House of Commons Hansard #194 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was segregation.

Topics

Second readingCommon Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is so vague and general that he probably did not listen very closely to my speech. One of the problems I see with the bill is the proposed regulation or the process for deciding what kind of weapons will be deregulated.

I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but if I were, that would be one part of the bill that I would definitely take a very close look at.

My general objection is to the way the government operates when it comes to firearms. It seems to want to divide us—us versus them—as though it were impossible for us to agree on certain aspects.

There are a few Conservative MPs in the Toronto area, but I doubt there will be many left come October 2015. People there have the same concerns about what is going on with firearms as my Toronto colleagues.

We have rural ridings in Quebec too, believe it or not. I do not even need to go to rural ridings, because there is a big hunting community in Gatineau. Those people bring me moose steak. Thank goodness they do not bring me too much because I would have to report that to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That being said, it is extraordinary, and this affects all communities, so they really should stop trying to divide us.

If these kinds of remarks mean nothing to the member, it is no wonder that Parliament has run amok. The Conservatives are not listening to the message that Canadians are sending. For them, it is better to divide people in order to reign more effectively. However, that does not create a strong democracy, and we have no right to go around the world giving lessons on democracy.

Second readingCommon Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member.

The party opposite wanted a conversation about a regulation that raises concerns. The regulation concerned is about police officers and chief firearms officers as the experts who will decide which guns are safe and which guns are not safe, and about displacing them and putting a political person in charge.

This is the same party that said that your party, the official opposition, denigrated police forces when it said their expertise could not be trusted. This is the same party that has said that, when it comes to police officers, they are the highest authority when it comes to public safety.

What are your concerns about giving a political minister the right to legalize a weapon, instead of giving the police departments and the firearms officers in the provinces the right to make that determination?

Second readingCommon Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The hon. member for Gatineau.

I would remind all members that they are to address their questions and comments to the chair, not to individual members of Parliament.

Second readingCommon Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. When I was talking about different trends that are worrying me, and using my expertise as justice critic for the official opposition, that is the benefit in which I would have hoped the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness would have been interested. It is one thing to know that people will vote for or against; it is another thing to know why. There are multiple reasons. We have the reasons of our public security critic, and there are other considerations and different aspects of other members. I have colleagues who are really involved with first nations. I am not saying that I am not involved with first nations, but they are more predominant in their ridings. They are acutely aware of their needs, and so on. Mine is justice and looking at different bills and seeing the similarities in this bill with some of the bills that I have to analyze and discuss at the justice committee, such as the fact that we are giving more and more powers to politicians that we used to give to the experts such as the police.

Even if I were the minister, I would not want that power. We should leave it in the hands of the specialists. We see that in Bill C-53 with the “life means life” thing, we would give the same Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness the possibility to decide if somebody would get out or not. Thank God it will not happen under him. There is a danger there. He wanted something precise with Bill S-2. I hope he reads it, because it is a sleeper bill that would have an impact on all of these bills.

The Conservatives know what they are doing. They are undermining democracy, and that is a danger. If we do not stand up in our place to go against that, one day we will have nothing to do, and we will all stay home because we do not need to vote or do anything. Who cares?

Second readingCommon Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Lévis—Bellechasse Québec

Conservative

Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, the member's remarks are completely inconsistent, since the NRA, which according to her will raise money with this bill, opposes the bill.

This bill aims to simplify the registration scheme and introduces measures to enhance public safety.

How can the member oppose mandatory training, removing licences from people who have been convicted of domestic violence, and tightening restrictions on importing firearms? Is she prepared to enhance public safety, have an effective system and, as she put it so well, correct the mistakes made with the hunters who were victims of the events of the 1990s?

She has a chance to take action and support the bill. I would like to hear what she has to say about that.

Second readingCommon Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was taken aback when the minister mentioned the NRA in his question.

Second readingCommon Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

That is what you said in your speech.

Second readingCommon Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

The minister mentioned the NRA in his question, but I will ignore that.

There is no doubt that a bill like this does not make the Conservatives totally happy because what they want is for everyone to be able to walk around with a gun. As long as the Conservative government is unable to achieve that goal, they will have to live with their disappointment.

The article that Evan Dyer published in November, which my colleague from Winnipeg North referred to, said that a number of Conservative supporters were disappointed to see that the firearms issue was not moving forward fast enough or far enough. I would be surprised if they showed up in committee and said they were against the bill; I think they would rather say it did not go far enough. We have seen others say that in some committees.

That being said, there are a few words and clauses to consider, such as “reducing domestic violence”. The Conservatives keep saying that if something is good, then the NDP will vote against it. However, they are leaving out other extremely dangerous aspects of the issue, or things that might be good in and of themselves, but would have an impact on small communities that could create certain problems.

The minister does not want to listen to us in this debate. Therefore, if he would assure me that he will listen to what will be said in committee and that we will be able to eliminate the irritants, we might see excellent results after the bill is studied in committee.

In any case, I will wait with a great deal of optimism and little hope, as I already said, for the bill to be studied in committee.

Second readingCommon Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

April 1st, 2015 / 5:45 p.m.

NDP

Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, what worries me is that anyone could have access to weapons that were previously classified as restricted weapons—for example, semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons—and which are combat weapons. I own six weapons and they are all registered. Not one of them can shoot more than three bullets. That is all a hunter needs. No one is going to go moose hunting with an AK-47, which would cut a moose in half. That would be pointless and entirely stupid.

