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.

Public Safety and National Security

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the way I see things right now, they are not walking the talk. Let me explain. My colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia gave a speech earlier explaining all the work that has been done by the Standing Committee on Public Safety on the issue of better gun control and on Bill C-21. One problem with the buyback program is the definition issue.

My colleague clearly explained that there is something that is crucial. I will also address this issue when PolyRemembers appears before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women next week for a study on femicide. The Standing Committee on Public Safety made a rather important recommendation about enlisting a committee of independent experts to provide a more informed opinion to clearly define and determine which firearms should be prohibited and which are indeed used for hunting only. This will require people who are truly independent. My colleague has been waiting for such a committee to be set up for over a year and a half. She even sent the Minister of Public Safety some names of people who could join it. This is important. Right now, things are stuck and this definition is one of the reasons.

Can we get moving and take action?

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

Madam Speaker, it is pretty simple. The government's next move appears to be implementing a buyback program for banned firearms. That is what we have been asking for, but it is a half measure insofar as there are still assault-style firearms circulating on the market that can do the same things as those on the banned weapons list. We need to get the job done right.

It is easy. The government has the ability to implement regulations banning these weapons. That should happen before a buyback program is put in place. I would not be surprised if that is what PolyRemembers asks for at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It is one of their main demands. This week, its members spoke with the mayor of Montreal, Valérie Plante, who is once again asking that the government implement the recommendations and regulations tied to Bill C‑21.

I would say that is the most pressing point.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to talk about this issue, although we discussed the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security's report years ago. It was when the Bloc Québécois proposed to discuss the increase in gun violence. At the time, gun crimes were being committed in broad daylight next to day care centres in cities like Montreal. There had been a shooting in a library. In short, a lot of events led us to determine that we needed to talk about the issue with some urgency. The parties worked really well together to have the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security conduct a study on the matter.

We then did an exhaustive study in committee, and a report containing 34 recommendations was released in April 2022. That was a few years ago, when the Hon. Jim Carr was chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We salute him. We miss him. All that to say that, rereading the various recommendations this morning, I was disappointed to realize that most of them, although the report was published in 2022 and a major firearms act has since been passed, were never implemented by the government. That is really too bad.

I welcome the opportunity that we have today to once again talk about the Conservatives' idea, because it still seems to be a hot topic. There has not been much of a decline in violent gun crime in recent years, at least not since this report was tabled, so it is a good idea to talk more about this issue and to put more pressure on the government to do something about it.

Earlier, I mentioned to the parliamentary secretary that Bill C-21 was indeed a step in the right direction, but that there are a lot of regulations attached to it that have not yet been finalized, even though these are important regulations that could have a positive impact on people's lives, especially the lives of women who are victims of domestic violence. Red flag and yellow flag provisions can provide better protection for these women. It is important to put these measures in pace. We worked hard in committee to create these measures, but they have not yet been implemented.

It is the same thing with all these models of firearms that are still available on the market. People still own assault-type firearms, and they are still in circulation, even though the government banned many of them a few years ago. Some models are extremely similar. As I was saying to my colleague earlier, it does not make sense to me to set up a gun buyback program when people who own a gun on the banned list can hand it over to the government, take the money in return and go out and buy another gun that is basically the same. Why set up a buyback program if that is what is going to happen?

Let us go with a complete ban. Let us sort out the guns that could be used for hunting, because some of the firearms that we identified during the study of Bill C‑21 might be used for hunting. What we proposed to the government at the time was to set up an advisory committee. Why should this be a political decision? We suggested leaving it to neutral experts from all fields to study the matter. We were talking about nearly 500 models that are still out there, and maybe a dozen models that could be used for hunting. We were saying that we should ask these experts to provide recommendations to the government so that the government could then act on them, and that this would then be an opportunity to set up a more serious buyback program instead of taking taxpayers' money just to allow someone to go out and buy a different model.

I will come back to this in more detail, but I also want to talk about the list of 34 recommendations adopted in April 2022. I have to say that we worked well together in committee, and it is quite rare to get unanimity on any topic at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

It was nice to see all the parties agree that the government should do more to make progress on the firearms violence file. The committee made very good recommendations. I will mention a few of them.

In particular, we wanted to improve data collection about firearms smuggling. This is a very big report. It discusses legislative changes concerning assault-type weapons, as well as illegal firearms trafficking at the border. In particular, it mentions the border crossing at Akwesasne and the collaborative efforts between the various police forces. It also deals extensively with the tracing of firearms and the training of law enforcement officials in this area. In particular, it recommends ongoing training for RCMP officers. Many of the recommendations in the report relate to tracing.

