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

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to discuss an important piece of legislation that would protect the property rights of millions of Canadians. I am, of course, referring to Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. This legislation will, among other things, remove needless paperwork around the authorization to transport restricted and prohibited firearms and the arbitrary powers of chief firearms officers, and give elected government the final say over firearms classification decisions.

I would like to take this opportunity today to clarify some falsehoods, mistruths and inaccuracies that have been put forth by Liberals and New Democrats over the course of the debate on this legislation.

First, the Liberals put out an advertisement to try to bolster their sub-par fundraising numbers, which claimed that under the bill, the sky would fall and there would be handguns in the trunks of all cars at shopping malls and grocery stores from coast to coast. We all know this is nonsense. There are clear locations where restricted firearms can be taken that are laid out in the regulations under the Firearms Act, and anyone who has read the bill knows that those do not change.

However, the member for Yukon did his due diligence. During committee study of this important bill, he asked the Assistant Deputy Minister for Community Safety and Countering Crime, a non-partisan public servant, if the Liberal advertisement was accurate, and her response was no. We all know the penchant of bureaucrats for speaking in circles. That is pretty clear and simply condemnation of the leader of the Liberal Party and his inaccurate material.

We also heard from the Liberal member for Trinity—Spadina making a moral equivalency between hunters and terrorists. This type of ridiculous hyperbole would be offensive if we did not consider the source. This was the very same member who had previously called for a ban on the sale of bullets as a solution to gun crime.

Let us look at the facts. Based on the evidence from Statistics Canada, Canadians are 26 times more likely to die from a slip and fall than a firearms accident or homicide. They are 24 times more likely to die from a car accident, three times more likely to die while swimming, and equally as likely to die in a bicycle accident as a death involving firearms.

Clearly the Liberals do not have the ability to set appropriate priorities when balancing private property rights against public safety. Perhaps a ban on bicycles would be the next big Liberal policy.

When we talk about factual inaccuracies, New Democrats do not fare much better. First, the leader of the NDP has said that he would bring back the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. He even said that he wanted to track every firearm in Canada. This is despite the fact that the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay was very clear when he said that the NDP would never bring forward measures to require registration of shotguns and rifles.

Rural Canadians want to know who is it who really speaks for New Democrats, because they seem to have different messages in downtown Ottawa and Montreal than they do in rural Canada.

It is not only confusion in their own ranks that New Democrats suffer from. They seem to also have a disconnect with reality. The NDP member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said a number of times that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness personally authorized the reclassification of the Swiss Arms and CZ-858 rifles. This is clearly inaccurate. However, I wanted to take the time to do the due diligence. I looked up the database of all orders in council, and I could not find a single one pertaining to this one.

Clearly, what occurred is a unilateral reclassification by the Canadian firearms program, with no notice to elected officials. It is important that we change this immediately as it flies in the face of democratic principles. These unfortunate comments were made by the same member who berated two expert witnesses in the public safety committee before ending his tirade with, “Well, I'm not sure there's any point in continuing to ask you any questions, then, if you're right on everything you've already said to us.” It is clear that there is an anti-gun bias across the aisle. These people simply will not rest until they have prohibited all firearms in Canada.

However, it seems that the NDP and Liberals continue to believe that hunting and sport shooting are the remit of backward rural folks. The fact of the matter is that they are wrong. A low estimate puts about four million Canadians being involved in these activities each year.

I will quote Greg Farrant with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, who said before the public safety committee:

Firearms owners in Canada are judges, lawyers, farmers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, accountants, even federal politicians,...[who] live in and represent urban ridings. They are not criminals. They are not gang members. Rather, they are lawful firearms owners who obey the law.

However, it is clear that the message has not yet sunk in across the aisle. Some Liberal and NDP members have taken the debate on firearms issues as an opportunity to engage in a drive-by smear of outdoor enthusiasts by saying that those who want to be able to obey clear rules are part of an American-style gun lobby or are advocating for a return to, as one NDP member from Quebec said, the wild west gun laws. This is patently ridiculous and offensive to the millions of law-abiding Canadian gun owners. However, they will hear from their constituents in a few short months from now on whether there is support for safe and sensible measures, such as the bill before us today.

