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.

[Linda Lapointe]

Has being in office when Bill C-19 and Bill C-42 were passed allowed you to see opportunities to change information for Canadians?

[Rob O'Reilly]

Yes. I started working for the predecessor of the current Assistant Commissioner, Ms. Strachan. So I took part in the consultations on Bill C-19. I forget at this very moment what year I started the Canadian firearms program, but I was part of the team when Bill C-42 and Bill C-71 were drafted.

[Rob O'Reilly]

Okay.

Thank you very much for the question.

As you can appreciate, there have been three firearms bills since 2012, Bill C-19, Bill C-42 and Bill C-71. The program has been and remains intimately involved in the preparation of some cases and in early consultation on those bills. We are very aware of and attempt to respect the parliamentary process. Many of the documents we are asked to review and provide input on are subject to cabinet confidence. We are very versed in the handling of those documents, and the breadth of consultations we can or cannot have as a consequence of that particular privilege.

When it comes to legislation like this, we also are in a position of anticipating what are going to be areas of inquiry. As I mentioned in my first statement, we are not in the habit of speaking on pending legislation. There are many elements to Bill C-71. In this case, it would probably have been our preference to not provide any commentary at all.

Unfortunately, and we've seen this historically, the minute new legislation is proposed or even being talked about in the media or the public context, we immediately get calls.

We don't have the luxury of saying we're not going to prepare Q and As for a particular issue, because the fact of the matter is we have hundreds of employees who have to answer those phones. If we don't have answers prepared to be able to inform those Canadians, they can rightly be more confused or more upset.

Firearms Act

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I get the overall impression that my hon. colleague is not overly enthusiastic about Bill C-71. Nevertheless, he does make a valid contribution at committee and I always appreciate his interventions there.

The member had a multitude of points but I am only going to pick up on two.

The first one has to do with the five-year limitation, which he argues is unnecessary because it already happens and it is a lifetime inquiry. I therefore would ask the hon. member why a former Conservative colleague of his, a former minister in fact, felt compelled to introduce Bill C-42, which Bill C-71 picks up on and which directly addresses the issue of lifting the five-year limitation?

The second point has to do with licence verification, which the member repeatedly said always happens, yet Bill C-42 refers to where the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm. In other words, all that has to be established is the threshold of no reason to believe. A valid licence does not have to be produced.

I would be interested in my hon. colleague's comments on his former colleague's Bill C-42, which was Conservative legislation.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise again today to speak about the logical absurdity at the heart of Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms. We on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security have read and worked on the text of the bill. The conclusion is inescapable: the Liberals are trying to look like they are fighting crime, but in reality, they seem to be favouring the rights of criminals over those of law-abiding citizens. This is nothing new. Canadians are all too familiar with the Prime Minister's track record. I do not need to persuade anyone that the Prime Minister has an overly liberal attitude towards terrorists and street gangs.

Bill C-71 proves my point. We have been debating this bill for some time in the House, but I can guarantee you that thousands of citizens have been continuing the discussions across Canada. Yesterday, my colleague from Lethbridge presented a petition signed by 86,000 law-abiding Canadians — certainly not criminals — calling for Bill C-71 to be scrapped.

The Prime Minister likes to brag every chance he gets about working for reconciliation with first nations. This has been yet another failure, since there have been no discussions with first nations. Maybe he thought it would be too difficult to have a conversation with them, so he did not bother.

Firearms are a way of life for many indigenous peoples. They hunt every day, as it is part of their ancient traditions, and we understand that. However, they were not able to share their views, except in committee, and only because the Conservatives requested that first nations witnesses appear. Those representatives said they did not deem that Bill C-71 applied to them and they had no need for it. They therefore have no intention of obeying it. That is a pretty serious problem.

As I said earlier, we have not debated Bill C-71 for quite some time. I would therefore like to remind Canadians what the bill is all about. Let me remind Canadians that this bill does nothing to fight street gangs and organized crime. I would also remind Canadians that the bill is an attempt by the Prime Minister to impose a gun registry and yet another burden on law-abiding citizens for no good reason.

Now I will go over some of the finer points of the bill to illustrate to what extent the Liberals have lost their way. The following are some of the gaps in Bill C-71: the proposed legislation would remove the reference to the five-year period that applies to background checks for permit applications, thereby eliminating any time restriction on those checks. What is more, every time there is a transfer of ownership of a non-restricted firearm, the purchaser and vendor will have to check whether the licence is valid. Retailers will also be required to keep records of their inventories and sales at their own expense. The current wording of the bill repeals parts of our former 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, which gives parliamentarians, not the RCMP, the power to classify firearms. Under this bill, specific transport authorization would be required every time a restricted or non-restricted firearm is transported across communities, except when a firearm is transported between a residence and an approved shooting range, as the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said.

In his speech, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness mentioned that the amendments of all the recognized parties had been accepted. However, we proposed 44 amendments and only one was accepted. The members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security worked extremely hard. We took off our jackets, rolled up our sleeves and worked for hours to make this bill more logical. We proposed 44 amendments to improve the bill. They were not ideological amendments. The Liberals rejected all of them except for one.

One of our amendments proposed that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness be the one to change the classification of firearms based on recommendations from the manufacturer and the RCMP. This amendment would have prevented the RCMP from having a complete monopoly over the classification of firearms and ensured that consultations would precede any reclassification. That would have ensured public accountability by forcing the minister to provide his reasons for the reclassification in the Canada Gazette. The Liberals rejected that amendment.

We also proposed an amendment that would have made it unnecessary to conduct background checks on people seeking to renew a firearm licence or firearm owners the year of the first background check since the continuous eligibility process involves daily checks. The amendment sought to simplify the process without reducing the number of checks. Of course, we all agree that background checks must be conducted.

We wanted to improve the bill so as to make it a little simpler, but we were rebuffed. We also proposed that people on indigenous reserves or in remote areas who live off hunting be exempt from the regulations on firearms transfers, but once again we were told no.

We are now at third reading stage, and I believe it is important to remind Canadians of the Conservative Party's position on this matter. Canada's Conservatives believe that Canadians' safety should be the top priority of any government. Talk is not enough; action and specific measures are needed. Unfortunately, this law does not have any new measures to tackle the gang violence in Surrey or Toronto and the increased crime rate in Canada's rural communities.

We cannot trust the Liberals when it comes to firearms legislation, because they are not cracking down on criminals who use weapons to commit violent crimes, and they are treating law-abiding gun owners like criminals.

The Conservatives will continue to advocate for real action to keep Canadians safe, and we will focus our efforts on the criminal causes of gun violence.

Our leader was very clear yesterday when he said that next year, in 2019, when the Conservatives form government, we will repeal Bill C-71 and replace it with a law that targets criminals and street gangs, not law-abiding Canadians.

We have concerns about Bill C-75, another bill introduced around the same time. The government claims that Bills C-71 and C-75, which were introduced in tandem, are meant to combat gun violence. However, as we have said, Bill C-71 will criminalize law-abiding gun owners. Bill C-75 is even worse. It will turn certain criminal offences, such as participating in an activity of a terrorist group, administering a noxious substance, like the date rape drug, advocating genocide, or participating in organized crime, into offences that could be punishable by a fine. It makes absolutely no sense for the government to do this.

Criminals are criminals. Unless the government stops trying to please and mollify interest groups every time it decides to do something, it will never be able to introduce meaningful, relevant measures that really tackle the problem.

Under Bill C-75, what are now certain criminal offences could become punishable by mere fines. They say their goal is to relieve pressure on the justice system. If the justice system is a problem, fix it. Criminal sanctions should not be downgraded just because the government has a problem.

We will take care of this next year.

In addition to making life difficult for law-abiding individuals, Bill C-71 is telling business owners, people who work hard for their money, to keep records about clients and firearms. They are being forced to keep those records for 20 years. They will have to have a computer system. The government is forcing them to do more, but they do not have the money to do it. Any costs associated with record-keeping will be their problem, unless there is something else we have not heard about.

I would now like to talk about the difference between the work of elected officials in the House of Commons and that of public servants or bureaucrats. Once again, the government is putting Canadians' safety in the hands of bureaucrats instead of allowing elected officials to decide what is important for Canadians. For example, the government is giving the RCMP total control over firearms reclassification. It is now up the RCMP to decide whether an individual is a criminal for owning a firearm that the RCMP now deems to be unacceptable.

We think we should be playing that role, even though it is true that no one here is an expert in the matter. We would need to get accurate information and advice from manufacturers and the RCMP. Then, the minister would make a decision based on the evidence. It is up to us to tell Canadians that after holding consultations or conducting checks, we decided to change the classification. Why would we not be able to do that?

Why let the RCMP make those decisions on our behalf? Once again, the government is giving power to bureaucrats who are not accountable to anyone, who can sit in their offices and decide to change the rules and prohibit a firearm without us having any say in the matter. What are we doing here? This is our job. We are not perfect, but that is why we would need to listen so that we could understand the situation properly and make an informed decision.

With regard to the registry, this is the second time that the Liberals have tried to punish law-abiding citizens. The first time was in 1993. Twenty-five years ago, the “little guy from Shawinigan” introduced a registry and told us not to worry because it would cost only $2 million. Shortly after that, we learned it would cost $2 billion, and we all know what happened next.

Now the Liberals are introducing a bill that requires retailers to collect data and send it to the government if their business shuts down, but they deny that this is a gun registry. That is what they want us to believe. As the saying goes, they are taking us for fools. They are trying to tell us in every possible way that this is not a gun registry. As soon as someone enters data on a computer, and businesses are required to send that data to the government if they shut down, what is that? It means that information on citizens and on guns is being shared. That is a kind of registry.

Getting back to indigenous peoples, I asked a question on that topic after the minister's speech. He replied simply that this pertains to section 35 of the Constitution. The minister just said directly that, from the standpoint of national security and harmonizing security across Canada, there is a constitutional problem. In its current form, Bill C-71 is unconstitutional if it applies to indigenous peoples. Indigenous representatives told us that themselves, and the minister just confirmed it. Now what is happening? The Liberals are pushing ahead, and once again, the first victims they go after are our law-abiding hunters and sport shooters. We have no shortage of laws in Canada. This is not the United States. It currently takes eight months to get a licence, and there are quite a few hoops to jump through.

I realize that the Constitution gives indigenous peoples certain rights. Still, as I said when I asked the minister my question, people who own guns are human beings, citizens, on an equal basis as other Canadians. Why would we impose a law on one group of individuals that would not apply to another group under the Constitution? That will not work.

I know this is complex, but I think law-abiding citizens are entitled to wonder why this bill is targeting them instead of criminals. The Liberals have yet to answer that question, and they cannot always claim it is because of the Constitution. When it comes to safety and security, that answer is not good enough. The government cannot just fool around with safety and security by simply saying that the Constitution protects its decision and that is that. That is not going to work.

The Conservatives are being told that we are all talk and no action. I just want to remind the House of what our government did to fight crime. When we were in government from 2006 to 2015, we fought tirelessly to keep Canadians safe. For example, we passed the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. This act simplified the licensing system while strengthening firearms prohibitions for people who had been convicted of an offence involving domestic violence. We also passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which strengthened bail provisions for people accused of serious offences involving firearms.

The legislation we passed to tackle organized crime and ensure protection in the justice system provided police officers and justice officials with new tools that would go a long way in fighting organized crime. We supported the national crime prevention strategy. We funded initiatives across the country to advance Canada's crime prevention and community protection objectives under the national crime prevention strategy.

We created the northern and aboriginal crime prevention fund under the national crime prevention strategy in order to meet the needs of northern and aboriginal communities when it comes to crime and community safety.

We created the youth justice fund. In December 2006, the guns, gangs and drugs component of the youth justice fund was put in place to help rehabilitate young offenders.

We also created the youth gang prevention fund in 2006 to support community groups that work with troubled youth in order to prevent them from joining gangs by addressing the risk factors associated with gangs.

In other words, we kept our promises and worked for law-abiding citizens, not against them.

Let no one doubt our determination to fight crime. The Liberals, on the other hand, promised $327 million almost a year ago, but not a single penny has surfaced so far. The Liberals say they want to fight crime, they promise money, but we have yet to see a single penny.

Crime and gangs do not take time off. Gangs keep on committing crimes. The current government is spending a lot of money on a lot of silly things. They promised money to fight gangs and we agree with that, but now one year has gone by and we have yet to see a single red cent. That is outrageous. We need action now.

History is repeating itself. In 1993, the Liberals created the gun registry to make it look like they were fighting crime. Twenty-five years later, the Liberals are pulling out the same old strategy in the hope that Canadians will again be fooled by the smoke and mirrors of the Prime Minister and his team. They tell us that they are looking after us and will help up. In reality, Canadians are not fools. That was demonstrated by my colleague's petition this week. People understand that this is not the way to fight crime. We will deal with the problem next year.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved that Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to open third reading debate in the House today on Bill C-71, an important piece of legislation in support of public safety and the ability of law enforcement to investigate gun crimes, while at the same time being reasonable and respectful toward law-abiding firearms owners and businesses.

Following years of declining crime rates in Canada, a number of critical statistics concerning firearms pivoted in 2013 to show a significant increase over subsequent years. In 2013, there were 211 attempted murders involving guns; in 2016, there were 290. In 2013, there were 134 gun homicides; in 2016, there were 223. For armed robbery, the numbers jumped from 2,096 in 2013 to 2,870 in 2016. According to the most recent data from Statistics Canada that became available just this summer, between 2013 and 2017 overall offences involving guns increased by 44%. It is this troubling trend that Bill C-71 would help to address, hand in hand with our investment of $327 million over five years, rising to $100 million every year thereafter, to intensify our battle against guns and gangs.

That new funding will be aimed at three key goals: first, increasing the capacity and the effectiveness of the Canada Border Services Agency to interdict gun smuggling at the border; second, bolstering the work of the RCMP to identify and take down illegal weapons trafficking operations; and third, to support provinces, municipalities and local law enforcement in their efforts to disrupt gangs, prosecute offenders, prevent young people from being drawn into gangs in the first place and to help them exit that destructive lifestyle. This initiative has been very well received by our provincial and municipal counterparts and many stakeholders, like those from all across the country who attended our guns and gangs summit last spring in Ottawa. Discussions are well advanced on how to make the best use of the new federal dollars. The new Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction will be rolling out the details in the weeks ahead.

In the meantime, we continue to advance Bill C-71. The public safety committee of the House studied this bill very carefully, and during its consideration it accepted amendments from all of the major parties. I would like to extend my thanks to the committee members who, as always, conducted a very thorough study of the subject matter and sent the bill back to the House in improved form.

During the last election, the Liberal Party ran on very specific campaign promises relating to firearms. Bill C-71 deals with those promises that require legislative change. They were as follows: first, repeal the changes made by Bill C-42 that allowed restricted and prohibited weapons to be freely transported without a permit; second, put decision-making about weapons restrictions back into the hands of police and not politicians; third, require enhanced background checks for everyone seeking to purchase a handgun or other restricted firearm; fourth, require purchasers of firearms to show a licence when they buy a gun and require all sellers of firearms to confirm that the licence is in fact valid before completing the sale; and finally, require firearms vendors to keep records of all firearms inventories and sales to assist police in investigating firearms trafficking and other gun crimes. We are delivering on each of these promises to make our communities safer and to support law enforcement while not targeting law-abiding firearms owners.

First, on the issue of enhanced background checks, currently when deciding whether to issue a possession and acquisition licence, a PAL, the law requires the chief firearms officer of a province or territory to consider the past five years of an applicant's history to determine if their past activities or behaviours indicate a public safety risk.

Bill C-71 proposes to eliminate that five-year limitation. That idea stems from a private member's bill introduced by former Conservative cabinet minister James Moore in 2003. Upon tabling his private member's bill, Mr. Moore told this chamber the following:

Currently the Firearms Act says that if in the past five years a person has committed a violent crime and has been convicted of a violent crime or of threatening to commit a violent crime, that person cannot apply to own a firearm for five years.

My private member's bill does not say after five years: it says if a person has ever committed a violent crime in their life never does that person get to own a gun. If a person has ever beat his wife or ever committed rape or ever committed murder and is released from jail, never in his life does that person get to own a gun....

Those are the words of the hon. James Moore.

Mr. Moore's bill obviously did not pass, because today the Firearms Act still says five years. Bill C-71, however, will remove that time limitation, as well as expand the kinds of things that the CFO can consider when deciding whether to issue a licence or not. There are, for example, explicit references in the law to gender-based violence. Thanks to amendments made by the committee, which were adopted unanimously, the CFO would also be able to consider an applicant's online behaviour as well. There appears to be broad and multipartisan support for these measures on background checks.

For indigenous hunters who engage in the traditional practices of hunting, the aboriginal peoples of Canada adaptations regulations will continue to apply. The regulations allow an applicant to ask an elder or community leader for a recommendation to go to the provincial chief firearms officer to confirm the importance to the applicant of their engaging in traditional hunting practices, which are, of course, a section 35 treaty right. Therefore, we can see the legal framework here attempting to make sure that the appropriate indigenous considerations are taken fully into account.

Secondly, on the issue of transporting firearms, specifically restricted and prohibited firearms, before former bill C-42 made changes to the Firearms Act in 2015, the owner of a restricted or prohibited weapon was required to get an authorization to transport it, what is known as an ATT, every time the owner took that firearm anywhere. The Harper government loosened that restriction by attaching an automatic authorization to transport to every possession and acquisition licence for the purpose of transporting the firearm home from a store or to an approved shooting range or to a port of entry or a gunsmith or a gun show. Because the ATT was automatic and applied to numerous different destinations, it became virtually impossible for police to detect the transportation of restricted or prohibited weapons for illegal purposes.

Bill C-71 seeks to narrow and clarify the scope of the ATT rules. An ATT would continue to be included automatically with a PAL licence to transport restricted or prohibited weapons to a certified shooting range, but beyond that, a separate ATT would be required. This would assist law enforcement without impacting gun owners in any major way. In addition, we will work to ensure that the firearms centre is properly staffed to issue ATTs as required, and we will provide an electronic portal where firearms owners can apply online and get their ATTs in a matter of just a few minutes. If people need to go to a gunsmith after they have been at firing ranges, they would also be able to get an ATT on their smart phones. Therefore, the objective here is to make sure that the service is efficient.

Third, on the classification practices, it is of course up to Parliament, up to the House of Commons and the Senate, as a matter of law, to determine how firearms are classified. For years Parliament has identified and defined three categories: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Parliament is always free to change those categories if it sees fit. It can change the characteristics that apply to each of the three categories. That is Parliament's sovereign right.

Administratively, after the definitions have been set in law by Parliament, it should be firearms experts who make the technical determination as to which firearm fits into which category. That is a factual, technical function, and it should not be politicized. Bill C-71 makes that point very clear. It grandfathers those individuals who may be adversely affected by the previous government's decisions to allow the cabinet to contradict the experts and assign a lower category to a particular firearm, contrary to the definitions in the Criminal Code.

Let me turn next to the question of licence verification. Currently in Canada, if people want to buy ammunition for a non-restricted firearm, they must show the vendor a valid firearms licence. It might surprise many people to know that they do not currently have to show a valid firearms licence for purchasing a non-restricted firearm.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one cannot take simple things and then equate it to a larger whole. I think the member has misconstrued the actual provisions in Bill C-42 in the previous Parliament.

The Minister of Public Safety, at the advice of his technical firearms committee, could bring a recommendation to the Governor in Council, the cabinet, and bring to his colleagues a rationale for change to the status of a particular firearm to overrule the RCMP.

The RCMP do a great job. However, that legislation did not take the power away from the RCMP. It just allowed a check. Does the member not believe in the importance of having oversight over the bureaucracies that we have in this country, that politicians should be accountable, and they should be able to act on technical advice?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today.

The people of Winnipeg Centre believe in effective gun control measures that prioritize public safety and also ensure that law-abiding gun owners are treated fairly. During its last term, the Conservative government loosened gun laws through a series of legislative and regulatory amendments. Astonishingly, Canada has seen an increase in gun violence in the past three years.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security proposed a number of significant amendments and accepted amendments from all recognized parties. A Conservative amendment even help reassure people that this was not a long-gun registry.

In 2016, there were 223 gun-related homicides in Canada, 44 more than in the previous year. This is an increase of 23%, the highest increase since 2005. In 2016, guns were the most common murder weapon used in this country. Between 2013 and 2016, the number of domestic violence cases involving a firearm increased from 447 to 586.

We proposed a suite of measures, each one directly related to strengthening public safety and security. These measures will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and help police locate firearms that have been used to commit crimes. That means Bill C-71 is very important, because it will help save lives and solve crimes.

Bill C-71 will improve background checks for people applying to obtain or renew a firearms licence. It will also require firearms sellers to check whether the buyer is authorized to own a firearm, and it will tighten up the rules governing the transportation of restricted and prohibited firearms.

It is always fun to have the chance to speak some French in the House.

The 2015 Liberal Party platform made nine specific commitments related to firearms. Bill C-71 includes the platform commitments that require legislative changes. These include repealing changes made by Bill C-42 that allow restricted and prohibited weapons to be freely transported without a permit, and putting decision-making about weapons restrictions back in the hands of police and not politicians. It is time to have the experts actually doing the work, not politicians as it was under the Harper Conservatives. We are also looking to require enhanced background checks for anyone seeking to purchase a handgun or other restricted firearms. We are going to require purchasers of firearms to show a licence when they buy a gun, and require all sellers of firearms to confirm that the licence is valid before completing the sale. We are going to require firearms vendors to keep records of all firearms inventory and sales to assist police in investigating firearms trafficking and other gun crimes. We will not create a new national long-gun registry to replace the one that had been dismantled.

In my riding of Winnipeg Centre, gang crime is an important issue. It is something that goes hand in hand with this legislation. In fact, as part of our commitment to make it harder for criminals to get and use handguns and assault weapons, and to reduce gang and gun violence in Canada, our government has announced up to $327 million over five years and $100 million annually thereafter in new funding to help support a variety of initiatives to reduce gun crime and criminal gang activities.

The Government of Canada also brought together experts, practitioners, front-line personnel, and decision-makers for a summit on criminal guns and gangs in March 2018. The criminal guns and gangs summit is an unprecedented national summit on the challenges, solutions, and best practices in the fight against gun crime, and in combatting the deadly effects of gangs and illegal guns in communities across Canada, especially in communities like Winnipeg Centre. The government heard from key stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, community and mental health organizations, indigenous groups, and government and non-governmental organizations.

I would like to quote my good friend, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness:

Too many young people have been killed and too many communities have been marred by gun crime and gun violence. It doesn't have to be this way. By working together, we can make our communities safer through greater enforcement, collaboration and prevention. The federal government is making major new investments to tackle this scourge and will bring all levels of government and our partners together to confront this problem at the Summit on Criminal Guns and Gangs.

I have already talked about some of the crime that has been going on with guns in this country, and the increase in the number of gun crimes that have been happening. However, we have also seen an increase in the number of incidents of organized crime. For instance, between 2012 and 2016, there was an increase in murders of 17%, in manslaughter of 12%, in extortion of 74%, and in human trafficking of 300%.

The meth crisis especially is expanding, facilitated by organized crime groups. The production, trafficking, and sale of illicit drugs, such as fentanyl, are often the main cause of gun and gang violence. We are taking action on that not only with this program of $327 million, but we are also ensuring that we have a bill, Bill C-71, which is trying to bring a balanced and equitable approach to what we can do and how we can work together.

I had the opportunity to read about some of the issues that are going on. We have enhanced background checks. We will ensure there is licence verification. We will ensure that record-keeping is done by vendors to be able to trace firearms used in crimes. I was looking online and I noticed that, for instance, pharmacies have to keep records for 10 years related to drug use and patients' records and who gets prescription drugs in our country. I think it is okay if we ensure that vendors actually keep some records so that if the police need them when a crime is committed we can ensure that they have the full story about what is going on.

I would also like to talk about weapons classifications. Firearms are classified as prohibited, restricted, or for anything that does not fall within those two categories, non-restricted. The Criminal Code apparently lays out the criteria for what technical aspects of a firearm make it either prohibited or non-restricted, and the associated regulations directly list several dozen models. The RCMP is tasked with analyzing new firearms and firearm variants to determine which classification they will have under the criteria passed by Parliament.

In the spring of 2015, Bill C-42 of the Stephen Harper Conservatives granted the Governor in Council, or cabinet, the ability to overrule the variant classifications made by the experts, the RCMP, and to downgrade the classifications of firearms. This was done for two groups of firearms, the CZ 858 and the Swiss Arms rifles. As a former member of the 22nd Regiment, that is very concerning to me, because when we look at a CZ 858, it is a submachine gun. It resembles an AK-47. This is a weapon that has been used in the Vietnam War, in the war in Afghanistan by the Czechoslovakian army, and in the Libyan civil war. I do not think this type of weapon should be involved in hunting, as we should have respect for animals. I know most hunters have a great respect for hunting because it is a good thing to go out onto the land to provide for one's family. However, I do not believe that a weapon that resembles an AK-47, and has been used in armed conflicts around the world, is perhaps an appropriate weapon to have in our country. Individuals who own these weapons as of June 30, 2018 will be grandfathered. The government will offer a three-year amnesty to provide owners of affected firearms with time to come into compliance with the grandfathering requirements. During the amnesty period, owners will be authorized to possess but not use their firearms until licensing and registration requirements are met.

There is an awful lot to cover, but I would like to talk about one final thing before the opposition can try to tear me apart. There were 1,200 Grant Park students who walked out of class on March 14, just around the time of the summit. They walked out of class because they wanted to raise the issue of gun violence in their community. They were upset with the propositions put forward by many politicians who refused to acknowledge that there is gun violence in our country, and who have not proposed adequate solutions. This is why I am very proud of what we are trying to do, which is to strike that balance not only with respect to legislative changes, which are simply reasonable changes, which is not a long-gun registry, and ensuring that we have good records in case a criminal investigation needs to be undertaken, and also having programs to ensure that we provide our youth and those who are most vulnerable an ability not to become involved in gangs and criminal activity.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was astounded that my colleague from Kenora would actually accuse someone like me of having mental health issues, because I am one of the law-abiding firearms owners he is talking about. On the fact that he is suggesting that changes to the law made in Bill C-71 would address the issues in the United States, I might suggest that he would be better off pursuing a Congress seat than representing the fine folks in Kenora. To imply that making the changes we need to make here in Canada is the result of U.S. legislative policies is simply misguided.

I wish I actually did not have to rise in the House today to talk about this. I wish that the public safety committee, when the current government first took office, had been tasked with actually going across Canada and talking to people. If we were going to have a serious conversation about creating a safer Canada and increasing public safety, we could have had a thoughtful discussion. We could have had a less partisan discussion on this issue. Instead, the bill just came out of the blue. Bill C-71 came late in the mandate of the government after several years of trying to get electoral reform through. The Liberals cannot pass their marijuana legislation without the Senate pushing it back. They are trying to rig the election system again through Bill C-76.

This is where we are at. We are three years into a four-year mandate, ramming legislation through with a handful of hours at second reading, one meeting with the minister and bureaucrats at committee, and three more meetings with a handful of witnesses, a mere fraction of the number of people and organizations that wanted to be represented and have their voices heard. Now we just had notice from the government House leader that the Liberals are going to move time allocation, not only at the report stage of this bill but also at third reading, making sure that the voices that are reasonable and need to be heard will not be so that they can push through what can only be described as an emotionally based agenda when it comes to firearms.

There is not a single member of Parliament in this place who would not do the right thing if given the right options and good advice and empirical evidence to suggest that the legislation was going to improve safety for Canadians. If that actually happened, if that was the approach the government had actually taken, we might have come up with some legislation that had unanimous support. In fact, my colleague from Kenora who just spoke suggested the mental health side of things. There is nothing in Bill C-71 that would actually address mental health issues. There is nothing in Bill C-71 that would address any co-operation between federal investigators, law enforcement agencies, or firearms officers and anything to with any of the provincial mental health acts.

Here is why this bill is so offensive to the law-abiding firearms community. The Liberals say that nothing about this is a firearms registry. Nothing could be further from the truth. In a previous life, before I came here, I was a tenured faculty member at Red Deer College teaching systems analysis and design. I was a database architect and a database administrator before I came here. I understand information technology. I understand how to cross-reference information. Whether it is a distributed computing system or the technology we have today, with clouds of information out there, it is very easy.

The bureaucrats, the minister, and the police officers who came before the committee made it painstakingly obvious to anyone who was paying attention that with Bill C-71, every time there was a transaction and a firearm changed hands, whether through a sale, an estate inheritance, a gift, or lending or borrowing, Canadians would have to get permission from the government. If they were at a gun show on the weekend, if they were going to Cabela's, if they were selling a firearm to their neighbour, or if they were lending their rifle to their hunting buddy to go on a trip and were not on that trip too, they would have to get permission from the government to do this first.

Here is how this would work. The Liberal government today says that it is going to have someone on staff, 24/7, 365 days a year, to pick up the phone when the buyer and seller want to have a transaction. The Liberals' original legislation actually said that for every firearm that was going to be transacted, they would need a separate reference number. This is a registry, because there would be the seller's licence and the buyer's licence.

Here is my buyer's licence. It is a document. It has my licence number, my name, my address, and the type of licence I have. Every one of those reference numbers is going to transact the serial number, make, and model of that firearm, to be cross-referenced with distributed store records. I specifically asked the bureaucrats how this would work, and they said it would be no trouble for the central transaction database, with all the reference numbers, to easily go back to a store and find out where a firearm was originally purchased.

If I buy a firearm from Cabela's or another store, and I choose to sell that firearm to a hunting buddy, who then sells that firearm to someone else, and that firearm is stolen and used in a crime, the police would have the ability to implicate me and everyone in that entire chain of sales in the act that was eventually done by a criminal, rather than focusing on that criminal.

If I sold 40, 50, or 100 firearms in one transaction as a single individual and not as a business, maybe that would trigger some kind of threshold and someone would ask what was going on. Was it an estate dispersal? Was I getting rid of all my firearms? That might have done something to increase public safety, but unfortunately, this bill would not do anything.

As a matter of fact, all it would do is create more red tape, more bureaucracy, and more expense. It would make gun shows on weekends that Canadians participate in more difficult. When I asked the bureaucrats what would happen for a large gun show in Canada, they said they would need a few weeks' notice. Now it would be up to every gun show organizer in this country to let the firearms centre know that on a weekend, it would have to staff up. Do members know how many gun shows there are in Canada? Virtually every weekend of the year there is one somewhere in Canada.

We did not talk to anyone. We did not talk to any gun show organizers. We did not hear from anyone from the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, which is in the retail business. None of those organizations were brought in to testify before the committee so that the government would have an opportunity to understand what it was it was going to do.

Bill C-71 would create a registry of firearms transactions, to be maintained by the firearms centre, which would be cross-referenced with all the records that would now be mandatory for store owners to keep for a period of 20 years or more. The period would be 20 years or more, because the legislation does not say for just 20 years. It says that if Canada acceded to an international treaty that required Canadians to store the records for even longer, it would be automatic in law that those records would need to be kept longer. It would not even come back before Parliament.

We have discovered that Canada is already involved in negotiating one of those treaties, so it is very convenient that the legislation would be there so that we could keep the records even longer.

It is a $3-billion boondoggle. We have not had a single government official say how much more the government is going to spend on the firearms centre to ramp up the staff to keep track of the new gun registry.

Classification is another thing that frustrates firearms owners. Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, actually put the decisions back in the hands of elected representatives so that at least there was some recourse for law-abiding firearms owners who, by the stroke of a pen, went from one day being law-abiding firearms owners to the next day being in possession of prohibited property.

The Liberals could have adopted a very simple fix. We simply suggested taking it out of the hands of one individual and creating a panel. I put a recommendation before the committee to have five technical experts, including police, military, and civilian experts, advise us, thereby depoliticizing the issue altogether. In this way, it would not be in the hands of one entity or in the hands of politicians. We could get a panel of actual experts to make those recommendations and fix the rules.

We know that there are three basic criteria for handguns: rimfire, centrefire, barrel length, and so on. These criteria tell us if a firearm is restricted or prohibited. There is nothing that prescriptive in the long-gun classification system. It is very subjective, and that is the problem with the rules. The minister says that it can hide behind the RCMP, because the RCMP simply has to follow the rules, but the rules are not clear. They are very subjective. It is very frustrating.

Last but not least is the notion of licensing. As my colleague from Kenora rightly pointed out, if we go back to the passage of legislation in 1977, there are firearms owners in Canada who have had licences for almost 40 years. They would now, when they went to renew their licences, have to answer for everything they did back when they 18 years old, some 20 years before 1977, for example, as if the mental health issues from 60 years ago were going to be the basis for denying them a licence. Mark my words, someone is going to go back and dredge this up, and a current law-abiding firearms owner who has had a licence for 30 or 40 years is going to be denied a licence. Do members know how to appeal that? A person has to make an application before a court. A person has to hire a lawyer, go before a court, and get a judge to overrule the decision of the chief firearms officer.

We provided an amendment at committee, which the Liberals shot down. As a matter of fact, it was an amendment proposed by a rural Liberal member from Ontario, who suggested that we create a system of appeal so that law-abiding firearms owners were not caught up in being denied their licences if they had had them for a number of years.

I could go on for another couple of hours about the failures of Bill C-71, but my time is up, so I will happily answer any of the misguided questions the Liberals have for me.

Motions in amendment

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to speak to Bill C-71. There is no denying that this issue has been stirring up a lot of emotion in Canada for many years, and for good reason.

Organizations such as PolySeSouvient and victims of horrific gun crimes are advocating for gun control and courageously lending their voices to the political process to talk about that. I must say that in communities represented by members in the House from all parties, there are law-abiding gun owners. They have legal permits and use them to hunt or sport shoot. They do not want to be targeted by the legislation being passed, and we are trying not to target them. Ultimately, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to pass legislation that ensures public safety. Doing that work and finding the right balance is not always easy.

I would like to explore certain elements of Bill C-71, as well as the debate overall, which will be challenging. First of all, I want to thank everyone who appeared before the committee, especially those who represent victims' groups. Every time we study an issue, whether it be impaired driving legislation or crime and punishment legislation, victims' advocacy groups always appear. After enduring these horrific crimes, these individuals have the courage to speak publicly about their point of view and participate in the legislative process, which is already intimidating enough. I have to give them credit. I think they deserve a tremendous amount of admiration and respect.

One way to show our respect is to actually listen to them. I feel like we did listen to them in our study of this bill. As my Liberal colleague just said, that is why we adopted an amendment to try to establish enhanced criteria for background checks. I think all parties in the House agree that if we have the best background check process we possibly can, every law-abiding citizen should easily pass it. This would allow them to get a licence, and Canadians could rest assured that we are making every effort to ensure public safety.

In the same vein, that is why we support the measures to make the background check cover the applicant's entire lifetime. This is already being done on a de facto basis anyway, I might add. The courts have ruled in several cases that, despite the existing five-year time frame, there is a discretionary authority to examine the applicant's entire life. We think it is only appropriate that this be included in the legislation. That said, we also need to look at recording keeping by firearms dealers and sellers.

It is important to note that when it comes to the point of sale records, this is something that existed before from the 1970s to the 1990s, and it is something that even opponents of the long-gun registry referred to. I am thinking in particular of testimony in 2012 before the public safety committee of the then Calgary police chief, Rick Hanson. He was brought to committee to express his opposition to the long-gun registry. He specifically said that with the elimination of the long-gun registry, it would be important to bring back the point of sale records which would allow police, with a warrant, to obtain that information which, as we heard at committee, all respectable sales folks and businesses already keep at any rate.

It is the law in the U.S. as well. In fact, it is important to note that in the United States, contrary to what is proposed in Bill C-71, records would be kept for a lifetime, indefinitely essentially, whereas Bill C-71 prescribes a 20-year period. I see some distinctions there as well. It is seen as a relatively reasonable measure that allows police to have the tools they need to ensure public safety.

When it comes to an individual selling a firearm to another individual, some concerns were brought forward at committee, most notably, the reference number that would be given when an individual with a non-restricted firearm had to go through the process of ensuring the person to whom he or she was selling had a valid PAL. In that process, it is important to note that one of the concerns was the use of “singular” in the legislation, which essentially led some folks to believe there would be a reference number for each firearm being sold in a single transaction. Therefore, if one individual were selling three firearms to another individual, there would be one reference number generated for each firearm.

Officials reassured us that based on the Interpretation Act in Canadian law, when “singular” was used, it could mean plural unless otherwise specified. That being said, I brought forward an amendment, which was unanimously adopted by the committee, to add for greater certainty “one or more firearms” to ensure that only one reference number would be generated per transaction and to make it clear that the reference number would be generated for the purposes of PAL verification and not to track individual firearms and be perceived or portrayed as any sort of backdoor registry.

The other element that we must closely examine is the issuance of permits for transporting guns, the automatic permits, which Bill C-71 would change significantly. We are still opposed to automatic renewal, as we were in the previous Parliament with Bill C-42. The change being made by the Liberals is appropriate.

That said, we heard some powerful testimony concerning the ability to renew a permit automatically to transport a gun to a gun repair shop. It is extremely important because witnesses explained that having a firearm that is damaged or not operational can be a threat to public safety. Consequently, allowing gun owners to travel to an authorized repair shop would be just as appropriate as allowing them to transport a firearm from the point of purchase to the place where the gun will be stored or to a shooting range. Unfortunately, the amendment was rejected. We will continue to support this proposal in the hope that the amendment may be made in future.

The question of gang violence, as raised by the Conservatives, is a legitimate one. I do not think anyone will go that far in this direction, but it is important to understand, especially if the government says that this would be the tonic solution. I do not believe, in good faith, that is what has been presented to us. The issue of gang violence is a complex one. One piece of legislation will not resolve it and the New Democrats believe more needs to be done to tackle this. We need to tackle trafficking at the border. I know the member for Windsor West has done extraordinary work in this direction, as a member of Parliament representing a border community.

We need to do more to fight radicalization. When we think of radicalization, we think of terrorism, but we also need to look at street gangs. Street gangs prey on vulnerable youth and recruit them. That is a form of radicalization as well, and more needs to be done to tackle that.

The member for Lakeland brought forward a fantastic motion on rural crime, which the New Democrats were pleased to support, and we were pleased she supported our amendment as well. It will be before the public safety committee as part of that study. We need to look at ensuring the RCMP has the resources to tackle rural crime. Firearm theft, unfortunately, is part of that reality from some of what we have heard.

There are obviously a lot of complex issues going on and certainly, on that front, the Conservatives are absolutely correct in raising that issue and ensuring that more needs to be done to take on that issue. We will be pleased to look at that as well, because it is an important public safety issue. No one is denying that and we will continue to work in that direction.

Although the criticism that we must do more to address gang violence is legitimate, we support certain measures. A bill concerning firearms must respect the victims who are always asking us to do more. They have experienced horrific crimes and want to ensure that they live in safe communities. We must respect the law-abiding gun owners and communities affected by this kind of legislation. I believe that we achieved this at our committee meetings.

I hope that we will be able to continue to move in that direction. The current dynamic on issues like this, where all parties are contributing to a toxic debate, is unlikely to ensure public safety or to earn the respect of the communities that demand it on a file as emotional as this one.

I am proud, as a New Democrat, to be able to continue to work with all of the stakeholders involved in this file and to support the bill in the meantime. There is still a lot of work to be done by everyone.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

This has to do with the deadline for the new ATTs, the changes in the rules that come into effect to allow a reasonable adjustment, which will take place well after the next election.

If you look at Bill C-71 in clause 15, we're talking about replacing line 23 on page 10 with the following:

prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm are revoked on the 3rd anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force, namely

Proposed section 135.1 revokes the ability to transport prohibited and restricted firearms and it makes that start as soon as the bill comes into force. This amendment would change the coming into force to allow a reasonable amount of adjustment time for the government to properly establish, fund, and operationalize their process for providing authorizations to transport.

Having spoken with some chief firearms officers and knowing that they are already underfunded and backlogged, I know that the ability to handle the expected influx of the requests as soon as the bill receives royal assent is somewhere between ridiculous and outrageous, depending on your expectations of the government.

I would therefore submit that should the government want to revoke the reasonable ATTs that exist today, they should take the time to ensure that the systems are in place first.

After making that statement, I would liken this to the Phoenix program, which the government was clearly told not to implement until it was ready, as well as the way we don't have a plan for the illegal border crossers. Perhaps we need to stop making the same mistakes over and over again, but I doubt that's going to happen. It seems to be a consistent practice that we're going to vote everything down that comes from a Conservative.

If I remember right, when Bill C-42came into effect, there was huge push-back from the RCMP and from officials from the firearms program, Mr. O'Reilly, about how it was not possible to get this act implemented and all the rules put in place and how you would need long-term timelines to make that happen.

