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.

[Jennifer Gold]

I made some suggestions, but I didn't get a chance to speak to some of the larger systemic problems and maybe where they flow from.

What I'd like to see this government move in the direction of is eradicating poverty; implementing greater support for people with mental illness and mental challenges; implementing greater education and training for the judiciary and the police; providing supports for the next generation; taking into account intergenerational trauma and strengthening gun control, such as through Bill C-21.

I think this government has an opportunity to create transformational change, and we applaud the steps in that direction that Bill C-21 and Bill C-28 reflect, as well as the recent amendments to the Judges Act and the Criminal Code that require judges to be trained on sexual assault law and social context.

Criminal Code

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour and a privilege to be able to enter into debate on the important issues that are facing Canadians.

It is interesting. I have been listening closely to the debate that has transpired over the course of today. Contrary to the government's justification for moving closure, the only three hours and 26 or 24 minutes of debate that has taken place on a previous day on what is a significant piece of legislation that impacts millions of Canadians, millions of law-abiding firearms owners, failed to actually address the lofty submissions that the government has tried to make clear.

I am proud to be a member of Parliament who represents a large rural area. I have spoken to numerous constituents over the last number of days and weeks since the most recent iteration of the Liberals' attack on law-abiding firearms' owners and it fails to address the real problems that are leading to a significant increase in violent crime in our streets and a troubling and alarming increase in crime in rural areas. It fails on both those fronts.

I have spoken with many constituents, young, old, professionals, those who have grown up using firearms and those who came to use them later in life. Notably, two stuck out from my calls over the past couple of weeks. One was a retired school principal and his wife, who came into the hobby of sport shooting. They called and asked me to reach out to them to discuss Bill C-21. They pleaded with me to try to bring some sense to the debate that is taking place regarding firearms in this country, to which I promised that I would try. Unfortunately, it seems that politics and rhetoric have blinded those on Canada's left to actually having a constructive dialogue.

I spoke yesterday with a 24-year-old man who is very concerned about how this would impact his ability to participate in his favourite hobby. He is a young, budding electrician, just finishing up his time at a polytechnic in Alberta, who is excited to get to work and start being able to invest in his hobby, yet the Liberals are taking away those opportunities.

Here we are again. Time and time again, when the Liberals dive in the polls, we can expect this sort of legislation to come forward. We see the importation of wedge issues into discourse within our country. We have seen it time and time again, certainly over the course of the time I have been elected. As I look back over my involvement in politics, this is the exact way the Liberals approach these issues.

Whether it be firearms, the issue of abortion or vaccines, an issue that was not controversial up until our Prime Minister decided to run an election campaign on it, that sort of wedge politics does not actually result in good public policy, and we see that being the case here today.

I did want to share a couple of statements that I think, hopefully, the governing Liberals would take seriously: “The long-gun registry, as it was, was a failure and I'm not going to resuscitate that”. Do we know who said that? It was the Prime Minister.

He went on to say, “I grew up with long guns, rifles and shotguns”. The Prime Minister said that, and then, going on, he said, “Yes, the RCMP guarding me had handguns and I got to play with them every now and then”, adding that the RCMP were very responsible around him and his siblings.

The now Prime Minister, then individual who was running to be Prime Minister of the country, went on to say:

I was raised with an appreciation and an understanding of how important in rural areas and right across the country gun ownership is as a part of the culture of Canada. I do not feel that there's any huge contradiction between keeping our cities safe from gun violence and gangs, and allowing this important facet of Canadian identity which is having a gun.

“Having a firearm is 'an important facet of Canadian identity'.” That was said by the then leader of the Liberal Party when he was running for office and needed some rural votes to build a coalition that obviously was calculated at the time to be successful. He did win the 2015 election, but how things have changed since that point in time. I can only come to the conclusion that it is a flip-flop, like many issues on which the Prime Minister takes a position. When things change, in terms of the political benefit or strategy of the day, that position in many cases takes a 180°. We see a backdoor gun registry: It is not a government-administered centralized gun registry, as we have seen in the past, but we have seen the Liberals implement that.

I have heard some of my colleagues talk today about some of the challenges when it comes to indigenous peoples, the reality of the indigenous way of life and the importance of firearms ownership that the Liberals may be taking away from them. I am a rural member of Parliament and a firearms owner. Having gone through the significant process, I will take a brief moment to say that all members of Parliament in this place, whether they own guns or not, should take the time and put in the effort to get their possession and acquisition licences. I suggest they would be very pleased with the fact that we have a strong suite of rules and structures that ensure there is safe firearms ownership in this country. I find the lack of understanding with regard to that very troubling, when it comes to making public policy and the legislation we have before us.

We have a significant issue when it comes to rising crime rates. There is no question. Conservatives even endeavoured to split this bill. We brought forward a motion to see parts of this bill go forward, but the Liberals said no because it did not fit their political narrative. We see a significant issue when it comes to illegal guns. We see a significant issue when it comes to mental health. We see a significant issue when it comes to rural crime and the challenges with law enforcement in many areas of our country. Bill C-21 does not address those things. It is pure and simple: It does not.

It is unfortunate that while there are several million gun owners in this country, there are many people who have not had the opportunity to understand that firearms, in many cases, are tools. This would be no more evident than when I had a dialogue with the then minister of public safety in the last Parliament. We had a discussion in the aftermath of a very tragic circumstance. I will get to some recent revelations about that in just a moment. Firearms can be used as weapons, as can anything else used with the intent to harm. A firearm is also a tool. It is something that any rural individual who has farmed, ranched, hunted or whatever the case may be has used as either a weapon or a tool. I would suggest the Liberals should be very cognizant of that reality in this place.

