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 bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.

Sponsor

Steven Blaney  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

April 20, 2015 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
April 1, 2015 Passed That, in relation to 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, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the second day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 10:45 a.m.


See context

Conservative

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.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 10:50 a.m.


See context

Conservative

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?

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 10:50 a.m.


See context

Conservative

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.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 10:50 a.m.


See context

NDP

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.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 12:10 p.m.


See context

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.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 12:10 p.m.


See context

NDP

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?

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 12:10 p.m.


See context

NDP

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.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 12:15 p.m.


See context

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer to my question just a moment ago, about whether this bill would make us any safer.

In fact, as I read the bill, the bill would do a number of things that would lessen gun safety. It would make it easier to transport guns in a manner that is not known to the police. It would make it easier for cabinet to unilaterally decide to change the definitions of firearms, for the cabinet, against the wishes of the various authorities put in place to decide what firearms should be restricted, to make those restrictions null and void.

In addition, the bill would appear to give an ability for persons to have a six-month grace period to fulfill their licence requirements. Nowhere in Canada can I think of a place where someone has a grace period on a licence requirement, particularly on something as important as the ownership of a firearm. Right now, if I want to drive my car without a licence, I am in violation of the law. There is no grace period for driving my car without a licence or for not licensing my car.

Would the member like to comment on that?

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 12:15 p.m.


See context

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The Coalition for Gun Control, for example, would agree entirely with the his concern about the transportation issue. That was the subject of great debate before committee.

The undermining by cabinet of the restrictions on firearms, given the authority it has taken for itself in this bill, is another example of the centralization of power by the Conservatives for obviously political purposes.

The last point the member made about the grace period and the unusual nature of the grace period has also been the subject of many people in the police community and others who wonder why on Earth we would have such a period in the bill.

As my hon. friend pointed out, usually a licence is for a fixed period of time. We do not then usually say that if we forget about our drivers' licences, we will have six months to drive around, just because we feel like it, and hopefully we will not get caught by the police, but if we do, we have a grace period.

It is kind of a bizarre position to take. Not only is it bizarre, but to the point of public safety that the member so cogently raised, people have talked about how the period, when applying for a licence, is used to screen people for mental health issues, potential risks to themselves and others. If there is some sort of grace period, that can delay the information being available to the police and others for safety concerns.

Finally, undermining the Chief Firearms Officer and referring to them, as Conservatives have done, as simply bureaucrats is a shameful position to take.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 12:15 p.m.


See context

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to what I view as not just a bad bill, but a dangerous bill. The bill talks about common sense and when we put “common sense” and “firearms” in the same sentence, one has to wonder whether this is really just a political bill and not actually something to make us safer.

I wish I had a nickel for every time a member opposite said, “This is our top priority”. No matter what we are talking about, whether it is the environment, public safety, rail safety, drug safety or food safety, everything seems to be the Conservatives' top priority, yet the evidence is that everything has suffered budget cuts under the government. In order to provide Canadians with tax cuts, it has had to cut public services and make Canadians less safe. That is something the New Democrats do not support. In a few months' time, the NDP leader and the party, with their experience and plan, will be able to replace this tired government and actually fix the damage it has done, including the damage this bill would do to the safety regime of Canadians.

The bill should be titled “relaxing guns laws in Canada”, because that is really what it does. It would not make some common sense amendments or find some way to make more sense. It is designed to relax guns laws, and that caters to a particular lobby that the Conservatives like to cater to and have done so since they took office in 2006. They have done a number of things over the years to make it less safe for Canadians.

Bill C-42 would make it easier to transport guns. Canada has specific and very strict rules about how to transport firearms. We do not want to become like the people in the U.S., where the transportation of guns is allowed openly and without any restrictions whatsoever, in most cases. This bill would allow people much more freedom to transport their firearms without having to first know where they are going. The police will have very little way of knowing what is going on when people are transporting their guns.

In addition, and perhaps more tellingly, it would give the cabinet and the minister the power to change the definition of what is and what is not a restricted weapon. I think this in knee-jerk reaction to a decision that was taken by others than the Conservatives that they did not like. Bill C-42 would give the cabinet authority to override firearms classification definitions in section 84 of the code by the way of regulations carving out exceptions. By regulation, cabinet could deem firearms that would otherwise by captured by the definitions of prohibited and restricted firearms to be non-restricted firearms. Similarly, cabinet could deem firearms that would otherwise be prohibited firearms to be restricted firearms. It would basically transfer authority over definitions and classifications to cabinet, rather than putting the emphasis on public safety.

As we all too poignantly recall from the disaster at École Polytechnique, the classification system in our country allows very dangerous weapons to be in the hands of ordinary citizens and when those ordinary citizens are not stable, disaster can result. It would also limit provincial powers to attach conditions of licence. Why are we touching provincial jurisdiction? The government claims to want to leave everything to the provinces to decide, but as much as it can, it will get out of housing or public transit and just give money to the provinces and tell them to do whatever they want. Yet here, it would actually remove the right of the provinces to attach conditions of licence, which is not a good thing. It is not more safe.

Finally, it would grant a grace period to persons whose licences expire. Every year I get a notice from the Ontario provincial government that says my car licence is going to expire and I had better renew it. Every five years I get a notice from the provincial government saying that my driver's licence is going to expire and I had better renew it.

If the same thing were to happen with firearms licences, there would be no excuses. Is this because the government does not want to bother finding people? Is it because the Conservatives do not want to bother reminding people, because it is something that, maybe, needs a bit of a reminder. To actually grant an exemption or a grace period is dangerous, according to some witnesses.

