Steven Blaney

[Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, November 26th, 2014]

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—

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order regarding question period.

The leader of the Liberal Party made reckless, inaccurate and false comments on an important safety and security issue, therefore misleading the House. The member is wrong about the common sense firearms licensing act and the facts—

[Public Safety, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, and the member should know, that every bill brought forward by the government is approved by the Department of Justice. It is under the Constitution.

This legislation would make the work of the agency more clear. It would bring clarity. That is exactly what the court has invited us to do. The member is fully aware of this.

I hope he will support this legislation, so we can get it back in the House and then to the Senate so it can become a law of the land. We need to protect Canadians against terrorist threats.

[Public Safety, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I doubt that Canadians would want us to spend six years on a bill that is seven pages long.

It was a pleasure for me to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security yesterday. I presented the bill's two objectives, which are very clear: to give our intelligence services the ability to operate outside Canada and to protect human sources, all, as I clearly explained yesterday, within the laws of Canada and in accordance with the Constitution.

I look forward to seeing the opposition participate in the examination of the bill and having it come back to the House so that it can become law and protect Canadians.

[Public Safety, November 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Prince Edward—Hastings, who has the important role of chair of the public safety committee.

This very afternoon I will appear in front of the committee to invite that member to support the protection of Canada from terrorists act. We are removing the passports from those terrorists. We are ready to take out dual citizenship when they are convicted of terrorist acts. It is unfortunate that the opposition is opposed to this.

We are sure of one thing. We will move forward with surveillance, arrest, and detention. These are additional measures to keep Canadians safe.

[Public Safety, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we strongly condemn this callous attention-seeking stunt.

In recent weeks, right here, we have seen terrorists kill our Canadian Armed Forces members in cold blood, and the criminals of the Islamic State calling for volcanoes of jihad against Canadians.

It is clear now more than ever that we need to be vigilant against the threat of terrorists and not complacent. This is why our government will strongly move forward to bring the tools we need to keep Canadians safe.

[Public Safety, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the role of the Security Intelligence Review Committee is to report to Parliament and confirm that this agency is fulfilling its mandate in accordance with the law. That is precisely the purpose of Bill C-44, which we are currently debating and which will clarify the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in order to make judges' work easier and also to facilitate the work of the review committee, which does an excellent job.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I already answered my colleague's question. The committee is master of its own destiny, that much is clear.

I am not a member of that committee, but any time the committee so desires, I make an effort to take part. I had the opportunity to go to committee meetings and have productive discussions. That is what we did a few weeks ago, when the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service came to present a status update on the terrorist threat.

It is important to take a sensible and responsible approach. That is what we are being asked to do today by supporting this motion, so that this important bill, which has the approval of all the political parties in the House, may go to committee. Then we could debate it, do a clause-by-clause review, and bring it back to the House to enact it and give the country a new law.

Every parliamentarian was shaken by what happened on October 22. That is one of the reasons we have this opportunity to pass a well-constructed, balanced bill that will ensure the safety of Canadians.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I believe that this NDP member has a great deal of respect for the power of committees and elected officials, and it is up to the committees to discuss this issue. I had the opportunity to do so when I was chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Now, I have the opportunity to invite my colleague to support this bill. It will ensure the safety and security of Canadians and is in keeping with our policy direction since the events of September 11, 2001, which made terrorism the greatest threat to the security of our country.

Thanks to CSIS and our police forces, we foiled terrorist plots in Canada, including the attacks of the Toronto 18, and the attacks on the British Columbia legislature and VIA Rail. We thwarted those attacks with the laws we put in place and those terrorists are facing charges. Some have been sent to jail because of the laws we instituted.

Therefore, it is important to debate bills, but it is also important to take action, especially when the terrorist threat is real and, unfortunately, has already created victims in our country. As parliamentarians we have the responsibility to act.

I have full confidence in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and all its members, and I trust they will review this bill and bring it back to the House so that we can adopt it at third reading, send it to the Senate and make it a law that will protect Canadians.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my hon. colleague what I said in my very first speech in support of this bill in the House a few weeks ago. I said that we will never turn our backs on the fundamental Canadian values of respect for individual rights and the rule of law. While this bill gives our national security agencies some of the tools they need to protect Canada from terrorists, clause 7, on proposed subsection 18.1(4), of the legislation I introduced then ensures that the right to a fair trial is protected in all cases.

I invite my hon. colleague to take a look at proposed paragraphs 18.1(4)(a) and (b). There are also some provisions in the bill that go in exactly the same direction, suggesting that we clarify the role of our intelligence agencies while protecting the rights of Canadians. That is exactly what this bill would do. That is why the hon. member's party has indicated it is willing to support this bill. So is the second opposition party.

This is a great bill that would help improve the safety of Canadians while protecting their rights. That is why we need to have this debate. We need to send the bill to committee so that we can go more in depth and make this the law of the land.