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.

Criminal Code

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be the seconder of the bill put forward by the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I commend him for bringing this legislation forward.

Bill C-230 addresses a long-time concern of law-abiding firearms owners in Canada. I support this legislation for three main reasons: it is simple, effective, and most important, just plain common sense.

First, on simplicity, the bill does not attempt to make any sort of wide-sweeping broad reforms as mentioned by the government and the other opposition party. Bill C-230 does not propose to reinvent the wheel when it comes to firearms regulation. It contains three simple clauses that would accomplish a targeted goal: ensuring consistency and transparency for law-abiding firearms owners in Canada.

Second, the bill provides an effective definition of the term “variant” that ensures that firearms that are classified as a variant of another firearm share similar mechanical components and are derived from the original prohibited firearm. The proposed definition states that a variant is defined as a firearm that shares the same unmodified frame or receiver of another firearm. This is an effective definition that would provide greater clarity for law-abiding gun owners and would ensure that decisions surrounding variants will be based on this fundamental definition rather than an inconsistent interpretation of an undefined and vague term.

Third, this legislation is a common-sense reform that would simply bridge the gap between legislation and regulations to ensure greater clarity for gun owners.

The term “variant” is used extensively when it comes to the regulatory framework surrounding firearms, but does not have any kind of legal definition in the Criminal Code or the Firearms Act. For example, the term “variant” is used 99 times in the regulations that govern firearms classifications. A term that is used this extensively in the regulations warrants a formal definition in the legislation. Furthermore, a recent access to information request stated that as of October 16, 2015, there were approximately 4,030 firearms that had been identified as prohibited, restricted, or non-restricted variants. Again, a term that impacts this many firearms deserves to have a clear definition to ensure that it is applied uniformly in all decisions.

I want to take a few moments to present an example of an issue that was created by the term “variant” being undefined.

The recent controversy surrounding the reclassification under variants of the Swiss Arms Classic Green rifle, of which I was an owner, is a prime example of the negative consequences that can arise from inconsistent interpretation of this undefined term.

This issue goes all the way back to 2001 when the RCMP determined, based on documentation provided by an importer and the manufacturer, that Swiss Arms Classic Green rifles were semi-automatic variants of the Swiss Arms SG 540. Therefore, they were considered non-restricted or restricted, depending on the length of the barrel of the individual rifle. As a result, these firearms were allowed to be imported and sold in Canada. They were not prohibited firearms. However, in 2014, following a complaint about Swiss Arms rifles, the RCMP determined the rifles and their variants to be descendants of the Swiss Arms SG 550 and therefore were deemed prohibited firearms in Canada.

This was an arbitrary reclassification that made a long-time legal firearm owner, a firearm that I used to own, illegal overnight. With the stroke of a pen, law-abiding owners of Swiss Arms Classic Green rifles found themselves in illegal possession of a legal firearm. The decision eliminated the ability of Swiss Arms owners to obtain a licence to transfer and acquire these firearms, limited the locations where they could be possessed, and imposed enhanced storage and handling obligations by the owners. Furthermore, as I previously stated, it immediately criminalized law-abiding owners of Swiss Arms rifles who found themselves in unlawful possession of a firearm and at the risk of prosecution for unauthorized possession of a firearm under section 91 of the Criminal Code, and again, as the member stated, overnight.

Members may recall that when this decision was made in 2014, the Conservative government reacted strongly to protect law-abiding firearms owners.

The government brought in an amnesty to ensure that Swiss Arms owners would not be prosecuted for owning their once-legal firearms. Furthermore, the government then brought in Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, which enacted a number of important measures to reduce the red tape for firearms, as well as measures that allow the Governor in Council to respond to arbitrary classification decisions, such as the Swiss Arms decision.

Bill C-42 was a very important piece of legislation for firearms owners in Canada. Likewise, Bill C-230, is yet another responsible measure to protect law-abiding gun owners from arbitrary and inconsistent interpretation.

If Bill C-230 had been in place when the decision on the Swiss Arms rifles was made, the RCMP would have had to demonstrate that the rifles in fact shared the same unmodified frame or receiver as the SG 550 and were prohibited on this basis.

To wrap up, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for introducing this legislation. As I stated in the questions, it is not a partisan issue; it is a clarity issue. There is quite clearly a disconnect between the legislation and the regulations that Bill C-230 is looking to bridge.

This is an important bill for legal firearms owners. I look forward to seeing it pass at second reading, although it looks like there is some opposition. I hope there is some serious second consideration by the parties across the way and beside us to have a real strong second look at this strong legislation.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-230, an act to amend the Criminal Code. I would like to thank the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for bringing it forward for discussion and debate in the House. I can understand his clear desire to produce greater clarity and regulations concerning firearms. As he said, it is a laudable goal of the non-partisan nature. I salute him for doing so. However, I will be speaking against the bill, which in my view fails, despite its best intentions, to provide the kind of clarity that the member is seeking.

What would the bill do? It is a very simple bill. It would define the term “variant” in a different way. It is not defined now. It is left to the discretion of the regulator under the regulations. It would simply say in the statute, the Criminal Code, that “variant”, in respect of a firearm, means a firearm that has the “unmodified frame or receiver” of another firearm. That is all it would really do. It would take away the discretion that currently exists and narrow it in that way. In so doing, the member obviously seeks to provide greater clarity.

