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.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Mr. Farrant and Mr. Bernardo for being here today. It is greatly appreciated.

I have a few questions. I would like to go back to the firearms licence authorization and the six-month grace period proposed by the bill.

Criminal charges can be laid the day after someone’s firearms licence expires if it has not been renewed. That’s a problem.

I tried to consult with various police forces and experts to find out what the best solution is. I still have a lot of questions about this possibility as presented in Bill C-42. You seem to have studied the bill but we have diverging opinions about the outcome.

Here is my first question.

You are representing the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association. I am not sure whether you know, but have several of your members been arrested in recent years because they did not renew their licences? Is that common?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, these are personal questions and I do not see how they relate to the bill that we're studying, Bill C-42.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Perfect, thank you.

They also have another ad out suggesting that the power to determine what is restricted, prohibited, or non-restricted, is being taken away from the police and being given to politicians. They're using this, again, to promote fear and misunderstanding in the broader public about the technical aspects of classification of firearms. What's your understanding of how Bill C-42 effects a change? You touched on it briefly that the RCMP doesn't have the technical ability to properly classify firearms. Is it your understanding that there will be a group of politicians, much like us, sitting around with firearms in front of us trying to determine which one should be classified, restricted, prohibited, or non-restricted?

How will that work under this new legislation?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Farrant and Mr. Bernardo, for your presentations today. I think they were both very clear and succinct and dealt with many of the things we've heard both in the House and on committee, and hopefully, have clarified some of the questions that the opposition members have obviously been struggling with during this debate.

I don't know if you have seen them, but I would bring your attention to some of the things that the Liberal Party has put out in the broader Canadian public around this particular bill. One of them, of course, is our fundraising effort that is suggesting that guns—they have some pictures of them, pistols and long arms—are going to be able to move in and out of a province anywhere people want, and they list places like shopping malls, grocery stores, and sports arenas, then they ask the question, “Is this really safe for our community?”

First I'll direct this to you, Mr. Bernardo. Have you seen these fundraising ads that the Liberal Party has put out, and would you agree that Bill C-42 in any way provides the opportunity, or anything that would be different from the current-day situation in respect of firearms movement in Canada?

[Tony Bernardo, Executive Director, Canadian Shooting Sports Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to all the members of the committee.

I beg your indulgence if I may because I think my presentation is about 30 seconds too long, but I'm dealing with the technical aspects of the bill and there are a lot of technicalities I'd like to cover, starting with the first item: the changes to the order in council powers regarding classifications.

It has been suggested to this committee that this provision creates sweeping new powers for the Minister of Public Safety and the governing council. This is not true. These powers were put in place with the inception of the Firearms Act created by the previous government. In that legislation, the minister was granted the ability through orders in council to put any firearm into the restricted or prohibited categories. The addition of the new provision contained in Bill C-42 now levels the playing field, allowing the minister to place firearms into the non-restricted category, as well as the restricted and prohibited.

As to the allegation that the provision moves authority away from the RCMP in regard to the classification of firearms, it must be pointed out to the committee that the RCMP never had that authority to begin with. This lack of clarity is a glaring omission in the Firearms Act, which provides for the classification of firearms, but does not state who has the authority to provide that classification. Clearly, with numerous classification errors over the last 20 years, it seems obvious the RCMP does not possess the knowledge or the technical expertise to unilaterally make these decisions with a guarantee of correctness to the citizens of the country. This provision is an important tool to apply uniformity to Canada's firearms laws. Previous rounds of legislation have incorrectly classified many firearms. Canadians, in order to comply with our laws, have the right to expect consistency within our statutes. This provision is admirable in its attempt to provide a mechanism to make that consistency.

The second item is the merging of POLs and PALs, and Mr. Farrant has already touched on a number of things here. In the discussion regarding this, it must be pointed out to the committee that the people who have possession-only licences have had them continuously since 1995. Since that time there has been no new issuances of these possession-only licences. Inquiries made to the RCMP illustrate identical safety records between the holders of POLs and PALs. Empirically the holders of POL licences have demonstrated that they've learned the lessons of the Canada firearms safety course. Of course, all new licence applicants must take the Canada firearms safety course and the exam. It stands to reason that all holders of firearms licences in Canada will now have demonstrated and been trained in the culture of safety our community is so famous for.

