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.

[Talal Dakalbab]

I believe I've testified in this committee in the past that Bill C-21 not only addresses crimes but also addresses gender-based violence and mental health issues. It is important to bear in mind from my perspective as a policy wonk, if you wish, that the bill is really a step among many other pillars that are important.

Quite frankly, I do want to refer a bit to the Mass Casualty Commission's report. It asks us to look at what community safety is in Canada, not only in the one pillar but as a whole, and I do believe that Bill C-21 is one of the steps, but not the full spectrum.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Okay.

Again, if I demonstrate any ill will towards Bill C-21, it's not directed towards you personally, just so you know.

I know that we've had many people here talk about the impacts of Bill C-21, or the lack of impacts of Bill C-21. Did you or anyone on this committee provide the minister or Public Safety Canada with any documentation or evidence that Bill C-21, as proposed, was actually going to make a positive difference on public safety in this country? Was there any evidence to support it?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here.

For Mr. Larkin, first of all, Bryan, thank you for your many years of service. I appreciate your leadership on the CPA.

Mr. Anson, thank you for your military service. It's greatly appreciated.

For all on the committee, did any one of you have a hand in the development of this Bill C-21, or was that from the minister and his department specifically?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank everyone for being here today. We're pleased to welcome you.

As you know, we, the members of Parliament, are lucky to be able to rely on the assistance of legislative analysts and advisors who guide us on the drafting of our amendments. When we get an idea, they often help us put it on paper in appropriate legislative language. They even give us recommendations or short notes saying that it's a good idea, or that it's doable, but that it might extend beyond the scope of the bill given that there is no clause in the current bill that addresses that issue, for example. This sometimes limits what we can do.

I know that the government can also rely on the Department of Justice for advice; in fact, I believe that various departments, including Justice, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, consulted one another on the drafting or tabling of amendments G‑4 and G‑46.

My question is for you, Mr. Dakalbab.

Did people at the Department of Justice ever tell you that amendments G‑4 and G‑46 went beyond the scope of Bill C‑21 and that another parliamentary measure would have to be introduced for procedural compliance? A parliamentary measure might mean something like a motion moved by the government to expand the scope of the bill.

Did you receive a comment of this kind from the Department of Justice?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Over the last number of years, we have invested close to a billion dollars to support law enforcement through the anti-guns and gangs fund and through our investments into the Canada Border Services Agency.

What does this mean in simple language? This means more resources on the ground. It means more personnel. It means state-of-the-art technology. It means making sure that we're stopping the illegal flow of guns into our country. You heard me cite the numbers: There were 1,100 illegal firearms seized in 2022.

There have been great strides, but the fact is that we have to do more. Supporting law enforcement is one pillar, but we also need to do the prevention work, as I said in my response to Mr. Chiang. Prevention is a pillar that often gets overlooked and does not get the same oxygen and coverage as, let's say, legislation like Bill C-21, but it is a game-changer. It is a game-changing pillar.

What I would say to you is that beyond the scope of this portfolio in Public Safety, the work that our government is doing through the creation of a national housing strategy—providing access to Canadians who are trying to get into their first home by providing more supports for mental health, which my colleague Minister Bennett is leading and shepherding in historic ways—is part of the way in which we can prevent crime. This is because it gets right to those social determinants and those barriers that stand in the way of people who are at risk achieving their full potential and giving back.

I strongly encourage the members of this committee and all parliamentarians, in their study of how we can solve the very difficult problem of gun crime, to also give equal focus and emphasis to addressing prevention. We are doing that, both in my portfolio at Public Safety and equally right across government.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

We have, as I said at the outset of my last response to you, engaged directly with NIOs—national indigenous organizations—as well as directly with other communities and rights holders. The character of those conversations has been, I think, very focused and constructive in relation to the questions that have been raised vis-à-vis Bill C-21 and more specifically around some of the amendments that were originally introduced.

I would say that as a matter of ensuring that the lived experiences of first nations are reflected in this bill in the practical sense—when it comes to food security, when it comes to self-protection, when it comes to the preservation of traditions that are very much rooted in indigenous language, culture and history—I can assure you that those conversations have been meaningful. Our commitment is that this bill will in no way derogate from indigenous rights as they are captured under the charter or anywhere else. That, to me, is an important principle.

By the way, it is not just with regard to Bill C-21. When we think about the work that we are doing under the United Nations Declaration Act and the work that my colleague Minister Lametti is undertaking in the implementation of that act, we know that it is very important that we do this work in a way that is respectful of indigenous peoples.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think that Ms. Michaud has identified two options, one of which already exists in the current bill. There is a provision according to which one can “create a new offence for altering a cartridge magazine to exceed its lawful capacity”. This useful provision in Bill C‑21 directly answers your question.

