Dear honourable members of the SECU,

Thank you for accepting this brief regarding Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms. The following document contents are my personal observations, suggestions, and reasonings for such.

Background: I am a first generation Canadian and have lived in Ontario for all of my forty something years. Like many people I commute daily to my place of employment. I have been married to my soul mate for almost half of that and have two wonderful, if rambunctious pre-teen sons. I have also been a firearms owner for nearly two decades, yet I am solely a target shooter, also known as “a paper puncher”. I do not hunt, although I respect the skill and time taken by those who harvest game responsibly and ethically.

General Observations: Overall Canada is a safe country to live in. Statistics Canada stated that the homicide rate in 2013 was the lowest level it had been since 1966. In 2013 firearm-related homicides were the lowest they had been since 1974. 1 Yet this bill continuously references 2013 as the year to compare homicides to those in 2016. 2016 saw an increase in homicides to 611, which is the average number when one traces homicides back to 1971. Is it an increase from the lowest number since 1966? Yes. The number of homicides committed via a firearm did indeed see a significant jump from the previous years. Unfortunately, this “cherry picking” of 2013 shows a calculated attempt at defining the argument and to create a false correlation between firearms ownership and firearms violence in Canada. Using that same misleading start point, one can imply that firearms violence has increased since 2013 when Justin Trudeau became the leader of the Liberal Party. An obviously false statement that uses a specific timeframe to determine a correlation. As all of the political parties always pander to their voting base, the usage of choice statistics and selective examples, has made me very wary when any proposed legislation is submitted that claims to be able to effect groups that ignore laws. It is always easier to impose placebo regulations on those that follow the laws than to confront those who break the law. I find that Bill C-71 is exactly that. More regulation and bureaucracy that will do minimal, if any, means to prevent criminal misuse of a firearm. Therein lies the entire issue. This is why I have decided to write this brief regarding Bill C-71. Enclosed in the following pages are seven topics regarding Bill C-71 and my recommendations. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I am submitting this brief via the online portal.

Many thanks, M. Duynhoven

1 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/2013-homicide-rate-in-canada-lowest-since-1966-1.2856143

Bill C-71 seeks to implement the following amendments to the Firearms Act as well as the Criminal Code. 1. Remove the 5-year limit period for background checks for firearms licence eligibility 2. Verification of firearms licence validity during the transfer of non-restricted firearms 3. Requires record keeping of all firearms sales by businesses 4. Remove certain automatic authorizations to transport for restricted and prohibited firearms 5. Repealing non-prohibited classification of certain firearms 6. Creation of new prohibited class for previously mentioned firearms and their owners 7. Removes the ability of Government to impose classification of firearms

I will address each of these amendments in order:

1. Remove the 5-year limit period for background checks for firearms licence eligibility

Stated Purpose: To allow additional timeframe for determining viability of prospective firearms licence eligibility. Lifetime background will increase the detection of possible safety concerns.

Observations: Existing firearms licences are renewed every 5 years as per the Firearms Act. The RCMP rationale for such is for updating of photo identification, updates personal history which are not normally accessible to the Firearms Program, marital status, etc. Initial screening against police and court databases is performed to ensure no documented safety concerns. One issued, licence holders are checked daily for continuous eligibility. If concerns are identified, automatic notification is provided to the appropriate Chief Firearms Officer (CFO). 2 The current Firearms Act already has provisions for the CFO or Registrar to require an applicant for a firearms licence to submit additional information they regard as relevant for licence eligibility. 3

Suggestions: Remove this component of Bill C-71.

Reasoning: This section of the bill contains nothing additional as the CFO and Registrar may already look back as far as they want for history of any applicant. There is no purpose to this section of Bill C-71 as it already exists in the Firearms Act.

2 http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/apph-eng.htm 3 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-11.6.pdf , Section 55 (1) of the Firearms Act.

2. Verification of firearms licence validity during the transfer of non-restricted firearms

Stated Purpose: To ensure that purchasers of non-restricted firearms have valid licences at the time of the sale. Currently it is interpreted as: If the seller has no reason to believe the buyer’s licence is invalid, the sale may proceed.