The committee must also be reminded that all people who hold a firearms licence in Canada are subject to the RCMP continuous eligibility program. This program, which has been in place for many years, actively cross-references every firearms owner in Canada to every computer the police have in real time. Any licensed firearms owner whose name is entered into a police computer automatically shows up in the continuous eligibility program for further oversight.

The third item is the oversight of subsection 58(1)'s CFO “God powers“. Section 12 of Bill C-42 provides a potential limitation to the God powers currently enjoyed by chief firearms officers in Canada. Currently chief firearms officers may make any condition to any licence or authorization, if they deem it in the interest of public safety. However, there's no litmus test as to what public safety constitutes. As currently contained in the Firearms Act, a subsection 58(1) decision is about public safety merely because the CFO, an unelected bureaucrat, says it's about public safety. When a bad decision is made—and there have been lots—there is no appeal and there is no mechanism to override the decision. That these powers have been given to an unelected bureaucrat is purely bad governance. No public servant should ever wield this kind of power over law-abiding citizens without oversight.

Bill C-42 places the most moderate of oversights on the unbridled powers contained in subsection 58(1). It permits the government of the day to override a bad subsection 58(1) decision by means of passing regulation. While this is perhaps the most cumbersome way that this could be accomplished, it nonetheless provides some measure of scrutiny over the actions of a chief firearms officer.

Item number four is the six-month grace period upon licence expiration. Successive governments have expressed a desire not to expose honest firearms owners to criminal sanctions due to paperwork errors or omissions. For the mere failure to fill out a renewal form for a firearms licence, a person can be plunged into criminality without ever committing a real offence against society. By the standards expressed by all political parties in Canada this is simply wrong.

Bill C-42 will enact a six-month grace period upon expiration. While the acquisition and use privileges for firearms and ammunition will be suspended, this period will permit people to bring themselves into compliance with the law without facing criminal penalties. Furthermore, the six-month grace period will permit Canadians to retain valuable grandfathered private property without fear of confiscation. In addition the six-month grace period—and this is important—keeps Canadians who own firearms in the RCMP's continuous eligibility system. The previous system expelled the person from continuous eligibility when the individual's firearms licence expired, regardless of whether or not they still retained ownership of the firearms.

Number five is the changes to authorizations to transport. One of the more contentious portions of C-42 is the widely misunderstood changes to authorizations to transport. While ATTs are an obsolete, vestigial document that hails from the days before firearms licences, when an ATT is issued the information does not go into CPIC. The only person who knows an individual has an authorization to transport is the recipient and the person who issued it to him. A police officer cannot access ATT information on the police car computer, and approximately 300,000 of these documents are issued every year.

When an authorization to transport is issued, it may be issued for any term up to the duration of the individual's firearms licence term. It's very common in Canada for ATTs to be issued for a three- to five-year period, good 24-7, for transport to any section 29 range and any other location within your province of residence in some provinces. This would permit individuals to transport the restricted and prohibited 12(6) firearms to any range in the province at any time. This is how it's done now, and there are no problems with illegalities.

No firearm can be brought into the United States by a Canadian resident without completing a United States form 6NIA application. This document is valid for a period of one year. Currently the chief firearms office issues an ATT to all border crossings in your province of residence for the corresponding one year.

OPP Superintendent Chris Wyatt, the former chief firearms officer in Ontario, publicly stated that during his tenure as CFO he had never once revoked for cause an authorization to transport, and he could only recall one instance of ever refusing an ATT application. The individual refused subsequently challenged the refusal in court and won. The CFO was wrong.

The obvious question must be posed. If we have a permit that no one can apply for without the qualifications to receive it, and it's almost never refused or revoked, what good is it?

