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.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much, Chair Kramp, and I also want to thank you for recognizing the members of the Canadian safety community who are accompanying me this morning.

Of course, there is one simple reason why I am here today. It's to seek your support for allowing the resources necessary for this safety community to pursue its mission throughout the year.

In a more administrative sense, I am here to seek your support in the context of your study of the main estimates 2015-16 and of the Public Safety portfolio, as well as to answer your questions in the first hour. Experts will answer your questions in the second half of this meeting.

First things first, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all the members of this important committee for their important work over the course of the last week and the last month in their study of three major and significant pieces of legislation, the first one being the protection from terrorists act. Next is the anti-terrorism act, and I am thankful for the support we got in the House of Commons yesterday. The common sense firearms licensing act should also be on the floor very soon.

The Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act received royal assent on April 23 and represents the first major changes in three decades to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. Basically, its purpose was to clarify the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence—

Public Safety and National Security

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, on 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. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with an amendment.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-42 does provide automatic authorization to transport weapons as part of the licensing, and for that reason we will be voting against the bill. We think that is wrong in principle.

What Ms. May has proposed here tries to deal with that piece by piece through the bill. We do support the concept she's raised, so we will be voting in favour of this amendment.

[Lyndon Murdock]

With the scheme that is proposed in Bill C-42, that would be the case, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The chair would certainly confer with the clerk just for a second, but my first thought on this as chair would be to suggest that, of course, that's at the will of the committee. If the committee decides that is the way they wish to proceed, then, of course, the committee has that authority and that right to do so. That would have to be a decision of the committee to do so.

I would ask the clerk for further clarification, if it's necessary.

The chair has been advised that that really is the process we would use, Mr. Easter, if at some particular point a motion were to come before the floor to that effect and the committee committee supported going down that road. Traditionally that has not happened, but the chair has seen a couple of occasions in the years he's been here where that has taken place.

Colleagues, we will now go to clause by clause on Bill C-42. We are going to deal with the short title, of course. It'll be postponed until after we finish the bill, should there be any changes to that. Right now we'll go to clause 2.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(Clause 3 agreed to on division)

(On clause 4)

Now we have an NDP amendment, I do believe.

Mr. Garrison.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On witnesses, Mr. Chair, I don't know whether we'll face it in other legislation, but we have faced it with this one, Bill C-42, and that's the procedure for subpoenaing witnesses. What it is? I guess I could find out from the clerk.

It's absolutely astounding that we're dealing with a bill, the common sense firearms act, and the RCMP, who are in charge of that, refused to come. The larger police forces in the country refused to come. That's a serious matter because we're dealing with a bill now without having had the experience of a number of police forces on the ground. I don't know what the reason is for their not coming here; it would be not right for me to speculate.

What is the process for subpoenaing witnesses? Because if we need them, we need them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, colleagues, welcome to meeting number 67 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today we are dealing clause by clause with Bill C-42. We have with us today witnesses to answer any questions, should that be necessary. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Lyndon Murdock, the director of firearms and operational policing policy. Thank you, sir. We also have Robert Abramowitz, counsel for legal services. Thank you. From the Department of Justice, we have Julie Besner, the acting senior counsel from the criminal law policy section.

Welcome to all of our assistants here today. Certainly we will be calling on you, should your expertise be needed.

Colleagues, I would just maybe mention one small point for your consideration. Going forward with any potential legislation that comes before this committee—of course, there are bills right now at second reading—the chair certainly is not going to be presumptuous and suggest that we're to deal with any particular one. However, should we deal with one, I would just ask all of our colleagues at committee to be mindful of any potential witness lists they might prepare and/or be prepared to put to the clerk, so that the clerk is not left hanging at the very end trying to look for a witness. I just bring this to your attention. It is certainly only an observation by the chair and not a request at this particular point. That'll be up to each individual member of this committee.

Yes, Mr. Easter?

Criminal Code

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their thoughtful speeches.

I am the chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, and proudly so. We are the only political party that has such a caucus in Parliament. Over the last year, my caucus members and I have met with dozens of hunting, angling, trapping, and outdoor groups across the country. Contrary to popular opinion, the culture of the outdoors—angling, hunting, trapping and fishing—is very much alive and well. My friend from Prince George said it well when he used the term “culture”. We are the only political party and the only government that so strongly defends the outdoor culture.