Observations: While phoning up the CFO to confirm validity of a license currently exists as an option, many people who sell firearms to others visually inspect a buyer’s license for photo identification, and that the licence has not expired. It is currently illegal and an offence to do the following: • Possess a firearm without a valid license 4 • Failure to deliver up a revoked license 5 Upon the expiration of a licence, the holder of the expired license now has a 6-month grace period in which to renew. This is to allow individuals who have been unable to comply with expiration of their licence an opportunity to re-validate their licence in order to be compliant with the law. During this time the expired licence holder may not use their firearms nor acquire firearms and ammunition until the license is renewed. Following the expiry of the six-month grace period, those in possession of firearms without having renewed their licence are in illegal possession of the aforementioned firearms. 6 The example given of a long-time associate being sold a firearm without checking the validity of the buyer’s licence is plainly ignoring the law already. Selling a firearm requires that the buyer has a valid license AND that the seller has no reason to believe that the buyer is not authorized to have that firearm 7.

Suggestions: Remove this component of Bill C-71 or modify Section 23(b) of the Firearms Act that the seller must visually identify validity of licence (not expired) or make licence validation simple as a number check for validity (automated phone interface, online interface. Enter licence number, valid or not).

Reasoning: It is illegal for an individual to fail to deliver a revoked license. The continuous eligibility screening for existing licence holders would give an immediate notice to the CFO that the license has been revoked. Do the RCMP who are enforcing this aspect of the law, ensure that revoked licences are not still in an individual’s possession? This would conform to the notion of removing firearms from the hands of individuals who are unauthorized to possess them. A seller cannot sell a firearm to a person without a valid licence. An expired licence is as valid as no licence for the purposes of selling a firearm. It is illegal. The act of “straw-purchases”, where a valid licence holder buys firearms and sells them knowingly to individuals without licence holders is already an issue and, surprise, illegal. Adding in this requirement will not dissuade these criminal acts. The government’s example of selling a non-restricted firearm to a long-time acquaintance because the seller has no reason to believe the friend’s licence is no longer valid, is very circumspect. The seller knows the buyer well enough to trust him with a firearm sale but is ignorant enough to not know that there may be issues with the buyer? That seems highly unlikely in today’s age of technology and instant information and the tradition speed of gossip. Why does the Registrar need to issue a transfer number and record both a seller’s and buyer’s licence number? Where is the benefit except as a metric generating bureaucracy? A make work concept at best.

4 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf , Section 91 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada 5 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-11.6.pdf , Section 114 of the Firearms Act 6 http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2017/2017-11-15/html/si-tr70-eng.html 7 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-11.6.pdf , Section 23 of the Firearms Act

3. Requires record keeping of all firearms sales by businesses

Stated Purpose: To ensure that businesses keep full records of ALL firearms sales to allow for police to have the ability to subpoena these records for criminal investigations. Must be kept for 20 years or longer. If business closes records to be given to transmit any records to a prescribed official. Police will need a warrant to obtain.

Observations: In my experience I have never yet seen a business that sells firearms “take my word for it” that I have a valid firearms licence. I have at the very least had to show my licence just to inspect a firearm. Majority of firearms businesses already keep records of all firearms that enter into their inventory and are sold to individuals. This is called good book-keeping. For the purposes of selling, the businesses that keep a full record of sold firearms do so because of company policy or for warranty purposes. In the case of restricted and prohibited firearms, the information is entered into the firearms registry as it enters inventory, and as it leaves inventory as required by law. Buyers of restricted firearms and prohibited firearms must have the transfers approved by the Registrar or CFO before the buyer takes possession of the firearm. The wording is that this registry of non-restricted firearms is for 20 years or longer. This means that it could be 20 years, 25 years, 50 years or whatever duration is decided by the CFO. Businesses currently have to keep records, emails, etc… for seven to ten years for purposes of litigation (lawsuits), yet you are trying to force businesses to keep records for two decades. Any business can dispose of transcripts, records, communications, employment history, income tax filings, after seven years, but data on a non-restricted registry must be kept by businesses for a minimum of 20 years. It is a registry. It requires the following information for each transfer of a non-restricted firearm: • Reference number issued by the Registrar • The date of the issued reference number • The buyer’s valid firearms license number • The make, model, type, and serial number of the firearm Except for the issuing of a new registration certificate as for restricted and prohibited firearms 8 this is the same as registering restricted and prohibited firearms. The fact that this is now on the shoulders of a business, does not make it any less a registry as the CFO has access to these records at any time they want them. 9 Police have always required authorization by a judge for firearms records, including accessing the restricted and prohibited firearms registry. 10

Suggestions: Remove this component of Bill C-71 or make the timeframe same as that for litigation requirements (seven years, even past closing of the business).

