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.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

She's talking about C-21, and that didn't happen at this committee.

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

Yes, it does.

I want to clarify, because Mr. Green said that we needed to see his personal phone records, and I wanted to clarify that what he provided were his personal phone records. Any other phone that he might have, be it ministerial, would be a whole.... First of all, he wouldn't and shouldn't be using a government phone for personal business. When I deal with my Terry Fox Run stuff, I use my personal email account, and we all do that with our personal business.

I would also like to make a comment on Mr. Kurek saying that we were filibustering. I think through yesterday and today.... We put forward an amendment today—thank you to my colleague Ms. Khalid. I sat through days, in fact, Mr. Kurek was there, when the Conservatives were filibustering Bill C-21, and it went into the night for hours and hours and hours with no productive amendments put forward and the abuse of public servants who were there at the time.

I don't think that we need Mr. Kurek mumbling to me, Chair, as I'm trying to speak.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑20 is the second bill that I had the chance to work on at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security since I first joined it in 2020. First there was Bill C‑21, which we talked about a lot here, then there was Bill C‑20.

Many people have talked about the timing of the study of this bill. It has been a long process. The bill was introduced in the House on May 19, 2022, more than two years ago. As some colleagues mentioned, before Bill C‑20, there was Bill C‑3 during the 43rd Parliament, and Bill C‑98 during the 42nd Parliament. Both of those bills died on the Order Paper simply because the government chose not to prioritize them.

That is basically what happened with Bill C‑20 as well. It took a very long time to get to second reading in November 2022, six months after the bill was first introduced. The bill was then referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where, once again, it took a very long time, another six months, before it could be studied. The government obviously bears some responsibility for these long delays, but the Conservatives also played their favourite game in parliamentary committee, specifically slowing down the work under the pretext of having another priority. There are always other priorities.

The study of Bill C‑20 was therefore delayed by many hours. In fact, we lost several meetings over several weeks. The committee was finally able to begin its study before the summer, so members could hear from the minister, public servants and various witnesses. However, right when the committee was about to begin clause-by-clause consideration, it suspended its work for the summer. When the committee returned in the fall, the same thing happened and parliamentary business was delayed for various reasons. It was not until six months later that the bill came back to the House of Commons, which brings us to third reading today.

I am going over these events to show those who might be following our work that the process of studying and amending a bill can be long and sometimes arduous.

That said, the Bloc Québécois still managed to help improve this bill, and that is what I am going to talk about this evening.

It is worth noting that there is still no external review commission to address public complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency. There is one for the RCMP, but not for the CBSA, which is the only federal security organization that does not yet have a review commission associated with it. However, 20 years ago, Justice O'Connor recommended that an independent process be created to handle public complaints against the CBSA. This issue dates back to 2004.

Bill C‑20 finally corrects this situation. Victims of the CBSA, and they do exist, have been waiting for this bill. As with any organization, abuses of power can happen, and some people have indeed been the victims of such abuses. They have been contacting us and asking to meet with us ever since the bill was introduced two years ago. They want to help us improve the bill. For them, the process has been very long, and I salute them today. As my colleague mentioned earlier, it is a little ironic that this evening's debate is subject to time allocation, as if time is suddenly running out. However, I do hope that we will see the process through to a successful conclusion and pass this bill quickly.

As we know, the CBSA has certain powers. These powers are fairly significant, such as the power to detain and search Canadians or deport people. Cases of misconduct have been reported in recent years. One that comes to mind is the case of Maher Arar, a dual Syrian and Canadian citizen who was arrested during a layover in New York City on his way back to Canada. I have talked about him in this place before.

In January 2020, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found significant flaws concerning searches of travellers' electronic devices. Documents released around 2017 or 2018 mentioned complaints about racist or rude comments about clients or travellers. They also noted allegations of sexual misconduct. I would remind the House that the number of investigations into misconduct by border officers increased during the pandemic even though the number of international trips had decreased. The misconduct primarily involved giving preferential treatment or showing disrespect toward clients by making inappropriate comments about people, as I was saying. Other border services officers abused their authority and shared private information about the CBSA.

It is not just Canadians and travellers from this country who can be victims of the CBSA. Immigrants and refugees can also be targeted. The Canadian Council for Refugees came to committee to share what it would like to see improved in this bill. It should be noted that people who do not have permanent status in Canada are often extremely reluctant to file a complaint because they fear that it will be used against them and might hurt their chances.

When something goes wrong during a person's removal, it can be difficult for the person to lodge a complaint and go through the process, as it can sometimes be complicated given that they are outside the country. That is why the Canadian Council for Refugees told us that it would be good if organizations could bring forward third party complaints on behalf of people who, for various reasons, are unable to do so.