We in the NDP put public safety first. That is very clear in all of our positions and our comments on the various budget decisions that the government has made and in all of our positions on issues like food safety. The Conservatives were in power when the listeriosis outbreak took place. Public safety was put at risk to the point where people lost their lives. This is something that we should not and cannot accept. To cut the budget of the department that is responsible for keeping people safe, such as the food safety department, is an unconscionable act of neglecting the public safety that we on this side of the House are so determined to protect.

There was the E. coli outbreak. As far as we know, no one died. People did get sick, and our reputation with the U.S. was seriously harmed. At the same time, it was the budget cuts to the health and safety of Canadians and to the safety of the system that caused public safety to be put at risk.

Rail safety is another point where the Conservative government has actually lowered the safety standards to the point where 47people in Lac-Mégantic lost their lives in July, 2013, and the centre of an entire town was decimated. The government said that it had better fix things, but since that time, there have been several other major train derailments that have taken place in other parts of the country. Only by good fortune and luck did the government escape yet another massive disaster. What do we know about the reaction of the government? We know there is one new inspector out of the hundreds of inspectors. There is no determination by the government to make our rail system safer.

In keeping with the notion of gun safety, we have learned that the RCMP is sometimes ill-equipped with its own firearms to go up against the firearms that are available to other Canadians. Some of them lost their lives as a result, and that is shameful. We know the government has cut the budget for the RCMP to the point where it has to abandon good programs in order to focus on the programs that the government says are the priority. We cannot keep juggling without running the risk of leaving some people unprotected, and that is exactly what happens.

In my riding of York South—Weston, none of what is going on in Bill C-42 would actually make anybody any safer. In fact, the problem in my riding is the preponderance of handguns, particularly among young people. When I go to a grade 10 class and ask the students how many of them own an illegal handgun or know someone who owns an illegal handgun, half of the hands go up. That is absolutely astounding, and it has been not just once, not just twice, but on several occasions that I get the same result. It means that among the residents of my riding, there are illegal handguns in the hands of young people.

This is happening because the government has cut the CBSA. It has reduced the number of inspections that go on at the border. As we discovered this week, CBSA officers do not even have access to proper information to stop criminals from re-entering Canada and stop people who have no business coming into Canada from entering.

The NDP believes that public safety is one of the most important things a federal government should be in charge of and should ensure. For the Conservative federal government to abandon public safety at every turn is absolutely wrong, and we will not stand for it. This bill would do nothing to make people safer. It would make them less safe. As a result, we will be opposing this bill.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 12:25 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what my colleague across the way had to say. It was very light on the facts. In fact, most of what he said was factually incorrect.

He said that we are relaxing the rules. We are not relaxing any of the rules. Public safety is not being compromised. He said that it will be easier to transport. That is totally false. The rules we have in place today will still be in place after the bill is passed. He said that the police will not know where someone is going. They today do not check the authorization to transport. They do not get that information, so that will not change.

He may not realize that in some provinces, like British Columbia, one's authorization to transport is good for three years, the same as what we are implementing now. It will become part of a licence. That is not changing. However, there is a huge discrepancy across the provinces as to how this is implemented.

He said that firearms owners will get a notice that their firearms licence has expired. Today over half of firearms owners do not get that notice. That is a very serious thing. Therefore, in the six-month grace period, if they go to buy ammo, they will realize that their licence has expired, because they will not be able to buy ammunition or go hunting.

So much of what the member said is completely misleading. He does not know what he is talking about.

Eligibility is reviewed daily. One does not need to renew one's licence. Whether one should have a gun is reviewed every night.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 12:30 p.m.


See context

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me read from one of the witnesses. This is from the president of the Coalition for Gun Control. 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.

I did not say that people got a notice that their licence had expired. I said that perhaps they should get a notice that their licence has expired in such a way that they would know in advance of an expiry, and we would not be talking here about some kind of weird six-month grace period to allow people time to do whatever it is they have to do. No other licence we have has any kind of grace period, and to impose one for gun control is making things less safe.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 12:30 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, what I find fascinating about the debate so far, and which the member for York South—Weston has highlighted once again, is this sort of cultural divide.

We can stand here and say we get it. Rural Canada, parts of our nation where hunting is a way of sustaining life, not just a question of privilege, is a different culture.

However, there is an urban reality to the debate that is constantly being ignored. Making it easier to transport guns in urban settings is dangerous in the same way that riding a bicycle on a highway is easier in a rural community than it is in an urban community. In North York, one does not ride a bicycle on the highway. In South River, one can. There is a difference. It is like snowmobiling. One does not snowmobile down downtown Toronto streets, no matter how much snow there is. One might do it in a rural community.

We get it.

Could the member explain why relaxing gun controls in urban centres and making it easier to transport weapons in urban centres scares people in urban centres, because of the danger guns present to communities there?

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2015 / 12:30 p.m.


See context

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member for Trinity—Spadina's question, because it strikes at the heart of what is going on here.

We have a system of gun control and gun legislation that has been designed around some complaints that came from rural parts of Canada. However, in my riding of York South—Weston and in many urban centres, this kind of change to the gun legislation will only make things less safe. There is nothing in the bill that in an urban centre will make things more safe. It will make it less safe.

We already have enough illegal weapons on the ground in the city of Toronto that we cannot seem to control, because we cannot stop them at the border. To make the transportation of legally owned weapons easier in the city of Toronto is something people are afraid of.