We wanted the Government of Canada to make an effort to divert young people away from gang culture. That is very important. We need to implement preventive measures to reach young people, often from disadvantaged communities, who might be attracted by criminal gangs and commit crimes. It is all related. When we talk about firearms trafficking, about gun violence, we can assume that it is related to drug trafficking, human trafficking or even auto theft. We also discussed that aspect extensively. These are criminal activities that finance other criminal activities, including firearms trafficking. We asked the government to do more to prevent this type of criminal activity. In particular, we asked the government to broaden the national crime prevention strategy by adding more measures. We also asked that it hold a national gun and gang summit in Ottawa. That has not happened, despite the fact that it was recommended in 2022.

Take auto theft, for example. A few months ago, when I raised the issue in the House of Commons, the Conservatives were on board because it is a widespread phenomenon, particularly in Montreal and Toronto. The government wanted to act quickly and launched a national summit on auto theft, which appears to have yielded results. I visited the port of Montreal and the Canada Border Services Agency site nearby. We saw that the police, Équité Association and the Canada Border Services Agency were working together to search containers. We saw how it all works.

Sometimes when we raise issues in the House of Commons, we think it might have an impact on real life. It is interesting. I figure that, if it works for auto theft, why would it not work for gun violence and gangs? A national summit is always a timely idea, and it allows everyone to sit at the same table and talk about what to do next. That is still a useful recommendation that can be implemented any time with little expense. It is always good to establish communication between all the stakeholders.

We also asked the government to tackle the illegal drug trade. As I said earlier, there is still a connection to the opioid epidemic, which leads to things like gun violence and illegal tobacco sales. All these things are related. It is important to bulk up police resources to fight gang violence. People often talk about how important it is to have more officers who can do this work. It is the same with indigenous policing. I talked about the Akwesasne police earlier.

Indigenous police services have been seeking recognition as essential services for years now. They want more resources so they can do their job. I am not targeting that particular indigenous nation at all, but everyone knows this is a very strategic location between Quebec, Ontario and the United States where there is a lot of trafficking. Many people can intervene in that territory, but they have to work together, and they have to work with the Akwesasne police. The report called for enhanced funding and collaboration. Simply put, it called on the Government of Canada to give them the means to achieve their objective of taking action against trafficking in guns, drugs, tobacco and humans.

We see it with migrants who try to come in as part of an irregular arrival. Some have died trying to cross at this very spot. Increased control is really key.

The government was asked to “investigate the need for enhanced border surveillance of international commercial rail operations and ocean freight shipping operations.” The Bloc Québécois produced a supplementary report to this study. Our recommendation was to improve recommendation 19, by pointing out that it is not just a matter of investigating the need, which is quite broad, but rather of strengthening border surveillance.

Many, many, witnesses appeared before the committee. Several of them, including the president of the Customs and Immigration Union, told us that containers arriving by rail and ship are very poorly monitored. If someone can hide cars in there, they can certainly hide firearms. That is why there must be increased surveillance. We asked for that recommendation to be tightened up a little. That is why we included it in the Bloc Québécois supplementary report.

Recommendation 20 called on the government to “allocate additional human and financial resources to the Canada Border Services Agency”. It is a bit ironic, then, to see that hours of service are being reduced at 35 border crossings in Canada, including 10 in Quebec. The media reported it this week. Meanwhile, the President-elect of the United States, Mr. Trump, is threatening to deport millions of people. Understandably, these people may try to cross irregularly into Canada, because there is a loophole in the safe third country agreement that allows them to come to Canada. If they remain undetected for 14 days, they can make a refugee claim at a border crossing or on the Government of Canada's website, with a perfectly regular application.

In other words, people are being encouraged to break the law, enter Canada illegally and then submit a perfectly legal application to remain in Canada. Meanwhile, our integration capacity is already stretched to the limit. That is definitely the case in Quebec, and we are starting to hear other provinces say that it is getting difficult for them to properly receive these individuals as well.

We are telling the government that it needs to pay attention. We are hearing reports that the next U.S. government intends to deport millions of people, but we have no plan for the border. For years, we have been saying that there needs to be more staff, more human resources, but now the government is saying that it is going to reduce operating hours and staff numbers at certain border crossings, including strategic crossings at the Canada-U.S. border. It worries us a bit to hear that.

This morning, I had a meeting with the Minister of Public Safety and I raised this issue with him. If the staff are being reassigned, where are they going? Is the government planning to deploy them to another part of the border to prevent this scenario? I asked the minister that question in the House several times, and he said that everything was going well for now and that when a crisis does arise, it will be dealt with then. That is the problem with this government. Instead of anticipating problems and crises, it waits until the problem blows up in its face before taking action. It is always just a little too late. That is too bad. As far back as April 2022, when it released this report, the committee was already recommending that additional resources be allocated to the Canada Border Services Agency. That still has not been done. In any case, that is what the Customs and Immigration Union is telling us.