I see with Bill C-71 that there's no indication of that, and yet we do know that there are backlogs for firearms officers, CFOs, and we know that there will be huge amounts of backlogs for them, and they are underfunded. I'm wondering what your take is on waiting, as the amendment says, until the third anniversary after this becomes law before the changes to the new ATTs take effect.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I have a question for our witnesses.

Prior to Bill C-42 and the automatic ATT or the accompanying ATT with the RPAL, was there any situation whereby somebody who made an application to take their firearm to a gunsmith was denied?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

This is from our colleague, Mike Bossio, who's an associate member of the committee and represents a riding a bit to the south and west of here. I happened to visit it a little while ago. I talked to the folks in Bancroft at the rod and gun club, which the fish and game association has there.

I think this is consistent with some of the things that Sean Fraser has brought before this committee as well, when he's appeared as an associate member, talking about the whole issue of the ATT.

As you know, Mr. Chair, I think our friend Mark Holland has a little trouble with this right now because of some of the comments he made in the House about the changes to the ATT.

What's at stake here is the fact that Bill C-42 was adopted in the previous Parliament. It provided authorization to transport for the most vetted community in Canada, the firearms community, for anybody who wants to take a restricted firearm in that classification, which is usually, generally, a handgun, pistol, revolver, and some long guns. The only place they are lawfully allowed to take these firearms is to a range or to a competition or to a gun shop. In the previous Parliament, we thought it was onerous that every time they wanted to do something as straightforward as that they would have to get an authorization to transport.

We've heard from various witnesses who've appeared before the committee that the vast majority of times when the electronic ATT, which shows up right away and is easily caught through the information system...whereas a paper one is regressive in the way we do business.

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Bossio is obviously getting some significant pressure, as is Mr. Fraser, who asked these questions as, I imagine, a lot of the rural MPs who are in the governing caucus right now are probably getting. We know that about 2% or 3% of the time at the very most, somebody is transporting a firearm to a gunsmith; that's what's been heard before this committee. It makes no sense to require them to get a paper ATT to do that.

We fully support Mr. Bossio's amendments. Expanding this amendment by re-including the ability to take your restricted firearm to a gunsmith only makes common sense for law-abiding firearms owners. It does nothing to curb crime. I've heard no statistics to suggest that this is what organized crime is doing. They're going through the process of buying a gun licence and getting their RPAL in the guise of taking their firearm to a gunsmith to transport their firearms. Nobody said that in all seriousness.

I would agree with Mr. Bossio, even though I'm sure his colleagues at the table here won't.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Prior to Bill C-42, the RCMP reclassified a firearm. That was fine. That was the legislation at the time; I'm not arguing that.

My argument right now is if the provisions that are being talked about in this particular amendment were taken out of the legislation, would the classification of the firearms that are listed in law right now revert to or be changed to or would the Canadian firearms centre have the ability to make exactly the same classification? A yes-or-no response.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

What I'm suggesting to you is the minister has come before this committee and said that parliamentarians and the Governor in Council ought not to be the ones making the decision on the classification of firearms. Yet in this legislation, this is a political decision.

Mr. O'Reilly has distanced himself from suggesting that it was the department that brought forward this proposal of a change in Bill C-71, which means that this is a political decision to include this list of firearms, which happens to be the same list that was changed in the 2015 classification that was granted an amnesty with the provisions of Bill C-42 in 2015.

Am I right or am I wrong?

[Rob O'Reilly]

Sir, maybe I can provide an answer to the questions you're looking at.

These firearms were imported into Canada, the CZ was first imported in 2005, the Swiss Arms was first imported in 2001. The firearms when imported were believed to be non-restricted and the determination of classification was made as such. Information came to light that identified them as being something other than what they were purported to be, namely that the CZ was a variant of the Czech VZ-58, which is a prohibited firearm, and that the Swiss Arms Classic Green, which was purported to be a variant of the SG-540, which is a non-restricted firearm, was in fact a variant of the Swiss SG-550, which is a prohibited firearm.

Consequently these firearms were determined to be correctly prohibited firearms. The previous legislation, Bill C-42 , deemed them to be non-restricted and restricted based on barrel length, but that did not change the determination made by the Canadian firearms program in terms of their classification in accordance with the Criminal Code.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great point. No, there is no public safety issue here. Bill C-42, which the previous government passed in 2015, actually streamlined some of these. It did not let people off the hook. They still had to get these transport permits. However, the government before that, and the party across the way today, actually made the rules so that people had to get an invite every time. If people could not show that they had an invite from, say, the Bruce Peninsula Sportsmen's Association in my riding to go there, and they were heading to an advertised legal shoot, all of a sudden they were criminals because of some technicality that they may or may not have even known about. That frustrated and ticked off law-abiding firearms owners.

While I am on this, I want to talk about the registry part of it and some of the testimony that we heard last week. When it comes to the registry, we know that this is the backdoor idea. At the meeting I referred to, Mr. Solomon Friedman's comment was, “If it walks like a registry, talks like a registry, and even seems to quack like a registry, it's a registry.”

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

You recall with C-42 under the previous Conservative government—as I mentioned earlier to a previous witness—that those who were convicted of domestic violence were prohibited from acquiring a firearm and their firearms were seized. In your testimony, if I heard you correctly—and I just skimmed some of your material—do you think it would be of value if we expand that to those who have been convicted of other violent crimes besides domestic-assault-related?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

As I'm sure you are aware, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act passed by the previous Conservative government expanded the use of firearms prohibition orders to those convicted of domestic violence offences.

What I've taken away from your presentation today is that we really must address the risk factors that are present to stop the escalating domestic violence situations we have in this country. Do you think this bill does that effectively, and would you support mandatory firearms prohibition orders for those convicted of serious personal injury offences?

[Heidi Rathjen]

We would like the bill to reflect the promise of the Liberal Party, which was to repeal the changes made in Bill C-42, which made authorization to transport restricted weapons pretty much automatic, not only automatic but allowed between a gun owner's home and any of the hundreds—depending on the province—of gun clubs, gun ranges, police stations, border stations, and so on.

This bill has taken out a few of those categories of places but, as we heard from the officials, wouldn't change anything for 96% of itineraries, meaning that a gun owner today with Bill C-71 could still be a member of a gun club in Toronto and end up in Ottawa with a handgun and be legal.

The way it was before Bill C-42, the way the Liberal election promise said it wanted to repeal it to come back to.... I have here a copy of the former articles, and just to quote:

A chief firearm's officer may issue to an individual an authorization to transport if the chief firearms officer determines that the transportation of a restricted weapon or prohibited firearm...between two or more specified places will not pose a threat to [public] safety....

The permit specifies the period for which the authorization is valid, the two places between which it can be transported, and the reasons why.

What Bill C-71 proposes is far from that. It will not change much in terms of the transportation of restricted weapons.

[Heidi Rathjen]

We support removing the authority brought in by Bill C-42, which allows the minister to override. The RCMP doesn't decide which guns should be classified as restricted, non-restricted, or prohibited. The RCMP interprets the law. According to the criteria in the law or the regulations, the RCMP will deem a weapon restricted, non-restricted, or prohibited.

This power that allowed politicians to override, to second-guess, the interpretation by the RCMP, is for us an aberration. It's anti-democratic, it's deciding arbitrarily that certain guns are not subject to the law, and so we welcome the removal of this power. At the same time, it doesn't address the fundamental problem, which is that according to the criteria in the law, under the system we currently have, assault weapons remain legal.

There are many restricted assault weapons, and there are many assault weapons that are unrestricted. Canadians do not need this weapon for legitimate hunting or sporting purposes. This is a .50-calibre semi-automatic weapon. It is banned in certain U.S. states, like California. It's non-restricted here in Canada. There are a whole bunch of them.

[Alexandra Laberge, Co-leader, Comité de travail Féminisme, corps, sexualité, image, genre et violences, Fédération des femmes du Québec]

Allow me to introduce myself briefly. I am Alexandra Laberge and I am an elementary and high school teacher. I am a volunteer member and activist with the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the Quebec women's federation or FFQ, and co-chair of the working committee on feminism, the body, sexuality, image, gender, and violence.

I would like to use the privilege of officially representing the FFQ here today, and the voices of the women and girls of Quebec—and the voices of the women and girls of Canada as well, I hope—to remind the government that firearms issues are women's issues.

Women's struggle against firearms is historical, global, and legitimate since firearms are primarily owned by men who victimize and make women vulnerable by how they use them. Our struggle dates back long before 2012, when the previous government passed Bill C-19.

In the years since then, we have suffered another affront as a result of Bill C-42, in 2015. Women mobilized and the public statements, briefs and actions, as well as the heartfelt cries of women who have suffered as a result of these bills have finally been heard by a Liberal government that has promised reform to the women of this country. We are confident that this government has heard us since we represent half of Canada's population and are the targets of the bullets fired predominantly by men.

Unfortunately, we do not think Bill C-71 will adequately protect Canadian women and girls. In our opinion, the government could do better than this bill to improve the safety of women and girls in Canada. We would like to take this time today to remind you of what these women and girls have concluded and what has been shown by various authorities and women's groups. We would like to give you recommendations that are the result of these women's reflections, which we consider legitimate and feasible, in order to help preserve the safety of women and girls in Canada.

As a volunteer, and at the same time as my work as a teacher, I have studied more than a dozen briefs, reports, and written demands by women, yet I have looked only at what has been produced since 2012, and in French only. Supported by reliable sources and recognized bodies such as Statistics Canada and the RCMP, these women have done an outstanding job in order to be recognized once again in the government's decisions on firearms. I hope that these documents, which have been reported in the media and are readily accessible, have been read and studied, but I have not been able to look at everything that has been done elsewhere in Canada. We could rely on the data from Statistics Canada, which are quite telling, or other government platforms, but women always have to work extra hard to assert their rights and, nowadays, their safety. That is why the Quebec women's federation insists on honouring this work by raising the main points that these women have taken the time to identify and that we officially support.

All the written briefs point out that firearms are a women's issue. Let us not forget that firearms are primarily owned by men and that, although they make up the majority of victims of homicide statistically speaking, women should not suffer as a result of firearms or laws that make it easier for men to harm them.

The Coalition for Gun Control, reports, for instance, that although men are more frequently the victims of homicide, women are about three times more likely to be killed by their spouse.

Let us recall the discussion in 2015 surrounding Bill C-32. More than 30 women's groups in Canada spoke out about the impact of Bill C-42 on the safety of women. Eighty-eight per cent of Canadian women were killed by a bullet that was fired by legally owned shotguns or rifles, the same weapons that some people do not consider to be the cause of gun violence.

Guns are fifth among the 18 main causes of death in domestic homicides.

Investigations of family violence, such as in the case of the children of Kasonde and Arlene May and the Vernon massacre, have shown the weaknesses of the old act. Changes to the current act have been recommended. Risk detection needs to be improved for gun licence applicants by using detailed questionnaires and requiring two references from the applicant, along with notification of the spouse. A gun registry should also be created because important information is missing from police databases.

Fifty per cent of domestic homicides end with the killer committing suicide, which shows that the key to protecting women and children is to thoroughly review gun licences and gun licence renewals. Eighty per cent of gun deaths in Canada are suicides which, for the most part, are committed by a rifle or hunting rifle that can be easily obtained.

In rural communities in western Canada, in particular, people are less in favour of gun control and the percentage of people with firearms licences is higher.

Women and children are especially vulnerable when there is a gun in the home. In Ontario, 55% of killers in cases of domestic violence had access to a firearm. The recent Small Arms Survey of 2013 studied the relationship between guns and domestic violence. It states among other things that while men account for the majority of victims and of those committing homicide using guns, the number of women killed, injured, and intimidated by guns in situations of spousal violence is significantly higher. Appendix D of the RCMP report states that some of those deaths could be prevented through stricter laws that prohibit persons found guilty of spousal violence from carrying a gun. Further, the report entitled “Homicide in Canada, 2011” shows that stricter firearms laws have protected women and children.

We agreed to appear today because we think the current government, through its actions and decisions, which support feminist policies, will finally consider the safety of women a top priority. We have chosen to take on this responsibility because what we are proposing will be analyzed by competent people and adopted for the safety of women in Canada.

We have two recommendations, which we are making jointly with “PolySeSouvient”.

The first is to prohibit anyone subject to a protection order from carrying a gun.

The second is to clearly prohibit anyone found guilty of spousal violence, rape or other sex crime from carrying a gun.

These recommendations would not eliminate gun violence against women, but our objective is more realistic. We are calling on the government to impose stricter regulations in order to reduce the number of women killed.

Carrying a gun is not a right; it is a privilege. It is logical and legitimate that people who are found guilty of a crime, especially crimes against women, should lose that privilege.

We want the government to take a clear stance on these two issues and show its support for the safety of women in Canada by adopting these two realistic and necessary recommendations.

In closing, we would like to mention the forgotten women and girls who suffer because of the right to carry a weapon, people who are not mentioned often enough and are never given the opportunity to be heard. According to Statistics Canada, indigenous women and girls have been forgotten for too long and suffer the consequences of guns more than non-indigenous members of both sexes combined.

The report entitled “Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile” shows that older women are also the victims of gun violence and are more likely than older men to be killed by a family member.

Finally, we must not forget transgender women, for whom no statistics are available as of yet.

In conclusion, I will draw a brief parallel with what is happening to women in the United States. Since the start of the year, there have been 22 school killings in the U.S. In Canada, we have also had our share of tragedies at educational institutions in which women were targeted in particular. Teachers, who are still part of a traditionally and primarily female profession, are offering an interesting perspective on women and men beyond the intimate sphere, the family, the public sphere or the workplace. Women are not safe because of the laws that allow people to own guns.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Yes, every day.

Given that, in moving the requirements to 10 years from five years, what evidence does your department have that the continuous eligibility process will pick up something that would alert them to domestic violence? For example, when Bill C-42 was passed, there was a clause in that bill that strengthened the provision and cracked down on people committing domestic violence.

Is there anything in your bill that's going to crack down on people who commit domestic violence?

An Act in Relation to Firearms

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way said that I should withdraw my remarks. I withdraw my remarks, given that we are going to have unanimous consent where the official opposition and the NDP will not be able to use the word “untruth”. I think that is a positive thing.

Having said that, there is a reason we have to be very cautious with the Conservatives' approach to this legislation. The bill is actually proposing to obligate retailers to register serial numbers and so forth when they sell guns. That is something that has been taking place in the United States since 1968. We are asking Canadians to support this legislation. Let me be very specific. All it is asking in terms of a registry is to require firearms vendors to keep records of all firearms inventory sales to assist police in investigating firearms trafficking and other gun crimes. The Conservatives are against this. It is hard to believe. That is the link. That is why the Conservatives say it is about the long gun registry. They have not done their homework. It has been done in the United States since 1968 and before the long gun registry we were doing it in Canada. That means Brian Mulroney and the Conservative Party had that as a part of their law. There was not one complaint. In fact, we had one of the Conservative members talk about the good old days of Brian Mulroney when he brought in the background checks. This legislation would enhance the background checks, and the Conservatives are against that.

The Conservatives are so far out on the right on this issue, yet they do not have any problem telling Canadians information that is just not true. They are telling Canadians that it has to do with the long gun registry. That is not true. It does not and members across the way know that. We would think they would be telling Canadians what is in the legislation because that is what Canadians really and truly want to hear.

The Minister of Public Safety has taken the time to do the consultations that are necessary. He has worked with the many different stakeholders. There has been a great deal of debate within our caucus. Members of our caucus, both rural and urban, stand together on this issue because we see this as responsible legislation, legislation that is all about public safety first and foremost. That is why I believe that the Conservative Party, just looking at this legislation alone, is more concerned about spin than it is about good legislation that would have a profound, positive impact on Canadians as a whole.

In part, this legislation deals with the repeal of Bill C-42. I was in opposition when the previous government brought in Bill C-42. It is interesting that the Conservatives chose to bring it in as separate legislation as opposed to including it in budget legislation. They wanted to highlight the fact that they love to debate anything about long guns. Anything that allows them to bring up the idea of a registry, the Conservatives are all in on it. I remember the debate when I was on the other side and talking about how they were loosening up, so that if people wanted to they could put a restricted weapon in the trunk of a car, drive all over the city of Winnipeg or rural Manitoba and then ultimately get to their destination without having to have a permit that would authorize them to do that.

Many of my constituents were concerned about that. It fell on completely deaf ears of the Conservative government because the Conservatives had a message that they wanted to communicate to Canadians. That message, in my opinion, was motivated purely because of politics. To get an appreciation of this issue, we have to understand why it is the Conservative Party over the years goes out of its way, and goes even further than the NRA in the United States does, on these issues. The NRA actually supports retailers' registering guns.

I see my time has run out, although I suspect I might get a question or two.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that the Prime Minister was in my riding and reiterated the fact that we were not reintroducing the long-gun registry. I would also remind him that the Conservatives presented a motion to adjourn the debate on Bill C-71 yesterday.

The member was in cabinet in the previous government. Through Bill C-42, the Conservatives did not introduce any motion or any law to ban the practice of the Canadian Tires or Cabela's of the world of refusing to get details from gun owners. Why did they not do that back then? When the retailers have to call the RCMP or the chief firearms officer, they will not ask for any details about which guns people bought.

I would remind him that the only gun registry in this House is the Conservative Party's. They ask for names, for emails, and for donations to the cause. It is the only party that is making a gun registry about law-abiding citizens.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I thank my colleague for his intervention.

Let us make one thing clear. The Conservatives keep raising certain issues, but we have to make a distinction between Bill C-71 before us today and the existing legislation. The reason something is still enshrined in legislation is that the change has not been made yet. If the previous government felt it was necessary to make a change, it had the chance to do so.

As my colleague mentioned, there were changes, in Bill C-42 for one, which were often problematic, and there were missed opportunities. I commend the government for trying to correct all that through Bill C-71.

What I appreciate about the government's approach, and that appreciation is contingent on the answers we will receive and the process in committee, is that the government understands that some things need to be corrected while others are fine and can be left alone. That is how to achieve the balance that ensures public safety and respect for all so as not to rehash past debates that were far too often partisan instead of being driven by the desire to create sound public policy.

I think that my colleague agrees with me on this. I hope that the government will continue on this path. We shall see.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. It is possible to have a debate on firearms without being painted as gun registry supporters.

I want to ask my colleague a question about Bill C-42, since he was here during the last parliamentary session. He mentioned that retailers will have to keep records. The official opposition, meanwhile, is attacking us by calling this a backdoor registry.

Why did they not ban this practice in Bill C-42 during the last session?

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-230, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding a firearm definition of “variant”, introduced by the great member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I would like to applaud that hard-working member for his great work to clarify this difficult and arcane issue and for his continued support for law-abiding firearms owners across Canada. I consider the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound a mentor, and I have benefited greatly from his wisdom.

The previous Conservative government also implemented the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, which enhanced the safety of our communities while ensuring safe and sensible firearms policy and cutting red tape for law-abiding firearms owners.

The Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act made common-sense changes to protect public safety, such as making firearms safety courses mandatory for all first-time licence applicants and strengthening provisions to prohibit the possession of firearms for those convicted of domestic assault. These are tangible measures to protect public safety, and I am very happy to see my colleague continuing to pursue this common-sense solution as presented in Bill C-230.

Many Canadians may not be aware of the difficulties our current firearm classification system places on businesses, hunters, sport shooters, and all gun owners in Canada. However, it is part of a larger trend in overburdening law-abiding firearms owners for no reason, simply based on stigma, not fact. Thankfully, Bill C-230 seeks to clarify what a variant is and would lead to a more transparent classification process moving forward.

I am an avid outdoorsman. I enjoy hunting and fishing and living off the land. I have had a 35-plus year career in environmental conservation. I have been using firearms safely and responsibly for as long as I can remember, and there are millions of Canadians just like me.

Far too often Canadians who enjoy hunting or sport shooting are overburdened with red tape, and even attacked for taking part in the lifestyle they enjoy, which has been part of our heritage for hundreds of years. Thankfully, the previous Conservative government consistently stood up for law-abiding firearms owners, and we continue to do that today.

I will digress from my prepared remarks to reiterate my gratitude to the members yesterday who stood up and defeated Bill C-246 from all sides of the House, particularly from our side, the Conservatives, but on the Liberal side too. That was a victory for not only law-abiding firearms owners but also legitimate animal users, and it was one of my most precious times in Parliament to see that happen.

The legislation, Bill C-230, is common sense and is needed. It is common sense because it defines a term that is used 99 times without being defined. The term “variant” is used an incredible 99 times in the regulations prescribing firearms and other weapons, but has no legal definition, which obviously leads to confusion. It is absurd that we allow something as important as this to go undefined and remain open to ever-evolving interpretations.

We have seen this far too often recently, most notably the classification decision in 2014 regarding the Swiss Arms Classic Green rifle. This decision was made through the stroke of a pen of unelected bureaucrats and led to the RCMP reclassifying the Swiss Arms as a variant of the SG 540, a prohibited firearm in Canada.

Thousands of people who were perfectly law-abiding firearms owners who held non-restricted firearms licences, and I have a non-restricted firearms licence myself, were made criminals overnight by simply possessing a firearm that they could have legally owned for more than a decade. Fortunately, our Conservative government stepped in and provided amnesty for those firearms owners and passed the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, which allowed those rifles to be reclassified to non-restricted, as they should have been all along.

It is unacceptable to allow for such an arbitrary system to exist without the clarification needed to prevent thousands of Canadians from becoming criminals unwittingly.

Beyond that, some of the classification decisions we have seen in recent memory have thus been baffling. Take, for example, the case of the Mossberg Blaze-47. The firearm has an outer plastic shell that is bent aesthetically to look like an AK-47, which is of course prohibited, as it should be. However, the firearm is not even close to being the same. It does not have any of the same parts. It is not the same size. It is not the same calibre, and it has a different magazine capacity. The guts of the firearm, so-called, are the same as the Mossberg Blaze rifle, which is non-restricted.

The government of day, and all of us, actually like to talk about evidence-based policy. The way that firearms like these are classified is a perfect example of ideology trumping evidence.

Somehow the RCMP firearms program deemed that to be a prohibited firearm, since it is a variant of the AK-47. It is no such thing. This is simply false. It merely looks similar. Talk about judging a book by its cover. That is not how to classify a firearm. It must be based on facts, on function, on structure, and on operation, not by the way it looks. To use an automobile metaphor, we could take a Volkswagen bug and plunk a Corvette body on top of that bug, but it is still a Volkswagen.

Not only do we have incorrect classifications coming forward to begin with, and then classifications changing without reason, it can also take years for the classification determination to be made at all. Any member who has a firearm retailer in their riding, and I have a number of them, has undoubtedly been approached about the length of time it takes for businesses to be provided with a classification prior to importation. Most firearms in Canada are actually imported.

I have heard of it literally taking years for a decision, meaning that by the time a certain firearm is permitted, the firearm is no longer a new product. If any of us were running a business that sells firearms legally, or trying to decide what products to import for sale to our stores, we would understandably be irate if the government forced us to wait months and even years before we could move forward with importing the product. If we allowed government to delay the entry of other consumer products like this, we would just be getting the iPhone 4 this year. I hope that is correct, because I do not even know what an iPhone 4 is.

Thankfully, in 2015, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, when he was minister of public safety, took action on this problem, issuing a directive to the RCMP. That allowed for 180 days to evaluate a firearm, decide its classification, and issue the firearms reference table. This classification number is needed to import that model into Canada. I doubt that many would claim that 180 days to make such a decision would be particularly rushed, and it provided certainty to retailers that a decision would be made. Unfortunately, the current government has rescinded that directive, allowing for those decisions to be delayed as long as it sees fit, with no means of accountability.

The bill seeks to help the RCMP in this regard, as it would provide more structure and certainty as to what a variant is, and ultimately make it easier to classify that firearm. This is about certainty. This is about making it clear and transparent as to what the rules are. The bill is not attempting to alter the specifications of what is non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited. This is trying to clarify what we base the term “variant” on when classifying firearms within those streams. This is not about trying to get firearms.

Just because the Liberal government says this is at odds with how the RCMP have classified in the past does not mean that the RCMP have been doing it correctly. In fact, more firearms owners would argue that they have not been.

It is time to help clarify what a variant is, based on facts and on how the firearm functions, not based on anything else. I urge my colleagues to consider the flaws in the current system and get on board with this legislation to provide a definition of a firearm variant. Allow us to accurately and consistently classify firearms while ensuring we protect public safety and the rights of legitimate hunters and sport shooters.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise for the third time in debate in this House of Commons on Bill C-7.

I would like to start by sincerely thanking all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The men and women of our RCMP are essential to our public safety and security.

I and many members, in our speeches to Bill C-7, have tried to thank the men and women who wear the uniform for Canada and provide peace and security across our country. As I have said in previous speeches, in many provinces and territories in our vast country, particularly in rural communities of the country, the RCMP members are the only member or front-line element of public safety and security and, in many cases, the only visible extension of the federal Government of Canada. It is appropriate that all members have thanked the RCMP for their tremendous work.

While Ontario is not a contract jurisdiction for the RCMP, because of our Ontario Provincial Police force, I am also very fortunate to have an RCMP detachment in Bowmanville in my riding, as part of the O Division detachment group. Not only are the men and women of this detachment critical to some of the federal investigations and public safety work done in Ontario by the RCMP, but as I have constantly said, they are also the backbone of our community. These men and women act as coaches of soccer and baseball teams, and they are active in charitable organizations in our community. That is appreciated, and I know members of the RCMP take great pride in not just serving in communities across the country on their postings but in becoming part of those communities. I want to start with a great thanks to them.

As I have said in previous speeches to Bill C-7, it has been a bit of a journey for this Parliament in response to a Supreme Court decision. In fairness, the government has listened to some of the opposition concerns we have raised, and our public safety committee did some important work on this bill. However, there remain concerns with Bill C-7 among parliamentarians and, most importantly, front-line members of the RCMP. The concerns are particularly with the rushed nature and the lack of consultation with the front-line members of the force. That is why we are here in debate and why the Conservative Party, which has tried to work with the government throughout this process, remains as frustrated as some of the members across the country.

To remind this House, we are here as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario court case that went from lower courts all the way to the Supreme Court and, in fairness, was a decision first considered by the previous Conservative government. That is when the former government provided an outreach program within the RCMP, including a questionnaire to elicit feedback from the front-line members of the RCMP with respect to the unionization of their force. Sadly, that has really been the only substantive consultation done with the men and women on the front line of the force, and that is what brings me here today to continue to have concerns about Bill C-7.

However, that court case was clear. The Supreme Court of Canada said that the charter right of members under section 2(d) to collective association was violated for men and women of the RCMP by their exclusion from the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The court then gave Parliament a year to come up with a regime for the association or collective bargaining rights of RCMP members.

That is important because the court gave a year. In fairness to the new government, one of the first acts of the new minister was to ask for a slight extension. However, sadly, that extension of time did not lead to substantive consultation with men and women of the RCMP. That is a bit of a miss. We have had some good debate and, in fairness, the minister, the parliamentary secretary, and the President of the Treasury Board as well have appeared at committee and been part of the debate, and that is appreciated. However, there has not been much direct consultation with the front line, despite that extension of time, and that concerns me.

It concerns a lot of our members, who have been hearing from men and women across the country with concerns about Bill C-7, particularly in provisions related to sections 40 and 42, which I applaud the government for agreeing to amend, but also with respect to the exclusions from collective bargaining. I will touch on that briefly in my remarks.

However, it is important, in this final time that I get to speak, to remind the House what the Supreme Court of Canada said. It did not say that the RCMP should just join Unifor, the United Steelworkers, or a large existing labour organization. In fact, the Supreme Court gave direction on two key areas. It said that the right of collective association under section 2(d) of the charter was violated for RCMP members. The two elements the court viewed as being required were employee choice and sufficient independence from management. Those are the two critical parts of that judgment.

Members will see why these elements led the government to a pragmatic approach, but, really, the lack of consultation has hurt it with the employees themselves who have to make the choice of bargaining agent.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court of Canada says clearly that section 2(d) of the charter does not protect all elements of association and collective bargaining. In fact, labour models in recent years, going way back to the Wagner model of collective bargaining, and the construct that led to that, and the Rand formula, have been evolving as the tribunals over time were really the guardians of labour law.

In the advent of the charter, charter protections, particularly around collective bargaining rights, have really usurped the old work done by tribunals. The Supreme Court has said that the RCMP is a very unique quasi-military organization with a chain of command, operational discipline, order constructs, the ability for postings, and the unlimited liability faced by members. It is not a regular job when we allow men and women in uniform in Canada to impinge on the rights of others, and also bear the risk themselves of potential injury or death. This is a very unique role. It is why we acknowledge and appreciate the special work done by the RCMP across this country. However, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized clearly that the unique nature of the RCMP leads to unique needs with respect to a collective organization and unionization. Therefore, the two key elements we have to consider from this decision are employee choice and sufficient independence from management.

The staff relations program had been in effect since the 1970s, since the RCMP was excluded from the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The program had been the internal human resources function, serving as the conduit between management and the front line.

Ironically, most of the RCMP members and most of the members of these associations who have been fighting for unionization are RCMP members who have been part of the staff relations program. They saw merit in that. They saw how it functioned well in some manners. However, the Supreme Court determined, and most of the witnesses we heard from determined that there was not sufficient independence from management to safeguard the charter rights of our members. This is why we are here today. It is not like the RCMP had nothing, they had the staff relations program, but the Supreme Court said that the staff relations program was not sufficiently independent from management, which is critical to remember.

I will predict to the House, and I know the parliamentary secretary probably agrees with me, that many of those staff relations personnel will likely form the leadership of whatever union we eventually see.

The good thing is, they will take with them that collective knowledge and memory of what has happened before and then they will have more ability to be independent from management as they collectively bargain, particularly related to remuneration. We have heard consistently that compared to the big 15 police forces our men and women of the RCMP need a top-up. That will be a critical part of those negotiations.

Independence from management is critical, but the first element of what the RCMP feels is critical in the unionization of the RCMP, as a result of this court case, is employee choice. For Conservatives, we have viewed that choice as giving every single member, from Windsor, to Winnipeg, to Whitehorse their right to decide who will be their collective bargaining agent, or indeed if there is a collective bargaining agent at all. How is employee choice best demonstrated? That should be conducted by secret ballot, as it has been historically for all public sector unions, because most have been unionized for several decades.

I am not sure why the government has been so reluctant to acknowledge that. Canadians sent members of the government caucus here by secret ballot. They obviously think it is sufficient to get them to this place, but they do not want to give employee choice through a secret ballot to our men and women in uniform.

Some members of the RCMP have said to me that I am getting hung up on a little detail. This is not a little detail. This is fundamental to true employee choice, absent of influences from the workplace, from Parliament, and from management, that Canadians have enjoyed since 1874. It is a fundamental tenet of our democracy. Conservatives have raised this since my first speech in this place on Bill C-7. We are very disappointed the government has not responded to that, given the men and women we charge with securing the rights and safety of Canadians with that same basic democratic right when it comes to choosing their collective bargaining agent.

I will spend a moment on exclusions. I have been very open with supporting the government, or trying to support it, with respect to exclusions. I know many of the RCMP members watch my speeches on Bill C-7. The Supreme Court clearly says that not all elements of the collective bargaining arrangement are bargainable.

Why are there some exclusions? It goes back to the paramilitary structure and the unique organization of the RCMP. The very fact there are postings, discipline, operational grading, consistency of operations, safety of conduct, all of these things are unique to the RCMP. If we had every posting bargainable or grieved, there would be no operational structure to the force. By extension, we cannot ignore the fact that on the horizon is the military. Therefore, do we really think these operational forces, like the RCMP or the military, could have every decision, operationally or discipline-wise, grieved? I do not think that is reasonable. As someone who has served 12 years in uniform, that is not reasonable. In fact, a very unique chain of command structure of the RCMP, or by extension the military, demands some degree of autonomy from the traditional labour dynamic. I acknowledge that. Some of the strident members of the mounted police associations have disagreed with me on that, but most of them do not disagree with the fact the RCMP is a paramilitary organization with a very unique culture and needs.

The issue of harassment often comes up, and everyone tries to say it needs to be bargainable. The interesting thing is that then every issue would be deemed as harassment. We need to root out harassment and have a zero tolerance for it. I have heard the minister's comments. I know he keeps it as a priority, as the previous minister did.

Bill C-42 in the previous Parliament, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, tackled this specifically and provided safeguards and a process to ensure that the RCMP had a zero tolerance environment. All members of Parliament agree on that point. There is no tolerance for harassment in the workplace, especially because of the chain of command setting where a superior officer, man or woman, is in a position of a power differential. Those can be difficult and challenging areas when there is harassment. If somebody is using that power differential to harass, that is an absence of leadership on his or her part.

We can make sure that harassment is addressed, that a zero tolerance environment is promoted, without carving off certain elements so that everything related to operations, discipline, postings, and so on would be aggrieved as harassment. These things can be advanced.

I would remind members of the RCMP and those who will continue to listen to my speeches on Bill C-7 that they are still dealing with the old way of thinking. Once there is an independent union, for lack of a better term, one of these mounted police associations nationally will have a significant voice in the public discourse as well, not just at the bargaining table for collective bargaining. Much like the MPAO took its court case and made public statements, once the RCMP has a single unified bargaining agent, the men and women of that organization will have a prominent role in the discourse around policing, public policy issues, public safety and security issues, and harassment. I tell members of the force not to think about the future based on the past and the staff relations program, which clearly was not independent enough for management, but to think of this new union being independent from management.

Let us not kid ourselves and suggest that we can treat the RCMP with its chain of command, with its need for operational ability and discipline and postings, just like any other department of the federal government. It is not. We ask a lot of the men and women who wear the uniform for Canada and in return there is a unique set of employee and employer relationships. The Supreme Court not only acknowledged that but it gave us the road map to say that is possible and in conformance with the charter.

I would also say for the exclusions that there is also the Financial Administration Act, there is a complaints process through the civilian route, and there are Treasury Board guidelines on a range of workplace issues. The collective bargaining table is not the only area where the health, wellness, and occupational elements of the workplace for RCMP members are considered. We need to remember that.

I would like to offer brief praise to the government on its willingness to remove Sections 40 and 42 from Bill C-7. The Conservative caucus, and the NDP caucus joined with us, pushed to have these sections removed. It was not core to the Supreme Court of Canada decision and the need for a collective bargaining agent. In many ways it concerned the men and women of the RCMP that the government was trying to outsource health and occupational wellness to workers' compensation bodies. The point I have always made, particularly when it comes to operational stress injuries that we have seen rise, is that we do not need an uneven playing field across the country on how our men and women seek treatment and compensation with respect to injuries. There needs to be one consistent high standard for our one top level police force. I applaud the government for listening and for removing those provisions from Bill C-7.

Our public safety committee has simultaneous to Bill C-7 also been hearing from uniformed service personnel from across the country on the issue of operational stress injuries. It is heartening to see all sides working on this. This is an area where we need to take the learnings from the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada and the RCMP and share them with other municipal police forces, firefighters, paramedics, and prison guards.

The Conservatives appreciate the government's movement on some fronts with regard to Bill C-7. However, without the secret ballot and without the real consultations to ensure the men and women on the front lines of the RCMP understand the exclusions, on which I have tried to work with the government, we cannot support the bill as it currently stands. I would ask the government to give more time so the men and women of the RCMP have confidence in the union that will be created.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to the private member's bill. The Parliamentary secretary for the government has already indicated that Liberals do not support the private member's bill as it is written; and it is important to provide a bit of background.

I have had the good fortune of being around for a number of years, and at different times in my career, the issue of rifles and guns has risen quite significantly. I can recall in the early 1990s, for example, the whole issue of the gun registry came up. I was first elected back in 1988 and it was almost two years afterward that the massacre occurred in Montreal, when 14 young women were killed at École polytechnique. Even today, the local high school in my riding, Sisler High, commemorates, remembers, and reflects on what took place in Montreal back in 1989.

The reason I raise it is that, for me, my political career began on the issue of rifles and guns and wanting to make sure there is sound, good government policy, whether at the provincial or national level. I have had a significant interest in it from the onset of my political career, and I am very much aware of the politics of it. Many people, for example, would be quite surprised to know that Kim Campbell was the first advocate for the gun registry and it was a Conservative senator who actually pushed it forward; and a lot has happened since then.

I appreciate the member's comments about law-abiding gun owners. That is something we need to reinforce. Law-abiding gun owners deserve the respect given to all citizens. Rifles and guns play a very important role in today's society. When we talk about regulations and elements of public safety, it is not to demean law-abiding gun owners in any fashion whatsoever.

In fact, if we were to speak to many of the individuals who have been cited, we would find that some of the strongest advocates for public safety and good, healthy, strong regulations, and so forth, come from responsible, law-abiding gun owners. It is a common interest that I believe that a vast majority of Canadians have and would advocate for.

In the last federal election, the Liberal Party made a number of commitments. The member from the New Democratic caucus made reference to them. I want to highlight that in the 2015 Liberal party platform, we clearly stated that as a government we would take action to get handguns and assault rifles off our streets. This commitment was reiterated during the throne speech. Bill C-230 would run contrary to that promise, by classifying some assault rifles as non-restricted weapons, making them easier to import and acquire.

There is no doubt that there is a great sense of public awareness on this public policy issue. The member, in his attempt to provide more definition, might have actually made things more complicated. At the end of the day, even some individuals who advocate for the legislation might be surprised at how providing this definition of a variant would ultimately change the classifications of some rifles and guns in a way that even the member himself might not have initially intended. What the current law states with regard to the variant, I believe, should be left as is.

The member made reference to Bill C-19. I will refrain from commenting on Bill C-19. I gave many speeches inside the House in regard to Bill C-19. He also made reference to Bill C-42. That was a piece of legislation for which there was great concern from all regions, on issues of transportation and classification. There was a great deal of concern in terms of why the government, at the time, felt that it was in a better position to make determinations as opposed to those experts who are making decisions not based on politics. I am referring to the RCMP.

I know there was a great deal of concern raised with the Swiss Arms issue and how that firearm was reclassified. That ultimately led to, I believe, at least in part, why Bill C-42 was brought forward. I do not believe that the government, back then, made progressive steps forward in attempting to address that issue.

I do not think the Conservatives realized the valuable contributions that our experts and, in particular, our RCMP experts have to play in this whole area. Every day, they have to deal with issues related to guns and rifles. Over the years, they have compiled a great deal of expertise. As legislators, we would do well to listen to what the experts actually have to say on the legislation.

My colleague pointed out a number of important facts that are worth repeating. He stated that the Government of Canada believes in a balanced approach, and that we have effective gun legislation that prioritizes public safety, while ensuring that law-abiding firearms owners do not face unfair treatment under the law.

While the bill's intent is in fact to bring more precision to the Criminal Code, it is the unintended consequences that would criminalize many law-abiding gun owners, while at the same time making it easier to import or own certain assault rifles.

This is what I meant when I said that I believe not even the sponsor of this particular bill has realized the consequences of the bill, if in fact it were to pass as it is. I would also point out that if the bill were to pass, it would lead to massive and indiscriminate reclassification of literally tens of thousands of firearms among the non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited classifications system, something I suspect we should all be concerned about.

It is also important that we recognize that reclassifying many hunting rifles and shotguns from non-restricted to restricted would result in thousands of law-abiding gun owners needing to apply to the RCMP for a restricted licence and be approved, or dispose of the firearm itself, or be in violation of the Criminal Code. It does not really leave very much in terms of options.

Before I run out of time, I just want to emphasize that the parliamentary secretary and the government believe that public safety is priority one. We recognize those individuals who are law-abiding gun owners. There is an overwhelming consensus that public safety is number one and that we do in fact respect those law-abiding gun owners.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be the seconder of the bill put forward by the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I commend him for bringing this legislation forward.

Bill C-230 addresses a long-time concern of law-abiding firearms owners in Canada. I support this legislation for three main reasons: it is simple, effective, and most important, just plain common sense.

First, on simplicity, the bill does not attempt to make any sort of wide-sweeping broad reforms as mentioned by the government and the other opposition party. Bill C-230 does not propose to reinvent the wheel when it comes to firearms regulation. It contains three simple clauses that would accomplish a targeted goal: ensuring consistency and transparency for law-abiding firearms owners in Canada.

Second, the bill provides an effective definition of the term “variant” that ensures that firearms that are classified as a variant of another firearm share similar mechanical components and are derived from the original prohibited firearm. The proposed definition states that a variant is defined as a firearm that shares the same unmodified frame or receiver of another firearm. This is an effective definition that would provide greater clarity for law-abiding gun owners and would ensure that decisions surrounding variants will be based on this fundamental definition rather than an inconsistent interpretation of an undefined and vague term.

