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

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course the member was not here in the 40th Parliament when there was a private member's bill designed to get rid of the long gun registry. He did not see the members who had to be thrown under the bus when the numbers were not right as far as that bill being taken to committee. However, a lot of those who did not vote that way are not here because they did not follow the will of their constituents.

The member is from Quebec. There are many people in Quebec who are proud gun owners and might be a little concerned when he says we are simply protecting the minority of owners, where safety is not important. I do not believe that there is anybody who believes that is the case.

I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that there are people in Quebec who believe that we have to continue to respect gun ownership in this country.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague just said is absolutely right. I was not here in the previous Parliament. I will therefore let him analyze any debates that occurred in the House when I was not here as he sees fit.

However, from what I have seen since I have been here and since we began talking about the transport, possession, purchase and classification of firearms, the New Democratic Party has always been very clear. We are not completely opposed to the idea of people owning weapons for hunting or recreation. We just want to make sure that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that public safety is the priority. We are talking about firearms after all. There is an imminent risk associated with them, and that is what we have always said.

If my colleague wants to know whether the NDP will bring back the Liberals' costly gun registry, I think that the party has been clear about its position, which has been reiterated by our party leader, the member for Outremont.

However, the objective is obviously to make public safety the top priority at all times.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleague asked the Conservative member for Nipissing—Timiskaming a question about certain aspects of the bill relating to the north, and the member replied that the bill was not perfect.

The seven amendments proposed by the opposition parties were rejected. Only the Conservatives' single amendment was accepted. One of the NDP's recommendations was about the north and changes for people who do not live near a place where training is available. None of those recommendations were accepted.

What does my colleague think of that?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her question.

Bill C-42 is an excellent example of the kind of collegiality that no longer exists, as are pretty much all of the other bills the Conservative government has introduced.

As I was saying earlier, the opposition parties do not control the legislative agenda. Nevertheless, it is up to all members of the House, when meeting in committee for a clause-by-clause study of a bill, to propose the best possible amendments to improve the bill.

Even though the Conservative members themselves have acknowledged that the bill is not perfect, they refuse to accept any amendment from any party other than the Conservative Party, as though it were omniscient. That is just amazing. If that is not an outright repudiation of our democratic tools, I do not know what it is.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise today in the House on behalf of the people of Alfred-Pellan to speak to this Conservative bill, 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.

I have been serving the people of Alfred-Pellan for four years now. I am fortunate to be a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and to be the NDP deputy critic for public safety. Therefore, I have been following the debate closely. I wish I could say that it has been a substantive debate, but unfortunately, that is not the case. I attended the debate in committee and took part in the discussions with the various witnesses who came to share their views on Bill C-42. Many interesting points came out of that.

As most of my colleagues know, when it comes to firearms issues, I really like to remind everyone that I myself am a hunter. I have a hunting licence. I have taken the Canadian firearms safety course and the introduction to hunting course. I have the good fortune of coming from a long line of proud hunters and fishers. My female cousins and I are part of the first generation of young women who are taking part in hunting and fishing activities in various regions of Quebec. We are very proud of that. Being forced into a category or into a little box by a Conservative government that says it will protect my rights and my sense of liberty as a hunter—I simply do not believe in that. If you dig a little deeper into Bill C-42 and really look at the various provisions, you see that, basically, the issue of firearms in Canada is being politicized to some degree.

What is coming out of this debate and the positions the Conservatives are taking on the issue is really the politics of dividing Canadians in the various regions of Canada. It is pretty sad to hear the Conservatives brag about being the great defenders of public safety. They should have rallied people around the debate on the firearms legislation and held proper consultations. That is what is missing.

Since my time is quite limited, I will quickly focus on the key points of Bill C-42.

I consulted various groups of experts. I also consulted various police associations to get their take on Bill C-42. The first thing that came up was the lack of consultation on the issue. In fact, most police forces were informed after the fact about what the Conservative government wanted to include in its firearms legislation. I think that is terrible, given that the government is talking about public safety and wants the support of the polices forces that have to enforce these laws.

I consulted various police departments, in Quebec in particular. They told me about their concerns regarding Bill C-42. One of the main concerns has to do with the transportation of firearms. At present, anyone who wants to transport prohibited or restricted firearms to or from a club, shooting range, police station, gun shop, gun show, or port of exit from Canada must have a prescribed route when authorized to transport prohibited or restricted firearms. Unfortunately, these provisions will be eliminated by Bill C-42. The authorizations will be automatically given with the firearms licence, which greatly complicates the work of police officers across the country. The Conservative government would know this had it consulted our police forces.

