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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the support base. Leger did a poll on the issue of gun control and found that 84% of Canadians believe that the government is on the right track in dealing with the issue of gun control.

The final report from the Mass Casualty Commission, investigating the April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that left 22 people dead, made several recommendations to meaningfully change Canada's gun laws. In essence, the report calls for stricter gun laws. It is significant.

I am wondering if the member could be a little clearer in terms of specifically what it is in the legislation that she opposes. It is not fair to say that we are taking guns from hunters, indigenous people or farmers. That is just not true. The member is trying to give the impression that hunters and so forth are not going to have guns as a result of the passage of this legislation.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the question.

The truth of the matter is the focus of the Liberal government needs to be on the people who commit violence with firearms.

Hunters, farmers and indigenous people using their firearms in the way that I described here today have nothing to do with the violence in Canada. If the Liberals want to deal with ghost guns, it is a great idea but they do not have to take away the opportunity for the majority of Canadians who want to have a firearm to use them.

Mark Ryckman, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters said, “Firearms are not the disease, particularly in a nation like Canada with robust gun laws.”

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I like the member. I know she would not do what other Conservatives have done tonight, which is, when asked very simple questions, have a temper tantrum and explode with insults rather than answering some basic questions.

The first, of course, is on the provisions for ghost guns that mean that Bill C-21, reformulated because the NDP pushed for that, actually tackles criminals. The member is aware of that.

Second, will the member admit that amendments G-4 and G-46, which were the two amendments that she spent the most time on in her speech, were actually withdrawn? They are not relevant to this debate.

Third, there is the issue of the Conservatives moving to end the exemption for handguns for sport shooters, particularly those who are involved in the Olympics. It is bizarre and strange. How do the Conservatives justify having tabled that amendment?

Those are three questions Canadians are asking. I hope the member answers them, because other Conservatives have been unable to.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members not to yell while others have the floor.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals and their NDP partners in crime have succeeded in shutting down debate on Bill C-21, a bill that would not prevent a single drug dealer or a gang member from obtaining an illegal gun, because it is focused entirely on law-abiding Canadians.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I asked three questions. The member did not answer any of them.

I understand that her leader's office has given her packaged talking points that date back to last November, but the issues were ghost guns, the amendments that were withdrawn, she cannot name a single firearm that there is a consequence to as a result of this legislation, and the move by the Conservatives to end the exemption of handguns for sport shooters.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member knows that the Conservatives asked for unanimous consent, there is an email right here that I am willing to table if the hon. member would let me—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member cannot point to something he may be holding and make reference to it. This seems to be a point of debate more than anything else. I am going to ask the hon. member to finish up his question so that I could get the answer.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are badly losing the debate tonight and that is why their tempers are flaring. They should just start to answer simple questions that are being addressed to them. Canadians seek answers.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the member that I will not take any of that kind of treatment. I make my decisions about what I am going to say on this floor. They talk about us. The vitriol in this House that is sent in this direction over and over again is despicable. I have no desire to answer the member's questions because there is no purpose to them.

We know there is a new Liberal firearms advisory panel being created. I would not be surprised if it has already been created, and that is why Canadians have no confidence in any decisions made by the government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Again I want to remind members to be respectful during the debate. It is not proper to personalize it, so members need to focus specifically on the bill itself.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, 32% is the Liberal government's record after eight years in power. Violent crime in Canada has increased by 32% since the election of this Prime Minister and his Liberal ideology of freeing criminals as quickly as possible, allowing them to be released more quickly and serve their sentences in their living rooms.

After eight years of this Liberal government, gang-related homicides have doubled. In 2019, the Liberal government saw fit to pass Bill C-5, which I will refer to in a moment, that makes the bail process easier. As a direct result of that legislation, more and more criminals are ending up at home rather than in prison. Let us remember this number: a 32% increase in violent crime.

Today we are discussing the Liberal government's solution to this violence. I want to ask my colleagues to use their imagination. Imagine the kind of scenario that resulted in the Liberal Party making a recommendation such as this and introducing a bill such as this. Imagine the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety meeting in a coffee shop, probably downtown in some major Canadian city, wondering how to combat gun crime on the streets. The Minister of Justice, seeing the number of illegal guns coming into the country, tells the Minister of Public Safety that the government cannot ban illegal guns because they are already illegal. The Minister of Public Safety adds that weapons that enter illegally at the borders are not easy to seize, because criminals have their ways, obviously. The Minister of Justice says he wants nothing to do with threatening armed citizens who commit violent crimes with longer prison sentences. The Prime Minister said not to be too tough on criminals.

It was in that coffee shop that the Minister of Public Safety came up with this brilliant idea. He knows who owns firearms and he even knows where to find them. They have licences. They took courses, and they have a lot of guns. The Minister of Justice was starting to question all of this, but he already saw a good opportunity to divert attention from his inability to put an end to violence in the streets, violence that has made families in too many of our cities afraid. He asked where those guns can be found. The Minister of Public Safety proudly responded that they can be found in all regions of Canada, on farms, in the north and in indigenous communities. They could seize thousands of weapons. The Minister of Justice felt like saying that those guns are not used to commit crimes, but he did not. He preferred to remain silent. Why let facts get in the way of a great Liberal initiative?