The government had not included this in the bill. That is why the Bloc Québécois tabled several amendments to this effect, which were fortunately adopted. Thanks to these amendments, third parties will be able to reviews of specified activities, file complaints and help citizens file complaints. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois's additions, they will also be notified if there is a refusal to investigate and will be informed of the reasons for decisions. This is a major improvement over the original bill.

It is important to note that many people who are mistreated by the CBSA are unlikely to file a complaint, as I said, sometimes because their status is not secure or because they fear consequences or reprisals. It may also be because of language barriers or problems accessing a computer or the Internet. In short, non-governmental organizations, such as the Canadian Council for Refugees, are well placed to file complaints on behalf of individuals. Some individuals may simply prefer that the organization with which they have established a relationship of trust file the complaint on their behalf.

Also, given that organizations work in this field and obviously see quite a few situations of this nature, they are well placed to identify and act on problematic patterns. If they have several examples of the same situation, a complaint about a pattern of behaviour may be more viable than an individual complaint about one person. This way, they can provide stronger evidence that there is a problem. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois amendment, organizations will be able to act as third parties, which is extremely valuable.

Essentially, the bill creates the public complaints and review commission. It will be made up of civilians who are not former members of the RCMP or the CBSA. It was very important that this be included in the bill. However, there was nothing in the bill to say that the members of this commission should reflect the diversity of society. We therefore tabled an amendment to ensure that would be the case. It was actually a recommendation from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, which already exists and has experience in handling complaints. It said that it was important for the people who sit on the commission to reflect the diversity of society. The Bloc Québécois therefore got this amendment adopted.

Other changes were made. The proposed subsection requiring that the commission be satisfied that sufficient resources exist for conducting the review of a complaint has been removed. There were concerns that the underfunding of the organization would be used as an excuse to avoid reviews. Witnesses told the committee that underfunding is common. This clause was like a loophole in the bill that would allow the commission to refuse to deal with complaints. However, we are confident that the government will properly fund its organizations, including this new commission, and that the commission will not be able to hide behind this aspect in order to avoid handling complaints.

We also added the requirement that a copy of communications be sent to the complainant's legal representative, because that was not the case previously. If the victim was the only person who could file a complaint, there would be no legal representative involved. That part was therefore added, which was a request from the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association.

Some aspects pertaining to the refusal to investigate were changed thanks to amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois. We proposed allowing the commission some room to manoeuvre. Now it may refuse to deal with a complaint, instead of being forced to refuse to deal with it, if other recourse is available to the complainant. These are small adjustments, small additions, that may make a big difference for victims of the CBSA.

We hope that these people's voices will be heard, that their complaints will be addressed in the most neutral and objective way possible and that they will get justice. Obviously, we hope that this bill is passed quickly.

Public Safety

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to the table two petitions on behalf of my constituents in New Brunswick Southwest.

The first petition is concerning the rising rate of crime in rural communities. The petitioners no longer feel safe in their communities because of the soft-on-crime laws passed by the Liberal-NDP government. They note that Bill C-75 made it easier for repeat violent offenders to obtain bail, Bill C-5 removed mandatory prison time for serious gun, drugs and sex crimes, and Bill C-21 redirects valuable police resources away from our streets and toward too much back-office work.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to protect victims of crime by giving jail, not bail, to repeat dangerous offenders and to bring home safe streets for rural communities by immediately passing the Conservative reforms found in Bill C-325.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to appear today. I apologize in advance if I get emotional.

I'm deeply troubled by the serious implications that increasing harassment and threats have for the safety of MPs and our staff, for the ability of MPs to fulfill our roles and ultimately for the integrity of Parliament and the long-term sustainability of our democracy. While I worked for over 25 years in real estate investment banking, which was a male-dominated industry, and certainly experienced some misogyny and harassment in my previous career, it doesn't come anywhere close to what I've experienced as an MP. The level of threats and misogyny that I'm subject to, both online and in person, is such that I often fear going out in public. That is not a sustainable or healthy way to live.

I've been verbally assaulted in the grocery store in my community, with a man yelling, “[Eff] Trudeau. [Eff] you. You're going to jail for what you've done.” At a Burlington business event, a man aggressively told me to watch my back, and said that I was going to get what was coming to me as he pointed his finger in my face.

The toxic drive for social media likes and clips among elected officials has hindered constructive conversations, exacerbated differences between us and diminished our capacity to show empathy toward each other. In emails, calls and on social media, one of the clearest examples of this degradation of political discourse is the increasing use of a four-letter derogatory term starting with “c”, which I am not comfortable repeating here in Parliament. You know, in all my life prior to becoming an MP, both personally and professionally, I have never been called this word before, but during my time as an MP, it has become completely normalized among the public to use this word to label and degrade me and my fellow women MPs.