The second major concern is the classification of firearms. I feel that there is a serious flaw. Quite frankly I am disappointed with the federal government. At present, non-restricted, restricted and prohibited firearms and ammunition are classified under the RCMP's Canadian Firearms Program.

Bill C-42 will give cabinet a new power, namely, the power to circumvent the definitions of the classifications of firearms set out in section 84 of the Criminal Code through a regulation that provides for exceptions.

If that is not politicizing the debate, then I do not know what is. Determining which firearms will be restricted, prohibited or non-restricted is extremely important and it should be done with the help of experts. The people who are appointed to cabinet, regardless of which party is in power, are often highly qualified, but not necessarily in this area. I am really concerned about the government politicizing this debate, because no matter who is in power, they will have the authority to decide how weapons should be classified.

Right now the classification system is working, although it could still be improved. The RCMP manages the system, but the Minister of Public Safety still has to approve any classifications.

I therefore do not know exactly where the Conservatives are going with this or what the Prime Minister has decided to do and what he is telling his colleagues. However, this government is clearly playing divisive politics with this issue. I know that I use the word “deplorable” a lot, but I find this particular situation completely deplorable.

I attended the various hearings that were held with regard to Bill C-42. Many things were said about the bill, but what stood out the most was the lack of consultation. I always talk about Quebec because that is where I am from. My riding of Alfred-Pellan is very close to Montreal. About 80% of the land is agricultural even though it is located on the the island of Laval. We are very close to a very urban area. We have some small, very urbanized areas, but the riding is also quite rural. I am proud to represent such a region. What I am not proud of right now is how the Conservative government is using bills like the one before us today to try to divide Canadians by pitting people living in urban areas against those living in rural areas.

What bothers me the most is that once again, Bill C-42 ignores what Quebec wants. The government did not even consult the Government of Quebec on this. It simply informed the province after the fact. The minister responsible for Canadian intergovernmental affairs said:

This flies in the face of the notion of public safety, the safety of citizens. I think there is a huge disconnect when I hear the federal government say that it is doing this in the name of public safety...

It is rare that I agree with the Liberals, but I have to say that I completely agree with what Mr. Fournier said. I would have liked to see the federal government take its leadership seriously and consult the provinces and territories on a bill as important as this one. The government tried to make it seem as though it was not important and it was just removing some things that should have been gone a long time ago. However, when we look carefully at Bill C-42, we can see that, on the contrary, this bill should have received very broad consultation, so that there was no divisiveness on this particular bill.

I would like to emphasize another point about granting licences. Various police forces I consulted also made this point. This licence can be renewed every five years. The Conservative government wants to permanently create a six-month grace period. Once again, this further complicates the problem that police forces in Quebec and the rest of Canada are dealing with.

I see that my time is almost up. I will endeavour to answer questions from colleagues on both sides of the House as well as I can, but I have to say that I cannot vote in favour of Bill C-42. The policies in it are far too divisive. Once again, the Conservatives are going it alone. They are trying to politicize the debate, an attitude that I utterly deplore.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too was at the committee when the witnesses appeared. I listened very carefully to what they had to say. The police officers were invited to come as witnesses, but as far as I know, only one policeman showed up and he was fine with the bill. He had no problems with it. If they would have had a problem with it, they could have come to committee to give their point of view.

I want to correct a couple of incorrect points the member has made. There is not one thing in the bill that compromises public safety, despite what she has said. The authorization to transport is now being harmonized across Canada. There were provinces that automatically included the ATT in their restricted firearms licence. I know British Columbia had years where one simply applied once and got an ATT.

Another thing is that the classification she complained about was very arbitrary. It did not work. Here is an example. A firearm that was legal in Canada for 10 years was suddenly, arbitrarily, reclassified. It made people criminals and they did not even know about it. We as a government had to correct this mistake.

There are many other things I would like to say that were not correct, but those are a couple examples.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite a stretch for my colleague opposite to claim that if police officers had something to say about the bill, all they had to do was appear before the committee. Frankly, it is appalling. I would remind my colleague that, first of all, we were under a time allocation motion when Bill C-42 was being examined, and second, the details regarding when the committee would hear from witnesses and how many would appear were completely and entirely imposed on us.

