Bill C-19 (Historical)

Ending the Long-gun Registry Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to remove the requirement to register firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted. It also provides for the destruction of existing records, held in the Canadian Firearms Registry and under the control of chief firearms officers, that relate to the registration of such firearms.

Hon. Member for Portage—Lisgar

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today to say a few words in the House about our leader, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and leader of the official opposition.

The Winnipeg Free Press has described her as, “Arguably one of the hardest-working MPs in Canada”. Without a doubt, she is one of the hardest-working MPs in Canada. That is exactly why the member for Portage—Lisgar successfully rose to the challenge of interim leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, as the short leadership race began that will allow members to choose a new leader on September 10.

The member for Portage—Lisgar has shown us that she is not only a hard worker, but that she is a principled woman of values who knows how to listen to others and, above all, knows how to make decisions while respecting the differences of each of the other members of the team.

It was no accident that Candice was able to take up the responsibilities of leader of the official opposition with such ease. Over the years, she has gained experience that few of us on either side of the House will ever get the chance to match, no matter how much we want it or how skilled we are.

Candice was elected as the member for Portage—Lisgar in 2008, after being a Conservative Party supporter for years. She is a principled woman, as I mentioned earlier. One thing that made her get into politics as a supporter was the then Liberal government's spending spree. It is funny how times never change. She chose to take the bull by the horns and became the Manitoba campaign manager for the leadership bid of the man who would become Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper.

She did not want to sit on the sidelines. She had a desire to serve the people in her riding and all Canadians. As I mentioned, she was elected in Portage—Lisgar in 2008 by an overwhelming majority. Not only did her constituents and the people of Manitoba choose a strong voice to defend their interests, but Canadians quickly came to know her and, more importantly, to recognize her as a woman with an infinite amount of love for the great Canadian family.

In 2011, she was appointed as the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of public safety, the Hon. Vic Toews. In her role as parliamentary secretary, she had the opportunity to work alongside the minister of public safety, notably on Bill C-19, the ending the long-gun registry act, which came into force the following year, 2012.

In 2013, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper recognized the undeniable talent of the member for Portage—Lisgar and, most importantly, her immense compassion for Canadians who were suffering and needed a strong voice to represent them. Candice became the hon. member of Parliament for Portage—Lisgar and entered cabinet as minister of state for social development. During her tenure, she worked hard to improve Canada's efforts to combat homelessness, as well as provide better support for people with disabilities.

In September 2016, Candice broke the glass ceiling by becoming the first woman in the history of the Conservative Party of Canada to hold the role of House leader. Conservative leader Rona Ambrose recognized her as a strong woman who could make quick decisions and a team player who could organize the work of the official opposition to ensure that the voices of all Canadians would continue to be heard and relayed in the House of Commons.

She does her job brilliantly. The Liberal government's first years were not a walk in the park, far from it. Candice was able to use all parliamentary options to make the government understand that it did not have carte blanche to turn the House into a tool to do its bidding.

The new party leader, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, also recognized the spirit and talent of the member for Portage—Lisgar, and asked her to continue serving the country as the House leader of the official opposition. With all this experience, it is no surprise that she became the deputy leader for the member for Durham, the leader of the Conservative Party. All our party leaders under whom she served her country as an MP entrusted her with important responsibilities because she is a woman who can be trusted.

In February, the Conservative caucus also recognized her ability to bring people together. We knew she was a true-blue Conservative. Most importantly, we knew she was capable of taking the helm following what had certainly been a tumultuous time.

Having watched her work so hard for so long, her peers elected her to serve as official opposition leader. Let us not think of her as a temporary or interim leader. She is the interim Conservative leader, but she has never, ever taken the job for granted. From day one, she set to work fulfilling her mandate, which is to lead the Conservatives during a leadership race, present a strong and united opposition to the Liberal government and speak on behalf of every single Canadian.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I am confident in saying that she has succeeded across the board. She really is the leader of all Conservatives and she has made us all forget her interim status.

Now I would like to talk about Candice as the woman who rallied Conservatives during tough times. I have to admit that, before I began spending time with her on a daily basis, when she gave me the tremendous privilege of serving alongside her as deputy leader, I was aware of her talent as a politician and her skill as a parliamentarian, but I did not really know the reasons for her success.

I have been in politics for almost 25 years, and I was intrigued by the path of my colleague from Manitoba. Today, I will share a secret with Canadians. The secret to the success of the MP for Portage—Lisgar, the leader of the official opposition and the Conservative Party, can be summed up in three words: respect, values and principles.

Candice is a woman of faith and the youngest of eight children. She grew up in a family with Mennonite roots.

As the baby of the family, she surely had to learn at an early age to listen to others. She has applied the lessons her family taught her throughout her life, both personal and professional. She believes that every member of the caucus deserves to be heard and that all points of view deserve to be considered.