Third, this legislation is a common-sense reform that would simply bridge the gap between legislation and regulations to ensure greater clarity for gun owners.

The term “variant” is used extensively when it comes to the regulatory framework surrounding firearms, but does not have any kind of legal definition in the Criminal Code or the Firearms Act. For example, the term “variant” is used 99 times in the regulations that govern firearms classifications. A term that is used this extensively in the regulations warrants a formal definition in the legislation. Furthermore, a recent access to information request stated that as of October 16, 2015, there were approximately 4,030 firearms that had been identified as prohibited, restricted, or non-restricted variants. Again, a term that impacts this many firearms deserves to have a clear definition to ensure that it is applied uniformly in all decisions.

I want to take a few moments to present an example of an issue that was created by the term “variant” being undefined.

The recent controversy surrounding the reclassification under variants of the Swiss Arms Classic Green rifle, of which I was an owner, is a prime example of the negative consequences that can arise from inconsistent interpretation of this undefined term.

This issue goes all the way back to 2001 when the RCMP determined, based on documentation provided by an importer and the manufacturer, that Swiss Arms Classic Green rifles were semi-automatic variants of the Swiss Arms SG 540. Therefore, they were considered non-restricted or restricted, depending on the length of the barrel of the individual rifle. As a result, these firearms were allowed to be imported and sold in Canada. They were not prohibited firearms. However, in 2014, following a complaint about Swiss Arms rifles, the RCMP determined the rifles and their variants to be descendants of the Swiss Arms SG 550 and therefore were deemed prohibited firearms in Canada.

This was an arbitrary reclassification that made a long-time legal firearm owner, a firearm that I used to own, illegal overnight. With the stroke of a pen, law-abiding owners of Swiss Arms Classic Green rifles found themselves in illegal possession of a legal firearm. The decision eliminated the ability of Swiss Arms owners to obtain a licence to transfer and acquire these firearms, limited the locations where they could be possessed, and imposed enhanced storage and handling obligations by the owners. Furthermore, as I previously stated, it immediately criminalized law-abiding owners of Swiss Arms rifles who found themselves in unlawful possession of a firearm and at the risk of prosecution for unauthorized possession of a firearm under section 91 of the Criminal Code, and again, as the member stated, overnight.

Members may recall that when this decision was made in 2014, the Conservative government reacted strongly to protect law-abiding firearms owners.

The government brought in an amnesty to ensure that Swiss Arms owners would not be prosecuted for owning their once-legal firearms. Furthermore, the government then brought in Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, which enacted a number of important measures to reduce the red tape for firearms, as well as measures that allow the Governor in Council to respond to arbitrary classification decisions, such as the Swiss Arms decision.

Bill C-42 was a very important piece of legislation for firearms owners in Canada. Likewise, Bill C-230, is yet another responsible measure to protect law-abiding gun owners from arbitrary and inconsistent interpretation.

If Bill C-230 had been in place when the decision on the Swiss Arms rifles was made, the RCMP would have had to demonstrate that the rifles in fact shared the same unmodified frame or receiver as the SG 550 and were prohibited on this basis.

To wrap up, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for introducing this legislation. As I stated in the questions, it is not a partisan issue; it is a clarity issue. There is quite clearly a disconnect between the legislation and the regulations that Bill C-230 is looking to bridge.

This is an important bill for legal firearms owners. I look forward to seeing it pass at second reading, although it looks like there is some opposition. I hope there is some serious second consideration by the parties across the way and beside us to have a real strong second look at this strong legislation.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-230, an act to amend the Criminal Code. I would like to thank the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for bringing it forward for discussion and debate in the House. I can understand his clear desire to produce greater clarity and regulations concerning firearms. As he said, it is a laudable goal of the non-partisan nature. I salute him for doing so. However, I will be speaking against the bill, which in my view fails, despite its best intentions, to provide the kind of clarity that the member is seeking.

What would the bill do? It is a very simple bill. It would define the term “variant” in a different way. It is not defined now. It is left to the discretion of the regulator under the regulations. It would simply say in the statute, the Criminal Code, that “variant”, in respect of a firearm, means a firearm that has the “unmodified frame or receiver” of another firearm. That is all it would really do. It would take away the discretion that currently exists and narrow it in that way. In so doing, the member obviously seeks to provide greater clarity.

It then applies that criteria to the existing definitions of “restricted firearms” and “prohibited firearms” by affecting future classifications of a restricted and prohibited firearm, which would have a significant effect on access to firearms across our country.

I understand the member's motivation is to bring clarity to the process of classifying firearms. Law-abiding owners of firearms have often expressed frustration at what they see as the arbitrary classification or reclassification of firearms. Cases like the controversial case surrounding the Mossberg Blaze-47 or the Swiss Arms rifles, to which the member referred, illustrate the need for a more transparent process and a better, more open communication with Canadians. Yet these very firearms enthusiasts have raised serious concerns about the bill before us. Their analysis suggests that this bill would, and they believe, unintentionally, lead to the restriction or prohibition of firearms that would be currently available to properly licensed Canadians as non-restricted firearms. I believe the member is seeking to clarify, not to confiscate, but they fear that is precisely what the unintended consequences of the bill would do.

As I said in a question for the hon. member, there are something like 163,000 firearms currently listed in the Firearms Reference Table, of which over 4,000 are variants. Therefore, the question I would pose to the member is this. Why would one not want to provide continuing flexibility in the regulations themselves so officials could look at various criteria and make their determinations rather than perhaps unintentionally narrowing it, which would be the subject of concern to firearms enthusiasts by simply leading it to the very narrow category that the member has stated, namely of firearms that have the “unmodified frame or receiver” of another firearm? There may be many other criteria, and time permitting I will describe what they are, that need to be taken into account by officials as every day of the week they make this kind of interpretation. Inevitably, there would be some vagueness, I think one has to accept that, but that may make some sense in the public interest, I would suggest.

Any change to gun laws needs to be done with care and precision. The safety of Canadians must always be our top priority. We should be aiming for greater transparency, openness and certainty, not sowing, unintentionally, fresh confusion and concern.

The real question for every Canadian who is concerned about illegal guns and violence, whether they own firearms or not, is this. What is the government's policy?

In the last federal election, the Liberal platform promised four things: first, to take pragmatic action to make it harder for criminals to get and use handguns and assault weapons; second, to repeal elements of the Conservative's Bill C-42; third, to “put decision-making about weapons restrictions back in the hands of police, not politicians”, and, fourth, to provide $100 million each year to the provinces and territories to support guns and gangs police task forces to take illegal guns off our streets and reduce gun violence.

Those are the key things I was able to find in the platform to deal with comprehensive firearms reform. Unfortunately, the Liberals have already broken an election promise by once again delaying the gun-marking regulations to help police trace guns used in crimes.

We have not yet seen any legislation to deliver on the promise to make it harder for criminals to access guns or to repeal dangerous elements of Bill C-42, or to put decision-making about weapons restrictions back in the hands of firearms experts. In other words, the opaque and politicized system that the current government inherited from its Conservative predecessor remains unchanged.

Canadians expect the government to do better. When it comes to firearm classification, Canadians expect these vital public safety decisions to be made by experts in an open and transparent manner, based on all the available evidence.

Canadians expect their laws to be kept up to date and to be flexible enough to adapt to changing needs and fresh developments without compromising public safety, and it is that which is of concern in this particular bill. There is the lack of flexibility, the lack of giving the officials the tools they need to exercise their discretion appropriately under law. If they make a mistake, they are always subject to judicial review, and there have been several cases in which their discretion has been called to account in the courts. That, I suggest, is how it should be.

The government has promised legislation to meet these standards. It is time the government started to deliver. We should not be making piecemeal reform of firearms legislation on the fly through specific bills from time to time by private members. This bill does not provide the certainty, openness, or transparency that Canadians expect from any reform to firearms legislation.

Again, I thank the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for raising this issue and for representing his constituents who are looking for that clarity from their government. However, given the concerns I have heard from firearm law experts, it is clear the bill may not have the effect that the member intends. Even a more precise bill in this area would only be one part of the broader solution promised to Canadians by this government during the election.

As the government finally develops that policy, I hope the Liberals will consider the member's proposal and consult with Canadians in all parts of the country. Instead of repeating the mistakes of the past or pitting Canadians against one another in this sensitive area, the government has a great opportunity to bring people together around common sense solutions that work.

Although we cannot support a flawed bill, I hope the hard work of the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound spurs the government to make this important public safety issue a priority.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

moved that Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearm — definition of variant), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearm — definition of variant). This is a straightforward piece of legislation that will provide much-needed clarity for law-abiding firearms owners across Canada.

Today, I would like to explain to the House why I am bringing this legislation forward, the problems surrounding variant firearms, how this legislation will help solve the problem, and why I believe this bill should be considered further at committee.

Before I do so, I would like to take a moment to thank the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies for seconding the bill and for all of the important work that he does for hunters, anglers, and sports shooters in Canada.

I have owned and handled firearms for a number of years, basically all of my life. I am a very proud and law-abiding gun owner. However, one thing that has always bugged me and irritated a lot of law-abiding gun owners and hunters is the stigma that some people attach to the firearms community. Let me be very clear: owning a gun does not make someone a criminal. As I said, I am a law-abiding gun owner. I have many friends and family who are law-abiding gun owners. Most people who own firearms in Canada are law-abiding gun owners.

Sadly, though, time and time again, we see gun owners who are presumed to be dangerous. The stigma has worked its way into our regulatory system and, in my mind, it is high time that we bring some common sense, fairness, and clarity to the system.

There were two pieces of legislation, which were brought in under the previous Conservative government, that worked toward creating a better system for law-abiding firearms owners in Canada. I was proud to support Bill C-19, Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, and was pleased that it received royal assent in 2012. This legislation was extremely important to hunters and firearms owners across the country. The long-gun registry was a colossal waste of money, was ineffective, and it simply did not make sense.

Furthermore, in 2015, Bill C-42, Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, received royal assent. Measures in this bill included merging the POL and PAL licences, giving the Governor in Council the ability to reverse arbitrary firearms classification decisions, a grace period at the expiry of licences, authorizations to transport as conditions of licence, mandatory firearms safety courses for first-time gun owners, and prohibitions for those who are convicted of domestic violence offences. That is just to name a few of the measures.

These were all very common-sense reforms that were welcomed by firearms owners across the country. I would like to highlight one of the measures in particular, as it deals directly with the purpose of my Bill C-230.

Bill C-42 came in response to a seemingly random classification decision in 2014 regarding the Swiss Arms Classic Green rifles. This was a decision that was made overnight, wherein the RCMP classified the Swiss Arms as a variant of the SG 540, a restricted firearm in Canada.

There were a number of problems that resulted from this decision. Since 2001, the Swiss Arms rifles had been legal, non-restricted firearms in Canada, and with the stroke of a pen, many owners of these firearms found themselves in unlawful possession, without a clear explanation of the decision to reclassify. In simple terms, one night these guns were legal, and the next morning they were not. I think members can understand the frustration of law-abiding gun owners.

This all stems from the fact that there is no legal definition for the term “variant”. Firearms are under the purview of two different acts in Canada, part three of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act. These two acts form the basis for the regulatory framework that is used when it comes to firearms. Specifically when it comes to classifications of firearms, it is the Criminal Code and the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, that are the two important legislative pieces.

Furthermore, it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Canadian firearms program that is responsible for the administration of legislation and regulations, which includes determining the classification of firearms based upon criteria in the Criminal Code.

It has been in my mind, and in the minds of many other firearms owners across Canada, that there is a significant disconnect between the legislation and regulations surrounding the term variant. This term is used nearly 100 times in the regulations to classify firearms as prohibited, restricted, or non-restricted, but there is no clear sense of what this term actually means. It has been used extensively to reclassify firearms in cases similar to the Swiss Arms decision, without any clear explanation of the purpose for the reclassification. In simple terms, it is continually misinterpreted, and therein lies the problem.

Firearms owners have been left scratching their heads wondering how is it possible for these seemingly random decisions to be made. This is my reason for bringing this legislation forward. We need some clarity here. There is no room for vague interpretation on a case-by-case basis. In fact, if the bill were passed, it should actually make the job of RCMP members who are responsible for this law much easier.

As legislators, it is our job to ensure that those who are tasked with interpreting the laws we create are clear on the intentions of the legislation. This would provide clarity, not only for firearms owners but, as I said, also for the RCMP firearms program. They will finally have a benchmark on which they will be able to make clear and consistent classification decisions.

Bill C-230 proposes that a variant of a firearm be defined as “a firearm that has the unmodified frame or receiver of another firearm”. This will ensure that firearms that are classified as variants do in fact share fundamental mechanical pieces and therefore warrants the firearm to have the same classification as the previously classified firearm.

Having this definition added to the Criminal Code will ensure that the regulations surrounding firearms classifications are well informed and consistent with the intent of the legislation on which they are based. It will eliminate inconsistent and arbitrary interpretation and provide much-needed clarity for firearms owners and, as I always like to point out, law-abiding firearms owners.

It is rare that a piece of legislation is perfect on the first draft, and I want to pledge that my goal is to fix a problem. I have worked with a lot of people on this, and I am willing to work with the government to fix a problem that needs to be fixed. Basically, I am saying that if there is an amendment to the bill that makes it better, I am open to it and we will see where it goes. There may be members and outside stakeholders who will have concerns with certain elements of the bill. I welcome all feedback.

I feel that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security would be the perfect place to have this discussion. I see both the chair of that committee and the parliamentary secretary are here today. I want to thank both of them for their interest in being here and hearing what I have to say on the bill.

I see this legislation as less of a partisan matter and more a matter of clarity and responsible legislation. No matter what one's ideology on firearms and gun control is, I think that all members can and should agree that we need clear legislation that is free of vague and inconsistent interpretation. This is what I am hoping to accomplish with the bill.

Finally, I would like to thank the Canadian Shooting Sports Association for all of the help and guidance it has provided in the drafting of the bill. The CSSA knows this issue well and has heard loud and clear from its members that this problem must be solved. President Tony Bernardo and his team have been strong advocates for this legislation, and I would like to thank them for that support and for their input.

I also want to thank Mr. Greg Farrant of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters for his input as well, and the many responsible firearms owners across the country I have heard from. I have received support and suggestions from firearms owners in every province and territory across this country, and I still welcome that.

In closing, I want to make it very clear that I fully support good regulation and legislation that ensures that only responsible Canadians own and operate firearms in this country. Criminals and irresponsible gun owners affect the reputation of people like me, and all law-abiding gun owners. We do not want or need that.

Leaving it at that, I look forward to the debate today in the first hour of second reading. I am very happy to take questions from my honourable colleagues.

[Rae Banwarie]

How do you manage that? Somebody has died. The auxiliary got shot. Now you are appealing the decision? Why, when it directly ties to the health and safety of our people?

When I was at the Senate standing committee, I gave testimony in regards to Bill C-42. I said that If this bill is allowed to go through with the total control of the commissioner or his delegates in it, then we were going to see more suicides in the RCMP.

We've had several since then. Every single one of the cases I have been involved in ties back to workplace issues. Let's fix this.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the illustrious member for Langley—Aldergrove.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the Liberal government's first Speech from the Throne. This is my first time rising in this new Parliament as the member for the newly configured riding of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. I am also the official opposition critic for wildlife conservation and Parks Canada.

First, I would like to thank the voters of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for placing their trust in me yet again, and to take a moment to congratulate my fellow members of Parliament, both new and re-elected, on their victories in the last federal election.

As the official opposition, Canadians expect us to hold the government to account and ensure that we present an alternative vision to the Liberals' agenda. That is why much of what I heard in Friday's throne speech concerned me greatly.

First, there was no mention about how to create a climate for investment and economic growth. I expected this, since the Liberals and their fellow travellers on the left, the NDP, focus on spending as much money as they can while never advancing or promoting policies that will actually create wealth.

I would remind them that a focus on creating wealth is a necessary prerequisite to spending. However, I hold little hope in this regard. Deficits will balloon under the government, while investment will wither on the vine as businesses and wealth creators are increasingly punished for creating jobs. The new payroll tax, in the guise of a changed CPP, is a perfect example.

Second, as a member of Parliament for a large agricultural and natural resources-based constituency, I was amazed and very disappointed by the complete lack of any reference in the throne speech to agriculture and rural Canada. Agriculture generates over $100 billion for the Canadian economy, and Canada's natural resources industries, largely based in rural Canada, are the backbone of the Canadian economy. Well, that is until the Liberals finish off the natural resources sector with punitive taxation and a regulatory regime designed to endlessly delay any new natural resource development anywhere in Canada.

In fact, rural communities appear to have been largely forgotten. The Liberals have made specific promises regarding public transit, for example. Of course, public transit is important in large urban centres, but it is largely non-existent in my riding.

How do the Liberals plan on compensating our communities? We do not have public transit where I live and where I represent, but we do have infrastructure needs. Will the Liberals match the investments in urban transit with rural infrastructure projects?

The Canadian natural resources sector is suffering, as are those natural resource-dependent communities in rural Canada. Crude oil is below $40. With the proposed carbon tax and onerous regulatory regime layered on top of low prices, it is clear that the Liberals and their fellow travellers in the NDP have basically declared war on Canada's energy sector and our natural resources industries.

I find this appalling because when it comes right down to it, the energy business is basically a people business. Let me explain. Canada's natural resources sector employs over $1.8 million Canadians, and the energy sector supports about 300,000 jobs alone. In the winter of 2009-10, like many of my constituents, I worked in the Alberta oil sands conducting environmental monitoring. In that capacity, I met Canadians from every province who were supporting themselves and their families by working in the oil sands. I met senior couples saving for a dignified retirement, young people saving for their first home, and moms and dads putting away money for their children's education.

Apart from the fact that Canada's oil sands operates under a strict regime of environmental compliance and real excellence, it is the people and employees, supported by the oil sands, who are the real driving force behind this vital industry. It is Canadians from all across Canada who will be affected by the Liberals deliberate strategy to shrink the oil sands.

How much of the expected $570 billion that was earmarked for new investments will now not be spent? How many manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec will not get equipment orders? How many vehicles will not be purchased by energy workers? How many homes will stay unsold? How many people from high unemployment areas who formerly commuted to the oil sands will now be forced to stay home collecting employment insurance? How many vital public services will now be starved for funds?

I had the honour in the last Parliament to be a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Both fit well with my experience as a fisheries biologist and my careers in natural resources and conservation. In those capacities, I have developed a singular focus on the delivery of real and measurable environmental results for every public dollar spent.

That was the policy of our government, and I am very proud of our record in delivering real and measurable environmental results from our programs.

Under our watch, most measurable environmental indicators showed marked improvements. Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions declined. On our watch, the UN, in 2010, declared that Canada ranked number two in terms of the quality of our water when compared with other industrialized nations.

Our government set aside an area for national parks that is twice the size of the province of New Brunswick. We cleaned up hundreds of contaminated sites, introduced major fisheries habitat conservation programs, improved wetland conservation, and initiated major work to improve water quality in Lake Winnipeg and the Great Lakes.

I would point out to the House that within their first month in office, the Liberals have made eight funding announcements, costing Canadians almost $2.85 billion. None of that money is going to be spent in Canada, and none of those funds were approved by Parliament or even announced when Parliament was sitting. Most will be spent on international climate change projects.

The question I keep asking, both with this $2.85 billion as well as with other points in my speech, is what do Canadians get for these funds? Government spending is all about priorities, and pressing environmental investments need to be made right here in Canada. For example, Lake Erie is being seriously affected by nutrient inputs, primarily from the United States. In fact, all of the Great Lakes, where 40% of Canadians live by the way, are experiencing eutrophication from an ever-increasing number of non-point sources.

These are the kinds of environmental issues that Canadians expect governments to work on, yet the Liberal government's priority is to send almost 400 delegates to Paris, more than the U.S., Britain, and Australia combined. Generating real and measurable environmental results is what Canadians expect but will certainly not get from the Liberal government.

By the way, it was truly astonishing that the first act by our new Minister of Environment and Climate Change was to allow Montreal to dump eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence, one of Canada's most iconic waterways. This was in direct violation of section 36 of the Fisheries Act. So much for the Liberals' vaunted concern for the environment.

In the throne speech, the Liberal government promised to introduce a carbon tax, thus increasing cost to industry, further depressing energy investments, and increasing direct energy costs to Canadians. There are two groups of Canadians who will be directly affected by this carbon tax, namely low-income and rural Canadians, the kind of people I represent. If it were not so serious, I would find it laughable that the Liberals claim to care so much about low-income Canadians. They are doing their best to put at risk the incomes of poor people and those who live in remote rural regions.

I would note that both low-income people and rural people spend a higher proportion of their incomes on energy than other Canadians. It is my expectation that any carbon pricing be revenue neutral and have a mechanism to offset the negative impacts of such a tax on low-income and rural people.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the federal Liberal government wants to take us down the same energy path as its friends in Ontario. How is that working out? Ontario's Auditor General, Bonnie Lysyk, recently valuated the Ontario Liberal's vaunted green energy strategy. She noted that Ontario electricity ratepayers have had to pay billions for these decisions. Between 2006 and 2014, this cost consumers an additional $37 billion in Ontario, and will cost ratepayers another $133 billion by 2032.

In the Toronto Star recently, of all places, there was an article by Thomas Walkom entitled “Ontario's green energy botch-up a lesson for those fighting climate change”. This article talked about Ontario's approach of massively subsidizing the production of electricity from solar and wind and biomass, resulting in a massive overproduction of power from Ontario that has to literally pay other jurisdictions to take its power. Interestingly, Ontario's annual average energy surplus between 2009 and 2014 was equal to the total power generation of my province of Manitoba, one of the major hydro producers in this country.

Furthermore, by dumping excess power on the market, Ontario has depressed energy prices for all producers. As Walkom notes, “Canadians are willing to pay a price now to save the future. But these same Canadians will rebel if they believe the governments inducing them to pay carbon taxes are incompetent, venal or both”. What we see in Ontario is the likely outcome of the energy policies of the federal government.

I would like a quick word on the firearm's issue. I was chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, and my critic portfolio includes protecting the rights of law-abiding firearms owners. The Liberals have declared their intention to attack law-abiding firearms owners once again. The Liberals are soft on crime and tough on law-abiding firearms owners. Talk about reverting to type. Again, we see them wanting to repeal Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, which ensured public safety was protected while at the same time protecting the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.

In conclusion, I have stressed just a few of the questions that Canadians have been raising in regard to the Liberal agenda.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-247, An Act to expand the mandate of Service Canada in respect of the death of a Canadian citizen or Canadian resident—Chapter 15.

Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons)—Chapter 16.

Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits)—Chapter 17.

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act—Chapter 18.

Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act—Chapter 19.

Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 20.

Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act—Chapter 21.

Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,—Chapter 22.

Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 23.

Bill C-63, An Act to give effect to the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24.

Bill C-66, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 25.

Bill C-67, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 26.

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—Chapter 27.

Bill C-555, An Act respecting the Marine Mammal Regulations (seal fishery observation licence)—Chapter 28.

Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 29.

Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act—Chapter 30.

Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act—Chapter 31.

Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act—Chapter 32.

Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations—Chapter 33.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act, which is in fact what it is.

This is a bill that is very important to my constituents and to the law-abiding firearms community across Canada. It is also a bill that is very important to me personally.

As members know, I will not be running again in the next election. As members also know, changes to our firearms laws to make them safe and sensible has been something I have worked on very hard during the time I have been in this place. I introduced almost half a dozen private member's bills to reduce needless red tape that had been heaped upon law-abiding gun owners over the years. I am pleased that many of the measures I have advocated for over the years have made their way into legislation introduced by ministers in our Conservative government.

Canadians are interested in the facts of what this common sense firearms licencing act will do and will not do.

This important point is something the NDP and Liberals seem to forget. This bill will make participation in the classroom component of the firearms safety training course mandatory, for the first time, for firearms owners. It will ensure that all those who join the rapidly growing ranks of the 2.2 million licensed firearms owners will have a common understanding of how to safely operate firearms.

What the bill will not do is allow “duck hunting with a machine gun capable of bringing down a MiG”. This is the shocking misinformation suggested by the NDP member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

What the bill will do is end needless paperwork for the authorization to transport restricted and prohibited firearms. This paperwork was not shared with law enforcement, or anyone for that matter. It was simply filed away in a drawer, never to be thought about again.

What the bill will not do, as the Liberal leader suggested, is “allow handguns and assault weapons to be freely transported in a trunk anywhere within a province, even left parked outside a Canadian Tire or a local hockey arena”. Members do not need to believe me. The non-partisan assistant deputy minister of Public Safety was asked about these comments and whether they were accurate. Her answer was simple and straightforward. She said, “no”.

I think the Liberal leader is cynically trying to scare Canadians, or he simply has no understanding of how firearms laws work in Canada. Either way, it is just another example that he is just not up to the job of leading.

The common sense firearms licensing act will also establish a six-month grace period for firearms owners so that they do not become criminals overnight when their licence expires. I was listening to the debate previously, and it was said that we get a notice for every other licence. However, we do not become criminals if we neglect to renew our driver's licence. It is very different with a firearms licence.

The NDP member for Newton—North Delta said:

For a gun owner it would still be perfectly okay for six months after one's licence expires. That would be legalized in this legislation. When my driver's licence expires, it expires on that date and I have to get it renewed beforehand.

While that is a correct statement, what she forgets is that if I forget to renew my driver's licence, I face about a $200 fine. If I forget to renew my firearms licence, I face many years in prison. It simply does not make sense. We need common sense, and that is what this bill is all about.

This bill will also merge the possession-only licence and the possession-and-acquisition licence. This technical-sounding change can be broken down very simply.

Approximately 600,000 experienced firearms owners did not want to comply with the Liberal firearms regime back in 1995. They did not want to jump through hoops, as they had owned guns for some time. Therefore, this category was created, but they were not allowed to buy new firearms.

This group averages about 60 years of age. They have all had their firearms in excess of 20 years. They are well trained in how to safely use firearms. Therefore, this change will be good for the economy, as this large group of people will be able to purchase firearms.

Let us listen to what Pierre Latraverse, of the Quebec hunters and anglers federation, had to say about this measure. He said:

It's a very positive measure, given that there will only be a single licence under these conditions. This is much more representative of what owning a firearm is like. Currently, there are two licences: a possession licence and a possession and acquisition licence. If you only have a possession licence, you cannot purchase firearms. You have to go through the system to buy a possession and acquisition licence. With the merger, a hunter won't have to go through the whole administrative process again to purchase another firearm.

The common sense firearms licensing act will also restrict the ability of chief firearms officers to make arbitrary decisions. Currently, section 58 of the Firearms Act gives authority to unelected bureaucrats that I do not believe exists anywhere else in law. Let me read this section. It says:

A chief firearms officer who issues a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport may attach any reasonable condition to it that the chief firearms officer considers desirable in the particular circumstances and in the interests of the safety of the holder or any other person.

Tony Bernardo, the executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, rightly describe this section as creating “God powers” for the CFO. We will return elected officials to their rightful place as the overseers of bureaucrats.

I have talked a lot about measures that will reduce red tape. I would also like to talk about a measure that I find very important in the common sense firearms licencing act. That is the strengthening of firearms prohibition orders for those who have been convicted of domestic violence offences.

We believe that past behaviour is a good indicator of future results. Clearly, someone who has a serious conviction for domestic violence is volatile. We do not believe that firearms ought to be present in those types of situations.

The last measure in the bill I would like to touch on is the ability of elected officials to overturn decisions of the Canadian firearms program regarding classification. We all recall the decision of the Canadian firearms programs to attempt to ban two firearms that had been sold in Canada for well over a decade. In fact, by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen, thousands of Canadians were turned into criminals overnight, probably without their knowledge. This was without consulting the Minister of Public Safety or his staff, without consulting the public safety committee, and without consulting anyone.

It is clear that this is unacceptable. That is why we are creating this measure. It is why, as soon the bill receives royal assent, we will move to restore the classification of the Swiss Arms family of rifles and the CZ858 to its previous non-restricted status.

As many of my colleagues have said through the course of this debate, it is about culture. There are 2.2 million Canadians who are licensed firearms owners, many in Toronto, despite what some people here think, and an estimated four million Canadians, partake in hunting, fishing, trapping, or sport shooting. I will repeat that: four million Canadians participate in these things.

Why is that? It is because these activities are part of our shared Canadian heritage.

[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.

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.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are three strong measures that will improve public safety.

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to speak to Bill C-42, which would amend the Firearms Act, the Criminal Code and the Customs Act, thereby changing the legislation governing firearms licences and the transport and classification of firearms and limiting the powers of provincial and territorial chief firearms officers.

I do not have enough time to discuss all of the provisions in this bill, so I will focus on two specific elements.

First, what baffles me about this bill is that it gives the Minister of Public Safety the power to decide how to classify firearms.

Basically, if memory serves, in 2014, after conducting an analysis that got a lot of press, the RCMP decided to reclassify Swiss Arms Classic Green and CZ858 firearms. These firearms were originally classified as restricted, but the RCMP reclassified them as prohibited. Why? Because the RCMP determined that these firearms could easily be converted into automatic weapons.

What did we find out a few weeks later? We found out that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was not very happy about that decision and granted an amnesty for individuals who already owned those guns. Then, to ensure that such a situation does not happen again, since the minister did not have the power to reverse the decision, he introduced Bill C-42 to grant himself those powers.

At this time, all ammunition and firearms, regardless of the type of gun, whether prohibited or not, are classified by the RCMP, then approved by the minister. When the RCMP makes a decision, the minister cannot reverse that decision.

Furthermore, standards governing the classification of new products—in other words, new guns—the modification of firearms or ammunition, and even the review of information on classification are set out in the Criminal Code. Bill C-42 grants the minister another new power whereby, by regulation of course, and through exceptions, the minister can determine on his own, in his infinite wisdom, how firearms will be classified, obviously bypassing the RCMP and the Criminal Code.

What does this mean, in concrete terms? This means that the minister could decide, by regulation, to classify guns that would normally fit the definition of a prohibited or restricted weapon as non-restricted firearms. He could even decide that weapons that are normally prohibited could be restricted or non-restricted. He could therefore decide that even automatic weapons could be classified as restricted or non-restricted. Basically, this bill puts the power to decide whether a weapon should be prohibited in Canada into the hands of a politician, the public safety minister.

If the RCMP no longer has a say in firearms classification, then who is going to advise the minister? The RCMP is the appropriate body to do so and has the experience with firearms, having seen a few. Is the firearms lobby going to advise the minister as to whether or not a firearm is prohibited? Will Gary Mauser, their big expert they keep talking about here in the House, step in? He wrote a very good book that I invite my colleagues to read, entitled “Manipulating Public Opinion”. I do not know whether there is a link between public opinion and guns, but there could be because we have been watching the Conservatives since 2006 and they are pretty good at manipulating public opinion. In that sense, I have to hand it to them that Mr. Mauser is a good advisor.

That brings me to the next point. Currently, the provincial and territorial chief firearms officers are responsible for implementing the Firearms Act and setting standards for licences and authorizations to carry and transport, transfers of firearms, and record keeping.

This bill would limit by regulation the authority of the chief firearms officer. The premier of Quebec and also Mr. Fournier are completely opposed to the bill. Thus, Quebec is opposed to the bill, but it is not the first time that this government has not listened to the provinces.

If this government is really concerned about public safety and wants to do something intelligent about it, it should instead quickly implement the firearms marking regulations, which it has delayed since 2006. I have been closely following this file since 2006. Firearms marking would make it possible for us to know where firearms in Canada are coming from. Information such as the place or date of manufacture, the manufacturer and the series number is described in detail in the regulations.

It is ridiculous that we currently have marked firearms in Canada because of the United States. It is not a Canadian government initiative, but a U.S. initiative that has led to the mandatory marking of firearms by the manufacturer. The U.S. honours the contracts and agreements it signs with other countries. We have still not implemented that decree, and we do not always honour the agreements that we have signed. We have delayed this one every year.

We have the U.S. government to thank for the fact that some of the firearms that come into Canada are marked, since they come across that border. However, some firearms that come in through channels other than the U.S. border and from some European countries are not marked. Unmarked firearms are extremely difficult to track, so they are the most tempting to the criminal world.

I listened to the debate on Monday, and I have been listening to the Conservatives talk about firearms since 2006. They always talk about the illegal trafficking of firearms. We all agree that we need to combat the illegal trafficking of firearms, but if firearms are unmarked, how can we start to combat illegal trafficking?

Here is a little lesson in criminology: marking is a theft prevention mechanism. A marked firearm is easier to track and is therefore less attractive to criminals. Furthermore, marking is also used to protect firearm owners. Marking is certainly necessary in the fight against gun trafficking, but border controls are also important.

Let us have a little criminology 101.1 lesson: 80% of illegal weapons in Canada come through the United States. The Internet gives people access to all sorts of ways of buying weapons and bringing them to Canada. Nevertheless, since 2006, this government has done nothing but cut the CBSA's budget and shut down a number of border crossings in the regions. The CBSA's budget for 2014-15 will be cut by $143 million. That means that 1,351 jobs will be cut, including those of 325 border officers and about a hundred intelligence officers.

If we want to crack down on the smuggling of firearms, we simply need to allow our agencies to trace these weapons and stop the traffickers. If there is no one at our border crossings and cuts are being made, we are not going to be able to solve this problem.

In closing, I would like to show how ridiculous this situation is. The Conservatives are passing laws that will put more prohibited weapons in circulation. They still have not done anything regarding firearms marking, and they are cutting the CBSA's budget. Then they are wondering why there are illegal firearms in Canada.

The House resumed from May 25 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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to reducing taxes everyone knows these are Conservative ideas and Conservative proposals. In fact, when we reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, saving Canadians billions of dollars, the NDP voted against that measure to benefit Canadians. Therefore, we know who is delivering on lower taxes for Canadians.

This afternoon we will start the report stage of Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act. Needless to say, I am disappointed to see on today’s notice paper some 17 report stage amendments, which, all told, would eviscerate the content of the bill. From these proposals, the opposition are clearly signalling that they do not support this Conservative government’s efforts to send a strong message to those in Canada, and those who wish to come to Canada, that we will not tolerate cultural traditions that deprive individuals of their human rights. Early and forced marriages, “honour”-based violence, and polygamy will not be tolerated on Canadian soil, so Conservatives will be voting against all of these opposition amendments.

Tomorrow, we will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. I am optimistic we can pass the bill soon so the Senate will have adequate time to consider these reductions in red tape, which regular, law-abiding Canadian hunters, farmers and outdoor enthusiasts face.

Monday shall be the sixth allotted day. The New Democrats will provide a motion for the House to debate when we come back from a weekend in our constituencies.

We will complete the report and second reading stages of Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, on Tuesday. Earlier today, the House heard my colleague, the Minister of Industry, explain the importance of this key legislation.

Wednesday, we will see the House return to the report stage of Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. This legislation is clearly both needed and wanted north of 60. Bill S-6 would modernize regulatory regimes up north and ensure they are consistent with those in the rest of Canada, while protecting the environment and strengthening northern governance.

Next Thursday, June 4, will be the seventh allotted day, when the House will again debate a topic of the New Democrats' choosing.

Finally, for the benefit of those committees studying the supplementary estimates, I am currently eyeing Monday, June 8 as the final allotted day of the supply cycle. I will, however, confirm that designation at this time next week.

Firearms Regulations

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that while that might not have been a point of order, it was certainly a point worth raising.

I am pleased to stand to speak today about Motion No. 589. I would like to begin by commending the member for Prince George—Peace River for all of his work, particularly in support of the firearms community. I have had a lot of opportunity to work with him. Those of us on this side of the House who support the firearms community through the hunting and angling caucus and other direct initiatives all know that the member has a keen interest in outdoor pursuits, the shooting way of life. He is supportive of the firearms community and has done a lot of great work. It is certainly great to have him as a member of the caucus.

This important motion highlights the Conservative government's common sense firearms regime. The member for Prince George—Peace River is introducing the motion to ensure that no unnecessary steps are implemented. I have heard the Liberals and NDP today engage in a drive-by smear of outdoor enthusiasts by saying that those who want to obey clear rules are part of some sort of American-style gun lobby. In fact, I heard a member from the NDP question the Conservative government's obsession with firearms legislation.

It is interesting that while New Democrats refer to it as an obsession, I would refer to it as representation of the millions of Canadians who are lawful, legal, and ethical firearms owners. New Democrats can call that an obsession. I call it good parliamentary representation of the millions of Canadians across the country who engage in athletic hunting and trapping pursuits and firearms as a day-to-day tool, as a way of protecting and preserving a way of life.

They will not confuse this as any kind of bizarre obsession by the Conservative government. In fact, it is clear, unapologetic, and resounding support for a lawful, ethical, and indeed healthy way of life, exercised for a long period of time in the tradition and history of Canada.

Of course, these kinds of comments by both the NDP and the Liberal Party are ridiculous and offensive to the millions of Canadians who own firearms. This large group of Canadians pays attention to what goes on in this place, and I know they pay far closer attention than the members of the opposition realize or may think. I hope they keep that in mind when this important motion comes forward for a vote.

I would like to talk about something that I spoke a bit on yesterday in my speech on Bill C-42. There are a lot of linkages between our entire firearms policy and agenda to support these millions of Canadians. I will talk about a representative of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Greg Farrant, who said:

Firearms owners in Canada are judges, lawyers, farmers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, accountants, even federal politicians...who 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.

Indeed, they are mothers, daughters, aunts, uncles, and children, including my son.

Judging by the comments we have heard today, it seems that the NDP and the Liberals in opposition continue to believe that only backwoods, unrefined, rural folk engage in these activities. Again, that is a complete abandonment of the facts in our country, and an insult to Canadians who pursue a way of life, whether it be in sport shooting, collecting, athletics, or hunting and trapping, which is a long-standing heritage, as I have mentioned.

This motion is as much about our outdoor culture and preservation and protection of a way of life as it is about anything else. We have consistently been clear that we will do everything we can to ensure that red tape and unnecessary measures are not put in place to create a burden for the lawful, ethical, and law-abiding firearms owners, manufacturers, or ammunition producers in this country. I think that the member for Prince George—Peace River outlined clearly the reputation that our country already has and the laws that are already in place.

Opposition members say that they are already doing this, that it is lawful and why would we not just go along to get along again. The fact is, why would we put measures in place that duplicate the things we are already doing so well?

We have a regime that is Canadian made. We have a regime that meets the needs of Canada, a vast nation that spans from Newfoundland and Labrador all the way to the Yukon territory, some 7,000 kilometres from coast to coast to coast. It is the largest archipelago in the world, with remote rural Canadian locations, huge distribution networks, a vast array of needs and purposes for firearms ownership, firearms manufacturing and firearms shipment.

We need a Canadian made solution, and that is what we have in our country. Do we need the imposition of an international body and an international governance structure telling Canada how to go about administering our laws, our rules and our policies, given the very unique nature of the Canadian geography and the Canadian people?

We have heard examples from across the floor that the EU does this so why would we not do it. The EU is not Canada, not in this context. There are times when we look to other nations to model the things they do well and best practices. However, in this case, the submission from the member in his motion is that we cannot model that system now in our country under the conditions I have outlined, under the unique geographic differences, the differences of the Canadian people, the different needs for firearms in the Canadian context, the different utilizations, history and culture. Canada in that respect is different.

Nonetheless, we have a strong regime of which we can be proud. In fact, I would submit that the member in his motion would confer that Canada has a model that other countries could sufficiently replicate to maintain public safety, control, tracking and order.

I have spoken directly with manufacturers and shippers in our country and they tell me that the programs, the regulations and the inventory accountability they need to maintain is second to none. In fact, if members in the House were wanting to endeavour to really get the facts on that, all they would need to do is go to a shipping location in our country and ask how it accounts for the ammunition in its facilities and how it accounts for the shipping and movement of that ammunition in and out of its facility. They would find an incredible, intricate, regulated network of rules that absolutely guarantee preservation and protection of society, accountability, security and all the necessary measures that a reasonable Canadian would expect to be in place. I know that because I have been there. I have seen that. I have worked with and talked about these issues with the manufacturers.

Members in the opposition can pontificate about whether this would cause onerous measurements or standards or whether this would be a big deal or not. The simple fact is that they have not gone out and asked. They have not been there to find out.

I can say with absolute certainty that the kind of measures that are being proposed are not good in the Canadian context. They are not fitting in with that need and we do not need to import an international boondoggle. We need Canadian solutions, developed by and for Canadians. We need to be able to stand proud. We have heard that across both sides of the House. We need to be able to stand proud and defend the system that we have in place. Again, here would be clear and ample submission in the House of Commons that we can defend what we have in Canada in terms of our firearms licensing regime, policies, sale and distribution legislation, criminal sanctions and the measures that complete a well rounded policy.

