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

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development only has about 45 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, 45 seconds will be all it takes.

We have regulations in this country. We do not allow people to walk the streets with machine guns. Hunters do not use machine guns in the streets to hunt animals. In Canada, there are sensible firearms regulations. That is what this bill is all about. It is about common sense.

I have no idea what the member opposite is talking about. Hunters and anglers in this country, people who like to be in the outdoors, want solid firearms regulations. They want to be able to follow the rules. All we are doing is passing sensible regulations to ensure that they are treated fairly, because these are honest, hard-working people.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of Bill C-42. Also, I am very happy to be joined by my colleague and friend from Wetaskiwin.

We have a number of members in the House of Commons on this side of the House who join me on the hunting and angling caucus. They do a lot of great work to promote and preserve Canada's rich and proud heritage of hunting, trapping, and sport shooting, and of course, the farmers who use in firearms in Canada as a day-to-day tool. They support a traditional and positive way of life and, indeed, a healthy way of life.

I will spend a bit of time talking about the value of firearms and what role they play in the country and then specifically about Bill C-42.

I was pleased to substitute on the public safety committee when we were reviewing the bill and the committee was undertaking the study. We heard a lot of things from witnesses, and one of the things that stood out for me was some testimony from Greg Farrant, who represents the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Mr. Farrant is tuned in, clearly, to a lot of the debate that has gone on with the bill. He understood what was going on and in fact provided testimony as the government was introducing legislation to get rid of the long gun registry.

The one point he made that really stood out was his reflection on the size of the community that engages in hunting and trapping activities in the province of Ontario and right across Canada. He said that we always get branded, and I say “we”, because I come from a long, proud tradition and history of hunting. I grew up in the Yukon territory doing that as a wonderful way of life as well and will well into my future. I say “we” in that sense. We get branded by the opposition as being part of the gun lobby, as though that is said in some sort of pejorative sense. That is what Greg Farrant said. He said that we are always branded as a gun lobby, as though that is a bad thing.

Let us talk about what the gun lobby is. We say it with pride, and we say it with the understanding, on this side of the House, of what exactly the gun lobby represents in Canada. It is not the negative, pejorative term that anyone should hide their head from and be ashamed of. What does that gun lobby do? That gun lobby participates in hunting heritage activities. It contributes millions of dollars to conservation in this country. In fact, a recent study from the United States indicates that the group four times more likely than any other group to put their sweat equity and their cash into conservation is the hunting group. That is right. Hunters are four times more likely than any other group to put their money, their time, and their effort into the valuable principles of conservation. That is something they should be applauded for.

Instead, in return, what the opposition does is call them the gun lobby, as though that is some sort of evil moniker they should hide from and have a shadow over them for.

I say that they need to stand and be proud of that one simple fact. They are the ones out there on the land. They are the ones who first recognized the need for the protection and preservation of our environmental heritage. They are the ones who recognize the depletion or the need for conservation practices and principles in a particular area or a particular region for a particular species. It is not only the species they hunt. It is the species, the streams, the habitats, the lakes, and the forests that contribute to the life processes of the wildlife populations in our country. Those people are the ones who are responsible for the abundance, the protection, and the preservation of the wildlife, lakes, land, and water in our nation.

There is no accidental abundance of wildlife in Canada. There is no accidental protection and preservation of the wilderness. There is no accidental protection and preservation of the lakes, rivers, and streams in this country.

How does that happen? Where does that come from? It is from the gun lobby: the hunters, the anglers, the trappers, the sport shooters, and the athletes, the people who own guns and carry guns and spend time in the wilderness.

Where do we get our safety laws from? We did not create them here in the House of Commons, did we? No. Anyone who owns a gun in this country knows, as ethical, safe, law-abiding people in Canada, that they were the first to promote and teach safe ways of handling firearms. They were the ones who developed the 10 rules of firearms safety that those on the other side of the House could not list three of but that probably 90% of the members on this side of the House know inside and out, as though they are a bible to us. They were created by the hunting community and not by politicians.

We can thank the gun lobby. We can thank the conservationists. We can thank the hunters, the trappers, the sport shooters, and the athletes in the country who use firearms in a safe, responsible, and ethical way every single day in this country for the fundamental rules we now call laws.

Is it not ironic that we are here standing up to defend, change, or alter the very laws that this community itself generated? That is because it understands that firearms come with responsibilities. They are a tool to protect and preserve an important way of life, but they do come with responsibilities. It was those groups, not the House of Commons and not the provincial legislatures, that first created those laws.