Contrary to popular belief, this is not a declining culture in our country. In fact, the request for hunter safety instruction is growing by leaps and bounds across the country; this community is roaring back. There are some four million people in this country who hunt, fish, and trap. It is a sizeable part of our country.

In order to help and work with this very important constituency, we put forth Bill C-42, which was widely and positively received by the hunting and sport shooting community. In the environment committee, we are doing a major study of hunting and trapping, and in the fisheries committee we are doing a major study of recreational fishing. Why do I mention those two committee studies? That is because both of those studies in each committee were strongly opposed by the Liberals and the NDP. We were shocked by that opposition. It is the first time that those committees have studied these topics: hunting and trapping in the environment committee, and recreational fishing in the fisheries committee.

Interestingly, the members of the hunting and angling community are Canada's first, foremost, and most effective conservationists. Their appearance before our committee was astonishing. They described the conservation activities that the hunting and angling community does across the country, which this government strongly supports.

In terms of my bill, which is basically a kind of housekeeping bill, as my colleague from Prince George said, we are ensuring that such activities as paintballing and owning a BB gun are not subject to criminal sanctions if some paperwork is not done. This important legislation responds to the needs of the owners of paintball guns, BB guns, and air rifles, providing much-needed clarity with respect to how Canadian law treats this type of property.

How do these devices differ from firearms? They are essentially pneumatic devices that propel projectiles by means of compressed air. This differentiates them from regular bullet-firing firearms, which use a propellant charge. Air guns are commonly used for hunting, pest control, recreational shooting, and competitive sports; for example, the Olympics include 10 metre air rifle and 10 metre air pistol events. Beyond this, they remain popular with thousands of Canadians because they are quieter, more affordable, and their regulation is not nearly as stringent as with true firearms.

Air guns are generally divided into the following categories.

First we have air guns, in which the shot or projectile will not cause serious injury or death. These devices fall outside of the scope of the Firearms Act. An example is a harmless air gun made out of clear plastic, or a device that is a child's toy. The next category includes those air guns that have the potential to cause serious bodily harm, injury, or death, and these fall under the Criminal Code.

I would note, as well, that my colleagues across the way were talking about the potential criminal use of air gun devices. I would point out that it is a criminal offence to point an air gun, or to act as if it is a firearm. If a store is robbed by an individual with an air gun, for criminal law purposes it is treated the same as a firearm.

My bill simply reduces red tape on law-abiding Canadian citizens. This is what Canadians want. I ask all members to support this bill and ensure that we continue to move toward safe and sensible firearms policies in this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. We will be adjourning this meeting now.

I'll just say to our witnesses, thank you very kindly. We have a vote call in the House of Commons, which demands that we bring an immediate closing to the committee. On behalf of the entire committee, I would like to thank you, Mr. Mauser and Mr. Grismer, for appearing today and contributing to the deliberations on Bill C-42.

We are now adjourned.

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

The changes proposed in Bill C-42 in no way impact on public safety. They merely reduce the amount of red tape that a firearms owner who wishes to transport his firearm must undergo, and the amount of bureaucratic busyness that is imposed on the chief firearms officer. The police have the same information. The conditions remain the same, so there is no change as far as that is concerned. Perhaps the chief firearms officer can spend their time more wisely than shuffling paper that is 99% approved.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

That sheds a lot of light and I appreciate your answers to that question.

My next question is basically for all the witnesses before the committee. It has to do with the classification of firearms as proposed by Bill C-42. I am trying to clarify that part of the bill. My understanding is that it seemingly gives a lot of power to cabinet to decide on the classification of the various firearms. A number of witnesses have shared their views with us, and those views vary.

The bill places a lot of power in the hands of cabinet in terms of classification decisions. However, governments and parties in power change. I wonder if the consistency in the classification of firearms will not be compromised by the provisions in Bill C-42.

If possible, could you tell me what you think about that?

