Bill C-637 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that certain weapons are deemed not to be firearms for the purposes of transportation and storage.

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 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-637, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

As well, while I have the floor, I move:

That the House proceed to orders of the day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, colleagues, we're back on Bill C-637 now for clause-by-clause consideration. Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

Shall the title pass?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, welcome to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This is meeting 74. Pursuant to the order of reference from May 6, we are doing clause by clause of Bill C-637, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation).

This is obviously a very brief bill. It's the chair's intention to go through the clause by clause on this and then go to committee business to discuss items that are outstanding and/or to see what we'll do with an agenda for either following actions and/or deliberations by the committee.

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, welcome back. We now go to the second half of our meeting.

We have, from the Privy Council Office, Ms. Isabelle Mondou, assistant secretary to the cabinet and counsel to the Clerk of the Privy Council, and Mr. David Vigneault, assistant secretary to the cabinet, responsible for security and intelligence.

Welcome, both of you.

Before we go to opening remarks, just briefly, the chair mentioned that he would appreciate a motion for the budget for Bill C-637. Could I have a motion on the floor?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Ablonczy, your time is up.

Before we suspend for a change of witnesses, I would just bring to the committee's attention a budget issue on Bill C-637. The chair would like a motion to pass today so that we can cover our witnesses under Bill C-637. I bring that to your attention. The chair will be looking for a motion on that before we adjourn today.

At this point, I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing here today. Certainly, your time was well spent.

We will now suspend for a change of witnesses.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank Ms. Austen and Mr. Bernardo for joining us to discuss BillC-637.

In the last hour, witnesses raised questions about the concerns of police officers across Canada, as expressed by the Canadian Police Association, for example. I am going to quote a passage from a study by the Association des policières et policiers provinciaux du Québec:

With respect, we seriously question where the public interest lies in permitting the free and unrestricted transportation and storage of weapons as potentially dangerous as those included in the bill.

We also believe that failing to regulate the transportation and storage of those kinds of weapons in the same way as firearms will increase the possibility of them circulating freely. That in itself can do nothing but increase the number of situations in which police officers or members of the public will encounter what they believe to be a genuine firearm, with all the unfortunate or tragic consequences that may ensue.…we cannot look favourably on the passage of this bill because we feel that the public interest is being sacrificed to the personal interest of the small number of those it will benefit, all to the detriment of safety.

I wanted to quote the position of that association because the bill that we are studying affects public safety.

Ms. Austin, thank you for being here today. I am going to use the little time I have left to ask you some questions.

[Dr. Katherine Austin]

Today I'm representing the Canadian Paediatric Society. I have a PowerPoint presentation, and you have it on paper.

We are a national professional association that represent 2,000 pediatricians, and we advocate for the health needs of children and youth. I'm really proud of the CPS. It's a wonderful organization that always puts kids' interests first. We have published a position paper on firearms and youth and safety. In fact, we have been doing that for the last 20 years. We have a lot of interest in this area. We're very grateful to you for inviting us to come today and share our expertise and recommendations on the subject of Bill C-637, which I just learned about on Monday. It's been quite a week for me, immersing myself in the details of this bill.

I will start by going to the first slide. The modern day air guns and BB guns are very different from the products that were out in the 1950s and 1960s. These have the ability to cause serious internal injury and death. Mr. Bernardo and I are going to have to totally disagree on this subject.

The Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology published a study in which they reviewed all the accidents that occurred in the Ottawa area over a period of 20 years that resulted in someone losing an eye. The medical term for having to have your eye taken out because it's been so badly damaged is enucleation. Of all of those accidents they studied over a 20-year period, air guns and BB guns were the leading cause of enucleation.

I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Bernardo about the fact that losing an eye is not in the category of serious bodily injury. Imagine your child losing an eye. It's permanent. It's disfiguring. It affects your vision and your balance. It's a terrible issue. It's not as bad as dying, but it's one of the worst things that could happen to you, short of dying.

Permanent blindness is not the only problem that air guns and BB guns can cause. I'll have you look at the next slide. The present day non-powder firearms can cause skin penetration. They can cause eye penetration. In a number of cases, deaths from air guns and BB guns have been reported. The deaths occur secondary to brain trauma. The BB has penetrated inside the head and caused so much brain trauma to cause death. We also see brain trauma, neck trauma, penetration of the chest to the heart and lungs, and penetration of the abdomen.

This new generation of air guns and BB guns is so powerful that when we make recommendations to physicians who are treating these injuries, now we say that if someone has received an injury from an air gun or a BB gun, it should be treated like a regular firearms injury. The person needs to have MRIs and CTs, and all of the kind of observation that you would expect because there may be serious internal injury.

A lot of time and effort has been expended, and I've had a crash course this week to understand the meaning of the different categories of velocity that the projectiles are shot out at. I don't know if the committee feels they are expert on this issue, but I want to share with you what I have learned about the velocities.

For guns that shoot a projectile with a velocity of greater than 500 feet per second, and that would be 152 metres per second for those of you who are thinking in metres, those are required to be licensed and registered. A gun like that is highly likely to cause serious injury and death.

The next category is the category that this bill is most importantly affecting. These are guns that shoot a projectile with a velocity between 246 and 500 feet per second. That velocity is plenty to cause eye penetration, skin penetration, serious injury and death. The researchers who spent a lot of time shooting at things in laboratories felt that for guns that shot projectiles with a velocity of under 246 feet per second there was a lower risk of skin penetration and eye penetration, although it's not zero. In fact, the level at which there was no eye penetration in the laboratory was 214 feet per second, or 65 metres per second.

For the purposes of the bill that we're dealing with, these would be the three categories we would need to understand. The top category would be those firearms that need to be licensed and registered. The middle category do not need to be licensed and registered, yet they still shoot projectiles at a very high velocity and are capable of causing severe injury. The bottom category would be those which are much less likely to cause serious injury.

I want you to see this picture. I got this from the Canadian Tire website. This is the Crosman TR77NPS rifle. It's projectile velocity is 495 feet per second. Remember the categories. At 500, it would have to be licensed. It's just a few feet per second below that cut-off, which would put it into a full firearm category.

This air gun is capable of causing severe injury and death; in fact, I would say more than capable—likely. There is very little difference in terms of the damage potential of this kind of weapon and what we would consider a regular firearm. Under our current Criminal Code of Canada, this gun is considered to have the potential to cause serious bodily harm, and that is rightly so. The current law allows for criminal penalties for a person who displays extreme disregard for safety in storing or handling this kind of gun.

For example, if a person left a loaded Crosman rifle on a bench in a playground near a bunch of children, that would be considered a criminal act. That's how the law is right now. That person would be liable for criminal charges. Subsection 86(1) is the subsection under which that would be the case: a person who commits an offence without a lawful excuse “in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons”.