I would simply highlight that the allegations made today in a published article related to the shootings in the Maritimes cannot be understated. The Liberals seem to dismiss how serious the possibility of political interference in an investigation is. As I read this article just prior to question period, I was astounded by how it appears there was blatant political interference in what was an absolutely tragic circumstance. It is something that should never have happened. The fact that the government, at least according to the allegations, would go to those lengths to try to leverage a tragedy such as that for its political benefit speaks to how all Canadians and all legislators in this place should be very hesitant about passing a bill when they are willing to go to those lengths to deceive Canadians.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms. I am proud to support such crucial legislation, which is going to make a real difference in keeping communities like mine safe and free of gun violence.

Gun violence is on the rise in Canada. It presents a serious and significant threat to communities across the country, in the streets and at home. Every six days, a woman is killed by an intimate partner. This is not just an urban statistic but a rural one. Women in rural Canada are particularly vulnerable to homicide by firearms. When it comes to domestic violence, shotguns and rifles, usually legally obtained and commonly kept in rural homes, have been called “weapons of choice” by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. In violent homes, these guns are the tools of choice to intimidate and control women living in rural Canada.

The data is clear. Since 2009, violent offences involving guns have increased by 81% and 47% of Canadians say that gun violence poses a serious threat to their community.

There are going to be those who argue that if we regulate guns, we simply penalize law-abiding citizens and gangsters will still get their guns. That is simply not true. Most Canadian mass shooters did not have criminal records and got their guns legally. Let us recap: Fredericton, 2018, no criminal record, four dead; Danforth, 2018, no criminal record, two dead, multiple wounded; Quebec City, no criminal record, six dead, multiple wounded; and the Moncton shooter, 2014, three dead, multiple wounded.

Let us not pretend it is only gangs and illegal weapons that are the problem, because that is simply not true. Here is a sobering stat. The reality is that 75% of gun fatalities have nothing to do with gangs or criminals. It is because they are suicides.

When it comes to kids, let us look at facts. According to the Canadian Medical Association, one child in Ontario is hurt by a gun or firearm every single day, with 7% of those kids ending up dead.

This morning I woke up to an email from Susan, who is from my riding. She wrote me the following email: “Good morning MP Taleeb. Strongly recommend Bill C-21 to be given Royal Assent and pass in Parliament during this session. My brother was shot in his living room several years ago while writing a letter to me that was never completed.”

Susan is a real human being whose family has suffered the real consequences of firearms. This is why we must act. Gun violence affects people in all of our communities, whether rural, urban or suburban and all socio-economic backgrounds. We need to do more. We need to do more to protect our kids, our parents, our neighbours and everyone in between.

Every Canadian deserves to live without fear of violence. We know that inaction on gun control has real consequences. This is why, through Bill C-21, we are taking a national approach to protecting our communities from the harmful effects of gun violence.

Let us be clear about a couple of things. The bill is focused on putting a stop to tragedies, preventing gun crime and keeping our neighbours safe. It is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach. That is exactly what we are doing through Bill C-21, through robust, direct action in key areas that puts in place a diverse strategy on this issue from all sides.

Action on handguns cannot wait. We are putting a national freeze on handguns to address the alarming increase in gun violence to allow a rapid and effective response. This means that, going forward, no one would be able to sell, purchase or transfer handguns by individuals within Canada or bring newly acquired firearms into the country. I want to stress this, because people are going to make a point about this. Legal gun owners would continue to possess and use their registered handguns, and could sell or transfer their registered handguns to exempted individuals or businesses.

The other key pillar of the bill centres on addressing the tragic trend between gender-based violence and guns. We see this link in our workplaces, communities, at home and online. This trend continues to persist. Protecting the safety and security of survivors of violence, particularly intimate partner violence and gender-based violence, is paramount. Victims need to feel heard and supported when they reach out for help.

That's why we are introducing red flag and yellow flag laws and expanding licence revocation. Through red flag laws, survivors can make an application to the courts for an emergency weapons prohibition order to immediately remove firearms for a period of up to 30 days from an individual who poses a danger to themselves or others.

It is also essential as a preventive approach, to ensure that victims of domestic and gender-based violence feel safe, to ensure protective intervention for those experiencing a mental health crisis, and to be able to intervene in cases where people are showing warning signs of violence.

Through yellow flag provisions, an individual's licence can be suspended for up to 30 days.

Combatting gun trafficking and smuggling, and strengthening law enforcement to tackle gun violence are key aspects of our multi-faceted solution. With Bill C-21, we are working to increase the maximum penalties for firearms offences from 10 to 14 years in prison to keep our communities safe.

Taking the necessary steps to ensure we eradicate gun violence across our country will help build safer communities for generations to come. Through Bill C-21, we would ensure kids feel safer walking home from school, women will feel safer when dealing with violent partners, and racialized communities will worry less about being murdered while praying. That is what this bill would do.

This is legislation that might well have prevented the Quebec mosque shooting, the Danforth shooting, and the Moncton and Fredericton shootings. For the victims of gun violence, thoughts and prayers cannot be the best we have, but preventing the next attack by making it harder and harder for firearms to enter our communities would ensure the deaths of those who have passed would not be in vain.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.

I think that closure, or time allocation, is wrong and undermines our democracy. We need to take the time to really examine the issues.

