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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I raised this issue before you arrived. As you know, this Friday marks the sombre 35th anniversary of the Polytechnique massacre. You, your government and your predecessors promised victims and their families, including victims of acts committed with all other types of firearms, a ban on military‑style assault weapons. That said, this ban isn't complete. In 2020, I believe, Bill Blair put in place an order in council that banned 1,500 weapons. Then came Bill C‑21. However, the definition of “prohibited weapon” is ever‑changing and applies only to weapons designed after the passage of the bill. As a result, a few hundred models remain in circulation.

In terms of the buyback program promised for this fall, or at least its first phase, people are worried that individuals may resell their prohibited weapon to the government and use that money to buy a similar model still in circulation. This would render the gun control measure ineffective and, above all, a waste of taxpayer money.

Like a number of people, I expect you to unveil the first phase of the buyback program soon. Can we expect a complete ban on military‑style assault weapons before this buyback program takes effect?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to continue the discussion with Ms. Geddes regarding Bill C‑21.

It's wonderful to hear that the measures we passed are some of the best in the world, but the fact remains: they have to be in force. Unfortunately, those measures still aren't in force nearly a year after Bill C‑21's passage.

The government also promised to bring in an assault-style firearms compensation program this fall. The program still isn't in place, and this Friday marks the 35th anniversary of the tragedy at École polytechnique, a sad anniversary indeed.

For some 30 years, the group of women representing survivors and family members affected by the tragedy has been calling on the government to ban military-style assault weapons for good. An order in council banning some 1,500 models was passed a few years ago, but other models are still being sold.

As you are very aware, under Bill C‑21, the definition of a prohibited firearm is evergreen. That means it applies only to firearms designed after the bill's passage. As a result, hundreds of models are still being sold.

PolyRemembers and a number of other groups are worried about the fact that someone who owns a prohibited model can sell it back to the government and take the money to buy a similar model that is still being sold. According to PolyRemembers, introducing a buyback program is well and good, but there is absolutely no point to the program if it allows people to buy models that are still being sold.

I think your government is serious about its pledge to bring in a buyback program. However, before such a program is introduced, is the government going to make sure that all military-style assault weapons are banned, so as not to waste taxpayer money? Owners can use the money they get from the buyback program, so it's important to make sure that the measures are actually effective in controlling guns.

We recommended creating a committee to examine the models still being sold to determine which ones could reasonably be used for hunting and which ones couldn't.

It seems to be too late to establish any such committee. I think the RCMP has the expertise to determine which firearms are used for hunting and which ones aren't. The committee met with witnesses, and apparently indigenous communities use the SKS for hunting.

Has there been any progress on the issue? When the government introduces its buyback program, will it ban all military-style assault weapons?

[Tricia Geddes]

There are a number of regulatory amendments brought forward by Bill C-21. Some of those have to do with gender-based violence, and they're the ones I personally feel very strongly about.

We're doing some significant work to be able to accelerate and advance all the regulatory amendments included within Bill C-21. We've made progress already, but there's more to be done. One of our top initiatives right now is to be able to advance all the regulatory changes brought about by Bill C-21.

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

With the minute I have left, Ms. Geddes—thank you for being here—I wonder if you could update us on what the department has been doing to implement Bill C-21. We heard about ghost guns. I can't tell you how proud I was to see police making an arrest using provisions of the bill that we had in there.

I wonder if you could update us on some of the other things you've been working on.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Through Bill C-21, the government created new Criminal Code provisions targeting the printing of ghost guns. Can you please update this committee on how those new provisions are being used to combat the use of 3-D-printed ghost guns?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

The TPS called for enhanced penalties for gun smuggling and gun trafficking. We enacted those penalties and enhancements in Bill C-21, which that member voted against—

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

You and I have talked about that many times. I know that, on Bill C-21 right now, there's section 35 consultation going on with indigenous peoples before the regulations get introduced.

On the subject of firearms again, Ms. Rathjen, you and I have both been subject to horrific attacks by the gun lobby. I applaud your determination to come out and continue to speak out on issues when you are personally attacked repeatedly, and will probably be even after today's meeting.

Gun control is a women's issue, and we know that women are 500 times more likely to be killed if there are firearms in the home. I couldn't agree more about gun control and gender-based violence being public health issues, but we lack Canadian data on firearms.

Perhaps all the witnesses could weigh in on this. Do you support investment in research to get Canadian data on firearms?

Ms. Dawson, I'll start with you.

[Heidi Rathjen]

Absolutely not, but the implementation of the measures that are already in force should be improved, and the measures in Bill C-21 that aren't yet implemented need to be implemented. There's a lot of work to be done to make sure that they're effectively implemented, because the devil is in the details of the regulations and the implementation protocols, and I think the fight for these measures is far from over.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here.

