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.

Criminal Code

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

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

This is more or less reassuring, in that things are evolving extremely fast at the moment. The WK180‑C rifle model, which works almost exactly like the AR‑15, is on the market and is still classified as non-restricted. I understand that the regulations are updated often, but there are still guns that manage to sneak onto the market that people can go and get without any problems.

By making this amendment to the Criminal Code, I think the problem would be solved. In the last Parliament, your colleague introduced Bill C‑21 to regulate assault weapons. A buyback program was proposed, which you later made mandatory.

Can we expect this bill to be introduced before the end of the parliamentary session? Do you have a date to suggest to us?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister Mendicino, we were talking about military‑style assault weapons and the buyback program. I was pleased to see your government commit to making it mandatory. This wasn't the case in the now defunct Bill C‑21, which proposed to make this program optional.

Thank you for your openness to our proposal to define a firearm in the Criminal Code. I look forward to our discussions on this issue. The Bloc Québécois has been proposing this for quite some time. I'm glad to see the NDP agreeing with us. I think that this could be a good solution.

I'd like to address the handgun ban. In the past few months, your government has suddenly decided that banning handguns is no longer within its jurisdiction. It kicked the issue to the municipalities. We can see that this move was counterproductive. In my constituency alone, there are 56 municipalities. If there were different regulations for each municipality, that would be unmanageable. The idea was to transfer the issue to the provinces, but none of them took the leap and decided to ban handguns.

Don't you think that it would be more productive and effective for the federal government to take this on, since it has the duty to do so, and to develop a federal measure to ban handguns?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister Mendicino, I'll use my two and a half minutes to talk about the new bill that you plan to introduce. It may be a new version of Bill C‑21. I hope so, because that bill didn't make many people happy, including the firearms lobby and the people who want more gun control.

I want to know your plans for this bill. Will you review the ban on certain firearms announced in the May 2020 order in council?

Ms. Dancho clearly explained the shortcomings of the ban. For example, firearms with exactly the same capabilities aren't on the list of prohibited weapons and are still legal in Canada, while other similar weapons are banned.

Currently in Canada, at least eight semi‑automatic centre‑fire rifles have been manufactured and three of them have been put on the market in the past few weeks. Manufacturers are taking full advantage of the loopholes in the 2020 order in council by constantly putting new guns on the market and bypassing these bans.

In a debate in the House, I suggested to the parliamentary secretary, Pam Damoff, who is here today, that perhaps we could proceed differently by defining a prohibited firearm in the Criminal Code, rather than taking a piecemeal approach by listing types of weapons. There are always new weapons coming on the market.

Could we explore the option of amending the provision directly in the Criminal Code instead of taking a piecemeal approach?

[Heidi Rathjen]

With verification, the onus should be the law. From the early 2000s until 2012, licences were automatically verified—of both the buyer and the seller—for every gun transaction. It's the case now for restricted weapons. It should be the case for long guns. It should be in the law. There should be no reliance on the good faith. There should be no discretion. It should be automatic. That's what we were promised and that's what we're hoping this committee will recommend to the minister.

In terms of the red flag law, that's a really good point. Currently, unlike in the United States, there is no right to bear arms, so we don't have to go to court to remove guns, especially in an emergency. All victims have to do is call the police and the police will assess the situation and remove the guns if they feel that they're a danger. What Bill C-21 did was introduce another option where officials could direct victims to the courts to make their arguments under the same criteria, and there are lots of problems with the current criteria. It needs to be stopped. It needs to be better enforced. What Bill C-21 did with the red flag law didn't change any of the problems that we currently face.

As you said, it's again this tendency to offload the responsibility to do things right—

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

Quickly, because I want to try to get three questions in, my second question continues on the verification checks. This falls under the theme of where the onus lies. We had testimony from the RCMP confirming that the seller has to verify the visual identity on a licence. We also saw in Bill C-21 that with the proposed red flag law, the onus is on someone to go to get a court order.

Do you want to talk a bit more about where the onus is placed here? Do you have an alternative suggestion for that?