Bill C-21 is important. I think I support it, but it raises a number of issues on which I may want to see amendments, particularly regarding law-abiding citizens who use recreational firearms.

We must make every effort to come up with solutions together. That is why I oppose closure motions.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say this to the member for Cumberland—Colchester, in whose riding these killings took place. The Mass Casualty Commission has revealed some things and we have to wait for its final conclusions. I think it was a mistake not to require all of the RCMP officers who participated in the events to be part of the inquiry and to testify. I know some of the families have even withdrawn participation because they are so disappointed with the path of the inquiry. What I will say is this. Whether the guns were legal or illegal, many neighbours tried to tell the RCMP they were scared of this man and nothing was done.

Bill C-21 will help deal with that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to Bill C-21. I am going to try to deal with a number of complex issues in a short amount of time and hope it works.

It relates to Bill C-21, and that is the use of firearms. I want to comment on some of the discussion during question period about the Portapique shootings. I think it is important to reflect on what I take away from the news media at this time, when I have a moment to say it. There is no chance of interrupting question period to put it into perspective.

As a Nova Scotian originally, I was devastated, as we all were, by the shootings at Portapique. The RCMP officer who was killed, Heidi Stevenson, was a friend of mine and I know her mother well.

It was awful to watch what happened. We will see what the Mass Casualty Commission produces as a result, but it is pretty clear to me, and I want to speak clearly to this, that the RCMP in Nova Scotia failed the public badly. I know a commission is looking at this, but the RCMP had information that was not shared. It failed to put out a warning and 22 people were killed. I know this inquiry is very important to all the families who lost loved ones.

There appears to me to have been an uncalled-for assumption by some members in question period, who put into question the integrity of the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister's Office. I am not an apologist for the Liberals, but I thought that was not what the evidence revealed. When I look at the CBC reports of what they found out, it appears to me that in the aftermath of the shooting, the Nova Scotia RCMP was all too quick to try to obscure facts from the public, rather than reveal them.

It appears to me that the RCMP commissioner, Brenda Lucki, provided more transparency and provided real information. If anyone in PMO instructed her anything, it seems to me that it would have been to tell everybody what has happened and just be transparent. I am very concerned that we let any false rumours or assumptions to besmirch the reputations of others, including Brenda Lucki, be spread in this place.

It appears to me, as in a number of other shooting incidents, that sometimes the police get it wrong. They did not move in Uvalde, Texas, when they should have, to save those children. There is a common denominator that I discern, which is that when the RCMP is slow to move or the police are slow to move, it is because the people they would have to deal with are heavily armed. I do not find the police slow to move against unarmed protesters. I do not find the police slow to move against indigenous people. However, they delay when they are at risk for their own safety, all too often. It is not always, but all too often.

In the case of the Nova Scotia shooter, we know his name. I do not want to repeat it, because of the crimes he committed. However, he was well known to the RCMP and in the early hours after the shooting, the Nova Scotia RCMP, not the commissioner, put out false statements that he was not known to them. He was known personally to them. They had warnings about him.

This goes to make the bridge and the connection to Bill C-21. This goes to a number of the provisions of Bill C-21 that, if Bill C-21 had been law at that time, could have saved lives. The neighbours of the multiple shooter in Nova Scotia, and we can just call him the evil dentist for the time being, reported him to the RCMP on numerous occasions, but no action was taken. Neighbours were so frightened of him that they literally sold their dream home and moved away, yet nothing was done to even conduct a search of the property or even to inquire why he is buying a car that looks just like an RCMP vehicle. Why does he dress up like an RCMP officer? These details were known in the community, and a number of them were reported to law enforcement authorities.

Could this bill have made a difference? I think it could have, but only if the RCMP or local police are prepared to use the information that comes to them. That is why one of the provisions in this bill that I particularly like is the ability to seek an ex parte motion on the strength of concerns from people who are concerned that some person may be threatening others, not just with firearms, by the way, but with crossbows or with explosive substances. This is really important. This is found under “Application for emergency prohibition order” in clause 4 of this bill, which would amend section 110 of the Firearms Act.

It is really important that we recognize what an ex parte order is. That means that people can go to the court without notifying the person they are scared of that they are going to court, and there can be an emergency search and seizure without a warrant. This violates every instinct of my being, searches without warrants, because I am a civil liberties lawyer, but there is a history of violence by people in the community, people we know.

There is a lot about this law that I hope we will have time to study thoroughly, and I want to speak to that. There are the red flag and yellow flag provisions, the ability to go to a judge without fear of retribution from someone who is well armed or who has crossbows. It may be in cases, as we know all too frequently, of intimate partner violence. It may be in cases of the random and reckless killing of others, as in the case of Portapique or the desperately sad case of Lionel Desmond, who killed his wife and mother and kids. He was, of course, suffering from PTSD from his service in our armed forces and did not get the help he needed, even though he had gone to a hospital the day before. There are many and varied circumstances when the presence of firearms in a home makes the difference between life and death, and where the provisions in Bill C-21 would indeed, I hope, save lives.

I want to turn to a process question at this point: Why rush this bill? I am very concerned that we just invoked time allocation on a bill that we had only had before us for debate for three hours. This bill is complex. It has many moving parts. The government itself has changed its views on key aspects of this bill between its version last year, which was also Bill C-21, and its version this year, which is the current Bill C-21. The Liberals changed their minds, and wisely, on the question of voluntary versus mandatory buyback. They changed their minds, wisely, on the question of any jurisdiction other than the federal government regulating guns. Those were wise choices, and this bill has changed in that way.