Despite the positive changes to the ATTs contained in the bill though, there are some problems here. For example, the bill does not permit the issuance of an automatic ATT for the purposes of instruction, yet Ontario and Quebec both require additional safety courses with live fire on shooting ranges. Instructors for these courses are routinely given authorizations to transport their firearms to various places for the purposes of instruction. Bill C-42 would provide for the issuance of the ATT to the very same ranges for the purposes of target shooting but not for the purposes of instruction. This seems counterproductive.

As well, the bill does not provide for the issuance of an ATT for the purposes of completing a transfer. By explanation here, it's necessary to understand that many transfers of restricted and prohibited firearms in Canada are shipped by mail. Aside from the obvious fact the persons working at Canada Post do not possess firearms licences or authorizations to transport, an individual must get an ATT to take the firearm securely packaged in accordance with the law to a Canada Post outlet, and of course, it follows that the person needs an ATT to bring it home from a Canada Post outlet.

Authorizations to transport specify the specific make, model, serial number, and registration certificate number of the firearm being transported, but nowhere on the shipping box does it say what's contained inside the box, for obvious reasons.

It stands to reason that for the individual to successfully receive an authorization to transport the firearm home from a postal outlet, they would need to unbox the firearm in the postal outlet, examine the firearm at the post office, verify the serial number, the make, the model of the firearm, and the registration certificate number for the firearm, before being able to even correctly apply for an ATT to bring the firearm home, and of course, the post office would have to hang on to it for two or three weeks while the CFO issued that ATT.

Needless to say, this would cause tremendous disruptions at Canada Post outlets. Because of this, the chief firearms officers right across the country have traditionally turned a blind eye to the requirement to have an ATT to bring your firearm home from the post office. If the CFOs don't even want this and don't feel the necessity for it, it should be added to the list of prescribed ATT purposes in Bill C-42. It also stands to reason that it's no more dangerous to transport the firearm to Canada Post than it is to transport it home from Canada Post. If that's the case, authorizations to transport for the purposes of completing the transfer need to be included in Bill C-42.

Lastly is an authorization to transport for the purposes of changing residences. This is one of the conditions that an authorization is issued daily in Canada. It makes sense to add this common occurrence to the list of lawful purposes that are to be attached to a person's restricted firearms licence.

To recap, we believe that Bill C-42 should be amended to include an authorization to transport for the purposes of instruction, completion of a transfer, and changing residences. 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.

Thank you.

[Greg Farrant, Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters]

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and my fellow panellists.

On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the largest conservation-based organization in Ontario, our 100,000 members, supporters, and subscribers, and our 725 member clubs across the province, thank you for the courtesy of inviting me to appear before the committee to speak to Bill C-42, the common-sense firearms licensing act.

It has been clear from the rhetoric that has developed around this legislation and from many of the comments made during debate in the House, that there is either a troubling lack of understanding of what the legislation does or does not do, or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what the government is seeking to do through the legislation by suggesting that it will open the floodgates to a proliferation of irresponsible behaviour on the part of legal, licensed, law-abiding firearms owners in this country.

In fact, some members of Parliament have gone so far as to suggest that once passed the bill will sanction behaviour reminiscent of the wild west, the same kind of dire predictions that characterize the response of anti-gun lobbyists. Many of the comments have been remarkably similar to those we heard in 2011 and 2012 when debate focused on Bill C-391 and Bill C-19, the latter of which finally scrapped the long-gun registry.

Not only are many of the characterizations we heard in the House inaccurate, but quite frankly it's disappointing when in the interest of partisan politics some have suggested that the bill is either a bribe to one group in the firearms community, or payola, as one member of Parliament put it, to not testify against other government legislation; or a gift to the firearms community; or politically partisan legislation that will benefit only those who represent ridings where firearms ownership and use is the norm; or worse still, that it's the product of a “gun lobby” with a U.S.-influenced ideology, which frankly I find offensive.

During second reading debate on the bill, a number of members expressed the belief that the legislation will benefit those in rural and northern areas of the country. For members who ascribe to this theory, I would respectfully remind them that firearms owners from across Canada come from many places and many backgrounds.

