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.

[Marcell Wilson, Founder, One By One Movement Inc.]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr. Chair.

Once again I'm honoured to be here. More so, I'm honoured to speak on behalf of the people and the communities that the One By One Movement serves, ensuring that their voices are amplified.

I've had the privilege to speak as a subject matter expert on gang culture theory and violence prevention at a number of round tables and events on the impacts of violence, gun violence in particular.

Today I'm going to speak to you less formally than I normally would. Today I'm going to speak to you from the heart, simply as a human being, as a person with lived experience and as a proud Canadian.

Participating in these round tables, I consistently hear statistics and reports about people who live with and face a great deal of violence daily, yet in these settings I rarely hear from people who are experiencing first-hand the majority of gun violence. I feel this is one of the reasons that we are not seeing the progress we should in combatting this issue.

I see and hear people making a living and a name for themselves speaking on behalf of people and communities they don't really know or understand, for personal gain or political leverage. Some may think that's what I'm doing now, but there's a big difference between them and me. We're not the same.

As many of you know, I am a former gang member and organized crime figure in Canada and abroad, but before I was ever involved in a life of crime, I was a victim and a survivor of gun violence on a number of occasions.

I'd like to start by sharing with you a short story of the first encounter I had involving a firearm. I was about 11 years old, playing outside with a group of friends in the southwest end of Toronto, in a public housing complex called Swansea Mews. There was a group of older guys from my neighbourhood who were involved in bad things. Some of them relentlessly bullied us kids and terrorized the community. Though we were children, we had to learn to navigate and cope the best we could with this.

On this day, a known gunman who hung out in our area decided he was going to fire shots at us kids above our heads just to see us run. I remember hearing the zing of bullets passing us. This was entertaining to him, because when I looked back as I was running for my life, I remembered seeing him laugh. I'll never forget this day.

Now, as an adult, I can look back and isolate and identify. This is one of the many root-cause risk factors that helped to lead me down a path of self-destruction. I tell you this story because when I think about this incident and this individual at the time, if Bill C-21 had existed, or a bill like it, would it have prevented this traumatizing experience from happening to me? I strongly say that it would not. It would not have changed anything, because I'm confident he did not use a legal firearm to shoot at us that day. This man was not a citizen of Canada. He was a hardened criminal, and most definitely could not have acquired a licence to legally own a gun here.

Also, I'd like to tell you about a best friend of mine, who was a highly respected gangster at one point in his life. His name was Deurgueune Cisse. After a life of crime and the many traumas he was left with due to the terrible things and the violent acts he committed and to the violence he himself endured, he sadly took his own life.

I remember speaking to him the day leading up to it. He was extremely down and didn't believe that he could, or was good enough to, get back up again. He had made his decision and he was motivated. I wish he had been able to get the help he needed before it got as bad as it did. He did not use a firearm to take his life.

The reason I told these stories is to really drive home the point that we are wasting precious time focusing on the wrong things. Through decades of data collection, we have all learned what most of the root-cause risk factors are that lead society on a path of extreme violence. Let us focus on the cheaper, most logical solution, and that is prevention. Let us get these illegal guns off our streets and treat our less fortunate better. Let us focus more on the demand and less on the supply.

I am tired, and we are tired.

Thank you for listening.

[Ken Price, Member, Danforth Families for Safe Communities]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am Ken Price. Let me introduce Claire Smith and Ali Demircan. We represent Danforth Families for Safe Communities. We're based in Toronto.

We experienced terror and tragedy from gun violence on a horrific night on July 22, 2018. It was a handgun that came to a retailer in one part of the country and was stolen and then used in Toronto to kill a girl and a teenager and injure 13 others that night. One of those injured was Ali, and another was my and Claire's daughter, Samantha. It is through the lens of that experience, therefore, and through our own subsequent findings as a grassroots group that emerged from that night that we have joined others in calling for a need for action to reduce the growing gun violence problem.

We're not here to be critical of all gun owners or of all gun ownership. Our group is made up of citizens with various levels of experience in the use of firearms, but since we were brought into this issue due to the tragedy, we are troubled that gun violence and homicide by gun have continued to grow.

We also agree that no one measure will be sufficient to combat this issue. We support Bill C-21 because it is a wide-reaching bill that has many aspects. It's not just about a freeze on handguns or a buyback of assault rifles—it has a number of items that we support—but other groups are going to talk about other measures and have given testimony in that regard.

We are going to focus on what has been called the “freeze” on handguns and the efforts to reduce the widely held private supply of handguns, which we believe is contributing to crime in this country.