I am proud to talk about the measures we are taking in Bill C-42 to ensure that those people who created those laws and do so much for the conservation, preservation, and protection of a great way of life in this country are not burdened by red tape that is unnecessary, are not considered criminals at first blush, and are not considered criminals because of paperwork errors.

Bill C-42 will merge the possession and POL licences to give people more opportunities to own firearms, to simplify things, and to reduce some of the red tape. It will merge some of the ATT conditions in just one licence so that there is a condition for that licence instead of a whole bunch of other papers of authorization, which can inadvertently trip people up and in fact make it more difficult for law enforcement to determine whether a person is in legal possession of a restricted firearm when he or she is going to and from a range. The bill contains sensible measures so that people can transport firearms to shooting ranges, gun shops, a police station, or a point of entry, all things they could do in the past but that can now all be on one licence instead of multiple licences.

Bill C-42 will also take another step to balance responsible firearm ownership and public safety. It will introduce stricter penalties for people convicted of domestic violence and stricter conditions for people involved in violent behaviour and violent activity. Who asked for that? It is the gun lobby, the firearms community, those responsible gun owners. They are every bit as offended, if not more offended, by the illegal and unlawful use of firearms as anyone in this House could possibly be, because it affects that community greatly when someone steps out of line or uses a firearm in an illegal and inappropriate manner. That is not what they taught long before we put laws in place, and it is not what they teach in the present day. Of course they are supportive of the stricter public safety measures we are putting in place. At the same time, they do not want to be treated as criminals for simple paperwork errors.

The bill will reduce red tape and formalize some of the provisions that did not have clear guidelines before, such as the rules and regulations around the determination of what the CFOs can do. Arbitrary decisions were being made from one province to the next that left everyone in a state of confusion, because they were not clear-cut. This legislation will make clear what CFOs can do and what terms and conditions they can and cannot put in place so that firearms owners, the general public, and the law enforcement community have certainty and we do not see decisions like the one made by a CFO in Ontario, who arbitrarily decided that any firearms owner wanting to go to a range with a restricted weapon needed an invitation from another range. That was not spelled out in any piece of legislation at all. It was an invention of a CFO. Clearly, firearms owners need to know what is a reasonable restriction and a reasonable condition on their licence that cannot be made up. This bill will provide that.

I will leave members with this thought. One in every five Canadians participates in hunting, trapping, and sport shooting activities in this country. They contribute $15.5 billion to the Canadian economy. This side of the House, this party, and this government will stand up for law-abiding firearms owners every single day. While I would like to encourage the members of the opposition to get on board and help support these measures in Bill C-42, it was clear from their testimony at committee that they have no intention of doing that, which is all the better for us. We will be the party that stands up for law-abiding firearms owners.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the seriousness of my colleague's presentation.

With regard to duck hunting, it was decided, through regulations and international conventions, that hunting rifles cannot contain more than three shells, to give the game the chance to escape and to prevent overhunting.

We do it for ducks. Unfortunately, we too often allow firearms to which a magazine that can hold 60, 50 or 40 extra rounds can be attached to be sold over the counter. Incidentally, it is legal to go hunting with this type of firearm with 40 rounds.

My colleague thinks this is amusing, but I would like to point out that the most recent mass murders in Canada were committed with this type of weapon. He thinks this is ridiculous and funny. He is typically Tory. We cannot expect a Conservative to understand the danger of a firearm.

Since there are stringent regulations to make certain firearms less dangerous, why do we not apply those regulations to every firearm?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that clearly illustrates for all Canadians how out of touch the opposition members are when it comes to this.

The reason there are three shells allowed in a shotgun for the purpose of migratory bird hunting, and that alone, is so that when ducks get out of range, people are not firing a fourth and fifth shot at a duck and wounding it. That is a condition put in place because of the ethics and values of the hunting community. It is a responsibility the hunting community wanted put into law.

I have never seen a shotgun in my life that holds 40 rounds. That is just so absurd I do not know whether to laugh or cry at that question.

If they want to talk about extended mags, which I think the member was trying to drive at, clearly he does not know that there is trapshooting in the Olympic Games, which athletes use shotguns with more rounds than that for. There is trapshooting at ranges, where they can use more than three rounds. There are many purposes for shotguns that are not illegal.

There is this conspiracy theory being generated. It is unbelievably bizarre to hear that any member in this House of Commons would think there is a shotgun on the market today that holds 40 rounds. I would love to see it, but it does not exist.