Recommendation 22 calls on the government to “develop a standardized schedule and definitions of prohibited firearms within the Criminal Code of Canada, with an emphasis on simplicity and consistency”.

The government decided to do the exact opposite with Bill C-21 by proposing an evergreen definition of prohibited firearms. It is difficult to explain what that means in lay terms, but it basically means that the government is prohibiting firearms that do not yet exist. Those that are already in circulation can remain in circulation, but new firearms that are created will be prohibited. As a result, manufacturers are deciding not to create firearms that meet those criteria. They are already getting around the law. In my opinion, this shows that the government's approach did not do much good.

We were forced to adopt that proposal because the previous one was even worse. The government proposed adding a list of just over 1,000 firearms to the Criminal Code. With an endless list of firearms, making changes to the Criminal Code would have been a total nightmare. Although there does not seem to be one perfect solution, that one was far from ideal. As I was saying, firearms that can be extremely dangerous, that can be used for malicious purposes, are being left in circulation.

We know there are law-abiding people out there. That needs to be said. For years, there have been gun owners who have done everything that was asked of them and who take good care of their firearms. They are not a problem for society. We always hear the argument that it is the illegal guns, criminals and street gangs that cause trouble, but the honest gun owners who pay the price. That said, when someone chooses to own a firearm, they have to be aware that there are regulations around gun ownership and that they have to be careful.

That is why I think it is always good to have regulations and laws for people who decide to keep an object in their home that is capable of taking someone's life. However, it is true that it may seem contradictory to leave the door open for criminals and gun traffickers and always go after law-abiding gun owners.

The government's approach was to lump them all together. Even though some of these weapons were used for hunting, the government included them in its bill to ban them. People told the committee that indigenous communities have used firearms like the SKS for hunting for years. Even though mass murders have been committed with SKS rifles, it does not necessarily follow that this weapon should be banned. That is why we asked the government to create an advisory committee with independent experts.

I remember that when I got home after Parliament rose in June 2023, I wrote an email to the Minister of Public Safety's team to recommend individuals and experts who could be part of the advisory committee. I was told that it was coming and that they would take my suggestions, so I was hoping it would come soon, but it has been radio silence since then. It has been a little over a year.

Members will recall that there was a cabinet shuffle about a month later, in July 2023. I understand that this can lead to delays, but nothing has happened to this day. Some groups are still sounding the alarm. In fact, I am meeting with PolyRemembers later today, and they say that they have only received half of all the things they were promised.

I want to come back to the infamous gun buyback program. It is a good idea, but if a person can sell their gun to the government and then buy another one that does exactly the same thing, the whole exercise was pointless, and taxpayers' money was spent for nothing. There is still a lot that needs to be done.

Earlier this week, the Police Association of Ontario wrote a letter to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice. The leader of the Bloc Québécois received a copy. The letter mentions that a significant number of illegal guns are making their way into Canada. We need to look into that. So many gun-related issues remain to be addressed.

I like the new Minister of Public Safety. I trust him. The two of us have good conversations, but since he took office, it seems like things are not getting done. It is too bad, because we, the opposition, did our part in the parliamentary legislative process. Whatever we could do, we did. Now the ball is in the government's court. Addressing this issue will require regulatory measures that only the government can take, but the government is not budging. That is too bad, because the government was elected and re-elected on the promise of improving gun control. Soon it could lose power, and the issue will remain unresolved. It is too bad for the people who believed its promise, like women of PolyRemembers, who have been fighting for nearly 35 years now. They will not get to see these much-touted regulations take effect. It really is too bad.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. She is someone I have had the privilege of working closely with on this issue. I know we would not have been able to do what we have done on gun control without her support and assistance.

I want to assure the member that all of the things she mentioned remain a priority for the government. I continue to push the government to get these regulations put in place as quickly as possible and to ensure we are moving forward on all of the things we promised in Bill C-21.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I worked very hard on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to make Bill C-21 a good bill.

This bill had a huge number of regulatory measures that were to come later, and we placed out trust in the government when we passed it. We hoped that the government would quickly adopt the regulations needed to make the bill strict enough. Unfortunately, that is not really what happened.

We passed the bill and are still awaiting several regulations, namely those that could protect women against domestic violence, as well as those relating to the assault-type weapons still on the market, which can still be found in homes and in the streets.