I truly believe that she sees the caucus as her family. She understands and accepts differences. She may tolerate some misbehaviour, but she will do everything she can to keep the family together at all times. Where conflicts may arise, she will build bridges. She will push each member of her caucus to use their skills for the good of the team. Like the family values within her, she wants to instill in each of us the conservative values that unite us and make us who we are.

She does not give in to every little whim. She will defend her principles and her convictions tooth and nail, while recognizing that her colleagues might have opinions that differ from her own, and that is one of her greatest qualities. She is not afraid to take a stand, even though that can be hard at times, because she relies on her convictions and values in doing so. She will work to find whatever unites people, rather than trying to be right at all costs. She asked us, her leadership team, to demonstrate the same openness and to listen to our colleagues, and she did so with an iron will.

She is a strong and proud mother who wants the best for everyone in her family. I truly believe that she considers each of us as part of her extended family. I think I speak on behalf of all my colleagues and all members of our party when I say this: Thank you for accepting us as we are. Yes, we do have some faults, but we also have all our good qualities.

Before I conclude, I have to mention one important part of our leader's life. She is very proud of the family values that were instilled in her by her parents, including her mother Anne, whom she regularly visits in Morden. Her children are a big source of inspiration for her and will always come first. Luke, Delaney, who is here in Ottawa, and Parker can be unbelievably proud of their mother. She is unbelievably proud of them.

I do not think that Candice, the mother, would mind my saying that she is also the proud grandmother to two grandchildren, Arcaydia and Lance, whom she loves a lot. There is also her husband, Michael, her partner on this great political adventure, who sometimes joins her in singing and playing music as a form of relaxation and, perhaps, to offer an occasional reprieve from the little squabbles that can come up within our political family.

I thank Michael and Candice's children and grandchildren for sharing her with us.

I think I speak for all members in the House when I say that the leader of the official opposition is an extraordinary person.

She is respected. She has devoted much of her life to public service, to defending the people of her riding of Portage—Lisgar and to wanting to improve the future for all Canadians.

On behalf of all my fellow Conservatives, I want to thank Candice for leading our party and caucus in a strong yet gentle way, showcasing everyone's strengths and respecting everyone's opinions. Candice showed us that we can be proud of who we are. She gave us back the pride of being united as a team. She taught us the pride of being Conservative in 2022.

The House will soon rise for the summer, but I would like to tell the Liberals one thing: Candice is still our leader until September 10, so they should not expect to have a quiet little holiday before Parliament resumes this fall.

Thank you, Candice, for having trusted us.

Thank you for your hard work on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Heidi Rathjen]

Thank you for the question.

Following the introduction of the former Bill C‑71, all of the key documents, all of the debates and all of the media coverage dealt with the RCMP's verification of the validity of the license. On the topic of verification, the documents indicated that the license numbers would be checked in the system to ensure that they were valid. This is not part of the regulations. The regulations only require the vendor to verify the photo and contact the RCMP. All that was required of the RCMP was that they be satisfied that the license was legal.

The wording used is problematic. The same was true of the language included in former Bill C‑19, where the requirement to verify the license was removed. It states that the seller must simply have no reason to believe that the buyer is not licensed. In this regard, the Barreau du Québec stated that it was extremely problematic to prove in court what a person had in mind.

It is a loophole that has the effect of cancelling the measure altogether. One can think here of what a future government might do. The Conservative Party, which was opposed to Bill C‑71, could require the RCMP to accept all applications without any verification. RCMP officials have testified before this committee that there will be a verification. I think it's a bit disingenuous to put that forward, because verification is an extremely subjective thing. All that is required of the RCMP is that they say they are satisfied.

In our view, this goes against what was promised. We found that Bill C‑71 was relatively weak. Yet one of the main reasons we supported it was precisely because it included this measure regarding license verification. The current draft regulations do not include this measure. So Canadians will not get the measure that was promised to them.

[Linda Lapointe]

Has being in office when Bill C-19 and Bill C-42 were passed allowed you to see opportunities to change information for Canadians?

[Rob O'Reilly]

Yes. I started working for the predecessor of the current Assistant Commissioner, Ms. Strachan. So I took part in the consultations on Bill C-19. I forget at this very moment what year I started the Canadian firearms program, but I was part of the team when Bill C-42 and Bill C-71 were drafted.

[Rob O'Reilly]

Okay.

Thank you very much for the question.

As you can appreciate, there have been three firearms bills since 2012, Bill C-19, Bill C-42 and Bill C-71. The program has been and remains intimately involved in the preparation of some cases and in early consultation on those bills. We are very aware of and attempt to respect the parliamentary process. Many of the documents we are asked to review and provide input on are subject to cabinet confidence. We are very versed in the handling of those documents, and the breadth of consultations we can or cannot have as a consequence of that particular privilege.