This is clearly what we are up against.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member from the north talk about the heritage and the cultural values and the safe use of firearms in hunting and in conservation. I do not dispute that story line. However, in urban areas, we deal with the fact that since 1996, close to 65,000 guns in this country have been lost or stolen. Those guns, when they show up in urban areas, cause trouble like we saw in my riding last week, where a young man was shot and a house was shot up.

My question is this: How does making it easier to bring a gun into the city, easier to travel around a city with a gun, and easier to use a gun in a city, where no one is hunting ducks, no one is hunting raccoons, and no one is going after the squirrel population, make our cities safe while we also respect the culture and the values that were spoken to?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we have very clear safe-storage laws in this country. None of that would change under Bill C-42.

What the member is forgetting is that when someone steals a gun, that is criminal intent and criminal purpose with those guns, and we have laws to deal with that. I encourage the member to support all the initiatives we have put in place to deal with that criminal kind of behaviour.

Let me quickly educate that member about this one fact. There are half a million hunters in the province of Ontario, and if he thinks none of them live in Toronto, he is out of his mind. Perhaps he is suggesting that we should have some firearms repository outside of the city of Toronto where people could store their firearms.

The member is clearly ignoring the thousands and thousands of lawful firearms owners who live in the city of Toronto and who engage in hunting activities right across the province of Ontario and right across Canada each and every day. We will stand up for them, while he ignores them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The member for Gatineau will have only 11 or 12 minutes for her speech.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time.

I have listened to just about the whole debate, in my office as well as here in the House.

I would like to speak on behalf of the people of Gatineau and the different groups with which I have had good discussions and have spoken at length about all the Conservative government's bills. They agree with the NDP's position on firearms, in the broad sense, and they agree that Bill C-42 provides a good example of the difficulty this government has of striking the right balance between security and rights.

This is also apparent with Bill C-51. The Conservatives have difficulty striking a balance between security and human rights. Furthermore, they always try to divide and conquer. That is probably what is frustrating in the long run. Bill C-42 is a fine example of this dysfunctional Parliament.

This week is our fourth-last week in the House. When I look at everything that we accomplished in four years, it is nothing but an endless list of bills. Members on the government benches simply tried to always take a stand against us, although all 308 of us here in the House are supposed to be here to improve the well-being of our constituents and of Canadians across the country.

All afternoon, after question period, members on the Conservative benches kept trying to imply that our questions on Bill C-42 meant that we were against hunters and against law-abiding firearm owners. I think that is absolutely simplistic and insulting.

We have all kinds of people in our ridings and in our caucus who are proud hunters, who follow the law and do things the right away, and who respect firearms. Our colleagues opposite are making it sound as though our questioning of the merits of a bill and what it truly aims to do means that they support hunters and we are against them.

If you look closely, you can see that more than half of the 16 pages of this bill have absolutely nothing to do with cutting red tape.

I am looking at the titles, and I know that others before me have mentioned this, but I still do not understand why the short titles in English and French do not say the same thing. In French, it is Loi visant la délivrance simple et sécuritaire des permis d'armes à feu. The word “sécuritaire” is in the bill.

However, in English it says, “This Act may be cited as the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act”.

As the justice critic, I have often said that the devil is in the details with the Conservative government. That is the kind of careful approach we have to take to the work the people have sent us here to do.

Nearly 70% of the population did not vote for this government. Those people have the right to be heard in the House and to tell the government to be careful. Saying that does not automatically mean that we are against all aspects of this bill.

When I gave my speech at second reading, there was time allocation. That is the other trend that shows how dysfunctional this Parliament is because nearly all of the bills have been subject to time allocation.

The government dragged its heels on Bill C-42 for a long time.

That was the bill we were supposed to debate the day after the events of October 22. If that bill was so good, so simple and so extraordinary, why did the government take it off the agenda only to reintroduce it five or six months later under a time allocation motion? The government dragged its feet and tried to sweep this under the rug so as not to get people too worked up, because, as one member said, there was reason to believe that some serious problems could arise in urban centres.

While my colleagues from rural areas are asking us to understand the needs of hunters, sport shooters and gun collectors, my colleagues from urban areas are making a heartfelt appeal to all those law-abiding gun owners, telling them that there is a serious problem in urban centres. Can we not just sit down together and try to find solutions that meet everyone's needs? That is not naive or sentimental; it is simply to say that, with goodwill and by working together, we can do good things.