The government wants to move forward with the firearms buyback program. However, it is easy for a citizen with a prohibited weapon to sell it to the government, take the money and go buy another one. Why is it that there is still no advisory committee in place to determine what to do with these weapons?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to contribute to this debate on the concurrence of a guns and gangs study that I was pleased to be part of at the public safety committee.

I am reflecting back on how, since just two years ago, times have changed. That study, which was on something that could have been quite controversial, ended up being one for which we had agreement amongst the members of the committee. We produced a report that the Conservatives actually agreed with when we tabled the report.

I find it surprising now that, here we are, two years later, and we have rhetoric and nonsense coming from the Conservative Party of Canada on a report that I am really proud of. At the time, I think that all of the members were very proud of it, especially of the way we were able to come together on an issue that is impacting our communities. Young people are joining gangs because of poverty and addiction. We know, and the report reflected this, that investments in communities can make a difference for these young people in whether or not they end up in the criminal justice system.

I am really disappointed that, once again, the Conservatives are trying to derail our current studies at the public safety committee. We are studying India and foreign interference, through which a Canadian was killed on Canadian soil, as well as Tenet Media and Russia's influence on misinformation in our country. This is something the Conservatives have tried to do repeatedly during both those studies. Today, they are trying to derail those two studies again. Twice we have had Conservatives move motions, once when we had the social media companies in to testify on Russia and once when we had national security experts there, and they were moving motions on completely unrelated topics.

These are issues that are impacting Canadians' lives. It seems like the Conservatives, much like their leader, who refuses to get the security clearance necessary to review, do not really want to study foreign interference. They make a big deal about having an interest in it, but they really do not.

There is a lot of revisionist thinking going on in this place as well. Bill C-83 passed, and I was proud to be part of the committee when we passed that bill, but the Conservatives keep referring to how the Liberal government brought in the least restrictive measures. It is funny that, when that bill went through committee, Conservatives did not oppose that clause, which was introduced by the NDP. Conservatives did not oppose the least restrictive clause on Bill C-83 when it went through committee.

However, now, with the revisionist history that has happened over the years, the Conservatives seem to think that they did. Perhaps they want to go back to just check the record of when that bill passed.

I am reading a book right now called Indictment by Benjamin Perrin. He was the man who shaped Stephen Harper's tough on crime policies as a special adviser and legal counsel to the prime minister. I want to read a quote from his book. He said, “In fact, I’d like to officially replace the term ‘tough on crime’ with ‘stupid on crime.’ It doesn't work. It makes us less safe, while costing a ton of taxpayers money.” To paraphrase former prime minister Harper's top guy on crime, he is saying tough on crime is tough on taxpayers and stupid on crime.

The Conservatives like to talk about how they want to keep Canadians safe, yet, time and time again, they have opposed smart gun control measures when we have brought them through the House. In Bill C-71, there was a clause that ensured that firearms would be forfeited to the Crown in cases of domestic violence.

I had a friend whose husband was abusing her, and he was a firearms owner. When she went to court, the judge said that he had to give up his guns. Do members know where those guns went? They went to his brother because there was no requirement at the time that those guns be forfeited to the Crown. My friend lived in fear because she knew that her husband knew where those guns were. We changed that through Bill C-71, something the Conservatives have said they are going to repeal. If my friend were to go to court today, those guns would go to the Crown, not to her husband's brother.

In Bill C-21, we put in three clauses to make women safer: subsection 6.1, which would make an individual ineligible to hold a firearms licence if they are subject to a protection order or have been convicted of an offence involving violence; subsection 70.1, which would oblige a chief firearms officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a licensee may have engaged in domestic violence or stalking to revoke the licence within 24 hours; and subsection 70.2, which would automatically revoke the licence of an individual who becomes subject to a protection order and requires them to deliver the guns to a peace officer within 24 hours.

In my opinion, that keeps Canadian women safer. It is unfortunate that the party opposite wants to revoke Bill C-21, which includes those provisions. It also includes provisions around assault-style weapons, something that was used at Polytechnique Montréal, and that anniversary is coming up on December 6. The Conservative Party still refuses to acknowledge that the individual who killed those women on that day was a legal gun owner at the time, much like the person who went into the Quebec City mosque and killed and injured people.

When we were studying Bill C-21, Blaine Calkins showed up in committee. Sorry, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe—

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that I listen to the police all the time.

They tell me that when guns are taken out of circulation, it helps keep things like gender-based violence and domestic violence from occurring. Women are getting killed because guns are in homes. When we pass a bill like Bill C-21, we disable that from happening and ensure that we are keeping women in this country safe. That is a priority or should be a priority for the entire Parliament. It is just really shocking that that member does not get it.

Report Stage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Safety

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

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

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

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

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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