I look forward to telling my constituents why I support cutting red tape on law-abiding Canadians. I hope that those who choose to oppose this much-needed bill will be able to face the questions that are undoubtedly coming their way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. My problem is not with firearms as such, but rather with this bill that seems flawed, to say the least. I will get into that a little later.

Nonetheless, I read the bill carefully, hoping to find one or two things that might be interesting. I thought the mandatory firearms safety course was a good idea, but unfortunately it will be impossible to offer such a course to the broader community, in the remote and northern regions.

I would like my colleague to tell me how they plan to ensure that this common sense measure can truly apply across the country.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. I was proud to have the intent of this bill introduced in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming last summer. The minister indicated that is the direction we are working on, reducing red tape and reducing all the idiotic, archaic rules. That is what we intend to do.

This will probably be the first of a number of bills, but this is a good start and a good direction. We are moving to reduce red tape and the stigma of treating law-abiding hunters, sport shooters and farmers like common criminals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the fact that it is not a perfect bill, and we all know it is not a perfect bill. There are certain aspects of the legislation, and these include streamlining; licensing of paperwork, which is perceived as a positive thing; stronger safety training requirements, which everyone seems to support; and making it harder to be able to obtain a gun under a conviction of domestic disputes, that could have passed long ago if, in fact, the bill had been broken into two parts. There are certain aspects of it that would make it safer for our communities.

My question for the member is, why does he believe the government was not prepared to break the legislation into two parts so that we could have had that first part, the non-controversial but relatively good part, actually pass long ago?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill has a number of parts. The bill, in my view, is a good start to reducing red tape. We are going with all the parts. We are not reducing one part or another part. We are going with all the parts because we believe that this is a comprehensive good start to reducing red bureaucratic tape. We are going to continue with this start and we will continue in this direction over the coming years to further reduce red tape against law-abiding hunters, farmers and sportsmen.

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

Mr. Speaker, previously, the member for Winnipeg North had talked about firearms being left in vehicles and vehicles being stolen. Bill C-42 would deal specifically with restricted and prohibited weapons.

Would the member explain to this House the obligations of a law-abiding gun owner to acquire both a PAL and an ATT and jeopardize leaving a firearm in a vehicle?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the essential parts of the bill, that the PAL and POL would be merged. I think it is one of the hallmarks of the bill. Certainly, when I listen to gun owners, long gun owners, in my riding, that is one of the bugbears of existing legislation. We helped to improve that with this legislation by merging the POL and the PAL.

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

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Alfred-Pellan, since once again, Bill C-42 has all the characteristics of most of the Conservatives' bills. One of those characteristics is that it is subject to a time allocation motion, which was moved as quickly as possible after the bill was introduced, thereby depriving many members of their right to speak in the House and especially of the right to make the voices of their constituents heard. In order to allow as many people as possible to participate in this debate, I will be sharing my time with the member for Alfred-Pellan.

Some things that characterize this government are the many in camera meetings and the rush jobs that are done in committee, and this also seems to be the case with Bill C-42. Something that seems odd to me and that I am having trouble understanding is that the previous speaker, to whom I asked a question, said right away in his answer that the bill was not perfect. Perfection may be difficult if not impossible to achieve, but that makes it even more difficult to understand another characteristic of how this government does things, and that is the fact that the government does not accept any amendments. If the government already knows that its bill is not perfect and that the role of every opposition member is to try to improve the bill, since we are not in charge of the legislative agenda, then it is strange that the government hardly ever accepts any of the amendments proposed for any of its bills.

Bill C-42, introduced by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is sadly reminiscent of some of this government's signature approaches. I want to mention a few others, which have unfortunately become classics. These include systematically using wedge politics, for example, by dividing rural and urban Canadians on sensitive issues such as firearms, as though these two groups should be at odds with each other, which is not the case. Another classic—and I am making an assumption here, but I want to mention it anyway because it seems increasingly obvious—is attempting to use public safety issues to camouflage their lack of economic vision or, at the very least, their poor economic performance in spite of a vision that we could debate at length. Obviously, the third classic is seeking to satisfy the interests of lobbyists at the expense of the public interest.