I also want to acknowledge the family here today as well. I had a brief moment to chat with you before the meeting, and I can't imagine that it's been easy sitting through this meeting. Thank you both for being here today.

Ms. Rathjen, I want to start with you. You know that the Conservatives have said that they are going to repeal both Bill C-71 and Bill C-21. Bill C-71 included lifetime background checks for someone to get a firearms licence. It also included a provision to forfeit firearms to the Crown in cases of domestic violence. We've talked about the provisions of Bill C-21.

Please give just a quick answer: Should those bills be repealed?

[Suzanne Zaccour]

Earlier today, we were doing a news conference with family members of victims of femicide. We discussed the femicides that have happened since the passing of Bill C-21 and these measures still not being in place. We can't know for sure what would have happened or what could have happened, but we can ask this question: Would some of these women, from the numbers we've heard today, still be alive?

This is a bill that came as a surprise to no one. We've been working on this exact bill for over two years, and the rest of the bill is in place. The measures that received the most input from the women's groups and were amended with work from all parties are the ones that are.... It seems as if they're treated a little bit as secondary, because they're still not in force. We are very concerned. Even if they were to be put into force today, it's already too late. It's extremely urgent. Lives are at stake.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

Building on Bill C-21, I agree with you. I think there was a lot of misinformation, particularly with first nations communities and our right to hunt and fish, something that Bill C-21 actually never impacted.

Going back, Madam Zaccour, you spoke about how it's been a year out. The provisions of Bill C-21 have not been implemented. I know that's the responsibility of the government. How urgent is it that we implement it?

[Heidi Rathjen]

I admit that I have not done my homework and have not read the report. However, when it comes to domestic violence, the government has listened to victims' groups and women's groups. It has actually included measures in Bill C‑21 that will make a difference. I'm thinking in particular of the measures concerning men's control over their victims, although that is only a small part of the problem.

So the government has done a very good job in this area. In committees, all the parties supported these provisions. That may be contradicted by the leaders of certain parties, but the work was done well in committees.

The problem is that these measures are not yet in effect a year later. As to why it takes so long, that would be a question for the government, not for us. However, the situation is urgent. Every week, another murder is committed with a firearm in a domestic violence context.

In the sequence of events leading to a death, the use of a firearm is actually the weakest link. That is where very concrete intervention—the seizure of a firearm—is possible. The situation immediately becomes less dangerous. There are certainly many things that need to be done, but a firearm can be seized quickly and simply. Unfortunately, that is not done, or it is done in ways that vary greatly across the country.

That said, the measures in the bill will make it mandatory, and non-discretionary, to intervene and seize firearms in such contexts.

Unfortunately, we are still waiting, and we are worried. We want these measures to be implemented before an election is held, and we don't know when it will be called.

So it's a race against the clock. These measures should be implemented quickly. I note that they were adopted by both houses, including the House of Commons, and parliamentarians were democratically elected.

[Heidi Rathjen, Coordinator, PolySeSouvient]

Thank you.

I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak today as part of its study.

My name is Heidi Rathjen. I was a student at the École Polytechnique in 1989 when 14 young women were shot and killed because they were women. Gun control is a public safety issue, but it's also a women's issue. PolySeSouvient consists of students and graduates of the École Polytechnique as well as families of the victims who support stricter gun control. Our focus is two‑fold. We want to prevent mass shootings and prevent femicides, as these both apply to the tragedy that unfolded at our school. In fact, they're often intertwined.

In 68% of cases of mass shootings in the United States over a five‑year period, the perpetrator killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of domestic violence. In Canada, many mass shootings are committed by domestic abusers. We have only to think of the 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooting.

While guns on their own don't kill, they make killing easier. Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. This is especially true in the context of domestic violence.

Intimate partner violence that involves a firearm is 12 times more likely to result in death than similar incidents that do not involve a firearm. Familicide in Canada consists of “a gendered crime involving primarily male accused who often target female victims, have a history of domestic violence, and commit the killings using firearms”.

From 2010 to 2018, 36% of domestic homicides where the weapon was identified involved firearms. A study in rural New Brunswick and P.E.I. found that two-thirds of the women whose homes had firearms said that knowing firearms were present made them more fearful for their safety.

At this point, I would like to take the opportunity to debunk a disingenuous talking point that is continuously used to oppose controls on legal gun ownership, including Bill C-21. The gun lobby constantly tries to minimize the involvement of firearms in domestic violence, because it contradicts their principal narrative, which is that the only problem is illegal guns in the hands of gangs or criminals. They often claim or use the slogan that “less than 1% of ALL domestic violence calls even have a firearm present at the address, let alone used or threatened”.

First, what they are doing is conflating gun-owning households with what police consider to be the “most serious weapon present” relevant to the incident. If one took the same logic and applied it to knives, then only 3% of households would have knives.

