Amending Bill C-21 at Public Safety Committee
On November 22nd, the Standing Committee on Public Safety (“SECU”) introduced two proposed amendments to Bill C-21, a bill which deals with the prohibition of firearms under the Criminal Code. Many constituents have written to me on this issue, raising concerns and objections to the provisions of the amendments.
In Canada, firearms are prohibited either by listing them expressly by make and model, or if they satisfy objective criteria based on the design and force characteristics of the firearm.
Specific to Bill C-21, the objective of the proposed amendments to Bill C-21 is to prohibit firearms which were originally designed for military purposes or are deemed too dangerous for civilian use. The purpose of the amendments is not to prohibit firearms which are commonly used for hunting or to infringe upon Indigenous traditions and rights.
At this time, the two proposed amendments, along with the rest of Bill C-21, are currently being studied at SECU.
In response to constituent inquiries on this legislation, my team and I have created this detailed overview of the Amendments in question: Amendment G-4 and G-46.
Amendment G-4
Amendment G-4 would amend Bill C-21 to add new provisions regarding bore diameter, muzzle energy, and semi-automatic firing mechanisms.
This amendment would create a definition of “prohibited firearm” under s.84 of the Criminal Code on the following grounds:
The firearm is capable of discharging a bullet with muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules. (e.g. a firearm that is chambered for .50 calibre)
The firearm has a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater. (e.g. an 8 gauge shotgun)
Any unlawfully manufactured firearm regardless of the means or method of manufacture.
A prohibited firearm listed in the Schedule to the Criminal Code.
Evergreen Provision: firearms would be prohibited under the “evergreen” provision on the basis of meeting ALL of the following objective criteria:
A firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, AND
Must be capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition, AND
Must have a semi-automatic action, AND
Must have been designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than 5 cartridges (i.e. bullets) of the type for which the firearm was originally designed.
Evergreen Provision:
The purpose of the evergreen provision is to gradually rely more on objective criteria in relation to the force and physical characteristics of the firearm, rather than make and model, when prohibiting firearms. The evergreen provision will prohibit firearms that exceed safe civilian use on the basis of the objective criteria and may not otherwise be listed or classified as prohibited. To be prohibited under the evergreen provision, a firearm must meet ALL of the objective criteria.
“Designed to Accept”:
“Designed to accept” refers to a firearm that was originally designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than 5 cartridges. Compatibility with a third-party manufacturer magazine beyond the original design intent would not render that firearm prohibited. Firearms that are not handguns are not permitted to carry a cartridge capacity of greater than 5 cartridges.
Amendment G-46
Amendment G-46 would move prohibited firearms into the Criminal Code.If passed, this amendment would:
1990s Prohibited Firearms List: List by schedule in the Criminal Code the firearms that were prohibited by Firearms Arms Act regulations in the 1990s. The list includes 684 makes and models and can be found between paragraphs 1-86 of the amendment. For clarity, these firearms have been prohibited about 30 years.
May 2020 “Assault Style Firearms Ban” Order in Council: List by schedule in the Criminal Code the “assault style” firearms that were prohibited by the May 1, 2020 Order in Council (“OIC”). The goal of this OIC was to limit access to assault-style firearms designed to sustain rapid fire, which poses a risk of significant harm to Canadians. They aim to reduce the number and availability of firearms which exceed safe civilian use in Canada, and to reduce the possibility of these firearms being diverted to the illegal market. The May 2020 OIC banned firearms primarily on the basis of the following objective criteria:
semi-automatic action with sustained rapid-fire capability (tactical/military design with large magazine capacity); and
of modern design; and
were present in large volumes in the Canadian market.
Also included in the May 2020 OIC were two new categories of prohibited firearms on the basis of the following physical attributes: a 20 mm bore or greater (e.g. grenade launcher) and the capacity to discharge a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10 000 joules (e.g. a .50 calibre BMG).
Since the coming into force of the May 2020 OIC, approximately 1,915 firearms have been prohibited. Additional makes and models, along with their variants, will continue to be prohibited if they meet the criteria above.
Prohibiting other firearms by model: This amendment also proposes to list an additional 482 makes and models as prohibited firearms in the Criminal Code. These firearms satisfy the criteria for prohibition under the May 2020 OIC in that they exceed safe civilian use, but are otherwise a) not of “modern design” and b) not “present in large volumes in the Canadian market”.
Hunters and sport shooters have identified concerns with these amendments—specifically the amendment which prohibits semi-automatic firearms which are designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges—and raised these concerns with me.
In response to public concerns, SECU will be holding two urgent meetings to allow expert witnesses to testify before the committee on this amendment, with the possibility to continue holding meetings to solicit testimony if the commitee members deem additional meetings necessary. The first of these meetings was held on December 13th. I encourage interested residents to follow the progress of this amendment and watch expert testimony at OurCommons.ca. I am following this expert testimony closely to inform my perspective on the two proposed amendments.
