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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off.

Second, we will be making firearms safety training courses mandatory for first time firearms owners. Currently, approximately 35,000 people per year get their firearms licence without taking a training course. This legislative change will ensure that all new gun owners have a common understanding of safe firearms handling practices.

Third, we will make a technical change to allow information sharing between CBSA and the RCMP on the importation of restricted and prohibited firearms. This is a change that our provincial partners have been requesting for some time.

I would like to point out that during quorum call there were only two Liberals in the House, and now I believe there is only one Liberal in the House.

We are also making five changes to make our firearms laws—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not only can the member not count, there is more than one Liberal MP in the House. However, with all due respect, there were only two Conservatives, including the Speaker at the time when quorum was actually called. There are well over 100 members of Parliament on the Conservative side. If they were more in a position to ensure that the House business would be able to proceed, maybe it would not be as embarrassing for the government.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I do not think that ever got to a point of order, in fact, I know it did not get to a point of order.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first, we are merging possession only licence and possession and acquisition licence. This will give 600,000 experienced firearms owners the ability to purchase firearms.

Second, we are restricting the authority of the Chief Firearms Officer because the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats have been exercising their powers willy-nilly for far too long. The bill would bring oversight to these bureaucrats.

Third, we will create a grace period at the end of the five-year licence. This will prevent otherwise law-abiding gun owners from becoming overnight criminals due to an error in paperwork.

We will also end needless paperwork around authorizations to transport restricted and prohibited firearms by making them automatically issued with a firearms licence. If people are qualified to have a gun in their homes, they are qualified to safely transport it.

Last, but certainly not least, we will create an ability for the elected government to oversee the classification of firearms.

As we all remember, in February 2014, tens of thousands of Canadians became criminals overnight when the Canadian firearms program unilaterally decided to reclassify the CZ858 and the Swiss Arms family of rifles. It did this without seeking approval and without so much as a heads up to their elected boss, the Minister of Public Safety. This is completely unacceptable, and we will create a process so this never happens again.

I can confirm that as soon as the bill receives royal assent, we will move to restore these firearms to their previous classification of non-restricted.

This is clearly good legislation, but do not just take my word for it.

The National Post editorial board said that the common sense firearms licensing act was: “good news for responsible gun owners, and good news, as the name suggests, for common sense”

Greg Farrant of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters said:

The changes proposed in Bill C-42 will make life easier for these people because there will be less needless paperwork....Bill C-42 proposes reasonable amendments to sections of the Criminal Code that make sense, that eliminate red tape, and introduce additional public safety measures. It does not make guns easier to get. It does not allow firearms owners to transport them at will wherever they want, and it does not put guns in the hands of the “wrong people”..

Tony Bernardo, the Executive Director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, said:

The Canadian Shooting Sports Association supports Bill C-42. Our members believe it's a positive step toward fairness for lawful firearms owners, and it has absolutely no negative impact on public safety.

Despite this wide range of support from experts, the NDP and Liberals still oppose these common sense measures. Both parties are evidently still dead set on returning to the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

The NDP leader was unequivocal that if he were to form a government, he “We will bring in something that allows the police to track every gun in Canada”. The Liberal Leader has said, “If we had a vote tomorrow, I would vote once again to keep the long-gun registry”.

Clearly, neither party understands the realities of rural Canada. Our Conservative Party will always stand up for the rights of rural Canadians and for the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

I know firearms owners are interested in this legislation and are following these debates very closely. Websites like Gun Owners of Canada are very useful tools for spreading information and these individuals will be judging how they will vote in the upcoming election accordingly.

I hope members opposite can cast aside the orders of their big Ottawa bosses and vote the will of their constituents, and vote for the common sense firearms licensing act.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intent to the member's speech and his comments about the interests of hunters and farmers.

Given that there are large rural areas in the north that do not have locations where people can take the Canadian firearms safety course, does the government have a contingency plan to provide this course to those people so they can actually use their firearms legally?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are courses available all over.

I had the opportunity to sit on the public safety committee during the debate on this legislation. That did come up. One of the concerns was that people used to be able to challenge it, and now they could not. The reality is that to even challenge the course, people actually have to travel to challenge that course.

At that time when the question was posed to me in committee, we talked about it. In my mind, as a chartered professional accountant, I sense that there may be a business opportunity here. I am certain the course will be delivered in areas that need it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on the Liberal Party position, the Liberals are out there saying that because of this legislation, people will be able to bring restricted firearms to grocery stores and shopping malls. They are using that as a donation tool on websites. That is in fact not true. It is a myth that is being spread by the Liberal Party.

There is a myth that the Liberals are stating that this bill would take the power to classify firearms out of the hands of police, the experts in keeping Canadians safe, and put it in the hands of politicians. The fact is that the RCMP does not classify firearms; Parliament does and did so in 1995 under a Liberal government.

The Canadian firearms program interprets this legislation, and sometimes it makes mistakes such as with theSwiss Arms guns. In these cases, the common sense firearms licensing act would allow elected officials to fix these situations.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference in position among the Conservative Party and other parties across the way about how we view hunters, anglers and sport shooters.

On the Conservative side, we see them as friends. I am a sport shooter. I have my own firearms that I operate safely. My children have all shot my firearms safely. I think that happens across the country.

Could the member explain the difference between the Conservative position for hunters and anglers versus the other side?

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

Mr. Speaker, our position is that law-abiding gun owners, hunters and sport shooters are not criminals.

I understand that fully. I am not a licensed gun owner, but moving to northern Ontario, as I mentioned in my speech, I became very aware of the great quality of that industry in my riding. I have tremendous friends who are hunters and sport shooters. This is part of our Canadian heritage.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria had five minutes of questions and comments remaining.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for York South—Weston.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech earlier. Given the history the current government has had of not protecting the safety of Canadians in almost every endeavour where the federal government is supposed to protect the safety of Canadians, and given also that this bill, in our opinion, does not actually do anything to protect the safety of Canadians, is it the position of the member and the NDP that this bill is actually making safety worse in Canada?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said during my remarks, whenever a statute is introduced with verbiage like “common sense”, we know that there is something political going on. When we heard the interventions by the Conservatives, it confirmed that suspicion.

No, the bill does not make us any safer at all. Of course, that is the burden of the Coalition for Gun Control's argument and that of the Government of Quebec and of so many other interveners who pointed that out.

Moreover, when we look at the budget cuts the government has made to those who make us safe, such as the CBSA and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as I alluded to in my remarks, we see what game is being played here today.

Similarly, the decision to simply give more discretionary authority to the cabinet, rather than to stick with the classifications that are in the statute, suggests that there is an attempt to provide political cover for cabinet to make changes as it sees fit, dependant on the lobbying that is made to the cabinet on any given subject. That is also a matter that I think undermines the claim that this is somehow about public safety. It is about politics.