Today I want to share with the committee, with Parliament and with Canadians excerpts of communications that I personally have received during my time as an MP through email, by phone and on social media. I also want you to think of my incredible staff, who are being subjected to this abuse on the phone and from reading what people say. This has real, negative consequences for their mental health and for the ability of MPs to continue to hire and retain staff.

I want to be clear that while I will use specific examples of the actions of some Conservative MPs, I do not want to suggest in any way that this reflects all Conservative MPs. In fact, this pin I am wearing today was a gift from a Conservative MP. I have friends across the aisle.

I think it bears mentioning that there are many, many more examples than I have chosen to share with you today, but because the words used are far below the dignity of Parliament, I will not repeat them here.

Some examples include: “I really don't know how you sleazy liberal [c-words] live with yourselves. Good luck in the next election, you peice of shit." "I'm coming after you. That was it. You're done." "How are you in government—you deserve a pig shed you [effing] pos." "We are watching your every move. Nowhere is safe for you. God will make sure you are exposed on judgment day. Judgment is here. The hell fire God has waiting for you will burn you.”

Even following my announcement on May 1 that I would not be re-offering—precisely because of the harassment, misogyny, abuse and explicit threats of violence I received—dozens of hate-filled messages flooded in. For example: "Resign now, you stupid [effing] cow. Don,t wait run and hide libtard [effing] bitch!!!" "Good riddance, [c-word]. Politics, as you call it, is toxic because your party in government is a corrupt, disgusting sack of shit. If you [c-words] had governed like human beings, the country would not hate your corrupt, fascist [c-words]. Do better, you stupid [c-word].”

Lastly, “You're a sad excuse of an MP and worse excuse of a Canadian. May your life be filled with stress and anxiety. May you never know peace in your wretched days. May you live and die alone in a dark, cold place. Burn in hell, [c-word].”

The tone and tenor of public discourse has deteriorated so significantly and to such a degree that I fear the loss of trust in public institutions that we're seeing, driven by misinformation and lies being spread by politicians on social media. I worry about the outcome of this for our democracy.

Members of Parliament must understand that they drive and exacerbate harassment, abuse and threats received by other MPs when they spread misinformation and lies and make personal attacks against other members. This has been my case and the case of many of my colleagues.

One example was in 2018 when Conservative MP Rachael Thomas used her House of Commons budget, which was taxpayer dollars, to send a mailer to every household in my riding with the headline that said, “MP Pam Damoff fails to stand up for victims of rape and sex trafficking”, and “Pam Damoff Chooses ISIS over Women & Girls”. The first line of this claims, “The current government is committed to welcoming ISIS terrorists back to Canada."

We often hear Conservative MPs carelessly and baselessly using terms like “corrupt” and “treason” in Parliament and in their social media posts. Following Conservative MPs Michael Barrett, Michael Cooper, Larry Brock and Damien Kurek accusing government members of the ethics committee of being corrupt, and MP Barrett accusing me personally of being involved in a cover-up, Conservative MPs posted our email addresses on social media and encouraged the public to contact us.

As a result, my staff had to create a misogyny subfolder in my inbox. I will quote from some of the messages that I received as a result: “You are one sleazy [effing] lying [c-word].... enough is enough of you [effing] lying pieces of shit....how do you sleep....I know your ex-husband sleeps well now that he got rid of you....resign from the party....resign from Oakville....you disgusting piece of shit....nice legacy.” “Pathetic losers, you need to go to jail. You bitches are [effed].” “Hey you [effing] traitor....get the [eff] ou of cnanda before wen deal with you properly.”

These are all different messages, by the way. It's not the same one.

Furthermore, “You are a treasonous piece of garbage. You should be in prison for supporting the destruction of our country and people. You are a criminal.” Another one said, “Your beloved boss is going to stand infront on the Nuremberg tribunals, as should all of you. You're disgusting pathetic Satanist-worshipping humans and you're all finished.” And then the last one said, “You are an arrogant, elite, and unhinged beotch! You are going to rot in max security when revolution comes. I suggest you step down now while you can, TRAITOR!”

While I have been the target of the gun lobby for many years and receive far more than just “mean tweets”, as they call them, I want to give another specific example of an MP's comments directly causing an influx of hate through social media, emails and phone calls. During clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21, Conservative MP Blaine Calkins posted a video accusing me of equating hunters with the Danforth shooter, which I absolutely did not. As a result of his video, some of the threats and abuse that I immediately got were, “You stupid [c-word], it's up to the government to justify taking away legal property, not the person to keep it, and fear is not a justification. I hope and pray to God that you will die a horrible, painful death, and your family too, because you and your genes are a piece of shit and need to be removed from the planet.” “Come on, God, answer my prayer. She is a lie-beral whore and a waste of human skin.” Another one said, “In medieval times, this would be considered treason and it would be off with your head and hung from the gates.” Another one: “Well, look at this lying liberal sack of shit. Go [eff] yourself, Pam, preferably with this semi-automatic assault rifle dildo”, with an accompanying photo that he sent. Then the last one, “Even if you sucked my cock, I wouldn't vote for you.”

