Bill C-21 (Historical)

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

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

Madam Speaker, I wish my colleague had listened to the speeches. Since coming here today, I have had the opportunity to listen to several speeches. I did not hear hysteria in any of the speeches given by my colleagues.

I heard about fears, the fears raised by hunters and farmers in their ridings, their legitimate fears because they feel that the Liberal government is attacking them and using them to cover up for its own inaction when faced with the increase in violent crime in our municipalities and all across the country. There has been a 32% increase.

What the government wants to do is take guns away from hunters and sport shooters, even though these are not the types of guns that are used to commit crimes. That is unacceptable.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned a rather spectacular about-face by the Bloc Québécois.

In December, when the government had the nerve to table totally unacceptable amendments with hundreds of pages where antique firearms and rifles used solely for hunting were simply banned, the Bloc Québécois was an accomplice to this larceny of farmers' liberties.

What does the member think of the Bloc Québécois's attitude, which was a partisan, a cheerleader of the amendments that we, the Conservatives, thanks to the support and involvement of thousands of hunters, farmers and first nations people across the country, fiercely condemned?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable for a brief answer.

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

Madam Speaker, the best way to have a brief answer is to quote the Bloc Québécois itself.

The Bloc MPs were so proud of the amendments proposed by the Liberals that they said, and I quote the member for Rivière-du-Nord, “the definition contained in amendment G4 almost feels like the Bloc Québécois wrote it. ...it meets our expectations.”

That is the reality.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise this evening in the chamber to speak to Bill C-21, the Liberals' firearms confiscation plan that, unfortunately, we have seen get rammed through the House of Commons with little debate and with support from the NDP to move it forward.

It is a shame because here we go again. Every single time it seems the Liberals get into trouble, whether it is with the inflationary crisis they caused or the incredibly concerning allegations of foreign election interference, and whenever there is an issue facing the Liberals, they always have a new gun law or a new gun proposal to bring forward to try to distract Canadians from their crises. Unfortunately, while they are doing that, they are diverting precious resources away from real solutions that could keep Canadians safe.

As mentioned by my colleague before me and many others in the chamber, not only this evening but in many days prior, we have seen violent crime increase across the country since the Liberals took office by, I believe, over 30%. That is a direct result of a lot of the broken policies the government has brought forward. I will speak more to that later on in my remarks.

I want to share another concern I have, a broad concern, with the Liberal approach to firearms. Whenever they are speaking about firearms, they use very aggressive terminology that even they cannot define. It is things like “assault-style weapons”, things of that nature. One would think they are trying to move forward with banning AK-47s or fully automatic machine guns, which are already prohibited, but that is the way the Liberals talk every time they are talking about firearms and what they are trying to supposedly get off our streets. I think it shows a real lack of understanding of the issue of violent crime across the country and a lack of understanding of firearms more broadly.

I want to speak to the issue of community safety, because, as I mentioned, violent crime is up 32% since the Liberals took office. We are seeing, quite unfortunately in growing frequency, assaults, murders and very violent crimes and attacks right across the country. It is something we are seeing in northern Ontario and northwestern Ontario as well. In small communities of just a few thousand people, we are seeing, in greater frequency, these types of attacks.

I had the opportunity to speak with an individual from Sioux Lookout earlier this morning. His name is Howard, and he shared with me a story of his 22-year-old son, Skyler, who was killed just a few years ago. The perpetrator of that act was someone who had recently been released and who was previously convicted of murder.

It was incredibly difficult to have this conversation with Howard and to hear his incredible concern about the broken bail system that led to this individual's release. He knows, unfortunately, that there is nothing he can do to get his son back, but he is trying very hard to advocate for solutions to make sure this never happens again. I share that story with members because it hit me incredibly hard, and I know there are many people right across the country who are facing similar stories, unfortunately. Too many families have been torn apart.

That is why our party has put forward a plan to fix the broken bail system to ensure that violent repeat offenders face jail time instead of being released back into our communities, where they are able to perpetrate further crimes. The same could be said for hardened drug dealers, people who are preying upon vulnerable individuals with addictions and fuelling another side of the community safety crisis that we are seeing, again, right across northwestern Ontario.

I have spoken in the House previously about the unfortunately large homeless population, not only in the city of Kenora, but also in Dryden, Sioux Lookout and right across our region. Far too many people who are on the streets are addicted to drugs and alcohol, which is leading to needles being found throughout the community, more assaults and threats, and more people all around the community feeling unsafe. Tourists feel unsafe when they come to visit our beautiful region as well. It is another aspect of community safety that I think is greatly missing.

The Liberals have done nothing to address the broken bail system. They have not done enough to ensure that there are proper treatment and recovery options for those who are struggling with addictions to get the help they need so they can hopefully break that cycle and be able to get their life back, get a home and a job, reunite with their family and be able to lead a better life.