Reasoning: Keep records for 20 or more years at the cost to the business? If the business closes those records are transferred to the CFO or person of choosing? This is a registry. Especially since the CFO can request those records at any time. The fact that bill seems focused on making a “very close to, but not a long gun registry” is very circumspect and should not be allowed. While the access to records for police is an admirable step, the requirements imposed on businesses are excessive. There is NO reason that the Registrar or CFO should be able to obtain these records upon the closing of a business unless they are creating a delayed registry.

8 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-11.6.pdf , Section 23.2 (1) of the Firearms Act 9 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-11.6.pdf , Section 90 of the Firearms Act 10 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf , Section 117.011 (1) of the Criminal Code

4. Remove certain automatic authorizations to transport for restricted and prohibited firearms

Stated Purpose: To ensure that police have the ability to combat illegal transportation of firearms.

Observations: In order to transport a restricted firearm or prohibited from the registered place of storage, the law currently has the Authorization To Transport (ATT) linked as a condition to a valid firearms licence. These places that you can transport to and from that registered storage location are as follows: • To and from any place a peace officer, firearms officer, or CFO is located for verification, registration, or disposal of the firearm • To and from a business for appraisal or repair of prohibited and restricted firearms (Gunsmith) • To and from a gun show • To and from a port of entry/exit to take firearms outside of Canada (aka border crossing) • From a place that the firearm was acquired (Gun store, post office) Those individuals whom have valid licences and are recorded members of a shooting range/club also are allowed to transport their restricted firearms and prohibited to and from all approved shooting ranges and clubs in the licence holder’s province. Before the automatic ATT as they currently are, the ONLY allowed portion was to the licence holder’s shooting ranges/clubs or to those you received an invitation to attend at. The other locations required a paper copy of a temporary ATT known as the “Short Term ATT” (STATT). I have never heard of a single time when a STATT had been refused or revoked. Why? The only people who ever requested this STATT were valid firearm license holders. Criminals do not care about ATT’s and STATT. Firearm transport covered by the current automatic ATT must still be transported in a relatively direct route. From place of storage to the authorized location, and then back. These firearms must still be transported in accordance with the law regarding casing and be rendered inoperable. These automatic ATT’s were implemented with CPC Bill C-42. Back in November 2014, our current Prime Minister insisted that should C-42 become the law assault , machine guns and high-powered handguns would be commonplace “outside busy places like shopping malls, grocery stores and sports arenas.” 11

Suggestions: Remove this component of Bill C-71

Reasoning: If there was never a STT revoked or even refused, how is this an issue at all? There are This is yet another bureaucratic make work project that will accomplished nothing except create more bureaucracy and more paperwork for holders of valid firearms licenses.

11 http://torontosun.com/2014/11/29/ignorance-is-amiss/

5. Repealing non-prohibited classification of certain firearms

Stated Purpose: To restore the classification of certain firearms to the original status as per RCMP technical recommendations.

Observations: The Swiss Arms family of semi-automatic, centerfire rifles originally were imported into Canada around 2001. The classifications at the time were non-restricted and the rifles retailed for an average of $4,000 CDN apiece. They were subject to all laws regarding magazine capacity and were well known as a reliable and accurate shooting . Up until 2014, approximately 1800 rifles had been sold in Canada. The CZ-858 rifle was initially brought to the Canadian market around late 2004, with both non- restricted and restricted versions, so classed due to barrel length. Market price was approximately $700 and by 2014 nearly 10,000 rifles has been sold in Canada. In 2014, the RCMP changed their minds on the classification of these firearms. Both were to be classed as prohibited, and their owners would have to turn them in for disposal without compensation. The Swiss Arms rifles were to be classed as variants of a Swiss Arms SG550, which had a 12(5) prohibited classification. In the case of the CZ-858, it was only the units manufactured and imported after 2007. These were to be classified as 12(3) prohibited converted automatic rifles. That meant that the rifle started as a fully automatic gun and was permanently altered to only shoot semi-automatically. These firearms were reclassified after Canadians purchased them legally and in good faith by the RCMP a decade or more later after thousands and thousands of these firearms had been sold legally. The result? Some 12,000 Canadians were instantly criminals according to the law. Bill C-17 seeks to remove the mechanism which would have made several thousand Canadians instant criminals without any form of political manipulation. The second part of that is that the RCMP have no reason to worry about incorrect classifications or interpretations of the firearms act and prohibition orders. If they make a mistake, it isn’t their money paying compensation, nor their personnel who would go to jail for years because of a mistake.