While I report explicit threats of violence towards me to police, they often say they don't cross the line for them to do anything. I note that the RCMP commissioner recently said we should look at giving police additional tools in legislation to adequately respond to threats against politicians. I believe he's testifying before the committee, and I look forward to his testimony.

I agree with those arguing that a healthy dose of partisanship and criticism of the government are inherent to this place and have always been core tenets of Parliament and a healthy democracy, but what I have experienced, and what many other parliamentarians and our staff have experienced, does not constitute legitimate criticism of government policy, nor a healthy debate of ideas. I'm deeply worried about our Parliament and our democracy should this continue unabated.

While it may be difficult to control the words and conduct of others, I believe it is our collective responsibility as parliamentarians to set the tone and an example for how we interact and debate with each other, and to rise above personal attacks and hostility.

At minimum, we need to call out inappropriate behaviour in our own political parties, and harassment and abuse by MPs towards other MPs. I am heartened that elected women representatives in Halton recently signed a public pledge to stand up for each other and to call on police to do more to combat abuse and threats towards elected officials.

Parliamentarians are called to conduct our work with civility, compassion and respect: respect for each other, for our position, for our office, for the legislative process and for the institution of Parliament and Canadians.

It is not lost on me the difficult challenges that we face, the issues we have to overcome and divisions we have to heal. However, I believe Canada can represent the best in each of us if we, as parliamentarians, do our part.

I want to, again, thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today, and I'm happy to take any questions you may have.

Thank you, Chair.

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

Ms. Mathyssen talked about the difficulty in getting witnesses. I've experienced that as well.

When we were studying Bill C-21, we also had death threats being given to officials, members of the civil service, non-partisan members of the public service who appeared. The chair of the committee had to warn the Conservative members to tone down the way they were questioning the officials because it was directly impacting their safety.

When Mrs. Shanahan read the definition of harassment, it included cyber-bullying and the spreading of malicious rumours.

Should that not apply to MPs and our behaviour as well?

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

The bill sets out the date that the legislation but not the regulations would come into force. In a bill such as this, is it possible to stipulate that the regulations on age verification must come into force before a specific year?

We worked on Bill C‑21, but the regulations that followed the passage of the old Bill C‑71 weren't even in force yet. It took several years for that to happen.

How can we make sure that the government works quickly on an age-verification system if this bill ultimately passes?

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

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

Mr. Speaker, what Bill C-21 will also do is improve the ability of CBSA to manage inadmissibility to Canada when foreign nationals commit firearms-related offences upon entry into this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to underscore that Bill C-21, which the member voted against, actually proposed to increase maximum penalties from 10 year of imprisonments to 14 years for firearms-related offences, including firearms smuggling and trafficking, which is a pressing issue not just in his riding but everywhere around the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-21, I would just underscore that it also includes red flag and yellow flag provisions. As a former Crown, the member opposite will appreciate that they will help keep people safe through an emergency weapons prohibition order to immediately remove a firearm for up to 30 days from an individual who may pose a danger to themselves or others, such as the member's constituents in Brantford—Brant.

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

Mr. Speaker, through bills like Bill C-21 and through funding allocations that the member voted against, what we are putting in place are tools for the CBSA and the RCMP to interdict guns and gun trafficking to get them out of the hands of criminals and people who would do harm in our country.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would not use that terminology. I would say that when we put a national freeze on handgun sales through a bill like Bill C-21, we are keeping victims safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be very open to looking at what is transpiring in California. Centring victims at the heart of our criminal justice strategy is important, and we have been attempting to do that with respect to victims of hatred, through the online hate bill; victims of child sex predation, through Bill C-63; victims of intimate partner violence, through our changes to the bail regime, not once but twice, through Bill C-48 and Bill C-75; and fundamentally, victims of gun violence in this country, through bills like Bill C-21, which would put a freeze on handgun sales and ensure tougher penalties with respect to things like gun trafficking. These are important provisions, but I am definitely willing to entertain suggestions about what California is doing and look at whether the model could be brought over.

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

Madam Chair, we are constantly working to ensure the rights of victims, including female victims, are entrenched in law in Canada. That is why Bill C-21 included red flag laws. That is why we established the sex offender registry. That is why I have worked on two occasions to ensure there is a reverse—

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

Madam Chair, the issue of safety is a priority for me, and I hope it is a priority for the members opposite. I am troubled by their opposition to basic premises, such as Bill C-21, which is about reducing the number of handguns in Canadian society and keeping women, like the member opposite—