Something we see playing out across our district is that the number of HIV cases is up as a result of the drug crisis in northern Ontario. In the Kenora district, we unfortunately have one of the highest per capita rates of overdose deaths in the entire province of Ontario, which is in large part attributable to the lack of resources and proper support systems for those who are struggling. As a result, our community is not safe for anybody, including for the most vulnerable, the unhoused population, or for business owners, who are scared to keep their doors open to customers because of the potential consequences of that. It is not safe for our residents. I spoke with Marliana, another constituent from Kenora, earlier today. She mentioned something to me that I have heard time and again from people when I have been going door to door. She is scared to go downtown to go shopping. She has lived in Kenora for over 40 years. This was never a concern for her until very recently, because we have seen such a rapid escalation in violence and community safety concerns.

It is really sad for our community to be in this situation, and I really do believe that the Liberals do not have an answer for it. They are bringing forward bills like Bill C-21, which is not addressing the bail system or the addiction crisis. The Liberals are really not targeting criminals at all, in large part. Again, this bill is focused on the law-abiding firearm owners in northern Ontario and across the country, whether the hunters in my riding who enjoy hunting as a means of providing for their family or the sport shooters who enjoy going to the range and enjoy the sport. It is incredibly concerning for indigenous people across northern Ontario. I represent 42 first nations, many of which are remote, with no road access and very few resources. There may be only one grocery store in the community and limited options for people to feed their family. They need their firearms to be able to put food on the table. This is a concern I have heard from residents, chiefs and leaders right across the district.

I want to emphasize, in the time I have left, that I believe this approach from the Liberals, with the support of the NDP, is misguided. They are not doing enough to address the very real issues of crime and violence we are seeing across the country and are only targeting the lawful firearms owners, hunters, sport shooters and indigenous peoples like those in the Kenora riding, who are not the problem. Taking firearms away from these individuals is not going to increase community safety in our large urban centres.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about bail reform, which is in Bill C-48. Allow me to provide a quote that comes from the association representing Canada's frontline law enforcement personnel. It was released earlier today, I believe. It states:

Front-line law enforcement personnel have been asking the government to take concrete steps to address the small number of repeat violent offenders who commit a disproportionate number of offences that put the safety of our communities at risk.

We appreciate that [the justice minister and the public safety minister] have worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised.

We have seen a great deal of filibustering on Bill C-21. I wonder if the member is of the same opinion as I am that, when it comes to Bill C-48, we should get some sort of unanimous consent to have a round of debate on it and then allow it to go to committee so we can deal with it in a quicker fashion.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to disagree with the context that the member brought forward, of a filibuster on Bill C-21. We have very legitimate concerns on this side of the aisle, as I mentioned, concerns that have been raised by members of 42 first nations I represent and the people at the sport shooting clubs. I just want to really push back on that assertion of a filibuster. We are here doing our job of raising the concerns of our constituents.

Briefly, I do appreciate that the government finally understands that there is a need to address bail reform. Unfortunately, Canadians really do not trust the government that broke the bail system to fix the bail system. That is why Conservatives are going to keep fighting for a common-sense approach to that.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam. There was recently a seizure of ghost guns in my riding, 3-D-printed ghost guns that can use real ammunition. The comments from the RCMP about these seizures were that, although these firearms were seized in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, they had the potential to be sold and used to carry out acts of violence in any of our communities. Seizures of this nature directly impact the safety of all of us.

My question for the member is this: Is he worried about the proliferation of these 3-D-printed ghost guns, which can impact all of our communities?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly am very much concerned about ghost guns and, as the member mentioned, the proliferation of ghost guns. In my comments, I did not have enough time to get into details, but we definitely have to focus on all of those aspects of crime. We have to bolster the borders to ensure that firearms are not coming across the borders illegally, and we have to ensure that there are enough proper resources for law enforcement to combat all forms of illegal firearms, including ghost guns.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the public safety committee, the Toronto deputy police chief said that 86% of guns that they recover from crimes are illegal guns smuggled in from the United States. I am wondering what the member thinks this bill would do about that, if anything.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is that it certainly would not do enough. The government, over the last eight years, has continually targeted, as I mentioned in my speech, law-abiding firearms owners, the hunters and sport shooters who have never done anything wrong. They are now having their private property attacked by the government rather than having the government focus on addressing the very real issues of illegal guns that are being smuggled across the borders and the gang activity in our cities.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, this member does represent a large indigenous community in his riding. He said there are 42 communities. I was wondering, out of those communities, how many support Bill C-21.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, to answer briefly, I have not heard of any community leaders or residents who support Bill C-21. I have heard a number of chiefs come forward with concerns about it, including Chief Rudy Turtle, who was a former NDP candidate. He ran against me in 2019, but I am proud to call him a good friend now. He is someone who has continually raised concerns around how this would impact indigenous rights to hunt.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise at this late hour on behalf of my constituents in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin to talk about this important issue.

I have to admit that I am not a firearm owner and I do not have a PAL, but I know more about the issue of firearms than I ever thought I would know, because my constituents, in hundreds of round table meetings over the 17 years that I have been a member of Parliament, have brought the issue forward, particularly in the last eight years as we have had a Liberal government in office, with significant concerns. In fact, particularly in the last seven or eight years, it has been one of the top issues raised in my constituency. We are talking about folks who are hunters, sport shooters, collectors and farmers. They are among the most vetted Canadians in any walk of life in any area, and some of the kindest people one would ever meet. They come to raise very legitimate concerns that we are hearing expressed in here.