As my hon. colleague knows, the Conservatives have a majority, which means that it is the Conservatives who dominate the debate in committee and who decide how many witnesses the committee can have on each side. Why did the police forces that were invited to appear before the committee not show up? There was not enough advance notice and they could not get here in time. They sent documentation instead. I invite the member across the aisle to read the documentation that was sent to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It proves beyond all doubt that Bill C-42 is an affront to Canada's public safety and that those police services do not support it. I invite the member to read what the police services sent to the committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member provide some thoughts with respect to the government being more co-operative. She made reference to consulting, but also co-operation in the House. One of the things it could have done was split the bill. For example, there are some aspects of the legislation that have some value, such as streamlining the licensing paperwork. There are issues of stronger safety training requirements and making it harder to obtain a gun in certain situations, such as a conviction of domestic violence.

I wonder if she might wish to share her thoughts on if the government had split the bill it would have had support for certain aspects of it.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.

The official opposition has often asked that bills be split up so that we can pass the parts that the entire House of Commons agrees on and then discuss the thornier issues in a subsequent bill. Unfortunately, that proposal is rejected every time, as we have seen in the past four years, since the Conservatives have had a majority in the House. Frankly, it is pathetic.

They keep saying that we voted against proposals that we in fact agreed with. At the end of the day, it is quite simply because they impose omnibus bills that, like this one, affect different regulations. This bill affects the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code. It has a number of provisions. The Conservatives often take great delight in forcing us to vote on many pieces of legislation in a single vote, in addition to often imposing time allocation motions to restrict the debate and our opportunity to speak on behalf of the people we represent in the House.

That is a flagrant lack of leadership. Unfortunately, I do not think there is any chance the Conservatives are going to split this bill.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act, but first I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Yukon.

For far too long, law-abiding firearms owners have been treated like common criminals in Canada. They have received this treatment simply for enjoying the Canadian heritage activities of hunting, sport shooting, or simply living off the land.

In fact, former Liberal cabinet minister Allan Rock even said when he came to Ottawa that he came with the firm belief that the only people in Canada who should have firearms are police officers and the military. What a slap in the face for the rural parts of this country.

Our Conservative government could not disagree more with Allan Rock. We believe there should be laws in place to combat the criminal use of firearms, but we also believe that one should not need a law degree to engage in a hobby that is as old as Canada itself.

In other words, we believe in safe and sensible firearms policies. That is why we have taken action to get tough on gang members who are illegally in possession of a firearm. It is also why we have made sentences tougher for those who use firearms to commit crimes. That is why we have made it a specific offence to engage in drive-by or other reckless shootings.

It is also why we scrapped the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. It is why we have taken needless regulations off the books. It is also why we are here today to discuss this important common sense piece of legislation.

I would like to discuss some of the key measures that the bill advances. We will simplify the licensing system by eliminating the possession only licence and converting to a possession and acquisition licence. This will, upon royal assent, give 600,000 people in this country the ability to purchase firearms. That is good news for law-abiding gun owners and good news for business in Canada.

Further, the bill would provide for a six-month grace period at the end of a five-year licence. This would allow individuals who forget to renew their licence to come back in compliance with the law without fear of becoming a criminal simply for making a mistake.

Additionally, the bill would require first-time gun owners to participate in a Canadian firearms safety course and pass that test. Members might think this has always been the case, but previously individuals did not have to participate in a class in order to get their licence. We believe it is important that all gun owners have a solid understanding of how to handle their firearms safely.

Some have said that this will lead to those who have held a possession only licence for many years to have to take this course in order to receive their new converted licence. It is absolutely not true, not intended, and is not the case.

What is more, the bill would end the needless paperwork surrounding the authorization to transport restricted firearms. Rather than requiring endless forms and red tape, the bill would effectively make a gun owners licence also the authorization to transport. Some have raised concerns that this provision will lead to some sort of concealed carry notion, which is also absolutely not true. All safe handling procedures will remain in place, such as disabling the unloaded firearm and placing it in a locked container prior to transporting it.

In addition, the bill would end the arbitrary and discretionary authority of chief firearms officers in Canada. Firearms laws should be applied consistently across Canada. There should not be discrepancies between one province to another. It is ineffective and causes a lot of confusion for law-abiding citizens of this country. Unelected officials should not be making decisions that potentially impact the property rights of millions of Canadians.

On top of that, the bill would end the problem of arbitrary and unfair reclassification of firearms, which we saw as recently as in the last couple of years. Last February, thousands of Canadians were rendered criminals overnight by a mere stroke of some bureaucrat's pen. There was not one elected official who had been consulted about this decision. Our government disagrees with the decision specifically, and also disagrees with this process generally. That is why this bill would give the elected government an oversight mechanism to reverse ill-considered classification decisions made by bureaucrats.