[Heidi Rathjen]

One of the loopholes is that the law or the regulations allow the use of high-capacity magazines, with 20, 30, 50 or even 100 bullets, provided that a screw blocks the number of bullets at five or 10, depending on the weapon. It is possible to remove this screw, and unfortunately, many mass murderers have done so. I'm thinking of Justin Bourque, who killed three RCMP officers; Richard Bain, who attacked PQ leader Pauline Marois in 2012 in Montreal; Alexandre Bissonnette, who attacked the Quebec City grand mosque; and Matthew Vincent Raymond, who killed two police officers and two citizens in Fredericton. These individuals had all legally purchased modifiable magazines and removed the screw to use the full capacity of the weapon.

Bill C‑21, which was introduced last year but died on the Order Paper, included the addition of a penalty. A mere penalty is not what's going to stop someone who's about to commit mass murder from modifying a magazine. It was really a bogus measure that served no purpose.

I have other examples—

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

Thank you.

Ms. Rathjen, you mentioned certain shortcomings. I don't know whether you were referring to Bill C‑71 or Bill C‑21, which never saw the light of day, in the end. I'm talking about high-capacity magazines here.

Could you elaborate on these shortcomings, give us examples, if any, and tell us about the risk this could pose to public safety?

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

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

In your view, what are these gaps?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I really enjoyed working with her on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I hope she will serve on it again in this Parliament.

She talked about gun control. In the previous Parliament, we did not have the time to study Bill C‑21, which nobody liked anyway, not firearms owners and not those who want to see assault weapons and all other firearms banned, because it did not make the buyback of military-style assault weapons mandatory.

The Liberals have promised to make the buyback mandatory, which is a very good thing. However, the problem with the May 2020 list of banned firearms is that similar firearms or variations on them, like the SKS, are still available on the market.

Why not try to include a definition of a military-style assault weapon in the Criminal Code? That way, we would know what type of firearms to ban, instead of making a list of banned firearms and leaving similar firearms on the market.

What does my colleague think of that?

Public Safety

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister continues to mislead Canadians with that response. Under the Liberal government, gang violence continues to terrorize our communities, just like it did in Etobicoke this weekend. In Toronto, there have been over 160 shootings, with dozens injured or killed, in the last six months alone.

The Liberals' failed approach with Bill C-71, the gun ban, the confiscation plans and Bill C-21 focused on law-abiding firearms owners rather than illegal firearms and criminals. Instead of deceitful, tired talking points, when will the minister admit their plans are failing and put forward measures that actually protect Canadians?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present the following petition on behalf of constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. The federal government introduced Bill C-21, which includes sections that prohibit the majority of replica firearms, such as airsoft guns. It will also criminalize thousands of law-abiding Canadians for possessing legally obtained firearms and financially devastate thousands of Canadians who are reliant on the sale of firearms. As well, hunting has a long history in Canada for both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians and needlessly revoking the firearms of citizens erases and discounts our history and traditions. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop targeting law-abiding citizens for possessing legally obtained firearms, protect their rights and freedoms by ensuring that firearm legislation is based on evidence and not ideology, and withdraw Bill C-21.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, is it not true that the minister's own government tabled Bill C-21, the so-called anti-gun bill? When going after lawful firearms owners, the government sent an email to fundraise off the bill and it has barely moved it forward since then.

Is it not true that the minister failed to explain the bill on national TV? Is it not true that the minister failed to carry out his basic duty to make sure he tabled a bill in the House of Commons in its correct format? Is it not true that there are many voices on the left, centre and right of the spectrum that have said the bill is defective? It is not a partisan issue. When we have OpenMedia, Michael Geist, Peter Menzies and Conservatives agreeing, we know we have a defective bill.

Is it not true that the minister failed in his responsibilities?

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this issue this afternoon. There are a couple of aspects that I would like to provide some comment on, but first and foremost is the idea of Bill C-30, now at report stage, and how important passing it is to all Canadians.

The other day, I talked about a progressive agenda. The Government of Canada has put forward a very strong, healthy, progressive agenda that includes today's bill, Bill C-12, Bill C-6, Bill C-10, Bill C-22 and Bill C-21. Of course, I often make reference to Bill C-19 as well. All of these pieces of legislation are important to the government, but I would argue that the most important one is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-30.