Secondly, it is completely normal to find that a small percentage of domestic violence calls involve a firearm. The threat or use of a firearm is arguably the most lethal or potentially lethal form of violence, and understandably represents a small fraction of all domestic incidents, including threats, mild physical force, physical injury, sexual assault, confinement and so on.

The gun lobby is essentially telling legislators and the public, including two people who are sitting right behind me—Tara Graham, daughter of recent femicide victim Brenda Tatlock-Burke, and Brian Sweeney, father of Angie Sweeney, who was killed a year ago in a familicide that also ended the life of three small children—that it's not necessary to systematically remove guns from domestic abusers like the perpetrators who killed their loved ones, because their murders fall within only a small percentage of all domestic violence calls to police.

In conclusion, I'd like to quote Tara, who in her brief to this committee writes that the tragic murder of her mother “highlights the urgent need to enact key new measures included in Bill C-21 aimed at protecting victims of domestic abuse....It is very disconcerting that these measures have not yet been enacted. Despite being engaged in years of abuse against my mother, Mike Burk[e] legally owned six or seven guns. If the police had been aware of the abuse, his firearms could have been removed.”

I hope this committee will heed her words and urge the government to immediately enact the relevant provisions in Bill C-21 and to direct provincial chief firearms officers to ensure their effective implementation.

Thank you.

[Suzanne Zaccour, Director of Legal Affairs, National Association of Women and the Law]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the members of the committee for inviting me to speak today.

I'm here on behalf of the National Association of Women and the Law, or NAWL, a feminist organization committed to using the law as a tool to advance gender equality in Canada. In 2024, we celebrate 50 years of legal leadership as we continue to advocate for legal reform to end violence against women, defend reproductive justice, ensure that climate legislation is gender-inclusive and advance women's economic security and empowerment.

In choosing to study femicide, this committee is bringing its attention to the ultimate and irreversible manifestation of violence against women. Femicide cannot be undone or repaired, so prevention really has to be the key.

Prevention has many dimensions. It includes ensuring that women can leave violent relationships, which touches on critical issues like economic security, housing and family law reform. Prevention also means physical protection for women, including removing weapons from abusive homes, issuing protection orders and improving police interventions. On that front, I would like to draw the attention of this committee to one particular legislative intervention that is already in place but not yet in force. I'm referring to the domestic violence provisions in Bill C-21 that amended the Firearms Act.

Bill C-21 was adopted in December 2023, a year and a half after it was first introduced. It included a requirement for chief firearms officers to revoke an individual's firearms licence within 24 hours if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they may have engaged in domestic violence or stalking. The bill also included the automatic revocation of a person's firearms licence if they become subject to a protection order such as an order by the court not to be within a certain distance of the person's ex-partner.

The National Association of Women and the Law played a critical role in the development of these provisions, not only advocating for them but also proposing concrete language to amend the bill at committee. Clearer language, strict timelines and a lower threshold to err on the side of caution were adopted as a result of NAWL's advocacy. The bill was then voted by both Houses, and most of the bill came into force last December.

Here's the problem. The domestic violence provisions are not in force, and it's been close to a year since their adoption. The measures have been described as life-changing and important to protect women and children. They were closely studied by the two committees, and they have a lengthy legislative history, so why is there so much delay with measures that could save lives?

NAWL and PolySeSouvient have developed a detailed brief outlining what is needed to bring into force and operationalize the domestic violence provisions of Bill C-21. Our recommendations are listed in our brief to this committee. We ask that the committee echo these recommendations with a sense of urgency, given the importance of protecting women from domestic violence inflicted through firearms.

As a final point, I want to emphasize how much family law also contributes to women's entrapment in violent relationships, leading to continued and increased domestic violence and risk of femicide. We live at a time when victims say things like “If I had known what was going to happen with family court, I would have never left”, or “I never would have reported”. It's also a time when lawyers tell women not to disclose domestic violence because they will lose their kids. This is, I think, simply unacceptable.

Instead of preventing gender-based violence, the law is actively promoting a culture of silence, abuse and impunity. This is why the UN, 250 women and feminist organizations across the country, countless survivors and many experts and academics are calling on Canada to legislate to stop courts from using sexist reasoning and pseudo-concepts such as parental alienation when deciding children's fate.

The law must stop being complicit in keeping women entrapped in relationships where their lives are at risk.

Thank you for your attention to these urgent issues.

I welcome your questions.

Public Safety and National Security

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we still have work to do to finish what we started.

However, I would have liked the Bloc Québécois to stay strong when things got a little tough in committee. When we debated Bill C-21, the Bloc Québécois remained oddly silent, although we would have liked them to support the amendments we brought forward at the time.

I hope to be able to work with the Bloc Québécois and PolyRemembers. I heard that a meeting finally took place between the Bloc Québécois leader and PolyRemembers just today. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues.