Bill C-42 (Historical)

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts

This enactment amends the Firearms Act to simplify and clarify the firearms licensing regime for individuals, to limit the discretionary authority of chief firearms officers and to provide for the sharing of information on commercial importations of firearms.
It also amends the Criminal Code to strengthen the provisions relating to orders prohibiting the possession of weapons, including firearms, when a person is sentenced for an offence involving domestic violence. Lastly, it defines “non-restricted firearm” and gives the Governor in Council authority to prescribe a firearm to be non-restricted and expanded authority to prescribe a firearm to be restricted.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Again, we are back to a situation which actually underlines why the Standing Orders, in fact, ask members to avoid references to other members in the House, either their absence or presence.

It really comes from the fact that characterizations of other members usually gets us into a spot in debate that we can quickly get to, for example, contravening the principles of, in particular, article 18 of the Standing Orders, which really calls on hon. members to refer to other members in a respectful manner.

These kinds of characterizations are really not very helpful. I would ask the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette to be mindful of that in the course of his comments.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the way the member for Malpeque used the words “gun lobby”, it was obviously intended as an insult to the people I represent in my constituency. The gun lobby, so-called, is mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, and uncles and aunts who hunt and fish in this country and who dedicate themselves to the conservation of our fish and wildlife resources.

The members opposite want to narrow the debate and we are enlarging it.

As the chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, I travel right across the country and meet with hunting, angling, and conservation groups. As a group, they are genuinely supportive of the common sense firearms licensing act, and even more supportive of the conservation measures this government has brought in, such as the national conservation plan. I am making the point that because most of the firearms owners are hunters, the act of hunting generates a spirit of conservation and a caring for the earth that the members opposite are actually attacking. They do not realize it; they think it is all about the guns. It is not. It is about a way of life. Many of us view the long gun registry and the comments by the members opposite, including by the member for Malpeque, as an attack on a way of life. I know they do not want to think of it that way. They want to narrow it down to an NRA gun lobby kind of thing. That is so far from the truth.

Our message from the Conservative hunting and angling caucus is resonating right across this country when we say and point out and prove that this party and this government and this Prime Minister and this minister are standing up for a way of life that millions of Canadian cherish. We have the recreational fisheries program. We have the national conservation plan. We have our national areas conservation program, the habitat stewardship program, and the North American waterfall management plan—the most important program of all—a continent-wide conservation plan encompassing three countries to conserve North America's waterfowl. Guess who supported, created, and funds that? North American hunters. That what my community does, I am so proud of them for what they do.

They were quite right in the early days of the long gun registry, realizing that it was an egregious attack on their way of life. That is what it really was.

The members opposite can bleat all they want that “It's not about the hunting and angling. We really care about public safety”. No, they do not. They are attacking a way of life because they do not like the people who participate in this way of life.

In Canada, there are four to five million people who hunt, fish, and trap. It is our duty, at least on this side of the House, to help preserve and protect this way of life. Again, I am so proud to be chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus and am proud to see the member for Yukon, my co-chair, a former conservation officer and wildlife biologist, who deeply understands this way of life, in the House today.

Again, what the common sense firearms licensing act would do is help preserve and protect this way of life.

We know that criminals are not licensed gun owners and that licensed gun owners are not criminals; but, again, the logic of the old Bill C-68 the Liberal government put forward burdens people who are not criminals while letting criminals off.

We see how the members opposite vote. Time and again, they vote against our strong, tough on crime justice bills, looking for root causes. Do members know what a root cause is? Basically, when someone commits a crime, the root-cause-types look at those of us who are law-abiding citizens and work hard and own property and basically say, “Well, it's your fault. You're the person and the group who made this root cause that caused the criminal to commit the crime”.

On this side of the House, we know that criminals commit crimes because they are not good people. It is as simple as that. That is common sense.

Again, what is really interesting is that when we eliminated the long gun registry, the crime rate actually fell. In fact, the year after the registry was abolished, gun crime in Toronto decreased by over 80%.

I am not here today to claim that these two things are necessarily linked. In fact, it is precisely the opposite. It proves empirically that measures make left wing politicians, like all of them across the way, feel like they are tackling crime and are generally not worth the paper they are printed on.