It is possible to eliminate the irritants that are hurting law-abiding gun owners who might have made a small mistake with their registration, for they certainly do not deserve to be left with a criminal record. I completely agree, but can we also do something to make sure that we are not making things easier for gun and weapon smugglers and that we are not making the classification of weapons so simplistic and easy that it leads to serious problems? That is our most fundamental duty.

The Conservatives like to personally attack us because of some of the positions we take. Some Conservatives go so far as to try to hurt us in press releases and in front of certain groups. I am relatively active with Les Membres Sportifs de Gatineau, a hunting and fishing club. I get together with the members often. I like chatting with them. They organize activities, and one day I will very likely go with them because I am a girl who likes to commit wholeheartedly, not just with words but also with actions, unlike the Conservative government.

When the long gun registry was created, those people told me that it made them feel like criminals, but they absolutely were not. The Conservatives capitalized on that. Instead of getting rid of the sticking points related to the registry, they used it as a blunt instrument to divide Canadians. The vast majority of Canadians, if not all of them, know full well that hunting and biathlon are not being eliminated. I have no intention of doing so.

Some young cadets in my riding recently won awards in biathlon competitions. It is extraordinary to see them. Nonetheless, they learn at an early age how to handle a weapon properly and they know full well that it is like a car. They know they have to be careful when they use it and they cannot proceed any old way. There are rules.

This bill has some extremely disturbing aspects. Again, it is not about reducing red tape. It includes a number of criminal provisions and gives cabinet the regulatory power to make classification changes, which is worrisome.

My colleagues who are members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security worked hard on getting rid of these sticking points through amendments, which would have allowed us to support the bill.

As usual, the Conservative members of the committee are unfortunately always told to say no to the opposition's requests, even the reasonable ones.

I will proudly vote against this bill. Once again, I wish continued success to all Canadian hunters. I am not against them.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier on, one of the NDP speakers said, on bringing back the costly Liberal gun registry, that the party had other plans.

Could the hon. member comment on what the Liberal leader had indicated back on December 3, 2012. He said, “I voted to keep the firearms registry a few months ago and if we had a vote tomorrow I would vote once again to keep the long-gun registry”.

Exactly two years to the day, on December 3, 2014, he said he, “would not reinstate the gun registry, even in a modified form, because it's simply too divisive”. Of course, that would be political suicide. Then he said, “There are other ways to reduce gun violence...including through the classification of restricted and prohibited firearms and through the requirements imposed on the purchase of firearms”, speaking about getting rid of the bullets, taking away property.

Are the New Democrats and the Liberals looking at a joint plan as far as the gun registry?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was absolutely fascinating.

I will not even attempt to explain the Liberal leader ever in the House. It is something way too complicated for me and for any Canadian, I think.

We have been clear. There is one sentence he said that is true. As justice critic and as the person who was kind of in the lead on the long gun registry position in our party, it is absolutely not our intention to bring back the long gun registry. Our leader was clear.

The fact that we help police around the country does not mean we will be back to the way when the Liberals installed the registry in the 1990s, which created many problems and was so costly. Therefore, there will be no recreation of the registry. For the rest, let us read what the leader of the third party said a bit more.

The House resumed from May 25 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.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to speak to Bill C-42, which would amend the Firearms Act, the Criminal Code and the Customs Act, thereby changing the legislation governing firearms licences and the transport and classification of firearms and limiting the powers of provincial and territorial chief firearms officers.

I do not have enough time to discuss all of the provisions in this bill, so I will focus on two specific elements.

First, what baffles me about this bill is that it gives the Minister of Public Safety the power to decide how to classify firearms.

Basically, if memory serves, in 2014, after conducting an analysis that got a lot of press, the RCMP decided to reclassify Swiss Arms Classic Green and CZ858 firearms. These firearms were originally classified as restricted, but the RCMP reclassified them as prohibited. Why? Because the RCMP determined that these firearms could easily be converted into automatic weapons.

What did we find out a few weeks later? We found out that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was not very happy about that decision and granted an amnesty for individuals who already owned those guns. Then, to ensure that such a situation does not happen again, since the minister did not have the power to reverse the decision, he introduced Bill C-42 to grant himself those powers.

At this time, all ammunition and firearms, regardless of the type of gun, whether prohibited or not, are classified by the RCMP, then approved by the minister. When the RCMP makes a decision, the minister cannot reverse that decision.

Furthermore, standards governing the classification of new products—in other words, new guns—the modification of firearms or ammunition, and even the review of information on classification are set out in the Criminal Code. Bill C-42 grants the minister another new power whereby, by regulation of course, and through exceptions, the minister can determine on his own, in his infinite wisdom, how firearms will be classified, obviously bypassing the RCMP and the Criminal Code.

