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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised issues such as marking and serial numbers and the importance of being able to track. Does she have a sense of how we would record this? How would we know that serial number X goes to person Y?

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and a very complex one. My understanding of the process is that if Canada were to issue an order for firearms marking, for example, and if manufacturers complied, the manufacturer's name, the serial number, the date of manufacture and the importing country would be engraved on the firearm. All of that information comes from the manufacturer.

Suppose a crime is committed and the weapon is found at the scene of the crime. The RCMP told me that if the weapon is marked by the manufacturer, it is easier for officers to trace that weapon because they use international databases. They can contact Interpol and a number of other international agencies to find out where the firearm was made and trace it from the manufacturer to the buyer. That is why it is important to issue that order. That would enable Canadian authorities to know who manufactured a firearm, when and where, regardless of the country it was intended for or who made it. That would apply to all firearms, not just those from the United States. For example, we would know if it was sent from Russia to the United States and ended up in Canada. We would be able to trace it. That makes police investigations much easier, and that is what police officers want.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She talked a lot about marking as a tool that could help us, probably because it could help with prevention. However, it is difficult to obtain.

I wonder if she could comment further on what other elements, besides marking, could help us be able to trace firearms and give our police forces the most effective means to combat crime.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Marking is indeed a very important tool. Not only does it allow police to trace a gun, but more importantly, it makes that gun less appealing to criminals. A marked gun can be traced, and therefore criminals will not want it because they too can then be traced.

As for other methods, we did have another tool, but it no longer exists. That was the gun registry. Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle did everything in their power beginning in 2006 to destroy that registry, which contained very specific information, besides marking, of course. The information included the number of weapons in a residence, the owner of a weapon and the owner's address. With a few keystrokes, police officers would know how many guns were located at a given address. That was important for intervention. It was another way to prevent crime, because criminals were not interested in stealing guns from their owners' residences, because the guns were in a registry. That tool is gone. The registry died and its carcass is still smoldering. I heard my colleagues speaking on Monday, and I do not think the NDP has the power to bring it back yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind speaking to the bill, although I find that the Conservative position on this is sometimes rather odd.

I was one of the NDP who voted for the first private member's bill that was going to eliminate the long gun registry, so I am speaking from a position of having done that. However, I did not support when the Conservatives would not amend the new bill, because they were destroying the data. Basically, by allowing provinces to have the right to do what they want with firearms, the Conservatives would take firearms out from under the classification of the Criminal Code and put them into civil code. This means that infractions under civil code would not make people criminals, which is a very distinct difference here.

However, I want to talk about safe storage. Over the last 30 years, the best thing that has happened for firearms, in my mind, is safe storage. It means that guns are not available to be used by someone other than the owner or in disputes, which means that we save lives.

Does my colleague not agree that continuing to provide safe storage of firearms is one of the most important aspects of our laws?

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not politicizing anything. However, I would ask the hon. member if he thinks it was okay to reclassify the Swiss arms family of weapons? People who had bought something in good faith, who had significant value invested in terms of that purchase, were turned into criminals overnight.

We have tried to create a balance in terms of ensuring that as we move forward the reclassifications would have a good, thoughtful, rounded process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are three strong measures that will improve public safety.

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you inform the House as to what the quorum requirements are for the House on Friday?

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

They are the same as they are every other day of the week. Is the member calling for a quorum call?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

We will ring the bells.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

According to the count we now have quorum.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.