Debates of Nov. 26th, 2014

Youth Employment

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a youth employment crisis in Canada right now. The rate of unemployed youth is twice the national average. Oftentimes, what young people are finding from employment is short-term contracts and part-time jobs. Some young people are working for free. Currently, there is a patchwork of rules that govern and oversee unpaid internships across the country.

The people who have signed this petition call on the government to enact a national urban worker strategy. They call for, among other things, increasing enforcement and strengthening labour standards to prevent the exploitation of workers, including young workers and unpaid interns.

Firearms Act

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition which is signed by a number of people from Kootenay—Columbia.

The petitioners call upon the government to pass the common sense firearms licensing act.

The Environment

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition signed by over 100 people from the Richelieu valley who are concerned about the government's lack of action on climate change.

Obviously, they support the climate change accountability bill, which I would like to remind hon. members was passed by the House after being introduced first by the late Jack Layton and then again by the hon. member for Beaches—East York. The petitioners are asking the government to support this bill.

Genetically Modified Organisms

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today.

The first petition is from residents throughout my riding as well as from Manitoba and parts of Ontario.

The petitioners call for the mandatory labelling of genetically modified organisms.

Senior Poverty

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The petitioners call for actions to address senior poverty, particularly to increase the guaranteed income supplement to assist seniors living in poverty.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Time Allocation Motion—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 15, 2014, by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding the use of time allocation.

I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House Leader of the Official Opposition for their interventions.

In raising this matter, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands contended that the limitation of debate occasioned by the government’s frequent use of time allocation deprived members of the ability to debate issues adequately, thereby impairing their fundamental right and indisputable privilege, if not obligation, to hold the government to account. She claimed that this undermined and obstructed members’ ability to perform their parliamentary duties and that this consequence was disproportionately felt by members of smaller parties and independent members.

The government house leader replied that, as the rules of the House had been properly followed in the application of time allocation, the privileges of members had not been offended, nor did the Chair have the authority to intervene unilaterally with regard to the use of this procedure. Furthermore, he argued that the government’s use of time allocation was merely a “tool for the orderly and predictable management of the legislative agenda”. He also referred to my ruling of April 23, 2013, to point out that catching the Speaker’s eye to be recognized to speak during any proceeding remained the ultimate and individual right of each member.

For his part, the House Leader of the Official Opposition supported the views expressed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that the present use of the time allocation procedure violated the rights of MPs to speak and represent their constituents.

As early as 1993, Speaker Fraser spoke of the limits of the Speaker’s authority in relation to the use by the government of Standing Order 78. On page 17861 of the Debates of March 31, 1993, he said:

I have to advise the House that the rule is clear. It is within the government’s discretion to use it. I cannot find any lawful way that I can exercise a discretion which would unilaterally break a very specific rule.

On March 1, 2001, Speaker Milliken confirmed that interpretation, stating at page 1415 of the Debates:

The rules and practices of the House established by this House with respect to time allocation leave the Speaker with no alternative in this matter.

Members of the House are also aware that it is not for the Speaker to judge whether an issue has been sufficiently debated. As recently as June 12 of this year, on page 6717 of the Debates, I stated:

With respect to the amount of debate a bill must receive before notice of a time allocation motion can be given, the Chair is being asked to render a decision on a matter over which there are no explicit procedural rules or practices and, thus, over which it has no authority. Rather, it is the House that retains that authority and, therefore, must continue to make that determination as to when and if a bill has received adequate consideration.

The body of precedents available to me all point in the same direction. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, succinctly sums up the jurisprudence on the matter when it states, at page 648:

When asked to determine the acceptability of a motion to limit debate, the Speaker does not judge the importance of the issue in question or whether a reasonable time has been allowed for debate, but strictly addresses the acceptability of the procedure followed. Speakers have therefore ruled that a procedurally acceptable motion to limit the ability of Members to speak on a given motion before the House does not constitute prima facie a breach of parliamentary privilege.

As the Chair can find no evidence that the ability of members, even the independent members, to perform their parliamentary functions has been compromised, I cannot find that this matter constitutes a prima facie case of privilege.

That said, the Chair does, however, intend to return to the House at a later date with a separate statement to address other elements raised by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I thank the House for its attention.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

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

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to start debate on Bill C-42, concerning common sense firearms licensing. Today is an important day because this is the first time in nearly 20 years that improvements have been made to our firearms licensing system. They are long overdue.

This bill is designed to simplify and clarify the firearms licensing regime while maintaining the system's reliability. The main goal is to protect the safety of Canadians. I would now like to describe how this bill will improve our licensing system.

Currently, there are two types of firearm licences: possession only licences—POLs—and possession and acquisition licences. The POL is the only licence available to new firearm owners. That is the licence I have held since January, and I took a course. After that, I went through various administrative processes to get the possession and acquisition licence, the PAL. As the name suggests, this licence allows people to possess and acquire a firearm.

The other licence, the POL, the possession only licence, was created over 20 years ago by the previous Liberal government. At the time, it was a transitional step for firearm owners who wanted to avoid the new licensing system. The average age of these licence holders is almost 60. They are all experienced and competent. These are people who know how to use these firearms, who use them and who can also borrow them and buy ammunition.

All we want to do with this bill is simplify the system and combine the two types of permits, which would give 600,000 law-abiding firearm owners the right to acquire a firearm. Naturally, after 20 years, it might be time for people to update their firearm.

People may remember that at the time, this initiative was put forward by the late Jack Layton, former leader of the New Democratic Party.

Second, we are addressing a serious issue that impacts every firearm owner. Currently, if individuals make a paperwork error and do not renew their licence on time, they are liable to face a minimum sentence of three years in prison.

Some people may be deployed or travelling abroad. They can be under medical treatment and be turned into a criminal overnight because they have not renewed their firearm licence on time. That is why the bill puts in place a six-month grace period at the end of a five-year licence.

I want to make it clear that people will not be allowed to buy new firearms or ammunition or to use firearms during this grace period. The grace period will simply protect people from being turned into criminals just because of an administrative delay in renewing their permit.

Continuing in the area of licensing, this legislation would improve the way the authorization to transport system works. I certainly invite the leader of the second opposition to read the bill, so he would not attempt to mislead the House as he has tried to do today.

Currently, an authorization to transport is required to take any restricted firearm between the owner's home and another location—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member accused the leader of the third party of misleading the House. Let me spell out to the minister that during the briefing with staff from his office, we received confirmation that easing the transportation regulations means that transport between locations other than those—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

I was waiting to hear if the hon. member for Malpeque was going on some procedural question there. What I heard was that the hon. minister mentioned that there was “an attempt to”. That can be taken any number of different ways, but I think it is sufficiently opaque that we would not suggest that there was any direct suggestion of any unparliamentary language in that case. I do not think we have a point of order in front of us.

The member for Malpeque may be able to bring up those other points he mentioned in the course of debate on a question.

I will ask the minister to continue.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your decision. I understand that the time will not be taken from the time we have to debate this important bill.

While I am on my feet, let me clearly reiterate that, in no way, would the way to transport a restricted firearm in this country be impacted by the bill. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the leader of the second opposition has pretended.

However, as was mentioned, the truth will prevail and that is exactly what is happening right here as I am presenting the bill.

Let us move on to the bill and we will let our little Liberal friend yell over there and he will have his time to debate as well.

I was explaining that there would be a grace period for law-abiding citizens who, after five years, are willing to renew their licence. That is one improvement of the bill.

As I was interrupted, I was also indicating that we would be improving the authorization to transport. I would invite the member to listen because maybe then there will not be any more attempts to mislead the House.

As I was saying, currently, an authorization to transport is required to take any restricted firearm between the owner's home and another location. Each and every new location requires a separate form and application.

Are we changing the way to transport a restricted firearm in the country? No.

Are we cutting red tape for law-abiding citizens? Yes. This is exactly what we are doing.

Let us have an honest debate here. Let us talk about the truth, about the facts and about the fact that it is very important to keep our country safe, and to keep the measures this government is applying to keep Canadians safe.

Members have to know this red tape, those papers are not even shared with law enforcement. They are useless. This is a good example of red tape without any added value. I hope the Liberals will clearly understand what the bill is all about, and then we can have an open and frank discussion

This information, as I just mentioned, not only is not shared with law enforcement but is second only to the registration of long guns. This process is the clearest example of needless red tape and burdensome paperwork brought in by the former Liberal government.