In fact, if they think there is a rural-urban divide on long-gun ownership in particular, I suggest they think again. A quick survey of just our members in three urban centres, Windsor, London, and Ottawa, earlier this week showed that 4,500 of our members who own firearms live in those centres. When it comes to a large urban centre like Toronto, almost 290,000 non-restricted firearms are owned by residents of Canada's biggest city, and 85,000 are legally licensed to possess a firearm. Of those, roughly 32,000 are licensed to possess restricted or prohibited firearms, which in 2012 translated into 90,000 legally registered restricted and prohibited firearms in the GTA.

Firearms owners in Canada are judges, lawyers, farmers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, accountants, even federal politicians, many of whom, like former interim Liberal and opposition leader Bill Graham, live in and represent urban ridings. They are not criminals. They are not gang members. Rather, they are lawful firearms owners who obey the law.

The changes proposed in Bill C-42 will make life easier for these people because there will be less needless paperwork. It will not, however, change the way that these responsible, law-abiding individuals safely use, store, and transport their firearms. Despite this we have had at least one member of Parliament who attempted to link the debate of Bill C-42 and the changes it will make with the behaviour of terrorists. Others have suggested that the changes like the application of an ATT to a licence will result in firearms owners running around mall parking lots with guns in their possession threatening the public safety.

This bill does some very simple things, some of which are specifically designed to greatly enhance the public safety. The rest are nothing more than common-sense proposals that pose no additional risk to the public despite all the hyperbole. I will not speak to all the changes proposed in the legislation but will focus instead on a few key aspects of the bill.

The grace period for licence renewal comes with an incentive to renew. It addresses an administrative error on the part of the licensee that immediately and unfairly places them in violation of the Criminal Code. It also comes with restrictions that ensure that until the error is corrected they cannot use their firearms or purchase ammunition for those firearms. The bill proposes to merge possession-only licences with possession and acquisition licences. Canadians who have a POL have owned and used firearms responsibly for decades. The very fact that their licence status will change is hardly a reason for them to suddenly and inexplicably become irresponsible.

Bill C-42 contains two very important changes that taken alone or together will help to enhance public safety, something that many parliamentarians and anti-gun groups have been arguing for for years.

The first, which I might point out has been a long-standing policy of my organization, is that all new or first-time firearms owners will no longer be able to simply challenge a test to get a licence, but will have to take the firearms safety course.

You would think that even a group like the Coalition for Gun Control would applaud this move, but instead of admitting that the provision enhances public safety, they choose instead to focus on what they believe are discrepancies on how the course is taught across the country instead of supporting the introduction of mandatory training.

The second relates to proposed changes that Bill C-42 would make to sections 109 and 110 of the Criminal Code that relate to mandatory and discretionary prohibition orders. Court orders prohibiting the possession of firearms and other articles including ammunition are mandatory when a person has been convicted or granted a discharge. Bill C-42 adds that a mandatory prohibition order would apply regardless of the possible sentence when violence was used, threatened, or attempted against the offender's current or former intimate partner, or the child or parent of the offender or the offender's current or former intimate partner.

With respect to discretionary prohibition orders, Bill C-42 provides that, in circumstances involving the use or threat of violence, prohibition orders may be imposed for life or a shorter period as opposed to the current maximum of 10 years. Surely this is something that should be supported, but we've been disappointed with the reaction of anti-gun groups and others to what we believe is a sensible amendment that enhances public safety.

During debate in the House, several members of Parliament spoke of their concerns about illegal firearms coming into Canada and chastised the government for not doing anything to address the threat. In fact, this bill proposes to end the loophole that stops information sharing between law enforcement agencies, in this case, the RCMP and the CBSA when they are investigating the importation of illegal guns. The concern over the flow of illegal firearms into Canada is a serious one, and depending upon the jurisdiction, is responsible for the large majority of guns used in the commission of a crime. In my view, this amendment goes a long way to addressing this problem. Just anecdotally, former police chief Bill Blair, estimated that 55% of the guns used in crime in Toronto were smuggled in from the U.S., while in B.C. one police chief suggested it could be up to 90%.