I would perhaps even add a fourth Conservative classic: their unquestionable ability to choose short titles for their bills. It is hard to be even more sarcastic when the short title in this case is the common sense—I would even say simplistic—firearms licensing act. I would not be surprised if the gun lobby itself named this bill.

I oppose Bill C-42, which means that I also oppose the culture of fear, the divisiveness and the Manichaeism that the Conservatives seek to implant in each of their initiatives. By trying to politicize the firearms issue at all costs, the Conservatives are completely missing the mark. The bill would give firearms owners who may have forgotten to renew their licence a six-month grace period. Very well. I agree that this can happen to anyone. I once forgot to renew my driver's licence. I paid the fees. I was not sent to prison and did not get a criminal record, but I got a fine reminding me of my duty as a citizen.

This legislative provision disregards the most basic principles of public safety. Let us not forget that this grace period will deprive police services of information on gun owners for six months. Every time an owner renews his firearms licence, the process requires evaluations to detect mental health problems. By identifying psychological issues, the process prevents risky behaviour by some firearms owners. However, the six-month grace period short-circuits the effectiveness of that preventive evaluation and could put our fellow citizens' safety at risk.

By instituting this potentially harmful measure, the Conservatives are showing their desire to satisfy a minority represented by lobbyists at the expense of the public interest. However, winning political points seems to be one of the main goals of this government's legislative agenda.

As I continued to study this bill, I nevertheless gleaned what was probably, in any event, the only good provision in Bill C-42. The bill would require each applicant to take the Canadian firearms safety course. I was just about to applaud, but I held back as I thought it was too good to be true. As I continued reading I found out that I was right.

This course would be given by an instructor designated by a provincial chief firearms officer, whose powers are constantly being eroded. Although the fact that the bill requires this course proves that all is not lost and that we can hope for signs that we are making progress with this government, we must recognize that the Conservatives' goodwill is quite limited, since this course, the only course, will not be readily available to people living in rural or remote areas. Once again, we run up against the Conservatives' old habits in the legislation, which we might call a legislative mirage rather than a legislative measure. Furthermore, Bill C-42 weakens the current legislation that governs the transport of firearms. No one should trust the Conservatives when it comes to implementing the necessary security measures for firearms.

Let us not forget that under the current provisions, firearms owners are required to have authorization to transport to carry their firearms. Bill C-42 makes it possible for owners to get the authorization to transport as soon as they receive their licence. As soon as someone receives their licence, the authorization to transport is automatically issued. There again the Conservatives are demonstrating their will to dismantle weapons transport regulations and potentially harm public safety just to please a voter base.

This measure will have its share of adverse effects because it will make it easier to transport prohibited and restricted firearms. Bill C-42 will truly cause problems for police forces in their fight against the unauthorized transport of firearms. That is why any change to the Firearms Act has to be done carefully and with the primary goal of improving public safety, a goal that was far from met according to my reading of this bill.

Since deregulating the transportation of firearms does not even remotely satisfy the gargantuan appetite of some lobbyists, the Conservatives are now wondering why they should not go even further and tackle the firearms classification standards. To carry out their agenda, the Conservatives stuck to their pattern of centralizing, another tactic that this government has used over and over from the beginning: concentrate the powers in the hands of the minister. With Bill C-42, Public Safety could have the power to set the definitions and classifications of firearms.

I cannot believe I have so little time, but I assume that is because I agreed to share my speaking time. I will wrap things up, since I am running out of time, but I still want to briefly recap the reasons why I oppose this bill. Bill C-42 embodies the Conservatives' philosophy of taking a simplistic and strictly election-minded view of problems. The main objective of this bill is to pander to a minority of firearms owners for whom safety is an afterthought.

True to form, the Conservatives are driving a wedge between Canadians in different communities. I urge all members to vote against this dangerous and ineffective bill.

[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.