What does this mean, in concrete terms? This means that the minister could decide, by regulation, to classify guns that would normally fit the definition of a prohibited or restricted weapon as non-restricted firearms. He could even decide that weapons that are normally prohibited could be restricted or non-restricted. He could therefore decide that even automatic weapons could be classified as restricted or non-restricted. Basically, this bill puts the power to decide whether a weapon should be prohibited in Canada into the hands of a politician, the public safety minister.

If the RCMP no longer has a say in firearms classification, then who is going to advise the minister? The RCMP is the appropriate body to do so and has the experience with firearms, having seen a few. Is the firearms lobby going to advise the minister as to whether or not a firearm is prohibited? Will Gary Mauser, their big expert they keep talking about here in the House, step in? He wrote a very good book that I invite my colleagues to read, entitled “Manipulating Public Opinion”. I do not know whether there is a link between public opinion and guns, but there could be because we have been watching the Conservatives since 2006 and they are pretty good at manipulating public opinion. In that sense, I have to hand it to them that Mr. Mauser is a good advisor.

That brings me to the next point. Currently, the provincial and territorial chief firearms officers are responsible for implementing the Firearms Act and setting standards for licences and authorizations to carry and transport, transfers of firearms, and record keeping.

This bill would limit by regulation the authority of the chief firearms officer. The premier of Quebec and also Mr. Fournier are completely opposed to the bill. Thus, Quebec is opposed to the bill, but it is not the first time that this government has not listened to the provinces.

If this government is really concerned about public safety and wants to do something intelligent about it, it should instead quickly implement the firearms marking regulations, which it has delayed since 2006. I have been closely following this file since 2006. Firearms marking would make it possible for us to know where firearms in Canada are coming from. Information such as the place or date of manufacture, the manufacturer and the series number is described in detail in the regulations.

It is ridiculous that we currently have marked firearms in Canada because of the United States. It is not a Canadian government initiative, but a U.S. initiative that has led to the mandatory marking of firearms by the manufacturer. The U.S. honours the contracts and agreements it signs with other countries. We have still not implemented that decree, and we do not always honour the agreements that we have signed. We have delayed this one every year.

We have the U.S. government to thank for the fact that some of the firearms that come into Canada are marked, since they come across that border. However, some firearms that come in through channels other than the U.S. border and from some European countries are not marked. Unmarked firearms are extremely difficult to track, so they are the most tempting to the criminal world.

I listened to the debate on Monday, and I have been listening to the Conservatives talk about firearms since 2006. They always talk about the illegal trafficking of firearms. We all agree that we need to combat the illegal trafficking of firearms, but if firearms are unmarked, how can we start to combat illegal trafficking?

Here is a little lesson in criminology: marking is a theft prevention mechanism. A marked firearm is easier to track and is therefore less attractive to criminals. Furthermore, marking is also used to protect firearm owners. Marking is certainly necessary in the fight against gun trafficking, but border controls are also important.

Let us have a little criminology 101.1 lesson: 80% of illegal weapons in Canada come through the United States. The Internet gives people access to all sorts of ways of buying weapons and bringing them to Canada. Nevertheless, since 2006, this government has done nothing but cut the CBSA's budget and shut down a number of border crossings in the regions. The CBSA's budget for 2014-15 will be cut by $143 million. That means that 1,351 jobs will be cut, including those of 325 border officers and about a hundred intelligence officers.

If we want to crack down on the smuggling of firearms, we simply need to allow our agencies to trace these weapons and stop the traffickers. If there is no one at our border crossings and cuts are being made, we are not going to be able to solve this problem.

In closing, I would like to show how ridiculous this situation is. The Conservatives are passing laws that will put more prohibited weapons in circulation. They still have not done anything regarding firearms marking, and they are cutting the CBSA's budget. Then they are wondering why there are illegal firearms in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, and there might have been some information in there that I do not believe to be quite accurate.

As I understand, the United States did not actually ratify the treaty. I also understand that every single imported firearm has unique identifiers. I would hope she would ensure that this is clarified, because I understand that to be the accurate information in terms of both unique identification and treaty ratification.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague and I do not have the same information. The information that I have clearly indicates that the United States has ratified the agreements and that the weapons that are arriving from the United States are marked by the manufacturers. We therefore have all of the information we need when a weapon crosses the border between the United States and Canada. That is the information I have. If my colleague has something different, then I would be pleased to exchange information with her.