In this story, that is how Bill C-21 was born, and quite frankly, I do not see any other way it could have happened, since the Liberals are so far off the mark. This bill had just one objective: to make the Liberal government look good. Unfortunately, it was to the detriment of law-abiding gun owners and sport shooters.

I listened to several speeches today. I should point out that this bill was supported by the Bloc Québécois, who left out a part of the story in everything it was saying today. When the Liberal amendment that would have made hunting rifles and sport shooter firearms illegal, the Bloc member from Rivière-du-Nord said in committee that the definition contained in amendment G4 almost feels like the Bloc Québécois wrote it. It meets our expectations.

I do not often quote members of the Bloc Québécois, but when it is time to set the record straight, I like to set the record straight. That truly is what the member for Rivière-du-Nord said. It is a fact.

Then they strut their stuff and claim that they changed things, but when we see that from the outset they supported a bill that would ban firearms used in every region of Canada and did not react when they realized that people were reacting in their own region, there is a problem. Most of all, there is a lack of credibility.

We are here after hours of debate to ask the government to see the light. Although they did backtrack, which was rather strategic and the result of the strong opposition from the Conservatives, hunters and residents of rural areas in Canada, no one has any illusions about the Liberals' intent to go after honest people who are just engaging in a centuries-long tradition.

We expect that, as a result of these measures, most of the firearms targeted by the Liberal amendments at the end of last year, including hunting rifles, will again be subject to prohibitions in the future, end of story. We are saying this because we have lost confidence in the Liberal government. Unfortunately, I deplore the naivety of the Bloc Québécois, who seems to be defending the government today. It seems to want to have faith in the Liberal government once again.

I must admit that I am not surprised by the position of the NDP, the Liberal government's coalition partner. It cannot be denied that the NDP also reacted to public opinion. It too had openly supported Bill C-21, its first iteration and the amendments.

Why do I not trust the Liberals? It is not because I am a Conservative. It is not because I listened to the hunters. It is because the Prime Minister himself, the member for Papineau, was very clear when he said, “our focus now is on saying...yes...we're going to have to take [these rifles] away from people who were using them to hunt”. Instead of going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Prime Minister is going to great effort to confiscate the hunting rifles of law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people.

Let me be clear. The new definition, or the supposed new definition, is really the same as the old one. Commonly used hunting rifles, which were targeted by the Liberals in the fall, will likely be added to the ban by the new Liberal firearms advisory committee. I am sure a bunch of very independent people will also be appointed to this committee. I would not be surprised to see a Trudeau Foundation executive on this committee.

I have had the opportunity to speak with hunters in the Mégantic—L'Érable area. That is why I am here today. They are not reassured by the government's changes to Bill C-21, nor by the amendments. Most of all, they are hurt that they are being used by the Liberal government for political purposes. They have witnessed the increase in violent crime in Montreal, as we all have. They are shocked that they have been targeted by the government as criminals. These people are careful, trained, and most importantly, they take gun safety very seriously.

The Liberal government has the wrong target in its crosshairs. Hunters, sport shooters and farmers are paying the price. No one believes the Liberal government anymore.

That being said, these people are realists. They are wiser. I want to quote Martin Bourget from Aventure Chasse Pêche, with whom I had the pleasure of speaking during a big interview on Bill C-21. He said, and I quote, “Legitimate gun owners in Canada are deeply puzzled about the very legitimacy of the process set out in Bill C-21 and the enforcement of these measures. They are asking for nothing less than a study of the bill's true impact on the safety of Canadians and on traditional hunting and harvesting, and sport shooting.”

Does that sound extreme? No, not at all. It is reasonable. People want to know whether Bill C-21 will really bring down the crime rate on the streets of big cities and across the country.

In closing, I would like to remind members that violent crime in Canada is up 32%. That is the Liberal government's track record over the past eight years. That is the Liberals' grade, and it is not even a passing grade. Unfortunately, because of what they have done in the past, we do not have any confidence in them moving forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, between 2020 and 2021, there was a 5% decrease across the country in gun crime. The member can say whatever he likes, but he cannot change that particular fact.

I would remind the member opposite that last year, through border controls, over 1,200 guns and over 73,000 weapons were confiscated at the border. However, as we bring forward legislation and present budgets to deal with the issue of public safety, the Conservatives continue to spread misinformation.

Can the member indicate how many guns were confiscated at the border while Stephen Harper was the prime minister?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, since the Harper government was in power, it is 32%. That is the figure that the member for Winnipeg North should remember.

There has been a 32% increase in violent crime in Canada despite everything the Liberals have done. Actually, I should say because of everything they have done, such as the changes in Bill C-5 concerning parole and violent offenders serving their sentences at home in their living rooms. That is the Liberal government's record after eight years.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable. I especially appreciate the fact that he is one of the only Conservatives to speak this evening who was not hysterical in his approach to the bill.

I have seen how the Conservatives have approached the discussion this evening. It does not give us much confidence in their position.

My colleague talked about crime. We know very well that ghost guns are exploding in popularity across the country. In the greater Vancouver area alone, the number of ghost guns seized has increased tenfold. These are firearms that are not traceable and that are used by criminals.

Does the member agree with me and most members of the House that we absolutely need to take action on ghost guns?