be trained, will not know how to use them and will not be involved in competitions. This hurts small businesses in this country.

I want to go back to my quote one more time. The Prime Minister said, “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”. The problem we have here is that people do not understand sport shooting. In a rural area like mine, guns are tools that families grow up with. They are tools in the ranching business and in the farming business. They are useful tools and needed tools.

This piece of legislation is flawed. It has been three years making its journey to where it is now, and it will not work in the end. It is not going to deal with illegal handguns. The problem we have is gang violence and criminal activity, and this will continue on. This legislation will not stop it. In fact, handguns will become more valuable on the black market, and the criminal element is going to make money off that. This is a flawed piece of legislation and it will not solve crime.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to Bill C-21. I am going to try to deal with a number of complex issues in a short amount of time and hope it works.

It relates to Bill C-21, and that is the use of firearms. I want to comment on some of the discussion during question period about the Portapique shootings. I think it is important to reflect on what I take away from the news media at this time, when I have a moment to say it. There is no chance of interrupting question period to put it into perspective.

As a Nova Scotian originally, I was devastated, as we all were, by the shootings at Portapique. The RCMP officer who was killed, Heidi Stevenson, was a friend of mine and I know her mother well.

It was awful to watch what happened. We will see what the Mass Casualty Commission produces as a result, but it is pretty clear to me, and I want to speak clearly to this, that the RCMP in Nova Scotia failed the public badly. I know a commission is looking at this, but the RCMP had information that was not shared. It failed to put out a warning and 22 people were killed. I know this inquiry is very important to all the families who lost loved ones.

There appears to me to have been an uncalled-for assumption by some members in question period, who put into question the integrity of the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister's Office. I am not an apologist for the Liberals, but I thought that was not what the evidence revealed. When I look at the CBC reports of what they found out, it appears to me that in the aftermath of the shooting, the Nova Scotia RCMP was all too quick to try to obscure facts from the public, rather than reveal them.

It appears to me that the RCMP commissioner, Brenda Lucki, provided more transparency and provided real information. If anyone in PMO instructed her anything, it seems to me that it would have been to tell everybody what has happened and just be transparent. I am very concerned that we let any false rumours or assumptions to besmirch the reputations of others, including Brenda Lucki, be spread in this place.

It appears to me, as in a number of other shooting incidents, that sometimes the police get it wrong. They did not move in Uvalde, Texas, when they should have, to save those children. There is a common denominator that I discern, which is that when the RCMP is slow to move or the police are slow to move, it is because the people they would have to deal with are heavily armed. I do not find the police slow to move against unarmed protesters. I do not find the police slow to move against indigenous people. However, they delay when they are at risk for their own safety, all too often. It is not always, but all too often.

In the case of the Nova Scotia shooter, we know his name. I do not want to repeat it, because of the crimes he committed. However, he was well known to the RCMP and in the early hours after the shooting, the Nova Scotia RCMP, not the commissioner, put out false statements that he was not known to them. He was known personally to them. They had warnings about him.

This goes to make the bridge and the connection to Bill C-21. This goes to a number of the provisions of Bill C-21 that, if Bill C-21 had been law at that time, could have saved lives. The neighbours of the multiple shooter in Nova Scotia, and we can just call him the evil dentist for the time being, reported him to the RCMP on numerous occasions, but no action was taken. Neighbours were so frightened of him that they literally sold their dream home and moved away, yet nothing was done to even conduct a search of the property or even to inquire why he is buying a car that looks just like an RCMP vehicle. Why does he dress up like an RCMP officer? These details were known in the community, and a number of them were reported to law enforcement authorities.

Could this bill have made a difference? I think it could have, but only if the RCMP or local police are prepared to use the information that comes to them. That is why one of the provisions in this bill that I particularly like is the ability to seek an ex parte motion on the strength of concerns from people who are concerned that some person may be threatening others, not just with firearms, by the way, but with crossbows or with explosive substances. This is really important. This is found under “Application for emergency prohibition order” in clause 4 of this bill, which would amend section 110 of the Firearms Act.

It is really important that we recognize what an ex parte order is. That means that people can go to the court without notifying the person they are scared of that they are going to court, and there can be an emergency search and seizure without a warrant. This violates every instinct of my being, searches without warrants, because I am a civil liberties lawyer, but there is a history of violence by people in the community, people we know.

There is a lot about this law that I hope we will have time to study thoroughly, and I want to speak to that. There are the red flag and yellow flag provisions, the ability to go to a judge without fear of retribution from someone who is well armed or who has crossbows. It may be in cases, as we know all too frequently, of intimate partner violence. It may be in cases of the random and reckless killing of others, as in the case of Portapique or the desperately sad case of Lionel Desmond, who killed his wife and mother and kids. He was, of course, suffering from PTSD from his service in our armed forces and did not get the help he needed, even though he had gone to a hospital the day before. There are many and varied circumstances when the presence of firearms in a home makes the difference between life and death, and where the provisions in Bill C-21 would indeed, I hope, save lives.