Unfortunately, Bill C-637 specifically excludes the guns in that medium-velocity category, like the Crosman rifle. It specifically excludes those guns from this subsection. For all those guns that are very dangerous and shoot at a very high velocity, now there would be no criminal charges, no criminal liability or responsibility for a person who committed a really egregious act with a firearm like that.

Sorry about the next slide. The next slide is just Bill C-637, and I'm sure you are all very familiar with it. The point is that for the purposes of section 86, if the firearm shoots a projectile at under 152 metres per second, or 500 feet per second, it is specifically excluded from this subsection. Needless to say, the Canadian Paediatric Society is vehemently opposed to this change. There should definitely be criminal responsibility for someone who shows extreme disregard for the safety of the public when handling a highly dangerous weapon.

The last slide shows our recommendations.

We would strongly recommend that air guns and BB guns, the projectile velocity of which is great enough to cause eye or skin penetration, should be classified as firearms under the Criminal Code for the purposes of storage and transportation, specifically under subsection 86(1). Our opinion is that this should include all air and BB guns with a projectile velocity greater than 214 feet per second. In that scenario, over 214 feet per second, the firearms would have the capability of eye penetration; under that speed, we would not expect it to.

The next recommendation has to do with the fact that one of the reasons this law is being proposed is that there really aren't clear guidelines for storage of air guns and BB guns.

I'm right, aren't I, Mr. Bernardo? There aren't any guidelines or requirements for storage of BB guns and air guns.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the SECU committee.

I'm Tony Bernardo, the executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association. I have been asked to testify to this committee with regard to the technical aspects of this bill. I also wish to provide some background information regarding the development of this situation with air guns in Canada.

The current laws and regulations that Canada has regarding air guns came as a result of an RCMP firearms lab program that was trying to circumvent previous regulations in order to further restrict the possession of air guns. The firearms lab had been taking air guns of the type purchased at Canadian Tire stores, and had been firing ultralight pellets from these air guns, chronographing the velocity of the ultralight pellets. When it was determined that the velocity exceeded 495 feet per second, they were classifying ordinary air guns as real firearms and demanding that they be registered.

Needless to say, with hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of these very ordinary BB guns in the public domain, the Liberal government of the day was extremely concerned that Canadians would find themselves in criminality over the purchase of a common BB gun. The minister of justice at that time, the Honourable Anne McLellan, decided to form the original firearms experts technical committee. This committee was given the mandate to develop new air gun laws that would prevent the RCMP from continuing down the path of criminalizing ordinary Canadians.

The makeup of the committee was wide and diverse and included members of the firearms community, activist groups, and the RCMP, among others. Over the course of several months, the committee met a number of times to discuss how best to keep Canadians safe without unduly restricting freedom or criminalizing ordinary people. I was privileged to be on that committee and to serve Minister McLellan in that regard.

After months of work, the committee recommended that the current air gun laws be changed from a simple 495 feet per second ceiling to a slightly more complicated 495 feet per second with a newly introduced energy component of 5.7 joules of kinetic energy. Because kinetic energy is a measure of mass times velocity squared, the use of ultralight projectiles in BB guns would not exceed the energy requirement even though the tested velocity might be over 495 feet per second. This is a very important point, and I will return to it later in this presentation.

Of particular interest to this committee might be the issue of why this law is so needed. Air guns found themselves in the crosshairs of the Supreme Court of Canada as a result of the so-called pig's eye test. The pig's eye test began to be introduced several years ago as court evidence by zealous crowns bent on obtaining Criminal Code convictions against individuals who had committed certain offences with air guns.

Related to this is the Criminal Code definition of “firearm”. Section 2 states:

“firearm” means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person....

The pig's eye test is based on a postwar military study that demonstrated that a velocity of 214 feet per second was necessary to incapacitate a person. This was done by firing military projectiles—not BBs—into the eyes of dead pigs. However, velocity does not tell the whole story. As illustrated in the first part of this presentation, it was recognized that velocity alone is not sufficient to seriously injure a person. A speck of dust at 214 feet per second will make a person's eye water. A bowling ball at the same speed would easily kill someone.

This was recognized by Minister McLellan's committee and was incorporated into Canada's air gun laws.

As well, there has been no demonstrated correlation between a pig's eye and a human's eye. We know that an octopus' eye is different from a sparrow's eye, which is different from an alligator's eye, but there has never been a medical correlation that I'm aware of between a pig's eye and a person's eye.

Why is this important? Because the Criminal Code says “serious bodily injury...to a person”, not to a pig. If one is to accept the premise that these are interchangeable, it must be clearly established that the two are the same.

The third point regarding this test is that there is no legal opinion I'm aware of that states that losing an eye constitutes serious injury. I'm sure we can all agree that it would almost certainly be very painful and would bring out a huge squeamish factor in most of us, but since the beginning of mankind, people have been losing eyes in accidents and they go on to live perfectly normal lives.

Once again, I'm not suggesting that damaging an eye is not a serious matter. It certainly may be. I'm simply stating there is no legal evidence to establish this and that such a thing becomes necessary when a Criminal Code conviction hangs in the balance.

The point of all this information is that Canada's air gun laws were developed based on the results of committee recommendations from a group of experts appointed by the former Chrétien government. Minister McLellan was satisfied that the recommended changes to the old regulations on air guns were both evidence-based and satisfied public safety requirements. Indeed, we've been using these regulations since that time and there has been no lack of safety surrounding Canada's air gun laws.

Bill C-637 would not restore the former government's status quo of BB guns as non-firearms, but only speaks to the transportation and storage regulations. A kid with a BB gun could still be charged with firearms offences in certain circumstances, and myriad other very serious Criminal Code offences. The decades-old warning about being careful with your Red Ryder BB gun certainly pales against the spectre of being run through Canada's legal system. Even with the successful passage of this bill, all that would revert to the previous legislation is storage and transportation of these BB guns.

Air guns are the primary trainers of the firearms world. Many generations of novice shooters have learned the skills of marksmanship and the responsibilities of safe gun handling through the use of pellet and BB guns, and many more will. The air gun is a marvellous training tool to teach with. Air guns are quiet, safe, and very accurate. That the Supreme Court chose to circumvent the clearly stated will of Parliament is disappointing to the tens of thousands of Canadians I represent. These lawful, trustworthy citizens of this great country now look to you to make this right again.

It is the position of the CSSA that we support this bill. We would like to see it expanded to fully return to the old status of air guns enjoyed by Canadians for so many decades. Air guns are not firearms. They do not have the reach, lethality, or potential of real firearms. Those air guns that do possess those characteristics of real firearms were already regulated adequately within Canada's legal framework. BB guns should not be treated as firearms. I think all of us intuitively recognize the wisdom of this, and we look to our Parliament to make this right again.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this now.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Here's another question for both of you.

Apparently the Canadian Police Association has raised concerns about this bill and expressed their belief that the number of convictions resulting from transporting air guns and BB guns is currently very low, in the single digits. The occurrence is so low that they are of the belief that the proposed changes in Bill C-637 are not warranted and that often police officers find it difficult to distinguish visually between a regular firearm and an air gun.