It then applies that criteria to the existing definitions of “restricted firearms” and “prohibited firearms” by affecting future classifications of a restricted and prohibited firearm, which would have a significant effect on access to firearms across our country.

I understand the member's motivation is to bring clarity to the process of classifying firearms. Law-abiding owners of firearms have often expressed frustration at what they see as the arbitrary classification or reclassification of firearms. Cases like the controversial case surrounding the Mossberg Blaze-47 or the Swiss Arms rifles, to which the member referred, illustrate the need for a more transparent process and a better, more open communication with Canadians. Yet these very firearms enthusiasts have raised serious concerns about the bill before us. Their analysis suggests that this bill would, and they believe, unintentionally, lead to the restriction or prohibition of firearms that would be currently available to properly licensed Canadians as non-restricted firearms. I believe the member is seeking to clarify, not to confiscate, but they fear that is precisely what the unintended consequences of the bill would do.

As I said in a question for the hon. member, there are something like 163,000 firearms currently listed in the Firearms Reference Table, of which over 4,000 are variants. Therefore, the question I would pose to the member is this. Why would one not want to provide continuing flexibility in the regulations themselves so officials could look at various criteria and make their determinations rather than perhaps unintentionally narrowing it, which would be the subject of concern to firearms enthusiasts by simply leading it to the very narrow category that the member has stated, namely of firearms that have the “unmodified frame or receiver” of another firearm? There may be many other criteria, and time permitting I will describe what they are, that need to be taken into account by officials as every day of the week they make this kind of interpretation. Inevitably, there would be some vagueness, I think one has to accept that, but that may make some sense in the public interest, I would suggest.

Any change to gun laws needs to be done with care and precision. The safety of Canadians must always be our top priority. We should be aiming for greater transparency, openness and certainty, not sowing, unintentionally, fresh confusion and concern.

The real question for every Canadian who is concerned about illegal guns and violence, whether they own firearms or not, is this. What is the government's policy?

In the last federal election, the Liberal platform promised four things: first, to take pragmatic action to make it harder for criminals to get and use handguns and assault weapons; second, to repeal elements of the Conservative's Bill C-42; third, to “put decision-making about weapons restrictions back in the hands of police, not politicians”, and, fourth, to provide $100 million each year to the provinces and territories to support guns and gangs police task forces to take illegal guns off our streets and reduce gun violence.

Those are the key things I was able to find in the platform to deal with comprehensive firearms reform. Unfortunately, the Liberals have already broken an election promise by once again delaying the gun-marking regulations to help police trace guns used in crimes.

We have not yet seen any legislation to deliver on the promise to make it harder for criminals to access guns or to repeal dangerous elements of Bill C-42, or to put decision-making about weapons restrictions back in the hands of firearms experts. In other words, the opaque and politicized system that the current government inherited from its Conservative predecessor remains unchanged.

Canadians expect the government to do better. When it comes to firearm classification, Canadians expect these vital public safety decisions to be made by experts in an open and transparent manner, based on all the available evidence.

Canadians expect their laws to be kept up to date and to be flexible enough to adapt to changing needs and fresh developments without compromising public safety, and it is that which is of concern in this particular bill. There is the lack of flexibility, the lack of giving the officials the tools they need to exercise their discretion appropriately under law. If they make a mistake, they are always subject to judicial review, and there have been several cases in which their discretion has been called to account in the courts. That, I suggest, is how it should be.

The government has promised legislation to meet these standards. It is time the government started to deliver. We should not be making piecemeal reform of firearms legislation on the fly through specific bills from time to time by private members. This bill does not provide the certainty, openness, or transparency that Canadians expect from any reform to firearms legislation.

Again, I thank the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for raising this issue and for representing his constituents who are looking for that clarity from their government. However, given the concerns I have heard from firearm law experts, it is clear the bill may not have the effect that the member intends. Even a more precise bill in this area would only be one part of the broader solution promised to Canadians by this government during the election.

As the government finally develops that policy, I hope the Liberals will consider the member's proposal and consult with Canadians in all parts of the country. Instead of repeating the mistakes of the past or pitting Canadians against one another in this sensitive area, the government has a great opportunity to bring people together around common sense solutions that work.

Although we cannot support a flawed bill, I hope the hard work of the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound spurs the government to make this important public safety issue a priority.

[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.

[Rae Banwarie]

How do you manage that? Somebody has died. The auxiliary got shot. Now you are appealing the decision? Why, when it directly ties to the health and safety of our people?

When I was at the Senate standing committee, I gave testimony in regards to Bill C-42. I said that If this bill is allowed to go through with the total control of the commissioner or his delegates in it, then we were going to see more suicides in the RCMP.

We've had several since then. Every single one of the cases I have been involved in ties back to workplace issues. Let's fix this.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the illustrious member for Langley—Aldergrove.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the Liberal government's first Speech from the Throne. This is my first time rising in this new Parliament as the member for the newly configured riding of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. I am also the official opposition critic for wildlife conservation and Parks Canada.

First, I would like to thank the voters of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for placing their trust in me yet again, and to take a moment to congratulate my fellow members of Parliament, both new and re-elected, on their victories in the last federal election.

As the official opposition, Canadians expect us to hold the government to account and ensure that we present an alternative vision to the Liberals' agenda. That is why much of what I heard in Friday's throne speech concerned me greatly.

First, there was no mention about how to create a climate for investment and economic growth. I expected this, since the Liberals and their fellow travellers on the left, the NDP, focus on spending as much money as they can while never advancing or promoting policies that will actually create wealth.