It is interesting that, as I have been listening to the debate, I have heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North, the Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader, stand up time and time again and just throw accusations of misinformation and disinformation at Conservative members of Parliament who are standing up on behalf of their constituents to raise something that is very important to them. At one point, the member used the words “fear factor” to talk about what Conservatives were talking about. He is applauding himself now, even as I am speaking.

However, quite honestly, I do not think the Liberals believe that these Canadians are scary. I do not think they actually believe that. The scariest thing about these folks for the Liberals is that they do not vote Liberal. That is the scariest thing about these people, and because they do not vote Liberal, their concerns mean nothing to Liberal members of Parliament. Not only do they not have any idea of what life is like for these constituents but they really do not seem to care. In fact, they use these legitimate concerns to pit one group of Canadians against another group of Canadians on a regular basis.

When we talk about fear, another thing that comes up at my round tables on a regular basis is legitimate fear and legitimate concerns that we hear from Canadians across the country, Canadians who are afraid to walk around their neighbourhoods at certain times at night, and Canadians who are afraid, in every city in this country, to ride public transit, which is absolutely not a feeling or a concern that I heard on a regular basis eight years ago, but we are hearing it every day now. We have seen the numbers, the objective facts, and if we want to talk about information, let us take a look at objective facts. Violent crime is up 32% since the government took office. I was reading a statistic that said there are 124,000 more incidents per year. We see this sort of Liberal cycle. We see that crime has gone up. It is a very real thing, so fears have gone up.

We see a very significant mental health crisis in this country, and we all know about it. We all witness it and we all hear from constituents who are struggling with mental health issues. We see that Canadians are increasingly afraid to ride public transit and increasingly afraid to walk around their communities, and then we see the Liberals repeatedly stoke those fears for their political advantage. There is no other way to put it. Then, they stand up today and accuse Conservatives, who are raising the legitimate concerns of our constituents, of being the ones increasing the fear factor in this country.

If the Liberals are serious about crime and if they are serious about addressing the legitimate fears in this country, then they will do something about the real challenges and the real problems that are causing that fear. When they take a look at what those real causes are and look at gun smuggling, the illegal guns that are coming across the border, we have heard experts say that over 80% of the crimes committed with firearms are committed by illegal firearms. One witness talked about 86%. Liberals are doing nothing to stop that.

Again, we have talked a lot in this House over the last few weeks about the catch-and-release bail policies of the government. Liberals have gotten up and said that today after eight years they are finally doing something to address it, saying “why do we not pass it unanimously” and “why do we not stop talking about Bill C-21” and “quit filibustering Bill C-21 and let us pass this other thing unanimously”. However, it has been eight years and there is zero faith among Canadians that the Liberals are serious about dealing with these very real challenges.

I mentioned the mental health crisis in this country. The Liberals promised on page 75 of their platform in the costing document $4.5 billion for a Canada mental health transfer. It was laid out in black and white: over five years, $4.5 billion. They were supposed to have delivered $250 million a couple of years ago and then about another $700 million last year. They are supposed to be halfway through their plans to spend this $4.5 billion on a Canada mental health transfer, but they cannot find the money.

Here, the New Democrats stand up in the House, backing the Liberals at every turn in this debate. What I am interested to hear from the NDP is why, with all of the negotiating power it had when they were putting together a coalition, the one thing that the New Democrats negotiated off the table from the Liberals' platform was a $4.5-billion expenditure on mental health for Canadians. How is that the one thing that the NDP negotiated off the table when it had the power at the table?

It is interesting because as we are talking about the fiscal challenges in the country, with respect to the Liberal confiscation regime, experts have taken a look at this plan and, quite frankly, there is no real plan around this. Some experts have said that it could cost billions of dollars and up to perhaps $6 billion and some have said maybe more than that. I asked the question: Where could that money be better spent?

It is a rhetorical question because it is very obvious that the money could be spent on, for example, a Canada mental health transfer that the Liberals promised on page 75 of their own budget when it was time to get elected in 2021. The money could be spent on tightening up our borders so that illegal guns do not come in across the borders. The money could be spent on tackling organized crime. We talk to police officers across the country and a continuing and growing problem is gang violence in our country. The Liberals could get serious about that.

Most important, as we are talking about firearms, they could forget getting serious about increasing penalties; they could at least stop decreasing penalties for violent crime committed by guns here in Canada. That is what the Liberals have done. That is what their record is over eight years. It is a record of decreasing consequence. Before someone on the Liberal side gets up and makes accusations of misinformation, the objective fact from Statistics Canada is that violent crime has increased by 32% under the Liberals' watch and yet, in this entire debate, no Liberal has stood up to talk about the real impacts of that violent crime on Canadians.

Therefore, here we are. The Liberals are pitting one group of Canadians against another once again, as they have done for years and years and years. Just to close this off, here we are ramming this through once again with two late-night sittings before we pass it. They got it so wrong in the first place that it took them five months to even get it back to this place.

I welcome questions and comments, hopefully from Liberals who will do something other than accuse us—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.