When it comes to legislation like this, we also are in a position of anticipating what are going to be areas of inquiry. As I mentioned in my first statement, we are not in the habit of speaking on pending legislation. There are many elements to Bill C-71. In this case, it would probably have been our preference to not provide any commentary at all.

Unfortunately, and we've seen this historically, the minute new legislation is proposed or even being talked about in the media or the public context, we immediately get calls.

We don't have the luxury of saying we're not going to prepare Q and As for a particular issue, because the fact of the matter is we have hundreds of employees who have to answer those phones. If we don't have answers prepared to be able to inform those Canadians, they can rightly be more confused or more upset.

[Alexandra Laberge, Co-leader, Comité de travail Féminisme, corps, sexualité, image, genre et violences, Fédération des femmes du Québec]

Allow me to introduce myself briefly. I am Alexandra Laberge and I am an elementary and high school teacher. I am a volunteer member and activist with the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the Quebec women's federation or FFQ, and co-chair of the working committee on feminism, the body, sexuality, image, gender, and violence.

I would like to use the privilege of officially representing the FFQ here today, and the voices of the women and girls of Quebec—and the voices of the women and girls of Canada as well, I hope—to remind the government that firearms issues are women's issues.

Women's struggle against firearms is historical, global, and legitimate since firearms are primarily owned by men who victimize and make women vulnerable by how they use them. Our struggle dates back long before 2012, when the previous government passed Bill C-19.

In the years since then, we have suffered another affront as a result of Bill C-42, in 2015. Women mobilized and the public statements, briefs and actions, as well as the heartfelt cries of women who have suffered as a result of these bills have finally been heard by a Liberal government that has promised reform to the women of this country. We are confident that this government has heard us since we represent half of Canada's population and are the targets of the bullets fired predominantly by men.

Unfortunately, we do not think Bill C-71 will adequately protect Canadian women and girls. In our opinion, the government could do better than this bill to improve the safety of women and girls in Canada. We would like to take this time today to remind you of what these women and girls have concluded and what has been shown by various authorities and women's groups. We would like to give you recommendations that are the result of these women's reflections, which we consider legitimate and feasible, in order to help preserve the safety of women and girls in Canada.

As a volunteer, and at the same time as my work as a teacher, I have studied more than a dozen briefs, reports, and written demands by women, yet I have looked only at what has been produced since 2012, and in French only. Supported by reliable sources and recognized bodies such as Statistics Canada and the RCMP, these women have done an outstanding job in order to be recognized once again in the government's decisions on firearms. I hope that these documents, which have been reported in the media and are readily accessible, have been read and studied, but I have not been able to look at everything that has been done elsewhere in Canada. We could rely on the data from Statistics Canada, which are quite telling, or other government platforms, but women always have to work extra hard to assert their rights and, nowadays, their safety. That is why the Quebec women's federation insists on honouring this work by raising the main points that these women have taken the time to identify and that we officially support.

All the written briefs point out that firearms are a women's issue. Let us not forget that firearms are primarily owned by men and that, although they make up the majority of victims of homicide statistically speaking, women should not suffer as a result of firearms or laws that make it easier for men to harm them.

The Coalition for Gun Control, reports, for instance, that although men are more frequently the victims of homicide, women are about three times more likely to be killed by their spouse.

Let us recall the discussion in 2015 surrounding Bill C-32. More than 30 women's groups in Canada spoke out about the impact of Bill C-42 on the safety of women. Eighty-eight per cent of Canadian women were killed by a bullet that was fired by legally owned shotguns or rifles, the same weapons that some people do not consider to be the cause of gun violence.

Guns are fifth among the 18 main causes of death in domestic homicides.

Investigations of family violence, such as in the case of the children of Kasonde and Arlene May and the Vernon massacre, have shown the weaknesses of the old act. Changes to the current act have been recommended. Risk detection needs to be improved for gun licence applicants by using detailed questionnaires and requiring two references from the applicant, along with notification of the spouse. A gun registry should also be created because important information is missing from police databases.

Fifty per cent of domestic homicides end with the killer committing suicide, which shows that the key to protecting women and children is to thoroughly review gun licences and gun licence renewals. Eighty per cent of gun deaths in Canada are suicides which, for the most part, are committed by a rifle or hunting rifle that can be easily obtained.

In rural communities in western Canada, in particular, people are less in favour of gun control and the percentage of people with firearms licences is higher.

Women and children are especially vulnerable when there is a gun in the home. In Ontario, 55% of killers in cases of domestic violence had access to a firearm. The recent Small Arms Survey of 2013 studied the relationship between guns and domestic violence. It states among other things that while men account for the majority of victims and of those committing homicide using guns, the number of women killed, injured, and intimidated by guns in situations of spousal violence is significantly higher. Appendix D of the RCMP report states that some of those deaths could be prevented through stricter laws that prohibit persons found guilty of spousal violence from carrying a gun. Further, the report entitled “Homicide in Canada, 2011” shows that stricter firearms laws have protected women and children.