Bills get better when they are studied. Any attempt to achieve consensus will improve a bill. A decision on the government side that the Conservatives are only going to obstruct and delay and filibuster is entirely a justified conclusion, given conduct so far in this Parliament, but that does not excuse shortening the time for debate, shortening the time for study and shortening the time to try to find consensus in this place, which is possible.

I want to put forward some of the things that would help achieve consensus. One is to observe the rules, which are our rules. It does not take changing the Standing Orders to ban the practice of reading a speech. How does that connect? When a whip or a House leader in a party knows that they can rally however many MPs they have, like cannon fodder, and give them a speech to deliver in 10 minutes, they can clog up the works of this place with people giving speeches.

If the rules prohibited members from reading a speech and required them to express their thoughts in their own words, there would be fewer members rising to speak during a debate on a bill.

We need to get control of this so that we can have real debate among fewer MPs, because fewer MPs would be able to stand up and speak without a written speech.

The next thing we need to do is consider how many days we sit in this place. We have this panic this time of year, every year, as though a disaster will strike if we do not adjourn on a day that is set. We could sit for more days. We sit for far fewer days than the U.S. Congress, and even fewer days than the British Parliament.

I voted against time allocation, because this is a complicated bill and we should take the time it needs, to respect each other and come up with the best bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, today, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Before I start my speech, I want to acknowledge that today is June 21, National Indigenous Peoples Day. It is a day that I recognize with a lot of love because of my beautiful granny. She went to residential school in Lejac between the ages of four and 16, and her strength and integrity keep our family strong. I also want to acknowledge my Auntie Dean from Stellat’en First Nation. Her traditional name is Hatix-Ka’wah, which means peace within the frame of a house. Because of the day, I wanted to acknowledge her as the lead of our family before I started.

I am here specifically to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments in regard to firearms. I want to start by thanking the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his hard work on this file. It is not an easy one, and these discussions are always rife with conflict as we try to navigate our way around this issue. I will say that I am ready to support this bill getting to committee. I also recognize that I still have a lot of questions, and I am hoping the committee will be able to work through some of those questions to get me answers.

I represent a rural riding. I grew up in a household where several of my family members were legal gun owners. They followed the rules, and I was taught gun safety at a very young age as a matter of respect. I grew up eating wild meat, and hunting was a significant part of my family's life.

I have met with many legal gun owners in my riding who have talked about the frustration they feel about the rules always focusing on them, rather than addressing some of their legitimate concerns about illegal guns and how they get into our communities. That is an important part of our conversation today, and it should continue to be. Those conversations do concern me greatly. My riding also has a high level of people retiring from the military who maintain their skills as a commitment to their years of service. It is important for us all to recognize those who use firearms to protect and serve our communities.

I have also heard from constituents who are very, very concerned about gun violence in their communities and in our region. There have been, sadly, several examples in my riding over the past few years, which has resulted in my office receiving more concerns about gun safety than we have ever seen before. This is especially concerning when it comes to cases of domestic violence where guns are used. In 2020, 160 women and girls were killed in Canada. One woman or girl is killed every two and a half days in this country. Therefore, as Canadians are seeing an increase in gun violence across our country, I believe that all Canadians do want to see this addressed.

About three years ago, a constituent in my riding invited me to come to the shooting range with him. He wanted to showcase this for me, so I would understand the rules and how he followed them. I agreed so that I could learn more about the realities of these folks living in my region. Of course, he was also a retired service member for the military, and I always take an opportunity to spend time with people who served us, and who served us so well.

The first thing he told me was that I would have to come to his house and ride with him because he could not stop on the way through town to pick me up. The rules in Canada meant that he had to go straight from his home, not stopping for anything else, and go to the range. At his home, he was able to show me the way he stored his guns separate from ammunition, with everything locked away and secured. He also showed me how he transported the guns and how that was done safely.

I learned a lot, and I really appreciated his effort to take that time to educate me. He also shared that he was concerned about the gun violence in Canada and what that did for him as a legal gun owner and as somebody who was really practising safely. He knew of things that had happened across the country, and he knew that people were more fearful.

These are important conversations to have, especially at that community level where we can have those open conversations and discussions about how we can come together. My constituent did feel that the majority of gun owners followed the rules very carefully, but he was also concerned that there are legal gun owners who do not always follow the rules, and he wanted to make sure that those issues were addressed. Of course, he was also very concerned about the fact that we do have illegal guns in this country, and those folks can really make a bad name for people who are doing their best to be safe.

The facts are that, in Canada between 2019 and 2020, there were notable increases in rates of firearm-related violent crimes being reported, especially in places like southern rural British Columbia, which had an increase of 34%; the northern rural part of Ontario, which increased by 32%; rural Alberta, which increased by 32% in the north and 31% in the south; the Northwest Territories, which saw a 23% increase; and Nova Scotia, which increased by 22%. Handguns were the most serious weapon present in most firearm-related violent crimes.

Over my seven years here, I have heard two things repeatedly from constituents: one is that we need to look at gun policy in Canada, focussing on illegal guns and how they get to our country; and two is that we need more education in Canada about the strong rules that we do have and how they work. I believe these are important areas to discuss.

I have also heard a lot on this bill specifically about concerns from the airsoft community that Bill C-21 would prohibit imports, exports, sales and transfers of all replica firearms, which would include airsoft guns that are designed or intended to look exactly like or resemble a real firearm.