I would remind them that a focus on creating wealth is a necessary prerequisite to spending. However, I hold little hope in this regard. Deficits will balloon under the government, while investment will wither on the vine as businesses and wealth creators are increasingly punished for creating jobs. The new payroll tax, in the guise of a changed CPP, is a perfect example.

Second, as a member of Parliament for a large agricultural and natural resources-based constituency, I was amazed and very disappointed by the complete lack of any reference in the throne speech to agriculture and rural Canada. Agriculture generates over $100 billion for the Canadian economy, and Canada's natural resources industries, largely based in rural Canada, are the backbone of the Canadian economy. Well, that is until the Liberals finish off the natural resources sector with punitive taxation and a regulatory regime designed to endlessly delay any new natural resource development anywhere in Canada.

In fact, rural communities appear to have been largely forgotten. The Liberals have made specific promises regarding public transit, for example. Of course, public transit is important in large urban centres, but it is largely non-existent in my riding.

How do the Liberals plan on compensating our communities? We do not have public transit where I live and where I represent, but we do have infrastructure needs. Will the Liberals match the investments in urban transit with rural infrastructure projects?

The Canadian natural resources sector is suffering, as are those natural resource-dependent communities in rural Canada. Crude oil is below $40. With the proposed carbon tax and onerous regulatory regime layered on top of low prices, it is clear that the Liberals and their fellow travellers in the NDP have basically declared war on Canada's energy sector and our natural resources industries.

I find this appalling because when it comes right down to it, the energy business is basically a people business. Let me explain. Canada's natural resources sector employs over $1.8 million Canadians, and the energy sector supports about 300,000 jobs alone. In the winter of 2009-10, like many of my constituents, I worked in the Alberta oil sands conducting environmental monitoring. In that capacity, I met Canadians from every province who were supporting themselves and their families by working in the oil sands. I met senior couples saving for a dignified retirement, young people saving for their first home, and moms and dads putting away money for their children's education.

Apart from the fact that Canada's oil sands operates under a strict regime of environmental compliance and real excellence, it is the people and employees, supported by the oil sands, who are the real driving force behind this vital industry. It is Canadians from all across Canada who will be affected by the Liberals deliberate strategy to shrink the oil sands.

How much of the expected $570 billion that was earmarked for new investments will now not be spent? How many manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec will not get equipment orders? How many vehicles will not be purchased by energy workers? How many homes will stay unsold? How many people from high unemployment areas who formerly commuted to the oil sands will now be forced to stay home collecting employment insurance? How many vital public services will now be starved for funds?

I had the honour in the last Parliament to be a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Both fit well with my experience as a fisheries biologist and my careers in natural resources and conservation. In those capacities, I have developed a singular focus on the delivery of real and measurable environmental results for every public dollar spent.

That was the policy of our government, and I am very proud of our record in delivering real and measurable environmental results from our programs.

Under our watch, most measurable environmental indicators showed marked improvements. Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions declined. On our watch, the UN, in 2010, declared that Canada ranked number two in terms of the quality of our water when compared with other industrialized nations.

Our government set aside an area for national parks that is twice the size of the province of New Brunswick. We cleaned up hundreds of contaminated sites, introduced major fisheries habitat conservation programs, improved wetland conservation, and initiated major work to improve water quality in Lake Winnipeg and the Great Lakes.

I would point out to the House that within their first month in office, the Liberals have made eight funding announcements, costing Canadians almost $2.85 billion. None of that money is going to be spent in Canada, and none of those funds were approved by Parliament or even announced when Parliament was sitting. Most will be spent on international climate change projects.

The question I keep asking, both with this $2.85 billion as well as with other points in my speech, is what do Canadians get for these funds? Government spending is all about priorities, and pressing environmental investments need to be made right here in Canada. For example, Lake Erie is being seriously affected by nutrient inputs, primarily from the United States. In fact, all of the Great Lakes, where 40% of Canadians live by the way, are experiencing eutrophication from an ever-increasing number of non-point sources.

These are the kinds of environmental issues that Canadians expect governments to work on, yet the Liberal government's priority is to send almost 400 delegates to Paris, more than the U.S., Britain, and Australia combined. Generating real and measurable environmental results is what Canadians expect but will certainly not get from the Liberal government.

By the way, it was truly astonishing that the first act by our new Minister of Environment and Climate Change was to allow Montreal to dump eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence, one of Canada's most iconic waterways. This was in direct violation of section 36 of the Fisheries Act. So much for the Liberals' vaunted concern for the environment.

In the throne speech, the Liberal government promised to introduce a carbon tax, thus increasing cost to industry, further depressing energy investments, and increasing direct energy costs to Canadians. There are two groups of Canadians who will be directly affected by this carbon tax, namely low-income and rural Canadians, the kind of people I represent. If it were not so serious, I would find it laughable that the Liberals claim to care so much about low-income Canadians. They are doing their best to put at risk the incomes of poor people and those who live in remote rural regions.

I would note that both low-income people and rural people spend a higher proportion of their incomes on energy than other Canadians. It is my expectation that any carbon pricing be revenue neutral and have a mechanism to offset the negative impacts of such a tax on low-income and rural people.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the federal Liberal government wants to take us down the same energy path as its friends in Ontario. How is that working out? Ontario's Auditor General, Bonnie Lysyk, recently valuated the Ontario Liberal's vaunted green energy strategy. She noted that Ontario electricity ratepayers have had to pay billions for these decisions. Between 2006 and 2014, this cost consumers an additional $37 billion in Ontario, and will cost ratepayers another $133 billion by 2032.