The budget is of critical importance for a wide variety of reasons. I can talk about the benefits that seniors would be receiving as a direct result of this budget bill, in particular those who are 75 and over, with the significant fulfillment of our campaign promise of a 10% increase to OAS for seniors aged 75 and above, and a one-time payment coming up in the month of August for that group. During the pandemic, we have been there for seniors, in particular those 65 and over, with one-time payments closer to the beginning of the pandemic, and even an extra amount for those who were on the guaranteed income supplement. That is not to mention the many different organizations that the government supported, whether directly or indirectly, to support our seniors, in particular non-profit organizations.

We have done a multitude of things, many of which are very tangible. The Minister of Finance made reference to the extension of some of the programs, for example, which we brought in so we could continue to be there for businesses and real people. This was so important. At the beginning of the process, the Prime Minister made it very clear that this government, the Liberal Party and the Liberal members of the House of Commons were 100% committed to working seven days a week, 24 hours a day to ensure that the interests of Canadians in combatting and fighting the pandemic were going to be priority number one.

As to that priority, we saw the establishment of a large number of new programs that ensured money was being put directly into the pockets of Canadians. One was the CERB, which benefited somewhere around nine million Canadians. Virtually out of nowhere this program came into being, in good part thanks to our civil servants, who have done a tremendous job in putting in place and administering the many different programs.

We have seen programs to support our businesses in particular, whether it is the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the emergency rent subsidy program, the emergency business account or the regional relief and recovery fund. We recognized what Canada needed. The Government of Canada worked with Canadians and with, in particular, provinces, non-profits, territories, indigenous leaders and many others in order to make sure that Canadians were going to be protected as much as possible. All of this was done with the goal of being able to get us, as a nation, out of the situation we are currently in.

We have put ourselves in a position where Canada will be able to recover, and recover well. It is interesting to hear the Conservative Party asking about the debt. Many of the things I just finished talking about are the reasons why we have the debt. The Conservatives in many ways are saying we should be spending more money, while the Conservative right is saying we have spent too much money or is asking about the debt. Some Conservatives are talking about the creation of jobs. The most recent Conservative commitment was that they would create one million jobs.

Between 2015, when the Liberals were first elected, and the election of 2019, we created over a million jobs. We understand how important jobs are. Jobs are one of the reasons it was important for us to commit to businesses of all sizes, and small businesses in particular, to get through this difficult time. We knew that by saving companies from going bankrupt and by keeping Canadians employed we would be in a much better position once we got ahead of the pandemic.

I am actually quite pleased today. I started off by looking at the national news. A CBC story said that when it comes to first doses Canada is now ahead of Israel, according to a graph that was posted. When we think of populations of a million or more, Canada is doing exceptionally well. We are ahead of all other nations in dealing with the first dose.

I am now qualified to get my second dose. Earlier today I had the opportunity to book an appointment for a second dose on July 7. Canadians are responding so well to the need for vaccination. We understand why it is so important that we all get vaccinated. We need to continue to encourage people to get those shots.

It goes without saying that we need to recognize many very special people who have been there for Canadians. The ones who come to mind immediately are the health care workers here in the province of Manitoba. They are a special group of people that not long ago, in a virtual meeting, the Prime Minister expressed gratitude for in a very strong and significant way.

Our health care workers, whether the nurses, doctors or lab technicians, and people in all areas of health care, including those providing and sanitizing facilities as well as a whole litany of people, have ensured that we have been there from a health perspective.

We can look at workers involved with essential items such as groceries. Whether it was long haul truck drivers, people stacking groceries or collecting money for groceries, or taxi drivers who took people where they needed to go, whether to the hospital or the grocery store, they were there. Public institutions were there. I think of Winnipeg Transit bus drivers who opened their doors not knowing who was walking onto their buses. They were all there.

This legislation we are debating today is a continuation of getting Canada in a better, healthier position to deal with the coronavirus. We needed to bring in time allocation because of the destructive behaviour of the official opposition. We wanted to work and the Conservatives wanted to take time off. There was an excellent indication of that last Thursday, which was the biggest day in terms of debate for government. The Conservatives attempted to end the session only moments after the day got under way. It is not right that the Conservatives are playing games. We need to pass this legislation. I would ask all members to vote for it.