There is more to directly address the matter that is before us today. As I said, as chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, I travel across the country, meet with wildlife associations, rod and gun clubs, and everyday ordinary hunters. Without exception, the first problem I hear about when talking about the federal firearms legislation is that there was no common sense. We are bringing common sense in. It is clear that the early laws drafted by the Liberals were crafted by someone who could not tell a rifle from a shotgun.

Let me talk about the Manitoba Wildlife Federation and what it had to say about this bill. It stated:

We support smart, cost effective firearms policy that keeps Canadians safe, but treats gun owners fairly. We applaud the Harper Government’s ongoing efforts to streamline firearms licensing in Canada to make it more effective and efficient.

This next one is very interesting. Pardon my Manitoba high school French, but it is by La Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, or the Quebec Hunting and Fishing Federation. They said that they were “...thrilled with this initiative. Quebec hunters are very pleased with this bill because it simplifies the licence issuing process for law-abiding users, while reinforcing the concepts of safety and education”.

There are 575,000 Quebeckers who own firearms and enjoy hunting. We are going to make sure that every one of those law-abiding Quebec firearm owners and hunters knows exactly what is in this bill, and we think that they will react accordingly.

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, 100,000 strong, stated:

...the changes introduced...by the...government...strike a balance between the need to remove administrative burdens on legal, law-abiding firearms owners in Canada, and the government's intention to protect and enhance public safety. In our opinion, they have succeeded on both accounts.

I have quotes from hunting and angling conservation groups right across the country, so this notion of the member for Malpeque that there is some kind of narrow base we are appealing to is utter nonsense. These are regular, common folk who know something bad when they see it and are applauding our government's efforts to protect and preserve the grassroots hunting and angling traditions in this country.

I will say a quick word on the authorization to transport. It applies only to restricted and prohibited firearms. The member for Malpeque clearly does not understand the difference between firearms. When the reclassification happened, the Swiss Arms and CZ rifles were reclassified simply because of how they looked, not because of what they did. They were semi-automatic firearms. I own semi-automatic firearms and other people in this room do as well. They were reclassified because of how they looked, not what they did. No one is proposing that any restricted firearms ever be legalized, like fully-automatic firearms. I certainly would not support that.

In terms of the ATT, every single time that a law-abiding shooter went to the range, he or she had to get a permit every single day. We have made it so that once shooters get there, the first ATT is good.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting—albeit sometimes strange—speech. One thing stood out to me.

There was one thing from the speech that makes me want to say to my esteemed colleague in front of me is that Bill C-42 is anything but a tough on crime bill.

I sense that even the Conservative base is starting to feel a bit used and abused by the attempts to always parade them when the government brings forward anything that is gun related. I want to read something to him. Some party stalwarts were saying that they are starting to feel taken for granted. I quote:

Dennis Young is a former RCMP officer who was the Reform Party's regional co-ordinator for Manitoba and Saskatchewan in the 1990s and then spent 13 years in Ottawa as an aide to Conservative MP.... Recently, when called by a Conservative fundraiser at his home.... Young told him not to bother calling back until the public safety minister responded to his letter about Bill C-42.

Young said he was “miffed” that after all his work for the Conservatives, he had received no real answer to his questions. “It all leaves us feeling a bit like we're just being used for fundraising,” he said. “If they have that attitude they're going to be disappointed”.

When he talks about tough on crime legislation, how does he respond to the minister of intergovernmental affairs from Quebec who said:

...this runs counter to the concept of public safety and security.

How does he answer that?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised for a minute that the member opposite would find my speech odd. She has no understanding of what I was talking about. I expect all of them to find my speech odd. Of course, the notion of hunters and anglers, and families enjoying the outdoor life as a family group with friends, eating wild game, and understanding what conservation is all about is odd to them.

In terms of the public safety aspect of the bill, the member referred to Mr. Young. I understand. I know him personally. Nothing is perfect in this room. In fact, perfect is the enemy. This is a very good bill.

In terms of public safety, we are strengthening the provisions relating to orders prohibiting the possession of firearms by a person who is convicted of an offence involving domestic violence. We are going to import information sharing of restricted or prohibited firearms into Canada.