In the Toronto Star recently, of all places, there was an article by Thomas Walkom entitled “Ontario's green energy botch-up a lesson for those fighting climate change”. This article talked about Ontario's approach of massively subsidizing the production of electricity from solar and wind and biomass, resulting in a massive overproduction of power from Ontario that has to literally pay other jurisdictions to take its power. Interestingly, Ontario's annual average energy surplus between 2009 and 2014 was equal to the total power generation of my province of Manitoba, one of the major hydro producers in this country.

Furthermore, by dumping excess power on the market, Ontario has depressed energy prices for all producers. As Walkom notes, “Canadians are willing to pay a price now to save the future. But these same Canadians will rebel if they believe the governments inducing them to pay carbon taxes are incompetent, venal or both”. What we see in Ontario is the likely outcome of the energy policies of the federal government.

I would like a quick word on the firearm's issue. I was chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, and my critic portfolio includes protecting the rights of law-abiding firearms owners. The Liberals have declared their intention to attack law-abiding firearms owners once again. The Liberals are soft on crime and tough on law-abiding firearms owners. Talk about reverting to type. Again, we see them wanting to repeal Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, which ensured public safety was protected while at the same time protecting the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.

In conclusion, I have stressed just a few of the questions that Canadians have been raising in regard to the Liberal agenda.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-247, An Act to expand the mandate of Service Canada in respect of the death of a Canadian citizen or Canadian resident—Chapter 15.

Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons)—Chapter 16.

Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits)—Chapter 17.

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act—Chapter 18.

Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act—Chapter 19.

Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 20.

Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act—Chapter 21.

Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,—Chapter 22.

Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 23.

Bill C-63, An Act to give effect to the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24.

Bill C-66, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 25.

Bill C-67, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 26.

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—Chapter 27.

Bill C-555, An Act respecting the Marine Mammal Regulations (seal fishery observation licence)—Chapter 28.

Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 29.

Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act—Chapter 30.

Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act—Chapter 31.

Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act—Chapter 32.

Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations—Chapter 33.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act, which is in fact what it is.

This is a bill that is very important to my constituents and to the law-abiding firearms community across Canada. It is also a bill that is very important to me personally.

As members know, I will not be running again in the next election. As members also know, changes to our firearms laws to make them safe and sensible has been something I have worked on very hard during the time I have been in this place. I introduced almost half a dozen private member's bills to reduce needless red tape that had been heaped upon law-abiding gun owners over the years. I am pleased that many of the measures I have advocated for over the years have made their way into legislation introduced by ministers in our Conservative government.

Canadians are interested in the facts of what this common sense firearms licencing act will do and will not do.

This important point is something the NDP and Liberals seem to forget. This bill will make participation in the classroom component of the firearms safety training course mandatory, for the first time, for firearms owners. It will ensure that all those who join the rapidly growing ranks of the 2.2 million licensed firearms owners will have a common understanding of how to safely operate firearms.

What the bill will not do is allow “duck hunting with a machine gun capable of bringing down a MiG”. This is the shocking misinformation suggested by the NDP member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

What the bill will do is end needless paperwork for the authorization to transport restricted and prohibited firearms. This paperwork was not shared with law enforcement, or anyone for that matter. It was simply filed away in a drawer, never to be thought about again.

What the bill will not do, as the Liberal leader suggested, is “allow handguns and assault weapons to be freely transported in a trunk anywhere within a province, even left parked outside a Canadian Tire or a local hockey arena”. Members do not need to believe me. The non-partisan assistant deputy minister of Public Safety was asked about these comments and whether they were accurate. Her answer was simple and straightforward. She said, “no”.

I think the Liberal leader is cynically trying to scare Canadians, or he simply has no understanding of how firearms laws work in Canada. Either way, it is just another example that he is just not up to the job of leading.

The common sense firearms licensing act will also establish a six-month grace period for firearms owners so that they do not become criminals overnight when their licence expires. I was listening to the debate previously, and it was said that we get a notice for every other licence. However, we do not become criminals if we neglect to renew our driver's licence. It is very different with a firearms licence.

The NDP member for Newton—North Delta said:

For a gun owner it would still be perfectly okay for six months after one's licence expires. That would be legalized in this legislation. When my driver's licence expires, it expires on that date and I have to get it renewed beforehand.

While that is a correct statement, what she forgets is that if I forget to renew my driver's licence, I face about a $200 fine. If I forget to renew my firearms licence, I face many years in prison. It simply does not make sense. We need common sense, and that is what this bill is all about.

This bill will also merge the possession-only licence and the possession-and-acquisition licence. This technical-sounding change can be broken down very simply.

Approximately 600,000 experienced firearms owners did not want to comply with the Liberal firearms regime back in 1995. They did not want to jump through hoops, as they had owned guns for some time. Therefore, this category was created, but they were not allowed to buy new firearms.

This group averages about 60 years of age. They have all had their firearms in excess of 20 years. They are well trained in how to safely use firearms. Therefore, this change will be good for the economy, as this large group of people will be able to purchase firearms.