Suggestions: Remove this component of Bill C-71

Reasoning: If the government was serious about the RCMP classification system, should these rifles not be classed ass the RCMP had deemed them in 2014? Why make a new classification specifically for those two rifles? That is political manipulation. For what purpose however? To somehow appease the owners of these firearms, that will have to be destroyed when the owner passes away? It is not like they can take these firearms to the range to enjoy. Owners of prohibited rifles and were in the past able to have issued a Special Authority to Possess (SAP) to allow them to be brought to and from an approved shooting range, except for one fact that they have not been issued since 2005. Bill C-42 removed that transport ability with changes to the authorization to transport. It does not apply to prohibited long guns, such as machine guns or any other prescribed prohibited firearms. 12 The RCMP are not infallible, and there has to be provisions to correct their mistakes. Government should have the final say as they are the law makers. RCMP and other law enforcement are to upload the laws as they are written, not as they see fit.

12 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-11.6.pdf , Section 19(2.3) of the Firearms Act

6. Creation of new prohibited class for previously mentioned firearms and their owners

Stated Purpose: To allow those who purchased these rifles to continue to possess them instead of turning them in for destruction.

Observations: As stated previously, the official RCMP prohibition of these rifles would have classed the Swiss Arms and the CZ-858 rifles as 12(5) and 12(3) prohibited firearms. According to the news release by Public Safety Canada, the new legislation proposes to “Ensure the impartial, professional, accurate and consistent classification of firearms as either "non-restricted" "restricted" or "prohibited" - by restoring a system in which Parliament defines the classes but entrusts experts in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to classify firearms, without political influence”. 13 Prohibited long guns have been what is known as “safe queens” for many years now. Owners of such firearms are unable to even take these firearms out to an authorized range to use them as current Authorizations To Transport do not allow such activities. 14

Suggestions: Remove all reference to reclassifications from the contents of Bill C-71 or Classify these firearms according to RCMP technical specifications AND give these owners the appropriate provisions on their licenses.

Reasoning: If the new legislation restores the system in which Parliament defines the classifications but entrusts the RCMP to classify firearms, why are there now two new classifications groups being created. The RCMP had already classified these firearms as prohibited based upon their experts in firearms classification. Is that not the exact same type of political machinations that the previous government did? Change the classifications of certain firearms to a specific classification via a change in law. That is political influence. Either leave the classification of these alone or classify them without political influence. Owners of these firearms will be “Grandfathered” and thereby given the appropriate classification on their licenses according to the fact sheet published by Public Safety Canada. 15 If Public Safety Canada is endorsing the creation of new prohibited firearms classes and updating the licences of the current legal owners of these firearms to include these prohibited firearms classifications, these licenced owners must not pose a risk to public safety. Otherwise the firearms would have been required to be turned in for destruction. If these individuals are not a risk for owning these prohibited rifles, why is the government not willing to have these rifles classified as per RCMP guidelines and give those individuals the classifications as dictated by the RCMP? Bill C-71 creates more prohibited classifications, and more legal jargon when it could simply alter the Criminal Code to allow these individuals to get the appropriate RCMP deemed classifications without political influence. Either leave the classifications as they currently are written in law or have the RCMP classify as per the Criminal Code and issue the appropriate provisions to the affected licence holders.

13 https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2018/03/firearms-legislation-to-make-communities-safer.html 14 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-11.6.pdf , Section 19(2.3) of the Firearms Act 15 https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/frrms/mn-chngs-frrms-tbl-en.aspx

7. Removes the ability of Government to impose classification of firearms

Stated Purpose: To remove governmental ability to classify firearms. To allow the RCMP to classify firearms as per the definitions and regulations as set into the Criminal Code of Canada. 16