This bill strikes the right balance between ensuring that needless paperwork is eliminated, that the rights of law-abiding citizens are protected, and that public safety is protected.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question about the common sense component of this bill. When I started to read it, the only place it is actually mentioned is in the introduction. There is no common sense in the bill, which is interesting.

The question I have is a very simple one for the member. I am trying to figure out, and the House needs to know, how allowing people to drive around cities with a gun in the trunk, where I assume no hunting is being done, is a safe thing to do. We have some big raccoons, but they are really not that dangerous. Cars are stolen, and we have had reported and repeated incidents of people being followed home from gun ranges and being robbed.

How does allowing guns to be driven around a city more easily make cities safer? I am not speaking for the four or five million legal gun owners who are law-abiding citizens. I am talking for the 26 million people who do not own guns, many of whom live in those cities and are looking to the government to make their cities safe from the illegal use of guns, particularly assault rifles.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, under our watch, in Toronto, gun crime is down 80%. That result speaks for itself.

In terms of the authorization to transport, often called an ATT, it applies to prohibited and restricted firearms. A criminal will never register a handgun. A law-abiding citizen will. A criminal will never apply for an ATT. A law-abiding citizen will.

By streamlining the process so that once the owner of a restricted firearm, who is legally authorized to own it, gets an ATT, that person is allowed to use it over the time period that their license goes. I think that is strictly common sense.

We can safely see that the gun crime rate in Toronto continues to go down. Now, the knife crime rate in Toronto keeps going up. Perhaps we could ask the members opposite to help us with our tough on crime policies, but I doubt it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate with the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, I will let him know that there is actually only five minutes remaining in the time permitted for government orders today. However, he will have that five minutes and the remaining five minutes when the House next resumes debate on this question.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, five minutes is hardly enough time for me to go over all the things I would like to go over, but I will begin and then finish at another date.

I am really pleased to be able to rise and discuss the common sense firearms licensing bill. I am pleased to see the government is standing up for the rights of law-abiding Canadians who enjoy and use firearms.

As members know, I have been fighting for the rights of law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters for two decades now. I fought the introduction of the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry from the time it was introduced by the Hon. Allan Rock under the previous Liberal government, and I was proud to stand in this place two years ago to support and pass the Ending the Long Gun Registry Act.

The gun registry was the epitome of political pretense. It pretended to protect us by reducing crime, but in fact it did just the opposite. The long and short of it is that criminals do not register their guns and they do not obey laws. It was about time people realized that spending $2 billion of taxpayers' money to keep a list of property of individuals predisposed to obey the law was not a good use of resources.

Equally, I am glad to see that this bill today includes strong measures to focus the use of resources on that which actually prevents crime rather than simply seeking to disarm Canadians.

This legislation will streamline licensing and eliminate needless red tape for responsible gun owners, and it is something that I have advocated for many years. In fact, some measures in Bill C-42 can also be found in my 2009 private member's bill, Bill C-301. They are housekeeping items that will simplify procedures without reducing public safety and include items such as merging the possession only licence with the possession and acquisition licence, for instance, or making the authorization to transport a restricted firearm, more commonly known as ATT, a condition of a restricted licence.

Let me explain, for those in the House who are less familiar with firearms regulations, what an ATT is. An ATT is a document that specifies where a licence-restricted firearm owner may take their property. It may contain a variety of locations or it may be very specific. This is dependent on the whim of the provincial chief firearms officer. It is not in legislation.

If travel to a location outside of those previously approved is needed, more forms must be filled out and more approval must be sought. Some may say that this level of rigour is needed, as restricted firearms can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but the fact of the matter is that those with restricted firearms licences get a background check every day, and the application for an authorization to transport is not even shared with local law enforcement. It is the definition of wasteful paperwork.

It is frustrating for me to sit here and listen to people talk about this thing when they know very little about it. Hopefully, if we get to questions and comments, I can explain more about the lack of knowledge here in regard to this issue.

If the government trusts a restricted licence holder to have a restricted firearm in their home, the government should trust them to travel to appropriate locations to use the firearm. Some have said that this will allow for conceal and carry by the back door; that is absolutely false. All safe transport requirements remain in place, such as unloading a firearm, rendering it inoperable, and placing it in a locked case.