My question would be, at this point in time, what does the Liberal Party have against law-abiding citizens? This is the question I hope the hon. member will be answering as he will be given the opportunity to speak to the bill, which would be cutting red tape while increasing the safety of Canadians.

The bill would eliminate the need to apply for new authorization, new red tape, to transport a firearm for any lawful activity within the province where the firearm owner resides.

What are we talking about? We are talking about going to a shooting range. We are talking about going to a gunsmith to have a firearm repaired. We are talking, in some cases, about going to an exhibition where people can exchange and share their views, and their passion for their activity.

It is important to remind everyone that all restricted firearms must be unloaded, locked and in a locked carrying case while being transported. It is also recommended that they always be transported in the trunk of a vehicle.

Once again, we have an opportunity here to educate my hon. colleagues on the other side. Maybe the leader of the second opposition has a need to refresh his knowledge on the way in which one is to carry a restricted firearm in this country.

Let me be clear, this firearm has to be unloaded. It must be trigger locked. It must be in a locked case and, preferably, in the trunk of the car driven by the owner of a valid restricted firearm.

We will keep this because we feel that it is important. However, while doing this, we also feel it is important to cut red tape for those law-abiding citizens. That is why we are bringing those changes forward.

Accordingly, anyone who is transporting a restricted firearm must take the most direct route to his or her destination. That provision already exists in the law. Those rules are not changing, because they are safe and they make sense. This is just common sense.

This is the common sense firearms licensing act. What will be eliminated is the needless paperwork that law-abiding sports shooters were previously required to complete in order to engage in their hobby.

While the crux of the common sense firearms licensing act is, as its name suggests, the licensing of firearms, there are two other important measures tackled by this bill. This is a federal law under the Criminal Code. Therefore, is it not logical that this law be applied the same way across the land? This is what this bill would accomplish.

Second, law enforcers would apply the law and legislators would set the rules. That is how we would ensure that the authority of the chief of firearms officers is clearly defined in law, so that it is applied in a standardized way and that there are no discrepancies from one region to another. After all, we are in the same country, and this is the same law and the same Criminal Code.

The gun laws are Canadian laws. I therefore firmly believe that there should be a Canada-wide standard for enforcing these laws, some degree of standardization. That is exactly what this bill aims to do. It aims to simplify and standardize how the firearms registry is enforced.

Earlier in my comments today, I alluded to decisions that created criminals out of law-abiding citizens overnight. Many Canadians were shocked to realize that some owners of legal firearms for years or decades were turned into criminals overnight. This is not acceptable. That is why we are addressing this issue in the bill.

The common sense firearms licensing act would end the ability of the Canadian firearms program to make a final decision on the reclassification of firearms without the oversight of an elected member of Parliament. We are doing this because the owners of the Swiss Arms and the CZ firearms are law-abiding citizens and should not be treated as criminals. This is why we are bringing this legislation forward for that specific part. Therefore, the government would have an oversight mechanism for decisions on the classification of firearms.

Let me once again be clear, these decisions would be made on the advice of technical experts who are knowledgeable about the workings of firearms. To that end, this is exactly what would happen to the CZ and the Swiss Arms family of rifles in order to have the original reclassification restored when the bill is proclaimed into law.

These important measures are meant to bring some common sense back to our firearms policies. As I said, my priority is to keep Canadians safe through common sense policies.

For too long, gun control in Canada has been about disarming all Canadians. It was about making hunting and sport shooting so onerous, so filled with time-consuming paperwork, that no one would be interested in pursuing these Canadian heritage activities.

Many members around here have grown up on a farm or have parents or grandparents who have grown up on a farm. This was part of their life. This was part of their way of living.

Many of our friends and colleagues like hunting and sport shooting. They are law-abiding citizens. Why should they be ostracized because they are doing those Canadian heritage activities?

We have a common-sense firearm licensing regime to ensure that they are abiding by the law, but in the meantime we are cutting red tape. That is what this bill is all about. That is what we are seeking to achieve with this bill.

To ensure that all new gun owners have a basic understanding of how to safely handle a firearm, they will have to take the Canadian firearms safety course and pass the related test.