This does concern me, because there is the safety issue on the one side that we should consider carefully. We have heard stories of people using these to emulate real guns, and that is a safety concern for all people who are involved in that situation. We also hear the other side, and that it will impact paintball retailers and facilities, as most rely on income from both airsoft and paintball use.

I understand that in this country there are very few regulations, and I think it is something we need to look at. We have heard from this sector that they have not been meaningfully consulted. We want to make sure that when we further the discussions, we could address that.

I have learned that people have successfully altered airsoft weapons to hold real ammunition, and this really surprised me. I had no idea that that was even possible. Unfortunately it is, and it is a growing concern. We need to work with this sector to make sure that we look at the realities they are facing, and make sure the solution is workable, so they can continue their practice and not have a huge impact on their income. However, we also need to make sure the safety of Canadians is addressed.

Illegal guns are a huge concern for my constituents, as I mentioned earlier. This bill does not offer what I would like to see on measures for gun smuggling. I represent 19 Wing Comox. Its crews do tremendous work on our coastline to keep our community safe. They have found people trying to ship things illegally across our borders, whether it be guns or drugs, and they have stopped that. I really appreciate their work, but I am concerned there is not going to be the amount of support needed to continue that work and to expand that work.

We know that this bill would increase the maximum penalty for trafficking, smuggling and other firearms offences from 10 years to 14 years. It would require the commissioner of firearms to give the minister an annual report. It would allow proactive information sharing between the RCMP and local law enforcement agencies for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting firearm trafficking offences, and it would also provide eligibility for wiretapping on additional Criminal Code firearms offences.

What it does not include in a meaningful way is more support for the Canadian Border Services Agency. We know that, under the previous Conservative government, over 1,000 positions were cut. Under the Liberal government, some of those folks are back, but definitely not the number that is required to actually address the guns that are being smuggled into our country illegally.

We also know, as our leader wrote to the Prime Minister in 2018, that we need to see more changes within our policies in this country to support the root causes of gun violence in some of the more vulnerable communities. We need to address things such as poverty. I was at an event just a few days ago in my community, and I was very surprised by how many people talked to me about the increasing homeless population. They spoke of how more and more people are really struggling to make ends meet and how often they are going towards violence because they cannot feed themselves. They are not safe in their own area.

We need to make sure there are supports provided to our communities to address these key issues because the more poverty grows, and the more people are disenfranchised, the more violence is the result. We need to look at these things as correlating numbers.

I am here to discuss this. I hope that all of us in the House can have a meaningful conversation, because these things are important to our communities, and if we do not address them in an open and transparent way, it will lead to more conflict.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Second Reading

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Brandon—Souris on his speech, and I have a message for him from the member for Jonquière, who wants to congratulate him on his hard work.

In Bill C‑21, the government opted to include a list of prohibited assault weapons, specifying models. Our colleague from Rivière-du-Nord suggested a completely different approach, which is to precisely define what constitutes an assault weapon so that weapons can be prohibited if they meet the criteria in the definition, not just if they are a certain model. What does my colleague from Brandon—Souris think of that?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, right off the bat, I want to point out that our Conservative team was willing to split this bill so that the House could swiftly pass the clauses on which we all agree. There are parts that we still need to debate, but we were prepared to make sure that the other elements could quickly proceed. We would have immediately sent on to the committee stage the elements of Bill C-21 that are focused on protecting potential victims of firearms crime and tightening up laws that address firearms smuggling. Those elements would have also included red flag provisions to allow law enforcement to remove firearms from dangerous domestic situations more quickly and to allow more severe penalties for criminals smuggling guns.

It was a reasonable proposal and it was disappointing that the government did not accept the offer. As with all firearms-related legislation, the government is far too comfortable with labelling those who disagree with it as firearms lobbyists. It is more than willing to disparage us and law-abiding firearms owners than to propose legislation that fixes the root issue of firearms violence. In the 2019 election, the Liberals tried to scare people into voting for them in our riding by sending out a brochure with firearms on it. It did not work, and they got 12% of the vote. The Liberals once again tried to scare people in the 2021 election, and the result was the same:12% of the vote.

The good people of Westman are not buying what the Liberals are trying to sell. A couple of years ago, I took my RPAL, my restricted possession and acquisition licence, and went for training in the basement of the late Don Teale. Like hundreds if not thousands before me, I sat in his makeshift classroom in his home in Brandon with a dozen or so Westman residents who had signed up to take their firearms training. As I walked into the room, I could tell that a few of the other students were slightly perplexed about why I was taking the safety training with them.

Not long afterward, Don, who was a plain-spoken and straight-shooting veteran, told them how happy he was that a sitting member of Parliament was educating himself for the firearms act. Don was right. I was not in his basement because I wanted to purchase a firearm; I took the training to get a better idea of the rigorous process that Canadians must go through before they can get a firearms licence.

As a lot of MPs might know, there was a movement a couple of years ago from law-abiding firearms owners urging legislators to get their PAL or their RPAL. They were tired of politicians getting up and speaking about the firearms act without ever reading or understanding it. They were upset that too many are quick to disparage firearms owners without understanding the law or the process.

There is no evidence to justify many changes found in the Liberals' firearms legislation. In fact, they are only further burdening law-abiding firearms owners, rather than actually going after the people who commit the crimes. I, for one, would prefer that our law enforcement agencies and our Government of Canada spend their time, energy and resources in cracking down on gangs and criminals.