We agreed to appear today because we think the current government, through its actions and decisions, which support feminist policies, will finally consider the safety of women a top priority. We have chosen to take on this responsibility because what we are proposing will be analyzed by competent people and adopted for the safety of women in Canada.

We have two recommendations, which we are making jointly with “PolySeSouvient”.

The first is to prohibit anyone subject to a protection order from carrying a gun.

The second is to clearly prohibit anyone found guilty of spousal violence, rape or other sex crime from carrying a gun.

These recommendations would not eliminate gun violence against women, but our objective is more realistic. We are calling on the government to impose stricter regulations in order to reduce the number of women killed.

Carrying a gun is not a right; it is a privilege. It is logical and legitimate that people who are found guilty of a crime, especially crimes against women, should lose that privilege.

We want the government to take a clear stance on these two issues and show its support for the safety of women in Canada by adopting these two realistic and necessary recommendations.

In closing, we would like to mention the forgotten women and girls who suffer because of the right to carry a weapon, people who are not mentioned often enough and are never given the opportunity to be heard. According to Statistics Canada, indigenous women and girls have been forgotten for too long and suffer the consequences of guns more than non-indigenous members of both sexes combined.

The report entitled “Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile” shows that older women are also the victims of gun violence and are more likely than older men to be killed by a family member.

Finally, we must not forget transgender women, for whom no statistics are available as of yet.

In conclusion, I will draw a brief parallel with what is happening to women in the United States. Since the start of the year, there have been 22 school killings in the U.S. In Canada, we have also had our share of tragedies at educational institutions in which women were targeted in particular. Teachers, who are still part of a traditionally and primarily female profession, are offering an interesting perspective on women and men beyond the intimate sphere, the family, the public sphere or the workplace. Women are not safe because of the laws that allow people to own guns.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to the private member's bill. The Parliamentary secretary for the government has already indicated that Liberals do not support the private member's bill as it is written; and it is important to provide a bit of background.

I have had the good fortune of being around for a number of years, and at different times in my career, the issue of rifles and guns has risen quite significantly. I can recall in the early 1990s, for example, the whole issue of the gun registry came up. I was first elected back in 1988 and it was almost two years afterward that the massacre occurred in Montreal, when 14 young women were killed at École polytechnique. Even today, the local high school in my riding, Sisler High, commemorates, remembers, and reflects on what took place in Montreal back in 1989.

The reason I raise it is that, for me, my political career began on the issue of rifles and guns and wanting to make sure there is sound, good government policy, whether at the provincial or national level. I have had a significant interest in it from the onset of my political career, and I am very much aware of the politics of it. Many people, for example, would be quite surprised to know that Kim Campbell was the first advocate for the gun registry and it was a Conservative senator who actually pushed it forward; and a lot has happened since then.

I appreciate the member's comments about law-abiding gun owners. That is something we need to reinforce. Law-abiding gun owners deserve the respect given to all citizens. Rifles and guns play a very important role in today's society. When we talk about regulations and elements of public safety, it is not to demean law-abiding gun owners in any fashion whatsoever.

In fact, if we were to speak to many of the individuals who have been cited, we would find that some of the strongest advocates for public safety and good, healthy, strong regulations, and so forth, come from responsible, law-abiding gun owners. It is a common interest that I believe that a vast majority of Canadians have and would advocate for.

In the last federal election, the Liberal Party made a number of commitments. The member from the New Democratic caucus made reference to them. I want to highlight that in the 2015 Liberal party platform, we clearly stated that as a government we would take action to get handguns and assault rifles off our streets. This commitment was reiterated during the throne speech. Bill C-230 would run contrary to that promise, by classifying some assault rifles as non-restricted weapons, making them easier to import and acquire.

There is no doubt that there is a great sense of public awareness on this public policy issue. The member, in his attempt to provide more definition, might have actually made things more complicated. At the end of the day, even some individuals who advocate for the legislation might be surprised at how providing this definition of a variant would ultimately change the classifications of some rifles and guns in a way that even the member himself might not have initially intended. What the current law states with regard to the variant, I believe, should be left as is.

The member made reference to Bill C-19. I will refrain from commenting on Bill C-19. I gave many speeches inside the House in regard to Bill C-19. He also made reference to Bill C-42. That was a piece of legislation for which there was great concern from all regions, on issues of transportation and classification. There was a great deal of concern in terms of why the government, at the time, felt that it was in a better position to make determinations as opposed to those experts who are making decisions not based on politics. I am referring to the RCMP.

I know there was a great deal of concern raised with the Swiss Arms issue and how that firearm was reclassified. That ultimately led to, I believe, at least in part, why Bill C-42 was brought forward. I do not believe that the government, back then, made progressive steps forward in attempting to address that issue.