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

No, I do not think that any of the changes in Bill C-42 would increase the danger to women or children through guns. At the present time, only 2% of accused murderers have any kind of a firearms licence. That's a PAL, POL, or the old FAC. So this is very small group of people and nothing would change.

As Mr. Grismer has pointed out, gun ownership is subject to intense scrutiny to achieve a licence, and secondly, nightly to make sure that there are no restraining orders or any kind of offences committed overnight. Nothing in this bill would reduce that. In terms of merging POLs with PALs, they are already treated bureaucratically now as the same.

[Murray Grismer]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee, and fellow witnesses, it's an honour and privilege for me to appear before you today to assist you in your deliberations of Bill C-42, the common-sense firearms licensing act.

I'm a retired sergeant of the Saskatoon Police Service with over 26 years of service protecting the citizens of Saskatoon and Saskatchewan. At the time of my retirement on April 30, 2013, I supervised a team of front-line men and women responsible for policing the second-largest geographic area in the city of Saskatoon.

The courts of Saskatchewan, both provincial and Queen's Bench, have qualified me as an expert witness, enabling me to give opinion evidence on firearms-related matters. In that capacity, I have provided assistance in over 50 cases, both federal and provincial prosecutions. I am also a master instructor for both Canadian firearms safety courses, and an approved verifier, certified by the registrar of the Canadian firearms registry.

Firearms owners across Canada share in the desire and belief of the need for common-sense change to the Firearms Act. Bill C-42 introduces common-sense amendments to the Firearms Act and Criminal Code.

First, these amendments will create a statutory category for non-restricted firearms. A non-restricted firearm, as defined in proposed subsection 84(1), is a firearm that is neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm, or it is a firearm that is prescribed to be non-restricted.

Second, they will streamline the licensing system by eliminating the possession-only licence, or POL, and converting all existing POLs to possession and acquisition licences, which are called PALs. At present holders of a valid POLs have, since the implementation of the Firearms Act, continued to demonstrate a history of safe and responsible firearms ownership. At the time of renewal, they undergo the same rigorous background checks as PAL holders and have all the privileges of a PAL holder, with the exception of purchasing another firearm, yet they can borrow or rent any number of non-restricted firearms.

Bill C-42 will create a six-month grace period at the end of a five-year licence period to stop people from becoming immediately criminalized for paperwork delays surrounding licence renewals. Canadians having not received a renewal, or who are out of the country for business, employment, vacation, or serving in our armed forces at the time of a licence expiry will find themselves in unlawful possession of their firearms and will be required to complete the Canadian firearms safety course to re-obtain a licence. Licences extended during this six-month grace period are subject to the following limitations: the holder cannot use the firearm or purchase ammunition, any authorizations to carry or transport are expired, and the availability of authorizations to carry and transport will be limited.

Amendments will also make classroom participation in firearm safety training mandatory for first-time licence applicants. First-time licence applicants will no longer be able to simply challenge the Canadian firearms safety course tests. They must now successfully participate in one or both of the Canadian firearms safety courses.

Bill C-42 will amend the Criminal Code to strengthen the provisions related to orders prohibiting the possession of firearms where a person is convicted of an offence involving domestic violence. A mandatory 10-year prohibition order would apply to a person convicted under section 109, regardless of the possible sentence or discharge, when violence is used, threatened, or attempted against the offender's current or former intimate partner, the child or parent of the offender or the current or former intimate partner, or any person who resides with such a person.

The maximum length of discretionary prohibition orders under section 110 are extended if, in the commission of the offence, violence is used, threatened, or attempted against the offender's current or former intimate partner, the child or parent of the offender or the current or former intimate partner, or any person who resides with such a person. In such circumstances, prohibition orders may be imposed for life, or for any shorter period as the court deems appropriate.

Amendments will end needless paperwork around authorizations to transport by making them a condition of a licence for certain routine and lawful activities. The authorization must take the form of an attachment to the licence. Upon licence renewal, the holder of the licence to possess restricted or prohibited firearms will automatically be authorized to transport them within the province of residence for the purposes of travel to and from all approved shooting clubs and ranges; to any place a peace officer, firearms officer, or chief firearms officer is located for the purposes of verification, registration, or disposal; to a business for the purpose of repair or appraisal; to a gun show; or a port of exit and from a port of entry.