Since the Liberals announced Bill C-21, I have received countless emails from law-abiding firearms owners who feel that once again the government is using them as a scapegoat instead of tackling the root of firearms violence in Canada. I have heard from retired law enforcement officers, veterans, competitive sport shooters and everyday Canadians who are tired of being blamed and shamed by the Liberal government. They are fed up with the Minister of Public Safety's gaslighting.

To give just one example, the minister said, “Bill C-21 doesn't target law-abiding gun owners, it targets handgun violence, it targets organized crime.” Of course this bill targets law-abiding firearms owners. Suggesting it does not is an insult to the intelligence of those who have been following this debate. I am looking forward to watching the deputy minister appear at the public safety committee to inform the MPs that we have all just misunderstood the minister once again.

The reason firearms businesses have run out of stock is that as soon as this bill was announced, everyone with an RPAL went out to purchase a handgun before the freeze takes effect. Anyone who tries to phone the RCMP firearms centre right now will sit on hold for hours, as everyone is trying to purchase or transfer a firearm right now. How could the Minister of Public Safety go on national television and say something so erroneous? Does he actually believe what he is saying? He knows perfectly well that Bill C-21 is going to prevent Canada's RPAL holders from ever purchasing a handgun once this legislation passes.

The truth of the matter is that the Liberal government decided to target law-abiding firearms owners from the moment it came into office. The Liberals repealed various elements of the common sense firearms act that my colleague just talked about, Bill C-71. They deleted the sensible change of introducing an automatic authorization to transport firearms and they then removed any oversight of the classification of firearms.

Let us fast-forward to 2020, when the Liberals reclassified hundreds of firearms as “prohibited”. With the stroke of a pen, they made millions of firearms illegal to use in Canada. Some of these firearms have been in people's possession for decades, and now the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase them so they can be destroyed.

If those hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on policing, social programs or literally anything, there would be a much better chance of reducing crime. Once again the government has failed to make a serious case for one of its bills, and in doing so, it is unnecessarily going after millions of law-abiding firearms owners who have done everything by the book.

According to Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, “it is the experience of law enforcement that most of these guns are illegally obtained,” and I would add, “from the United States”.

As our Conservative shadow minister of public safety said in her speech, the committee recently studied guns and gangs and had a very robust debate. It had police and crime experts appear, and not one recommendation in its report was to ban handguns. That is because none of the experts, none of the police experts and none of the community anti-gang experts said that banning handguns would be a solution. All of them said that such an approach would not work.

In relation to some questions we just had, the committee heard from the Toronto police that over 85% of handguns used in violent crimes are smuggled in from the United States. From Quebec, Chief Inspector Benoît Dubé said that most firearms linked to crime seized in his province come from the United States. He said, “We need to focus our efforts on the borders between the United States and Canada.” According to Chief Inspector David Bernard from the Montreal city police service, approximately 80% of illegal firearms seized in Quebec have been smuggled in from the United States.

To date, we have seen very little evidence from the government to suggest that law-abiding firearm owners are responsible for the rise in firearm homicides and shootings. What we do have is a gang and organized crime problem in Canada. On a weekly basis, we are hearing about deadly shootings happening across the country. All this violence has led to the tragic loss of too many, and it is having an impact on countless communities and neighbourhoods.

According to the latest Statistics Canada data, there were 8,344 victims of police-reported violent crime in which a handgun was present during the commission of an offence, which is a rate of 29 per 100,000 population. Since the Liberals were elected in 2015, gun crime has gone up steadily each year, and for residents in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and other cities, gun violence is an everyday occurrence.

I have always stood for common sense firearm safety and strong consequences for those who commit firearms offences. If the Liberals had proposed a bill that explicitly focused on guns, gangs and criminals, they would have found a much more receptive audience on this side of the House.

For years, we have been calling on the government to address gun smuggling and improve the ability of border agents to prevent the flow of illegal firearms into Canada. I cannot and will not support legislation that specifically targets law-abiding firearms owners and ignores the root problems of illegal firearms.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am always grateful to stand up and represent my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. However, in this case, I am representing all legal firearms owners, our law enforcement, our military, our security forces around the country and even our Parliamentary Protective Service. I challenge every MP to talk to them and ask their opinions about this bill, as well as to get the opinions of sport shooters, hunters and the vast majority of my constituents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I am disappointed that we are already curtailing debate on this important bill, especially considering that we have only had seven Conservative MPs speak to it, and that was only because we split our time.

On that note, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

I am going to focus on three key aspects in my speech. Number one is data and facts, number two is openness, transparency and honesty, and finally, number three is respect. The key to all of this, and the key to reducing gun violence in Canada, is education.

Let me speak first to the data and the facts. I asked the previous member speaking to define military-style assault rifles, which is a question I have been asking the government for almost three years now. The definition does not exist. I asked that question in a written submission to the government, and its response was to please check a commissioned report by Hill+Knowlton Strategies. If we read that report, do we know what it says? The government really needs to define what it means by assault rifles or military-style assault rifles. A definition still does not exist, and that adds to the confusion so many Canadians face when we are trying to deal with the important issue of reducing gun violence across Canada.

I am going to go back to the original, key piece of legislation in the past couple of years. It was from the last Parliament around the order in council that banned 1,500 so-called military-style assault rifles. In that document, there was actually no definition or criteria for what determines or establishes what is a military-style assault rifle. When I asked what criteria were used, I was told there were none.