It gives us no pleasure to make that statement. It gives us no pleasure to stand here and say that the domestic source of legally imported and licensed guns contributes to a significant portion of guns used in homicides and violence. As evidence, of course, we have our own experience of this being true. Through a survey of accredited news sources, we've compiled a list of incidents in which handguns were stolen or diverted, where straw purchases occurred or where licensed gun owners themselves were the ones carrying out the violence.

We combined this anecdotal and incidental information with our reading of Statistics Canada data. According to Statistics Canada reporting, for those guns that were successfully traced and used in a homicide, the number of guns traced to Canada was two and a half times greater than the number of guns traced to the United States. We realize that this number is likely to be challenged and is different from what other people are presenting in social media.

StatsCan also reports that the gun format that's primarily used in crime is the handgun, so it's not about all guns. We're not taking issue with the vast majority of gun owners who own rifles and shotguns. We are taking issue with the fact that handguns themselves are the problem.

Of course, we also conclude that there is an issue with guns coming across the border. We absolutely acknowledge that. We know that. We've talked to lots of groups that would acknowledge that as well, but we're here to say that there's not one problem to solve where supply is concerned. There are two problems to solve, and therefore the freeze is necessary, unfortunately.

In that regard, we have three comments we'd like to make about what has been proposed. All of these lead to some clarification and perhaps tightening of some of the exemptions, which I think are well-meaning but could lead to an undermining of the goal of freezing and reducing the number of handguns in the country.

First is the exemption for elite sports shooters. We think the wording needs to be clarified and tightened so that it is more clear that it's really the pistols being used in those competitions and not a general licence for handgun ownership.

We also ask that the program being supported is that which exists today. Related to this point, we're already seeing that other sport shooting organizations are coming forward and asking, “What about us?” IPSC is an example of that. Our concern is that those other organizations have very broad definitions with respect to how many and what kinds of handguns they can use. They have an open category, so virtually any handgun could qualify. We're concerned that it would undermine the objective of the bill, which is to freeze and reduce the handgun supply in Canada.

Second, we'd like to see a loophole closed that existed in our case. The person who had stolen a gun was able to buy magazines without having to present that they had an RPAL or a PAL and an ability to buy that. We would like to see that wherever a licence is required to buy a gun or ammunition, the magazine is included in that.

Third, suggestions have been made that perhaps the gun ranges themselves could get the business exemption. We understand that idea, although we're very concerned. We have seen evidence that gun ranges can be a target of theft. Therefore, should that go forward, we're opposed to this ownership model until or unless regulations are agreed to that would ensure the safety of all Canadians. We shouldn't back into that as an idea; it should be an idea that we construct.

Mr. Chair, thank you to all the MPs on this committee for their service. Maybe as Canadians we don't say that enough to our MPs. Thank you for your attention to this complex and difficult issue, and thank you for letting us make these statements today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

We're starting a little late. We will extend a little late. We can go a little further. We're still waiting for one witness, but I think as we proceed, the video conference witness will come on board with us.

I'd like to welcome you all to meeting 39 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 November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with regard to firearms.

We have today two panels of witnesses, with one panel of three witnesses per hour.

In the first hour, we will have by video conference the Centre culturel islamique de Québec and their spokesperson, Boufeldja Benabdallah. We'll give them an opportunity to make their statement when they join us.

With us today in person we have, from Danforth Families for Safe Communities, Ali Demircan, Ken Price and Claire Smith. Thank you.

From One By One Movement inc., we have Marcell Wilson, founder, and Savino Griesi, chief executive officer.

With that, each group will have an opportunity to give five minutes of opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

We will start with Mr. Price, Ms. Smith and Mr. Demircan.

Go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Yes. I'm just saying that Bill C‑21 is not changing that.

When we had Public Safety officials before our committee for our first meeting on this bill, I asked them about this, because there has been talk about how businesses will be exempted. I got them to confirm that gun ranges....

For example, in my own riding of Cowichan-Malahat—Langford, the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association, as per Public Safety's understanding of this bill, would be allowed to legally own a cache of handguns, which people could come to their range to use under the lawful supervision of an RPAL holder.

Are you aware of that?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

You are aware that in the current version of Bill C‑21 there are exemptions for people who need handguns as a part of their normal jobs or for their own protection. For example, in a previous life, I was a tree planter for eight years. I met a forester who was regularly out in grizzly country by himself. He didn't go out unless he had his .45 with him. That's an example of a profession where that would be allowed.

Is that your understanding?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bernardo, I'd like to start with you.