Every time, whether it is this motion, the common sense firearms licensing act, Bill C-637, introduced by my friend and colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, chair of the hunting and angling caucus, or the elimination of the long gun registry, we continue to hear examples like “I register my dog. I register my cat. I register my car. Why is it a big deal?” However, those at the time were the seven myths of the opposition that they continue to talk about. They completely misunderstood the differences between those things.

They continued then and they continue today to use fearmongering tactics in an attempt to fundraise and in an attempt to scare Canadians. The Liberal Party has done it recently, showing pictures of scary guns that will now be available at shopping malls and easily stolen. They hope to scare Canadians into thinking that somehow any of the laws we are putting in place would make that easier. That is clearly not the case.

I will conclude by saying that I invite all members to explore this issue and consider their next steps as they move forward on this motion.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time.

I have listened to just about the whole debate, in my office as well as here in the House.

I would like to speak on behalf of the people of Gatineau and the different groups with which I have had good discussions and have spoken at length about all the Conservative government's bills. They agree with the NDP's position on firearms, in the broad sense, and they agree that Bill C-42 provides a good example of the difficulty this government has of striking the right balance between security and rights.

This is also apparent with Bill C-51. The Conservatives have difficulty striking a balance between security and human rights. Furthermore, they always try to divide and conquer. That is probably what is frustrating in the long run. Bill C-42 is a fine example of this dysfunctional Parliament.

This week is our fourth-last week in the House. When I look at everything that we accomplished in four years, it is nothing but an endless list of bills. Members on the government benches simply tried to always take a stand against us, although all 308 of us here in the House are supposed to be here to improve the well-being of our constituents and of Canadians across the country.

All afternoon, after question period, members on the Conservative benches kept trying to imply that our questions on Bill C-42 meant that we were against hunters and against law-abiding firearm owners. I think that is absolutely simplistic and insulting.

We have all kinds of people in our ridings and in our caucus who are proud hunters, who follow the law and do things the right away, and who respect firearms. Our colleagues opposite are making it sound as though our questioning of the merits of a bill and what it truly aims to do means that they support hunters and we are against them.

If you look closely, you can see that more than half of the 16 pages of this bill have absolutely nothing to do with cutting red tape.

I am looking at the titles, and I know that others before me have mentioned this, but I still do not understand why the short titles in English and French do not say the same thing. In French, it is Loi visant la délivrance simple et sécuritaire des permis d'armes à feu. The word “sécuritaire” is in the bill.

However, in English it says, “This Act may be cited as the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act”.

As the justice critic, I have often said that the devil is in the details with the Conservative government. That is the kind of careful approach we have to take to the work the people have sent us here to do.

Nearly 70% of the population did not vote for this government. Those people have the right to be heard in the House and to tell the government to be careful. Saying that does not automatically mean that we are against all aspects of this bill.

When I gave my speech at second reading, there was time allocation. That is the other trend that shows how dysfunctional this Parliament is because nearly all of the bills have been subject to time allocation.

The government dragged its heels on Bill C-42 for a long time.

That was the bill we were supposed to debate the day after the events of October 22. If that bill was so good, so simple and so extraordinary, why did the government take it off the agenda only to reintroduce it five or six months later under a time allocation motion? The government dragged its feet and tried to sweep this under the rug so as not to get people too worked up, because, as one member said, there was reason to believe that some serious problems could arise in urban centres.

While my colleagues from rural areas are asking us to understand the needs of hunters, sport shooters and gun collectors, my colleagues from urban areas are making a heartfelt appeal to all those law-abiding gun owners, telling them that there is a serious problem in urban centres. Can we not just sit down together and try to find solutions that meet everyone's needs? That is not naive or sentimental; it is simply to say that, with goodwill and by working together, we can do good things.

It is possible to eliminate the irritants that are hurting law-abiding gun owners who might have made a small mistake with their registration, for they certainly do not deserve to be left with a criminal record. I completely agree, but can we also do something to make sure that we are not making things easier for gun and weapon smugglers and that we are not making the classification of weapons so simplistic and easy that it leads to serious problems? That is our most fundamental duty.

The Conservatives like to personally attack us because of some of the positions we take. Some Conservatives go so far as to try to hurt us in press releases and in front of certain groups. I am relatively active with Les Membres Sportifs de Gatineau, a hunting and fishing club. I get together with the members often. I like chatting with them. They organize activities, and one day I will very likely go with them because I am a girl who likes to commit wholeheartedly, not just with words but also with actions, unlike the Conservative government.

When the long gun registry was created, those people told me that it made them feel like criminals, but they absolutely were not. The Conservatives capitalized on that. Instead of getting rid of the sticking points related to the registry, they used it as a blunt instrument to divide Canadians. The vast majority of Canadians, if not all of them, know full well that hunting and biathlon are not being eliminated. I have no intention of doing so.

Some young cadets in my riding recently won awards in biathlon competitions. It is extraordinary to see them. Nonetheless, they learn at an early age how to handle a weapon properly and they know full well that it is like a car. They know they have to be careful when they use it and they cannot proceed any old way. There are rules.

This bill has some extremely disturbing aspects. Again, it is not about reducing red tape. It includes a number of criminal provisions and gives cabinet the regulatory power to make classification changes, which is worrisome.

My colleagues who are members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security worked hard on getting rid of these sticking points through amendments, which would have allowed us to support the bill.

As usual, the Conservative members of the committee are unfortunately always told to say no to the opposition's requests, even the reasonable ones.

I will proudly vote against this bill. Once again, I wish continued success to all Canadian hunters. I am not against them.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we have very clear safe-storage laws in this country. None of that would change under Bill C-42.

What the member is forgetting is that when someone steals a gun, that is criminal intent and criminal purpose with those guns, and we have laws to deal with that. I encourage the member to support all the initiatives we have put in place to deal with that criminal kind of behaviour.

Let me quickly educate that member about this one fact. There are half a million hunters in the province of Ontario, and if he thinks none of them live in Toronto, he is out of his mind. Perhaps he is suggesting that we should have some firearms repository outside of the city of Toronto where people could store their firearms.

The member is clearly ignoring the thousands and thousands of lawful firearms owners who live in the city of Toronto and who engage in hunting activities right across the province of Ontario and right across Canada each and every day. We will stand up for them, while he ignores them.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of Bill C-42. Also, I am very happy to be joined by my colleague and friend from Wetaskiwin.

We have a number of members in the House of Commons on this side of the House who join me on the hunting and angling caucus. They do a lot of great work to promote and preserve Canada's rich and proud heritage of hunting, trapping, and sport shooting, and of course, the farmers who use in firearms in Canada as a day-to-day tool. They support a traditional and positive way of life and, indeed, a healthy way of life.

I will spend a bit of time talking about the value of firearms and what role they play in the country and then specifically about Bill C-42.

I was pleased to substitute on the public safety committee when we were reviewing the bill and the committee was undertaking the study. We heard a lot of things from witnesses, and one of the things that stood out for me was some testimony from Greg Farrant, who represents the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Mr. Farrant is tuned in, clearly, to a lot of the debate that has gone on with the bill. He understood what was going on and in fact provided testimony as the government was introducing legislation to get rid of the long gun registry.

The one point he made that really stood out was his reflection on the size of the community that engages in hunting and trapping activities in the province of Ontario and right across Canada. He said that we always get branded, and I say “we”, because I come from a long, proud tradition and history of hunting. I grew up in the Yukon territory doing that as a wonderful way of life as well and will well into my future. I say “we” in that sense. We get branded by the opposition as being part of the gun lobby, as though that is said in some sort of pejorative sense. That is what Greg Farrant said. He said that we are always branded as a gun lobby, as though that is a bad thing.

Let us talk about what the gun lobby is. We say it with pride, and we say it with the understanding, on this side of the House, of what exactly the gun lobby represents in Canada. It is not the negative, pejorative term that anyone should hide their head from and be ashamed of. What does that gun lobby do? That gun lobby participates in hunting heritage activities. It contributes millions of dollars to conservation in this country. In fact, a recent study from the United States indicates that the group four times more likely than any other group to put their sweat equity and their cash into conservation is the hunting group. That is right. Hunters are four times more likely than any other group to put their money, their time, and their effort into the valuable principles of conservation. That is something they should be applauded for.

Instead, in return, what the opposition does is call them the gun lobby, as though that is some sort of evil moniker they should hide from and have a shadow over them for.

I say that they need to stand and be proud of that one simple fact. They are the ones out there on the land. They are the ones who first recognized the need for the protection and preservation of our environmental heritage. They are the ones who recognize the depletion or the need for conservation practices and principles in a particular area or a particular region for a particular species. It is not only the species they hunt. It is the species, the streams, the habitats, the lakes, and the forests that contribute to the life processes of the wildlife populations in our country. Those people are the ones who are responsible for the abundance, the protection, and the preservation of the wildlife, lakes, land, and water in our nation.

There is no accidental abundance of wildlife in Canada. There is no accidental protection and preservation of the wilderness. There is no accidental protection and preservation of the lakes, rivers, and streams in this country.

How does that happen? Where does that come from? It is from the gun lobby: the hunters, the anglers, the trappers, the sport shooters, and the athletes, the people who own guns and carry guns and spend time in the wilderness.

Where do we get our safety laws from? We did not create them here in the House of Commons, did we? No. Anyone who owns a gun in this country knows, as ethical, safe, law-abiding people in Canada, that they were the first to promote and teach safe ways of handling firearms. They were the ones who developed the 10 rules of firearms safety that those on the other side of the House could not list three of but that probably 90% of the members on this side of the House know inside and out, as though they are a bible to us. They were created by the hunting community and not by politicians.

We can thank the gun lobby. We can thank the conservationists. We can thank the hunters, the trappers, the sport shooters, and the athletes in the country who use firearms in a safe, responsible, and ethical way every single day in this country for the fundamental rules we now call laws.

Is it not ironic that we are here standing up to defend, change, or alter the very laws that this community itself generated? That is because it understands that firearms come with responsibilities. They are a tool to protect and preserve an important way of life, but they do come with responsibilities. It was those groups, not the House of Commons and not the provincial legislatures, that first created those laws.

I am proud to talk about the measures we are taking in Bill C-42 to ensure that those people who created those laws and do so much for the conservation, preservation, and protection of a great way of life in this country are not burdened by red tape that is unnecessary, are not considered criminals at first blush, and are not considered criminals because of paperwork errors.

Bill C-42 will merge the possession and POL licences to give people more opportunities to own firearms, to simplify things, and to reduce some of the red tape. It will merge some of the ATT conditions in just one licence so that there is a condition for that licence instead of a whole bunch of other papers of authorization, which can inadvertently trip people up and in fact make it more difficult for law enforcement to determine whether a person is in legal possession of a restricted firearm when he or she is going to and from a range. The bill contains sensible measures so that people can transport firearms to shooting ranges, gun shops, a police station, or a point of entry, all things they could do in the past but that can now all be on one licence instead of multiple licences.

Bill C-42 will also take another step to balance responsible firearm ownership and public safety. It will introduce stricter penalties for people convicted of domestic violence and stricter conditions for people involved in violent behaviour and violent activity. Who asked for that? It is the gun lobby, the firearms community, those responsible gun owners. They are every bit as offended, if not more offended, by the illegal and unlawful use of firearms as anyone in this House could possibly be, because it affects that community greatly when someone steps out of line or uses a firearm in an illegal and inappropriate manner. That is not what they taught long before we put laws in place, and it is not what they teach in the present day. Of course they are supportive of the stricter public safety measures we are putting in place. At the same time, they do not want to be treated as criminals for simple paperwork errors.

The bill will reduce red tape and formalize some of the provisions that did not have clear guidelines before, such as the rules and regulations around the determination of what the CFOs can do. Arbitrary decisions were being made from one province to the next that left everyone in a state of confusion, because they were not clear-cut. This legislation will make clear what CFOs can do and what terms and conditions they can and cannot put in place so that firearms owners, the general public, and the law enforcement community have certainty and we do not see decisions like the one made by a CFO in Ontario, who arbitrarily decided that any firearms owner wanting to go to a range with a restricted weapon needed an invitation from another range. That was not spelled out in any piece of legislation at all. It was an invention of a CFO. Clearly, firearms owners need to know what is a reasonable restriction and a reasonable condition on their licence that cannot be made up. This bill will provide that.

I will leave members with this thought. One in every five Canadians participates in hunting, trapping, and sport shooting activities in this country. They contribute $15.5 billion to the Canadian economy. This side of the House, this party, and this government will stand up for law-abiding firearms owners every single day. While I would like to encourage the members of the opposition to get on board and help support these measures in Bill C-42, it was clear from their testimony at committee that they have no intention of doing that, which is all the better for us. We will be the party that stands up for law-abiding firearms owners.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act, but first I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Yukon.

For far too long, law-abiding firearms owners have been treated like common criminals in Canada. They have received this treatment simply for enjoying the Canadian heritage activities of hunting, sport shooting, or simply living off the land.

In fact, former Liberal cabinet minister Allan Rock even said when he came to Ottawa that he came with the firm belief that the only people in Canada who should have firearms are police officers and the military. What a slap in the face for the rural parts of this country.

Our Conservative government could not disagree more with Allan Rock. We believe there should be laws in place to combat the criminal use of firearms, but we also believe that one should not need a law degree to engage in a hobby that is as old as Canada itself.

In other words, we believe in safe and sensible firearms policies. That is why we have taken action to get tough on gang members who are illegally in possession of a firearm. It is also why we have made sentences tougher for those who use firearms to commit crimes. That is why we have made it a specific offence to engage in drive-by or other reckless shootings.

It is also why we scrapped the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. It is why we have taken needless regulations off the books. It is also why we are here today to discuss this important common sense piece of legislation.

I would like to discuss some of the key measures that the bill advances. We will simplify the licensing system by eliminating the possession only licence and converting to a possession and acquisition licence. This will, upon royal assent, give 600,000 people in this country the ability to purchase firearms. That is good news for law-abiding gun owners and good news for business in Canada.

Further, the bill would provide for a six-month grace period at the end of a five-year licence. This would allow individuals who forget to renew their licence to come back in compliance with the law without fear of becoming a criminal simply for making a mistake.

Additionally, the bill would require first-time gun owners to participate in a Canadian firearms safety course and pass that test. Members might think this has always been the case, but previously individuals did not have to participate in a class in order to get their licence. We believe it is important that all gun owners have a solid understanding of how to handle their firearms safely.

Some have said that this will lead to those who have held a possession only licence for many years to have to take this course in order to receive their new converted licence. It is absolutely not true, not intended, and is not the case.

What is more, the bill would end the needless paperwork surrounding the authorization to transport restricted firearms. Rather than requiring endless forms and red tape, the bill would effectively make a gun owners licence also the authorization to transport. Some have raised concerns that this provision will lead to some sort of concealed carry notion, which is also absolutely not true. All safe handling procedures will remain in place, such as disabling the unloaded firearm and placing it in a locked container prior to transporting it.

In addition, the bill would end the arbitrary and discretionary authority of chief firearms officers in Canada. Firearms laws should be applied consistently across Canada. There should not be discrepancies between one province to another. It is ineffective and causes a lot of confusion for law-abiding citizens of this country. Unelected officials should not be making decisions that potentially impact the property rights of millions of Canadians.

On top of that, the bill would end the problem of arbitrary and unfair reclassification of firearms, which we saw as recently as in the last couple of years. Last February, thousands of Canadians were rendered criminals overnight by a mere stroke of some bureaucrat's pen. There was not one elected official who had been consulted about this decision. Our government disagrees with the decision specifically, and also disagrees with this process generally. That is why this bill would give the elected government an oversight mechanism to reverse ill-considered classification decisions made by bureaucrats.

Lastly, the bill would strengthen the Criminal Code provisions related to firearms prohibition orders. When someone is convicted of a serious domestic violence offence, they would automatically be barred from possessing firearms. There is a sound reason for that. According to police-reported data, in 2011 there were almost 95,000 victims of family violence in Canada, accounting for one-quarter of all victims of police-reported violent crimes. Between 2000 and 2010, two-thirds of spouses accused of homicide had a family history of violence involving the victim. That is why this bill is so important. It would reduce red tape for law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters, but it would also refine our gun control system, making it more effective and more sensible.

We have heard where the other parties stand. The Liberal leader has said that if he had to vote again today, he would vote to keep the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. The Liberal member for Trinity—Spadina said that emotional reasons from firearm advocates was not enough evidence to continue to allow ammunition to be sold to the Canadian public. The NDP leader has been clear about his desire to bring back the long gun registry, recently calling the data contained therein “useful data”. However, he seems to know that Canadians from the west and the north have no time for such bureaucratic schemes. Speaking in the Yukon, the NDP leader said that he would not consider bringing back the registry. Which is it? I guess that depends on who the leader is talking to: the press gallery here in Ottawa, or the average everyday citizen of the west or the north.

It is about making firearms policies safe and sensible. It is about good old-fashioned common sense. I am proud to stand up to support this legislation, and I hope every member of this House will do the same.

Canada is a large and diverse country with a historic background of hunting, angling, and outdoor life. This legislation supports law-abiding citizens from coast to coast to coast, and I ask all members of this House to stand up and support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite a stretch for my colleague opposite to claim that if police officers had something to say about the bill, all they had to do was appear before the committee. Frankly, it is appalling. I would remind my colleague that, first of all, we were under a time allocation motion when Bill C-42 was being examined, and second, the details regarding when the committee would hear from witnesses and how many would appear were completely and entirely imposed on us.

As my hon. colleague knows, the Conservatives have a majority, which means that it is the Conservatives who dominate the debate in committee and who decide how many witnesses the committee can have on each side. Why did the police forces that were invited to appear before the committee not show up? There was not enough advance notice and they could not get here in time. They sent documentation instead. I invite the member across the aisle to read the documentation that was sent to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It proves beyond all doubt that Bill C-42 is an affront to Canada's public safety and that those police services do not support it. I invite the member to read what the police services sent to the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise today in the House on behalf of the people of Alfred-Pellan to speak to this Conservative bill, 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.

I have been serving the people of Alfred-Pellan for four years now. I am fortunate to be a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and to be the NDP deputy critic for public safety. Therefore, I have been following the debate closely. I wish I could say that it has been a substantive debate, but unfortunately, that is not the case. I attended the debate in committee and took part in the discussions with the various witnesses who came to share their views on Bill C-42. Many interesting points came out of that.

As most of my colleagues know, when it comes to firearms issues, I really like to remind everyone that I myself am a hunter. I have a hunting licence. I have taken the Canadian firearms safety course and the introduction to hunting course. I have the good fortune of coming from a long line of proud hunters and fishers. My female cousins and I are part of the first generation of young women who are taking part in hunting and fishing activities in various regions of Quebec. We are very proud of that. Being forced into a category or into a little box by a Conservative government that says it will protect my rights and my sense of liberty as a hunter—I simply do not believe in that. If you dig a little deeper into Bill C-42 and really look at the various provisions, you see that, basically, the issue of firearms in Canada is being politicized to some degree.

What is coming out of this debate and the positions the Conservatives are taking on the issue is really the politics of dividing Canadians in the various regions of Canada. It is pretty sad to hear the Conservatives brag about being the great defenders of public safety. They should have rallied people around the debate on the firearms legislation and held proper consultations. That is what is missing.

Since my time is quite limited, I will quickly focus on the key points of Bill C-42.

I consulted various groups of experts. I also consulted various police associations to get their take on Bill C-42. The first thing that came up was the lack of consultation on the issue. In fact, most police forces were informed after the fact about what the Conservative government wanted to include in its firearms legislation. I think that is terrible, given that the government is talking about public safety and wants the support of the polices forces that have to enforce these laws.

I consulted various police departments, in Quebec in particular. They told me about their concerns regarding Bill C-42. One of the main concerns has to do with the transportation of firearms. At present, anyone who wants to transport prohibited or restricted firearms to or from a club, shooting range, police station, gun shop, gun show, or port of exit from Canada must have a prescribed route when authorized to transport prohibited or restricted firearms. Unfortunately, these provisions will be eliminated by Bill C-42. The authorizations will be automatically given with the firearms licence, which greatly complicates the work of police officers across the country. The Conservative government would know this had it consulted our police forces.

The second major concern is the classification of firearms. I feel that there is a serious flaw. Quite frankly I am disappointed with the federal government. At present, non-restricted, restricted and prohibited firearms and ammunition are classified under the RCMP's Canadian Firearms Program.

Bill C-42 will give cabinet a new power, namely, the power to circumvent the definitions of the classifications of firearms set out in section 84 of the Criminal Code through a regulation that provides for exceptions.

If that is not politicizing the debate, then I do not know what is. Determining which firearms will be restricted, prohibited or non-restricted is extremely important and it should be done with the help of experts. The people who are appointed to cabinet, regardless of which party is in power, are often highly qualified, but not necessarily in this area. I am really concerned about the government politicizing this debate, because no matter who is in power, they will have the authority to decide how weapons should be classified.

Right now the classification system is working, although it could still be improved. The RCMP manages the system, but the Minister of Public Safety still has to approve any classifications.

I therefore do not know exactly where the Conservatives are going with this or what the Prime Minister has decided to do and what he is telling his colleagues. However, this government is clearly playing divisive politics with this issue. I know that I use the word “deplorable” a lot, but I find this particular situation completely deplorable.

I attended the various hearings that were held with regard to Bill C-42. Many things were said about the bill, but what stood out the most was the lack of consultation. I always talk about Quebec because that is where I am from. My riding of Alfred-Pellan is very close to Montreal. About 80% of the land is agricultural even though it is located on the the island of Laval. We are very close to a very urban area. We have some small, very urbanized areas, but the riding is also quite rural. I am proud to represent such a region. What I am not proud of right now is how the Conservative government is using bills like the one before us today to try to divide Canadians by pitting people living in urban areas against those living in rural areas.

What bothers me the most is that once again, Bill C-42 ignores what Quebec wants. The government did not even consult the Government of Quebec on this. It simply informed the province after the fact. The minister responsible for Canadian intergovernmental affairs said:

This flies in the face of the notion of public safety, the safety of citizens. I think there is a huge disconnect when I hear the federal government say that it is doing this in the name of public safety...

It is rare that I agree with the Liberals, but I have to say that I completely agree with what Mr. Fournier said. I would have liked to see the federal government take its leadership seriously and consult the provinces and territories on a bill as important as this one. The government tried to make it seem as though it was not important and it was just removing some things that should have been gone a long time ago. However, when we look carefully at Bill C-42, we can see that, on the contrary, this bill should have received very broad consultation, so that there was no divisiveness on this particular bill.

I would like to emphasize another point about granting licences. Various police forces I consulted also made this point. This licence can be renewed every five years. The Conservative government wants to permanently create a six-month grace period. Once again, this further complicates the problem that police forces in Quebec and the rest of Canada are dealing with.

I see that my time is almost up. I will endeavour to answer questions from colleagues on both sides of the House as well as I can, but I have to say that I cannot vote in favour of Bill C-42. The policies in it are far too divisive. Once again, the Conservatives are going it alone. They are trying to politicize the debate, an attitude that I utterly deplore.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her question.

Bill C-42 is an excellent example of the kind of collegiality that no longer exists, as are pretty much all of the other bills the Conservative government has introduced.

As I was saying earlier, the opposition parties do not control the legislative agenda. Nevertheless, it is up to all members of the House, when meeting in committee for a clause-by-clause study of a bill, to propose the best possible amendments to improve the bill.

Even though the Conservative members themselves have acknowledged that the bill is not perfect, they refuse to accept any amendment from any party other than the Conservative Party, as though it were omniscient. That is just amazing. If that is not an outright repudiation of our democratic tools, I do not know what it is.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Alfred-Pellan, since once again, Bill C-42 has all the characteristics of most of the Conservatives' bills. One of those characteristics is that it is subject to a time allocation motion, which was moved as quickly as possible after the bill was introduced, thereby depriving many members of their right to speak in the House and especially of the right to make the voices of their constituents heard. In order to allow as many people as possible to participate in this debate, I will be sharing my time with the member for Alfred-Pellan.

Some things that characterize this government are the many in camera meetings and the rush jobs that are done in committee, and this also seems to be the case with Bill C-42. Something that seems odd to me and that I am having trouble understanding is that the previous speaker, to whom I asked a question, said right away in his answer that the bill was not perfect. Perfection may be difficult if not impossible to achieve, but that makes it even more difficult to understand another characteristic of how this government does things, and that is the fact that the government does not accept any amendments. If the government already knows that its bill is not perfect and that the role of every opposition member is to try to improve the bill, since we are not in charge of the legislative agenda, then it is strange that the government hardly ever accepts any of the amendments proposed for any of its bills.

Bill C-42, introduced by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is sadly reminiscent of some of this government's signature approaches. I want to mention a few others, which have unfortunately become classics. These include systematically using wedge politics, for example, by dividing rural and urban Canadians on sensitive issues such as firearms, as though these two groups should be at odds with each other, which is not the case. Another classic—and I am making an assumption here, but I want to mention it anyway because it seems increasingly obvious—is attempting to use public safety issues to camouflage their lack of economic vision or, at the very least, their poor economic performance in spite of a vision that we could debate at length. Obviously, the third classic is seeking to satisfy the interests of lobbyists at the expense of the public interest.

I would perhaps even add a fourth Conservative classic: their unquestionable ability to choose short titles for their bills. It is hard to be even more sarcastic when the short title in this case is the common sense—I would even say simplistic—firearms licensing act. I would not be surprised if the gun lobby itself named this bill.

I oppose Bill C-42, which means that I also oppose the culture of fear, the divisiveness and the Manichaeism that the Conservatives seek to implant in each of their initiatives. By trying to politicize the firearms issue at all costs, the Conservatives are completely missing the mark. The bill would give firearms owners who may have forgotten to renew their licence a six-month grace period. Very well. I agree that this can happen to anyone. I once forgot to renew my driver's licence. I paid the fees. I was not sent to prison and did not get a criminal record, but I got a fine reminding me of my duty as a citizen.

This legislative provision disregards the most basic principles of public safety. Let us not forget that this grace period will deprive police services of information on gun owners for six months. Every time an owner renews his firearms licence, the process requires evaluations to detect mental health problems. By identifying psychological issues, the process prevents risky behaviour by some firearms owners. However, the six-month grace period short-circuits the effectiveness of that preventive evaluation and could put our fellow citizens' safety at risk.

By instituting this potentially harmful measure, the Conservatives are showing their desire to satisfy a minority represented by lobbyists at the expense of the public interest. However, winning political points seems to be one of the main goals of this government's legislative agenda.

As I continued to study this bill, I nevertheless gleaned what was probably, in any event, the only good provision in Bill C-42. The bill would require each applicant to take the Canadian firearms safety course. I was just about to applaud, but I held back as I thought it was too good to be true. As I continued reading I found out that I was right.

This course would be given by an instructor designated by a provincial chief firearms officer, whose powers are constantly being eroded. Although the fact that the bill requires this course proves that all is not lost and that we can hope for signs that we are making progress with this government, we must recognize that the Conservatives' goodwill is quite limited, since this course, the only course, will not be readily available to people living in rural or remote areas. Once again, we run up against the Conservatives' old habits in the legislation, which we might call a legislative mirage rather than a legislative measure. Furthermore, Bill C-42 weakens the current legislation that governs the transport of firearms. No one should trust the Conservatives when it comes to implementing the necessary security measures for firearms.

Let us not forget that under the current provisions, firearms owners are required to have authorization to transport to carry their firearms. Bill C-42 makes it possible for owners to get the authorization to transport as soon as they receive their licence. As soon as someone receives their licence, the authorization to transport is automatically issued. There again the Conservatives are demonstrating their will to dismantle weapons transport regulations and potentially harm public safety just to please a voter base.

This measure will have its share of adverse effects because it will make it easier to transport prohibited and restricted firearms. Bill C-42 will truly cause problems for police forces in their fight against the unauthorized transport of firearms. That is why any change to the Firearms Act has to be done carefully and with the primary goal of improving public safety, a goal that was far from met according to my reading of this bill.

Since deregulating the transportation of firearms does not even remotely satisfy the gargantuan appetite of some lobbyists, the Conservatives are now wondering why they should not go even further and tackle the firearms classification standards. To carry out their agenda, the Conservatives stuck to their pattern of centralizing, another tactic that this government has used over and over from the beginning: concentrate the powers in the hands of the minister. With Bill C-42, Public Safety could have the power to set the definitions and classifications of firearms.

I cannot believe I have so little time, but I assume that is because I agreed to share my speaking time. I will wrap things up, since I am running out of time, but I still want to briefly recap the reasons why I oppose this bill. Bill C-42 embodies the Conservatives' philosophy of taking a simplistic and strictly election-minded view of problems. The main objective of this bill is to pander to a minority of firearms owners for whom safety is an afterthought.

True to form, the Conservatives are driving a wedge between Canadians in different communities. I urge all members to vote against this dangerous and ineffective bill.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, previously, the member for Winnipeg North had talked about firearms being left in vehicles and vehicles being stolen. Bill C-42 would deal specifically with restricted and prohibited weapons.

Would the member explain to this House the obligations of a law-abiding gun owner to acquire both a PAL and an ATT and jeopardize leaving a firearm in a vehicle?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to discuss an important piece of legislation that would protect the property rights of millions of Canadians. I am, of course, referring to Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. This legislation will, among other things, remove needless paperwork around the authorization to transport restricted and prohibited firearms and the arbitrary powers of chief firearms officers, and give elected government the final say over firearms classification decisions.

I would like to take this opportunity today to clarify some falsehoods, mistruths and inaccuracies that have been put forth by Liberals and New Democrats over the course of the debate on this legislation.

First, the Liberals put out an advertisement to try to bolster their sub-par fundraising numbers, which claimed that under the bill, the sky would fall and there would be handguns in the trunks of all cars at shopping malls and grocery stores from coast to coast. We all know this is nonsense. There are clear locations where restricted firearms can be taken that are laid out in the regulations under the Firearms Act, and anyone who has read the bill knows that those do not change.

However, the member for Yukon did his due diligence. During committee study of this important bill, he asked the Assistant Deputy Minister for Community Safety and Countering Crime, a non-partisan public servant, if the Liberal advertisement was accurate, and her response was no. We all know the penchant of bureaucrats for speaking in circles. That is pretty clear and simply condemnation of the leader of the Liberal Party and his inaccurate material.

We also heard from the Liberal member for Trinity—Spadina making a moral equivalency between hunters and terrorists. This type of ridiculous hyperbole would be offensive if we did not consider the source. This was the very same member who had previously called for a ban on the sale of bullets as a solution to gun crime.

Let us look at the facts. Based on the evidence from Statistics Canada, Canadians are 26 times more likely to die from a slip and fall than a firearms accident or homicide. They are 24 times more likely to die from a car accident, three times more likely to die while swimming, and equally as likely to die in a bicycle accident as a death involving firearms.

Clearly the Liberals do not have the ability to set appropriate priorities when balancing private property rights against public safety. Perhaps a ban on bicycles would be the next big Liberal policy.

When we talk about factual inaccuracies, New Democrats do not fare much better. First, the leader of the NDP has said that he would bring back the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. He even said that he wanted to track every firearm in Canada. This is despite the fact that the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay was very clear when he said that the NDP would never bring forward measures to require registration of shotguns and rifles.

Rural Canadians want to know who is it who really speaks for New Democrats, because they seem to have different messages in downtown Ottawa and Montreal than they do in rural Canada.

It is not only confusion in their own ranks that New Democrats suffer from. They seem to also have a disconnect with reality. The NDP member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said a number of times that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness personally authorized the reclassification of the Swiss Arms and CZ-858 rifles. This is clearly inaccurate. However, I wanted to take the time to do the due diligence. I looked up the database of all orders in council, and I could not find a single one pertaining to this one.

Clearly, what occurred is a unilateral reclassification by the Canadian firearms program, with no notice to elected officials. It is important that we change this immediately as it flies in the face of democratic principles. These unfortunate comments were made by the same member who berated two expert witnesses in the public safety committee before ending his tirade with, “Well, I'm not sure there's any point in continuing to ask you any questions, then, if you're right on everything you've already said to us.” It is clear that there is an anti-gun bias across the aisle. These people simply will not rest until they have prohibited all firearms in Canada.

However, it seems that the NDP and Liberals continue to believe that hunting and sport shooting are the remit of backward rural folks. The fact of the matter is that they are wrong. A low estimate puts about four million Canadians being involved in these activities each year.

I will quote Greg Farrant with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, who said before the public safety committee:

Firearms owners in Canada are judges, lawyers, farmers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, accountants, even federal politicians,...[who] 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.

However, it is clear that the message has not yet sunk in across the aisle. Some Liberal and NDP members have taken the debate on firearms issues as an opportunity to engage in a drive-by smear of outdoor enthusiasts by saying that those who want to be able to obey clear rules are part of an American-style gun lobby or are advocating for a return to, as one NDP member from Quebec said, the wild west gun laws. This is patently ridiculous and offensive to the millions of law-abiding Canadian gun owners. However, they will hear from their constituents in a few short months from now on whether there is support for safe and sensible measures, such as the bill before us today.

I look forward to telling my constituents why I support cutting red tape on law-abiding Canadians. I hope that those who choose to oppose this much-needed bill will be able to face the questions that are undoubtedly coming their way.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming.

I am delighted to rise today and speak to Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. This is a fantastic step forward for law-abiding firearms owners across Canada and across Alberta. I am proud to be able to stand here today and support it.

On behalf of the law-abiding firearms owners in my riding of Macleod, I would like to thank the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for moving forward on this important legislation, and I would remiss if I did not thank the member for Yorkton—Melville, from my home community. This member has carried the torch for years, standing up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners and against needless red tape.

Today we have heard comments from many hunting and sport shooting groups from across Canada supporting this legislation. We have heard from the Canadian Police Association in support of this legislation. I have heard from residents across southern Alberta who are supporting this legislation. That is because it follows our Conservative government's views on firearms policies. These policies should be safe and they should be sensible. Overall, this bill continues our focus on pursuing common sense firearms legislation, something that has been lacking for far too long.

The focus for my comments today will be answering some questions I have heard while discussing this important legislation with residents in Macleod as well as across Canada.

Some have asked why these changes are being made now. As we have heard today, some of the people here in this House seem to believe this is pandering in advance of an election. This could not be further from the truth. This bill is not about somebody's hobby; it is about an important economic driver across this country. In fact, sport shooting and hunting is a billion-dollar industry in Canada.

It is also about a way of life, both in rural Canada and in urban Canada. There are literally millions of Canadians from all walks of life who enjoy participating in these heritage activities. For them, this is not something about a so-called gun lobby; this is about enjoying a treasured way of life.

Some have also asked why we are combining different licences and giving new rights to possession-only licence holders. Some have also argued that the effect of this proposal would be that they would be required to take a mandatory safety training course.

Let me be clear. This proposal would simplify the firearms licensing system by allowing experienced firearms owners to be able to purchase new firearms if they so choose. There would be no new training requirement for these individuals.

This bill would also eliminate red tape by combining the PAL and POL licences.

I have heard questions during the debate about why there should also be a six-month grace period at the end of the five-year firearms licence. This six-month grace period would protect law-abiding firearms owners from becoming paper criminals overnight as a result of an administrative error. I have already had several residents in my riding of Macleod bring up this issue just in the last few months. No other licence comes with as steep a penalty as a minimum of three years in prison for forgetting to renew. That is why this change is so important. It would allow time for individuals to come back into compliance with the law.

Some have asked why we would mandate a base standard for firearms safety training. Should not those who can pass the test simply be allowed to get their firearms licence?

We believe there is no substitute for learning in a classroom. Firearms safety is extremely important. I think all of my colleagues in the House would agree with that statement. Canadians understand firearms safety is essential to owning a firearm, which is why four out of five applicants for a firearms licence already take advantage of available training.

As a result of an authorization to transport being made a condition of a restricted licence, some people have asked whether it would be a requirement of getting a licence to be a member in good standing of a shooting club or shooting range. The clear answer to this is no. There would be no requirement in law for individuals to maintain a membership at a gun range in order to transport their restricted firearms.

The reforms contained in this bill are safe and sensible. They strike an appropriate balance between tackling the criminal use of firearms and removing red tape for law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately, our Conservative government is the only one that will stand up for law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters. We have seen all too well that the Liberal Party still embodies the comments made by former justice minister Allan Rock, who said he came to Ottawa with the firm belief that only police and the military should have guns.

The Liberal member for Trinity—Spadina said “emotional reasons” from firearms enthusiasts were not a good enough reason to continue to allow the sale of ammunition. Can we imagine that? If the Liberals had their way, there would be no more hunting and no more sport shooting.

Last fall I had the opportunity to attend and visit Canada's national biathlon training centre in Canmore. I had the opportunity to work with some of Canada's top shooters on the shooting range in Canmore. While I was there, it was interesting to see hundreds of youth from across southern Alberta there training and competing in biathlons. They were outdoors enjoying the sport they loved and obviously staying out of trouble.

If it were up to the opposition, there would be no more Canmore biathlon club, because Canadians simply would not have access to ammunition. Because Canadians could not hunt, there would be no more Pheasants Forever Canada, which is one of our most dedicated conservation organizations and focuses on habitat restoration, public awareness, education, and land management policies and programs.

The views of the opposition are shocking and ignore the real, effective, sensible ways to combat gun crime. What our Conservative government believes in is taking firearms out of the hands of those who are predisposed to commit crimes and in putting those who do commit crimes with firearms behind bars for a very long time.

However, the opposition stalls or outright opposes every measure we bring forward to crack down on gun, gang, and drug crime. Rather than putting criminals behind bars, their philosophy seems to be in favour of making law-abiding hunters register the guns they use to hunt pheasants. It is absolutely illogical, but the Liberals and NDP are determined to bring back the long gun registry in one form or another, no matter how they dance around it here today.

We will not let that happen.

The member for Malpeque said it best when he said that gun control cost the Liberal Party in rural Canada at least 60 seats.

Our Conservative government will never turn our backs on rural Canadians and I will not turn my back on law-abiding gun owners in my riding of Macleod. I call on the opposition members to reject their tired old rhetoric and to support these safe and sensible measures.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, I had the opportunity to hold a town hall in my riding of Winnipeg North, and no one raised the issue of the gun registry, or gun control or Bill C-42. In fact, I could probably count on one hand the number of my constituents who, over the last number of years, have raised this issue.

However, something that is consistently raised is the issue of crime and safety. Crime and safety affect all of us, whether we are in urban or rural areas. It is an area about which there is a great deal of discussion. I suspect I am not the only member of Parliament who has been approached by their constituents. Our constituents want to hear from the government about what it is prepared to do to try to improve the safety conditions of our communities, regardless of the region in which they live.

Certain aspects within Bill C-42 are positive and would make a difference, and I will go into that. However, other aspects of the legislation raise a great deal of concern regarding the issue of public safety. Again, I will get into that issue shortly.

Unfortunately, when I look at Bill C-42, I wonder why we have it before us today. What is the motivation behind the government bringing forward this bill?

It is interesting to note that back in 2014 the RCMP firearms program made a relatively quiet change to the status of the Swiss Arms brand rifles and certain Czech-made CZ858 rifles from non-restricted to prohibited. The guns had been legal in Canada for many years. A headline in the Montreal Gazette on August 30, 2014, read, “Conservatives restrict RCMP’s ability to reclassify firearms; Tories aim to woo gun enthusiasts”. There is a great deal of merit in what the article reported, which is one of the biggest flaws within the legislation proposed by the government today. It is politically motivated legislation, with which the government is trying to woo gun owners.

The government has been fairly successful in trying to keep the issue of the gun registry alive, because it believes it is in its best political interest to do so. What seems to play second fiddle is the issue of crime and safety within our own communities. When Conservatives speak out on this issue, we often hear about the hunting, trapping and fishing industries, sport firing and things of this nature, and that is great. Again, I will provide some additional comment on that. However, we do not necessarily hear the other side. We do not hear about the importance of safety. There are aspects of the legislation that would touch upon that, but that is not necessarily what the government likes to highlight.

Let me go through what the legislation proposes to do. It creates a six-month grace period at the end of that five-year licence period to stop people from immediately becoming criminalized for paperwork delays in licence renewals. That has already been talked about, and it has a great deal of merit.

The legislation would streamline the licencing system by eliminating the possession-only licence, known as the POL, and converting all existing POLs to possession and acquisition licences.

The legislation would make classroom participation in firearms safety training mandatory for first-time licence applicants.