Lastly, the bill would strengthen the Criminal Code provisions related to firearms prohibition orders. When someone is convicted of a serious domestic violence offence, they would automatically be barred from possessing firearms. There is a sound reason for that. According to police-reported data, in 2011 there were almost 95,000 victims of family violence in Canada, accounting for one-quarter of all victims of police-reported violent crimes. Between 2000 and 2010, two-thirds of spouses accused of homicide had a family history of violence involving the victim. That is why this bill is so important. It would reduce red tape for law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters, but it would also refine our gun control system, making it more effective and more sensible.

We have heard where the other parties stand. The Liberal leader has said that if he had to vote again today, he would vote to keep the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. The Liberal member for Trinity—Spadina said that emotional reasons from firearm advocates was not enough evidence to continue to allow ammunition to be sold to the Canadian public. The NDP leader has been clear about his desire to bring back the long gun registry, recently calling the data contained therein “useful data”. However, he seems to know that Canadians from the west and the north have no time for such bureaucratic schemes. Speaking in the Yukon, the NDP leader said that he would not consider bringing back the registry. Which is it? I guess that depends on who the leader is talking to: the press gallery here in Ottawa, or the average everyday citizen of the west or the north.

It is about making firearms policies safe and sensible. It is about good old-fashioned common sense. I am proud to stand up to support this legislation, and I hope every member of this House will do the same.

Canada is a large and diverse country with a historic background of hunting, angling, and outdoor life. This legislation supports law-abiding citizens from coast to coast to coast, and I ask all members of this House to stand up and support it.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my riding mentioned, so I thought I would rise to ask a question about the sale of ammunition in cities, in particular hollow-point bullets. These bullets are known as cop killers because they can pierce the armour that protects our first responders.

Does the party opposite not believe that the safety of our first responders, and police officers in particular, should be paramount as we craft any firearms controls? Do the Conservatives not believe that there should be restrictions on selling ammunition, particularly in urban centres where it is not used for any rational purpose?

No one is hunting squirrels in downtown Toronto that I am aware of. Is there not a case to be made that our first responders be protected by making sure that the powerful ammunition which is not used in hunting, and in the recreational or cultural capacity that was spoken to, be restricted? Is there no value to restricting those sorts of things in dense urban areas?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Well, Mr. Speaker, the parties opposite like to talk about supporting first responders, but when it came time to vote for the firefighters tax credit, of course, they voted against it.

In terms of firearms legislation, all one has to do is to look at some of the changes we have made to make sure we crack down on criminals in this country that were not supported by the members opposite.

After the tragedy last year in Moncton where three RCMP officers were slain, we brought forward legislation that ensured the perpetrator of that heinous crime was going to serve three consecutive life sentences. Previous to that legislation, that person would have only served one life sentence, or three life sentences at the same time. We made changes. Those parties across the way voted against that. If they had their way, that person would have been out in 25 years and would have been in his fifties. Now he will be in jail until he is 98 years old.

We stand up and support our first responders. We will take no lessons from them about how to support our police officers, our firefighters, our search and rescue officials in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the Leader of the Opposition, and I want to read a quote from something he said on December 3, 2014 and get the member's comments on it. The Leader of the Opposition stated:

I think that it is possible to provide the police with the tools to better protect the public and themselves by making sure they’re able to follow every gun, and it doesn’t have to be the registry as it was before. But it does have to be a form that allows the governments, federal and provincial, to keep track of those guns. That’s our bottom line.

My question for the member is this: What is his interpretation of that comment from the Leader of the Opposition?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and it floats like a duck, it is likely a duck. What New Democrats are talking about is the resurgence of the long gun registry in this country. Does it matter how we track the guns, if we are tracking the guns? That is the point that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make. He likes to say one thing in one part of the country. When he is in the east, he likes to talk about bringing back the long gun registry and tracking everybody's guns and weapons, but when he is in the west or the rural parts of this nation, he says he would never bring back the long gun registry. We see the hypocrisy in that.

Everyone can count on our government to be consistent and clear that no matter where we are in this country, whether it is downtown Toronto or in the Yukon, we will never support the resurgence of the long gun registry in Canada.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member just talked about a duck. You do not have to believe me, but when you shoot at a duck, the most you will get is a loud “quack quack”. It is not going to turn into a Stuka and it is not going to bombard you with napalm. We are talking about a duck.

Farmers who want to guard against foxes do not need a machine gun. We are talking about a fox. Could we agree that some firearms are dangerous, that they should not be owned by just anybody and that regulations are needed? Anyone who goes duck hunting with a machine gun capable of bringing down a MiG probably has a problem between the ears, and it is perhaps a good thing that they cannot get that type of weapon.