Bill C-21 covers a few different areas. Clause 14 does provide, for some of the offences in the Criminal Code—such as possession of a prohibited or a restricted firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, and a number of weapons trafficking charges—an increased penalty, going up from the current 10 years to 14 years, thus allowing a judge freedom to impose a harsher sentence.

Are you in agreement with that section of the bill?

[Yannick Guénette]

You are absolutely right.

The first draft of Bill C‑21 has no doubt given many people on Parliament Hill an opportunity to learn about airsoft shooting. It gives us a good opportunity to take a stand.

The definition of what looks like a firearm is quite subjective. Indeed, as long as there is a barrel, that is, something long with an opening at the end, or something that looks like a handle, almost everyone, in almost every situation, thinks it is a firearm.

Our first recommendation would be to remove the words “or intended [...]to resemble with near precision” that are found under the definition of “replica firearm” in the Criminal Code, as amended by subsection 1(1) of the current bill. In our view, this is really where the problem lies and this is the most important problem we have with Bill C‑21.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Guénette and Mr. Gauthier, thank you for accepting our invitation to testify today; we appreciate it. We met a few months ago. That's when you introduced me to this sport, which I was not at all familiar with and which I think Bill C‑21 targets quite unfairly.

Earlier I commended the approach taken by Airsoft in Canada. I would like to convey the same message to you: you have opted for a constructive approach. In your brief, which I have read, you propose solutions, a middle ground. This allows us to have a constructive dialogue, and I thank you for that.

I very much liked the questions posed by my colleague Mr. Schiefke. However, I would have liked it even more if the government had put them to you before tabling Bill C‑21. Indeed, I have the impression that the government has not consulted your industry and is proposing measures that are a bit vague.

I would like to ask you some questions in this regard. You talked about the definition of likeness in a document that the government gave us to explain how they're going to do it. The government says they want to ban air guns that look like real guns.

How do manufacturers and retailers of airsoft guns feel about this? What do they think of this definition?

To my mind, the distinction between what looks like a firearm and what doesn't is pretty blurry. I think it will have to be defined in the bill. When the committee met with the officials two weeks ago, they did not seem to know what was meant by the law. Now, before we legislate on these issues, which are quite important and can have a big impact on your industry, we should be clear.

Can you tell us more about the definition of likeness? How could air guns that are very similar to real guns be modified before they come to market?

[Yannick Guénette, First Vice-President, Fédération sportive d’airsoft du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon to everyone.

I am accompanied by my colleague, Mr. François Gauthier.

At the outset, allow me to specify that the Fédération sportive d'airsoft du Québec, or FSAQ, is in favour of the control of legal and illegal firearms that were acquired legally or by illicit means. However, because airsoft markers resemble real firearms, airsoft pellet shooting is directly targeted by Bill C‑21, and its survival is in jeopardy. This is also the case for many small and medium-sized businesses throughout Quebec and Canada. We would like to officially dissociate ourselves from the firearms lobby, because the majority of airsoft shooters in Quebec and Canada do not own firearms and have no intention of becoming owners. The people who practise this activity do so primarily for entertainment purposes, similar to life-size games with a more realistic flavour.

The FSAQ wishes to work with the government and relevant authorities to remove airsoft shooting from the provisions of Bill C‑21 and find a pathway that will allow our community to continue to practise our sport within a safe or legislated framework.

The FSAQ was created in 2018, following a meeting of several stakeholders in the world of airsoft shooting. Our primary goal, which remains the same to this day, is to promote synergy and fulfillment between players, organizers and retailers in a safe environment.

The FSAQ's mandate is to establish official sport recognition and to represent the community to various government authorities, as was the case in 2020, when the FSAQ acted as a bridge between the Quebec airsoft shooting community and the Quebec government in the context of the sanitary measures imposed following the COVID‑19 pandemic. Our exchanges allowed us to demonstrate that airsoft bead shooting is a safe sport practice that respects the recommendations issued by public health.

In its current form, Bill C‑21 will deprive practitioners of their sport, which is practised by tens of thousands of Quebec and Canadian citizens of all social strata, nationalities and generations. This would also eliminate the economic benefits of airsoft shooting across the country. It is an inclusive, respectful and diverse community, just like Quebec and Canada. Our sport allows us to bond, to stay in shape and to surpass ourselves. For these reasons, the FSAQ respectfully asks you to consider the impact that Bill C‑21 will have on honest citizens who practise airsoft shooting.