I met with many hunters and various organizations and everyone agreed that it just makes sense that anyone who wants to acquire, handle, use or possess a firearm should have to take training. That training was not mandatory in the past.

This bill makes training mandatory for the possession, acquisition and use of a firearm. While cutting red tape, this measure strengthens our system of registering and possessing firearms.

However, that is not all. We are introducing another measure that allows law enforcement agencies to share information regarding investigations into illegally imported restricted and prohibited firearms.

We want to make sure that the illegal weapons that are in our streets and used for criminal purposes are taken out of circulation. This is also included in the bill. Both the RCMP and CBSA will break down the barriers, the silos, that prevented the sharing of information.

What is more, importers will be required to report any gun imports into Canada. This measure will eliminate a loophole that existed before and will provide a significant tool for removing illegal handguns from our streets.

A study from British Columbia found that thousands of firearms had been diverted to the black market due to this loophole. It is time we closed that information-sharing gap exploited by criminals.

I hope the opposition will consider those sound measures in the bill and will certainly be interested in bringing this bill to committee, so we can discuss those very important measures.

However, that is not all. I must say, regarding the import of illegal firearms, that this issue has been raised with me by my provincial counterparts, and I am pleased to address it in this legislation.

We are tackling the criminal use of firearms instead of focusing on those who practise traditional activities and obey the law.

There is a third measure that I believe is important. We are going to establish orders prohibiting the possession of firearms for persons found guilty of domestic violence. In cases of serious domestic violence, those found guilty will automatically receive a prohibition order for life.

According to a 2013 report, Measuring violence against women: Statistical trends, spouses and dating partners were the most common perpetrators in violent crime against women.

Our legislation is clear. We are eliminating needless red tape while making our gun control regime make good common sense.

Let us be clear. From now on, a person found guilty of domestic violence on indictment will automatically lose his licence to possess a firearm.

We are putting forward safe and sensible firearms policies. That is why there is such strong support for this important legislation. We have spoken with people from all walks of life.

This afternoon, I am very proud to be here with the member for Yorkton—Melville, who was elected in 1993 and who has been a strong advocate of law-abiding citizens, while maintaining tough sentences for criminals. He is right here with us today.

We as a party have abolished the ineffective long gun registry, but we need to do more. We need to take another step. We need to streamline our processes, cut into red tape, and bring some improvements in through this bill to make our country safer. This is what this bill would accomplish.

The member for Yorkton—Melville has been an incredible advocate for law-abiding firearms owners. This place will lose an excellent legislator when he retires in 2015.

I would also like to thank the committee members from my party, who gave me a lot of advice. We have former police officers, for example, who served with the provincial police or the RCMP. I also want to thank the members of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for providing me with valuable information and showing me the importance of handling firearms carefully and obeying the law.

I am thinking about Greg Farrant, president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Alain Cossette of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, Tony Bernardo and Bob Rich, a former police officer. These individuals helped us arrive at a balanced bill that makes our country safer and reduces red tape for law-abiding citizens.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am always disappointed when I hear the minister adopting the rhetoric and the language of the gun lobby. It is revealing of who he talked to before introducing the bill. Even today, the only people he mentioned are those who have a direct interest in guns and members of his own party.

My question is for the minister. Who was consulted before this bill was drafted and presented in the House? It is very clear to me that law enforcement was not consulted until afterwards.

If this is such common-sense legislation, why did the minister not consult victims groups, including women's groups that work on violence against women? If it is such common-sense legislation, why has the minister not consulted groups working to reduce gun violence on the streets of Montreal and Toronto? If it is such good legislation, why was there such narrow consultation before it came to this House?

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

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I mentioned studies that clearly show that violence against women often occurs in the home.

That is why there is a specific measure in this bill to remove firearms licences from people who have been indicted and found guilty of domestic violence. I am convinced that once the member examines the bill more closely, he will realize that it will make life easier for hunters.

What does my colleague have against hunters, fishers, farmers and people who like hunting rifles? I am wondering why we should make things more difficult for them.

Does my colleague agree that the firearms importation measures will reduce the number of illegal weapons on our streets? Does he intend to support the bill, which seeks to reduce the number of gun crimes, while making things simpler for law-abiding Canadians?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly not much in the bill that would reduce crimes with illegal guns. However, I listened closely to the minister's remarks, and I will say there are some things in this bill that Liberals like and there are some things that we do not. I will be talking about that later.