Lastly I want to touch on the portion of the bill that amends section 19 of the Firearms Act pertaining to the circumstances under which authorization to transport restricted or prohibited firearms is granted. The bill provides for automatic authorizations upon licence renewal, not automatic licence renewal, as the coalition would have you believe. It simply removes the requirement to obtain paper authorizations every time you want to move a firearm. A person who holds the appropriate licence will be authorized to transport them for the five purposes spelled out in the legislation, not freely transported in cars at any time going anywhere within the province, as the coalition and others have suggested.

In closing, Mr. Chair and members of the panel, 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”.

I am pleased to see that the Liberal Party of Canada has chosen to support many of the aspects of the bill, and we appreciate and acknowledge that.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for affording me the courtesy of appearing here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good morning, colleagues.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Today we are continuing our study 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 that would result from this.

With us here this morning we have two witnesses for our first hour. We have from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Mr. Greg Farrant, manager of government affairs and policy; and from the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, Mr. Tony Bernardo, executive director. Welcome to the committee, gentlemen.

As par for the course for the committee we will certainly allow opening statements of up to 10 minutes. If you are a little briefer of course it gives more opportunity for a bit of an ongoing dialogue. You have the luxury of setting the schedule on that, so we will go right off.

Mr. Farrant, if you have an opening statement, please carry on.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-642, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (high profile offender).

I want to start by saying that I will oppose my Conservative colleague's bill at second reading, and I will explain why in my speech today.

This bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require the Correctional Service of Canada, in certain circumstances, to disclose particulars of the statutory release of a high-profile offender by posting those particulars on the service's website and to provide a written notice of the disclosure of the information to the victim. Information including the offender's name and a recent photograph, previous convictions, the date of release, the destination of the offender and any of the conditions attached to the conditional release could be disclosed.

My colleague spoke a lot about the fact that the public has the right to know what is going on, which is connected to what I want to talk about in the second part. I do not know whether the member opposite is aware of these provisions, but I still want to inform people across the country who may be watching right now and following this debate closely.

Right now, the communication of this sort of information is governed by section 25 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Under this section, before the conditional release of an offender, the Correctional Service of Canada notifies all police forces that have jurisdiction at the destination of the offender. Police forces are also given any information that the Correctional Service of Canada has about the offender. If the Correctional Service of Canada has reasonable grounds to believe that an offender poses a threat to any person, police forces can share that information with the general public. That is already in the existing legislation. This decision is left to the discretion of police forces, who are responsible for determining whether such communication is necessary. Right now, it is already possible to do that under the existing legislation. The Correctional Service of Canada transfers the information to the police forces concerned. They are the ones that decide whether or not to disclose the information, for all sorts of reasons that I will talk about later in my speech.

Unfortunately, the bill as it now stands is a way for the Conservatives to play partisan politics rather than establishing a good public safety policy, which Canada really needs. There have been a few examples of this in the area of public safety, whether it be private members' bills or bills that come directly from the government. I am thinking, for example, of Bill C-42, which we are in the process of examining in committee and which deals with the classification of restricted and prohibited weapons. This bill would assign the responsibility for classifying these weapons to cabinet rather than to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is who should be responsible for doing that.

As I mentioned, our police forces already have the discretionary power to release information about the offenders referred to in Bill C-642 when they deem it to be necessary. That brings me to the question that I unfortunately did not get an answer to. That question concerns the groups that should have been consulted, groups that have specific questions about Bill C-642.

I think that, in examining this bill, it would have been a good idea to consult victims groups across Canada.

As I mentioned, Steve Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, had far more questions than answers about this bill and what it involves. I would like to quote him once again for those watching the debate. He said that there was no evaluation of the potential consequences of the disclosure of information on rehabilitation and public safety.

He was concerned about victims of crime and wondered what would happen if the victim were related to the offender and did not want the attention or if there were a publication ban.

He also said that this could be integrated into provincial legislation governing disclosure of information about dangerous offenders. Each province has information disclosure laws and policies often used by police services, and this bill could infringe on their jurisdiction.

