Summary#

Bill 52, Stopping Illegal Handgun Smuggling Act, 2021, would create a new Act; it does not amend another Act. Its stated goal is to stop illegal handguns from entering Ontario. It would require the Attorney General, or another minister assigned the Act, to research the issue and publish a plan; any lawsuit or new legislation would depend on the Minister’s findings and decisions.

• Within one year after the Act takes effect, the Minister must develop and publish an illegal handgun litigation plan.
• The Minister must research how illegal handguns enter Ontario and are sold there, possible ways to address their entry, possible legal grounds against handgun manufacturers, and whether legal action is likely to prompt industry changes that better protect Ontarians.
• In developing the plan, the Minister must consult affected communities, legal professionals involved in litigation against tobacco or pharmaceutical companies, and law enforcement and border security professionals.
• If the Minister finds legal action is reasonably likely to prompt those industry changes, the Minister must take steps to start the action within six months after the plan is developed.
• If that finding is made, the Minister must develop legislation about the legal action only if the Minister considers it in the public interest. The Minister must also report to the Assembly within six months after the plan is developed.

What it means for you#

• Ontario government: The Minister would have to do the research, consultation, planning, publication and reporting. The bill does not set out a new border operation, a ban, or a process for investigating individual firearms.
• Affected communities and specified professionals: The Minister must consult them while developing the plan. The bill does not say how the consultation must happen or how their views must be used.
• Handgun manufacturers: They could face legal action if the Minister makes the required finding and takes steps to start it. The bill does not itself start a lawsuit or establish that a manufacturer is liable.
• Public: The plan would be published on a government website, and the report would be tabled in the Assembly. The bill does not create a new benefit or directly change people’s firearm rights or obligations.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill requires ministerial research, consultation, a plan, publication and a report, but gives no cost estimate or staffing figure.
• Legal action could require public resources if pursued; the bill gives no estimate.
• The bill does not appropriate a specific amount of money or create a fee or fine.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not define “illegal handguns,” “communities affected,” or what makes legal action “reasonably likely” to prompt industry changes.
• It gives no method for deciding whether that likelihood has been met, and no details about how a lawsuit would be chosen or conducted.
• It does not set rules for consultation, such as who must be consulted within each named group or how their input affects the plan.
• It requires a report within six months of the plan, but calls it an “annual report” in a later provision without setting out an annual reporting schedule.
• The bill does not explain how any proposed legal action or plan would interact with existing provincial or federal efforts.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to address illegal handguns by requiring research into their entry and sales in Ontario, rather than assuming in advance what the causes or solutions are.
• A possible argument for the bill is that it would make the government assess whether legal action could influence manufacturers, and require steps toward a lawsuit if the Minister finds it is reasonably likely to do so.
• Required consultation and public reporting could make the plan and the government’s reasoning visible.

Case against#

• The bill requires research and a plan, but does not itself change border enforcement or reduce the supply of illegal handguns.
• The decision about whether a lawsuit is likely to prompt industry changes rests with the Minister, and the bill does not set criteria for that judgment.
• The bill provides no cost estimate for research or possible litigation, and does not say how the government would weigh those costs against likely results.
• The consultation requirement does not specify how affected communities or professionals would take part or how their views would shape the plan.