If in fact the view of the Canadian Police Association represents police officers across the country, why would we make their jobs more difficult if they feel that it might be the case?

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Farrant, in your presentation and your reply to my first question, you talked about people who might face, or who currently do face, criminal charges under the current act.

Have many members of your organization ever faced criminal charges under the current act, that is, before the changes proposed in Bill C-637? Has that ever happened to any of your members? If so, could you give us an approximate idea of the number of people it has happened to?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank Mr. Farrant and Mr. Brown for joining us today to discuss Bill C-637.

My first questions will be about a concern of mine, a concern shared by a number of police officers with whom I have discussed the bill. It deals with the impact it could have on their work.

It is sometimes very difficult to distinguish an air gun from a regular gun. I have several air guns myself, including one that looks very much like a rifle equipped with a big telescope. From a distance, someone unfamiliar with rifles could well think it was a regular one.

I have discussed the change the bill proposes in this regard with a number of police officers. It is one of their concerns. It will certainly make their work more difficult because they will now have to distinguish between an air gun and a regular firearm. In their opinion, that could make their working conditions more dangerous, depending on the confrontations that might arise and the situations that police services may have to deal with.

My first question goes to Mr. Farrant.

Have you discussed this with any police officers? Do you understand their concern and, specifically, what do you think about it?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Brown, thank you very much for your opening remarks. You mentioned very briefly about cleaning up the regulations with respect to Bill C-637. You talked about the impact it would have on businesses, and you said kids. When we've been talking about this bill, our focus has been more on the user community as opposed to those who sell or distribute these types of guns.

I'm wondering if you could expand on how you think that might have an impact on businesses that might sell these types of firearms, these types of things that outdoor communities use. What businesses are we talking about?

[Todd Brown]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the committee for giving me this opportunity to speak to Bill C-637.

I'll give you just a little background. My name is Todd Brown. I have been doing in-depth research on the Firearms Act. I have written over a dozen articles and reviews on current and proposed gun legislation. I have maintained a gun group, which is the Concerned Gun Owners of Alberta, for several years. I am the executive director for FIRE, the Firearms Institute for Rational Education. I have been a firearms instructor and hunter training instructor for over 10 years. I'm in a position to listen to and discuss issues with gun owners as well as to inform them regarding gun legislation.

I will be short and concise as I wish to make only two points.

Bill C-637 would cover the oversight in the regulations that put innocent people, businesses, and kids at risk of criminal charges for the use and sale of BB, pellet, and paintball guns. Unless that changes, the legal door will be open to charge store owners for displaying legal merchandise and kids for using or storing BB or paintball guns.

While I support Bill C-637 in principle, I would respectfully suggest that to further simplify the legislation, the following change be implemented to replace the addition suggested by this bill. The change is that section 84 of the Criminal Code be amended by replacing subsection (3) with the following: “(3) For the purposes of sections 86, 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms”.

As you see, all that needs to be done is to add section 86 to the list of sections that section 84 of the Criminal Code will affect.

My second point is that in my time as a firearms instructor, I have also wondered why my teaching kit of disabled guns was still subject to the regulations of safe storage and transportation when they do not meet the definition of a firearm. No teaching guns are capable of discharging a projectile in any manner and as such should be deemed not to be firearms. An addition to subsection 84(3) of this nature would be well received by all instructors across Canada since it would make it easier to transport and store teaching tools while decreasing the amount of paperwork, which should not apply to a disabled firearm. A disabled firearm is no more than a fancy paperweight, and this change would have no negative effects on public safety.

In conclusion, those items that do not meet the definition of a firearm should not be subject to the same legal sanctions as those that do meet the definition of a firearm.

I thank the committee for their time and their consideration of my comments.

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

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and Mr. Brown in absentia.

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-637, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation).

I will attempt to keep my remarks as succinct as the bill is.

It's been clear from some of the discussion around this legislation and from some of the comments made in the House that there is confusion about what the legislation does or does not do and why it is necessary. Frankly speaking, I think some of that confusion is justified, given the diversity of legal judgments and opinions that exist in case law around this matter. As someone who deals with firearms-related matters on a regular basis, initially I too found the issue to be, as my father would have said, clear as mud.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one. However, my job requires me to read a lot of case law related to firearms. Before my appearance today, I spent considerable time reviewing the arguments in cases such as R. v. McManus, R. v. Felawka, R. v. Formosa, R. v. Labrecque, and R. v. Dunn in order to gain a better understanding of why the bill is necessary and what it seeks to achieve.

What is clear from looking at those previous cases is that there is a wide discrepancy in how BB guns, pellet guns, paintball guns, and the like are treated in terms of licensing versus how they are treated in terms of storage and transportation under both the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code.

It seems to me that the original intent of Parliament was to treat these types of guns differently under the act, as evidenced by the fact that you do not require a licence to purchase, own, or use low-velocity BB guns. Consequently, I do not believe that it was Parliament's intention to make it a criminal offence to transport or store BB guns or pellet guns differently, but that is what appears to have occurred under the law, which has resulted in the inconsistency of application we are facing.

It has been suggested that R. v. Dunn changed the game. It did not. In fact, it is clear in reviewing a summation of the case law by a crown prosecutor attached to the guns and gangs task force, that if anything, Dunn emphasized the discrepancy. I noted a moment ago the difference between how BB guns and pellet guns are treated in terms of licensing as opposed to how they are treated in terms of storage and transportation. Before this, no one contemplated the criminalization for storage or handling of an air gun until the Firearms Act, which is why we are here and why the bill is necessary.

Quite simply, Mr. Sopuck's bill seeks to create a mere exception so that lower velocity air guns will be treated the same under the Firearms Act for storage and transportation as they are for licensing. It deems that lower velocity air guns are not firearms for the purposes of those sections of the act and creates an exemption for individual storing or transporting of lower velocity air guns from the careless use offence under section 86 of the Criminal Code.

To achieve that, the bill would add a new subsection to subsection 84(3) of the Criminal Code to address the above. At the same time, the bill would exclude from subsection 86(2) of the Criminal Code the careless use, storage, and use requirements with respect to lower velocity air guns.

Currently this subsection creates an offence for contravention of storage and transportation regulations under the Firearms Act, despite the fact that paragraph 84(3)(d) of the Criminal Code already exempts lower velocity air guns from the provisions of the Firearms Act and its regulations, including those related to storage and transportation. In our view, this ambiguity needs to be addressed.

During debate there was concern expressed that the provisions of this bill would weaken the law regarding the storage and transportation of air guns and thus increase the risk to public safety. If we felt this to be true, I would not be sitting before you today. If we were dealing with issues around the transportation and storage of firearms that discharge a projectile, using powder and an ignition source, this story would be different. Instead, we are talking about lower velocity air guns that use compressed air from a canister or a CO₂ cartridge.

In essence, the issue at hand is that through cases like Dunn, which changed nothing, the courts have highlighted a discrepancy between the previous definition of a firearm and what the courts now consider to be one. This bill clarifies that lower velocity BB and pellet guns are not, in fact, firearms and reinforces the law as it was before Dunn.

I am of an age and a cohort who grew up in a time when low-velocity BB guns and pellet guns were the norm. They were the first gun you had as a youth for plinking at cans on a fence or shooting at paper targets with friends. In my case, and in the case of millions of Canadians, they were a part of growing up and an introduction to a lifetime involvement with firearms. Our parents counselled us about the proper use of these guns and tolerated, in my case in particular, no nonsense if you were caught being careless with them. At the same time, there was never a thought that they posed a risk to the public safety requiring them to be locked in cabinets and transported like high-powered firearms or that a failure to do so should be subject to a Criminal Code charge.

Let me be clear: the OFAH takes the issue of firearm safety very seriously. We deliver the Ontario hunter education program on behalf of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, which has taught over 250,000 students in the last decade.

Most of our instructors, which number about 302 currently, also deliver the Canadian firearms safety course. We work closely with the Ontario Chief Firearms Officer and the OPP on campaigns and messaging about safe use, safe storage, and safe transportation of firearms. I have provided the clerk with an example of that, which the committee can deal with as they see fit.

There is no question that, like any gun, low-velocity BB guns and pellet guns should be used responsibly. However, in our view, they do not require regulation in terms of storage and transportation as other firearms do, and owners of these guns should not be subject to Criminal Code charges associated with storage and transportation of them, which is why we support this bill and commend Mr. Sopuck for coming forward to address an inconsistency that exists in the law.

Thank you once again, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for affording me this opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good morning, colleagues and witnesses. Welcome to meeting number 70 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today, we are following up our study on Bill C-637. We have witnesses for the first hour and the second hour.

I would just notify the committee that we will be breaking in the second hour to go to committee business for a few minutes at the end so that we have a schedule to come back to on the 28th. Give some thought to that, knowing that this will be coming up.

In this first hour, we have with us, in person, Mr. Greg Farrant, manager of government affairs and policy at the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. By way of teleconference from Winfield, Alberta, we have Mr. Todd Brown from the Concerned Firearm Owners of Alberta. We will not have video, but we should have audio.

Mr. Brown, could we have a little word from you to make sure we are all live here?

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

I would like to come back to the provisions and proposals in the bill presented today.

We have had discussions with the representatives of the Canadian Police Association. I must say that they have some reservations about Bill C-637. According to the discussions we have had with them, there have been fewer than a dozen convictions for transporting an air gun in all of Canada. So the number is very low. The Canadian Police Association feels that the amendments proposed in your bill would be unjustified given the number of charges laid.

What do you think about the Canadian Police Association's position on your bill?

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

Thank you very much.

I'm very pleased to be here talking about my first private member's bill. It reminds me of that old saying which many of you are aware of that those with weak stomachs should neither watch law nor sausages being made. This was an interesting process.

I was pleased to introduce Bill C-637, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation) for two very important reasons. This is an important technical clarification to the Criminal Code and the keyword is “technical”.

Under the law currently, items such as BB guns, paintball guns, and other barrelled items that shoot a projectile at a low velocity are exempted from the licensing requirements that are placed on conventional firearms. Why is that? It is because Parliament recognized that there is a fundamental difference between a Daisy BB gun and a hunting rifle. However, certain areas of the Criminal Code were not included in this exemption. That is why I introduced the bill.

Under the current law, an individual could face serious jail time for not taking “reasonable care and precaution” when storing or transporting BB guns or paintball guns. What precisely does this mean? It is unclear because it is an undefined term under the law. Does that mean trigger-locking all paintball guns or perhaps storing BB guns in a separate locked container from the pellets?

At the end of the day, it could mean many things to many people. This bill brings uniformity to the Criminal Code treatment of these items.

This brings me to my second reason for introducing this legislation. Quite frankly, it is all about our Canadian outdoors culture.

I'm the very proud chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus. We are the only party that has such a caucus. There are four million Canadians who participate in sport shooting, trapping, fishing, and hunting, and that's actually an underestimate.

However, I fundamentally believe that the New Democrats and Liberals continue to believe that these activities are reserved for rural people who are out of the mainstream of Canadian society. Greg Farrant from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters said this before this very committee:

Firearms owners in Canada are judges, lawyers, farmers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, accountants, even federal politicians, many of whom...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 this message has not yet sunk in and some members of the Liberal Party and NDP took the debate on my bill as an opportunity to criticize 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, “wild west gun laws”.

This is patently ridiculous and it is offensive to the millions of Canadians who use harmless items like BBs for recreation. They're harmless when they're used in a proper way, I might add.

The fact of the matter is that many outdoor enthusiasts, hunters and sport shooters, got their start with such devices as BB guns. I include myself in that group. The laws as they are currently drafted discourage ownership of even BB guns.

This is not about behaving irresponsibly with these items. In fact, I learned my respect for firearms and the importance of safe storage with my initial use of a BB gun. Indeed, my time as a hunter and angler has led me to a 40-year career in environmental conservation. This is a common path along which many people in the conservation professions have travelled.

It is about respect for those who enjoy our outdoor heritage activities. One of the Liberal members, the public safety critic, had this to say in the House:

There appears to be no dispute of the fact that BB guns, pellet guns, and air guns are weapons and are fully capable of discharging a projectile, which can cause serious injury, if not death.

I don't do this very often, but I do agree with Mr. Easter. If used irresponsibly, these items can do harm, but so can knifes. There were 195 stabbing homicides in Canada in 2013 and there are no criminal penalties for storage methods for these items which, if used irresponsibly, can cause serious injury.

It comes down to this. Should someone want to walk down to a ravine with a BB gun to shoot some pop cans off a tree stump, the government should not create red tape to try and discourage this type of activity. We should use good common sense to approach this issue. That is what this bill strives to achieve. It exempts transport and storage of these items from criminal sanction as previous laws have exempted licensing. However, it keeps unsafe use of these items as a criminal charge. It still remains a crime to use one of these items unsafely. It is still an aggravating factor to use one of these items during the commission of a crime.

In short, I believe this bill builds upon our Conservative government's record of safe and sensible firearm legislation.

In closing, we know the Liberals and the NDP would, if given a chance, bring back the wasteful, ineffective long-gun registry. We know former Liberal cabinet minister Allan Rock said that he came to Ottawa firmly with the belief that only the police and military should have access to firearms. I'm concerned that the views of the Liberals and the NDP on conventional firearms also extend to a desire to take BB guns and paintball guns out of the hands of Canadians.

I'd like to thank the committee for its time today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, we are starting meeting number 69 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 6, we will be dealing with Bill C-637, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation). We'll be here for an hour today.

We have one witness before us today, the creator of the bill, Mr. Robert Sopuck, member of Parliament for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

Mr. Sopuck, we'll give you the floor for up to 10 minutes to explain the bill, should you wish, and then we will go to a round of questioning.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-637, under private members' business.

The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-637, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my colleagues across the way talk about pellet guns and paintball guns, I wonder what will be next: pocket knives, axes, slingshots, cap guns? Is this where we are going? On our side of the House, we like to be more rational and reasonable on this case.

I am pleased to rise today to voice my support for Bill C-637, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to firearms storage and transportation.

The bill was introduced by the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, who has also served admirably as the chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus.

I have heard the arguments put forward by members opposite. They say that there is no need to bring clarity to the law, that owners of these items should have to live in fear of criminal sanctions because of unclear rules relating to storage and transportation. They seem to even suggest that ordinary people do not own these items, and that this is just some kind of “payola to the gun lobby”, to quote the NDP member for Newton—North Delta.

I believe that this comes right down to culture. On this side of the House, we believe that hunting, sport shooting, trapping, fishing, and other outdoor recreation activities are a proud part of our shared Canadian heritage. For the Liberals and the NDP, however, it seems that they have dismissed these activities as reserved solely for red necks and people from rural backgrounds.

My constituents and I find this offensive. However, constituents are not the only ones. Many of my Conservative colleagues are here today based largely on the fact that Liberal and NDP members listened to their big Ottawa bosses instead of their constituents and voted for more red tape on law-abiding gun owners.

In fact, even the Liberal member for Malpeque said that, in his estimation, the gun registry issue cost the Liberals upwards of 60 seats in western Canada. I do not do this often, but I could not agree more with the Liberal member for Malpeque.

This debate is about values. We believe that dangerous criminals belong behind bars, but people who simply like to pursue outdoor activities should not be ostracized. That is why I am proud that our Conservative government has passed over 30 new tough-on-crime measures, including tough new sentences for drive-by shootings.

However, we are also making sure that our firearms policies are safe and sensible. That is why we ended the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry once and for all. That is why we abolished needless regulations introduced by the previous Liberal government that did nothing but establish red tape. That is why we introduced the common sense firearms licensing act to crack down on dangerous individuals, while reducing red tape for those who obey the law. It is also why we are proud to support this legislation introduced by the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

Let me briefly explain what this legislation would do.

Currently, owners of paintball guns and pellet rifles, such as BB guns, could be subjected to criminal convictions for “careless storage” of these items. Section 86 of the Criminal Code says that someone who carelessly stores one of these items:

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment

(i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years;

That is, two years in prison for carelessly storing a BB gun. How many of us could be caught keeping a BB gun in the closet at the cottage? This law simply makes no sense and it is ridiculous.

Bill C-637 would put forward the same exemptions that prevent owners of paintball guns and pellet rifles from requiring a licence, and would apply these exemptions to the Criminal Code offences relating to storage and transportation. This only makes sense. These items are clearly not firearms. They are not treated as firearms under the Firearms Act. They should not be treated as firearms under the Criminal Code. What this bill would do, however, is maintain the ability for someone to be charged criminally for careless use.

I will give members a brief example of ridiculous situations that could arise without this bill being passed.

Paintball is a sport enjoyed by many people across Canada, especially the younger generation. I must say I have played it in the past and my kids will be doing it tomorrow morning at 10:30, and will be participating in paintballing this weekend.

Hundreds of businesses that sell paintball guns and equipment operate across the country. If someone has a paintball gun in their vehicle, even if they are on their way to a paintball field to participate in this sport for the day, they could still be liable to criminal charges if they have not taken “reasonable precautions” to transport these items.

What does “reasonable precautions” mean? No one seems to know, as it is an undefined term. These items are clearly not firearms. They are clearly not dangerous when used, stored, and transported responsibly. We must stop this focus on ostracizing those who enjoy outdoor activities, and we must pass Bill C-637.

Gun owners in Canada know that there is only one party that can be trusted to provide safe and sensible firearms policies, and that is the Conservative Party. The Liberals have said they will bring back the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry should they ever get the chance. They even recruited former Toronto police chief Bill Blair as a candidate, who has repeatedly called for the reintroduction of the long gun registry. This is despite the fact that gun crime in Toronto went down significantly after the abolition of the gun registry.

The NDP has even gone so far as to say that certain firearms should be banned and that it wants a mechanism to track where every firearm in Canada is at at any given time.

I said earlier in the debate that it is about culture. The bill before us today enhances the ability of the next generation to become involved in hunting and sport shooting. Clearly the NDP and Liberals do not support this. My constituents, and I suspect many constituents from rural ridings, will remember the positions taken by members on bills like the one before us today.

I call on members to join with our Conservative government and vote in support of law-abiding hunters, farmers, sport shooters, and paintballers across the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of thoughts that I would like to share with the House in regard to Bill C-637.

This legislation seeks to ensure that BB guns, air guns and most likely pellet guns are not deemed firearms for the purpose of their transportation and storage, and therefore, the Criminal Code provisions related to the transportation and storage of firearms would not apply to these particular weapons.

The Liberal Party of Canada is opposed to measures that put Canadians' safety at risk, particularly when measures like those in this particular bill would primarily affect the safety of our children. There appears to be no dispute in the fact that BB guns, pellet guns and air guns are weapons and are fully capable of discharging a projectile which can cause a serious injury, if not death. Therefore, we do believe it is against the interest of public safety to weaken provisions on weapons that are often used by children.

The Liberal Party as a whole supports balanced gun control that prioritizes public safety while ensuring that law-abiding firearms owners do not face unfair treatment under the law. Maybe on that point, I could add a few thoughts.

With regard to the potential capability of a pellet gun, it has been recorded on a number of occasions that some individuals have actually died as a direct result of being shot with a pellet gun. I had the opportunity to do a little research on this. In 2014, down stateside, a couple of children were playing in a house. One child shot another child, and the child ended up dying as a result of the other child using a pellet gun.

As to giving the impression that pellet guns are not a dangerous weapon, used in an inappropriate way, a pellet gun can in fact be a very deadly weapon. There is a lot to be said in terms of the responsible, law-abiding gun owners in Canada. I suspect that if we were to canvass them, we would find that a vast majority of those individuals would recognize and want responsible legislation that ultimately does put the safety of Canadians first and foremost.

I have had the good fortune of getting to know a number of gun owners in the constituency I represent. From time to time there is a need for dialogue about gun laws. I do not really see where this particular piece of legislation is coming from. I have not heard anyone from my constituency say that this is something that is necessary. I have not heard arguments that have convinced me that it is in the best interests of public safety to pass this legislation.

I would suggest that if one is going to err, one should err on the side of caution and the safety of our children and the public as a whole. I have family members who have been involved in the restaurant business. We have seen holdups taking place. Holdups take place every day throughout the country. Weaponry, whether it is knives or guns, causes a great deal of fear.

It is not the law-abiding gun owners who concern me and the public. I do think there is a need for responsible legislation that will ultimately make sure both of those issues are addressed in a fair fashion. At times we will see the Conservative Party use gun control as a wedge issue to try to say that people should be able to have a gun and travel or do whatever it is they would like with that gun, in terms of transporting it.

The Conservatives tend not to be overly concerned with regard to the whole safety component, and that has not always been the case. In the early nineties, there was a hot debate on the gun registry. I heard about the debate when I was in the Manitoba legislature because there was a spillover effect that took place.

If we look at the history of the gun registry, we find that Conservative senators originally proposed it. That was through Kim Campbell who was a Progressive Conservative prime minister. It was acted on then by a Liberal administration and put into place. The gun registry is gone. The leader of the Liberal Party has said that we will not bring back the gun registry. However, the messaging tries to give false impressions purely for political purposes. Some of the strongest original advocates for the registry were Progressive Conservative members.

People can reflect on why we might have Bill C-637 in the House today. I know the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette is a passionate outdoorsman. I give him full credit for the manner in which he handles guns and rifles. I know he enjoys the outdoors, and he has written books on it. I respect that.

I believe urban and rural Canadians recognize the value of having good gun laws. On balance, there is always some need to do some tweaking here and there, but we need to work with our different stakeholder groups, whether it is the chiefs of police, the police associations, the many different advocacy groups, such as women and hunting advocacy groups. There is a very long list of individuals who have an interest in this industry and in sport activities.

There is an ability to build a consensus to move forward. I do not see that consensus on the bill before us. The arguments put forward are legitimate arguments. When I was the justice critic in the province of Manitoba, I heard from the police about pellet guns, the appearances and safety related issues. I do not believe members have been able to convince, at least me, that the passage of the bill is in the best interests of our communities.

When I knock on doors and talk to constituents, the issue of crime and safety is very important. I do not believe I would have the support of a majority of my constituents in saying that the bill would make our streets safer. Again, this is not against what law-abiding gun owners are doing, but being sensitive to what I believe my constituents would want me to do, given the importance of crime and safety in our communities.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-637, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation), introduced by the hard-working member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

In relation to what was just said by the last speaker—that we have cut back—an additional $300 million have gone to Canada's security agencies and of them CBSA is one. Where we pulled these 1,000 jobs out of our hat, I cannot believe. As far as food safety inspectors go, each and every day 40 inspectors are at the former XL plant. Much of what was just said is fiction, and I do not know where it comes from.

However, on this side of the House we have been clear. We believe firearms policies should make sense and keep Canadians safe. In practice, that means we lock up criminals who use firearms and wreak havoc on our communities, but we eliminate needless red tape that does nothing to keep Canadians safe.

We have a strong record in this regard. It was our Conservative government that, for example, created tough new sentences for those engaging in drive-by or other reckless shootings. We have also taken action to reduce needless red tape, as I mentioned. Chief among those actions was ending the $2 billion boondoggle that was the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. We were pleased to end the needless bureaucratic mess once and for all, and we are pleased that all the data have now been deleted.

We have also tabled the common-sense firearms licensing act, which would crack down on dangerous individuals who should not have firearms, while reducing needless paperwork. Individuals from all walks of life have come out in support of this important legislation. We have heard support from hunters, trappers, fishers and sport shooters. We have also heard support from the law enforcement community and former Olympians.

Despite what the Liberals and New Democrats would have us believe, there is a strong consensus that we must support these Canadian heritage activities.

That brings me to the bill before us today.

Currently, an individual can face jail time for storing a paintball, BB gun or pellet gun without “reasonable caution”. That may seem like common sense, but the devil is always in the details. What does “reasonable caution” mean? Does it mean in a cabinet? Does it mean out of reach of a child? Does it mean a trigger guard or lock and cases such as that? Or does it mean something completely different? It is impossible to know because the term is not defined.

I encourage all Canadians listening at home to safely store their pellet guns, their BB guns and their air rifles, just because it is a good example that we can show our children when they become of an age when they can possess a firearm, because they get to form good habits. However, I do not believe it is reasonable that people could spend jail time for not doing so.

Let me give an example. My riding is in a rural area. It would not be uncommon for one of my constituents to take an air gun or a BB gun, put it in a backpack or walk down into the woods or a ravine to shoot some pop cans off a tree stump. Target practising is one of those things we do, either for straight enjoyment or to prepare ourselves for hunting or for some friendly competition, for instance like a turkey shoot.

Individuals today are at risk of running afoul of the Criminal Code if they should do so. That is why Bill C-637 is so very important. I cannot put too fine a point on this. There are up to two years in prison for careless storage of a BB gun. How many members of the House could be caught keeping a BB gun in the closet or at the cottage? This law, as written, simply does not make sense.

Bill C-637 would put forward the same exemptions that prevent owners of paintball guns and pellet rifles from requiring a licence and would apply these exemptions to the Criminal Code offences relating to storage and transportation. This only makes sense. These items are clearly not firearms. They are not treated as firearms under the Firearms Act; they should not be treated as firearms under the Criminal Code. However, the bill would maintain the ability for someone to be charged criminally for careless use of a firearm. This is an important point to remember.

Members on the other side of the House have repeatedly said that this bill is unsafe, that it would lead to the unsafe use of pellet guns, and so on. This is simply not true. I grew up using a BB gun. It is what I used before I was old enough to use a legal firearm. I was taught the appropriate respect for and the power that firearms have, and the BB gun was an introduction as to how to properly handle a firearm. My father was quite fastidious about that.

With the law written as it currently is, it dissuades individuals from wanting to use air rifles. The threat of criminal charges for simply making a mistake will turn many people off. When I and members who are pretty close to my age were younger, BB guns were a very common thing and today there is a resurgence. Perhaps this is exactly the intent of the other parties. We all remember former Liberal cabinet minister Allan Rock, who said that he came to Ottawa with the firm belief that only police and the military should have access to firearms. We on this side of the House clearly disagree.

Hunting is a part of our heritage. Sport shooting is a part of our heritage. Using pellet guns and BB guns is part of our heritage. These sports are very important to what it means to be Canadian. On this side of the House, we will always stand with law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters.

I am pleased to note that support for this legislation has been expressed by groups from coast to coast, including the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, as well as the Canadian Shooting Sports Association. This legislation would continue our safe and sensible approach to firearms rules in Canada, and I am pleased to support it.

I continue to hope that members opposite will drop their ideological opposition to any measures that reduce the needless red tape for law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters. Given that both the Liberals and NDP have expressed a desire to bring back the long gun registry, I am not terribly hopeful, but I know that two million licensed Canadian gun owners will not forget the actions of these parties come this October.

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-637, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are using and abusing our legislative system to achieve their political ends.

The bill they introduced caters to their electoral base and the gun lobby. This bill provides that low-velocity rifles such as BB guns and air guns are deemed not to be firearms.

The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette says that these weapons—and they are certainly weapons—these air guns are just as dangerous as firearms.

According to this bill, these weapons are not as dangerous as other firearms. The bill would even make them easier to access and use. Storage regulations require firearms to be stored unloaded and locked in a cabinet or a specific part of the house. This bill would remove those requirements.

Air guns would no longer be subject to this rule and could be left out in the open. They would be accessible at all times regardless of the circumstances.

Imagine seeing people carrying such a weapon attached to their belt as an everyday occurrence. If there are no regulations on transporting and carrying such weapons, that is what could happen.

This is not the wild west. We need to regulate the possession, acquisition and use of weapons, not deregulate them.

I would remind the House that the Canadian Police Association has expressed some reservations about the bill. It said that the number of convictions for transporting air rifles and BB guns is currently under 10, which is very low. Since the number is so low, the association believes that the changes proposed in Bill C-637 are unjustified, but I doubt the member opposite listened to the association.

Making it easier to transport these weapons will make the job of police officers that much harder. Such a freedom, which I would call reckless, would make their working conditions more dangerous, because it is hard to distinguish ordinary weapons from air guns just by looking at them.

To refresh the memories of members across the aisle, think about the tragic, fatal incident that happened last November in Cleveland. A 12-year-old child who was handling a pellet gun was shot and killed by a police officer, because even from less than three metres away, the police officer could not visually distinguish the pellet gun from a real weapon.

Bill C-637 could cause confusion and dangerous situations for police forces and for anyone carrying an air gun. Any way you look at it, nothing good can come of this bill.

We are giving people who are psychologically or emotionally unstable, or both, as well as criminals, another weapon to use against the police.

If this bill did not serve the interests of the Conservative Party and the Liberals, if this bill was not designed to help them prepare for the next election and if this bill truly was about promoting public safety, then the Conservatives would devote their time and energy to helping law enforcement and supporting them in their mission to keep the peace and protect the public.

It is not right to arm people against one another, or arm them against the police. Instead, we must encourage the best options and alternatives. This bill will breed mistrust and fear in our society.

The Conservatives only take care of themselves. The only party capable of forming a government that will take care of Canadians and their safety is our party, the NDP.

[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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-637, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-637, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to firearms storage and transportation, which is a private member's bill put forward by the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

As is typical of the government, it is not part of a public safety package that brings together a number of areas for public safety from the government itself. We constantly believe, on this side of the House, that even though bills are coming forward as private members' bills, they are one-offs, often not well thought out, and often on small issues. In fact the member could not even give us the information whether any charges had ever been laid under this particular bill. They are coming forward as private members' bills and often they really complicate the criminal justice system and do not make for good public safety policies. Many of them come forward just to try to create some political discourse for internal objectives of the Conservative Party of Canada and to try to drive wedges between Canadians on different sides of the issues.

I am concerned, and we will oppose this legislation because any weakening of the provisions to store and transport these weapons—it is a strong word—is against the interest of public safety. Simply put, the legislation would take away the criminal liability for unsafe storage and transport of these weapons, which can and do inflict injury. This raises serious concerns related to public safety, particularly related mostly to children but to youth as well.

As others have said in the House, I expect there are many who have used BB guns and pellet guns as kids in their own life experience. I certainly have. They do cause harm. It is possible to lose an eye. I had a neighbour who in fact had that happen many years ago. That was not safe use.

The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette mentioned himself that the use of BB guns and pellet guns is good training for later in life in the safe use, transport, and storage of these weapons. Having these restrictions there makes good sense for long-term lifetime use of other guns that may be used in hunting and experiences later in life. Therefore, it is important to keep these restrictions in place to ensure that happens, because it is a training ground for young people. They recognize then that the law is there.

The legislation seeks to ensure that BB guns, airguns, and most likely pellet guns are not deemed firearms for the purpose of their transportation and storage. Therefore, the Criminal Code provisions related to the transportation and storage of firearms would not apply to these weapons. That is basically what the bill does. We maintain though that, simply put, the legislation would take away the criminal liability for the unsafe storage and transportation of these weapons, which can and do inflict injuries. This raises serious concerns about public safety, especially as it relates to youth.

There appears to be no dispute of the fact that BB guns, pellet guns, and air guns are weapons and are fully capable of discharging a projectile, which can cause serious injury, if not death. Therefore, we believe it is against the interest of public safety to weaken provisions on weapons that are often used by children. The Liberal Party of Canada believes in a balanced gun control approach that prioritizes public safety while ensuring that law-abiding firearms owners do not face unfair treatment under the law. We do not believe the current situation is creating that unfair treatment.

It is important to note that in Justice Rosenberg's Ontario Court of Appeal decision of September 4, 2013, the following was stated, which raises serious public safety concerns:

If an airgun that otherwise meets the definition of “firearm” in s. 2 because of its dangerous nature and its capability for causing injury, is not found to be a firearm because it does not also meet the use and intended use requirements in the definition of “weapon”, it escapes regulation under s. 86. It would be lawful to leave such a dangerous object in an area where children might have access to it, or to shoot it in a dangerous manner. Liability would attach only if someone actually was injured or killed. Such an interpretation would not be consistent with the public safety objective of the legislation.

He makes the point that we on this side of the House believe is necessary to be made, and that is that these can cause harm. Transportation and storage is part of the regulatory requirements to ensure that they are done in a safe manner and consistent with the law. As I said earlier, that is good training ground for guns that may be used later.

An analysis by the Library of Parliament of Bill C-637 indicated the following with respect to the consequences of this legislation:

Bill C-637 adds s. 84(3.2) to the Criminal Code, which would extend the deeming provision to section 86 and the provisions of the Firearms Act as they relate to the transportation and storage of firearms. This means that air guns or BB guns with low muzzle velocities would not have to be treated like firearms and need not be stored and transported in the way firearms are required to be. Since air guns or BB guns do not fit within any of the other categories of weapons listed in section 86, it follows that these types of weapons would not be required, by this section of the Criminal Code at least, to be transported, stored, etc. with “reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.”

That is a very important point.

The Library of Parliament goes on to say:

This does not mean, however, that more general provisions concerning criminal negligence could not be applied. Section 219 of the Criminal Code defines “criminal negligence” as showing “wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.”

If they are used in that fashion, the other charges would apply.

I have no problem and, in fact, believe the use of BB guns and pellet guns is good training, but I do believe the current law should apply. Therefore, it does not need to be changed as this private member's bill would do.

I do not have time to quote the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, but it is very concerned about BB guns and pellet guns being used as weapons. They can be replica firearms and, therefore, used in criminal activity.

There is concern on the part of police associations. Basically, the bottom line for us is we do not believe this bill is necessary.

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

moved that Bill C-637, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, today it is my great pleasure to stand in the House to speak to my private member's Bill C-637.

I am not here only in my capacity as the member of Parliament for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette. I have the honour of being the chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, a group of parliamentarians dedicated to a way of life that millions of Canadians cherish, and that same dedication extends to conservation programs and projects.

Bill C-637 is important legislation that responds to the needs of the owners of BB guns and air rifles from coast to coast to coast. The bill would help provide much-needed clarity with respect to how Canadian law treats this type of property when it is being transported or stored.

Before I talk about the bill itself, it is helpful to first look at air guns and how they differ from regular firearms.

Air guns are also commonly called BB guns, pellet guns, spring guns, or airsoft guns. Essentially they are a pneumatic device that propels projectiles by means of compressed air, a spring, or other gas. Most air guns use small metal balls called BBs or pellets as ammunition. This differentiates them from regular bullet-firing firearms, which use a propellant charge.

Air guns are commonly used for small game hunting, pest control, recreational shooting, and competitive sports. For example, the Olympics include 10-metre air rifle and 10-metre air pistol events. BB guns also form part of our cultural heritage. For example, members of a certain age—and I include myself in that age bracket—will remember ads for Daisy brand BB guns in their childhood comic books.

Beyond this, they remain popular with thousands of Canadians because they are quieter and more affordable and are not regulated nearly as stringently as firearms.

In Canada, air guns are generally divided into the categories that follow.

First, we have air guns in which the shot or projectile will not cause serious injury or death. These guns fall outside the scope of the Firearms Act and offences under the Criminal Code. An example is the harmless air gun made out of clear plastic or a device that is clearly a child's toy.

The next category includes those air guns that have the potential to cause serious bodily injury or death to a person and whose muzzle velocity exceeds 152.4 metres per second, or 500 feet per second. Air guns that meet these criteria are considered to be firearms for the purposes of the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code. For example, these types of air guns are subject to the same licensing requirements as conventional firearms. Additionally, owners and users must store, transport, and handle them in accordance with the Firearms Act and its regulations.

Finally, and this is the category that is the focus of the bill, there is a class of air guns that falls between these two extremes. Specifically, these air guns are exempt from licensing and registration requirements. Importantly, they are also exempt from specific storage, transportation, and handling regulatory requirements made pursuant to the act. These types of firearms are also excluded from corresponding penalties set out in the Criminal Code for possessing a firearm without a valid licence or registration certificate.

That said, as per the code, it is currently legally required that the owner of this type of air gun take reasonable precautions when using, handling, transporting, and storing their air gun. The reason I introduced the bill is that there is confusion about the legal responsibilities of air gun owners with regard to storage and transportation. “Reasonable precaution” is not defined, so we have a situation in which an owner is exempt from the prescribed requirements under the Firearms Act but is in fact required to follow a shadowy, unclear system of storage requirements.

This follows from debate about a recent Supreme Court decision finding that certain air guns that can cause serious bodily injury or death to a person but are not regulated under the Firearms Act are nonetheless subject to an obligation under the Criminal Code in relation to careless storage and transportation. The state of the law is confusing and flies in the face of common sense.

Let me remind all members that BB guns are sold in hardware stores across Canada, and there is no need to apply for a firearms licence and no test to pass. It is my view that it is nonsensical for an air gun that does not require a licence to own or use to be subject to the same offences for careless storage and transportation as more powerful firearms. If we break down the word “firearm” into its two basic components, we are left with “fire” and “arm”. By definition, there must be fire in order for the device to be labelled a firearm. This is clearly not the case for the paintball guns, airsoft guns, and BB guns that we are discussing today.

Let me be clear. Safe storage and transportation of real firearms is the critical element of Canada's firearm laws. Our Conservative government has always maintained the need for responsible firearm owners to obey the strict storage, transportation and handling regulations set out in the Firearms Act.

For instance, all conventional firearms must be stored in an unloaded state and locked with ammunition stored separately or locked up. Further, to transport firearms, they must also be unloaded while in transport. All proper measures must be taken to guard against loss or theft of a firearm in homes, vehicles and businesses.

These measures make sense for conventional firearms. While the current laws exempt certain air guns for transportation and storage regulations under the Firearms Act, the Supreme Court decision leaves owners of these air guns somewhat confused about whether they will be subject to the careless use offence in the Criminal Code in terms of transport and storage requirements.

This bill would clarify that certain air guns, like BB guns, would not subject to the same storage and transportation requirements as real firearms. It would do this in two ways. It would add a new provision under the Criminal Code to make it clear that certain air guns would not regulated under the Firearms Act for the purposes of storage and transportation. The bill would also exempt owners of these air guns for prosecutions for offences under the Criminal Code related to careless storage and transport of a firearm.

I would like to emphasize here that amending the Criminal Code to confirm that storage and transport requirements are exempt under the Firearms Act is in no way intended to narrow the exclusions from the act. The amendment is simply, as I said earlier, meant to make it clear that storage and transport requirements do not apply. Amending the Criminal Code in this way will ensure that we do not overburden the owners of certain air guns. This is what the firearms community wants.

I ask all members to support the bill and ensure that we continue to move forward toward safe and sensible firearms policies in our country.

In terms of support for Bill C-637, I received a communication from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. It said, “On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, our 100,000 members, supporters and subscribers, and our 725 member clubs across Ontario, we are pleased to support Bill C-637...Bill C-637 addresses a regressive decision by the courts that left unchanged would effectively force everyone in the country who possesses an air gun that has previously never been considered to be a firearm to suddenly abide by regulations that were never intended to apply to them in the first place. By amending the Criminal Code and provisions in the Firearms Act, the bill would restore what previously existed without problems for decades”.

The Northwestern Ontario Sportsmen's Alliance writes, “NOSA fully supports your private member's bill. We agree that the court decision to define air rifles as firearms sets a precedent that threatens the freedom of millions of Canadians who simply wish to purchase air guns over the counter at Canadian Tire for the purpose of plinking targets or knocking over pop cans”.

Again, the bill, although fairly small, is still important to those millions of Canadians who own air guns and BB guns. It is another manifestation of this government's deep concern and support for a way of life that millions of Canadian cherish.

I had the honour of being on both the fisheries committee and the environment and sustainable development committee. Both of these committee are initiating very important studies. The environment committee is starting very important work looking at the contribution that licensed hunting and trapping makes to the Canadian economy and the Canadian environment. I am very pleased to say that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is initiating a major study of the recreational fishery in Canada.

Both of these studies will allow groups and individuals who represent these very important communities to make representations to the government and provide us with some very important advice on how we can move forward to protect and preserve not only the environment but a way of life that millions of Canadians cherish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Is everyone satisfied? Thank you.

Mr. Andrews is not proceeding with anything so we have Mr. Sopuck's bill, C-637.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-637, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code, firearms storage and transportation, for first reading this morning.

The bill would amend certain provisions of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act in order to better define low-velocity barrelled weapons, which are not firearms.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)