Let us listen to what Pierre Latraverse, of the Quebec hunters and anglers federation, had to say about this measure. He said:

It's a very positive measure, given that there will only be a single licence under these conditions. This is much more representative of what owning a firearm is like. Currently, there are two licences: a possession licence and a possession and acquisition licence. If you only have a possession licence, you cannot purchase firearms. You have to go through the system to buy a possession and acquisition licence. With the merger, a hunter won't have to go through the whole administrative process again to purchase another firearm.

The common sense firearms licensing act will also restrict the ability of chief firearms officers to make arbitrary decisions. Currently, section 58 of the Firearms Act gives authority to unelected bureaucrats that I do not believe exists anywhere else in law. Let me read this section. It says:

A chief firearms officer who issues a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport may attach any reasonable condition to it that the chief firearms officer considers desirable in the particular circumstances and in the interests of the safety of the holder or any other person.

Tony Bernardo, the executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, rightly describe this section as creating “God powers” for the CFO. We will return elected officials to their rightful place as the overseers of bureaucrats.

I have talked a lot about measures that will reduce red tape. I would also like to talk about a measure that I find very important in the common sense firearms licencing act. That is the strengthening of firearms prohibition orders for those who have been convicted of domestic violence offences.

We believe that past behaviour is a good indicator of future results. Clearly, someone who has a serious conviction for domestic violence is volatile. We do not believe that firearms ought to be present in those types of situations.

The last measure in the bill I would like to touch on is the ability of elected officials to overturn decisions of the Canadian firearms program regarding classification. We all recall the decision of the Canadian firearms programs to attempt to ban two firearms that had been sold in Canada for well over a decade. In fact, by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen, thousands of Canadians were turned into criminals overnight, probably without their knowledge. This was without consulting the Minister of Public Safety or his staff, without consulting the public safety committee, and without consulting anyone.

It is clear that this is unacceptable. That is why we are creating this measure. It is why, as soon the bill receives royal assent, we will move to restore the classification of the Swiss Arms family of rifles and the CZ858 to its previous non-restricted status.

As many of my colleagues have said through the course of this debate, it is about culture. There are 2.2 million Canadians who are licensed firearms owners, many in Toronto, despite what some people here think, and an estimated four million Canadians, partake in hunting, fishing, trapping, or sport shooting. I will repeat that: four million Canadians participate in these things.

Why is that? It is because these activities are part of our shared Canadian heritage.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to what I view as not just a bad bill, but a dangerous bill. The bill talks about common sense and when we put “common sense” and “firearms” in the same sentence, one has to wonder whether this is really just a political bill and not actually something to make us safer.

I wish I had a nickel for every time a member opposite said, “This is our top priority”. No matter what we are talking about, whether it is the environment, public safety, rail safety, drug safety or food safety, everything seems to be the Conservatives' top priority, yet the evidence is that everything has suffered budget cuts under the government. In order to provide Canadians with tax cuts, it has had to cut public services and make Canadians less safe. That is something the New Democrats do not support. In a few months' time, the NDP leader and the party, with their experience and plan, will be able to replace this tired government and actually fix the damage it has done, including the damage this bill would do to the safety regime of Canadians.

The bill should be titled “relaxing guns laws in Canada”, because that is really what it does. It would not make some common sense amendments or find some way to make more sense. It is designed to relax guns laws, and that caters to a particular lobby that the Conservatives like to cater to and have done so since they took office in 2006. They have done a number of things over the years to make it less safe for Canadians.

Bill C-42 would make it easier to transport guns. Canada has specific and very strict rules about how to transport firearms. We do not want to become like the people in the U.S., where the transportation of guns is allowed openly and without any restrictions whatsoever, in most cases. This bill would allow people much more freedom to transport their firearms without having to first know where they are going. The police will have very little way of knowing what is going on when people are transporting their guns.

In addition, and perhaps more tellingly, it would give the cabinet and the minister the power to change the definition of what is and what is not a restricted weapon. I think this in knee-jerk reaction to a decision that was taken by others than the Conservatives that they did not like. Bill C-42 would give the cabinet authority to override firearms classification definitions in section 84 of the code by the way of regulations carving out exceptions. By regulation, cabinet could deem firearms that would otherwise by captured by the definitions of prohibited and restricted firearms to be non-restricted firearms. Similarly, cabinet could deem firearms that would otherwise be prohibited firearms to be restricted firearms. It would basically transfer authority over definitions and classifications to cabinet, rather than putting the emphasis on public safety.

As we all too poignantly recall from the disaster at École Polytechnique, the classification system in our country allows very dangerous weapons to be in the hands of ordinary citizens and when those ordinary citizens are not stable, disaster can result. It would also limit provincial powers to attach conditions of licence. Why are we touching provincial jurisdiction? The government claims to want to leave everything to the provinces to decide, but as much as it can, it will get out of housing or public transit and just give money to the provinces and tell them to do whatever they want. Yet here, it would actually remove the right of the provinces to attach conditions of licence, which is not a good thing. It is not more safe.

Finally, it would grant a grace period to persons whose licences expire. Every year I get a notice from the Ontario provincial government that says my car licence is going to expire and I had better renew it. Every five years I get a notice from the provincial government saying that my driver's licence is going to expire and I had better renew it.

If the same thing were to happen with firearms licences, there would be no excuses. Is this because the government does not want to bother finding people? Is it because the Conservatives do not want to bother reminding people, because it is something that, maybe, needs a bit of a reminder. To actually grant an exemption or a grace period is dangerous, according to some witnesses.