I note that my colleague from the third party asked a question about the provincial laws that would be affected.

Again, my Conservative colleague failed to answer the question.

Studies show that the best results for public safety are obtained through the supervised, gradual reintegration of offenders in society.

Perversely, Bill C-642 might lead some offenders to opt out in order to avoid being covered by the content of the bill, and that is quite serious.

Rehabilitation programs are the cornerstone not only of our Canadian correctional system, but also of our entire political system when it comes to public safety and national security.

The Auditor General's report came out today and raised a relatively serious fact about what goes on at Correctional Service Canada institutions. Last year, 1,500 offenders did not have access to reintegration programs. At the end of their sentence, they left prison directly without having followed this type of program. This is quite serious.

We know, we see it and everyone talks about it, including the police services who happen to be on Parliament Hill today. I commend the Canadian Police Association, which supports all reintegration measures.

Correctional Service Canada works hand in hand with a number of reintegration organizations, including ARCAD, whose $70,000 annual funding was unfortunately cancelled by the Conservative government. This group performed small miracles in terms of reintegrating different offenders. What is more, this group existed for over 50 years. It therefore had a proven track record.

It is not uncommon to see that the members across the way do not take into consideration all these fine examples and this evidence that everyone wants to work together to ensure that our communities are safer and that, as much as possible, we live in harmony and in a safe system. They do not understand the importance of reintegration. This bill might have some egregious repercussions for safety in general.

We are already going downhill when it comes to reintegration and the false debate surrounding crime. As a society we simply have to make a choice and the choice the Conservatives are making is to play partisan politics with programs as important as those that Correctional Service Canada and their partner organizations are trying to put in place.

Many stakeholders we were able to speak with seemed to share our opinion regarding Bill C-642. I cannot name all of them, but I would like to name a few.

As I mentioned, one such individual is the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime. Another is Howard Sapers, the current Correctional Investigator of Canada. We would have liked him to be able to stay longer, since his reports are always extremely important and interesting.

Howard Sapers said that he finds it unfortunate that offenders are staying in prison longer, much like Marion Vacheret, a professor and criminologist at the Université de Montréal, who said that she does not understand why the government wants to see offenders kept inside at all costs.

Furthermore, a very interesting article that appeared in La Presse in January 2015 had this to say:

...a number of studies have shown that social reintegration has a higher success rate when the offender has spent more time under community supervision before the end of his sentence, in other words, on parole.

I also deplore the lack of consultation by my colleague. I do not know why he did not do more consultation.

When introducing such a bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, it is important to consider every possible effect it could have on the Parole Board of Canada.

I think more consultation was needed, and my colleague did not address that very much, especially since this bill aims to replace the objectivity of the Parole Board of Canada with public consultation. That is something that he perhaps should have examined a little more thoroughly.

The Parole Board of Canada always does a remarkable job. The staff there do excellent work and are under a lot of pressure to protect our safety. I think it would have been important for my colleague to do more consultation.

I would like to add that, once again, I will unfortunately have to vote against this bill at second reading. I would like the member to go back to the drawing board and come back to us with something that will encourage social rehabilitation rather than discourage it, as my colleague suggested.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Rathjen and Mr. Laganière, you are here because you are part of the prevention group, and prevention is nowhere mentioned in Bill C-42. You weren't even consulted. That's why you're here today, in fact.

According to you, what should be done in terms of screening and the mental health of people who wish to purchase a licence? You said that it was possible to buy firearms online. What are the repercussions of such a market? Bill C-42 says nothing about putting a stop to this kind of market. What are your thoughts?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We have one space open, but every police association we've asked to date has declined, and that concerns me because I do think we need to hear from them, especially relative to transportation and reclassification. I would hope we don't have to subpoena someone from a police association to come.

I want to come back to you, Ms. Rathjen. I certainly do respect your right, while we're discussing Bill C-42, to lay out your arguments on the cumulative effect of changes to gun laws by previous legislative changes, and in fact, changes to regulations. My question goes to regulations because you have indicated a couple that seem to increase the risk to public safety as it relates to gun shows.