I appreciate the need to take time to thoroughly and diligently craft firearms laws to ensure that hunters like those in my riding are not inadvertently caught in it—and that Canada’s hunting culture remains preserved.
A serious and thorough study is needed to clarify the impacts of these amendments. I am pleased that SECU is undertaking this study urgently.
Representing the Views of Kanata—Carleton
Recognizing there are many law-abiding firearms owners in my riding, I feel it's important to hear and meaningfully include their perspective on firearms legislation.
Many constituents have written to me expressing their displeasure with these amendments. As this amendment is being debated at SECU, a committee which I am not a member of, I do not have any direct input on this amendment.
Nonetheless, here are the actions I’ve taken to date to represent the views of Kanata—Carleton and ensure Amendment G-4 reflects our riding’s views:
I have spoken directly with the Minister of Public Safety and raised your concerns. He and his office have been responsive to the concerns I’ve shared. He agreed with me that we must be diligent to ensure any gun violence prevention measures do not have unintended consequences on our country’s law-abiding hunters and sport shooters.
I have listened to and spoken with law-abiding firearms owners in our community who have reached out to express their concerns.
As a member of Rural Caucus, I have discussed the impacts of these amendments on rural constituents with my fellow Rural Caucus colleagues. We agree that gun violence prevention measures have a greater impact on rural, remote, Northern, and Indigenous communities.
Rural Caucus has met directly with the Minister of Public Safety and his team to relay our concerns.
I have spoken to my colleagues who are members of SECU committee about these amendments. We agree that it is in the public interest to untangle and clarify the impacts of this amendment on Bill C-21 and the future of firearms in this country. The intent of our firearms policies has always been to target assault-style weapons, not those commonly used for hunting. SECU will take the time and hold as many meetings as needed to refine Amendment G-4 to ensure that hunters are not inadvertently caught in this legislation.
Next Steps
Progress is underway at SECU committee to hear from expert witnesses, revise Amendments G-4 and G-46, and ensure that no guns commonly used for hunting are captured within the proposed amendments. As mentioned, I will watch these proceedings closely and inform my perspective from the testimonies of expert firearms witnesses.
If Amendments G-4 and G-46 pass at committee stage and are included in the final text of the bill presented to the House of Commons for third reading, I will scrutinize this legislation and debate it with my constituents’ thoughts in mind.
What is Bill C-21?
As all Canadians—especially firearms owners—know, combatting gun violence requires a holistic solution.
Bill C-21 includes numerous other provisions to address smuggling and trafficking, and increase law enforcement/CBSA’s capacity to enforce existing (and new) firearms laws. Here are some of the provisions:
A national freeze on the sale, purchase or transfer of handguns by individuals within Canada, and bringing newly-acquired handguns into Canada came into force by regulations on October 21, 2022.
New “red flag” laws which will enable anyone to make an application to a court for an emergency weapons prohibition order (red flag) to immediately remove firearms, for up to 30 days, from:
an individual who may pose a danger to themselves or others; and
an individual who may be at risk of providing access to firearms to another person who is already subject to a weapons prohibition order.
A new “yellow flag” laws which will allow:
a Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) to temporarily suspend an individual's licence for up to 30 days when there is a reason to suspect the person is no longer eligible to hold a firearms licence (e.g., suspected of illegally reselling firearms);
any member of the public to contact a CFO with information about a licence holder;
a CFO to use the 30-day suspension to investigate a claim and revoke a licence if there is evidence to support it.
The licence holder would not be able to use, acquire or import new firearms during the temporary 30-day suspension period but would retain possession of their current firearm(s). If an investigation determines that the individual continues to be eligible to hold a firearms licence, their use and acquisition privileges would be immediately reinstated.
Expanded license revocation to allow the CFO to revoke a firearms license in cases of domestic violence and/or criminal harassment (e.g., stalking); or when a protection order has been issued against a current licence holder.
Increased maximum penalties from 10 to 14 years imprisonment for firearms-related offences, including firearms smuggling and trafficking.
New provision allowing sharing of certain firearms registration data with law enforcement across Canada in cases of suspected ‘straw purchasing’.
New criminal offence to alter a cartridge magazine to exceed its lawful capacity.
New offense for businesses to promote violence in firearms marketing and sales.
New requirement for a person to present a valid firearms licence to import non-prohibited ammunition for firearms.
New improvements to the ability of the CBSA to manage inadmissibility to Canada when foreign nationals commit regulatory offences upon entry to Canada, including firearm-related offences.
Interested residents can read the technical briefing of C-21 by clicking here.
What is the timeline for Bill C-21 becoming law?
Bill C-21 is not yet law. Should it follow the progression of a typical bill, it would return to the House of Commons for Third Reading after SECU completes its review of the Bill.
If Third Reading is completed, the Bill is passed and referred to the Senate. The Senate may take several months to review Bill C-21 before it could receive Royal Assent.
After receiving Royal Assent, some provisions would come into force on the date of Royal Assent, though most provisions would come into force in the future on dates set by the Governor in Council.