The government used three principles. Number one is that the guns are semi-automatic in nature, with a high sustained rate of fire. That statement is a contradiction. If it is semi-automatic, the rate of fire is controlled by the shooter and not by the firearm, so whether someone has a slow finger or a fast finger determines whether a firearm should be prohibited or not. It does not even make logical sense.

The second principle the government used is that the firearms are of modern design. I asked what was meant by modern design. That means post-World War II. If the firearm was designed post the Second World War, we should be banning it.

Number three is that they exist in large quantities in Canada. Again, this does not pass the common sense test. Let us take firearm x as an example. There are 100,000 of them in Canada that have been used in zero gun crimes. Let us ban it. With firearm z, let us say there are only 10 of them in Canada and all 10 have been used in firearms crimes. It is good to go and will not be banned. Again, there is no logic behind the principles, and there are no criteria to determine that list.

I have been asking for evidence and data that support any of the firearms legislation the current Liberal government has brought forward. I submitted a written question to the government asking for any evidence or metrics behind how the government thinks any of this legislation is actually going to reduce gun violence. I received a response on January 29, 2020, that would only take me 30 seconds to read out. There is no evidence or metrics on how this is going to reduce gun violence in Canada.

The member for Winnipeg North stood and said that this has been broadly consulted on. It has not been consulted on in my riding. In the previous Parliament, the minister of public safety at the time came to my community and talked about Bill C-71 from the 42nd Parliament. I can guarantee he walked out of there and there was not a single person who talked to the minister during that consultation session who supported Bill C-71.

I will go back to my point around data. Where is the data that shows legal firearms owners are responsible for gun crime in Canada? I talked about education. I spent 25 years in uniform carrying all sorts of restricted and prohibited firearms, because I could as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. I was an infantry officer. I walked around with a fully automatic firearm. That is what assault weapons are: fully automatic. They have been banned in Canada since 1977. During my last two deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, I walked around everywhere with a handgun. Handguns do not kill people; people kill people.

To get to the point about education, despite all that, when I got out of uniform and became a civilian, I had to get a possession and acquisition licence and a restricted possession and acquisition licence, a PAL and an RPAL, in order to potentially buy a firearm or a restricted firearm. Those courses are extensive. Did I learn a lot about safety on those specific firearms? No. I was safe and had no problem passing the practical portions of both of those courses, but I did learn a lot about our laws. As I suggested in the last Parliament, it would benefit every member who wants to sit here and debate firearms legislation to do the PAL or the RPAL course because it would teach them a lot about our very restrictive firearms laws that currently exist in Canada.

To continue on education, when I was door knocking in 2019, I heard similar concerns that have been addressed by other members during the debate about why anybody would need that firearm. I was shown a picture from a Cabela's magazine or some other magazine that someone had received in the mail, and they asked me why anybody would need that. I looked at it and compared it with another firearm in the brochure. I pointed to the firearm that they thought was so scary and said I would walk 200 metres down the street and stand there. They could shoot at me all they wanted and I would not even move.

I asked if another firearm was okay, and they said yes. It was just a hunting rifle. I said that if I stood another few hundred metres away, as soon as someone started shooting at me with that firearm, I would take cover. Again, it is the lack of education in understanding firearms. Just because they look scary does not mean they are more dangerous. It is based on their capabilities and criteria.

I asked the minister, when he first introduced Bill C-21 in the House last week, about handguns in particular. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, handguns are restricted and they are registered. I asked a simple question about how easy it is for law enforcement to track how many gun crimes in Canada have been committed by legal firearms owners with legal handguns. He refused to answer that question. It was the same question I had asked his officials the week prior during the technical briefing. Again, I ask that they please get us the data. It would help so much.

I would point out that restricted firearms owners are the most law-abiding demographic in Canada. In fact, they are three times less likely to commit a crime than the average Canadian. I would argue, it is even less likely than that for the majority of the Liberal caucus.

Openness and transparency are key around all of this. Let us debate this. Everybody wants to reduce gun violence in Canada, but we need to do that based on data, based on evidence and based on statistics. Law enforcement demands this. One of the things that a lot of Canadians do not understand is that our law enforcement and security forces depend on these restricted firearms for their own safety and training. They do not get the time on the range to do this, so a lot of legal firearms owners are in law enforcement who own these firearms on their own. I get that Bill C-21, specifically on handguns, says that they would still be able to own them, but let us remove the politicization around this and talk about what is important to solve this.

My final point is on respect and trust. Let us respect parliamentarians in the House, let us respect legal firearms owners and, most of all, let us respect Canadians by talking about the real key facts.

In conclusion, there are data and facts, openness and transparency, and respect and trust. Let us educate Canadians on the root causes of gun violence in Canada, i.e., crime, drugs, the illegal trafficking of firearms and, most importantly, poverty instead of going after law-abiding Canadians.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about military-style assault rifles. Could she provide me with the definition of what a military-style assault rifle is? She mentioned the AR-15s, which were banned by the order in council of May 1, 2020. Could the member please let the House know how many crimes have been committed in the history of Canada with AR-15s?

The member talked about reducing gun violence. We have 100% agreement in the House that we all want to reduce gun violence. Could she tell me about the metrics within Bill C-21, specifically around handguns, that are going to do that, considering that all restricted firearms and handguns are registered so that the police are able to track exactly how many crimes have been committed? How many crimes have been committed with legal handguns?

Finally, the member talked about red flag laws. Would she admit that we currently have red flag laws in our legislation that help prevent this?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise in this House today, especially following my illustrious colleague, who never seems to run out of words and manages to fill the time slot all the time.