The logic that these ATTs, which are not shared with law enforcement, will somehow reduce crime is the same logic put forward by those who think that registering a firearm will somehow reduce crime. At the end of the day, violent crimes committed with firearms are committed by evil people with evil intentions.

No amount of paperwork or regulation will divert them from their path of wanton destruction. What will stop them is being incarcerated for a lengthy period of time, which is why we passed mandatory prison sentences for those who commit crimes with firearms. As well, we created a specific offence for drive-by shootings.

These measures truly increase public safety and reduce the cost of crime. That is what we are focusing on: tackling those who are predisposed to break the law, rather than those who are simply trying to enjoy a way of life that has been part of Canada's heritage since Confederation.

The focus on safe and sensible firearms policy is the reason this bill amends the Criminal Code to establish firearms prohibition orders for those convicted of domestic violence.

Once this bill is passed, those convicted of serious domestic violence offences, which include offences against a spouse, common-law partner, or dating partner, would be subject to a mandatory prohibition from owning a restricted or prohibited firearm and from owning long guns for a minimum of 10 years.

I am sorry that I had to split this bill and speak to it at a later date, but I look forward to some healthy debate in this House, because there are some serious misconceptions that need to be addressed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville will indeed have another five minutes when the House next takes up the debate, and of course the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the second day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We will now have a 30-minute question period. I would ask members to keep their questions to around one minute and government responses to a similar length of time.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the 93rd time in this Parliament that the government moved a time allocation motion to impose closure.

The government tosses it around like it is candy, but there are serious ramifications.

First, on this bill, Bill C-42, only two members of the opposition have even been able to speak to it, because the government basically sat on it for four months, and now the government is imposing time allocation, closure, just like that.

The other problem, as members know, is that the government has the worst track record of any Canadian government in history in terms of having rejected pieces of legislation. It brings legislation in, it does not subject it to proper debate, it does not allow committees to actually scrutinize the legislation, and it then goes to the courts. In the last year, half a dozen pieces of legislation have been thrown out by the courts, because the legislation was so badly written that the courts could simply not stand for it.

The question is very simple. After two members of the opposition have spoken to this bill, the government is invoking closure. Why is the government so intolerant of debate, and why has it brought forward legislation that is rejected so consistently by the courts?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from British Columbia for his question.

I will go straight to the crux of the matter. During the debate we just had, my colleague spoke about the importance of time management for parliamentary work. I would humbly reply to my colleague that we already know the position of the main political parties on the common sense firearms licensing act.

Therefore, we must now move to the next step, the in-depth study of the bill by a committee of parliamentarians. They will have the opportunity to call all the witnesses they want and proceed with the vote at first reading in order to thoroughly study this bill, while taking into account the reality that there are only a few weeks left in the session.

Thus, we must strike a balance between the opportunity for all parties to have their say and the opportunity to study the bill more thoroughly in committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians should be concerned about the majority Conservative government's attitude in terms of process and the way the government has made the determination to process legislation through the House of Commons. Time allocation is something that should be used periodically if, in fact, there is a need and a justification for it. We have seen the government abuse time allocation, for whatever reason. The bottom line is that the government has failed to properly manage the legislative agenda of the House of Commons and as a direct result has become completely dependent on time allocation. That is not healthy for a democracy in Canada.

My question to the government House leader is this: How does he justify any sense of democracy and respect for the House when he continues to bring in time allocation only to get the government agenda across? At the end of the day, it is denying Canadians the ability to have their voices heard through their members of Parliament, who are duly elected and have been charged with the responsibility of holding government accountable for the legislation it introduces in the chamber.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the parliamentary process.

We already know the position of the parties. This bill is about a safe and sensible firearms policy. That is what this bill is all about. It includes measures that will increase the safety of our country, such as mandatory training for anyone who wants to acquire or possess a firearm. That is the kind of measure that is in the bill.

It is important that we have a thorough review of the bill, clause by clause, and that we listen to witnesses. In our parliamentary process, that is not done in this House. We need to send this bill to committee, where all parties will be represented, where there can be discussions, where they can look at the bill in depth, and frankly speaking, where there is sometimes a less partisan environment than there is here in this House of Commons. These are good reasons.

While we already know that the Liberals and NDP members oppose common-sense firearms licensing, we should move this bill into committee. I am ready to respond to any questions.