We in the NDP put public safety first. That is very clear in all of our positions and our comments on the various budget decisions that the government has made and in all of our positions on issues like food safety. The Conservatives were in power when the listeriosis outbreak took place. Public safety was put at risk to the point where people lost their lives. This is something that we should not and cannot accept. To cut the budget of the department that is responsible for keeping people safe, such as the food safety department, is an unconscionable act of neglecting the public safety that we on this side of the House are so determined to protect.

There was the E. coli outbreak. As far as we know, no one died. People did get sick, and our reputation with the U.S. was seriously harmed. At the same time, it was the budget cuts to the health and safety of Canadians and to the safety of the system that caused public safety to be put at risk.

Rail safety is another point where the Conservative government has actually lowered the safety standards to the point where 47people in Lac-Mégantic lost their lives in July, 2013, and the centre of an entire town was decimated. The government said that it had better fix things, but since that time, there have been several other major train derailments that have taken place in other parts of the country. Only by good fortune and luck did the government escape yet another massive disaster. What do we know about the reaction of the government? We know there is one new inspector out of the hundreds of inspectors. There is no determination by the government to make our rail system safer.

In keeping with the notion of gun safety, we have learned that the RCMP is sometimes ill-equipped with its own firearms to go up against the firearms that are available to other Canadians. Some of them lost their lives as a result, and that is shameful. We know the government has cut the budget for the RCMP to the point where it has to abandon good programs in order to focus on the programs that the government says are the priority. We cannot keep juggling without running the risk of leaving some people unprotected, and that is exactly what happens.

In my riding of York South—Weston, none of what is going on in Bill C-42 would actually make anybody any safer. In fact, the problem in my riding is the preponderance of handguns, particularly among young people. When I go to a grade 10 class and ask the students how many of them own an illegal handgun or know someone who owns an illegal handgun, half of the hands go up. That is absolutely astounding, and it has been not just once, not just twice, but on several occasions that I get the same result. It means that among the residents of my riding, there are illegal handguns in the hands of young people.

This is happening because the government has cut the CBSA. It has reduced the number of inspections that go on at the border. As we discovered this week, CBSA officers do not even have access to proper information to stop criminals from re-entering Canada and stop people who have no business coming into Canada from entering.

The NDP believes that public safety is one of the most important things a federal government should be in charge of and should ensure. For the Conservative federal government to abandon public safety at every turn is absolutely wrong, and we will not stand for it. This bill would do nothing to make people safer. It would make them less safe. As a result, we will be opposing this bill.

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 third time and passed.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce at the outset that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from York South—Weston.

I want to say at the outset of this debate that one should always be suspicious of legislation from the Conservatives that bears titles such as “common sense”, because we know that there may be a bit of an issue with the packaging and marketing of what they are doing.

I listened as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification and the member for Sault Ste. Marie began their debates in this place, and it was very clear from the outset what this bill is all about. It is about trying to create a wedge issue. They are trying to slam the Liberals for their apparent support of a long-gun registry, which has been denied; trying to suggest that the NDP would somehow bring back a long-gun registry, which is not the case; and mentioning by name many of the members of the NDP in northern ridings to suggest that this is what a common sense firearms licensing act is about. We know what this is about. It is another example of partisan politics and the creation of a wedge issue by the government for no particular purpose.

When I say no particular purpose, and therefore oppose this bill, it is pretty clear why this bill has been criticized by so many. It is not just by the usual suspects, if I can call them that. What about Mr. Jean-Marc Fournier, the Quebec minister for intergovernmental affairs? He said, “It goes against the concept of public safety and security.... I find it extremely inconsistent that the federal government should claim that this is being done for the sake of public safety”.

It is not being done for the sake of public safety. It is being done in a pre-election period for clear partisan purposes, demonstrated so clearly by the two Conservatives who spoke before me this morning.

Let us put that at rest and talk about the bill itself. Bill C-42 would give the cabinet new authority to override firearm classification definitions in section 84 of the Criminal Code by way of regulations that would carve out exceptions. Now, by regulation, the cabinet could deem firearms that would otherwise be captured by the definition of prohibited and restricted firearms to be non-restricted firearms. That is a great example of taking away from legislation the authority that was given by Parliament and giving discretionary authority to the cabinet to do what it wishes and to be open now, for the first time, to lobbying by gun interests to make arbitrary changes, should it wish, for political purposes.

That is what we do when we take away from legislation certain powers that are there and provide discretion to the cabinet. It is very clear that this is what is there, and of course, many people talked about that in the committee hearings that led to this legislation at third reading.

The bill would basically transfer the authority over the definitions and classifications to cabinet, rather than leaving it with the public safety emphasis that was previously there. That was so clearly put by the member for Sault Ste. Marie just a moment ago when he talked about the chief firearms officers as bureaucrats and talked in a very pejorative way about the role they play in our system. He would rather have the cabinet make those decisions, I assume, because they are obviously all wise on matters of firearms registration and so forth.

In terms of firearms licencing, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification talked about the grace period as somehow being irrelevant. Much of the testimony talked about how problematic the grace period of six months is. The standard firearms licence is for five years, and then there is a six-month grace period. As part of the process for licence renewal, firearms owners are screened for mental health issues, gauging risks to themselves and others. This assessment can identify potential issues early and assist police in reacting for public safety. Simply providing a grace period of additional time can lead to a delay of the information going to law enforcement, and that is inconsistent with public safety. That is why the witnesses talked about that.