But the question indeed remains: what can we as the federal government do about it? We are currently studying it. I think that it might also be possible in the short term to reach other decisions about the issue of large-capacity magazines.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Shipley, we have an opportunity now to take a good bill and make it even stronger.

I take umbrage at some of the comments that were not made on the record by your colleague Mr. Motz. It is very clear. The Conservatives have said repeatedly that they would repeal legislation that this government has put into place, including Bill C-71 and Bill C-21 when, hopefully, it passes and becomes law. The consequence of that is we will have weaker, not stronger, legislation when it comes to keeping assault-style firearms off our streets and out of our communities.

Mr. Chair, that is why the Mass Casualty Commission has called on this government to make sure that we take those next concrete steps to keep those guns that were designed for a battlefield out of our communities.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

No, that's not. I'm the last one to mention social media.

Do you take responsibility for the disaster Bill C-21 has been?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you. I hope I'll have a bit more time.

Thank you, Minister. I have one more question for you, sir.

You mentioned the consultations you were doing, and I'll take you at your word for that. In February, though, multiple sources spoke to the Toronto Star about your approach to Bill C-21, which related that:

As the amendments landed, Mendicino was testifying before the public order inquiry commission, and the usual normal briefings and communications plans that would have been attached to such a legislative move fell by the wayside

Minister, you are the minister. You're the top guy of the social...of safety here.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today with us.

I liked that you said in your opening remarks that we're going to have some constructive dialogue today, so let's have some right now and lay it all out on the table.

We're not going to talk about the technical side today. Today we're going to try to figure out where we are, how we got here and where we're going tomorrow.

Minister, you stood up in the House multiple times and stated that opposition parties that were concerned with your poorly planned amendments to Bill C-21 were spreading misinformation. However, on February 3, when you withdrew your amendments, your own government House leader stated that “there were gaps and problems in the amendments. That's why we've retracted them.”

Could you now please admit that the genuine concerns Canadians had about these amendments were not baseless misinformation?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Julian.

I think you've made a very good point, which is that it's the firearms manufacturers' responsibility.

First of all, a way has to be found to involve the manufacturers in firearms regulatory and classification efforts, including firearms classified as assault weapons.

I think the way we can do this, Mr. Julian, is by engaging directly with manufacturers to make sure they understand that there is a responsibility to submit firearms for classification. By doing that, we can move away from the obligation being on not only law enforcement but on gun owners themselves. I think there is an opportunity to look at an amendment that will strengthen Bill C-21 so that manufacturers are required to work with law enforcement in the classification of firearms, including on the important point of those firearms that may fall under a definition of a firearm prohibited as an assault-style firearm.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming today.

As Ms. Michaud just said, your presence and the discussions we've had are important, because we're about to resume the clause‑by‑clause study of Bill C‑21 and we don't want a second failure. The first version of the definition had clearly failed before Christmas. Fortunately, it was withdrawn.

Now the issue of manufacturers is one of the important things you mentioned in your presentation. As you very well know, some organizations like PolySeSouvient identified a number loopholes for manufacturers. We can identify military-style assault weapons, but there's no logical compulsory process for manufacturers of new models. Some new models might be made specifically with a view to circumventing the law. Manufacturers therefore have a major responsibility.

Could you talk to us about the current process and about what could be tightened up to eliminate these loopholes?

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

Minister, at the beginning of your address, you described Bill C‑21 to reform firearms laws as extremely sound.

The current bill makes no mention of illegal arms trafficking, exempts certain people from the handgun freeze, and fails to respond to demands from several women's groups that criticize the red flag measure. There is also still no amendment that would prohibit assault weapons.

Would you agree with me that your reform may not be quite that strong?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming.

To be honest, I'm rather disappointed. I expected you to announce that you were going to present new amendments for the resumption of the clause‑by‑clause study of Bill C‑21. We've welcomed you today in connection with a study of the effects of the withdrawal of amendments G‑4 and G‑46. I understand that you have resumed work on this and that you have consulted hunters and indigenous communities, among others, which is something you should have done before presenting the amendments. I would have liked to hear what you had to say on the solutions you came up with for finally drawing a clear distinction between weapons used in a military context and those used reasonably for hunting.

You are the last witness we will be receiving, before we resume a clause‑by‑clause study shortly, and I understand that we will still not be receiving any new amendments that would prohibit assault weapons, as you had promised.

Can you confirm otherwise today, to the effect that when we resume the clause‑by‑clause study, the amendments pertaining to the assault weapons ban will have been tabled by your government?