I want to turn to a process question at this point: Why rush this bill? I am very concerned that we just invoked time allocation on a bill that we had only had before us for debate for three hours. This bill is complex. It has many moving parts. The government itself has changed its views on key aspects of this bill between its version last year, which was also Bill C-21, and its version this year, which is the current Bill C-21. The Liberals changed their minds, and wisely, on the question of voluntary versus mandatory buyback. They changed their minds, wisely, on the question of any jurisdiction other than the federal government regulating guns. Those were wise choices, and this bill has changed in that way.

Bills get better when they are studied. Any attempt to achieve consensus will improve a bill. A decision on the government side that the Conservatives are only going to obstruct and delay and filibuster is entirely a justified conclusion, given conduct so far in this Parliament, but that does not excuse shortening the time for debate, shortening the time for study and shortening the time to try to find consensus in this place, which is possible.

I want to put forward some of the things that would help achieve consensus. One is to observe the rules, which are our rules. It does not take changing the Standing Orders to ban the practice of reading a speech. How does that connect? When a whip or a House leader in a party knows that they can rally however many MPs they have, like cannon fodder, and give them a speech to deliver in 10 minutes, they can clog up the works of this place with people giving speeches.

If the rules prohibited members from reading a speech and required them to express their thoughts in their own words, there would be fewer members rising to speak during a debate on a bill.

We need to get control of this so that we can have real debate among fewer MPs, because fewer MPs would be able to stand up and speak without a written speech.

The next thing we need to do is consider how many days we sit in this place. We have this panic this time of year, every year, as though a disaster will strike if we do not adjourn on a day that is set. We could sit for more days. We sit for far fewer days than the U.S. Congress, and even fewer days than the British Parliament.

I voted against time allocation, because this is a complicated bill and we should take the time it needs, to respect each other and come up with the best bill.

Second Reading

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying I will be sharing my time with the always incisive member for Rivière-du-Nord.

Some debates are complex, difficult and delicate. They elicit strong reactions, and even divide us and help create rifts in our society. The debate on Bill C-21 is a striking example.

I remember that this is the first file I commented on publicly after I was elected for the first time in fall 2019, and here we are at the end of the session in my second term, in June 2022, and we are still talking about it.

I would like to point out that the Bloc Québécois will still be voting in favour of Bill C-21 at second reading, but we believe that the bill should be improved in committee. My colleagues can rest assured that the Bloc will try to be as constructive as possible, but our now-famous dynamic duo, namely the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord and the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, could explain it better than I can, since they have asked the Minister of Public Safety many questions on the issue. I will begin my speech by addressing certain aspects of Bill C-21, then certain points more specifically related to femicide and, lastly, other points focusing on domestic violence.

First, given the numerous events in the news in Montreal lately, Bill C-21 is a step in the right direction, but it will have little effect in the short term and change practically nothing in the streets of Montreal. The most important new feature in this bill is a complete freeze on the acquisition, sale and transfer of handguns for private individuals. Legal handguns will therefore disappear on the death of the last owner, since it will be impossible to bequeath or transfer the guns to others.

However, the bill includes exceptions for people who need a handgun to perform their duties, such as bodyguards with a licence to carry, authorized companies, for filming purposes for example, and high-level sport shooters. The government will define by regulation what is a “sport shooter”.

Those who already own a handgun will still be able to use it legally, but they will have to make sure to always renew their licence before the deadline or lose this privilege. The bill freezes the acquisition of legal handguns, but we will have to wait many years before all of the guns are gone, through attrition. In contrast, the number of illegal guns will continue to grow.

The federal government estimates that there are more than one million legal handguns in Canada and that more than 55,000 are acquired legally every year. The federal freeze would therefore prevent 55,000 handguns from being added to the existing number, but it does nothing about the millions of guns already in circulation. The Bloc Québécois suggests adding handguns to the buyback program in order to allow owners to sell them to the government if they so wish. In short, we are proposing an optional buyback program.

However, one of the problems is that, according to Montreal's police force, the SPVM, 95% of the handguns used to commit violent crimes are purchased on the black market. Legal guns are sometimes used, as in the case of the Quebec City mosque shooting, and it is precisely to avoid such mass shootings that the Bloc Québécois supports survivor groups in their demands to ban these guns altogether.

Bill C‑21 does nothing about assault weapons either, even though manufacturers are custom designing many new models to get around the May 1, 2020, regulations. The Bloc suggests adding as clear a definition as possible of the term “prohibited assault weapon”, so that they can all be banned in one fell swoop, rather than on a model-by-model basis with taxpayers paying for them to be bought back. The government wants to add to the list of prohibited weapons, but manufacturers are quick to adapt.