The other part of the bill that has been criticized is the difficulty for some of the people in northern and remote communities to travel to take the test. We certainly agree with this position and salute the government for requiring this mandatory testing, for which aboriginal people have been exempted, which we also agree with. However, there have been concerns expressed about the administration of these new requirements in that context.

There have been concerns, many expressed by the Toronto police department and others, about having the resources needed to deal at the borders with the smuggling of illegal firearms into Canada. What has the government done? As we have seen on television news this week, it has simply cut the Canada Border Services Agency's budget dramatically. For example, by 2014-15, the CBSA's budget will be reduced to $143.3 million a year, with a cut of 1,351 positions, including 325 front-line officers and another 100 intelligence officers. So much for public safety concerns.

I had the honour of going to high school with Wendy Cukier, who is the president of the Coalition for Gun Control. Her organization appeared before the committee that studied the bill. She had some very serious concerns about another aspect of the bill, namely the transportation issue, which we heard about earlier. She said:

We believe that relaxing the controls over the authorizations to transport will increase the risk that these firearms will be misused. If you can transport your firearm to any gun club in the province, it means you can be virtually anywhere with it.

There are people who have spent their lives trying to deal with gun control issues and safety who have expressed very serious concerns about public safety with Bill C-42. There are those who point out that the government talks about safety but at the same time cuts budgets in so many contexts.

The fact that the Quebec government would have to tell us that this is not being done for the sake of public safety suggests that there are many people from many walks of life who have come to the same conclusion I have, and with which I introduced my speech. That is that the government is doing this simply as a wedge-politics issue, simply to draw a wedge, which is not there, on the issue of the gun registry.

When we see words like “common sense” describing the bill, we know the jig is up.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the fact that there were many who tuned in to follow the debate on Bill C-42. I can understand and appreciate why.

There seems to be a mixed spin coming out of the Conservative government, the Prime Minister's Office and from many of the member's colleagues, which does not necessarily speak to truth. Let me give a couple of examples.

On the one hand, members are saying that the Liberals want to bring back the gun registry, and we know that is just not true. The leader of the Liberal Party has been very clear on that issue. A Liberal government would not bring back the gun registry. That is one aspect.

Then there is another aspect that I find really interesting, and that is the lack of general knowledge that the Conservative government does not promote. Kim Campbell, who was a Progressive Conservative prime minister, along with a Conservative senator, came up with the idea of the gun registry, put it on the table and supported it.

Could the member explain why most people are not aware of that fact? Could he also explain why Conservative members are misspeaking inside the House, trying to give a false impression of the Liberal Party's position?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. As its name suggests, it would restore a good deal of common sense to our firearms laws.

For too long, hunters and sports shooters have been treated like criminals for simply wanting to take part in their hobby. These activities are a shared part of our Canadian heritage, and a huge part of my northern Ontario heritage. Although I did not move to northern Ontario until the age of 23, I did not realize how huge a part of the heritage it was until it came time for moose, deer and bird hunting season. Life in northern Ontario really revolves around that, the drive to get that moose tag, and the number of American visitors who come to northern Ontario to take part in that, as well as the number of Torontonians who come to northern Ontario in the hopes of bagging a moose. Therefore, it is an incredible part of our heritage.

It is shameful that decades of previous Liberal governments took steps to try to dissuade people from becoming involved in these activities, whether through needless red tape, the possibility of jail time for good faith errors or processes that stigmatized. These measures did nothing at all to keep Canadians safe. I am proud to be part of a government that rejects this idea and has adopted a safe and sensible approach to firearms policies.

What precisely does this mean? It means that we crack down on dangerous criminals who use guns to commit crimes. That is why we have passed tough new measures to combat drive-by shootings. It also means that we reduce needless burdens for those Canadians who work hard and pay by the rules. That is why we ended the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry once and for all.

It is clear that our approach is working. According to Statistics Canada, the firearms homicide rate in Canada is at its lowest point in nearly 50 years. There has been a 30% decline in the rate of handgun homicides since 2008. In fact, in the year after the gun registry was ended, firearms crime was down by more than 80% in Toronto. This is a strong record of which our Conservative government can be proud. The commons sense firearms act builds on that strong record.

There are three strong measures that will improve public safety.

First and foremost, firearms prohibition orders will be strengthened for those convicted of domestic violence offences. It is clear that having a firearm in a volatile situation like that is dangerous. This change makes good—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, within the legislation, as has been pointed out during the debates, there is a significant change in the way in which guns would be put on the prohibited list, and there is a great deal of concern by Canadians that the government is politicizing it.

Prior to this, we had the professional organization, the RCMP, who had a very good sense of what the community was thinking on the potential benefits and drawbacks of certain weapons with the current system. It could always use some improvement, but the government took the responsibility away from the RCMP in terms of how a weapon or gun would be listed.

Does the member have any concern that we are politicizing something that need not be politicized and that is what Bill C-42 would in fact be doing?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill absolutely continues to ensure safe storage. It is critical, and the bill does maintain that.

