Bill C-21 · 44th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 30, 2022
- Debated in principleJune 23, 2022
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 18, 2023
- Passed the second chamberDec. 14, 2023
- Became lawDec. 14, 2023
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 30 May 2022, the Minister of Public Safety introduced Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), and it was given first reading. Bill C-21 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 a new offence 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; and (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. The enactment also amends the Firearms Act to, among other things, (a) prevent individuals who are or were subject …
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
17% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (15,143 words introduced, 22,253 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent broadened
The passed bill added new offences, definitions for firearm parts and unlawfully manufactured firearms, and expanded handgun and semi-automatic prohibitions beyond the introduced text. It also shifted some licence rules from discretionary to mandatory suspension and inserted review and Indigenous rights provisions.
- Added definition of firearm part and expanded prohibited firearm category.
After: “firearm part means a barrel for a firearm, a slide for a handgun and any other prescribed part, but does not include, unless otherwise prescribed, a barrel for a firearm or a slide for a handgun if that barrel or slide is designed exclusively for use on a firearm that is deemed under subsection 84(3) not to be a firearm;”
- Created new offences for computer data related to firearms.
After: “create new offences for possessing and making available certain types of computer data that pertain to firearms and prohibited devices”
- Changed licence suspension from discretionary to mandatory.
Before: “authorize a chief firearms officer to suspend a licence if they have reasonable grounds to suspect”
After: “require a chief firearms officer to suspend a licence if they have reasonable grounds to suspect”
- Added review by House of Commons committee and related Indigenous rights provision.
After: “Review by House of Commons committee”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes precise elements such as numerical penalties and defined terms with subjective tests that require officials to assess suspicion or safety interests. This creates room for argument over application in individual cases.
Open to argument
“reasonable grounds to suspect that the licence holder is no longer eligible for it”
Uses a low subjective threshold without defining eligibility criteria.“if the judge considers that it is necessary to protect the security”
Leaves the necessity determination to the judge's opinion without further criteria.
Clear-cut
“liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of”
States exact maximum and minimum sentences in numbers.“replica firearm means any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm that is designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second and at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules”
Supplies a detailed technical definition with specific measurements.
Discretion. Chief firearms officers, provincial court judges and the Governor in Council retain wide latitude to suspend or revoke licences, issue prohibition orders and set commencement dates by regulation or opinion.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'reasonable grounds to suspect' and 'interests of the safety' standards engages section 7 of the Charter and invites vagueness or overbreadth arguments.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons can readily dispute whether an official's subjective safety assessment or suspicion was formed on adequate grounds, though the defined offences themselves are narrower.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.