Do you have a list of those regulatory changes that have been made over the past two or three years that you can provide to the committee?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'll go on to a different question.

Mr. Latraverse, part of this legislation, Bill C-42, merges a possession-only licence together with the possession and acquisition licence.

Can you speak to how you see that as being a positive or a negative?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses for coming to committee this morning and for testifying to this common-sense firearms legislation that's before us in the form of Bill C-42.

Some of the testimony provided by Ms. Rathjen and Mr. Laganière seem to be very extreme. You talk about United States statistics at gun shows. You talk about road rage, yet you don't talk about the issue at hand, which is Bill C-42. That's really what we're here to discuss.

Mr. Laganière, you made a comment in your testimony that said this legislation will make it easier to access firearms. What in the legislation do you see will make it easier to access firearms?

[Heidi Rathjen]

I have not been made aware of their concerns. But one thing is sure, by loosening the safeguards around restricted firearms—and the current government has admitted that these are dangerous weapons—we are increasing the risk of their falling into the wrong hands, and the risk that they could be used impulsively.

In the United States, road rage often ends with shots being fired rather than punches being exchanged. By allowing the transportation of restricted weapons between thousands of places—shooting clubs, firing ranges and police stations, amongst other places—there is no doubt that, regardless of where you are with your handgun, you might be between your home and one of these other places.

Lastly, under Bill C-42, handgun owners, who have them for very specific purposes, for instance to go to a shooting club, to a firing range or to a gunsmith to get them fixed, will be able to transport them anywhere.

[Heidi Rathjen]

It's extremely worrying. We want assault weapons to be prohibited, or at the very least, restricted, because they are extremely dangerous. They are designed to kill human beings in war situations. There are different models of firearms. They have to be assessed and experts need to be able to review the criteria and the different military features of weapons in order to classify them.

The current government has done nothing to classify new models entering the market. These models are often labelled as being unrestricted, and so they are not subject to any kind of control. It's only later on that the RCMP is able to find the models which clearly have been misclassified under the law. The criteria still have not been updated. The list of prohibited models has not been updated, but at least the police is trying to apply certain criteria in reclassifying misclassified firearms. The reaction of the current government is to reverse these decisions, to complain and to declare amnesties.

Last summer, regulations were very quietly adopted. Under these regulations, the RCMP cannot reclassify a firearm for one year after the date the firearm was initially classified. This was done for the benefit of companies with commercial interests. Bill C-42 builds on those regulations to subject the law to future regulations which we know nothing of yet. That way, it will be possible to completely overturn this decisions made at the discretion of the RCMP.

We know very well that this government really doesn't care about who owns this type of firearm. None of the three investigations which followed the shooting of three police officers in Moncton asked how someone like Justin Bourque could have obtained assault weapons, nor why that was allowed to happen. On the contrary, the investigations tried to determine how to better arm police officers, instead of preventing people from owning assault weapons.

Everything indicates that these new regulations will go against public safety and will make it easier for firearm owners to access weapons designed for military purposes which, in our view, should never end up in the hands of ordinary citizens.

[Heidi Rathjen]

I would like to specify that we are not a women's group specialized in preventing domestic violence. We are simple citizens who represent witnesses to and victims of gun violence.

The issue of domestic violence is absolutely critical. Firearms are often an important factor in domestic violence. I believe that the changes made under Bill C-42 are not significant in that regard. As far as I know, no women's group has been consulted and no group fighting domestic violence have asked for these types of changes.

The coalition clearly explained that an indefinite prohibition order, as opposed to one limited to 10 years, will change nothing. In fact, it won't change very much. This was added to the bill so that the government can claim that the bill will strengthen gun control, when all other significant measures will be watered down. Controls at every level will be weakened, except for one provision on imports.

All of the measures we are discussing today, and which have been debated by the media and in the House of Commons, will weaken gun control. These measures were not introduced in the interest of public safety, but rather to respond to the complaints of groups representing gun owners and the gun lobby.