Following extensive consultation with organizations, the community and international representatives in Japan, Great Britain, California and several other countries where firearms regulations are stricter than in Canada and where the practice of airsoft shooting is permitted, the FSAQ has prepared a series of recommendations aimed at providing a framework for the safe practice of this activity, which will ensure its survival and that of the thousands of jobs attached to it. In our brief, you will find possible solutions concerning, among other things, the recommended minimum age for the purchase of markers, the transportation of markers, the appearance of markers, as well as the creation of federative and sporting bodies to ensure supervision, to name but a few.

The FSAQ encourages the government to follow the example of several countries that have done so, by working jointly with us and representatives of the airsoft shooting industry to find a path towards a safe and legislative framework, which will allow the practice of our sport without altering its realistic, immersive and recreational side.

We would like to thank the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for allowing us to testify before it about the main challenges that Bill C‑21 poses for our sport. We reiterate our willingness and openness to work together to find a viable solution to allow for the continuation of airsoft shooting in Quebec and Canada, which has been going on since the 1990s.

Thank you for your attention.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for the representatives of Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns.

I read, in an article in La Presse published in 2019, the statements of a trauma surgeon at the Montreal General Hospital, Dr. Andrew Beckett. He points out that not all cases are publicized and that he sees about one gunshot patient a week at the hospital. This is probably what prompted him to advocate for better gun control.

He said, “We need to see gun injuries and deaths as a public health crisis. It is a growing crisis in Canada, but one that is totally preventable”. He sees his stance “...from a public health perspective like the ones that led to mandatory seat belts in cars or helmets on bicycles. These are measures that save lives”.

Ms. Maggi, in your opinion, does the government sufficiently see the proliferation of firearms as a public health issue in its approach to the problem and Bill C‑21?

[Ziming Wan]

I've been working in the airsoft industry for about a decade now, and about 50% of retail sales are from the airsoft devices themselves. I believe the statistic we gathered was that over 90% of airsoft businesses expect to close immediately if Bill C-21 is passed in its current state.

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

Very quickly, then—and this is probably not going to get much of an answer—a constituent of mine owns a paintball and airsoft pro shop in Barrie. He says that Bill C-21 in its current form will result in a loss of 60% to 70% of his revenue and force the closure of his business that he has spent 20 years building. Are you hearing that?

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

Thank you for that. If you think of anything else, you can please put that in writing to us.

I'd like to switch quickly—because I am going to be short on time—to my friends at Airsoft.

I recently received an email. I'm not going to mention the gentleman's name. He's from Barrie. It's a little lengthy, but I'm going to read a couple of paragraphs from it and ask for your input as to whether this is normally what's going on in it , because I don't play airsoft. Some family members have in the past, but I don't know a lot about it.

I'm going to paraphrase here by starting with this from my resident: “It is truly a team sport that brings together players from all different walks of life, and provides a community that accepts all sorts of people gathering around a common passion. I also believe that it has a part to play in getting the youth away from screens and video games, and puts them out into an afternoon of play, requiring some physical effort as well as critical decision making. Airsoft has helped my life personally in so many ways including sobriety. There is so much positivity surrounding the sport! I play competitively with a very active team every week but I also play on another team called AAA “Airsoft Addicts Anonymous”. We meet up usually once a month or more and it keeps growing and growing. Airsoft is for everyone, and has zero downsides. It should have no place in this bill.

“It will break my heart if Bill C-21 is passed, and these opportunities are taken away from the current and future generations of players, having their favourite sport outlawed for reasons we do not find legitimate, nor convincing.”

The letter is a lot longer, but I'll leave it at that.

Perhaps you could comment on that and tell me a little bit about the type of people who are playing this sport across Canada.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to start with Mr. Winkel.

Thank you, Mr. Winkel, my good neighbour just up Highway 11 there. I'm from Barrie—Springwater—Oro—Medonte. I'm sure you're well aware of where that is. Welcome here today.

I have just a couple of quick questions, Mr. Winkel, because we're under a tight timeline, and I'd like to get through a few here. Specifically, what amendments or changes would you like to see in regard to Bill C-21?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you. I'm sorry for rushing you through this. I only have one minute left and I want to get a question in to the Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns.

I appreciate your opening statement regarding the red flag laws portion of Bill C-21. As you may be aware, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians was quite critical of the previous version of Bill C-21. They were quite concerned about the onus placed on family members. I know this current version of Bill C-21 has built in a lot of added protections, such as making sure a cloak of anonymity can be brought down on the person bringing forward the complaint.

Are you happy with the existing provisions in Bill C-21 as they've been reworked, as they are in their current state?