I represent a riding that, like many others in a large urban centre like Toronto, has a tendency to have a lot of violence, and the majority of that violence is gun violence, so I am very pleased that Bill C-21 is on the table.

The part that bothers me about Bill C-21 is the fact that we will not get it to committee and back before the House rises. I, and some of my colleagues, would have been more than happy to remain until the middle of July or the end of July to pass this bill, but it takes consent to do that, which was not available. We will get the bill as far as we can in this session, and as soon as we come back in the fall, I hope this will be the first item the committee deals with, understanding its importance. I wonder how many more lives could have been saved had we been able to get the bill through, but there are a lot of things that governments do, and there is a lot of legislation that is important. I am glad that we finally got as far as we have. Let us hit the ball home and get this through committee and back to the House.

We have a very close relationship with our neighbours to the south. Clearly, whenever we see what is going on there, we know it is going to happen here. It is just the way it is. We are a smaller country, and these things tend to be exposed later, but we follow the U.S. in so many ways.

I think I speak for all of us as parliamentarians when I say that we are sick and tired of turning on the news and feeling heartbroken at yet another act of gun violence. The common response from all of us as elected officials is to send our thoughts and prayers. However, as time goes on and these instances of violence continue to occur, the overwhelming response is that thoughts and prayers accomplish nothing and that we need action. I have been hearing this in my community for the 30 years that I have been elected to office, and several members of my own family have been victims of gun violence. We have been waiting and pushing and asking when we are going to get tougher on illegal handguns.

This is certainly not about hunters, God bless them, who can go right ahead and do their hunting. I have family who hunt deer, moose and all of that, as well. That is not what we are talking about with this bill. We are talking about gun violence, handguns. That is what is doing the killing in my riding and throughout the city of Toronto.

Last Sunday afternoon, there were four separate incidents of gun violence. Thank God, none of it was in my riding, which is always my first thought, selfish as it is. It was in other parts of our city, but there is a lot of it. This bill is just one more tool that we have in the tool box. It will not do everything we want it to do, but at least it tries to address the number of guns that are flowing. There was a shooting yesterday from a car window, which missed the person evidently, but again, this is becoming just like in the U.S. Whatever we can do as parliamentarians here, and whatever our government has the courage to move forward on to try to tackle this issue, is what we are elected to do. We are elected to deal with the tough issues, and this is one of them.

I am very proud of the government, and while some may have wanted this legislation later, I would have liked to see it sooner. I am tired of responding with thoughts and prayers, of saying “I feel sorry for you.” I am sorry for the families who have gone through this and yes, I will do what I can, but we do not do enough. Frankly, I do not know what is enough, but this is at least another step forward, which is why I wanted to make sure I had an opportunity to say some words today.

Since 2015, when our Liberal government came in, we have banned AR-15s and 1,500 models of assault-style firearms. These kinds of weapons do not belong in the homes or on the streets of this country, or any country, unless they are in a war, as in Russia or in Ukraine, but there is no reason for them to be needed on the streets of this country of ours.

Cracking down on illegal trafficking by investing in law enforcement and enhanced border security is another key part of it, because it seems that no matter how much more security we get at the borders, somehow the guns are getting smuggled in. They are coming from somewhere. We are not manufacturing all of these handguns here, so they are coming across borders and we are not doing enough to prevent that from happening. I know we have put millions more into CBSA, and here and there, but it never seems to be enough. This is, again, one more step to try to decrease the number of guns on our streets.

The other issue is, why do we have so much gang violence? In my riding, as in others, I deal with a lot of families that have had tremendous trouble, and we need to look at the root cause of why they would pick up a gun and decide to take somebody else's life. In a round-table session I had a few years ago with young men and women, I questioned them and said, “You know who these people are on the street. Why would you not discourage them from using a gun?” They said, “Why? You don't value my life, so I don't value your life.” I never forgot that statement, because I do value their life, but they do not seem to think that we as a society value their lives. That is important because people need to understand that every life is valuable. Every life matters to all of us, but to think “I don't care about you because you don't care about me” leaves a real challenge.

Since I had that conversation, I have gone out of my way, to the extent possible, as an elected official to make sure that the people in my riding and everywhere else know that we do care and we are trying to help them, but they have to help themselves. This is not a one-way street, where we are out doing everything for them and they are waiting to see what we are going to give them. It takes all of us working together. If people are having issues, they should talk to somebody, reach out and get the help they need, just not think that their life does not matter.

The ability to trace guns is another issue we have talked about for some time, looking at how to better identify where those guns have come from. The red flag laws are another important thing that should have been on the books a long time ago. It is really important.

I have to thank my staff for putting a speech together that somehow I never got to.

I am proud that the government is doing this. We all need to work harder at decreasing gun violence in a variety of ways. This is one more tool in the tool box, and we owe it to the people who have sent us here to reflect their views and thoughts and do what is necessary to decrease gun violence. I hope we get this to committee soon, make some changes and improvements to it and move forward together on this legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government, virtually from day one, has been taking budgetary and legislative actions to make our communities safer, and we will continue to do so. Bill C-21 is yet another legislative measure that would have a profoundly positive impact, and I can cite it specifically. From the selling and purchasing of handguns to the idea of the yellow flag and red flag laws, these are issues that will provide a higher sense of security in our communities. The Conservatives will have to justify to these communities why they oppose that.

In terms of their overall behaviour with regard to all legislation, even legislation they support, they will go out of their way to filibuster in order to fill time and force the government to—