Contrary to what you may have been told or led to believe, the proposed conditions listed above reflect conditions that are currently in place on authorizations to transport.

Amendments will authorize firearms import information sharing when restricted and prohibited firearms are brought into Canada by businesses. Those businesses seeking to import a restricted or prohibited firearm will be required to notify the registrar or Canada Customs, in the prescribed form, before or at the time of importation.

Bill C-42 will allow the government to have the final say on classification decisions, following the receipt of independent expert advice, by granting the Governor in Council the authority to override the firearms classification in section 84 by way of regulations carving out exemptions.

As a veteran police officer, master firearms instructor, and court-qualified expert, I am of the opinion changes to Bill C-42, the common-sense firearms licensing act, contrary to what others would have you believe, do not constitute a threat to public safety, nor do they inhibit a police officer from executing his or her duties. ln fact, they enhance public safety and through the simplification of the licensing regime and ATTs greatly assist police officers in the execution of their duties, all done by the application of a little common sense.

Mr. Chair, honourable committee members, in conclusion, Bill C-42 is worthy of your consideration and support. It brings common-sense legislative changes to the Firearms Act and Criminal Code.

Thank you.

[Dr. Gary Mauser]

Thank you very much for inviting me here. It's a pleasure to present my views to the committee.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the government for honouring its promises to reduce red tape for law-abiding firearms owners.

I would like to make two points this morning.

First, excessive regulations do not increase public safety. As anyone who has a firearms licence knows, the present regulations are quite complex and arguably excessive.

My second point is that eliminating the opportunity to challenge the firearms safety exam in order to get a firearms licence eliminates many capable people who have alternative training from obtaining a firearms licence.

Taking my second point first, I would like to point out that in Bill C-42 the challenge portion is proposed to be eliminated, and in northern British Columbia many small towns do not have access to federal firearms safety training personnel. Part of the reason for this is that the BC CFO, the chief firearms officer, has arbitrarily reduced and restricted the number of instructors. In my written submission I'll include some paperwork to support this.

Without adequate instructors, it makes little or no sense to require federal training, when at the same time there are many provincial safety instructors who teach hunting safety. These students have adequate knowledge to be safe and should be qualified to take the test. Indeed, they have been passing the test at great rates. In some provinces, both Manitoba and Quebec, the provincial hunter safety course is certified as equal to the federal training. I would urge that this be the case in this instance.

As my first point, which I'll take up now, about excessive regulations not increasing public safety, I present three statistical arguments.

First of all, homicide rates fell much faster before the introduction of licensing and the long-gun registry than they have since. They dropped roughly 25% before and roughly 8% afterwards. Secondly, accidental deaths equally fell more before than after. They dropped 45% to 60% before the introduction of licensing and long-gun registration and only 20% after. My third point is that after the ending of the long-gun registry, firearm murders and the homicide rate overall have continued to drop, so obviously it was not a necessary regulation for public safety.

Those are my basic points. They all are consistent with the argument that the present regulations are excessive. The streamlining proposed in Bill C-42 will not endanger public safety, and I urge the government, finally, to continue the challenge possibility for the federal firearms safety course.

That's my submission. Thank you, sir.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Okay. Thank you very much.

I would also like to discuss with you the important question of the classification of firearms, although all the parties here have addressed it before.

Mr. Bernardo, you talked about it in your presentation. You actually mentioned the problems caused by the way things are working right now.

Based on what Bill C-42 is proposing, the classification will change, and things will really be left in the hands of cabinet. Mr. Leef also raised this point in a question he asked you. In your presentation, you said that this was cabinet's responsibility and that this situation would create continuity. I'm sorry, I'm not exactly using the words you used.

That being said, governments change. The Conservatives are in power now, but the Liberals might be in power next. I personally hope that it will be the New Democratic Party. We never know what can happen. Without making political jokes or anything like that, I honestly have trouble seeing this continuity. Each political entity has a very different position on the classification of firearms. It is a very sensitive debate.

Are you not afraid that the debate will be slightly politicized by this issue, given that governments change?