It is interesting that the minister mentioned the member for Yorkton—Melville. I respect the member for Yorkton—Melville immensely. He worked hard here for all those years. He had an assistant by the name of Dennis Young. He recently made a statement publicly about this bill, saying that it leaves supporters of the Conservative government and gun owners feeling as if they are just used for fundraising. I listened to the minister try to attack the NDP and the Liberals and accuse the Liberal leader of misleading the House when he was not.

Is the real reason not all about this stuff and Conservative fundraising, not only Canadian twenties but American twenties, and maybe a little money from the Canadian rifle association as well? Is that not what it is about, to enliven that—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we can expect more from a former solicitor general of Canada.

I would like to clarify something extremely important. Canada has very strict procedures for the transportation of restricted firearms. First, a firearms possession and acquisition licence is required. A second training course on restricted firearms is also required.

The bill does not make any changes to the procedure for transporting firearms. The firearm must be unloaded and neutralized. This can be done in several ways. Then, it must be placed in a locked container, and it is recommended that the container be placed in the trunk of the car. Nothing has changed about that.

I am therefore disappointed that the leader of the second opposition party tried to mislead the House by suggesting that this bill could change this safe procedure. That is not the case. Restricted firearms will continue to be transported in the same way.

Our goal is to reduce red tape, simplify procedures and cut down on bureaucracy. The procedure for transporting restricted firearms in Canada will remain exactly the same.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to ask a question for my colleague, the minister.

We know that originally we had the long gun registry. It was a $2 million registry, according to the Liberals, but turned out to be $2 billion-plus registry. It hurt farmers, it hurt ranchers, and it hurt sport shooters. I have a lot of friends in my riding of Medicine Hat who are passionate, safe gun owners, and this bill, I believe, would help those individuals.

I would ask the minister to comment further on how this bill would help hunters, sport shooters, farmers, and ranchers in my riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Medicine Hat, who is doing outstanding work in Parliament, for his question.

Let me answer by explaining what is also behind this bill. We want to increase public safety in this country, and I have alluded to the measures we are putting in place, such as mandatory training and reducing domestic violence by removing firearms licences from people who have been indicted and found guilty. It is now time that we treat hunters, farmers, sport shooters, and law-abiding citizens who posses guns with respect and dignity.

It is also time to cut red tape. What would the bill do? It would cut red tape. It would simplify the procedures. We will not turn them into criminals because a decision was taken overnight. There would be scrutiny and measures to make sure that those people are treated as any other Canadian is treated in this country.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes we will be given the opportunity to speak on the bill, and there are of course some good things in it, but I am concerned that the minister may inadvertently be misleading the House.

The minister said that the Conservatives are not changing anything in the transportation regulations. I wonder if the minister can tell us if he has talked to the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette who gave notice today of a private member's bill that he intends to introduce. The bill is entitled “an act to amend the Criminal Code, (firearms storage and transportation)”.

I am very concerned about the content of the bill that we will be seeing this week. It will be coming up in the next round of private members' bills.

The minister has just assured us that the Conservatives are not changing anything. Can he assure me that he has talked to the member proposing this private member's bill and that it would not alter the transportation and storage regulations?

He is a member of the minister's caucus. The minister said he had consulted the members of his caucus. Did the minister consult the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette about this attempted change to those requirements?

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certainly going to be sure at the end of the day: Bill C-42, the common sense firearm licensing act, would keep things the same for transporting restricted firearms, just as they are today. It is the will of the government to continue that way.

Let me be very clear. If one is to carry a restricted firearm, it has to be unloaded. It also has to be trigger-locked or neutralized technically. It has to be in a locked container that is safe. If one is to travel with a firearm, it has to be in the trunk of the car and with an owner of a valid restricted firearms licence.

However, the bill is not addressing this. I invite the member, when we debate the other private member's bill, to raise this issue. As he knows, these are not government bills.

I hope we will have a good discussion on Bill C-42 and that it can be brought to committee so that we can vote on the bill for what it would do. It is a common sense firearms licensing act that would increase the safety of this country and reduce the paperwork for law-abiding Canadians.