Bill C-42 (Historical)

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

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

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

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly would not want to go beyond the parliamentary rules.

The fact is that during the briefing with staff in the minister's office on this legislation, we received confirmation that easing the transportation regulations would mean that transport between locations, other than those that were a condition of licence, would be possible with the passing of the bill. That would open up all kinds of problems, as the New Democratic member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said earlier in naming all the areas that under the bill weapons could be transported.

Now it gets confusing. How can the police be sure that someone is going from point A to point B? How can we be sure that the individual, with that gun locked and no ammunition in the trunk, is not going to stop at a grocery store, or a Canadian Tire store or a service station to get gas? That is the risk and the Minister of Public Safety is willing to accept that risk. That is wrong in the interests of public safety for Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

We have a ten-minute period for questions and comments. We have one question down so far and we are about halfway through.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning, I was pleased to see the minister staying for the debate, but I wonder if the member for Malpeque thinks like I do that perhaps his extreme agitation is because of the shaky ground he is standing on with regard to this bill.

We heard the minister, during his remarks in the chamber, promise to change the classification of two guns. I wonder, as a former solicitor general, if the hon. member has ever seen anything like this, where a minister makes a political promise in the House of Commons about the classification of weapons.

Does this not really point to one of the severe problems with the bill, which is the politicization of classifications?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that it points to the politicization of classifications. I am pleased to see the minister here and I am pleased to see him get on his feet and raise questions.

I would hope that he would encourage his parliamentary secretary and the members on the committee to give us ample time to have witnesses and to have the proper hearings on the bill at committee. I would hope that he rethinks overnight that maybe the bill should be split, so that we could pass those elements that I think a number of us could agree on, or even get all-party agreement for once, that would help law-abiding gun owners. It would be a good thing to get it through fast and then deal with those other issues that are of public safety concern.

However, I really find it remarkably strange when a minister of the Crown, in charge of the RCMP, comes out with a press release as just an MP and puts it on the Conservative website, and attacks the very people he is supposed to be in charge of and minister of as unelected bureaucrats. I have never seen it before, but it is not becoming of the minister.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member might want to expand on the idea that the Liberal Party is advocating that the bill, in fact, be split into two.

I am not overly optimistic, given the government's tendency to bring in time allocation to force legislation through, but I am wondering if he might provide some comment on how we would be able to have that quick passage by taking what is good in the bill and putting it aside, so it would actually pass before Christmas.

Why would the government not want to do that?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it really would make us wonder why the government would not want to do that. The Conservatives claim to support law-abiding gun owners, farmers and hunters. This is their opportunity to do so.

My colleague would know that the leader of the party has a catch-phrase, “hope and hard work”. We are willing to put the hard work in and we hope that the government would come on side, so that we could get those five points through by Christmas for the gun owners, farmers and hunters.

That would be a good thing, but we need more time on the other aspects, the politicization of the classification of guns, the transport of guns. We need more time to hear witnesses properly to ensure that the Canadian public and police officers in this country are safe as a result of these amendments, which I do believe will damage public safety in Canada.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the speech by the member opposite is probably one of the most entertaining activities I have seen in 14 years. He is a young man at heart, I know, but he should be careful about the kinds of contortions that he twists himself into. He may never be able to get himself straightened up again.

The Liberals may have left the impression that they do not like gun owners. I wonder what could possibly have caused that impression. Perhaps it is the hated gun registry or 20 years of refusing to amend it, or their refusal to ever reconsider that they might have done wrong. Today they come here and tell us that they actually do not believe in a gun registry any more.

The hon. member has taken at least four positions. He was for it when it was brought in. He was against it, he told us, but then he voted for it. Now today he says that he is against it.

We have watched these twists and turns, and I think probably one of the reasons he is speaking to us today is because he is one of the people who is most likely to change his mind again.

It only makes sense and I will finish up here quickly. If one thing is going happen, it is that the Liberals will go further than they did last time.

Can he comment today as to whether they would actually go further next time and try to ban firearm ownership and confiscate firearms? Is that what they are really saying, when they say they will not support a gun registry any longer?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, what a line we are getting from the member who is probably as much responsible as the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for destroying the Canadian Wheat Board as a marketing institution in this country. As we know, that has cost farmers a great deal of money. Now we cannot even get any information on that Wheat Board.

Be that as it may, the member can try and exaggerate all the stories he would like. I am proud to have been here for 21 years. I have listened to the public. We know where the public stands on the gun registry. Our leader has made it clear that we are not going to bring back the gun registry. We want to ensure that Canadians are safe and we will do that by other means, and no, we are not interested in banning guns in this country.

The member can get on with all the exaggeration he likes. We know the Conservatives are really doing this for fundraising activities and they cater to that right-wing base that used to give them money and they need a little more from it. That is partly what this bill is all about.

Our party believes in public safety. We are going to speak out in the interests of: first, law-abiding gun owners and hunters, and we would like to pass those five recommendations; and second, we are going to speak out and ensure that there is public safety in this country and that guns are not an issue that would affect that.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Yorkton—Melville, a member of Parliament whom I consider a good friend, a mentor and whom I deeply respect for his work in preserving and retaining our hunting, angling and firearms traditions.

I am proud to stand today in the House, speaking in support of Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act.

I first want to comment on the comments made by the member for Malpeque when he sneered at people who own firearms.

I am chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus. The mandate of our caucus is to preserve and protect a way of life. That includes hunting and angling, and is a strong measure of conservation. Hunting and angling groups are Canada's first and most effective conservation groups in the world.

I can see the members across laughing, but the waterfowl hunting community in North America created the—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Malpeque is rising on a point of order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member may want to misrepresent the House. We are not laughing over here, and no one smeared anglers and hunters. I will not take that from that member opposite. If he wants to exaggerate, he can do it, but tell him to stick to the facts if you would, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Malpeque will know that members, when they have their time, are free to make comments and, as long as they do not cross lines into unparliamentary language, there is a great degree of liberty they can take.

It is true that there is a Standing Order that asks members to avoid references to the absence or presence of members in the House. I do not know if that was necessarily what the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette was really getting at.

However, we will let him continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, he was sneering at the people who hunt and fish in this country. Members across the way, Liberal and NDP, were laughing.

I was making the point that the waterfowl hunting community—

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

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.

While the member may not be breaching a specific rule here, he is breaching the spirit of debate in the House and taking a complete departure from the reality of what is going on inside the House.

I heard no one sneer at hunters and fishers, and no one laughing at him, but if he continues in this manner, it is going to undermine his credibility as a speaker completely. It also shows an immense disrespect for the House.