I do not think the Conservatives realized the valuable contributions that our experts and, in particular, our RCMP experts have to play in this whole area. Every day, they have to deal with issues related to guns and rifles. Over the years, they have compiled a great deal of expertise. As legislators, we would do well to listen to what the experts actually have to say on the legislation.

My colleague pointed out a number of important facts that are worth repeating. He stated that the Government of Canada believes in a balanced approach, and that we have effective gun legislation that prioritizes public safety, while ensuring that law-abiding firearms owners do not face unfair treatment under the law.

While the bill's intent is in fact to bring more precision to the Criminal Code, it is the unintended consequences that would criminalize many law-abiding gun owners, while at the same time making it easier to import or own certain assault rifles.

This is what I meant when I said that I believe not even the sponsor of this particular bill has realized the consequences of the bill, if in fact it were to pass as it is. I would also point out that if the bill were to pass, it would lead to massive and indiscriminate reclassification of literally tens of thousands of firearms among the non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited classifications system, something I suspect we should all be concerned about.

It is also important that we recognize that reclassifying many hunting rifles and shotguns from non-restricted to restricted would result in thousands of law-abiding gun owners needing to apply to the RCMP for a restricted licence and be approved, or dispose of the firearm itself, or be in violation of the Criminal Code. It does not really leave very much in terms of options.

Before I run out of time, I just want to emphasize that the parliamentary secretary and the government believe that public safety is priority one. We recognize those individuals who are law-abiding gun owners. There is an overwhelming consensus that public safety is number one and that we do in fact respect those law-abiding gun owners.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

moved that Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearm — definition of variant), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearm — definition of variant). This is a straightforward piece of legislation that will provide much-needed clarity for law-abiding firearms owners across Canada.

Today, I would like to explain to the House why I am bringing this legislation forward, the problems surrounding variant firearms, how this legislation will help solve the problem, and why I believe this bill should be considered further at committee.

Before I do so, I would like to take a moment to thank the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies for seconding the bill and for all of the important work that he does for hunters, anglers, and sports shooters in Canada.

I have owned and handled firearms for a number of years, basically all of my life. I am a very proud and law-abiding gun owner. However, one thing that has always bugged me and irritated a lot of law-abiding gun owners and hunters is the stigma that some people attach to the firearms community. Let me be very clear: owning a gun does not make someone a criminal. As I said, I am a law-abiding gun owner. I have many friends and family who are law-abiding gun owners. Most people who own firearms in Canada are law-abiding gun owners.

Sadly, though, time and time again, we see gun owners who are presumed to be dangerous. The stigma has worked its way into our regulatory system and, in my mind, it is high time that we bring some common sense, fairness, and clarity to the system.

There were two pieces of legislation, which were brought in under the previous Conservative government, that worked toward creating a better system for law-abiding firearms owners in Canada. I was proud to support Bill C-19, Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, and was pleased that it received royal assent in 2012. This legislation was extremely important to hunters and firearms owners across the country. The long-gun registry was a colossal waste of money, was ineffective, and it simply did not make sense.

Furthermore, in 2015, Bill C-42, Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, received royal assent. Measures in this bill included merging the POL and PAL licences, giving the Governor in Council the ability to reverse arbitrary firearms classification decisions, a grace period at the expiry of licences, authorizations to transport as conditions of licence, mandatory firearms safety courses for first-time gun owners, and prohibitions for those who are convicted of domestic violence offences. That is just to name a few of the measures.

These were all very common-sense reforms that were welcomed by firearms owners across the country. I would like to highlight one of the measures in particular, as it deals directly with the purpose of my Bill C-230.

Bill C-42 came in response to a seemingly random classification decision in 2014 regarding the Swiss Arms Classic Green rifles. This was a decision that was made overnight, wherein the RCMP classified the Swiss Arms as a variant of the SG 540, a restricted firearm in Canada.

There were a number of problems that resulted from this decision. Since 2001, the Swiss Arms rifles had been legal, non-restricted firearms in Canada, and with the stroke of a pen, many owners of these firearms found themselves in unlawful possession, without a clear explanation of the decision to reclassify. In simple terms, one night these guns were legal, and the next morning they were not. I think members can understand the frustration of law-abiding gun owners.

This all stems from the fact that there is no legal definition for the term “variant”. Firearms are under the purview of two different acts in Canada, part three of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act. These two acts form the basis for the regulatory framework that is used when it comes to firearms. Specifically when it comes to classifications of firearms, it is the Criminal Code and the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, that are the two important legislative pieces.

Furthermore, it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Canadian firearms program that is responsible for the administration of legislation and regulations, which includes determining the classification of firearms based upon criteria in the Criminal Code.

It has been in my mind, and in the minds of many other firearms owners across Canada, that there is a significant disconnect between the legislation and regulations surrounding the term variant. This term is used nearly 100 times in the regulations to classify firearms as prohibited, restricted, or non-restricted, but there is no clear sense of what this term actually means. It has been used extensively to reclassify firearms in cases similar to the Swiss Arms decision, without any clear explanation of the purpose for the reclassification. In simple terms, it is continually misinterpreted, and therein lies the problem.

Firearms owners have been left scratching their heads wondering how is it possible for these seemingly random decisions to be made. This is my reason for bringing this legislation forward. We need some clarity here. There is no room for vague interpretation on a case-by-case basis. In fact, if the bill were passed, it should actually make the job of RCMP members who are responsible for this law much easier.

As legislators, it is our job to ensure that those who are tasked with interpreting the laws we create are clear on the intentions of the legislation. This would provide clarity, not only for firearms owners but, as I said, also for the RCMP firearms program. They will finally have a benchmark on which they will be able to make clear and consistent classification decisions.

Bill C-230 proposes that a variant of a firearm be defined as “a firearm that has the unmodified frame or receiver of another firearm”. This will ensure that firearms that are classified as variants do in fact share fundamental mechanical pieces and therefore warrants the firearm to have the same classification as the previously classified firearm.

Having this definition added to the Criminal Code will ensure that the regulations surrounding firearms classifications are well informed and consistent with the intent of the legislation on which they are based. It will eliminate inconsistent and arbitrary interpretation and provide much-needed clarity for firearms owners and, as I always like to point out, law-abiding firearms owners.

It is rare that a piece of legislation is perfect on the first draft, and I want to pledge that my goal is to fix a problem. I have worked with a lot of people on this, and I am willing to work with the government to fix a problem that needs to be fixed. Basically, I am saying that if there is an amendment to the bill that makes it better, I am open to it and we will see where it goes. There may be members and outside stakeholders who will have concerns with certain elements of the bill. I welcome all feedback.

I feel that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security would be the perfect place to have this discussion. I see both the chair of that committee and the parliamentary secretary are here today. I want to thank both of them for their interest in being here and hearing what I have to say on the bill.

I see this legislation as less of a partisan matter and more a matter of clarity and responsible legislation. No matter what one's ideology on firearms and gun control is, I think that all members can and should agree that we need clear legislation that is free of vague and inconsistent interpretation. This is what I am hoping to accomplish with the bill.

Finally, I would like to thank the Canadian Shooting Sports Association for all of the help and guidance it has provided in the drafting of the bill. The CSSA knows this issue well and has heard loud and clear from its members that this problem must be solved. President Tony Bernardo and his team have been strong advocates for this legislation, and I would like to thank them for that support and for their input.

I also want to thank Mr. Greg Farrant of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters for his input as well, and the many responsible firearms owners across the country I have heard from. I have received support and suggestions from firearms owners in every province and territory across this country, and I still welcome that.

In closing, I want to make it very clear that I fully support good regulation and legislation that ensures that only responsible Canadians own and operate firearms in this country. Criminals and irresponsible gun owners affect the reputation of people like me, and all law-abiding gun owners. We do not want or need that.

Leaving it at that, I look forward to the debate today in the first hour of second reading. I am very happy to take questions from my honourable colleagues.

[Suzanne Legault]

I think you'd have to ask a member of Parliament about the original intent of the Ending the Long Gun Registry Act. I am assuming it was the destruction of all the records in the long gun registry.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you very much.

Shifting over to Ms. Legault, I wanted to know if you could comment about the original intent of the Ending the Long Gun Registry Act in 2011?

[Suzanne Legault]

Yes, I have said so very publicly. The retroactive application of the provisions of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act goes back to October of 2011, even before the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act was in effect. It nullifies the request of the complainant in this case. It nullifies all my investigations. It nullifies all the use of the formal powers in the documents that we've obtained through that. It nullifies the application we made to the Federal Court, and it nullifies any potential administrative, civil, or criminal liability of any of the actors involved.

[Greg Farrant]

There are many ways to respond to that.

First of all—and I don't know if this is the case here; I'm only citing a previous example, so please understand that—when we talked about Bill C-19 to scrap the long-gun registry, there was a real division within the policing community across the country, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, as to who supported it and who didn't support it. The fact that the association says one thing does not mean it speaks for all of its members across the country, I want to be clear about that.

Second, the fact that there may have been relatively few charges laid to date under this does not make it right, and if there's any opportunity to clear up ambiguities in the law, I think it behooves us to take that opportunity to make it clearer. It also helps police officers do their job when the law is clearer. Right now, as I said during my comments, it's as clear as mud. People could inadvertently be charged, and we've seen cases where they have been, and have had to go through the proceedings under the current system, as it stands.

As for police officers having difficulty, and this goes back to an earlier question, identifying replica guns, or guns which look like something that they're not, police officers, as Mr. Brown has indicated, have the ability to stop anybody at any time to identify a firearm and what has been going on with the firearm, what use it has, what type it is, etc. Nothing changes here because of this.

[Greg Farrant, Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters]

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and my fellow panellists.

On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the largest conservation-based organization in Ontario, our 100,000 members, supporters, and subscribers, and our 725 member clubs across the province, thank you for the courtesy of inviting me to appear before the committee to speak to Bill C-42, the common-sense firearms licensing act.

It has been clear from the rhetoric that has developed around this legislation and from many of the comments made during debate in the House, that there is either a troubling lack of understanding of what the legislation does or does not do, or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what the government is seeking to do through the legislation by suggesting that it will open the floodgates to a proliferation of irresponsible behaviour on the part of legal, licensed, law-abiding firearms owners in this country.

In fact, some members of Parliament have gone so far as to suggest that once passed the bill will sanction behaviour reminiscent of the wild west, the same kind of dire predictions that characterize the response of anti-gun lobbyists. Many of the comments have been remarkably similar to those we heard in 2011 and 2012 when debate focused on Bill C-391 and Bill C-19, the latter of which finally scrapped the long-gun registry.

Not only are many of the characterizations we heard in the House inaccurate, but quite frankly it's disappointing when in the interest of partisan politics some have suggested that the bill is either a bribe to one group in the firearms community, or payola, as one member of Parliament put it, to not testify against other government legislation; or a gift to the firearms community; or politically partisan legislation that will benefit only those who represent ridings where firearms ownership and use is the norm; or worse still, that it's the product of a “gun lobby” with a U.S.-influenced ideology, which frankly I find offensive.

During second reading debate on the bill, a number of members expressed the belief that the legislation will benefit those in rural and northern areas of the country. For members who ascribe to this theory, I would respectfully remind them that firearms owners from across Canada come from many places and many backgrounds.

In fact, if they think there is a rural-urban divide on long-gun ownership in particular, I suggest they think again. A quick survey of just our members in three urban centres, Windsor, London, and Ottawa, earlier this week showed that 4,500 of our members who own firearms live in those centres. When it comes to a large urban centre like Toronto, almost 290,000 non-restricted firearms are owned by residents of Canada's biggest city, and 85,000 are legally licensed to possess a firearm. Of those, roughly 32,000 are licensed to possess restricted or prohibited firearms, which in 2012 translated into 90,000 legally registered restricted and prohibited firearms in the GTA.

Firearms owners in Canada are judges, lawyers, farmers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, accountants, even federal politicians, many of whom, like former interim Liberal and opposition leader Bill Graham, live in and represent urban ridings. They are not criminals. They are not gang members. Rather, they are lawful firearms owners who obey the law.

The changes proposed in Bill C-42 will make life easier for these people because there will be less needless paperwork. It will not, however, change the way that these responsible, law-abiding individuals safely use, store, and transport their firearms. Despite this we have had at least one member of Parliament who attempted to link the debate of Bill C-42 and the changes it will make with the behaviour of terrorists. Others have suggested that the changes like the application of an ATT to a licence will result in firearms owners running around mall parking lots with guns in their possession threatening the public safety.

This bill does some very simple things, some of which are specifically designed to greatly enhance the public safety. The rest are nothing more than common-sense proposals that pose no additional risk to the public despite all the hyperbole. I will not speak to all the changes proposed in the legislation but will focus instead on a few key aspects of the bill.

The grace period for licence renewal comes with an incentive to renew. It addresses an administrative error on the part of the licensee that immediately and unfairly places them in violation of the Criminal Code. It also comes with restrictions that ensure that until the error is corrected they cannot use their firearms or purchase ammunition for those firearms. The bill proposes to merge possession-only licences with possession and acquisition licences. Canadians who have a POL have owned and used firearms responsibly for decades. The very fact that their licence status will change is hardly a reason for them to suddenly and inexplicably become irresponsible.

Bill C-42 contains two very important changes that taken alone or together will help to enhance public safety, something that many parliamentarians and anti-gun groups have been arguing for for years.

The first, which I might point out has been a long-standing policy of my organization, is that all new or first-time firearms owners will no longer be able to simply challenge a test to get a licence, but will have to take the firearms safety course.

You would think that even a group like the Coalition for Gun Control would applaud this move, but instead of admitting that the provision enhances public safety, they choose instead to focus on what they believe are discrepancies on how the course is taught across the country instead of supporting the introduction of mandatory training.

The second relates to proposed changes that Bill C-42 would make to sections 109 and 110 of the Criminal Code that relate to mandatory and discretionary prohibition orders. Court orders prohibiting the possession of firearms and other articles including ammunition are mandatory when a person has been convicted or granted a discharge. Bill C-42 adds that a mandatory prohibition order would apply regardless of the possible sentence when violence was used, threatened, or attempted against the offender's current or former intimate partner, or the child or parent of the offender or the offender's current or former intimate partner.

With respect to discretionary prohibition orders, Bill C-42 provides that, in circumstances involving the use or threat of violence, prohibition orders may be imposed for life or a shorter period as opposed to the current maximum of 10 years. Surely this is something that should be supported, but we've been disappointed with the reaction of anti-gun groups and others to what we believe is a sensible amendment that enhances public safety.

During debate in the House, several members of Parliament spoke of their concerns about illegal firearms coming into Canada and chastised the government for not doing anything to address the threat. In fact, this bill proposes to end the loophole that stops information sharing between law enforcement agencies, in this case, the RCMP and the CBSA when they are investigating the importation of illegal guns. The concern over the flow of illegal firearms into Canada is a serious one, and depending upon the jurisdiction, is responsible for the large majority of guns used in the commission of a crime. In my view, this amendment goes a long way to addressing this problem. Just anecdotally, former police chief Bill Blair, estimated that 55% of the guns used in crime in Toronto were smuggled in from the U.S., while in B.C. one police chief suggested it could be up to 90%.

Lastly I want to touch on the portion of the bill that amends section 19 of the Firearms Act pertaining to the circumstances under which authorization to transport restricted or prohibited firearms is granted. The bill provides for automatic authorizations upon licence renewal, not automatic licence renewal, as the coalition would have you believe. It simply removes the requirement to obtain paper authorizations every time you want to move a firearm. A person who holds the appropriate licence will be authorized to transport them for the five purposes spelled out in the legislation, not freely transported in cars at any time going anywhere within the province, as the coalition and others have suggested.

In closing, Mr. Chair and members of the panel, Bill C-42 proposes reasonable amendments to sections of the Criminal Code that make sense, that eliminate red tape, and introduce additional public safety measures. It does not make guns easier to get. It does not allow firearms owners to transport them at will wherever they want, and it does not put guns in the hands of the “wrong people”.

I am pleased to see that the Liberal Party of Canada has chosen to support many of the aspects of the bill, and we appreciate and acknowledge that.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for affording me the courtesy of appearing here today.

[Heidi Rathjen]

Obviously, mental health is a key factor in screening certain people. In the screening process, there is an opportunity to check if someone has had mental health problems, and it occurs when the licence is about to be granted. This is extremely important. The possession licence granting process has been severely weakened. Bill C-19 had an enormous loophole whereby an online vendor, no matter where they were located, no longer had to check if the buyer had a valid licence. Everything is done in the dark and there is no compulsory check for a valid possession licence. It's all voluntary.

This loophole is extremely dangerous when you think of the economic incentive to sell a gun or the incentive for a dishonest individual who wishes to purchase a gun without being allowed to. We currently have assault rifles classified as unrestricted firearms that go unregistered and can be sold online without the vendor checking whether the buyer has a valid possession licence. That's where we find ourselves today.

[Benoît Laganière, Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning.

For the survivors, the witnesses and the many families of the victims of the Polytechnique massacre in 1989, our main objective was and remains the avoidance of loss of life and the prevention of the enormous suffering caused by violence committed by firearms. The fight against violence requires interventions at all levels.

Since its election, the Conservative government has destroyed or weakened most of the measures that had been implemented at the request of victims of firearms, but also at the request of police officers, women's groups, suicide prevention workers and public health groups. In 2012, the government destroyed the long-gun registry. Since then, a long gun can no longer be traced to its owner. The Harper government also eliminated the requirement to check the validity of the permit of a potential purchaser, as well as the sales records of firearms merchants. Today, Bill C-42 will further weaken the controls that remain.

By definition, a firearm is designed to kill. It is a dangerous object that deserves the greatest attention and the greatest respect. Using a firearm is a privilege, not a right. This privilege should be governed by strong rules and should result in a series of responsibilities. Strict controls are the norm in most developed countries. However, the Harper government, always ready to please the firearms lobby, has made it so that Canada is today in a situation in which there are fewer controls than at the time of the Polytechnique tragedy, 25 years ago.

You know, when someone is attacked in such a violent way using a firearm, the only thing that they can cling to is hope and comfort. The hope that governments will take action and take all of the means possible to prevent this type of extreme violence, and comfort in the idea that the brutal death of our sisters was not in vain because other lives will be saved.

I had already come to testify as the witness to a massacre, but mainly as an ordinary citizen, before the parliamentary and Senate committees, about Bill C-19, which scrapped the long-gun registry.

Despite the plentiful testimony from many pro-control groups, not a single line or a single comma was changed in the wording of the bill. This morning, I have no hope that things will be different this time around, but we are here because it is important to highlight some of the effects of this bill and to express our opposition to it, especially in light of all of the misinformation being disseminated by this government.

Bill C-42 will put us in the awful situation that we observe daily south of the border. Its adoption will result in easier access to firearms and will increase the chances that they fall into the wrong hands. MPs who vote in favour of this bill will have to assume responsibility for this.

Our position is the outright rejection of Bill C-42.