On a couple of these points, I had the opportunity to not only to talk to a couple of individuals, because I anticipated I would be speaking to this legislation, but I also took advantage of visiting a hunting store to get a better sense of its take on the legislation. There are certain aspects of the legislation, especially around safety, in which there is a great deal of support, even from gun enthusiasts who want more gun control. Aspects of the legislation are supported from all sides.

It would amend the Criminal Code to strengthen the provisions relating to orders prohibiting the possession of firearms where a person would be convicted of an offence involving domestic violence.

It would decrease needless paperwork around authorizations to transport by making them a condition of a licence for certain routine and lawful activities. Again, concerns have been raised in regard to that issue.

It would provide for discretionary authority of the chief firearms officer to be limited by regulation. Again, it is of great concern and I will provide further comment.

The legislation would authorize firearms import information sharing when restricted and prohibited firearms were imported into Canada by business.

Finally, from what I understand, it would also allow the government to have the final say on the classification decisions following the receipt of an independent expert's advice.

It is very important at the beginning of the debate to state clearly that the Liberal Party cannot support the legislation as proposed. I think the government was already somewhat aware of the fact that opposition parties, particularly the Liberal Party, would have a great deal of difficulty in supporting the legislation. It is questionable whether it would make our communities safer. Certain aspects of the legislation do not make our communities safer. Therefore, it is very difficult for me as an individual and for the Liberal Party, if we put the safety of Canadians first and foremost, to support Bill C-42.

The Liberal Party, through our critic, has been very vocal in recognizing that if the government truly wanted to do something positive with Bill C-42, it should have been prepared to allow the legislation to be broken into two parts. I suspect certain parts of the legislation would pass unanimously. It could have been passed quite a while ago. By not recognizing that, the government now finds itself in a position, as we have seen with a lot of legislation, where it continues to pass legislation through time allocation, or closure, to get its legislative agenda passed.

Unfortunately, that limits debate for members of Parliament to contribute and share concerns of their constituents with regard to important legislation that ultimately impacts our communities, such as Winnipeg North and all regions of Canada.

It would eliminate the need for owners of prohibited and restricted firearms to have a transportation licence to carry those guns in their vehicles. This means they could freely transport handguns or automatic weapons anywhere within their province, whether it is to a grocery store or a soccer field. Members have made reference to the leader of the Liberal Party talking about a Canadian Tire store.

The government is trying to give the impression that an automatic weapon would be carried from a home, from a locked situation, to a vehicle and to the shooting range, with no stops in between. That is ridiculous. I do not believe there is any true merit for that.

I used to be the justice critic in Manitoba a number of years back. If we take a look at the amount of automobile thefts in the province of Manitoba, either in 2003 or 2004, I believe 14,000 vehicles were stolen in one year. That means we could take the total number of vehicles in any other province, on a per capita basis, and we would still find that Manitoba had double the rate of stolen cars than any other province.

We aggressively pursued that issue and found that a large number of youth were stealing these vehicles. It was not uncommon to have one youth steal 30 vehicles in one year. We are not talking about a dozen; we are talking probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of a couple of hundred youth. It had a very profound impact.

If we checked with people, and it did not matter which region of a province, there was a great deal of concern, but there was a bit more concern in certain areas. When we get those kinds of numbers and hear why cars are being stolen, it is a concern. To be a member of a gang, youth had to steal a certain number of vehicles as an initiation. The number of individuals getting involved in gang activities skyrocketed during the 2002-03 period. To get hard numbers is very difficult. I speculated that it could range anywhere from 1,500 to 3,000, which is a very high number considering the population base. Imagine the number of vehicles being stolen. Where are they being stolen from? Throughout all communities.

If we relax certain rules that allow for easier transportation of prohibited weapons, we should be concerned. I should express the concerns my constituents have on this legislation. They should be asking me and the Prime Minister whether we are making our communities safer by passing the legislation that would allow easier transportation of automatic weapons and restricted weapons. That is one of the primary reasons why I am very grateful the Liberal Party has taken this position on the legislation.

Often we will hear the Conservatives say that police officers or law enforcement officers are on their side. I have worked with community police officers. I sat as a chair of a youth justice committee for many years. The issues involved with respect to gangs are very serious in nature. Also, I suspect that Winnipeg is not alone, that we would find there are other pockets in other communities where there is a higher element of risk. I think all communities are very much concerned with this.

I do not think we should take it as lightly as we have. Members say that it is just the “transportation of” or that people are are law-abiding citizens. Of course, they are law-abiding. Gun owners are law-abiding, wonderful citizens and they come from many different professions. However, they are not the ones who concern me and my constituents when it comes to violence or the potential risk of violence in our community.

It is also important to recognize that Bill C-42 would take the power to classify firearms out of the hands of police, the experts in keeping Canada safe, and would put it in the hands of politicians. I am surprised that there has not been more comment on that issue. I know that the Liberal Party critic has had the opportunity to raise it on a number of occasions. This is a very serious issue. We have a government that likes to think that it knows better with respect to what should be a restricted or prohibited weapon. It wants to make this a political decision as opposed to relying on experts.

I can recall having interviews on the changes in security here on the Hill and what the RCMP, local constables, and the fantastic security guards should be doing to ensure that we can protect the public, the staff, and members of Parliament.

When I asked about security, it was a fairly straightforward response. In dealing with security, we should be turning to and relying on the experts. They bring something to the table that we do not have as elected officials. If there are issues in terms of certain decisions, there are ministerial departments. The opposition parties have critics. Nothing prevents them from picking up the phone, sending emails, or writing letters. There are many different avenues they can use to get a better understanding of why a decision was made. Who knows? It could ultimately end up with the reversal of a decision.

Instead, what do we have? We have a Prime Minister who sees this as a win-win issue for him if he can bring in legislation and tell gun owners and lobbyists that the Conservatives stood tall for them. The government has not stood tall for us. It has disrespected the professional organizations, like the civil service, that understand. Will they make mistakes? At times, yes, but I can assure members that they will be fewer than the government's. Why would the government bring in legislation that would politicize it and allow the Prime Minister or the minister responsible to make decisions? I think that is wrong.

Let me conclude by recognizing that law-abiding gun owners are in all different professions. Liberals recognize that. We recognize the valuable contributions of hunters, trappers, fishers, and sport shooters. These things create economic activity. It is a wonderful lifestyle.

However, I will leave something with the government, and that is that there is another side to the debate. There is a safety element that needs to be talked about. Even though there are certain aspects of the legislation that are positive, if the government had brought them in as stand-alone legislation, they would have received the support of the Liberal Party of Canada. However, because of its attitude in trying to push the envelope and politicize the system, making our communities a little less safe in some ways, we cannot, in good conscience, support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote the Leader of the NDP from early December 2014 to point out what the member said in terms of his party's view on registering firearms. He said:

A New Democrat government would ensure police are able to track every firearm in Canada.

He went on to say he:

....disputed the Conservative government's contention that gun registration is an unfair, onerous requirement....

Clearly, the NDP wants to bring the long gun registry back. I am somewhat offended by his use of the term gun lobby. Firearms owners in Canada represent a wide cross-section of society. Millions of Canadians own and use firearms safely and in a law-abiding way.

As the chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, I asked for people's views on Bill C-42, and I received petitions from all across the country. Thousands of people from all walks of life urged us to pass Bill C-42.

It is quite clear that the NDP wants to bring the long gun registry back. Quite honestly, I think it is an NDP goal to eliminate the private ownership of firearms in this country.

Will the member come clean and admit the real goal is to eliminate firearms ownership?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by the member's question because he knows good and well. We have said it repeatedly here. When we become the government after the next election we have no intention of bringing back the gun registry. The registry is dead. The data has been destroyed.

What we have said is, having done that, we have to take care to make sure that the licensing and regulations we have in place do everything they can to promote public safety and community safety at the local level. As I stressed in my speech, we do not think that Bill C-42 meets this standard.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will get a chance to address the House shortly on Bill C-42, but I have a fairly specific question for the member. It is related to the issue of the gun registry.

As we have already witnessed here, within the first hour of debate it has come up on several occasions. I think there is some merit in posing the question straightforward to the member. What is the official position of the New Democratic Party in regard to gun registry? Is it something it would support and would it reinstate it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it applies most directly to the transportation of weapons. What we are talking about here is that when the police stop someone, under Bill C-42 that person would not have to have an authorization to transport the weapon in the car, but they could automatically talk about five different categories of places they could be transporting that gun to.

We are not talking about the law-abiding sport shooter. We are talking about the ability of the RCMP to enforce the laws against illegal transportation of guns on those who are in fact interested in gun violence and crime.

I talked to my local police chiefs about this. I talked to a local member of the RCMP and they acknowledged that they felt this could potentially make enforcing the regulations against illegal transportation of guns very difficult for them. That would have an impact on gun violence in urban areas.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, in the latter part of his speech, tried to link Bill C-42 to gun violence in Surrey. As a retired member of the force, I am pretty sure there is not a gangbanger out there who has a PAL or an ATT. I am sure they do not even know how to spell it. That is a fair stretch on that part.

My question is with regard to the ATT. As he well knows from committee and elsewhere, the ATT has been formed so that a person can take it from their residence to a gun range and return it in that fashion. I believe that is the most appropriate way. Therefore, I would like to clearly understand where he was trying to go with gun violence in Surrey, specific to a PAL, a POL and an ATT, in which gangbangers do not apply to any of these rules, none.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-42, the government's so-called common sense firearms licensing act, at third reading.

After introducing the bill in October and letting it languish on the order paper, in April the government suddenly found it urgent to press ahead with the bill. I still wonder why that was the case. However, the result clearly is that we now have a bill before us that has received very rushed consideration here in Parliament.

The government used time allocation to push Bill C-42 through second reading and then gave very severe limits on the time to be spent in committee, guaranteeing we would have poor consideration. We ended up having only two days for witnesses, April 28 and April 30, and a very short window of opportunity to even invite witnesses. It was just three days from when time allocation was proposed to when the first witnesses appeared.

As a result, we have Bill C-42 back in front of us without hearing from many important potential witnesses, including front-line law enforcement officers or law enforcement officials of any kind.

This is particularly disturbing, as there does not seem to have been any consultation with the law enforcement community before the introduction of the bill. Any consultations that did take place took place well after the bill had been introduced and took place in private. No one else was consulted, and clearly not any of the victim groups that the government always claims to keep top of mind when it comes to crime.

The parliamentary secretary has tried to characterize this poor consideration as somehow a failure of the opposition to do our job, which is a curious charge that implicitly admits that the bill has not received the consideration it should have. However, that is disingenuous for many reasons, foremost among them the limited and rapid timeframe that the government imposed for consideration of the bill in committee, resulting in a single week, take it or leave it, for witnesses to appear.

We are now faced with another troubling phenomenon, and that is a reluctance of witnesses to appear before the public safety committee. Perhaps that is a result of the experience of some of the witnesses on the hearings for Bill C-51, where they were insulted and had their integrity challenged by government members. Perhaps it is a concern over funding, since we have seen groups that have opposed the government find that funding for their programming has been chopped. Perhaps it is a concern over charitable status, because if the witnesses happen to represent a charity, their organization may end up being audited by the Conservative government. Whatever the cause, the result is that we have Bill C-42 back from the public safety committee unchanged, apart from a technical amendment regarding the number of sections.

Turning back to the content of Bill C-42 more directly, some on the government side have taken issue with a statement I made in debate at second reading when I said that the bill before us only looks like common sense when viewed from the point of view of the gun lobby. I stand by that statement, but I would point out that the Conservatives have tried to ascribe a very broad meaning to the term “gun lobby” that few others would actually use.

What we on this side of the House mean when we use the term is not all gun owners, not all hunters and fishers, but a small group of people, including some gun dealers and manufacturers and some paid lobbyists, who spend their time hanging around at Parliament to promote a very narrow agenda. That agenda is to remove all restrictions on guns in Canada.

The first target of this narrow lobby was the gun registry, which is now gone and will not be coming back. However, they have now moved on to other goals, and this bill is a part of that lobby effort. It is an agenda that very few gun owners would actually know anything about, and the shorter the time we spend on it in Parliament, the less they will know.

The Conservatives continue to promote the dangerous ideas of this gun lobby. They represent a small minority of Canadians, and, I would argue, a minority even among gun owners. This is the idea that any regulations at all on firearms are so-called red tape that pit the interests of law-abiding gun owners against the government and police and amount to nothing more than restrictions on rights or freedoms.

As I have pointed out before, and like his gun lobby allies, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has fallen into the habit of using U.S. rhetoric in his comments on firearms. This was never so clear than on July 23 of last year, when the minister said, “To possess a firearm is a right, and it's a right that comes with responsibilities.”

Here we have a minister of the crown, one of the government's chief legal ministers, directly contradicting the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1993, the Supreme Court found in the case of R. v. Hasselwander that:

Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited.

Therefore, what the minister's comments last July clearly indicate is that we unfortunately have a government that likes to pander to this narrow gun lobby, and in this case the government does so fairly transparently in order to generate political support from their base.

The Conservatives like to talk about the Liberals doing mailings on gun registry and gun regulations, and they themselves do exactly the same. However, let me remind the House of a few of these initiatives regarding specific firearms regulations wherein the influence of the gun lobby is quite apparent.

In 2011 the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness drafted new regulations for gun shows that would have required things most Canadians would actually see as common sense, such as notifying local police of gun shows to be held in their jurisdiction and requiring tethering of guns on display just as is done with cellphones in sales kiosks. These gun show regulations would have been brought into force in 2012, but no, that did not happen. Instead, the Conservatives junked the proposed regulations altogether after complaints from the gun lobby that the new requirements would be too onerous. I guess we should have seen this coming when the gun-lobby-dominated firearms advisory committee called for the scrapping of gun show regulations in its March 2012 report.

Regulations were also due to come into force in December 2012 to require each gun manufactured in Canada to have an individual serial number, something actually required by international treaties to which Canada is a party and again something that seems like common sense when it comes to police being able to trace guns used in crimes or in the fight to combat the illegal international trade in small arms. In November 2013, and for a second time, the Conservatives quietly implemented a regulation delaying the coming into force of this requirement until December 2015, after the next election.

When it comes to Bill C-42, I guess we should be glad that the government abandoned the most extreme recommendations of its firearms advisory committee. These were the proposals for 10-year licences and proposals to allow the resale of seized weapons by police forces. We know that the police community very strongly opposed both of those measures, but now we are seeing complaints in the media from the narrow gun lobby that Bill C-42 does not go far enough in that direction.

New Democrats have a different view, one that clearly puts public safety first. New Democrats believe that public safety must always trump politics when it comes to firearms licensing and regulation. The Conservatives like to pose as the ones who understand rural Canadians, but let me say that many MPs on our side also come from rural backgrounds—I am one of those—and many represent rural ridings. I myself represent a riding that stretches from downtown Victoria all the way out to the West Coast Trail trailhead at Port Renfrew, so I do know something about law-abiding gun owners for whom hunting is much more than just a prop to use in arguments about gun registration and licensing.

Most curious, from a government that claims to put the interests of rural areas first when it comes to gun regulations, was the rejection of the NDP amendment proposed in the public safety committee to preserve the right of those in rural and remote areas to challenge the firearms exam without completing a safety course.

Let us make no mistake about it: New Democrats support the requirement for completing a safety course. However, we acknowledge that there are vast areas of this country where these courses are simply not available on a practical basis. We are glad to see that the bill would preserve the exemption for aboriginal people, but we ask why the government rejected our proposals to accommodate other remote rural residents with a similar exemption.

Let me turn back once again to the contents of the bill we have before us and make some of the arguments I made at second reading.

For me, despite the short title of the bill, there is nothing common sense about the bill's two major provisions: making gun classification a political process and removing the requirement for a transportation permit for restricted firearms to be present in any vehicle carrying them. These two proposals have no public safety purpose and instead respond to explicit complaints from the narrow gun lobby. All the other things the Conservatives want to address in this bill could have been accomplished without these two provisions.

Let me discuss the first change proposed, a change in the way weapons are classified as either non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited.

Right now, recommendations on classification, under the definitions contained in law, are made by firearms experts from the RCMP. The minister's signature is required, but there is no discretion for the minister, providing the recommendations he receives fall within the scope of the existing legislative definitions. What is interesting is to hear the members on the other side say that bureaucrats made this decision and that bureaucrats could not be overruled by the minister. However, the existing legislative definition actually does allow the minister to overrule that recommendation for weapons that have a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose.

Why was the minister unable to overrule this reclassification? It was clearly because the Swiss Arms Classic Green does not have a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose once it is modified to be a semi-automatic weapon.

What Bill C-42 suggests is that cabinet should be able to ignore classification recommendations from the experts charged with keeping the public safe, the RCMP, and substitute its own wisdom about how weapons should be classified. The members on the other side say yes, the minister would be allowed to consult whomever he wants, and some Conservatives have even suggested that the proper people to consult would be gun manufacturers, who could advise cabinet on the classification of the weapons they are trying to sell.

Bill C-42 goes even further by allowing cabinet to grant exemptions for guns and ammunition that would otherwise be prohibited weapons.

Where did this perceived need for change come from? It came from that single case that has been referred to, the reclassification of a single weapon, the Swiss Arms Classic Green, as it is sometimes called. These are military-style weapons that had originally been sold in Canada as a semi-automatic weapon limited to firing five rounds. Before 2013, there were approximately 2,000 of these in Canada, worth about $4,000 each. Why, then, were they reclassified?

It came about because the RCMP found that so-called refurbished models were showing up in gun shops in Calgary, but they were now operating as automatic weapons. This meant these weapons were now being converted to automatic weapons capable of firing a long series of shots from a single trigger pull, exactly what the designation of “prohibited” was designed to keep off the streets in Canada.

When an outcry resulted from this reclassification, the Conservatives were quick to grant a two-year amnesty in March 2014, an amnesty for which I believe the legal authority is doubtful at best. Now we have Bill C-42 before us as the longer-term solution, since this bill would give the current Conservative cabinet the power to decide if these dangerous weapons should remain on our streets.

Quite apart from the danger of ending up with automatic weapons on the street, there is another important principle at stake here. When we make laws, we make them in public, after public debate, and they stay in force until there is another public debate about changing them. In fact, what we have in this bill is the creation of a process whereby cabinet can in effect change our gun classification system and the classification of individual weapons and ammunition by making decisions behind closed doors and without any public debate.

Who knows who will be serving in cabinet after the next election? Whoever that is, I know I do not want decisions to be based on political considerations, but instead on the professional recommendations of public officials charged with keeping Canadians safe.

The other major change in Bill C-42 is removing the requirement that exists in most provinces to have a permit in any vehicle transporting restricted firearms and prohibiting any province from reimposing such a requirement. Currently, permits must specify a reason for transporting a restricted firearm and specify that the travel must be from a specific point A to a specific point B. This makes it relatively easy for police to enforce the prohibition on the illegal transportation of firearms.

Bill C-42 rolls transportation permits into the licence to own firearms. This would automatically allow the transportation of firearms between the owner's home and a list of five categories of places: to any gun range, to any gun shop, to any gun show, to any police station, and to any border post for exiting Canada. In my riding alone, this would create hundreds of possibilities for those who wish to violate the law to make excuses for having the weapons in their vehicles, and this change would make the prohibition on the illegal transportation of weapons virtually impossible for police to enforce. Unfortunately, the committee did not hear from the law enforcement community, for a variety of reasons that I addressed earlier.

There are other provisions in the bill about which New Democrats have questions. Members on the other side have raised the question of the grace period. I want to state once again that New Democrats have said that inadvertently forgetting to renew one's licence should not always result in a criminal record. However, the government has gone whole hog the other way and removed any penalties for people failing to renew their gun licences. We have suggested that if it is truly inadvertent, a lesser penalty than a criminal record could be imposed, but a penalty should still exist.

Does anything in this bill look good to New Democrats? Certainly measures that make prohibitions on gun ownership easier in cases of domestic violence are welcome, as are the expanded requirements for gun safety courses.

Clearly, public safety is not the central priority for the Conservatives in Bill C-42. In fact, its two main provisions seem to pose new threats to public safety.

Media interviews with the government's friends in the gun lobby have made several things clear. One is the close links between this narrow gun lobby and the Conservative Party, especially in terms of fundraising, as I mentioned, the other is that they will not be satisfied to stop with Bill C-42, and they intend to demand more in the future. This close relationship between the Conservatives and the gun lobby is why no one should trust the Conservatives any longer when it comes to putting public safety first on licensing gun owners and the regulations of guns. In the end, that really is the reason why we will be voting against this bill.

We had a chance to have a full and fair debate here in Parliament. We had a chance to hear a full range of witnesses. The government had already decided that neither of those things was going to happen with this bill. As I said, it sat on the order paper from October and it is inexcusable to me that the government should then suddenly whip the bill through in such a short time. It needs full consideration. We need to hear from the law enforcement community about the impacts of this bill, and we need to hear from more Canadians and from disparate kinds of groups. The government did a good job in bringing hunting and fishing groups before the committee. They are legitimate stakeholders and we were glad to hear from them. However, hearing from just one side in this debate does not make for the best legislation.

The government accuses us on this side of fearmongering, and I guess we throw the same charge back at it. The fearmongering we are talking about is based on real concerns about public safety, so I would argue that fearmongering is not the right word. We are talking about what happens in many municipalities, in many cities around the country. We have the example of Surrey, B.C. where we have had a number of murders in that community, which I believe is now up to 25 in two months. There are very high levels of gun violence, so we have to make sure that any of the changes we make to a bill like Bill C-42 do not inadvertently contribute to these high levels of violence. We have seen similar problems with gun violence in downtown Toronto. We see now in British Columbia the gun violence extending to the community of Abbotsford. It is like a cancer that spreads throughout the community. We have to do all we can to ensure that reasonable regulations, and the things that I talked about, such as having serial numbers on guns manufactured in Canada, are in place to help police officers do the work they need to do to keep our communities safe from gun violence. This is not just about hunters and fishers, although we do have to make sure that we have a law in place that is practical and reasonable for them. It is also about safety in our main communities. In this case, I would argue that the government has not found a balance, instead it has gone for one side of the debate only.

What will the government say to families in Surrey? What will it say about the need to attack gun violence there? We heard the minister say in question period today that sometime in the future the government will provide more RCMP. He could not say exactly when, but that there would be money in the future. We have the government saying that the budget has been increased for the RCMP, for CBSA and for CSIS. However, when we actually look at the budget, as the minister invited me to do, we find that the level of cuts since 2012 will not even be made up for another four years. How do our law enforcement agencies cope with these epidemics of gun violence that are happening in urban areas?

Because of the high level of resources required to meet terrorist threats, we have seen just this week that the RCMP has been forced to cut such programs as the Condor program, which targeted those offenders who left a halfway house or escaped custody and were illegally at large. There was a special task force to make sure that those people who belong behind bars end up back behind bars. However, the RCMP had to cut that due to a lack of funding.

Once again we have come around full circle here for a government that likes to talk tough on crime but not provide the resources needed and, inadvertently, through its ideological approach to gun licensing and regulation, may actually make things worse in our urban areas.

Therefore, once again, the New Democrats will stand up and call for a gun licensing and regulation regime that puts public safety first, and that is not Bill C-42.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. This is an important legislative measure, since, for the first time in 20 years, it will make a significant change to the way in which firearms licences are awarded in Canada.

There are eight important measures in this common-sense legislation that highlight the clear approach our Conservative government is taking to firearms' policies, namely it is that policies should promote safety but that they must also be sensible.

I served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 20 years, and in doing so acquired professional knowledge regarding firearms, firearms safety and firearms responsibilities. Now as a civilian, I have gone through the process of obtaining my possession and acquisition licence. As a firearm owner myself and as a sport shooter, I can say that the important changes contained in the bill are needed and much appreciated by law-abiding Canadian gun owners.

I can also say that these policies and, more generally, this bill, have the support of a large number of Canadians from coast to coast.

Before I get into the details, I would like to start by explaining where I stand on this debate. This is a debate about culture. Hunting, fishing, trapping and sport shooting are all proud parts of our Canadian heritage.

Were it not for these activities, the brave men and women who settled Canada would simply never have been able to undertake and sustain the exploration that has grown into the greatest country in the world. Not only that, many young Canadians can look back fondly on hunting excursions with their family.

We need to encourage this type of activity.

However, the firearms policies crafted by the previous Liberal government often served to dissuade people from engaging in these Canadian heritage activities. Policies that criminalize the ownership of firearms will simply discourage individuals from becoming involved. The same can be said for increased needless paperwork.

Former Liberal justice minister and father of the long gun registry, Allan Rock, said that he that he came to Ottawa with the firm belief that only police and the military should have firearms. On this side of the House, we could not disagree more.

That is exactly why we introduced the bill before us today.

As I said a moment ago, the bill continues to deliver on our record of safe and sensible firearms policies. These two themes run throughout the bill.

First, I would like to touch on how the bill would keep us safe.

Our Conservative government has a strong record in tackling the criminal use of firearms. We have passed a series of new measures to ensure that criminals who use firearms go to prison for a very long time. For example, we created a new offence to criminalize drive-by and other reckless shootings. The bill before us today builds on this with three key measures.

First, we will establish mandatory firearms safety training for first-time firearms owners. This is a very important change because, in the past, individuals were able to simply challenge the test, which did not ensure any level of consistency in knowledge of how to safely operate a firearm. This change is widely supported. For example, Pierre Latraverse of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs said, “This bill...simplifies the procedures for awarding a permit for users who follow the law, while strengthening safety and education”.

Second, in the area of public safety, the bill before us today would amend the Criminal Code to strengthen the provisions relating to order prohibiting the possession of firearms where a person would be convicted of an offence involving domestic violence.

That is very important. I will repeat for emphasis. It will be mandatory to prohibit the possession of firearms in cases of serious offences involving domestic violence. In fact, nearly two-thirds of all those convicted of spousal homicide had a history of domestic violence. This change makes perfect sense.

Tony Rodgers, executive director of the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters, had this to say:

The amended Criminal Code to strengthen the provision relating to orders prohibiting possession of firearms where a person is convicted of an offence involving domestic violence is a step in the right direction.

The last public safety measure in this legislation that I would to address is the authorization of firearms import information sharing for restricted and prohibited firearms imported by business.

I would like to expand on this important point if I may. When a business imports a restricted or prohibited firearm, it has to complete forms and the merchandise has to be examined by the Canada Border Services Agency at the border. The business also has to register the firearms when they are received in the shop before they can be sold.

However, the two agencies are operating in silos. If a business tells the Canada Border Services Agency that it has 5,000 units but registers just 3,000 with the RCMP, nobody compares those numbers. Consequently, 2,000 units could end up on the black market. That is a big problem, especially in British Columbia. That is why this was raised during federal, provincial and territorial meetings, and that is why we are pleased to be taking action on this important issue.

I now would like to touch on our five measures to make our firearms policies more sensible.

First, we would create a six-month grace period at the end of the five-year licence. This would stop otherwise law-abiding individuals from being criminalized overnight for a simple error in paperwork.

Some people have wrongly claimed that this change was made just to satisfy the firearms lobby because no other permit has a grace period after it expires.

However, I would like to counter that argument with this point. If I let my driver's licence, my dog licence, my fishing licence or any other licence lapse, I may have to pay a fine or be subject to another regulatory punishment. If I let my firearms licence lapse, I could go to prison for a significant length of time. It is clear that the threat of prison time for administrative oversight deserves special attention for leniency.

However, we do not want this new measure to be abused. That is why, under the legislation, an individual would not be allowed to purchase new firearms or ammunition or even use their firearms during that time. However, a person would not become an overnight criminal as the result of a simple, honest mistake. That is common sense policy. No one who is not simply ideologically opposed to the civilian possession of firearms can disagree with this measure.

Even the NDP member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had to agree that this was common sense in committee. What did he have to say about the grace period? He said, “I do agree with some of our other presenters is that perhaps a failure to renew shouldn't result in an immediate criminal charge”.

The next measure to make our firearms policies more sensible is the merger of the possession-only licence and the possession and acquisition licence. Again, this makes good sense.

The possession-only licence was created by the previous Liberal government as a grandfathering system. Those who did not want to engage in the new bureaucratic regime would not have their firearms taken away, but they would not be able to purchase any new ones, either. This group of firearms owners averages approximately 60 years of age and has owned firearms in excess of 20 years. This group is clearly experienced in the safe handling and use of firearms. That is why this legislative change would give purchasing rights to nearly 600,000 individuals.

Let me again quote Pierre Latraverse of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, who said:

It's a very positive measure, given that there will only be a single licence under these conditions. This is much more representative of what owning a firearm is like. Currently, there are two licences: a possession licence and a possession and acquisition licence. If you only have a possession licence, you cannot purchase firearms. You have to go back through the system to buy a possession and acquisition licence.

With the merger, a hunter won't have to go through the whole administrative process again to purchase another firearm.

The next sensible measure is the elimination of useless paperwork for authorization to transport restricted and prohibited weapons. Currently, an individual who wants to do target practice with a restricted weapon has to fill out forms when he wants to go to a firing range.

Sometimes provincial chief firearms officers, or CFOs, will allow for broader authorizations, but I will touch on that and on their discretion later.

This paperwork is then sent to the CFO, or the chief firearms officer, where it is filed in a drawer and never seen again. It is not shared with law enforcement and it is not searchable. Aside from the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, which our Conservative government proudly destroyed, this is yet another significant waste of taxpayer dollars within the entire firearms regime. It makes no sense to require all of this needless paperwork.

I would like to quote from a National Post editorial from earlier this month. It said:

The aims of our gun control system...are worthwhile and important. Our approach to achieving these ends, however, leaves much to be desired, and inflicts burdensome red tape on citizens well beyond what is necessary.

Take, for instance, the current system controlling the lawful transport of restricted firearms...The prospective buyer of a handgun most have a restricted-class licence, and must show he has a valid reason to buy it...The firearm must be stored, unloaded, inside a securely locked container or safe. And it must be equipped with a secondary trigger lock even when so secured. The only place the handgun may be legally transported is from the owner’s home to a firing range, or a gun repair shop, and back, by a “reasonably direct route.”

And that’s not the end of it. The gun owner must then apply for an entirely separate piece of paperwork — an authorization to transport, or ATT. This permit repeats what the firearms licence already establishes: that the lawful possessor of a registered gun can only transport it via a direct route from home to certain authorized locations.

What good is this? Anyone who qualifies to own a handgun clearly already meets the legal requirements of using it at a certified facility, and anyone who cannot legally qualify to transport a gun back and forth should not be authorized to possess one in the first place. The entire ATT system is redundant.

It simply does not make sense and it does not protect the public. These are two strong reasons to support this important legislation.

What else would this legislation do?

As I mentioned earlier, it would end the arbitrary powers of the chief firearms officers. Elected officials would take their appropriate place overseeing the decisions of CFOs that directly affect law-abiding gun owners.

The current rules and procedures have resulted in a nonsensical patchwork across the country. It is ridiculous that these would differ vastly between Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. There have to be harmonized standards across the country.

The final measure I would like to discuss is, in my opinion, one of the most important ones in the whole bill. We will enable a duly elected government to have the final say in classification decisions.

Why make such a big change? As many have pointed out, the government already has the power to further restrict the classification of a firearm, but it does not have the power to relax restrictions.

That problem became all too apparent on February 25, 2014. That was the day that tens of thousands of Canadians woke up to find that the Canadian firearms program had turned them into criminals with the stroke of a pen. Unilaterally, a change had been made to the Firearms Reference Table. The minister was not consulted, nor was any other Canadian.

There was no legislation, no regulation, not even an order-in-council that authorized this change.

Even more worrisome, there was no way to correct the mistake. That is why this bill is so important.

I can reconfirm, as the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has said numerous times, as soon as the legislation receives royal assent, we will restore the non-restricted classification of the Swiss arms and the CZ858 families of rifles.

It is clear that our Conservative government is standing up for law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters. However, what about the other political parties? Well, I expect that we will hear for the remainder of this debate how awful firearms are and how they ought to be further restricted. That should come as no surprise, given that both the Liberals and the NDP have committed to bringing back a wasteful and ineffective long gun registry should they ever get the chance.

What has struck me, however, is the degree of contempt for gun owners. The member for Trinity—Spadina alluded to some sort of moral equivalence between hunters and terrorists. That is the same member who said in the past that emotional arguments from hunters were not enough to justify not banning the sale of ammunition.

In case anyone thinks this is a rogue junior member, let us listen to the words of the Liberal leader. He said that this bill:

would allow handguns and assault weapons to be freely transported in a trunk anywhere within a province, even left parked outside a Canadian Tire or a local hockey arena.

He even put out a fundraising advertisement with the same comments. This is patently ridiculous. The Liberal leader is either trying to fearmonger or he simply does not have a clue about how firearms are regulated in Canada, or it could be both.

I was pleased to see Conservative members of the public safety committee ask Tony Bernardo, one of Canada's foremost firearms experts, about this advertisement and whether it was accurate. Here is what he had to say: “I've seen the advertisements and they are incorrect”.

What is more, the question was also put to non-partisan public servants. The assistant deputy minister of public safety answered with a simple “no” when asked by committee members if the advertisements were accurate.

The facts are these. Despite the claims of the Liberal Party, firearms issues are serious issues. Any serious leader must stand up for these rights, and it is clear that the only leader who will do so is the Prime Minister.

In closing, I would like to remind the members of the House that we are talking about Canada's hunting, fishing and sport shooting culture. We are talking about important outdoor activities that are enjoyed by over 4 million Canadians. We should be promoting those activities, not making them less accessible.

Before my colleagues opposite rise to ask questions about why the so-called gun lobby has so influenced the bill, I would like to remind them of something. There are simply ordinary Canadians who enjoy these activities.

I would like to remind my colleagues of the words of Greg Farrant, from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, who said the following:

Firearms owners in Canada are judges, lawyers, farmers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, accountants, even federal politicians...who 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.

I hope that members heed those words when they vote on this important legislation, because I know that the individuals who care about firearms issues and property rights issues will be watching this debate closely.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have no shortage of very important work to attend to.

This afternoon and tomorrow we will continue debating Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015 act, no. 1, to implement important measures from the spring's budget, such as the family tax cut, enhancements to the universal child care benefit and a reduction to the small business income tax.

The parties across the way have made no secret of their opposition to the excellent tax reduction measures we have proposed, and this week the hon. member for Papineau explained why. As he told the House on Tuesday, “benefiting every single family is not...fair”. Well, that is consistent with his approach to fiscal policy, that budgets balance themselves.

However, our budget implementation bill will deliver those benefits to every family, because that is the fair Canadian thing to do.

After our constituency week, on Monday, May 25, we will debate Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act at report stage. This bill will improve opportunities for economic development north of 60.

After question period that same day, we will take up Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act at report stage, and hopefully third reading. Unnecessary, cumbersome red tape facing law-abiding gun owners across Canada will be reduced, thanks to this legislation.

Also, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), I am appointing that day, Monday, May 25, as the day for consideration, in a committee of the whole, of all votes in the main estimates, for 2015-16, related to finance.

Tuesday, May 26, will be the fifth allotted day. We will debate a Liberal proposal. I expect the Liberal leader will explain why helping every family is not fair.

We will return to the third reading debate on Bill C-52, the Safe and Accountable Rail Act, on Wednesday, May 27, when I am hopeful that it will pass.

The following day, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill S-3, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act. In debate last week, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said, “Soon, we will pass this bill”. I look forward to her NDP colleagues proving the hon. member right.

Later that Thursday, we will start the report stage for Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which will re-affirm this Parliament’s ongoing efforts to end violence against women and girls.

Firearms Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who call on Parliament to enact common sense firearms laws by passing Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act.

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

It's the Liberal leader's views where he talked about how high-powered handguns would be commonplace “outside busy places like shopping malls, grocery stores, and sports arenas”. Those are his words; they're not mine. It's clearly over the top, and it's truly unfortunate when I think Bill C-42 strikes the right balance between protecting law-abiding firearms owners and protecting the public's safety.

I'll be quite frank. One of the things we've been criticized on with Bill C-42 is our insistence that new firearms owners take a mandatory firearms course. Challenging the firearms course is not allowed anymore. The firearms groups are somewhat uncomfortable with that, but our view is very strong that new firearms owners should be required to take a test in person. They do it once in their lifetime. It's a day out of their lives, but it's time well spent in terms of learning firearms safety.

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

I don't know what kinds of records are kept here, but in terms of your point about the value of the hunting and angling outdoor way of life and the fact that you and your party support it, I'll take that at face value.

However, your leader's views on Bill C-42 shocked many of us. I have an article here from November of last year. I'll quote from it:

Wednesday, following the Liberals’ weekly caucus meeting, Trudeau insisted that should C-42 become the law assault rifles, machine guns and high-powered handguns would be commonplace “outside busy places like shopping malls, grocery stores and sports arenas.”

That doesn't strike me as somebody who supports the hunting and angling way of life. I respect your support for this way of life, and I know that you respect it. As for the leader, this over-the-top comment shows where the leadership of the Liberal Party is coming from.

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

I think no matter what the device is, it has to be carried and used very safely.

Also, thank you, Mr. Falk, for bringing up the penalties for unsafe firearm and ammunition storage. Again, we eliminated the long-gun registry as a Conservative government, but those other restrictions still apply regarding firearms storage and storing the ammunition separately from firearms in a locked area.

I think regarding, for example, Bill C-42, which is before the House right now, we have struck the right balance between protecting the rights of lawful firearm-owning citizens and ensuring that public safety is maintained. Again, from the commentary I'm getting from the hunting and outdoors community from across the country, they are by and large fine with, for example, Bill C-42 and the restrictions that remain in place, but at the same time very strongly appreciate our government's work in ensuring that the rights of law-abiding citizens are maintained.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act aims to clarify the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, in other words to confirm that CSIS has the capacity to act outside the country and to exchange information with our allies, which is especially important in the context of individuals who travel outside the country for terrorist purposes.

This first element provides legal clarification. It confirms the existing power of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to carry out activities abroad and to protect its informers and its employees.

This was the first significant law, but there were gaps to be filled, which is why our government introduced a second bill in 2015 dealing with our anti-terrorism measures, in order to provide tools to not only the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, but also the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other departments and federal organizations to break this silo culture that exists in federal agencies when it comes to sharing information on national security.

The measures that were passed yesterday in the House of Commons and that will soon go before the Senate will enable the government to reduce the threat specifically in the case of jihadist terrorist activities before they manifest themselves. We will be able to intervene at the start of the process, particularly in the context of radicalization, for instance, by criminalizing the promotion of terrorism in general and by being able to shut down websites containing terrorist propaganda. Obviously, we are going to prevent radicalized individuals from leaving Canada to take part in terrorist activities. We are well aware of the growing number of Canadians who may wish to leave the country to commit terrorist acts.

I also want to point out that in the 2015 budget, which was tabled just a few weeks ago, our government is committing to increasing national security resources by close to $300 million, especially for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as the Canada Border Services Agency.

Another important thing to note in the budget is that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service watchdog, the review committee, will see its budget doubled in order to enhance its surveillance of our security agency.

The third bill, the common sense firearms licensing act, as you know, will provide safe and sensible firearms policies for Canadians. You have reviewed this bill already.

The goal is simple. As you know, it's to remove red tape while keeping Canadians safe from gun crime. As Greg Farrant of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters said, this bill:

...proposes reasonable amendments to...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”.

On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, as you know, anyone who is convicted of domestic violence will see their licence removed. We are also reinforcing the capability for the CBSA to exchange information with the RCMP so that we have better control and can restrict the importation, particularly in the case of illegal firearms. We are making mandatory training for anyone who is willing to possess or acquire a firearm.

There was a major development over the winter in our relationship with the Americans in terms of reinforcing our security measures and the fluidity at the border as part of the “Beyond the Border” agreement.

I had the privilege of signing a customs pre-clearance agreement with the U.S. Secretary of State, Jeh Johnson, in Washington. It was one of the pillars of the “Beyond the Border” agreement, and we have now accomplished this important step. I tabled the agreement before Parliament when I returned from Washington.

The agreement is based on the success of existing pre-clearance operations. It has been around for over 60 years in the airline industry. These operations paved the way for customs pre-clearance for land, rail and maritime transport. So it is an important step that will help us improve the fluidity of transportation and movement of goods and people at the border, while reinforcing security mechanisms.

As part of our efforts to protect Canadians from violent crime, we recently introduced the life means life act to ensure that a life sentence means life in prison.

As you can see, our government has one priority, which is to keep Canadians safe. This has been a consistent theme for our government since we were elected in 2006. This commitment to protecting Canadians is reflected in the main estimates for 2015-16.

The total amount that you are studying this morning is $8.5 billion for the fiscal year. This is an increase of about 1% in expenditures over last year. I would like to provide you with the key points.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service is requesting $537 million for 2015-16 to ensure national security. The Canada Border Services Agency is seeking a total of approximately $1.8 billion, an increase of 2.2%. Mr. Portelance will be able to explain how he intends to invest those amounts. There are major capital projects to improve the physical facilities and to enable a faster flow of passengers through our border crossings.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is at the heart of our plan and plays an important role in managing border security. With the $2.6 billion requested for the fiscal year, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will continue to integrate its commitments when it comes to implementing legislation related to cross-border activity within the “Beyond the Border” agreement signed by President Obama and our Prime Minister Harper.

As you know, the Correctional Service of Canada contributes to public safety by making sure that the correctional system actually corrects criminal behaviour. To perform this vital function, the Correctional Service of Canada is seeking total funding of approximately $2.4 billion for the coming fiscal year. This represents an increase of approximately 1% over the last fiscal year.

My colleague who is with me today, Mr. Guimond, is the Deputy Minister of Public Safety. He coordinates all public safety operations with the agencies, but also those that relate to natural disasters. He is seeking funding of approximately $1.2 billion for the 2015-16 fiscal year, which is an increase of 2.5% over the previous fiscal year.

It is worth noting that this request from Public Safety Canada is an increase of $86.4 million, but that it affects the disaster financial assistance arrangements, so that in 2015-16 we expect to transfer $848 million to the provinces that were hit with natural disasters. These amounts will make it possible to meet existing and future obligations to communities seriously affected by flooding and other natural disasters.

Mr. Chair, you will probably remember that in January, our government announced a modernization of the disaster financial assistance agreement, which adjusts the eligibility threshold to take into account inflation and ensure the program's financial viability. This also includes additional measures for the national disaster mitigation program. The goal is to support the provinces in their projects to reduce the impact of natural disasters.

It is also important to keep in mind that the fixed maximum rate of 90% for large-scale disasters is maintained. Our government is there to help. In early April, I invited the provinces to submit projects to reduce natural disasters and their impact, especially with respect to flood risks. It may include measures and studies relating to flood areas.

To conclude, I am pleased to present to you today an impressive track record realized by our agencies. I will be pleased to answer your questions. Obviously, these are large amounts, but they are necessary to ensure the safety of Canadians. I would like to assure you that this money is being well used by the representatives of our agencies. I would like to congratulate them on the important work they have done over the year, during which they have been particularly called upon, and I'm thinking about what happened just a few metres from here.

Thank you.

[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?

[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.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the three witnesses who are appearing at our meeting, namely Mr. Latraverse via video conference, Ms. Rathjen and Mr. Laganière, on the important subject of Bill C-42. Allow me to first address the members of PolyRemembers and ask them a few questions.

Just before you spoke, we heard from the Coalition for Gun Control. Representatives for that group said that there had been a lack of consultation about the provisions contained in Bill C-42 with regard to violence against women.

I know that you represent an organization which plainly highlights all the acts of gun violence committed against women. If possible, I would like you to speak more to that aspect.

[Pierre Latraverse, President, Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs]

Good morning to all committee members.

I will now give a presentation on behalf of the federation and its branches.

The Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs is a not-for-profit organization that was created in 1946. Its mandate is to contribute to the management, development and continuation of hunting and fishing as traditional, heritage and sporting activities, while respecting wildlife in their habitat.

Its objectives are to represent the interests of hunters and anglers; defend and protect the practice of hunting and fishing activities, and promote them in order to ensure the sustainability of the sport; promote the adoption of responsible behaviour by hunters and anglers; cooperate with public authorities to establish conservation and wildlife habitat development programs; cooperate with public authorities to establish wildlife management plans which help governments reach their biological, social and economic objectives.

The federation today comprises some 200 associations which themselves comprise over 125,000 members spread out across all regions of Quebec. It counts on the support of its two foundations, Héritage faune and Sécurité nature, to reach its objectives.

Héritage faune is the official foundation of the federation. It was established in 1980. Its mandate is to offer various sources of funding that allow for the completion of wildlife, aquatic and land development projects, renewal programs and wildlife scholarships for university graduates. It is involved in many projects with organizations in the wildlife and environmental sectors in Quebec.

Sécurité nature was created in 1995. It is the architect of the federation in terms of education. It ensures the delivery of our education program courses on safety and wildlife coordination, and also the coordination of 450 volunteer monitors responsible for giving courses in all regions of Quebec. It also develops education programs on nature interpretation, protection and the enhancement of wildlife and its habitat, in addition to the safety of individuals practising outdoor activities. It also edits educational materials on the knowledge, conservation, and enhancement of fauna and habitat development, and outdoor leisure activities.

According to statistics from Sécurité nature, the training course Initiation to Hunting with a Firearm is becoming more popular in Quebec. The number of individuals trained by this course was 5,703 in 1994, 10,750 in 1999, 14,000 in 2006 and 20,000 in 2014. According to statistics from Sécurité nature, registrations for the Canadian Firearms Safety Course is also on the rise in Quebec. The number of individuals trained was 10,681 in 1994, 11,968 in 1999, 15,088 in 2006 and 23,910 in 2014.

Concerning 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 Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs is very pleased about this initiative. This bill very much targets the needs of Quebec hunters because it simplifies the procedures for awarding a permit for users who follow the law, while strengthening safety and education.

Some aspects of the bill, such as the fusion of the possession only licence and the possession and acquisition licence, and the establishment of a six-month grace period for the renewal of this permit, will allow hunters to avoid criminal charges due to simple administrative errors. These components will make the lives of hunters easier.

The Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs has always been a proponent of education and safety in terms of firearms use.

Removing the obligation to take the Firearms Safety Course is excellent news. In Quebec, a person already has to take and pass the course if he or she wants to obtain a hunting certificate.

Since 2013, the cost of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course exam was increased following a request by the Chief Firearms Officer, and it then cost the same as the Firearms Safety Course, to encourage people to take the training. So in 2014, 33 people took the Firearms Safety Course, as compared to over 200 in 2012.

The federation supports prohibiting firearms ownership by people who have been found guilty of domestic violence. The changes made to the legislation will make it easier for hunters to carry on their activities in Quebec, while strengthening security, which is essential for the federation.

Thank you for listening, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Heidi Rathjen, Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Bill C-42 is a complex bill and includes many measures, and we won't be able to address them all. This morning I would like to address two specific ones.

The first one concerns the ability of the RCMP to classify certain types of weapons. As you know, about a year ago, the RCMP ruled that thousands of semi-automatic weapons that had entered the country as non-restricted long guns were in fact prohibited, given their ability to be converted to fully automatic firearms.

These weapons included the full range of Swiss Arms models and various versions of the CZ858 family, one of which was used in September 2012 during the election celebrations of the Parti Québécois. One man was killed and another one was injured, but the toll could have been much higher had the gun not jammed after the first shot. The shooter, Richard Bain, was a member of a gun club and was a legal owner of that weapon, amongst many others.

We would have hoped that the public safety implications of having thousands of prohibited weapons circulating across the country would be obvious to all, but that was not the case. As soon as the decision was rendered, public safety minister Steven Blaney echoed the complaints of the gun lobby, criticized the RCMP for their arbitrary decision, and announced a two-year amnesty for the owners of these weapons, accompanied by a public address specifically to gun owners stating, “Our Conservative Government is on your side” and that they will always defend the rights of honest gun owners, followed, of course, by an email directing supporters to a fundraising site.

Bill C-42 authorizes the Minister of Public Safety—a partisan political position—to override any and all classifications, even those clearly defined by law. The minister could literally reclassify as non-restricted any weapon, no matter how dangerous, at any time, for any reason, thus extracting it from any significant controls.

Bill C-42 was tabled only months after the murders of three RCMP officers in Moncton. Justin Bourque used an M305 semi-automatic Winchester rifle, which is a Chinese-made semi-automatic version of the American M14 service rifle, a favourite of military firearms collectors.

Only a few months before the tragedy, the RCMP, echoing other police organizations, had raised concerns with the minister regarding the inherent risks of the legal availability of such weapons. These include, for example, .50 calibre rifles that can pierce military aircraft and light armoured vehicles, not to mention bulletproof vests of police. This picture shows the Steyr Mannlicher, which is unrestricted. You can buy it over the Internet without the buyer being obligated to verify the validity of the possession permit.

Instead of properly classifying these types of weapons according to their risks, this government chose instead, with Bill C-42, to make that kind of political interference at the expense of public safety official and permanent.

The second issue is the discretionary powers of chief firearms officers, which are a core element of their work. Every day, chief firearms officers use their discretion while making decisions on whether or not to issue a variety of licences and authorizations. CFOs may further use their discretion to determine whether or not it is desirable in the interest of public safety to attach special conditions to authorizations or a licence.

For example, a CFO may decide to require a medical report stating that the previous mental illness of an applicant has been successfully treated as a condition of the issuance of a permit. A CFO may require that a business reconfigure its service counter to make sure that the display of the guns is far enough away from clients.

Some conditions can be more comprehensive. For example, Quebec does not allow prohibited weapons to be on the premises of gun clubs, even if they are grandfathered or subject to an amnesty. In Alberta, the CFO requires sellers in gun shows to have trigger locks on their guns, as opposed to putting plastic or wire tie wraps around the triggers.

It is this ability—attaching conditions to licences—that will be subject to new regulations under Bill C-42.

What these regulations will be is impossible to know; however, given that the government has presented this bill as a way to rein in broad and often discretionary authority of unelected bureaucrats, and that it follows from the gun lobby, we are pretty confident the regulations are meant to have detrimental effects on these kinds of public safety decisions.

We don't have to look very far for similar, recent examples of this type of interference. For example, sales records in gun stores had existed in the law since 1978 and were never controversial. The firearms registry rendered them not necessary, because it took up that role. But following the abolition of the gun registry, chief firearms officers required gun businesses to keep inventories and sales ledgers. However, following complaints from the gun lobby regarding this, this government tabled regulations prohibiting chief firearms officers from requiring such a rule even though they said that this could facilitate illegal diversion of guns by gun businesses to the black market.

Another example concerns gun shows. Up until 2012 all sales at these events were first cleared by the registrar, since it automatically verified the licence of each buyer before issuing a new registration certificate. Since the elimination of the registry, there is no way to ensure that sales that take place in these huge gun shows are legal. In order to compensate for the loss of this oversight, every chief firearms office in the country said it was necessary for the government to enact existing gun show regulations, which would allow them to act in an enforcement capacity and ensure minimum safety standards at these shows. According to the firearms investigative and enforcement services directorate, which is tasked to combat illegal smuggling, without proper controls gun shows may become a focal point for the purchase and subsequent stockpiling of non-restricted firearms for criminal use.

As you know, in the United States about one-third to 40% of guns sold at gun shows are sold illegally to people who otherwise wouldn't pass a background check. This was a totally reasonable request by the chief firearms officers, aimed at ensuring the safety of gun shows and preventing illegal sales. But the gun lobby complained, and of course, the government axed the regulations.

In conclusion, discretion regarding the classification of guns and certain parts of the implementation of the Firearms Act should be left in the hands of the RCMP and the chief firearms officers, who are objective, knowledgeable, and mandated to protect the public. It should not be overruled by political interests. Subjecting discretionary powers of public safety officials to political interference places partisan politics over good governance, ideology over expertise, and gun interests over public safety.

Bill C-42 should be opposed and rejected.

Thank you.

[Benoît Laganière, Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning.

For the survivors, the witnesses and the many families of the victims of the Polytechnique massacre in 1989, our main objective was and remains the avoidance of loss of life and the prevention of the enormous suffering caused by violence committed by firearms. The fight against violence requires interventions at all levels.

Since its election, the Conservative government has destroyed or weakened most of the measures that had been implemented at the request of victims of firearms, but also at the request of police officers, women's groups, suicide prevention workers and public health groups. In 2012, the government destroyed the long-gun registry. Since then, a long gun can no longer be traced to its owner. The Harper government also eliminated the requirement to check the validity of the permit of a potential purchaser, as well as the sales records of firearms merchants. Today, Bill C-42 will further weaken the controls that remain.

By definition, a firearm is designed to kill. It is a dangerous object that deserves the greatest attention and the greatest respect. Using a firearm is a privilege, not a right. This privilege should be governed by strong rules and should result in a series of responsibilities. Strict controls are the norm in most developed countries. However, the Harper government, always ready to please the firearms lobby, has made it so that Canada is today in a situation in which there are fewer controls than at the time of the Polytechnique tragedy, 25 years ago.

You know, when someone is attacked in such a violent way using a firearm, the only thing that they can cling to is hope and comfort. The hope that governments will take action and take all of the means possible to prevent this type of extreme violence, and comfort in the idea that the brutal death of our sisters was not in vain because other lives will be saved.

I had already come to testify as the witness to a massacre, but mainly as an ordinary citizen, before the parliamentary and Senate committees, about Bill C-19, which scrapped the long-gun registry.

Despite the plentiful testimony from many pro-control groups, not a single line or a single comma was changed in the wording of the bill. This morning, I have no hope that things will be different this time around, but we are here because it is important to highlight some of the effects of this bill and to express our opposition to it, especially in light of all of the misinformation being disseminated by this government.

Bill C-42 will put us in the awful situation that we observe daily south of the border. Its adoption will result in easier access to firearms and will increase the chances that they fall into the wrong hands. MPs who vote in favour of this bill will have to assume responsibility for this.

Our position is the outright rejection of Bill C-42.

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

That leads me to raise the issue of firearms classification. Currently, the Canadian Firearms Program is administered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The classification is then approved by the Minister of Public Safety.

What is being proposed to us within the framework of Bill C-42 is an update of firearms classification. However, in reality, this is about playing politics with the debate on firearms classification by directly granting a new power to cabinet, which is to nullify firearms classification definitions.

I find that interesting, but I get the impression that the classification system is being weakened.

I would like to hear your point of view about this. You mentioned that the debate was being politicized, but could you explain to us why, in your opinion, Bill C-42 will likely politicize firearms classification?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Illerbrun, Ms. Cukier and Mr. Rodgers, thank you very much for participating in today's meeting. It is always interesting to meet hunters from other provinces and learn about their point of view.

I am a Quebecker, and I come from a long line of hunters. I got my hunting licence and then I was hooked. I went hunting with my cousins and my father. The next year, I decided to follow a gun safety course. That made my parents very proud. In my corner of the world, we are part of this community. It is a long-standing tradition and I am very proud of it. What we are hearing today is very interesting.

To start, I will address my questions to Ms. Cukier.

I have a few questions about your presentation and different aspects of Bill C-42. The first point that you mentioned was the transportation of firearms, which I discussed with various police services in Quebec.

Bill C-42 includes a relatively important measure dealing with restricted and prohibited firearms. I've spoken a great deal with police officers in Quebec about provisions in the bill on the transportation of these weapons and the impact that they will have on police services. They told me that they have no idea how they are actually going to be able to apply these provisions in reality and how difficult it is going to be for them at work on a day-to-day basis.

I would like to hear your point of view, as well as that of the 300 organizations that you represent, with regard to these provisions in Bill C-42.

[Tony Rodgers, Executive Director, Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters]

Thank you very much.

First of all, I'd like to thank the taxpayers of Canada for financially helping me attend this meeting today. My federation isn't in a position to pay for that.

Secondly, on behalf of the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for the opportunity to make this presentation in support of Bill C-42.

It was just over 20 years ago that former minister Allan Rock began to make statements in the media stating that he was pushing for more gun control in Canada. At that time, statements were attributed to him that the police and military should be the only people to possess guns in Canada, and that firearms should be removed from all cities and stored in armouries.

Although those statements have been withdrawn, they alerted the law-abiding firearms owners of Canada that more trouble was on the way. However, we must thank Mr. Rock for his wake-up call. Many of us believe that the existing legislation, Bill C-17, as bad as it was, was grudgingly accepted by the shooting community and would remain around for a while.

We did not expect for any interference of our legal firearms activities, especially after Bill C-17 was only in existence for a year and a half. What that wake-up call produced was a strong, united voice within the firearms community of Nova Scotia. We also learned later that in the whole of Canada a firearms community will never be reactive again, but rather a proactive group with strong communications across the country.

The responsible firearms owners of Nova Scotia organization represents 100,000 hunters in the province, as well as gun collectors, target shooters, and farmers. It is also supported by 32 hunting and fishing clubs, and 60 shooting clubs.

Over the past year, these people have demonstrated the resolve to fight any bad firearms legislation to the end, using whatever legal means available to them. The cancellation of the long-gun registry by Prime Minister Harper's government was a very good beginning, bringing back some respect to the firearms community.

For the past 20 years, we've been living under a dark cloud that shadowed us as criminals because of our hobbies. We strongly support the passage of Bill C-42, the common-sense firearms licensing act, and look forward to its implementation.

I would like to address a few specific amendments that change the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code.

The streamlining of the licensing system by eliminating the possession-only licence and converting all existing POLs to possession and acquisition licences will have a very positive effect on hunting in Canada. It will allow many hunters that held the old POL to purchase new firearms. They have not been able to purchase new firearms unless they took the training course. It always appeared silly to me that a person who was safe enough with using firearms and legally allowed to own them was not permitted to buy new firearms. Changes to the act will now allow them to purchase these new ones.

Hopefully, this change will also attract some of the people who left hunting to come back and once again contribute to the conservation of the country's wildlife by purchasing licences and giving back to their hunting heritage.

One of the main problems with the legislation, as it is today, is that it created many paper criminals, people who did not have the right pieces of paper for the right firearm under the old registration system, or who forgot to send in the licence renewal. Creating a six-month grace period at the end of the five-year licensing period to stop people from immediately becoming criminalized for paperwork delays around licence renewal is a very positive move and will be welcomed by the firearms community.

Safety has always been the hallmark of the Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and making classroom participation and firearm safety training mandatory for first-time licence applicants really is a no-brainer.

I can appreciate that not all areas of Canada, especially in the north, will have the ability to provide this service, but I believe that this will pay dividends to the rest of the country by having everyone from this point on classroom trained.

I have not been a person to support registries when it comes to firearms owned by law-abiding people, but a registry of people who are not allowed to possess firearms is fine with me. The amended Criminal Code to strengthen the provision relating to orders prohibiting possession of firearms where a person is convicted of an offence involving domestic violence is a step in the right direction. It would also be extended to list all people who are banned by the courts from the possession of firearms. I think that would have been an improvement.

Transporting a firearm to the shooting range or to a gunsmith would not require a separate piece of paper in my view. Ending this needless paperwork around authorization transportation by making them a condition of licence for certain routine and lawful activities is positive and will have the side effect of reducing costs within the firearms office.

I've heard stories from many of my colleagues from across the country of the abuse of power by some Canadian chief firearms officers who use their own interpretation of the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code to fit their personal likes and dislikes with respect to firearms and firearms owners. Therefore, changes to provide for the discretionary authority of the chief firearms officers to be subject and limited to regulation works for me from coast to coast to coast. All CFOs will administer the act as it's written, no individual interpretations.

It is important to both Canada Border Services and the RCMP to share information on newly imported restricted and non-restricted firearms into Canada. So the change to authorize firearms importation information sharing when restricted and prohibited firearms are imported into Canada by Canadian businesses is good.

This last amendment was prompted by a reclassification of a firearm by the RCMP that made hundreds of Canadians criminals overnight. The Swiss Army green rifle had its status changed from restricted firearm to prohibited with a stroke of a pen. This decision was made after the importers had worked with the RCMP on the original classification. The change will allow government to have a final say on classification decisions following the receiving of independent expert advice.

Long gone are the days of boys playing cops and robbers, shooting pretend guns at each other. The likelihood nowadays is that a SWAT team will be bearing down on them. Our society has become paranoid about firearms because they have been led to believe that guns are in themselves evil, and people who want to use them are evil as well. I don't know if we will ever get around to a time when we can trust our neighbours. The good news is that these changes will go a long way in fostering a positive relationship among the firearms community, government, and police.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good morning, colleagues, and welcome to meeting number 65 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We are discussing 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. We have two hours of witness testimony and Q and A.

For the first hour, we have with us from the Coalition for Gun Control, Wendy Cukier, president. We are also expecting from the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Tony Rodgers, executive director. We also have with us by way of teleconference from Swift Current, Saskatchewan, from the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, Greg Illerbrun, firearms chairman.

I would just like to see that we have a connection with Mr. Illerbrun and then we will proceed.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear about the individual who passed away, and our condolences to the family.

It is a difficult situation, and I understand that the police need to ensure that they continue to work. The resources will have to come from the provinces and communities they are in and from the taxes paid by the citizens of Surrey and by Canadians across the country. I certainly hope they will be able to resolve those issues in terms of crime.

I do not know whether the gun violence the member is talking about is because of weapons coming in from other countries. Under Bill C-42, I know that CBSA will be able to work with the RCMP to ensure that if illegal guns are coming into this country, they can follow them, track them down, and stop that.

[Lyndon Murdock]

Bill C-42 would provide an explicit authority for the CBSA to share the information that it has with the RCMP's Canadian firearms program. If I may, to provide a little bit of clarity, I'll walk through the system as it exists now, and how it would be under Bill C-42. Just to be clear, this deals only with businesses and businesses that are importing restricted and prohibited firearms.

Right now, businesses importing restricted prohibited firearms have to provide information to the customs officer at the port of entry. That information includes information regarding their licence and it also includes some brief description regarding the firearms that are being brought in. There is a requirement in law that restricted and prohibited firearms be registered. They don't have to be registered at the time of importation. Businesses have a period of approximately 30 days following importation, during which they can register their firearms.

There was a study conducted in the province of British Columbia, in 2008, I believe, which looked over a two-year period at a phenomenon whereby firearms being imported by businesses—again restricted prohibited firearms—were being diverted to the illicit market because the RCMP had no ability to ensure that what was presented at the time of importation, for example, 100 firearms, was actually registered at a later period of time. The RCMP could not then ensure that what had been being brought in was actually registered and meeting the legal requirements.

With Bill C-42 there will be a new form created, an RCMP form that has to be provided by the importer to the RCMP registrar in advance. It will list specific information regarding the firearms being brought in. When the businesses are importing, they will also have to provide a copy of that form, previously provided to the RCMP, to the customs officer. The officer will be able to look at and identify possible discrepancies between information provided to the RCMP and the CBSA at the time of importation. If there is possible diversion, law enforcement will be notified, and CBSA will have the authority to provide that information to the RCMP for appropriate follow-up as required.

[Kathy Thompson]

No. The ATT will be attached to conditions of a licence and it's simply going to streamline that process. I'll mention the two purposes for acquiring a firearm, one is for a gun collection and is very specific, and the other purpose is for use at a shooting range.

Today the amendment that is being considered, as part of Bill C-42, is a condition on the licence that, if approved, would allow a licensee to transport a restricted or prohibited firearm to very specific destinations, including going to and from a shooting range, to your own residence, to a gunsmith, to a gun show, to a Canadian port of entry as we discussed earlier, and to a peace officer or a chief firearms officer, either for verification, registration, or for disposal.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Yet we see advertisements about restricted firearms by the Liberal Party to try to garner funds across this country by suggesting that Canadians will have unfettered access to be able to purchase restricted and prohibited weapons, take them to shopping malls, take them to grocery stores, and take them to sports arenas. I think it's unfortunate that's continuing now. I thank you for that point of clarification.

Moving on to some more interesting things that some of the members in the opposition are saying, I see that the Toronto MP Adam Vaughan said there's no hunting being done in Toronto. He makes some remarks about having big racoons in Toronto, but says that the ATT is going to make it a lot easier to move firearms all around the city of Toronto wherever and however they want. I know you've spoken to it again, but I think it's important for the record. Can you clarify, will Bill C-42 allow anybody to travel wherever and whenever they want with a restricted firearm in their vehicle in the community of Toronto?

[Lyndon Murdock]

Thank you for the question.

No. Nothing is changing, as a result of Bill C-42, with respect to the process that you've just accurately alluded to.

[Kathy Thompson]

Bill C-42 does not contain any provision to limit the power of chief firearms officers. The bill simply entitles the Government of Canada to limit those powers through regulation, if need be. That is all. The government is giving itself the power to ensure that the national program will continue to be a national program. If need be it can bring in regulations. However, no such measure is currently included in the bill.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

That is a great pity.

I will move on to another topic. Some people have expressed concern about the provision in the bill that restricts the powers of provincial chief firearms officers. In particular, certain members of the Quebec legislature, among them the premier, made recommendations. The same is true of firearms control organizations.

I would like to hear more detail on the type of limits that will be included in Bill C-42. To what extent do the changes in the bill threaten to change the role of chief firearms officers in the provinces and territories?

[Lyndon Murdock]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

With respect to how it works currently, that information is not available to law enforcement. The authorization to transport is a separate paper document that an individual is required to carry with them.

Under Bill C-42, that information will be automated. It will be attached as a condition to the licence. That information will be in the Canadian firearms information system, CFIS, and by extension available to law enforcement.

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

Thank you.

There are seven border crossings in my area. Three or four of them are much busier during hunting season. Some people go to the Vermont mountains, others go the mountains on the Quebec side, and others head to our area, to Quebec. However, it seems that it is easier to cross from one side rather than the other.

How can Bill C-42 assure citizens that illegal firearms will not cross borders when border posts are busier, especially during hunting season?

[Lyndon Murdock]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.

I would speak to two points with respect to your question. First, as part of the requirements for individuals having a firearms licence, they are subject, as the minister mentioned earlier in his comments, to continuous eligibility screening. So any police-reported information that is included in the Canadian Police Information Centre, otherwise known as CPIC, is brought to the attention of the chief firearms officer. With respect to day-to-day interventions, any police-reported behaviour is automatically brought to the chief firearms officer's attention for any appropriate action as the chief firearms officer deems necessary.

With respect to the information-sharing provision within Bill C-42, right now at the border when restricted, prohibited firearms are being imported by a business, it has nothing to do with individuals. When these types of firearms are being imported by a business, information is provided to the customs agent to ensure that the business is properly licensed and that the customs package invoice, that sort of basic information regarding the number of firearms, is provided to CBSA. That information is not provided to the RCMP. The provision in C-42 will essentially ensure that information that is provided to CBSA is provided to the RCMP so they can ensure that those firearms that do need to be registered can in fact be done so.

[Kathy Thompson]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Whether under the current authorization to transport regime or the one proposed in Bill C-42, it would be possible to obtain an authorization to travel that length of trip, either now separately or as part of your licence requirements. There is a requirement in legislation that you have to take the most direct route, and there are transportation requirements and storage requirements that apply, and the minister alluded to them earlier in terms of carrying the firearm.

It must be unloaded; it must be in an opaque, locked container; it must have a trigger lock on it. If you're going to leave the firearm unattended, as you suggest might be possible, then it has to be in the trunk, and if it's a kind of vehicle that doesn't have a trunk, like a pickup truck for example, it can't be visible. It must not be visible to anyone who's walking by the vehicle. So what you suggest is possible, but there are transportation and storage requirements that apply, and there is that requirement to take the most direct route, so I would suggest that, if you are stopping somewhere that is not part of what's been authorized, you could be in some difficulty.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you very much.

Finally, under Bill C-42, a mandatory lifetime prohibition on the possession of prohibited or restricted firearms would apply following any conviction for an offence involving the use, threat, or attempt to commit domestic violence, rather than only in cases where the possible sentence is imprisonment for 10 years or more. Does this mean that even for relatively minor offences, such as domestic dispute involving mutual threats of violence, a person would be prohibited from possessing a firearm for life?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

Moving to the ATTs, the bill provides for automatic authorization to transport prohibited and restricted firearms within the licence holder's province of residence upon licence renewal for several purposes. Will the transportation requirements for firearms be affected by this change? Second, given that firearms licence holders will no longer be required to apply for authorization to transport for the purposes specified in Bill C-42, will the number of background checks conducted on firearm licence holders be reduced. Third, might the facilitation of firearms transportation increase the incidence of theft of firearms?

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

In his presentation, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness mentioned the possibility of taking firearms from people charged with conjugal violence, if I understood correctly.

In Quebec, whenever the police receive a call relating to violence in general or to conjugal violence, and see that a person has firearms at home, these firearms are taken from him until the case has been cleared up, even if no charge has been laid.

Is Quebec the only province where things are done that way? What Bill C-42 contains concerning conjugal violence already exists in Quebec. I would even say that police services go even further in that regard. Will all of provinces do the same thing? What will be the impact of Bill C-42?

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

I see. This leads me to my next question.

I know that groups from all fields have expressed some criticisms regarding Bill C-42. The Canadian Firearms Association, for instance, objected to a few things in the bill. These points mostly had to do with the mandatory training as regards first nations communities, or rural and remote communities. I understand some of these concerns.

In practice some of the measures in Bill C-42 would prevent some people who have received other training from obtaining a permit without having followed the course prescribed in the bill. I understand the purpose of mandatory training, as well as the realities of northern and first nations communities. They may have other training offered there or they may consider firearms in a different way than does the population in urban centres.

I am curious to see how all of this will play out. Will we force people in remote areas to travel at their own expense—perhaps not to large urban centres, but elsewhere—to take the training? Are we going to fund access to training courses provided on location more frequently than we do now? Has anyone thought about how things will unfold after Bill C-42 passes? According to the provisions in the bill, the course will be mandatory for everyone no matter where they live. Is the government going to fund the courses? Where are we headed with this?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for having stayed for the second hour in order to discuss Bill C-42.

With your permission, I'd like to go back to a question I put to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness concerning the consultations.

The minister mentioned that he had consulted the various police services in first nations communities about his Bill C-42.

Ms. Thompson, perhaps you could shed more light on this for me. Was there an official consultation process that fed into the preparation of Bill C-42?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for being here today to speak to us about Bill C-42.

Mr. Chair, you know that I am always proud to talk about my roots when the time comes to talk about hunting, fishing or even firearms in general. I come from a family where my uncles, aunts and cousins all hunt or fish. I took hunting courses and I am the proud holder of a hunting licence. I am very proud of doing this with my family. So every time we talk about firearms issues, I am personally concerned.

If I may, I would like to begin my questions by talking about the consultations. I will briefly go back to what my colleague Mr. Garrison said about the training for First Nations communities or northern communities that might have difficulty accessing courses to obtain their licences. I’m also intrigued about police services and the automatic granting of an authorization to transport a prohibited weapon.

Here is my question. Have there been or have you held consultations with First Nations communities or even with city police services specifically about automatic authorizations?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Minister.

You know, I mentioned how the Liberals were spending time misleading Canadians for the benefit of their own fundraising interests, and I'm not surprised to see the NDP here misunderstanding the firearms laws and the classification of firearms. Or if they're not misunderstanding, they're intentionally misleading Canadians.

I want to ask you a pointed question. Did you, as the minister, have to sign an OIC for the reclassification of the Swiss Arms rifle and CZ858, or did officials? Is that why you brought forward the review mechanism under Bill C-42?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 64 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Today, of course, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 20, we are starting our study of Bill C-42.

With us for the first hour today we have the Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Welcome, Minister.

We also have accompanying him, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Kathy Thompson, assistant deputy minister, the community safety and countering crime branch. We also have with us Lyndon Murdock, the director of firearms and operational policing policy.

Welcome to all.

To our committee, might I first offer the chair's apology? If this early meeting has inconvenienced anyone, it was not the intention of the chair. I do apologize if that is the case. The minister will be called away early for cabinet purposes, so we are starting 15 minutes early to have the full time with the minister. Without any further delay, we will go ahead and get this meeting started.

Minister Blaney, you have the floor, sir, for your opening statement.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today and on Thursday, February 26, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-42.

The House resumed from April 2 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. This is a fantastic step forward for law-abiding firearms owners across Alberta and across Canada. I am proud to stand and support it.

On behalf of the law-abiding firearms owners in my riding of Macleod, I would like to thank the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for moving this important legislation forward. I would be remiss if I did not also thank the member for Yorkton—Melville. The member has carried this torch for years and has been standing up for law-abiding gun owners and eliminating needless red tape.

We have heard comments from many hunting and sport shooting groups across Canada that support this legislation. We have heard from the Canadian Police Association, which supports this legislation. I have heard from residents in southern Alberta who also support this legislation. They support it because it follows our Conservative government's views on firearms policies, policies that are safe and that should also be sensible.

Overall, the bill continues to focus on pursuing common sense firearms legislation, something that has been lacking for far too long.

Some have asked why these changes are being made now. The pundits seem to say that this bill is simply pandering in advance of an election. That could not be further from the truth. The bill is not about hobbies; it is about an important economic driver in our country. In fact, hunting and sport shooting is a billion dollar industry. It is also a way of life, both in rural Canada and urban communities. Millions of Canadians in all walks of life enjoy participating in these Canadian heritage activities. For them, this is not a so-called gun lobby; this is about enjoying a treasured part of life.

Some have asked why we are combining different licenses and giving new rights to possession-only license holders. Some have argued that the effect of this proposal would only be that one would be required to take a mandatory training course—

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will conclude the second reading debate on Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. This bill will reduce the red tape faced by law-abiding hunters, farmers, and outdoors enthusiasts.

Then we will return to our constituencies for the Easter adjournment. When we come back on Monday, April 20, that day will be the first allotted day. The House will debate a proposal from the New Democratic Party. I expect this proposal will be the 81st time-allocated opposition day debate since the last election.

As we know, notwithstanding the option available to them to allow many days of debate on any issue they raise on opposition days, the NDP has always chosen to limit the debate to the minimum of a single day of debate. What is more, this will be the 179th time-allocated opposition debate since the government took office.

On Tuesday, we will debate and ideally conclude third reading of Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act. Then we will move on to the report stage of Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations act.

As to my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance this week, I do not know where the opposition House leader was, but I quite enjoyed the Minister of Finance's answers this week in question period. I know why he does not remember it; it is because he does not want to remember that the finance minister laid on the table the clear choice before Canadians. It is the choice between a government that is focused on the priorities of Canadians and lower taxes for families versus the priorities of the New Democrats, which are to raise taxes on families, reverse the tax reductions our government has delivered, and deliver higher debt, higher deficits, and bigger government.

It is a clear choice. That is why we look forward to the budget on Tuesday, April 21, that the Minister of Finance has announced will take place. That will be at 4:00 p.m.

On his behalf, pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I will be asking later that an order of the day be designated for the purpose of that budget.

I am looking forward to that balanced budget, because it will continue our focus on creating jobs and supporting Canadian families. Over 1.2 million net new jobs have been created since the economic downturn, and that is a remarkable record, especially when contrasted with every other developed country in the world. It is something I know Canadians are remarkably proud of.

Canadians recognize the importance of the economic leadership we have had from the Minister of Finance and our Prime Minister in delivering those results. That, of course, is why there is such strong support for our economic agenda in contrast with the agenda offered by the New Democratic Party.

The budget debate will continue on Wednesday. Subject to discussions with my counterparts, the second day of debate will be on Friday.

On Thursday, we will debate Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, at report stage. This important bill provides our law enforcement and security agencies with crucial tools to tackle new and emerging threats posed by terrorists.

Over the last several weeks, our hard-working public safety committee held many hours of meetings, hearing from dozens of witnesses, and then spent a very long day on the bill’s clause-by-clause consideration.

Let me congratulate and thank the committee for its efforts.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

As I was going through the papers this morning, I was particularly shocked to see that a number of them reported that our Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness had cancelled his participation at a fundraising event that featured a gun as a door prize. I am sure that it came along with all the required permits.

I had a question that I would like to ask my colleague. Is it not a problem that Bill C-42 gives the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness the power to reclassifiy certain firearms?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak 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.

This Conservative government bill cuts red tape for firearms owners. In my opinion, what it will really do is weaken Canadian gun control laws.

Let us remember that the government had to put work on this bill on hold. It was supposed to have been debated for the first time on October 22 of last year, a day we will all remember for a long time. That day, a soldier was shot and killed at the National War Memorial not far from here. The gunman then stormed the Centre Block on Parliament Hill.

In my opinion, the government should have put this bill on hold indefinitely. Having solid, reliable data and laws that govern the use of firearms in Canada, together with giving police the resources and tools they need to enforce rules and laws, is of vital importance to public safety and stemming violence in Canada, particularly violence against women.

With this bill, however, the Conservatives are playing politics on the firearms issue. They are using this issue to play political games and divide Canadians, which jeopardizes public safety and creates additional challenges for police services in Canada. They are trying to shift the debate and make us forget that we are talking about public safety

However, reasonable people from different parts of the country, both rural and urban, could very easily work together to come up with solutions to this problem rather than practising the politics of division, as the Conservatives are doing.

The opposition NDP members and I believe that any changes to the Firearms Act must be made with a certain degree of caution. Improving public safety must be the priority objective. Bill C-42 does not meet that criterion, however, and we cannot support it.

I want to talk about the measures that are actually in Bill C-42. First of all, this bill allows a six-month grace period when a five-year licence expires, for gun owners who have failed to renew their licence.

Right now, owners must have an authorization to transport in order to have the right to transport their firearms. They must apply to a provincial chief firearms officer. The authorization allows them to transport a specific weapon to and from a specific location. They must have the authorization with them when transporting the firearm.

However, Bill C-42 would make it possible for this authorization to be granted automatically with the firearms licence, thereby authorizing the transportation of prohibited and restricted firearms to and from a gun club, firing range, police station, gun shop or any other place where firearms are used.

The bill also gives cabinet a new power, namely, the power to change the definitions of the classifications of firearms set out in section 84 of the Criminal Code through regulations that make exceptions. Through a regulation, cabinet could classify firearms that would normally be defined as prohibited or restricted as non-restricted firearms. Right now, firearms are classified based on assessments conducted as part of the Canadian firearms program, which is administered by the RCMP. These classifications are then approved by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Let us look at the problems associated with that. First, the grace period is problematic because a firearms licence allows the police and other authorities to access the latest information about the owner of a firearm. We talked a lot about this important topic when we discussed the firearms registry. It is important for the police to know who owns a firearm, what type of firearm it is and where these firearms are being taken.

As part of the licence renewal process, firearm owners are assessed to determine whether they have mental health problems. This is a way of detecting whether there is a potential risk for the owners themselves or for the public. This assessment makes it possible to determine fairly early on whether there is a potential risk and helps the police to intervene in the case of an accident.

The timeframe set out in the bill could delay access to that information and could pose very serious risks to public safety. The Conservative Party members will likely say that anyone who does not renew his or her licence will have a criminal record. In fact, failing to renew one's licence is considered criminal because it is a serious matter. It is not as though this licence has to be renewed every year. It is renewed every five years.

Licence renewal is mandatory and failing to meet that obligation is considered criminal as a way of addressing the risk that gun owners may have mental health problems. A lot can happen in a person's life in five years. It is therefore important that all licence holders be in good mental and physical health so that they can use their hunting guns properly.

The measure on transporting firearms could also cause problems for police forces in their fight against the unauthorized transport of firearms. Why is it so important to control the use of firearms, keep these data and make public safety the priority?

We are not here to attack Canadians living in rural regions or hunters simply because they own guns. That is not it at all. Our priority is public safety. We are talking about guns that can be used to attack and kill people. It only makes sense to exercise the best possible control, while allowing people to use their guns.

The problem is that in Canada, gun violence remains a factor in many domestic abuse cases, causing some women to stay in abusive situations out of fear of being shot by their partners. Unfortunately, the presence of firearms is a top risk factor associated with domestic murders of women in Canada. In 2009, nearly 75,000 incidents of violent crimes against women were by current or former spouses or someone with whom the women were otherwise in an intimate relationship. These are the incidents that were reported to police. It is estimated that over 70% of such incidents go unreported.

Women are three to four times more likely than men to be victims of a spousal homicide. According to the most recent data available from Statistics Canada, in the past decade, from 2000 to 2009, over a quarter of women killed by a current or previous partner were by means of firearms.

Most women killed with guns are killed with legally owned guns. Family and intimate assaults involving firearms were 12 times more likely to result in death than intimate assaults that did not involve firearms. However, homicides of women with firearms dropped by over 63% with progressive strengthening of gun laws from 1991 to 2005, while murders of women by other means, such as stabbing and beating, declined by only 38% because we enforced the laws and put laws in place.

Twenty-five years have passed since the Polytechnique massacre, when 14 young women were violently murdered just because they were women. These events led to the creation of days of activism against gender violence, when we come together to reflect on the meaning of this attack against women. We also reflect on the fight for women's rights and the work that must still be done to achieve true gender equality.

This event of 25 years ago marked a turning point in the debate on gun control in Canada and spurred Canadian politicians to tighten access to firearms and start tracking legally purchased guns. The NDP has always proposed practical solutions to the legitimate concerns of the many Canadians who use firearms. We have always taken care to respect the rights of aboriginal peoples while ensuring that police services have the tools they need to protect Canadian communities.

Data on 1.6 million firearms in the province of Quebec will now be destroyed.

This bill would limit the powers of provincial chief firearms officers through regulations. By limiting the role of these officers, the federal government will make it more difficult for the provinces to set the standards they believe are necessary to implement the laws that govern firearms.

Unfortunately, the reforms introduced by the bill do not work for all Canadians. Therefore, we cannot support the bill.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I am rising today to oppose Bill C-42 at second reading. I listened very carefully to the arguments being presented by the government, especially to my colleague who just spoke. I have not been persuaded by any arguments I have heard to date to support this piece of legislation, because I do not believe the bill would do what is being said it would do.

I am from the beautiful city of Surrey and my riding of Newton—North Delta over the last number of years has seen innumerable incidents of gun firings. Many times these are gang related. Just a few weeks ago over a 28-hour time frame we saw five, six, and then seven gang-related shootings. One can imagine that we are very sensitive when it comes to gun control, gun licensing, et cetera. We are also very concerned that the government has failed to deliver on its commitment for additional policing. We are not saying additional policing would take care of a lot of issues in my riding, but it is one of the components that would help, to have more men in serge out on the streets, keeping our streets safe.

As I was going through the bill, one of the first components that hit me was that we are looking at a grace period of six months when someone's licence expires. This seems so bizarre. For a gun owner it would still be perfectly okay for six months after one's licence expires. That would be legalized in this legislation. When my driver's licence expires, it expires on that date and I have to get it renewed beforehand. When my car insurance expires, I have to do that on time or there are huge fines. Here we have something unique being built in for firearms's licensing, a grace period of six months.

Also, we know that, when people go for renewal of their licence, we are not just talking about paperwork. Firearm owners are screened for mental health issues, which we know are fast growing in our country right now across all the age groups. It is also a way of gauging any potential risks to themselves or others, yet the government sees fit to give a six-month grace period. I am just so shocked by that.

Then I looked at firearms transportation. With the firearms licence, the government would be authorizing automatically, without any special permission having to be sought, which it was before, the transportation of prohibited or restricted firearms to and from any gun club, shooting range, police station, gun shop, gun show, and any point of exit from Canada. This measure alone could make it more difficult for police to crack down on unauthorized firearms and transportation of firearms. This is happening at the same time that the government is reducing the 2014-2015 Canada Border Services Agency operational budget by $143.3 million a year. At the same time that the government is cutting resources for the CBSA—and by the way to the police by $195.2 million—it is also relaxing the rules around the transportation of guns. This just seems totally bizarre.

The other concern I have is over the classification of firearms. I absolutely believe that this process needs to be depoliticized. It should not be in the hands of politicians. I love all my colleagues in the House. I have a great deal of respect for the work done by many, but really, do we want to give cabinet the final authority as the decision maker on classification of firearms? Should that not be done by experts and people in the field who know a lot more? Should it not be done by the RCMP, et cetera?

Once again, there is a great deal of concern that we have a government that is trying to put more power into the hands of cabinet ministers and therefore escape scrutiny. We have seen this in other pieces of legislation as well. This bill would basically transfer authority over definitions and classifications to cabinet rather than putting an emphasis on public safety.

Another power that would be limited is that of the provincial chief firearms officers. This bill would limit, by regulation, the powers of the provincial chief firearms officers to attach conditions to a licence or to the authorization to transport; in other words, local provincial officers' hands would be tied behind their backs. This would also prevent provinces from setting their chosen standards in the implementation of firearms legislation.

As we can see, this is just not good enough. My fear is that all of these changes would put at risk not only our communities but also our men and women in uniform who serve us. We have seen the government do this time and again. It does not put public safety first; rather, it puts political pandering to its lobby groups ahead of what is good for Canadians.

I would now like to talk to members about Inspector Garry Begg, who lives in Surrey, and who has done an amazing job of serving our community. His son served in our community as well. At this point, I would like to recognize the remarkable patriotism displayed by RCMP Corporal Shaun Begg, the commander of the RCMP detachment in Kaslo, B.C.

One day last week, Corporal Begg, who plays recreational hockey on a Kaslo team, journeyed with his teammates by helicopter high up into the Purcell Mountains to play a game of shinny 8,000 feet up. It was a spectacular day and Corporal Begg, who describes himself as a proud Mountie and an even prouder Canadian, donned his regimental red serge and famous stetson for a few shifts of the game. A teammate snapped a picture of Corporal Begg in full dress uniform bearing down for a shot on goal, and the rest is history. The picture was tweeted and is now being described as the “most Canadian photo ever”. Being viewed around the world, it now shines a bright light on all that is Canadian. I am sure that most members of the House have seen the photo and will join me in saluting Corporal Begg, a proud Mountie and a proud Canadian.

I want to reiterate that it is disturbing to me to have a government that is pandering to its lobby groups while failing to do the right thing, which is to protect Canadians. We know that the number of people who own handguns has increased incredibly. I understand the need with respect to hunters and farmers. We are not saying that no one should have guns, but we are saying that the kind of changes we are seeing in this legislation would do harm and would not bring peace to the streets of Surrey or to other communities.

The more I reflect on this piece of legislation, the more I am puzzled as to why a government that purports to be—and often states that it is—a crime-fighting kind of government would now bring in legislation that makes it easier for guns to be on the streets, while at the same time cutting resources to the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency so that we would have even less control over guns entering the country and have more relaxation with respect to the movement inside the country of weapons that can kill people.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of the common-sense firearms licensing act, Bill C-42. This important legislation highlights our Conservative government's commitment to firearms policies that are safe and sensible.

This is a theme that is seen throughout the bill, and it is a theme that has been at the heart of how our government deals with issues related to firearms. In other words, we believe that we should punish lawbreakers, but we should reduce red tape for law-abiding Canadians.

I would like to briefly highlight the eight changes contained in this important legislation, but first I would like to give some context as to how we arrived at the situation we are in today.

While a variety of permits and documents to possess firearms have existed in Canada since 1892, licensing in the context that today's Canadians would recognize did not begin until 1979. The firearms acquisition certificate system existed until it was amended by the previous Liberal government in 1995.

Bill C-68 created the Firearms Act, which put new and onerous requirements on the licensing and transportation of firearms. This same Liberal bill also created the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

Following our Conservative government's election in 2006, we immediately took action to make sure that no one could be prosecuted for being in possession of an unregistered long gun. We also took action to end the needless Liberal gun-show regulations. We deferred and are examining the repeal of the UN firearms marking regulations.

After many years of work, we ended the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all. Following an inappropriate and unacceptable decision made by unelected bureaucrats, our government took action to restore the property rights of law-abiding owners of Swiss Arms and CZ858 rifles.

It is clear that we are taking safe and sensible firearms licensing seriously, and that brings us to the important common-sense legislation before us today.

As I stated earlier, there are eight key measures in this legislation. As I have said, these measures are safe and sensible, and the bill could be broken down along those lines.

We are bringing forward measures that will keep Canada safe.

We will require all first-time gun owners to receive basic firearms safety training.

We will create a system for the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, to share information on firearms smuggling investigations. Shockingly, thanks to loopholes in the Liberals' Firearms Act, these law enforcement agencies are barred from working together. This has led to literally thousands of firearms making their way into the black market and into the hands of thugs and criminals. Sharing would occur under Bill C-42.

We will make firearms prohibitions mandatory for serious crimes of domestic violence. We believe that the best indicator of future criminal behaviour is past criminal behaviour. In fact, nearly two-thirds of all those convicted of spousal homicide have a previous history of domestic violence. Taking firearms out of these volatile situations just makes good common sense.

To that end, we are also making firearms laws more sensible for law-abiding Canadians who work hard and play by the rules. We will streamline licensing by merging the possession-only licence and the possession-and-acquisition licence. This would give new purchasing rights to 600,000 experienced firearms owners.

We will end the needless paperwork around the authorization to transport a restricted firearm. No longer will law-abiding sports shooters need to fill out endless reams of paperwork to do something their licences ought to have authorized them to do.

We will put a six-month grace period at the end of the five-year firearms licence. One will not be allowed to purchase new firearms or ammunition, or even use one's firearms during that time, but a person will not become an overnight paper criminal as a result of a simple, honest mistake.

We would end the broad and often arbitrary discretionary authority given to chief firearms officers. The Firearms Act is a Canadian law, and we believe that there ought to be similar standards from coast to coast to coast. Rules and procedures differing vastly between Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario is completely unacceptable, as is the troubling trend of unelected officials trying to make policy on the fly without consulting Parliament, and from time to time, by directly confronting Parliament.

Last, but certainly not least, we would create powers for the elected government to overturn incorrect classification decisions made by the Canadian firearms program. On the advice of independent experts, we will take steps to make sure that all decisions made regarding issues that impact the property rights of Canadians make good common sense. I can assure the House and all Canadians that the first of such measures would be to return the Swiss Arms family of rifles and the CZ858 to the classifications they had prior to February 25, 2014.

These measures are safe and sensible. We can see that from the broad support they have received. Front-line police officers are supportive. Police chiefs are supportive. Hunting groups are supportive. Sport shooting groups are supportive. I would like to quote the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, which said:

We support smart, cost effective firearms policy that keeps Canadians safe, but treats gun owners fairly. We applaud the [Conservative] Government’s ongoing efforts to streamline firearms licensing in Canada to make it more effective and efficient.

Unfortunately, the other parties disagree. The NDP leader takes a different position on this issue, depending on whether he is in rural or urban Canada. Most recently, he said that he believed that the long-gun registry was useful. However, the Liberals take the cake when the member for Malpeque makes process arguments about who ought to be making decisions, which is simply a ruse to cover the real views of his party. Consider the quote from the member for Trinity—Spadina, who said that “emotional arguments” from firearms enthusiasts are not enough of a reason to justify the sale of ammunition. Can members believe that? The member would do away with the entire hunting and sport shooting industry in Canada in one fell swoop. We cannot allow that sort of reckless move to happen in Canada.

I can assure the House that our Conservative government will always stand up for the rights of law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters. I hope that all parties will support this legislation.

The House resumed from April 1 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Second reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that I will be sharing my time this evening or as the debate goes to the next stage.

As a member of the Conservative government, I am very proud to rise and speak today in favour of Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. As I go through my speech, I think people are going to recognize why it is called that, because the name very appropriately reflects all the very important measures within the bill.

It should be no surprise to anyone that our government has chosen to champion this bill. We have always been the only Canadian party to believe in a common sense approach to public safety. Criminals, not law-abiding persons, should face repercussions in the justice system. The bill would make several much-needed amendments to do just that.

The bill has eight components that take a safe and sensible approach to firearms heritage in Canada. It contains elements to target violent criminal behaviour. By cutting red tape, the bill would also reduce the burden on law-abiding Canadians who wish to enjoy full use of their property.

I would like to take this opportunity to outline some of the measures that I think are particularly beneficial to all Canadians in addition to some that will benefit law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters specifically.

I grew up in an urban setting, and had I never moved to a rural community, I perhaps would not have understood the bill as much as I do, having had the enormous privilege and opportunity to live in a rural area for many years.

Hunting was not part of my life growing up, nor was sport shooting. When we moved to a rural community, one of the things that happened very early on was that I hit a deer with my car in the middle of a very isolated area. The deer was severely injured and was on the side of the road. A person who came by not too long afterward managed to put the deer out of its misery with his rifle.

A few years later, my children were born in a rural community. We lived on some acreage. A cougar had been stalking our children, and our next-door neighbour shot the cougar. Thankfully none of our children was impacted.

As a result, I learned to appreciate that hunters and farmers used firearms as a tool, but it was really, as we so often say, law-abiding hunters and farmers who were getting buried in red tape.

I appreciate how some folks from urban areas might not understand the bill, but we should all agree with the principles of reducing red tape and with some of the protection measures that are going to go into place.

Let us look at the facts. Enjoying a hobby such as sport shooting or utilizing firearms as a part of one's livelihood does not make a criminal, nor does it in any logical way predict the likelihood of committing a crime. I think I gave two very important examples.

That is why the bill would create a six-month grace period for licence renewal at the end of the five-year licence period. People would not be able to use their firearms or purchase ammunition with an expired licence, but they would not be treated like criminals because they made an honest mistake. Who among us has not missed a renewal of car insurance or some other type of important insurance? A little grace period is very appropriate, as any reasonable, sensible person should agree.

Possession-only licences would be eliminated. They would be converted to possession-and-acquisition licences, giving the right to purchase firearms to all who hold a valid POL. When I learned about the system that we had in place, I was quite flabbergasted in terms of the POL, the PAL, and the firearms registry. It really seemed like a system that was buried in red tape, so we are not talking about reducing safety; we are talking about reducing a system that is buried in red tape. That means 600,000 Canadians who have owned and used firearms safely, many for more than 20 years, will now be trusted to purchase new firearms if they wish, as they have safely used firearms for years. Again, I think any reasonable person would agree.

This bill proposes that first-time firearms owners must attend firearms training prior to being issued a licence. That is safe and sensible. The bill proposes to create firearms prohibition orders against those who commit domestic violence, thus punishing those who commit criminal actions as opposed to those who stay within the law.

I find it very difficult to understand why people across the floor could possibly oppose this bill, though I must say again that I am not really all that surprised, because I saw what happened with the long gun registry. Some NDP members represent rural communities. I know that they voted against the wishes of their constituents when they voted to keep the long gun registry, and if they vote against this bill, they will be voting against the wishes of the majority of their constituents again. Those constituents should be very concerned, because they are not being represented by their NDP members, the people they sent here to represent them.

Today if a law-abiding gun owner wants to get a restricted firearm repaired for a day at the range next week, they cannot, and I will say why. It is because they would have to submit a piece of paperwork to the Ontario CFO's office to get a letter authorizing them to transport it to that location, even if they have a piece of signed paperwork saying they can take it to their local range. That is simply nonsense.

If someone has a licence and wants to take guns to a licensed armourer, is it really a risk to public safety if the firearms are transported in a locked case, with a trigger lock on the firearms and with the firearms out of arm's reach, as required by law? If it really is a risk to public safety, then why, after waiting several weeks or more for a piece of paperwork from the CFO, is it now somehow made safe? If the CFO thought someone was unsafe, he should never have approved the licence in the first place. The entire process is nonsense. The government's bill would address this aspect as well.

As firearms owners, people are already subject to continuous eligibility screening. This means their licences are checked against the police information system to see if they have committed a crime. This bill proposes to end needless paperwork around authorization to transport restricted firearms by making them a condition of a restricted licence for routine and lawful activities. CFOs who approve licences for firearms owners would now also be approving the legal use of those firearms at the same time.

This bill would end the arbitrary discretion of the chief firearms officers. Without a legitimate public safety need, they would no longer be able to create regulations that deliberately infringe on the enjoyment of property.

This bill would make two extremely important changes that would benefit many Canadians. One is that the bill proposes to end the loophole that stops information sharing between law enforcement agencies when they are investigating the importation of illegal handguns. The other change proposed in this bill is to put the final say on the classification of a firearm in the hands of the elected government after it receives professional advice on the characteristics of the firearm.

These last two changes would end bureaucratic nonsense. I keep using that word because we can see how bogged down the process is in red tape. Yes, we need to worry about safety, and yes, we need to worry about proper training, but no, we do not need one piece of paperwork after another.

I believe that protecting Canada's heritage is at the core of the bill. Hunters, farmers, and sports shooters are at the very core of Canadian heritage and deserve representation against false perceptions that are being propagated in the House. We have heard many of them already. People are not criminals in this country just because they own firearms, nor should they be made criminals through fearmongering.

On this side of the House, we will always stand up for safe and sensible firearms policy. If we look at the eight points that I brought up, we see that they would reduce red tape and increase safety measures. They are sensible and appropriate, and I suggest that all members on both sides of the House should seriously consider supporting this bill.

They are really reducing red tape and increasing safety measures. They are sensible and appropriate, and I suggest that all members on both sides of the House seriously consider supporting the bill.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give a few examples to please our Conservative friends and follow up on the question posed by my colleague, whom I thank.

Bill C-42 gives cabinet a new power, namely, the power to change the definitions of the classifications of firearms set out in section 84 of the Criminal Code through regulations that make exceptions. Through a regulation, cabinet could classify firearms that would normally be defined as prohibited or restricted as non-restricted firearms. That is what is set out in proposed subsection 117.15(3).

Similarly, cabinet could declare firearms that would normally be prohibited to be restricted. That is what is set out in proposed subsection 117.15(4).

Rather than focusing on public safety, Bill C-42 gives cabinet the power to establish definitions and classifications of firearms. That is what is troubling about this bill.

There is a clause that refers to domestic violence, and the minister knows that we are working really hard to eliminate that scourge. However, that does not mean that just because of that one clause, I am going to ignore all of the clause that we know we will not be able to amend in committee because the Conservatives will not let us. That is unfortunate. We could have done so much better with this bill.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to follow the act of the member for Yorkton—Melville is going to be quite the challenge for me, that is for sure.

Nonetheless, I will do my best.

Since arriving in the House during the current Parliament, I have been upset at how the issue of firearms has been handled, since this topic, which is very important to the members of all the parties in the House, often affects public safety and a part of the population that our friends across the way like to call the “law-abiding hunters of this world”, as though we would not call them that.

The Conservatives also like to claim that the members of the official opposition are against hunters and anything even remotely related to a weapon. As the official opposition justice critic, and like my colleague who talked about public safety and all my NDP colleagues, I think it is important to take this fiercely partisan attitude out of this debate. Often, the way the Conservatives behave is the reason why we cannot give them our support.

For years, they used the gun registry to try to divide Canadians, classifying them as either rural or urban and either hunters or criminals. That is a problem. Other Canadians are also very sensitive to what has happened to the people of Quebec. I was born in Quebec. The massacre at the École polytechnique is part of our daily lives and we are reminded of it every year, especially through stories from parents, victims, friends and everyone who suffered as a result of that terrible tragedy. We also went through the horrific ordeal at Dawson College. As for the events of October 22 that occurred right here, as awful as that experience was, we cannot forget the gunman who entered the National Assembly many years ago and just started shooting.

This is all part of a collective psyche that is very sensitive to the issue of weapons. When a government tries to use something as fundamentally personal for so many people every time it introduces a bill or does some fundraising, it can be hard to see those bills as having much merit. We know that they are under a lot of pressure, since they created it themselves. Let us not kid ourselves.

Not long ago, someone told me that, at the time, even the Prime Minister voted in favour of the firearms registry. There comes a time when people forget the past. That is unfortunate, because the government tends to have a way of ensuring that history repeats itself and of saying absolutely unbelievable things.

Let us remember the events that led to the creation of this registry. Some members will say that we are not here to talk about the registry, but I will explain the connection from start to finish.

The tragedy at École Polytechnique occurred in the 1990s. I was not a member of the House at that time, but as a Quebecker and a Canadian who witnessed that terrible tragedy, I saw politicians clamouring to be the first to respond and put something in place.

Did this registry, which was created by the Liberals, make sense and was it well built? As the member for Yorkton—Melville said, that is certainly the impression people were given. That impression is certainly strengthened by some of the arguments of the members opposite, who have always been happy to say that those who established the registry wanted to criminalize hunters. I have always said that hunters were the innocent victims of the events of the 1990s.

When it comes to an issue such as this, which is so emotional for so many people and so personal for others who live in communities that may not be like the urban area of Gatineau, we need to take a deep breath and examine the situation.

With all due respect for the people and some of my colleagues who like to say that we are opposed to this or that, I really enjoy sitting down with the people of the Gatineau Fish and Game Club. As I already told someone, if you think I put on this weight eating tofu, there's a problem somewhere. I have nothing against meat or hunting.

However, I will always promote public safety. We owe it to Canadians. This government makes a point of boasting about public safety bills at every turn and says that, on this side, we are far too soft and that we do not want to adopt the tough measures that are needed. However, the government brings in all kinds of measures and tries, among other things—I am coming back to the registry—to destroy data that a government that is a partner in the federation had asked for.

The intended result was that the federal government would no longer need the data and that there would be no further criminalization under the Criminal Code. But it took some narrow-minded people and a certain meanness to say that if they were not going to take the data, then we could not have it. That is roughly what happened. The Supreme Court told the government that they had the legal right to do it. Great. However, the government made a political choice and will pay for it. The ruling clearly stated that the federal government made the decision only to harm the provinces. As I have often said, if we are proud to say in the House that the government made a decision that harms a partner of federation, there is a serious problem with Canadian federalism. That is unfortunate.

That said, with respect to Bill C-42, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, we always hear the same kinds of comments from this Conservative federal government and we see that they go through periods of requesting funding from their supporters and from interest groups. These are obviously valid groups. I have nothing against the gun lobby. That is their job. However, it is our job as parliamentarians to not allow ourselves to be pushed around simply because they enjoy it. I will sit down with any lobby, regardless of the side, including those who support not allowing anyone to own a gun under any circumstances. I will listen to what they have to say and I will try to make a decision that makes sense and that has the desired outcome.

We have problems at customs when people cross our borders. We have black markets for guns and all kinds of things. I am not talking about hunters. I am talking about organized crime groups that bring a huge number of weapons into the country. While we argue over the details, we miss doing the important things. Budgets for these crime-fighting measures are being cut.

The government needs to stop laying it on thick and claiming that all we want to do is to prevent hunters, sport shooters and collectors from owning guns and from being able to enjoy them. Similarly, the first nations have inherent rights with respect to hunting and fishing. No one can take those away from them, although some measures in Bill C-42 make me doubt that. This will create some serious problems for the first nations and could undermine some of their inherent rights.

We did not hear many on the Conservative side rise to object to these kinds of things and these kinds of situations. All they do is say that Bill C-42 must be wonderful because it is a government bill. Every time I speak to a bill I always find it amusing to look at the short title. The Conservative Party must pay someone to sit there and come up with bill titles. They have a lot of imagination, and often even more imagination in French than in English. It is rather enlightening when you look at Bill C-42. The English version of the bill states:

“This Act may be cited as the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act.”

These words please the rest of Canada, in the ridings of my friends across the aisle, and those of many of my colleagues, too, outside of urban centres. The French title is more likely to please Quebeckers: Loi visant la délivrance simple et sécuritaire des permis d'armes à feu. The French does not use the expression “common sense” and instead refers to safety. This argument might be more successful in Quebec. Sometimes I think the problem with the Conservatives is that the devil is always in the details. As my parents always told me when I was a kid, when someone cries wolf too many times, eventually no one will believe them.

Unfortunately, that is more or less what is happening right now with the federal Conservative government's so-called law and order agenda, or with public safety, or with their haste to send our men and women into a war in Iraq and Syria. The Conservatives have contradicted themselves so many times now that no one is going to believe them any more. When we do not believe them, we cannot stand here and agree with something that does not make any sense.

I have no problem with getting rid of unnecessary paperwork for someone who has a hunting rifle that is used only for hunting and is stored properly. However, other bills from the backbenches seek to change the storage rules. When we add all that up, in an effort to say things to try to please everybody, the Prime Minister seems to be saying that everyone within 100 or 60 kilometres of a major centre should have a gun. He might be on board with that, but I do not think that that is what Canadians want.

That being said, I do not want to stop people who want to lawfully use their rifle for hunting, sport or target practice from doing so. I attend cadet ceremonies and I am extremely proud of Gatineau's cadets when I see them win shooting competitions. I do not think that is due to Nintendo's Duck Hunt. The government has to stop making fun of people for wanting to be careful and make sure that the measures we are adopting do what they are supposed to do.

This bill contains some measures that are cause for concern. Perhaps it was poorly thought out by the Conservatives. I am not certain that they will be able to fix it in committee. That does not seem to be one of the strengths of the Conservatives, or at least of the Conservative members who sit on the committee. With all due respect for the ministers, given the number of times that parliamentary secretaries have told me that they do what they are told, there is no longer any doubt in my mind. I know very well that they have been given their orders, and that they are doing what the powers above have asked them to do in committee. They even tell us, out in the hall, that they think that what we are saying makes sense but that, unfortunately, they cannot approve it. The ministers opposite should not come here and tell us to our faces that they let the committee members do their job. We are trying and we will continue to try to do our job until the end of this Parliament. We are the party of hope, optimism and love. I am still optimistic, but I have had to put hope on hold.

One problematic aspect of this bill is training, and the committee will have to take a close look at what that means for people who live in rural areas where there might not be any trainers. I also hope that some first nations witnesses will be able to share their opinions on Bill C-42 with the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

To me, the most problematic part of the bill is the regulatory aspect. I do not claim to be an expert on firearms. Obviously, I do not want dangerous weapons to be available to criminals, but as I was saying earlier, I have no problem with hunters, sport shooters and collectors having guns, as long as they are using them properly. That being said, I think the regulatory aspect is quite problematic.

As we realized at the Standing Committee on Justice, bills are often passed hastily. I am not necessarily talking about the time we spend debating here. What I mean is that the Conservatives have come up with so many bills in some areas, such as justice and public safety, that people at the Department of Justice do not have time to analyze all of the details. I am not saying they are not doing a good job, but there is a limit. If I were a legal adviser and I had 52 files to work on in one week, no matter how good I was, I would have a hard time handling that workload. These people are on a mission.

This week, I asked them if there might be a contradiction between the “Life means life” bill, Bill C-587, and Bill C-53, which would eliminate parole before 40 years. They had to admit that could obviously cause some problems in court.

It is the same thing here. There are many bills that deal with firearms, but I encourage my colleagues in the House to focus on Bill S-2, because it will completely change the way that regulations are enacted. I call it the sleeper bill of this legislature. It seems harmless, but it has serious consequences. Without us even knowing, the government could change the regulations through a minister or delegated authority. I am not saying that that is what is going to happen, but it is a possibility. No one can answer me when I ask whether Bill S-2 might conflict with Bill C-42 with regard to the classification of firearms.

That is what concerns me the most. This would not be the case if we had a reasonable and sensible government that was acting in the interest of public safety. However, this government is easily swayed by lobbying efforts. Earlier, my colleague, the public safety critic, asked the Minister of Public Safety whether there was deal between the government and the firearms lobby that would explain why the firearms lobby did not attend the committee meetings on Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015.

The Conservative member who spoke before me said that this bill has been around a long time. That is strange because we were supposed to debate it on October 23. I was studying this bill when the events occurred on Parliament Hill. The Conservatives are claiming that this bill enhances public safety. The minister says that it is extraordinary. That is ironic because if Bill C-42 is so good for public safety, then it would have been extraordinary if the government had announced, the day after the shooting, that as a good and responsible government, it was letting us debate it and pass it right away.

However, the Conservatives knew very well that this bill had some serious flaws. They used these events to make it more accessible to Canadians, knowing that it could be worrisome for them. Furthermore, since the Conservatives only work based on polls, they withdrew the bill and then brought it back one month later, only to shut down debate after the minister, our critic and the critic from the third party had a chance to speak.

Today, on April 1—this is no April Fool's joke—the Conservatives have brought this bill back and they have the gall to tell us that it has been languishing for six months. That is not our fault. They are the ones who let it languish. There is no real urgency.

This bill has a number of worrisome elements. I know it works to their advantage so it is hard for them to let go of it. They must have been disappointed when the registry was abolished because it was no longer profitable. However, now they have this, so they can continue and say that the member for Gatineau is against hunters. That is not true. I am sick of hearing such nonsense.

Can we be adults here and simply ensure that the right guns are in the hands of the right people? As justice critic for the official opposition I never claimed that the firearms registry would have prevented the crime at the École Polytechnique.

That is not even what police forces came to tell us. All they said was that it helped them during investigations. It gave them a sense of security if they had information—if not some assurance—that firearms might be located somewhere. They acted differently as a result.

With all of that information, we should be able to implement measures that are good for public safety, not for Conservative party funding.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the only comments those members can make are not related to the bill. We are here today to talk about Bill C-42. Why can the member not come up with some issues that concern Bill C-42, rather than some extraneous thing I have not even read and asking me to comment on it?

These are common sense firearms measures. If the member agrees with that, I hope he will support us. If he does not, how about some substantial criticism of the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue from where I left off some time ago. The bill has been before the House for quite some time, so people may not remember those comments. I invite them to look them up in Hansard.

The changes that are proposed in Bill C-42 show just how serious we are about improving public safety and keeping the public safe from real threats rather than simply trying to take guns out of the hands of hunters and sports shooters. There are types of common sense measures that are important to bring forward. They keep the public safe without putting needless barriers on law-abiding Canadians. That is the main point I want to continue to make.

I would like to address one of the colossal problems that has been raised in the firearms community, and that has a direct impact on thousands of law-abiding gun owners.

In February of 2014, overnight and by the mere stroke of a bureaucrats pen, thousands of law-abiding gun owners became criminals. Without taking any action on their own at all, thousands of Canadians were unwittingly potentially the subject of criminal charges that came with a mandatory three year prison sentence. I am of course talking about the reclassification of the CZ858 and the Swiss Arms family of rifles.

Our government took swift and decisive action at that time to condemn this nonsensical decision and to put in place measures to allow people to use their property and to protect them from prosecution. However, at the end of the day, individuals who owned the impacted rifles were still in legal limbo. Their ability to use their property varies across the country. Their ability to sell their own property was halted. They could not even plan for the future use of their asset, given the amnesty had an expiration date.

This legislation would end arbitrary reclassifications once and for all. For the first time, the elected government would have oversight of classification decisions. On the advice of outside experts, elected officials would be able to overturn incorrect decisions. Additionally, once the bill receives royal assent, the impacted rifles will have their original classification status restored.

It is clear that these measures are safe and sensible, as everything else in the bill is. While the bill is by no means a panacea for all responsible gun owners, many think it is a good start, including me.

I know there are MPs in all political parties who support Canadian heritage activities that include hunting and sport shooting. It is my sincere hope that those members, regardless of their political affiliation, will support the legislation. It will save money and focus on fighting crime. If we listen to the experts who agree, the paperwork does not stop gun crime.

I would like to made a few additional comments.

Those who oppose this legislation are never able to explain how what they advocate will ever reduce crime. For example, there was a lot of talk about the gun registry when it was abolished that it would violate public safety, increase crime and all those kinds of things. Murders using long guns—that is rifles and shotguns—have steadily declined since the registry was abolished. If $2 billion had not been wasted but rather invested in measures that could improve public safety, we could have truly saved lives.

For example, if we had a stronger police presence in some areas of our cities, that would be effective. We need to promote healthy outdoor sports activities for the youth of Canada. That is healthy and good for them.

I would also like to point out that many people on the opposition side use the term “gun control” and they somehow equate it to public safety, but they never explained how it will improve public safety. The one thing they can never explain is how if one lays a piece of paper beside a firearm, it is somehow will control what criminals do with that firearm. It does not make sense. We are bringing in common sense firearm laws. That is what needs to be done.

If we look back in history, we can see that all the criticism the long gun registry received was valid. We changed that and crime did not increase. In fact, crime with firearms decreased.

The House resumed from November 26, 2014, 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise and support the minister on Bill C-42.

This bill has been around for almost six months. I have been listening very carefully to the debate here, there, and everywhere, and no new issues have come up. The only thing that I hear them complaining about is that there is another time allocation motion. If a bill has been around and has not been criticized in terms of its substance, I see no problem with it.

I would like to thank the minister for this bill. However, I would like to point out some of the incorrect things that have been said today.

That this bill would make guns easier to get is totally false. That it somehow would make it easier for guns to be transported in Canada is a comment that shows the lack of knowledge of the opposition members in regard to this bill, because it would not have any effect on the transport of guns. There was a statement that most guns are stolen from law-abiding people; how false that statement is.

We have all of these statements being made that are completely false. I wonder if the minister has any comment in regard to that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 93rd time in this Parliament that the government moved a time allocation motion to impose closure.

The government tosses it around like it is candy, but there are serious ramifications.

First, on this bill, Bill C-42, only two members of the opposition have even been able to speak to it, because the government basically sat on it for four months, and now the government is imposing time allocation, closure, just like that.

The other problem, as members know, is that the government has the worst track record of any Canadian government in history in terms of having rejected pieces of legislation. It brings legislation in, it does not subject it to proper debate, it does not allow committees to actually scrutinize the legislation, and it then goes to the courts. In the last year, half a dozen pieces of legislation have been thrown out by the courts, because the legislation was so badly written that the courts could simply not stand for it.

The question is very simple. After two members of the opposition have spoken to this bill, the government is invoking closure. Why is the government so intolerant of debate, and why has it brought forward legislation that is rejected so consistently by the courts?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

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.

Bill C-42—Notice of time allocation

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debating government Motion No. 17, respecting Canada's military contribution to the campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. Considering the importance of that debate, we will be continuing it, under an order of the House, until midnight tonight.

ISIL has stated its intention to target Canada and Canadians. In fact, ISIL issued a call to action for people to attack targets in Canada. So far two attackers have responded to that call. That is why we have to take on ISIL, take on the threat it poses and keep it from establishing a geographic foothold from which to operate. We intend to continue to degrade and destroy ISIL.

That is why we are seeking the support of Canadian parliamentarians for our decision to extend and expand Canada's military mission with our allies so we can effectively fight this jihadism which threatens our national security and global security.

We will return to that debate on Monday afternoon and complete it that day.

Tomorrow, we will continue—and, hopefully, conclude—the third reading debate on Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act.

Monday, before question period, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-52, the Safe and Accountable Rail Act. This legislation will improve railway safety and strengthen oversight while protecting taxpayers and making the rail industry more accountable to communities. This debate will continue on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, the House will resume the second reading debate of Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. The bill meets the government's objective to cut red tape for law-abiding firearms owners and provide safe and simpler firearms policies. Changes to the Criminal Code would enable the government to take steps to ensure the rights of lawful firearms owners would be respected. The debate will continue on Thursday, when we will adjourn for Easter.

Criminal Code

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and discuss a bill that would help ensure that our firearms policies are safe and sensible. Sitting here and listening to the opposition, including the member for Malpeque and the NDP members, talking about this bill, it shows just how out of touch they have become with rural Canadians and Canadians who love sport shooting.

Our government has worked tirelessly to ensure that we target criminals with tough sentences, not law-abiding Canadians with needless red tape. We have long spoken out against the impracticality and unnecessary practice of burdening law-abiding farmers and sport shooters with administrative requirements that do little or nothing to contribute to public safety. We have worked diligently to address these issues.

We know that law-abiding firearms owners find these requirements intrusive and offensive. Certainly, ending the long-gun registry was an important achievement for our government to move toward safe and sensible firearms policies. Most recently, as members know, we introduced Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. Among other things, this legislation would streamline the licensing system and further ease unnecessary administrative red tape for law-abiding farmers, hunters and sports shooters.

Our government believes in a balanced approach to firearms control. For instance, we believe it makes sense to simplify the regime and have only one type of license. That is why we have proposed, under the common sense firearms licensing act, to merge the possession-only license with the possession and acquisition license.

We also believe that it is in the interest of public safety that individuals should be properly instructed in the safe use of firearms. That is why our government has also proposed under the legislation to make sure that course participation in firearm safety training is mandatory.

With the bill before us, we can go one step further toward ensuring that Canadians from coast to coast to coast benefit from safe and sensible firearms policies. In that spirit, I would like to commend my friend, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, who introduced Bill C-637, an act to amend the Criminal Code in firearms storage and transportation. It is a proposal that our Conservative government is proud to support.

It is important to hone in specifically on what items we are talking about today. They are BB guns, pellet guns and paintball guns. These excluded firearms that do not discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 metres per second, or 500 feet per second. Given their low muzzle velocity and energy, our government is of the view that these items should be excluded from all storage and transportation requirements and offences. Therefore, the proposal in this bill falls squarely within the safe and sensible realm.

Let us look at the design of the bill, specifically. The bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to exclude these items from the storage and transportation requirements under the Firearms Act and the offences in the Criminal Code that relate to storage and transportation. In effect, Bill C-637 would exempt individuals from prosecution for offences related to the careless storage and transport of these items, which have previously been erroneously lumped in with ordinary firearms.

By way of example, let us say that a young woman wants to go with her friends to an open field, park, or farmyard, far from other people, and they are taking their air pistols. They shoot some pop cans off a tree stump or a fence post with that pistol. Currently, if she throws the pistol and some of the pellets into her backpack, she is liable to charges under the Criminal Code for the unsafe transport of a firearm.

This is ridiculous and unacceptable. I have taken part in similar activities. I grew up on the farm, and when I was growing up, the first gun I had was a pellet gun. It was a lot of fun, but it taught me about safe handling and how to use a firearm carefully.

We must not let the government run amok and ban these types of Canadian heritage activities. Again, most rural Canadians and a lot of people within urban centres use these air guns, whether they are pellet guns, BB guns or paintball guns, if they go out and have some fun at the paintball course.

Some members on the other side of the House are claiming that this would create a spike in the use of air guns and criminal activity. This is simply not the case. What this bill would do is codify what Canadians from coast to coast have always assumed to be the case, which is that air guns are not firearms. They should not be treated like firearms, and they should not have the consequences associated with firearms.

The Liberal and NDP logic on this issue is similar to that of the long gun registry. They loved the long gun registry. They believe that government intervention will solve all the world's problems but let us look at the statistics. When we ended the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, gun crime in Toronto went down by over 80%. This is not to say that these two items are linked. It is simply to say that those who commit crimes with guns do not obey the various laws prohibiting murder, armed robbery and so on. It is simply foolish to believe that they will stop committing crimes because their guns must be registered.

The bill before us today is very important. What the bill would do is clarify some confusion around the legal obligation of air gun owners that has arisen because of the November 2014 Supreme Court ruling. The effect of the decision upheld the current law that certain air gun owners are subject to prosecution if they carelessly store or transport an air gun. The bill will address the confusion and help provide clarity for owners of these types of firearms.

Before my time comes to an end, I would like to specifically thank the Canadian Shooting Sports Association for working with our government and the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette for analyzing the Supreme Court decision impacting air guns. I believe that the legislation introduced by the member is an important milestone in addressing the needlessly burdensome paperwork that exists in our firearms regime.

In conclusion, this is a balanced approach that will contribute to our ultimate goal of ensuring our firearm policies are safe and sensible. I hope that all members will support it.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm sorry for this unintentional loss of time.

I am always impressed when I appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, especially when I am surrounded by officials from agencies responsible for the protection and security of Canadians.

I am accompanied today by Harvey Cenaiko, from the Parole Board of Canada; Michel Coulombe, from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; Mike Cabana, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Don Head, from the Correctional Service of Canada; Luc Portelance, from the Canada Border Services Agency; and François Guimont, who is the Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada.

I would like to tell the members of the committee that these people work very hard, particularly when we were called to respond to the recent terrorist attack. We were in the House a few minutes ago, and I had the chance to meet the person who administered first aid to Warrant Officer Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial. We are currently preparing a proper and balanced response to this growing terrorist threat. Obviously, we are not going to overreact, but we are not going to stand idly by in the face of this threat, either.

Furthermore, I would like to publicly thank the heads of the agencies that help us to adapt. They have already taken concrete action to protect Canadians.

We are here today to make budgetary adjustments that will allow these important individuals to continue to ensure our protection. As you know, our department was created in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Even now, I note that the priority for national security is fighting terrorism.

That said, we must not in any way neglect the other important aspects of public safety, which is why I am here this afternoon.

As you know, we have implemented many initiatives to move forward our government's ambitious public safety program. This involves cracking down on crime, improving the rights of victims and strengthening our national security. For example, I recently announced the coming into force of the Safer Witnesses Act, which will increase the effectiveness of the federal government's witness protection program for the individuals it protects, while meeting the needs of law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, we just sent Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, back to the House for debate at report stage. This fundamental bill will change the way we handle justice in Canada and will put victims at the heart of our justice system.

I also want to thank the committee for its work on division 17 of Bill C-43, which amends the DNA Identification Act to create Lindsey's law. This important measure will create a DNA-based missing persons index to help provide closure to the families of missing persons.

I understand that Judy Peterson made a very emotional presentation to the committee. I would like to thank you all for your support on this important legislation that she has advocated for on behalf of her daughter.

Many of you may remember that November 16 was the sad anniversary of the disappearance of Julie Surprenant, in Terrebonne. Her sister, Andréanne, wanted to pay tribute to her on that occasion. It was a moving experience. It allowed us to remind the victims and loved ones of the families of missing or murdered individuals of the implementation of this act, which will help them to get through this type of situation and to find some comfort.

On other fronts, I have introduced measures to provide a simple and safe firearms licensing regime with Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. This bill was thoroughly debated one week ago. I look forward to this bill being referred to this committee for study in the very near future.

Just last week, I appeared before you regarding Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. I know the committee has completed its study, and has returned the bill to the House without amendments. As I said earlier, recent terrorist attacks are a reminder that the terrorist organization ISIL is a very real threat to Canadians. It is the reason we are working very determinedly to strengthen the tools available to the police and intelligence community in the areas of surveillance, detention, and arrest. The protection of Canada from terrorists act is just the first step in our efforts to do that.

My department and its agencies continue to give priority to efforts to fight terrorism and violent extremism, which includes working with our international allies.

Mr. Chair, I could speak more about the measures that we are implementing, but I would now like to move on to the Supplementary Estimates (B), 2014-15. Essentially, these are adjustments to the budget envelope that we were allocated and some modifications that need to be made to properly reflect the actual accounting and current expenses.

These estimates demonstrate our ongoing commitment to keeping Canadians safe from those who wish to harm them without creating billion-dollar boondoggles.

Allow me to provide some highlights of what I mean.

As the committee members can see, the Supplementary Estimates (B), 2014-15, aim to transfer $3.3 million from the Canada Border Services Agency to the RCMP to build a joint use firing range in British Columbia. It also aims to obtain a transfer of $5.2 million from the Correctional Service of Canada to the RCMP to support the renovations of C block at the RCMP training academy for correctional officer training.

These are prime examples of how we are using taxpayers' money. This way of operating is more effective. We are achieving this by grouping resources, while creating stronger ties within the department.

In addition, the estimates seek $5.2 million for CSIS in support of national security initiatives. I would also like to highlight two key items related to the RCMP. First, on November 28—as of Monday—the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act came into force, bringing in a new era of modernization and accountability for the RCMP. In order to implement that act, these supplementary estimates provide for $7.9 million to the RCMP to implement new processes relating to grievances and public complaints.

Additionally, there is $710,000 to the RCMP External Review Committee to maintain the committee's existing operations. This entails the review of certain grievances and appeals of decisions and disciplinary and other labour relations matters involving members of the force. This is a very important accomplishment, Mr. Chair. We've been working on that for years. In less than two years, the RCMP has been able to implement this major shift. The deputy commissioner can expand on this later on, but this is certainly a great accomplishment. As you know, we now have beefed up—if you allow me this expression—the oversight of the RCMP.

Second, the estimates seek to transfer $41.9 million to the RCMP for policing services provided pursuant to the first nations policing program. This funding will further support policing services that are professional, dedicated, and responsive to the first nation and Inuit communities they serve.

In addition, $3.7 million is set aside for the national public safety campaign for the next phase in the fight against bullying, called “Get Cyber Safe”. I must tell you that we have had very interesting results in terms of market penetration and our ability to reach out to young people.

We are very proud of the success of this campaign, which is having a significant impact across the country. More than a million people have visited the “Get Cyber Safe” website, and there have been different initiatives in that respect. Of course, I encourage committee members to pass on these constructive messages on the importance of having healthy practices when visiting social media sites and using information technology or any electronic device.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, it is clear that our Conservative government is taking strong action to keep Canadians safe. We are ensuring that victims are at the heart of the justice system and ensuring that child sexual predators face serious consequences. We are making our firearms laws safe and sensible, and we are making sure that our law enforcement and national security organizations have the tools they need to do their jobs.

The one threat that seems to run through all of these initiatives is that they have been delayed, obstructed, or sometimes opposed outright. But we are prevailing, Mr. Chair, and I am proud to say that we intend to stay the course. We have the protection of Canada act coming back into the House of Commons, and we intend to come in the near future with additional legislation so that we can tackle this evolving terrorist threat.

With that in mind, Mr. Chair, I would be more than happy to respond to questions from the members of this important committee.

Merci.

Public Safety

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has just asked us if there is anything he could do to avoid putting women at greater risk.

Actually, there is something that the government could do to avoid putting women or girls at risk. It could withdraw Bill C-42 that is before the House, because it would make exactly the type of assault weapon used by Marc Lepine easier to transport and easier to have in Canada. The Ruger in question should be banned instead of being easier to get and transport in Canada.

Will he withdraw Bill C-42, if he is sincere about having better protection for women in this country?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday will mark the 25th anniversary of the tragic events at École Polytechnique and this government is not welcome.

In fact, according to one of the survivors, the government “does not share our values. It ignores the advice of experts, police, and women's groups fighting domestic violence.”

The survivors' group opposes the Conservatives' Bill C-42 . Can the minister tell us how he will explain this bill to Quebeckers and Canadians?

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is making reasonable and common-sense amendments to Canada's firearms laws. Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act, would ensure that Canada's communities remain safe while reducing red tape.

Prior to the introduction of the bill, our laws had not been updated for over 20 years. The common-sense firearms licensing act would ensure mandatory safety training courses and would end needless and ineffective bureaucracy surrounding the authority to transport firearms to ranges, gunsmiths, and the firearm owner's home and property. It would prohibit the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of domestic violence and would ensure that the classification of firearms was accountable to the public and informed by independent expert advice.

However, all the opposition wants to do is fearmonger. The Liberal leader uses fear and dishonesty to make ridiculous and unfounded claims. Unfortunately, Canadians can expect nothing more from the party that brought in the long-gun registry and is itching to bring it back. Only our Conservative government will always stand up for Canada's law-abiding hunters, trappers, and sport shooters.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

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

Mr. Speaker, five minutes is hardly enough time for me to go over all the things I would like to go over, but I will begin and then finish at another date.

I am really pleased to be able to rise and discuss the common sense firearms licensing bill. I am pleased to see the government is standing up for the rights of law-abiding Canadians who enjoy and use firearms.

As members know, I have been fighting for the rights of law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters for two decades now. I fought the introduction of the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry from the time it was introduced by the Hon. Allan Rock under the previous Liberal government, and I was proud to stand in this place two years ago to support and pass the Ending the Long Gun Registry Act.

The gun registry was the epitome of political pretense. It pretended to protect us by reducing crime, but in fact it did just the opposite. The long and short of it is that criminals do not register their guns and they do not obey laws. It was about time people realized that spending $2 billion of taxpayers' money to keep a list of property of individuals predisposed to obey the law was not a good use of resources.

Equally, I am glad to see that this bill today includes strong measures to focus the use of resources on that which actually prevents crime rather than simply seeking to disarm Canadians.

This legislation will streamline licensing and eliminate needless red tape for responsible gun owners, and it is something that I have advocated for many years. In fact, some measures in Bill C-42 can also be found in my 2009 private member's bill, Bill C-301. They are housekeeping items that will simplify procedures without reducing public safety and include items such as merging the possession only licence with the possession and acquisition licence, for instance, or making the authorization to transport a restricted firearm, more commonly known as ATT, a condition of a restricted licence.

Let me explain, for those in the House who are less familiar with firearms regulations, what an ATT is. An ATT is a document that specifies where a licence-restricted firearm owner may take their property. It may contain a variety of locations or it may be very specific. This is dependent on the whim of the provincial chief firearms officer. It is not in legislation.

If travel to a location outside of those previously approved is needed, more forms must be filled out and more approval must be sought. Some may say that this level of rigour is needed, as restricted firearms can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but the fact of the matter is that those with restricted firearms licences get a background check every day, and the application for an authorization to transport is not even shared with local law enforcement. It is the definition of wasteful paperwork.

It is frustrating for me to sit here and listen to people talk about this thing when they know very little about it. Hopefully, if we get to questions and comments, I can explain more about the lack of knowledge here in regard to this issue.

If the government trusts a restricted licence holder to have a restricted firearm in their home, the government should trust them to travel to appropriate locations to use the firearm. Some have said that this will allow for conceal and carry by the back door; that is absolutely false. All safe transport requirements remain in place, such as unloading a firearm, rendering it inoperable, and placing it in a locked case.

The logic that these ATTs, which are not shared with law enforcement, will somehow reduce crime is the same logic put forward by those who think that registering a firearm will somehow reduce crime. At the end of the day, violent crimes committed with firearms are committed by evil people with evil intentions.

No amount of paperwork or regulation will divert them from their path of wanton destruction. What will stop them is being incarcerated for a lengthy period of time, which is why we passed mandatory prison sentences for those who commit crimes with firearms. As well, we created a specific offence for drive-by shootings.

These measures truly increase public safety and reduce the cost of crime. That is what we are focusing on: tackling those who are predisposed to break the law, rather than those who are simply trying to enjoy a way of life that has been part of Canada's heritage since Confederation.

The focus on safe and sensible firearms policy is the reason this bill amends the Criminal Code to establish firearms prohibition orders for those convicted of domestic violence.

Once this bill is passed, those convicted of serious domestic violence offences, which include offences against a spouse, common-law partner, or dating partner, would be subject to a mandatory prohibition from owning a restricted or prohibited firearm and from owning long guns for a minimum of 10 years.

I am sorry that I had to split this bill and speak to it at a later date, but I look forward to some healthy debate in this House, because there are some serious misconceptions that need to be addressed.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting—albeit sometimes strange—speech. One thing stood out to me.

There was one thing from the speech that makes me want to say to my esteemed colleague in front of me is that Bill C-42 is anything but a tough on crime bill.

I sense that even the Conservative base is starting to feel a bit used and abused by the attempts to always parade them when the government brings forward anything that is gun related. I want to read something to him. Some party stalwarts were saying that they are starting to feel taken for granted. I quote:

Dennis Young is a former RCMP officer who was the Reform Party's regional co-ordinator for Manitoba and Saskatchewan in the 1990s and then spent 13 years in Ottawa as an aide to Conservative MP.... Recently, when called by a Conservative fundraiser at his home.... Young told him not to bother calling back until the public safety minister responded to his letter about Bill C-42.

Young said he was “miffed” that after all his work for the Conservatives, he had received no real answer to his questions. “It all leaves us feeling a bit like we're just being used for fundraising,” he said. “If they have that attitude they're going to be disappointed”.

When he talks about tough on crime legislation, how does he respond to the minister of intergovernmental affairs from Quebec who said:

...this runs counter to the concept of public safety and security.

How does he answer that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Yorkton—Melville, a member of Parliament whom I consider a good friend, a mentor and whom I deeply respect for his work in preserving and retaining our hunting, angling and firearms traditions.

I am proud to stand today in the House, speaking in support of Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act.

I first want to comment on the comments made by the member for Malpeque when he sneered at people who own firearms.

I am chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus. The mandate of our caucus is to preserve and protect a way of life. That includes hunting and angling, and is a strong measure of conservation. Hunting and angling groups are Canada's first and most effective conservation groups in the world.

I can see the members across laughing, but the waterfowl hunting community in North America created the—

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak 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. As it states in the bill, the short title is the common sense firearms licensing act. When the government calls something common sense, as we well know, it is time for all of us to look at the fine print, and that is what Liberals are going to do.

I am pleased to lay out today the position of the Liberal Party on this bill moving to committee. First and foremost, as we know and as I said in a question earlier, the bill is coming forward disguised as a law and order bill, but really it is designed to try to re-ignite support among those in the pro-gun community for the Conservative base and the Conservative Party. As such, as we have already heard, government MPs will try to allege that the Liberal Party would bring back the gun registry, which we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture earlier. For any member from the Conservative camp to say that would be an absolute lie.

The leader of the Liberal Party previously, and again today, made it absolutely clear, to quote him, that we “will not bring back the long-gun registry”. It was stated in the past and it was stated today at a scrum with the media following the caucus meeting. Let me repeat that, as there seems to be a lot of yelling opposite by government members. They might not like to hear it, but the fact of the matter is that the leader of the Liberal Party has committed that the Liberal Party will not bring back a gun registry.

To play the gun registry card in Conservative propaganda and in fundraising on the part of the Conservatives would be, as I said earlier, an absolute abrogation of the truth. Indeed, it would be a lie. Anybody who stands in the House and says that the Liberal Party is going to bring back the gun registry is lying. Members should get that straight.

Let me turn to Bill C-42 as proposed. Simply put, there are good points that would be helpful to those who use guns in this country, and there are troublesome policy and legislative amendments, which would put public safety in Canada at risk and definitely, I believe, would make Canadian streets less safe as a result of some of the proposals in Bill C-42. Indeed, it would put lives at risk and, I would submit, police officers' lives especially. Therefore, the Liberal Party is asking the minister and the government that Bill C-42 be split.

We call on the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to split Bill C-42. We can support the following measures.

We can support creating a six-month grace period at the end of the five-year licence period, to stop people from immediately becoming criminalized for paperwork delays around licence renewal, which is in clause 14.

We can support streamlining the licensing system by eliminating the possession-only licence and converting all existing POLs to possession and acquisition licences, or PALs, which is in clause 11.

We can support making classroom participation in firearm safety training mandatory for first-time licence applicants, which is in clause 4.

We can support amending 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, which is in clause 30.

We can support authorizing firearms import information-sharing when restricted and prohibited firearms are imported into Canada by businesses. I do not have the list of where that clause is, but we can support that because it makes sense. The Canada Border Service Agency, the RCMP, and police forces of other jurisdictions should have that information.

To sum up, we therefore call on the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to split Bill C-42. We can support several elements, such as the provisions that streamline licence paperwork, that tighten safety requirements, that make it harder for people convicted of domestic offences to obtain a gun, the firearm information-sharing, and extending the grace period to six months. The bill should be split to assist lawful gun activity by activists, sport shooters, farmers, and hunters immediately. If the minister is willing to split the bill, we should be able to accomplish passage in this House of that segment. I think that even the New Democrats would support some of those aspects. We should be able to accomplish some of those aspects and get the bill through by Christmas, if that is really the desire of the government.

However, as we will find out, the government is really not interested in helping law-abiding gun owners. It is really interested in creating a fight to leave the impression that we on this side of the House do not like those law-abiding gun owners. That is the impression it wants to leave. Therefore, it has put in place a bill that has some good aspects in it for the law-abiding gun community but has a poison pill that I submit would damage public safety in this country.

Let me turn to those other aspects of the bill that we cannot support, because it does put public safety in this country at risk.

First, the bill would eliminate the need for owners of prohibited and restricted firearms to have a transportation licence to carry these guns in their vehicle. It eliminates that need for every time they are transported. This means they could freely transport handguns or automatic weapons anywhere within their province. It says in the backgrounder that they can travel with restricted and prohibited firearms to shooting ranges, practices, and competitions; when returning to an individual's home following a chief firearms officer's approval of transfer of ownership; going to a gunsmith, a gun show, or a Canadian port of exit; and going to a peace officer or CFO for verification, registration, or disposal.

There is such a mix of things that, when we give people a broad transport licence, it is an accident waiting to happen. Of course the guns would be locked. They would not be loaded. These are people who do not want to break the law. However, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture said earlier, criminals do not abide by the law and would break into those vehicles. They would take those weapons and use them for wrong purposes. With this aspect of trying to simplify the system, the minister is making the streets more dangerous. Therefore, we cannot support that part of the bill.

Second, Bill C-42 would take the power to classify firearms out of the hands of police, who are the experts at keeping Canadians safe, and put it into the hands of politicians like the current minister. It might even be the member for Yorkton—Melville or someone else over there at some point in time. However, the bill would take the power to classify firearms out of the hands of the police and put it into the hands of politicians. I will speak to that a little more in a moment.

Third, the bill would take the authority away from provincial chief firearms officers and imposes the federal minister's will upon those CFOs in the provinces by regulation. This is a point we have to strongly oppose.

I will explain those points in a little more detail.

The bill would enable the minister to assume the authority to designate firearms, which could result in currently designated prohibitive and restricted firearms receiving a non-restricted categorization. Effectively, an automatic handgun, or worse, could receive a designation the equivalent to a shotgun or a hunting rifle.

I would challenge the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to speak to this point. If Bill C-42 passes in its present form, the Conservative Minister of Public Safety will be empowered to designate any prohibited or restricted firearm to that of a non-restricted firearm.

This is the conclusion of the Library of Parliament. I will quote its interpretation of Bill C-42, which states, “Bill C-42 would give the Governor-in-Council the power to carve out exceptions by way of regulations for firearms that would otherwise fall within the Criminal Code definitions of restricted or prohibited firearms. This power would allow the minister to render firearms currently classified as prohibited or restricted firearms non-restricted firearms, and to render firearms that are currently classified as prohibited firearms, restricted firearms”.

Quite literally, we would have a firearms registration system in Canada which would be open to lobbying pressure, political favouritism and, in short, a corrupted system of firearms classification.

The legislation us would allow a politician, through the Minister of Public Safety, to override the recommendations of experts within our law enforcement community who have been empowered to determine which firearms should be restricted or prohibited from easy and ready access, as are rifles and shotguns, which are the firearms of choice for farmers, sport shooters and hunters in Canada.

What the minister wants to politicize is unique.

From a preliminary examination of other jurisdictions, which included the Untied States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany, the Library of Parliament found the following, “A review of firearms legislation in several selected countries has not revealed any jurisdiction in which a cabinet, a government department or even the police have the authority to override the firearms classification principles set out in the legislation”.

Therefore, this is unique. We are politicizing the classification of guns.

The question is on the politicization of firearms classification, which would allow Conservative politicians to work toward having full automatic firearms become the equivalent of a shotgun or hunting rifle. On this point, I look forward to hearing from certain members of the Conservative Party, specifically those, who in a previous life, were front-line police officers, because this clause could, if the minister is pressured, put police officers more at risk than they are today.

The primary motivation behind legislation, which would empower politicians to classify firearms in Canada, began when the RCMP did its duty. As a result of this, the Montreal Gazette, on August 30, stated:

The government came under a barrage of criticism...after the RCMP firearms program quietly changed the status of Swiss Arms-brand rifles and certain Czech-made CZ-858 rifles from restricted or non-restricted to prohibited.

The Conservative government, beginning with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, lashed out at “unelected bureaucrats” for having reclassified those firearms. He even put out a press release on the Conservative Party website as the member for Lévis—Bellechasse. He is the minister. In this press release of February 28, he said, “That’s why I was troubled to learn of a decision made by unelected bureaucrats”.

He was informed weeks earlier by the RCMP that this would happen. He is the minister in charge of those “unelected bureaucrats”. He is either the minister or not. He cannot be the minister one day and the MP for a riding the next. The minister should have accepted his responsibility and done his job. If he has a problem with the RCMP and how it does its job, which it did and for which he criticized it, and if he felt that way, maybe he should have fired the Commissioner of the RCMP.

It is unbelievable that the minister would go that far and attack the very people who he is responsible for in order to cater to the gun lobby in Canada.

The members opposite heckle me a little. They say that I might accuse them of politicizing, of facing political pressure and making decisions under political pressure. The evidence is right there. The minister caved into the gun lobby, and he knows it. That is, in part, why we have this bill today.

What is even more disturbing is that there are media reports saying that the Prime Minister was fully briefed on the need to reclassify these firearms in May, 2013. That is literally nine months prior to any public statements of reclassification.

In short, the Conservative government has sent a very strong signal to our front-line police officers and first responders across Canada. If there is any interference with any firearms issue, and it can sense some kind of political advantage, it will overrule any decision made on their behalf every time, with their safety and public safety taking a back seat to the government's political advantage. That is a fact.

A second concern with the legislation is the intention of the government to undermine the work of provincial chief firearms officers in this bill. What is the reason for the government challenging or trying to overrule chief firearms officers within the provinces? The reason may be in a Guardian article about Vivian Hayward, the Chief Firearms Officer in P.E.I. In the article, it says:

Vivian Hayward says she knows very little about the changes, as the province has not been consulted on the proposed federal Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. But from what she has read in media reports, Hayward says she is concerned over the proposed easing of restrictions for firearms transportation.

“(It’s) just basically one step away from the U.S.-style having the gun on their hip authorization to carry, which people in this country don’t have,” Hayward said.

Is that part of the reason why the government is coming down hard on provincial chief firearms officers?

Let me conclude by saying that there are several good points that I outlined in the bill. We can support them. We can get those aspects through by Christmas, if we want to do that. Is the minister willing to split the bill? Let us deal with those issues that benefit the law-abiding gun community, and let us set the other ones aside and have a debate. Those are issues that jeopardize public safety.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since being elected, I have noticed, and so have all Canadians, that the Conservative government does not govern for Canadians but for its electoral base. Today, with Bill C-42, we see that it is working for the gun lobby.

We know that this government did not consult organizations reponsible for applying the law, such as the National Firearms Association in Quebec, beforehand about the repercussions of the proposed changes on public safety.

Does my colleague not think that Bill C-42 runs counter to the concept of public safety and security?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-42, the so-called common sense firearms licensing act. While this is not the most egregious short title assigned by the Conservatives to a bill, even in this session, the bill might better be titled “the special interest firearms licensing act”.

What we have before us is a bill that only looks like common sense when viewed from the point of view of the gun lobby. New Democrats believe that public safety must always trump politics when it comes to firearms licensing and regulation.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, have been promoting the dangerous ideas of the gun lobby, a small minority of Canadians, and perhaps even a small minority among gun owners. In particular, there is the idea that any regulations at all on firearms pit the interests of law-abiding gun owners against the government and the police, and that these regulations amount to nothing more than excessive red tape. New Democrats have a different view, one that clearly puts public safety first.

The Conservatives like to pose as the only ones here who understand rural Canada, but let me say, perhaps to the shock and surprise of some, that I actually grew up on a farm. My father and his father before him were hunters of quail, pheasant, duck, deer, and moose, and all but one of these later graced our table when I was a kid. I have to say that sometimes there would not have been much on the table without the hunting that went on in my family. I learned to shoot at a young age, an age that most now might consider inappropriately young, and yes, my grandpa always kept a shotgun behind the door for scaring away the coyotes. It must have worked because I never saw any. This was in the day before those proper storage regulations. When those came in, he changed his behaviour. He did not see these as unnecessary red tape. He saw them as good advice for keeping his family safe, and the shotgun disappeared from behind the door and into a locked cabinet.

Subsequently I lived in the Northwest Territories as a young adult. I was fresh out of university, and while there I was privileged to go hunting out on the traplines with my Dene friends. By that time I was not such a fan of doing the shooting myself. It was a great life experience I had there. None of them regarded safety regulations as red tape.

Now I represent a riding that stretches from the Victoria Harbour all the way out to the head of the West Coast Trail at Fort Renfrew, so I do know something about law-abiding gun owners and something about communities where hunting is much more than just a prop to use in arguments about gun registration and licensing.

When the Conservatives abolished the gun registry, we on this side of the House warned that it would be necessary to remain vigilant on the question of gun licensing and gun regulations. We all knew that members of the gun lobby would not be happy to stop at the abolition of the registry, that with their U.S.-influenced ideological viewpoint they would keep pushing to weaken all the other measures in Canada that place restrictions on firearms in the interest of public safety.

Like his gun lobby allies, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has fallen into the habit of using U.S. rhetoric in his comments on firearms. This was never clearer than on July 23, 2014, when the minister said:

To possess a firearm is a right, and it's a right that comes with responsibilities.

Here we have a minister of the Crown, one of the government's chief legal ministers, directly contradicting the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1993, the Supreme Court found, in a case called Regina v. Hasselwander, that:

Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited.

Therefore, the minister is in direct contradiction of the Supreme Court in the rhetoric he is using around gun licensing. The court could not have been clearer, nor could there have been any doubt about the precedent, since the Hasselwander case was precisely about the right to possess automatic weapons.

The court later reiterated in the 2010 case of Regina v. Montague that in Canada there is no right to own firearms. In that case, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal against an Ontario Court of Appeal decision rejecting the existence of such a right in Canada.

Like their gun lobby colleagues, when the Conservatives are challenged on the rights question, they often switch gears and try to argue that gun ownership is somehow a property right, which I would point out is another right that is not found in the Canadian constitution.

What the minister's comments last July clearly indicate, unfortunately, is that we have a government that likes to pander to the gun lobby. At least in this case, however, I would have to say that the Conservatives do so fairly transparently and in order to generate political support from their base.

When the Conservatives made their first appointments to the Firearms Advisory Committee, the committee responsible for advising the minister on firearms regulations, the appointees were drawn entirely from representatives of the gun lobby. It took until 2012 for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to prevail on the government to add three police chiefs to the nine gun advocates the government had already placed on the advisory committee.

This was only after the committee came forward with a set of extreme recommendations for the government, including such great ideas as extending the ownership licences to 10 years and, unbelievably, a proposal that the police should re-sell guns that had been seized rather than destroying them as is now the case. It is hard for me to even imagine the police running a garage sale of seized weapons. These are the kind of recommendations that came from the Firearms Advisory Committee, which was loaded with gun lobby advocates. When it comes to the specific firearms regulations adopted by the Conservatives, the influence of the gun lobby is quite apparent.

In 2011, the Department of Public Safety drafted new regulations for gun shows that would have required things that most Canadians would see as common sense. These included things like notifying the local police of gun shows to be held in their jurisdiction. That does not seem like red tape to me; that seems like common sense. It would have required the tethering of guns on display at a gun show. Cellphones are tethered at cellphone kiosks, so why not have this important public safety measure of tethering guns at a gun show.

These gun show regulations were to have been brought into force in 2012, but that did not happen. Instead, the Conservatives junked the proposed regulations altogether after complaints from the gun lobby that the new requirements were too onerous. I guess we should have seen this coming, because the Firearms Advisory Committee called for scrapping the gun show regulations in its March 2012 report.

I am worried about who was consulted, as I said in my question to the minister at the beginning of this debate. Who did he talk to? He says he talked to the hunting lobbies and to members of his caucus. He probably looked at the reports of the Firearms Advisory Committee. We see that the committee's slanted approach has influenced what the minister is already doing.

Regulations were also due to come into force in December 2012 to require that each gun manufactured in Canada have an individual serial number. It is surprising to me that it is not a requirement, as it is actually required by the international treaties to which Canada is already a party. It is something that seems like common sense when it comes to the police being able to trace guns used in crimes or in the fight to combat illegal international trade in small arms.

In November 2013, for a second time, the Conservatives quietly implemented a regulation delaying the coming into force of this requirement for serial numbers on each gun manufactured in Canada. This time they delayed it until December 2015, conveniently after the next scheduled election date.

The connection to the gun lobby is not so clear in this regulation, but I have no doubt that it exists. Why else would the Conservatives have appointed a representative of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association as a member of the Canadian delegation at international arms treaty negotiations? A representative of the sports shooting association and a member of the Firearms Advisory Committee became part of the international delegation to debate the small arms trade treaty internationally. Now, at a time when 50 other nations have signed the arms trade treaty, why has Canada failed to do so? Why are we excluding ourselves from the important discussions about how to end the illegal arms trade? The minister in his speech made reference to the important role in public safety of stopping the smuggling of illegal arms into Canada, yet we have excluded ourselves from the very process that would make that possible.

When it comes to Bill C-42, I guess we should be glad that the government abandoned the most extreme recommendations of the Firearms Advisory Committee, the ones I mentioned a minute ago of 10-year licences and the resale of seized weapons.

Now we are seeing complaints in the media from the gun lobby that Bill C-42 does not go far enough. That is why I am worried about the private member's bill that was placed on notice today, which we will see later this week, and how it will relate to this bill. The minister can say all he likes that it is a private member's bill and that it has nothing to do with him, but we will see. We will see if it has nothing to do with this legislation. When I heard the gun lobby say that Bill C-42 should have gone further, I am concerned about the contents of this new private member's bill.

Let me turn to the contents of the bill we have in front of us. It is one that is still clearly a child of the gun lobby. I should point out, as I did in my question to the minister, that there is no evidence of broad consultations throughout the community. If this is such common sense legislation, I do not understand why such a narrow group of people were the only ones consulted on this bill.

For me, despite the short title, there is nothing common sense about the two major provisions in this bill. One of those would make the gun classification process a clearly political process. The other would remove the requirement for having a permit for the transportation of firearms in any vehicle carrying them. Neither of these provisions has any public safety purpose. Instead, they respond only to the explicit complaints from the gun lobby. All of the other things that the Conservatives want to address in this bill could be accomplished without these two provisions.

Let me discuss the first change that is proposed in the way weapons are classified.

Right now, recommendations on classification are under definitions contained in law, and those recommendations are made by firearms experts in the RCMP, who both the gun lobby and the government members have referred to as “bureaucrats”. They are, in fact, the RCMP firearms experts.

The minister's signature is required on any reclassification, but there is no discretion for the minister, providing the recommendations fall within the scope of the existing legislative definitions. What Bill C-42 suggests is that the cabinet should be able to ignore the classification recommendations from the public experts and substitute its own wisdom about how weapons should be classified. The minister has already told us today that when the bill passes, he intends to use this political process to reclassify two individual types of guns. Therefore, by varying the definitions in the legislation, Bill C-42 would go even further by allowing the cabinet to grant exemptions for guns and ammunition that would otherwise have been prohibited.

Where did this perceived need for a change come from? It came from a single case of reclassification of a single weapon, the Swiss Arms PE 90, or Classic Greens, as they are sometimes called. These are military-style weapons that have been sold for nearly 20 years in Canada as semi-automatic weapons limited to firing five rounds. Before 2013, there were approximately 2,000 of these weapons in Canada, worth about $4,000 each.

So why the reclassification? What we had in Calgary in 2013 was the sudden appearance of so-called “refurbished” models of this gun, which were now operating as automatic weapons. That meant that these weapons were now easily converted to automatic weapons capable of firing a long series of shots from a single trigger pull, exactly what the “prohibited” designation was designed to keep off the streets of Canada.

When there was an immediate outcry from the gun lobby, the Conservatives were quick to grant a two-year amnesty in March of 2014. It is an amnesty for which I believe legal authority is doubtful, at best. How can the government grant an amnesty on possessing a weapon that is prohibited by law in Canada?

Now the government has presented Bill C-42 as the solution, giving the Conservative cabinet the power to decide if these dangerous weapons should be allowed in Canada.

Quite apart from the danger of ending up with automatic weapons on the street, there is another principle at stake here. When we make laws, we make them in public after public debate, and they stay in force until there is another public debate about changing them. Public debate before changing law is essential to democracy and accountability. In fact, what we would have in Bill C-42 is the creation of a process whereby Canada could in effect change our gun classification system and the classification of individual weapons through decisions made behind closed doors and without any public debate.

The other major change in Bill C-42 would remove the requirement that exists in most provinces to have a permit in any vehicle transporting restricted firearms, and the bill would go further: it would prohibit any province from reintroducing such a requirement. Currently, permits must specify a reason for transporting the firearm and specify that the travel must be from a specific point A to a specific point B. This makes it easy for police to enforce the prohibition on the illegal transportation of firearms, since a specific permit and a specific route must be provided.

Bill C-42 rolls transportation permits into the licence to own firearms. This would automatically allow the transportation of firearms between the owner's home and a list of five kinds of places: to any gun range, to any gun shop, to any gun show, to any police station, and to any border post for exiting from Canada. This change would provide a vast array of excuses for having weapons in a vehicle along a myriad set of plausible routes, and it would make the prohibition on illegal transportation of weapons virtually impossible for police to enforce.

Again I want to say that is why I am concerned about the notice the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette has given about a bill to amend the Criminal Code on firearms storage and transportation. I am looking forward to having law enforcement representatives present in committee so that we can talk to them about the impact of no longer requiring permits for transporting restricted firearms to limit them to travelling from a specific place to a specific place. There is a great deal of danger here for Canadians.

We have some questions about some other provisions in this bill. Most of those questions will be about whether proposed changes, such as combining the two kinds of licences and creating a grace period after the expiry of a licence, would have negative consequences on completing timely checks as to whether owners remain authorized to own firearms after criminal or mental health incidents. We will be asking for assurances from the minister on these questions in committee. There is nothing more important to public safety than ensuring that the system works so that those who are convicted of criminal activity or those who have experienced mental health difficulties are no longer in possession of firearms. We have to look no farther than this Parliament Hill to understand the importance of those kinds of checks.

Does anything in this bill look good to New Democrats? The minister was asking me that question earlier, as a kind of heckle. Certainly measures that make prohibitions on gun ownership easier in cases of domestic violence are very welcome, as are expanded requirements for gun safety courses. In a sense, there are a couple of positives in this bill.

The minister might ask, “Why are we not trying to improve this bill in committee? Why have we said we will not support it at second reading?” I have to say I have become more than a bit cynical about this idea.

On Bill C-44 just last week, the minister assured me we could have full debate in committee on the bill expanding the powers of CSIS. He said it was up to the committee to make its own decision, as if the government does not have a majority on every committee and as if his parliamentary secretary did not move motions that restrict debate in committee. It beggars belief that he would make this argument in the House of Commons. The Conservatives said they would like all-party support on Bill C-44, and we clearly were told by the minister that the public safety committee was the place for detailed debate. However, this afternoon, while we are here in the House, the committee is getting its only afternoon with opposition witnesses, its only two hours to discuss the bill that would expand the powers of CSIS.

That is why, even though there are a couple of good things in this bill, I cannot argue that we should support sending the bill to committee to try to fix the rest of it. The experience that we have in committee again and again is limited time, limited witnesses, and the absolute refusal of the government to accept even the best-intentioned, most non-political amendments from the opposition.

Clearly public safety is not the priority for Conservatives in Bill C-42. In fact, its two main provisions seem to me to present clear threats to public safety. Making political decisions about whether or not a gun is a prohibited weapon does not bode well for public safety. Introducing this grey area in terms of transportation of weapons does not bode well for public safety.

Let me conclude by saying that I find it both sad and insensitive on the part of the government to be discussing this bill in the lead-up to December 6. This is a national day dedicated to remembering the victims of the École Polytechnique massacre 25 years ago, and a day set aside to recommitting to the fight against violence against women. As well, I do not understand why the Conservatives want to proceed so abruptly with this bill to loosen gun regulations in the aftermath of the murder of Corporal Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial and the attack here in Parliament. I would ask the government to put off further consideration of this bill until well into the new year, a less emotional time for victims, and to give time for the air to clear after the October 22 incident here on the Hill.

Will the government show more respect for Canadians and our democratic process by delaying this bill? I doubt it. Instead, I expect the Conservatives to press on to the tune of a dog whistle played by their gun lobby friends. Unfortunately, I think Canadians already know the answer to this question. The gun lobby rules, and this bill will press ahead. That is why, as a New Democrat, I will be proud to vote against Bill C-42.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certainly going to be sure at the end of the day: Bill C-42, the common sense firearm licensing act, would keep things the same for transporting restricted firearms, just as they are today. It is the will of the government to continue that way.

Let me be very clear. If one is to carry a restricted firearm, it has to be unloaded. It also has to be trigger-locked or neutralized technically. It has to be in a locked container that is safe. If one is to travel with a firearm, it has to be in the trunk of the car and with an owner of a valid restricted firearms licence.

However, the bill is not addressing this. I invite the member, when we debate the other private member's bill, to raise this issue. As he knows, these are not government bills.

I hope we will have a good discussion on Bill C-42 and that it can be brought to committee so that we can vote on the bill for what it would do. It is a common sense firearms licensing act that would increase the safety of this country and reduce the paperwork for law-abiding Canadians.

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

moved 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to start debate on Bill C-42, concerning common sense firearms licensing. Today is an important day because this is the first time in nearly 20 years that improvements have been made to our firearms licensing system. They are long overdue.

This bill is designed to simplify and clarify the firearms licensing regime while maintaining the system's reliability. The main goal is to protect the safety of Canadians. I would now like to describe how this bill will improve our licensing system.

Currently, there are two types of firearm licences: possession only licences—POLs—and possession and acquisition licences. The POL is the only licence available to new firearm owners. That is the licence I have held since January, and I took a course. After that, I went through various administrative processes to get the possession and acquisition licence, the PAL. As the name suggests, this licence allows people to possess and acquire a firearm.

The other licence, the POL, the possession only licence, was created over 20 years ago by the previous Liberal government. At the time, it was a transitional step for firearm owners who wanted to avoid the new licensing system. The average age of these licence holders is almost 60. They are all experienced and competent. These are people who know how to use these firearms, who use them and who can also borrow them and buy ammunition.

All we want to do with this bill is simplify the system and combine the two types of permits, which would give 600,000 law-abiding firearm owners the right to acquire a firearm. Naturally, after 20 years, it might be time for people to update their firearm.

People may remember that at the time, this initiative was put forward by the late Jack Layton, former leader of the New Democratic Party.

Second, we are addressing a serious issue that impacts every firearm owner. Currently, if individuals make a paperwork error and do not renew their licence on time, they are liable to face a minimum sentence of three years in prison.

Some people may be deployed or travelling abroad. They can be under medical treatment and be turned into a criminal overnight because they have not renewed their firearm licence on time. That is why the bill puts in place a six-month grace period at the end of a five-year licence.

I want to make it clear that people will not be allowed to buy new firearms or ammunition or to use firearms during this grace period. The grace period will simply protect people from being turned into criminals just because of an administrative delay in renewing their permit.

Continuing in the area of licensing, this legislation would improve the way the authorization to transport system works. I certainly invite the leader of the second opposition to read the bill, so he would not attempt to mislead the House as he has tried to do today.

Currently, an authorization to transport is required to take any restricted firearm between the owner's home and another location—

Public Safety

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-42 would allow handguns and assault weapons to be freely transported in a trunk anywhere within a province, even left parked outside a Canadian Tire or local hockey arena. Imagine if the car carrying these weapons were broken into or stolen.

The bill also takes classification decisions on guns away from police, and puts them in the hands of politicians.

Both of these provisions threaten Canadians' safety. Will the government remove them from Bill C-42?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Polytechnique tragedy, we are debating Bill C-42, which would allow dangerous weapons to be freely transported in a trunk of a car. Imagine if that car were broken into.

The bill also takes classification decisions on guns away from police and puts them in the hands of politicians.

Does the Prime Minister recognize how dangerous those clauses of the bill are?

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP House leader for his usual Thursday question, his optimism, and his hope. We are happy to see optimism and hope over there. I can assure members that on this side of the House we share some of that optimism and hope, and we look forward to better days for the NDP.

I also want to thank him for his program of daily concurrence motions this autumn. It has meant that practically every day we have had a chance to have a say on the hard work our committees do and specifically on the report the NDP tabled between the throne speech and the summer adjournment. In just the last five sittings since my last Thursday statement, this House has considered and adopted reports prepared by the Canadian heritage committee, the veterans affairs committee, the finance committee, and even the procedure and House affairs committee.

As a former international trade minister, I took great joy in seeing our debate and vote on the agriculture committee's report on the Canada-Europe free trade agreement. The NDP's concurrence motion allowed my colleague, the agriculture minister's parliamentary secretary, to bring forward his own motion reflecting the developments that followed the committee's work calling on the House of Commons to endorse this free trade agreement. In the past, the committee and the NDP had expressed concerns that they could not commit to a position until the agreement's text was available. Now that the agreement's text is available, they had an opportunity to endorse it right here in this House. Having seen the text of that agreement, I was disappointed that the NDP voted against it. It would be the single largest boost to the Canadian economy in a generation, one that would produce billions of dollars annually to the economy.

That being said, we have other business to attend to in this House.

With respect to the business of the House, let me acknowledge the co-operative and productive conversations we and our teams have had this week with the other parties. This afternoon and tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading. Monday, we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act.

Tuesday morning we will consider Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, at report stage and third reading. In the afternoon, we will switch to the third reading debate on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, which I hope will be passed quickly given the apparent support for it.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act.

Next Thursday will be the sixth allotted day when the NDP will bring forward a proposal for debate.

Wrapping up next week, on Friday we will have the fourth day of second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, which is known more affectionately as Quanto's law.

Finally, for the benefit of all of the committees of this House and their planning, following some consultation with my counterparts, I am currently looking at Wednesday, December 3, for the final allotted day. However, I will formally confirm that sometime next week, I expect.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Are the measures in division 31 consequential measures resulting from measures in Bill C-42 and Bill C-45?

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the government for not bringing forward Bill C-42, which was originally to have been debated. It is a bill to relax gun regulations in this country, and it is an inappropriate week to bring such a bill forward. I am glad we are not debating that.

On this bill, I am the critic for persons with disabilities and the word “accessible” has a particular meaning to persons with disabilities. It means that if someone is blind, it is available in Braille. It means that if someone is partially sighted, the fonts and the contrast online are such that he or she can read it. The term “accessible” has a different meaning.

I wonder if the government could tell us whether or not the word “accessible” includes those meanings.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with today’s NDP opposition day.

Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, aimed at combating cyberbullying at third reading.

When we come back from our constituency week, on Monday, October 20, we will consider a motion to refer Bill S-4, the Digital Privacy Act, to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology prior to second reading. If we have extra time available that day, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill C-21, the Red Tape Reduction Act.

Tuesday, October 21, shall be the fifth allotted day. The Liberals will offer the day’s topic of discussion.

Starting on Wednesday, October 22, the House will consider Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act at second reading. This bill would cut red tape for law-abiding firearms owners and provide safe and simple firearms policies. I would note that this legislation has already been endorsed by a number of key groups, such as the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, the New Brunswick Wildlife Federation, the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, la Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, and the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters, among others.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to wish you and all members a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope that all will share that with their families.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)