Observations: Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, is the regulation that governs firearms and other devices as restricted or prohibited by name and technical merits outside of the Criminal Code. 17 This regulation includes the definitions for prohibited ammunition types and specific firearms by name and variants there of. The RCMP track record for classifying firearms and other devices has been less than perfect, and in some instances has been very inconsistent in their designations. I know of a few examples: • The aforementioned Swiss Arms rifles and CZ-858 rifles, years after their initial classification, the RCMP states they are prohibited • In 2005 the RCMP classified the stock of the Walther G22 as a prohibited device. Not the gun itself, just the stock which had to be destroyed as a prohibited device. In 2012 the entire rifle was then classed as prohibited due to now shorter over all length without the stock. 18 • In 2011 the RCMP reclassified the Armi-Jager AP80, a semi-automatic rifle chambered in 22LR, from non-restricted to 12(5) prohibited as a variant of an AK-47, despite have no technical similarities. It looks “similar” to one. 19 • In 2015 the Mossberg Blaze-47, a semi-automatic rifle chambered in .22LR, was classified by the RCMP as a variant of an AK-47 and is considered a 12(5) prohibited firearm. The non-restricted Mossberg Blaze has the same function, internals, and magazines. Differing only in aesthetics 20 • In 2016 the RCMP deemed that any magazine for the Ruger 10/22 rifle produced since 1964 cannot have more than 10 rounds because it is designed for use in a handgun. In this case the Ruger 10/22 Charger , which was introduced in 2007 and as of 2017 had less than 500 in Canada. Since 1978, larger capacity magazines for this firearm existed, of which there are at least tens of thousands of these now-prohibited magazines in Canada. 21

Suggestions: Define the term variant and ensure RCMP oversight that firearms and other devices are classified on true technical merits and not aesthetics. Owners of reclassified firearms should be given the appropriate status on their licences.

Reasoning: RCMP experts have loosely interpreted rules for classification of firearms in the cases of “variants”. These experts have also re-classified firearms years later due to mistakes made previously (e.g. Swiss arms rifles), or re-interpretation of the existing laws (e.g. 10/22 magazines). These mistakes should not be made in the first place, and the RCMP should be enforcing the laws and classifications, not interpreting them. If the definitions are vague, it is parliament’s job to remove those gray areas.

16 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf , Section 84 (1) of the Criminal Code (Definitions) 17 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-98-462.pdf 18 http://nationalpost.com/opinion/government-to-gun-owners-we-made-a-mistake-fix-it-for-us-or-go-to-prison 19 http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/rcmp-to-seize-more-scary-looking-guns-before-registry-dies 20 http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/federal-public-safety-minister-rcmp-clash-over-banned-rifle 21 https://www.energeticcity.ca/2017/02/mp-bob-zimmer-delivers-response-recent-ruger-1022-magazine-prohibition/

Conclusion and recommendations: These points that I have listed are the major discussion topics that have been repeated as the backbone of Bill C-71. These are my opinions and while I do believe that the entirety of Bill C-17 is poorly written and ill-conceived as a method of combatting criminal misuse of firearms and does nothing beneficial to the victims of firearm-based violence. The only thing it does is add bureaucracy, make lawful firearms ownership more onerous and convoluted. It also does not address the issue of RCMP mistakes that only effect legal firearms owners.

Sections that Bill C-17 lists & recommendations. For the most part there are many areas which need to be removed as they are unworkable, or redundant. Where I have offered recommendations for amendments is to create at least a workable alternative to the proposed legislation.

1. Remove the 5-year limit period for background checks for firearms licence eligibility • Remove this component of Bill C-71 2. Verification of firearms licence validity during the transfer of non-restricted firearms • Remove this component of Bill C-71 or modify Section 23(b) of the Firearms Act that the seller must visually identify validity of licence (not expired) or make licence validation simple as a number check for validity (automated phone interface, online interface. Enter licence number, valid or not). 3. Requires record keeping of all firearms sales by businesses • Remove this component of Bill C-71 or make the timeframe same as that for litigation requirements (seven years, even past closing of the business). 4. Remove certain automatic authorizations to transport for restricted and prohibited firearms • Remove this component of Bill C-71 5. Repealing non-prohibited classification of certain firearms • Remove this component of Bill C-71 6. Creation of new prohibited class for previously mentioned firearms and their owners • Remove all reference to reclassifications from the contents of Bill C-71 or Classify these firearms according to RCMP technical specifications AND give these owners the appropriate provisions on their licenses. 7. Removes the ability of Government to impose classification of firearms • Define the term variant and ensure RCMP oversight that firearms and other devices are classified on true technical merits and not aesthetics.

Once again thank you to all members of the SECU for your time and efforts and for accepting this brief regarding Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms.