Debates of March 10th, 2015

Criminal Code

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to follow the distinguished steps of the former solicitor general who does not understand how courts work.

However, I will ask this question of my hon. colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette. As a young lad growing up on a farm on the prairies of Alberta and western Canada, I remember—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

You certainly wouldn't know.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, he is chirping away. That is okay. He does not get it.

The very first time I held a gun in my hand it was a pellet gun. It was my grandfather's, it was my uncle's and my father's before that. It was a little Crosman air rifle that I used to take out into the field to hunt gophers. It was a great experience. It led to a whole life of me owning firearms, going hunting with my dad and with my sons now and all my friends, and contributing to an absolutely fantastic way of life.

I would like to ask the member about any experiences that he has had with his family with respect to just how valuable starting off with something like a pellet gun or a BB gun is in teaching people how to properly handle firearms in the first place.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin's upbringing very much parallels mine.

The use of BB guns and air rifles teaches young people firearms safety and marksmanship. To properly teach a youngster in the use of air guns and BB guns, one uses the same principles as with a firearm. We ensure that it is never pointed at anyone else. That is how a child is taught to respect and use firearms in a safe and proper manner.

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

Mr. Speaker, like some of the members opposite, I fondly remember my best Christmas ever, and that was the Christmas I got a BB gun. I had the BB gun for some time before I moved on to harder weapons.

Some might describe a BB gun as a gateway gun, and I am quite serious about that. It is important, as the member on the other side said, because I learned the most basic lessons about the safe handling of firearms with a BB gun. I was taught how to do that.

It seems to me that ought to include things like safe storage and transport. The bill will actually interfere with that training and learning process. What we have here, in some ways with all due respect, is a solution in search of a problem.

Apparently there have been no charges laid under these sections, so I wonder what this is really about. As usual with private members' bills, I think this is about politics and appealing to the base of the Conservatives in a time heading up to an election. It is not about a real problem that we face every day which affects a lot of Canadians.

I have not seen the evidence that changing the rules around the classification of air guns is necessary. When I talked to the police, the local chief and police organizations, they all said the very same thing. If we allow other rules for transportation and storage of air guns, BB guns and pellet guns, it becomes very difficult for police officers to do their job in enforcement of existing gun regulations, especially with the new high velocity air guns. It is impossible to distinguish them from other weapons at a glance.

We face the fact that if the bill were passed, it might lead to people transporting these guns in their vehicles. This is not my example, but police agencies raised the fact that they would be faced with a very difficult decision of trying to decide in a moment's time they type of gun in a vehicle.

Instead, getting people to learn what the safe storage and transport looks like by applying those similar rules, which are not onerous rules, certainly by anybody's stretch of the imagination, will teach better gun behaviour in the long run.

I am no expert in firearms but having had a BB gun, having seen air guns and learning to shoot a shotgun, I know it is not easy to distinguish some of the new guns from other air guns. The new guns have very high velocity and can do real bodily harm and damage. Police officers are quite rightly expressing a concern about how they will do their job and keep the public safe.

Over the years, the Conservatives and the Liberals have done everything they can to polarize issues around firearms for political purposes. I am worried that what we have before us is a private member's bill that does the very same thing.

Every time we talk about anything to do with gun regulations, the other side stands. Therefore, I will do the “prevention is the best part of cure”, and say clearly that the NDP has absolutely no plan to bring back the failed Liberal firearms registry, full stop.

The fact that we will oppose the bill at second reading and we think that the bill is dangerous does not say anything that the Conservatives will try to make it say later on, such as we do not support hunting and fishing, or we do not support rural communities. There is simply no truth in any of that.

We are looking at a bill that seems to result from one court decision in one case, but it does not really have a large public impact. Therefore, why would we adopt a bill in the House of Commons that creates potential threats to public safety on the basis of one court case in Ontario?

As the member said, these guns are not deemed to be weapons in all cases, but, again, it seems quite reasonable that secure storage and transportation requirements should apply to these weapons as much as any others. I simply do not see the downside. It is a very interesting argument about learning gun safety. It is a very good way to teach people how to treat guns safety, those people who may eventually go on to larger or harder weapons.

We are talking about air guns with a maximum velocity of 152.4 metres per second or a maximum muzzle energy of 5.7 joules, which are already deemed not to be firearms, and so are exempt from penalties set out in the Criminal Code for possessing a firearm without a licence. They are considered firearms under the Criminal Code if they are used to commit a crime, and the other side has pointed that out.

We already have a mixed system here with these guns. The only things this bill is really attacking are storage and transportation, not possession or acquisition.

We on this side want to put public safety first. We want to take an approach that brings Canadians together. Instead of having this bill before us, I would rather have seen some consultation, and not just with those the member always cites when it comes this—the hunters and anglers of Ontario seem to make frequent appearances in the speeches—and not to make a regulation that, in either case, applies to just rural or just urban areas. We have to get something that works for all Canadians.

Instead of making what I think are potentially dangerous amendments to private members' bills, we should have the government consulting with all interested groups and coming up with a solution that puts public safety first.

I did ask the member whether this was really a government bill masquerading as a private member's bill. I will take his word that this is his initiative. However, it fits a pattern we have seen dozens and dozens of times in this House, where private members' bills are really stalking horses for the government. It gives the government plausible deniability if there is too much public outcry, and it can say that it was just a private member's bill and we will blame the private member. If not, the bill goes through the House and the government takes credit for it. This is another bill that seems to fit that very same strategy.

Another related piece of this is that we just had estimates that have been tabled. What we are looking at is a government that, since 2012, has been cutting the budgets of the RCMP and making fewer resources available to law enforcement. Again, even though it is a minor bill, I cannot see why we would create something that would add an enforcement burden to the RCMP at a time when the government is cutting its budget.

In 2014, there was a cut of $32.5 million for police services. Now, from the estimates, we see that the RCMP is going to be asked to cut back 500 members. This is at a time when we just had the Commissioner of the RCMP before the public safety committee, just last Friday, talking about the fact that he had to transfer 600 personnel from other duties within the RCMP over to national security because he lacked adequate resources.

He talked about the fact that, while he is doing an adequate job now, it is not sustainable to keep those resources transferred over. Again, I would be very concerned about anything we are doing that adds a burden to an already stretched RCMP in terms of enforcement.

Every time we come to issues around guns, it is somehow made to be a very divisive issue. Once the registry was gone, as a member who represents a riding that is both urban and rural, I had the hope that we might be able to come together and find ways to keep guns out of the hands of people who do not need them, while finding ways to reduce the burden on legitimate gun owners. I do not happen to think this is one of those measures.

Reasonable people from various parts of the country could easily work together and come up with solutions. However, we know the government prefers to play wedge politics with the issue of guns. Rather than sitting down with urban communities and talking about the problems of guns on their streets, and rather than sitting down with people and talking about the problems of the flow of illegal guns into the country from the United States, we have a bill before us that is really quite small instead of tackling those larger questions.

Again we come back to the CBSA, which is responsible for trying to control gun smuggling into the country. We have found the same thing since 2012, that the government has cut the budget of the CBSA. It has cut it so far that it had to lay off 100 intelligence officers, the very people who work on issues like preventing gun smuggling.

In conclusion, the bill is a problem in search of a solution. We have not had a big set of charges or problems for those who have BB guns and airguns, but by introducing the bill we would create a new problem for the police in terms of enforcement of gun safety in our communities. For that reason, I am opposing the bill.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I see the hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order.

Bill S-6--Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill S-6, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure the House appreciates the notice by the hon. government House leader.

Now we will resume debate and go to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

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.

Criminal Code

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and discuss a bill that would help ensure that our firearms policies are safe and sensible. Sitting here and listening to the opposition, including the member for Malpeque and the NDP members, talking about this bill, it shows just how out of touch they have become with rural Canadians and Canadians who love sport shooting.

Our government has worked tirelessly to ensure that we target criminals with tough sentences, not law-abiding Canadians with needless red tape. We have long spoken out against the impracticality and unnecessary practice of burdening law-abiding farmers and sport shooters with administrative requirements that do little or nothing to contribute to public safety. We have worked diligently to address these issues.

We know that law-abiding firearms owners find these requirements intrusive and offensive. Certainly, ending the long-gun registry was an important achievement for our government to move toward safe and sensible firearms policies. Most recently, as members know, we introduced Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. Among other things, this legislation would streamline the licensing system and further ease unnecessary administrative red tape for law-abiding farmers, hunters and sports shooters.

Our government believes in a balanced approach to firearms control. For instance, we believe it makes sense to simplify the regime and have only one type of license. That is why we have proposed, under the common sense firearms licensing act, to merge the possession-only license with the possession and acquisition license.

We also believe that it is in the interest of public safety that individuals should be properly instructed in the safe use of firearms. That is why our government has also proposed under the legislation to make sure that course participation in firearm safety training is mandatory.

With the bill before us, we can go one step further toward ensuring that Canadians from coast to coast to coast benefit from safe and sensible firearms policies. In that spirit, I would like to commend my friend, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, who introduced Bill C-637, an act to amend the Criminal Code in firearms storage and transportation. It is a proposal that our Conservative government is proud to support.

It is important to hone in specifically on what items we are talking about today. They are BB guns, pellet guns and paintball guns. These excluded firearms that do not discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 metres per second, or 500 feet per second. Given their low muzzle velocity and energy, our government is of the view that these items should be excluded from all storage and transportation requirements and offences. Therefore, the proposal in this bill falls squarely within the safe and sensible realm.

Let us look at the design of the bill, specifically. The bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to exclude these items from the storage and transportation requirements under the Firearms Act and the offences in the Criminal Code that relate to storage and transportation. In effect, Bill C-637 would exempt individuals from prosecution for offences related to the careless storage and transport of these items, which have previously been erroneously lumped in with ordinary firearms.

By way of example, let us say that a young woman wants to go with her friends to an open field, park, or farmyard, far from other people, and they are taking their air pistols. They shoot some pop cans off a tree stump or a fence post with that pistol. Currently, if she throws the pistol and some of the pellets into her backpack, she is liable to charges under the Criminal Code for the unsafe transport of a firearm.

This is ridiculous and unacceptable. I have taken part in similar activities. I grew up on the farm, and when I was growing up, the first gun I had was a pellet gun. It was a lot of fun, but it taught me about safe handling and how to use a firearm carefully.

We must not let the government run amok and ban these types of Canadian heritage activities. Again, most rural Canadians and a lot of people within urban centres use these air guns, whether they are pellet guns, BB guns or paintball guns, if they go out and have some fun at the paintball course.

Some members on the other side of the House are claiming that this would create a spike in the use of air guns and criminal activity. This is simply not the case. What this bill would do is codify what Canadians from coast to coast have always assumed to be the case, which is that air guns are not firearms. They should not be treated like firearms, and they should not have the consequences associated with firearms.

The Liberal and NDP logic on this issue is similar to that of the long gun registry. They loved the long gun registry. They believe that government intervention will solve all the world's problems but let us look at the statistics. When we ended the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, gun crime in Toronto went down by over 80%. This is not to say that these two items are linked. It is simply to say that those who commit crimes with guns do not obey the various laws prohibiting murder, armed robbery and so on. It is simply foolish to believe that they will stop committing crimes because their guns must be registered.

The bill before us today is very important. What the bill would do is clarify some confusion around the legal obligation of air gun owners that has arisen because of the November 2014 Supreme Court ruling. The effect of the decision upheld the current law that certain air gun owners are subject to prosecution if they carelessly store or transport an air gun. The bill will address the confusion and help provide clarity for owners of these types of firearms.

Before my time comes to an end, I would like to specifically thank the Canadian Shooting Sports Association for working with our government and the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette for analyzing the Supreme Court decision impacting air guns. I believe that the legislation introduced by the member is an important milestone in addressing the needlessly burdensome paperwork that exists in our firearms regime.

In conclusion, this is a balanced approach that will contribute to our ultimate goal of ensuring our firearm policies are safe and sensible. I hope that all members will support it.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill.

First I would like to provide some general information about firearms legislation. Generally, certain acts and regulations have been put in place to prevent someone who obviously should not possess weapons from having one. For example, these would include individuals with mental health issues, a criminal record or a lack of understanding of basic firearms safety. These acts and regulations were also created for other reasons. This has reduced the number of thefts. When firearms could be stored any old way or hung on the wall at a hunting camp, there were more thefts. Now that there are storage rules, for example those requiring individuals to lock up firearms, the number of thefts has been reduced.

Generally, other reasons for making firearms regulations included reducing accidents, accidental discharges and injuries. These were sometimes caused by individuals without any firearms knowledge. They just felt like looking at it, inspecting it or handling it. Unfortunately, this could cause accidents. Thirty years ago, it was not rare to see loaded firearms hanging on the wall, ready to be used. Now, with the regulations in place, this is no longer allowed.

My colleague introduced a bill that would exclude certain firearms, such as air guns or paintball guns that I admit pose lower risks, from transportation and storage rules. The problem with my colleague’s bill is that it does not replace them with anything. So it removes the transportation and storage rules but does not propose to replace them with other transportation and storage rules that he believes would be more appropriate for these types of firearms. He is replacing them with nothing. As far as I am concerned, I obviously cannot accept that.

If my colleague intended to present specific rules for firearms of this kind that would seem more appropriate to him, I could consider the bill. However, replacing these rules with nothing at all makes the bill unacceptable, in my view. If my colleague is listening, and is prepared to look at what transportation and storage rules would seem appropriate to him, I might be interested in reconsidering my position on the bill. However, as long as there is nothing at all to replace them, I cannot support this bill.

I talked about the accident risk. While I admit that the injuries are less serious than what a traditional firearm could cause, the fact remains that serious injuries are still possible. We are talking about weapons that launch projectiles at an initial velocity of over 152.4 metres per second. With my colleague’s permission, I will convert that to imperial: 500 feet per second. The initial energy exceeds 5.7 joules. The problem is that for children, that can represent a risk of injury that is still quite significant.

I have here the risks of injury presented by Dr. Danielle Laraque, from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Starting at 331 feet per second, with a calibre of 0.77, penetration of the skin is possible, and the same is true for a muzzle velocity of 245 feet per second with a calibre of 0.22. With respect to eye penetration, the entry of a projectile into the eye, the velocity falls to 130 feet per second. I should point out that in the United States, in 2000, the number of hospital visits caused by air guns was estimated at about 22,000. Over 50% of these cases involved children under 14 who were hit in the following areas: 12% in the eyes, 24% in the head and neck, and 63% in the extremities.

It is obvious, therefore, that we should take this information into consideration. We cannot allow the absence of storage requirements. They could be different from those for ordinary firearms, but we cannot allow a total lack of rules.

We must protect the children who might have access to such weapons. That is why we have to abide by certain basic principles with respect to the safe storage and transportation of weapons in order to ensure safety in the home.

With regard to the prevention of theft, storage regulations have made it possible to reduce easy access to guns, and therefore the theft of firearms. Looking at a catalogue of pellet guns and air rifles, which I enjoy doing because I find it interesting, I learned that some weapons could cost $400. Therefore, if someone has one or two very valuable guns, the total could easily reach $1,000. Considering the value of such weapons, it is entirely reasonable to request that people comply with certain basic storage principles and avoid leaving them about in plain sight. That makes perfect sense.

With regard to civil liability and the risk of theft, insurance companies certainly appreciate these basic storage rules. These are two important factors to keep in mind when discussing this bill.

The existing legislation governing the storage of firearms works. It is not unreasonable to expect that air guns be locked up and that ammunition not be stored in the same place. That absolutely makes sense. Every year one person dies as a result of this type of weapon. The risk of injury associated with these weapons is lower, but people can still become victims when the bullet hits them in the wrong spot.

There are some risks, even though they may be lower than the risks associated with conventional firearms. That is why I told my colleague that if he was prepared to include rules on firearms transportation and storage that he deemed more appropriate in his bill, I would be prepared to review his bill and change my mind. However, in the absence of such rules or an alternative, I cannot accept this bill.

Most firearm incidents are accidents. In 90% of fatalities, we are talking about young people under the age of 16, unfortunately, because children and teenagers are more likely to die as a result of those injuries. As I said a number of times, it is important to have some basic rules.

Recently, there have been several cases where children injured or even killed other people in the United States with firearms. Perhaps these weapons are not as accessible here, but most people are sensitive to the issue. For instance, if they hear that a woman had a loaded gun in her purse, they will say: “What was she thinking? What was she doing with that in her bag?”

Perhaps I am not saying it right, but that is the response I most often hear. Most people agree that basic safety and storage rules have to be followed when dealing with firearms. Most people who make those types of comments are hunters themselves or people who use firearms.

I would like to say, perhaps for the benefit of the House, that I personally have several firearms at home. Right now, I have seven as well as a bow and arrow. However, I followed some basic storage rules. I think that is only natural since I have a five-year old girl living with me at home. These rules make perfect sense. We are talking about basic safety to avoid accidents.

I do not think that these rules on the transportation and storage of firearms are over the top. My colleague should seriously think about my proposal to implement more appropriate rules for these specific types of weapons instead of proposing no rules for their storage and transportation.

That is my comment and it was a pleasure to speak to that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, I must inform her that she has five minutes left for her speech today. Of course she will have more time when the House resumes debate.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert will have five minutes to complete her comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The House resumed from February 19 consideration of the motion.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development held a number of hearings on the issue of sexual violence in situations of armed conflict and other crises. The report we are debating today is the fruit of that study. This report aims to cast light on the causes and consequences of this troubling phenomenon through a case study of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Although we would not know it from the amount of media coverage and international attention it receives, the barbaric civil war of the DRC is the most lethal conflict since World War II. It has claimed an estimated 2.7 million to 5.4 million deaths. Though the war was formally ended in July 2003, the carnage has continued, including the Kivu and Ituri conflicts, which were driven by, among other things, the trade in conflict minerals.

In addition to the lives claimed by violence, many more are lost to easily preventable cases of malnutrition and disease.

As I mentioned, though, the object of this study was one specific aspect of this violence, namely rape and sexual violence. In recent years there has been an increasing emphasis at the national and international levels around the need to prevent and address widespread sexual violence in situations of conflict and crisis. However, despite these efforts, acts of sexual violence in situations of conflict and crisis continue to be perpetrated on a significant scale around the world, shattering lives, fracturing communities, and aggravating the destruction wrought by war, disaster, and civil strife.

Over the course of its hearings, the subcommittee was told that misconceptions of conflict-related sexual violence have led to gaps in policy responses, contributing to the persistent and pervasive nature of the problem. Witnesses stressed that rather than being an actual collateral effect of armed conflict, sexual violence may be used deliberately in armed conflict to destroy communities and achieve political, economic, and military objectives.

The subcommittee also heard testimony regarding sexual violence perpetrated in post-conflict situations following natural disasters and in other situations of crisis and political repression. Witnesses noted that several underlying factors contribute to shaping an environment in which sexual violence can occur, including entrenched discriminatory practices and attitudes, weak rule of law, poverty and lack of economic opportunity, and a climate of impunity for perpetrators.

As part of its broader study of these issues, the subcommittee focused a considerable number of its hearings on the DRC, the eastern regions of which have been labelled the “rape capital of the world”. Indeed, the DRC has become a focal point of international concern because of the extremely high incidence of acts of sexual violence that have been committed against women and girls, especially in the eastern part of the country, where armed conflict has been a constant feature of life for decades.

The subcommittee's report highlights the magnitude of the crimes being committed in the DRC and the extremely negative effect they are having on the human rights of women and girls as well as those of men and boys.

The evidence received by the subcommittee identified a number of key factors contributing to the prevalence of sexual violence in the DRC, particularly in the eastern provinces. These factors include widespread discrimination against women in Congolese law and society; weak rule of law and a critically under-resourced justice sector that lacks capacity, independence, and impartiality, leading to pervasive impunity; an ineffective, ill-disciplined security sector that is not subject to effective civilian control; and competition between armed groups and individuals for control of natural resource revenues in a region affected by widespread poverty and a lack of economic opportunity.

In light of the breadth of factors that contribute to the prevalence of sexual violence in the DRC and in other situations of conflict and crisis, witnesses argued that international efforts to address the problem must take a holistic, multi-sectoral approach and commit to implementation over the long term.

Based on the evidence it heard, the subcommittee put forward the following recommendations to the Government of Canada:

Recommendation 1: That the Government of Canada continue to make the promotion and protection of women’s human rights a foreign policy priority, and that it work to strengthen women’s participation in securing, maintaining and consolidating international peace and security.

Recommendation 2: That the Government of Canada continue to take a leadership role in international efforts to foster the effective implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security in the context of United Nations operations and in United Nations Member States.

Recommendation 3: That the Government of Canada continue to speak out clearly and strongly, on a consistent basis, in support of survivors of sexual violence and against their stigmatization and marginalization in society.

Recommendation 4: That the Government of Canada continue its important efforts to combat forced and early marriage around the world, and that, in connection with this work, Canada consider ways to generate international action to improve the situation of conflict-affected girls forced into marriage or sexual slavery by armed groups.

Recommendation 5: That the Government of Canada continue to express its expectation to the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo that the latter take concrete action to halt the systematic use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.

Recommendation 6: That the Government of Canada convey to the parties to the armed conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, through appropriate channels, the important role that survivors of sexual violence play in ensuring long-term security and justice; and that the Government of Canada continue to call for all parties to the conflict to ensure the active and equal participation of women in the resolution of the conflict.

Recommendation 7: That the Government of Canada encourage the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to undertake a review of national law with a view to repealing or abolishing any legislation, regulation or other law that continues to discriminate against women or girls.

Recommendation 8: That, in its international assistance programming in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Government of Canada consider continuing to support initiatives aimed at providing medical and other forms of assistance to survivors of sexual violence; that the apportionment of Canadian assistance be reviewed with a view to considering the possibility of funding smaller, grass-roots programs — potentially in partnership with larger non-governmental organizations; and that the Government of Canada also consider continuing its support for security and justice sector reform initiatives, prosecutions of alleged perpetrators of sexual violence, and extractive resources governance and tracing regimes.

Recommendation 9: That, in its international assistance programming in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Government of Canada consider the possibility of supporting initiatives that provide training in fundraising, governance and accounting techniques to local non-governmental organizations in order to properly equip them to effectively lead local advocacy efforts.

Recommendation 10: That, in its international assistance programming, the Government of Canada consider ways to work with United Nations agencies and likeminded donor countries to strengthen partnerships with local organizations involved in addressing the problem of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in other situations of conflict and crisis.

Recommendation 11: That the Government of Canada continue to take appropriate steps to protect and support those who work with survivors of sexual violence in particular, and human rights defenders more generally, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in other situations of conflict and crisis.

Recommendation 12: That the Government of Canada continue working to ensure that Canada’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security is implemented in all relevant policies and programming; that, in order to provide timely and robust public progress reports, the Government of Canada continue to make efforts to address challenges associated with collecting data and reporting across government departments, which undertake their activities under diverse mandates, policies and processes; and that the Government of Canada consult with civil society organizations during evaluations and reviews of the National Action Plan.

These are all good recommendations and ones that I and my party are happy to support. I note, as well, that the Subcommittee on International Human Rights has continued to study the issue of rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war in other conflict zones, including in Syria. I thank the members of the subcommittee for their hard work.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, and I have to say that this topic was one of the most troubling we have undertaken studies on in quite a long time.

I want to ask the member a couple of questions. Is he aware of the fact that in the year 2004, UN peacekeepers in the DRC were actually accused of rape themselves and that following that there has been an emphasis on sexual and gender-based violence, which can be found in the latest UN Security Council resolution on the DRC?

Has the member had any indication of any positive impact that might have had on the ground?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to be very blunt, I would have to consult the situation at the moment to be able to properly answer the member's question.

One would assume, obviously, that the United Nations workers, of whatever stripe, would know and fully respect a code when they are working in places like the DRC. It is very troubling to find out that they themselves may have also been involved in acts of sexual violence.

I will have to inform myself to find out whether the changes that have been brought up at the United Nations have had the desired effect.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He raised the issue of governance.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, this is obviously an issue of crucial importance. We really have to find deterrents that will prevent women from becoming victims of rape as a weapon of war.

I would like to know what he believes are the levers that Canada can use to enable the government in power to implement solutions that will truly prevent these rapes from being committed.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

In the recommendations that I mentioned, there is the aspect of governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the need to interact actively, as well as recommendations that Canada actively propose recommendations to try to eliminate sexual violence and rape.

With respect to the levers, diplomacy is an important one. There is also a need to create institutions that recognize that, in today's world, this violence is just not acceptable and that attitudes and the way of life must absolutely change.

The Democratic Republic of Congo went through a very long period of war. Thus, this is a considerable challenge. As far as a lever is concerned, I would simply say that Canada must be persuasive in its relations with the Democratic Republic of Congo. We can also offer assistance to try to change attitudes and create institutions that will eliminate this type of behaviour.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many reports deal with the greater systemic problem of impunity in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In most of the cases that go before the courts, the people who have been arrested unfortunately go unpunished. If we look at the trial process, some of these criminals are unfortunately not brought to justice and are not punished.

I would like to read a finding from the Humans Rights Watch report, which states:

Widespread sexual violence in eastern Congo will not end until the perpetrators, including leaders bearing command responsibility, are brought to justice.

It goes on to say that a new judicial mechanism is needed in the Democratic Republic of Congo to end the impunity.

How does my hon. colleague think that Canada can play a meaningful role with respect to this important change that must be made in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

When I listed the recommendations, the seventh one that I mentioned spoke about the justice system in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It asked Canada to encourage the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo to undertake a review of its national law with a view to repealing or abolishing, in certain cases, any legislation, regulation or other law that continues to discriminate against women or girls. That is a big job, but it has to be done.

In the past, Canada has certainly contributed to implementing changes and establishing institutions that brought about changes in a number of countries. It is a long-term undertaking.

However, Canada can send public servants or people who work in the justice system to those countries, for example. They can work with their counterparts in the Democratic Republic of Congo to try to implement a system that will not discriminate against women and that clearly recognizes that sexual violence and rape are crimes in times of war as in times of peace.

In time, this type of change can be made. However, Canada must play an active role and must put in the effort over the long term.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague tell us how members of civil society can also get involved in this issue?

When we talk about support for rape victims, how can we also get the community involved in finding solutions?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

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

Recommendation 8 calls on Canada to provide international assistance, which can help fund organizations working on the ground.

It is not just a matter of s ending government officials or workers. We also need to send experts to work with the Congolese people on the ground to help victims and educate people. That is the kind of role that Canada can play, and that was in recommendation 8 in the report.

Canada simply needs to be willing to send the resources needed for this type of work.