Also, Bill C‑21 will have no real impact on organized crime groups, which will continue to import weapons illegally and shoot people down in our streets. The Bloc Québécois has tabled Bill C-279 to create a list of criminal organizations, similar to the list of terrorist entities, in order to crack down on criminal groups that are currently displaying their gang symbols with total impunity while innocent people are dying in our streets. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord will discuss this bill in more detail, since he is the sponsor.

The most important thing for getting to the heart of the problem is reducing the number of guns available. Bill C‑21 increases prison sentences for arms traffickers, from 10 years to 14, and makes it an offence to alter cartridge magazines. It was already illegal to possess cartridge magazines that exceed the lawful capacity, but the government is now making altering cartridge magazines a crime.

Second, as the Bloc Québécois critic for status of women, I am regularly asked about this type of bill. What is interesting in this case is that Bill C‑21 incorporates the red- and yellow-flag system from the former Bill C-21. With the red-flag provisions, the Criminal Code will allow any individual to ask a judge to issue an order to immediately confiscate firearms belonging to a person who could be a danger to themselves or others, and even to confiscate weapons belonging to a person who might make them available to a person who poses a risk. The order would be valid for 30 days, and judges could take measures to protect the identity of the complainant.

The yellow-flag provisions would allow chief firearms officers to temporarily suspend a person's firearms licence if they have information that casts doubt on the person's eligibility for the licence. This suspension would prevent the person from acquiring new firearms, but it would not allow for the firearms they currently own to be seized. However, the person would not be allowed to use those firearms, for example at a firing range.

A new measure in this version of Bill C-21 is the immediate revocation of the firearms licence of any individual who becomes subject to a protection order or who has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking. This measure has been lauded by many anti-femicide groups, like PolyRemembers. There are several such groups, far too many, in fact.

This includes restraining orders and peace bonds, but also, and this is interesting, orders concerning domestic violence and stalking, including physical, emotional, financial, sexual and any other form of violence or stalking. A person who was subject to a protection order in the past would automatically be ineligible for a firearms licence.

However, there is another problem in relation to gun smuggling. The bill contains only a few measures and, I will say it again, it does not mention a buyback program for assault weapons or even the addition of a prohibited assault weapons category to the Criminal Code, two things that are absolutely necessary.

It is important to point out that 10- and 12-gauge hunting rifles are not affected by the ban. The gun lobby tried to sow doubt with a creative definition of a rifle's bore, which is now limited to under 20 millimetres. The bill therefore does not affect hunters. I know that many hunting groups are concerned about the new measures, but we need to reassure them that assault weapons are not designed for the type of hunting they do.

Getting back to assault weapons, the government as already planning to establish a buyback program through a bill in order to compensate owners of newly prohibited weapons, but it did not do so in the last legislature. If the government persists in classifying guns on a case-by-case basis, the number of models of assault weapons on the market will continue to rise. That is why the Bloc Québécois suggests adding a definition of “prohibited assault weapon” to the Criminal Code so that we can ban them all at once.

The Liberals keep repeating that they have banned assault weapons when there is nothing preventing an individual from buying an assault weapon right now or going on a killing spree if they already have one, since a number of models remain legal. Having already come out against this in Bill C‑ 5, the Liberals are also sending mixed messages in removing mandatory minimum sentences for certain gun crimes.

Third, I know that this bill will not stop all cases of femicide, but it is significant as part of a continuum of measures to address violence. There is still much work to be done, for example in areas such as electronic bracelets and health transfers, to provide support to groups that work with victims and survivors.

On Friday, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women tabled its report on intimate partner and family violence in Canada, and that is essentially the message I wanted to convey in my supplementary report. I hope it will be taken seriously. We will also need to work on changing mindsets that trivialize violence and try to counter hate speech, particularly online.

To talk a little bit about the bill, it relates to cases of violence, and we mentioned electronic monitoring devices. The bill would provide for two criminal offences that would qualify for electronic monitoring, including the authorized possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm or ammunition. That is a good thing. Something worthwhile came out of the work that we did at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

In closing, we are not the only ones who are saying that this bill does not go far enough or that it needs more work. The mayor of Montreal herself said that this bill does not go far enough. She said, and I quote:

This is an important and decisive measure that sends the message that we need to get the gun situation under control. The SPVM is making every effort to prevent gun crime in Montreal, but it is going to be very difficult for police forces across the country to do that as long as guns can continue circulating and can easily be obtained and resold.

There is still work to be done, and we must do it. We owe it to the victims. Enough with the partisanship. Let us work together constructively to move forward on this important issue. We cannot stand idly by while gunshots are being fired in our cities, on our streets and in front of schools and day cares. Let us take action to put an end to gun culture.