I have been in a rural community for many years, and I know how the constituents in my riding feel about the long gun registry, Bill C-42, and indeed perhaps some other adjustments that could be made. I think that if the member for the Northwest Territories were to reflect the wishes of his constituency, not only would he have voted to get rid of the long gun registry, he would be voting for Bill C-42.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

It is certainly an honour for me to stand to address Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. This is a matter that is very important to a large group of people in the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I speak to this bill and some of the specifics, I want to say that as members of Parliament we represent Canadians and our constituency, but we are also here to make decisions for all Canadians. One of the things about making decisions for Canadians is to recognize that there are many differences. Whether it is in regard to the lobster fishery in Prince Edward Island, the transit needs in some of our urban settings, or the common sense that some of our rural communities want, it is incumbent on us to try to understand the desires of the constituents, to respect and reflect that in terms of our culture and heritage, and to have a very common sense and practical approach to the things we put in place.

In this case, the only party that our law-abiding firearms owners can count on to ensure their rights are protected and respected is our Conservative government. We have seen a succession of Liberal governments design policies that treat firearms owners as criminals. This bill represents a balanced approach that would see to it that lawbreakers are punished but that law-abiding firearms owners are rewarded, by cutting the red tape.

I want to reflect a bit on the differences among the parties. Certainly the New Democrats have a paradoxical approach to this in terms of the civilian ownership of firearms. We have many members of the NDP who represent rural areas, from Timmins—James Bay, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Churchill, Sudbury to many others. In their hearts, they clearly knew what their constituents wanted, but they were unwilling to represent their views, especially when it came to the long gun registry. That is an important example.

The member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River told the local radio station that he was ready to break party ranks again if it came to it, that he was ready to draw the line in the sand. However, he did not. It is important to know that the NDP leader was unequivocal, that if he were to form government, he would bring in something that would allow police to track every gun in Canada. He would bring back the long gun registry.

Although the member for Timmins—James Bay tried to reassure his constituents by stating “We're not talking about going back to get every single gauge shotgun up in the attic put into some kind of registry”, it is clear that this is not the case. It is clear that is what the intention is, and that is what the New Democrats' votes reflected when it came to getting rid of the long gun registry.

Of course, the leader is not the only one who is focused on this crusade. The member for Newton—North Delta, for instance, claimed it is bizarre that in the common sense firearms licensing act there would be a six-month grace period when someone's licence expires. This means that the member is perfectly comfortable with turning forgetful Canadians into full-blown criminals. They could face years in prison, even though they are law-abiding citizens who have done due diligence and followed the rules up to the point that they missed the deadline for renewing their licences.

I do not know that there is anyone in this House who has not had car insurance or house insurance, or a gun licence, expire. Does that make them criminals because they miss a deadline? According to the member for Newton—North Delta, it absolutely does. It has to be clear that this grace period would be for protecting law-abiding Canadian citizens.

These people have nothing to do with the gang members in the member's riding. They are people like us who might not have renewed their car insurance. Under the proposed legislation, individuals would not be allowed to purchase new firearms or ammunition, or even use their firearms during that time, but they would not become an overnight criminal as a result of a simple honest mistake.

That truly is common sense, in the same sense that people who forget to renew their car insurance are hopefully not driving their cars because it could be an issue. It is the same with this, but the person is not a criminal.

The legislation treats actual lawbreakers accordingly. It would make firearms prohibition mandatory for serious crimes of domestic violence. We believe that the best indicator of future criminal behaviour is past criminal behaviour. In fact, nearly two-thirds of all those convicted of spousal homicide have a previous history of domestic violence. Hence, it only makes sense to add these prohibitions. It is a very common sense approach.

This legislation would also require that first-time gun owners receive basic firearms safety training. That is absolutely sensible. I do not know that anyone in the opposition should disagree with that. However, opposition members cannot seem to agree among themselves that the long gun registry was ineffective and wasteful, so it is not surprising that even firearms safety training for first-time gun owners would be hard to agree on.

The legislation would also create powers for an elected government to overturn bad classification decisions by the Canadian firearms program. Mistakes have been made, and there needs to be a way to correct them in a way that is respectful of firearms owners. Clearly, the first of such measures would be to return the Swiss Arms family of rifles and the CZ 858 to the classifications they had prior to February 25, 2014.

People have spent their hard-earned money to buy either Swiss Arms rifle or others, and it makes no sense to turn them into criminals overnight. Again, opposition members seemed to think that was okay to do. It was crushing to people who had done the right thing, the legal thing, under a government bureaucratic decision. I do not see how anyone can believe that this reclassification, which changes and devalues people's firearms, is okay.

What would this do? It would end the arbitrary authority given to chief firearms officers. The previous rules have resulted in a nonsensical patchwork across the country. Does it make any sense that it was different between Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario? We need some harmonized standards.

There are eight elements to this bill. We call it the common sense firearms licensing act because there are issues around protection and common sense. This is important to the constituents in my riding.

I had an opportunity to speak to the bill at second reading, and in that speech I relayed that had I only ever lived in an urban setting, I would not have understood the importance of this. I talked about a couple of personal examples in my life, where the farmers who live near me had some life-saving interventions in terms of a cougar and another incident. I would ask people who live in urban areas to try to understand what it means to people in rural areas.

I will be presenting a petition later today, which to me makes some sense. It is not part of this legislation, but it talks about people who spend a lot of time in the woods. We hear about cougar and bear attacks. There is very restricted ability under the Firearms Act in terms of what licensed handgun owners can do. That is perhaps something that we can look at in the future.

I could go on, but the fact is that this legislation would cut red tape for law-abiding firearms owners and punish those who break the law. That is what Canadians expect. Our government has and will continue to stand up for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners while enhancing public safety.