Anything can happen with bills that include regulation by reference. It would be hell. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

Second readingCommon Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give a few examples to please our Conservative friends and follow up on the question posed by my colleague, whom I thank.

Bill C-42 gives cabinet a new power, namely, the power to change the definitions of the classifications of firearms set out in section 84 of the Criminal Code through regulations that make exceptions. Through a regulation, cabinet could classify firearms that would normally be defined as prohibited or restricted as non-restricted firearms. That is what is set out in proposed subsection 117.15(3).

Similarly, cabinet could declare firearms that would normally be prohibited to be restricted. That is what is set out in proposed subsection 117.15(4).

Rather than focusing on public safety, Bill C-42 gives cabinet the power to establish definitions and classifications of firearms. That is what is troubling about this bill.

There is a clause that refers to domestic violence, and the minister knows that we are working really hard to eliminate that scourge. However, that does not mean that just because of that one clause, I am going to ignore all of the clause that we know we will not be able to amend in committee because the Conservatives will not let us. That is unfortunate. We could have done so much better with this bill.

Second readingCommon Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo B.C.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that I will be sharing my time this evening or as the debate goes to the next stage.

As a member of the Conservative government, I am very proud to rise and speak today in favour of Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. As I go through my speech, I think people are going to recognize why it is called that, because the name very appropriately reflects all the very important measures within the bill.

It should be no surprise to anyone that our government has chosen to champion this bill. We have always been the only Canadian party to believe in a common sense approach to public safety. Criminals, not law-abiding persons, should face repercussions in the justice system. The bill would make several much-needed amendments to do just that.

The bill has eight components that take a safe and sensible approach to firearms heritage in Canada. It contains elements to target violent criminal behaviour. By cutting red tape, the bill would also reduce the burden on law-abiding Canadians who wish to enjoy full use of their property.

I would like to take this opportunity to outline some of the measures that I think are particularly beneficial to all Canadians in addition to some that will benefit law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters specifically.

I grew up in an urban setting, and had I never moved to a rural community, I perhaps would not have understood the bill as much as I do, having had the enormous privilege and opportunity to live in a rural area for many years.

Hunting was not part of my life growing up, nor was sport shooting. When we moved to a rural community, one of the things that happened very early on was that I hit a deer with my car in the middle of a very isolated area. The deer was severely injured and was on the side of the road. A person who came by not too long afterward managed to put the deer out of its misery with his rifle.

A few years later, my children were born in a rural community. We lived on some acreage. A cougar had been stalking our children, and our next-door neighbour shot the cougar. Thankfully none of our children was impacted.

As a result, I learned to appreciate that hunters and farmers used firearms as a tool, but it was really, as we so often say, law-abiding hunters and farmers who were getting buried in red tape.

I appreciate how some folks from urban areas might not understand the bill, but we should all agree with the principles of reducing red tape and with some of the protection measures that are going to go into place.

Let us look at the facts. Enjoying a hobby such as sport shooting or utilizing firearms as a part of one's livelihood does not make a criminal, nor does it in any logical way predict the likelihood of committing a crime. I think I gave two very important examples.

That is why the bill would create a six-month grace period for licence renewal at the end of the five-year licence period. People would not be able to use their firearms or purchase ammunition with an expired licence, but they would not be treated like criminals because they made an honest mistake. Who among us has not missed a renewal of car insurance or some other type of important insurance? A little grace period is very appropriate, as any reasonable, sensible person should agree.

Possession-only licences would be eliminated. They would be converted to possession-and-acquisition licences, giving the right to purchase firearms to all who hold a valid POL. When I learned about the system that we had in place, I was quite flabbergasted in terms of the POL, the PAL, and the firearms registry. It really seemed like a system that was buried in red tape, so we are not talking about reducing safety; we are talking about reducing a system that is buried in red tape. That means 600,000 Canadians who have owned and used firearms safely, many for more than 20 years, will now be trusted to purchase new firearms if they wish, as they have safely used firearms for years. Again, I think any reasonable person would agree.

This bill proposes that first-time firearms owners must attend firearms training prior to being issued a licence. That is safe and sensible. The bill proposes to create firearms prohibition orders against those who commit domestic violence, thus punishing those who commit criminal actions as opposed to those who stay within the law.

I find it very difficult to understand why people across the floor could possibly oppose this bill, though I must say again that I am not really all that surprised, because I saw what happened with the long gun registry. Some NDP members represent rural communities. I know that they voted against the wishes of their constituents when they voted to keep the long gun registry, and if they vote against this bill, they will be voting against the wishes of the majority of their constituents again. Those constituents should be very concerned, because they are not being represented by their NDP members, the people they sent here to represent them.

Today if a law-abiding gun owner wants to get a restricted firearm repaired for a day at the range next week, they cannot, and I will say why. It is because they would have to submit a piece of paperwork to the Ontario CFO's office to get a letter authorizing them to transport it to that location, even if they have a piece of signed paperwork saying they can take it to their local range. That is simply nonsense.

If someone has a licence and wants to take guns to a licensed armourer, is it really a risk to public safety if the firearms are transported in a locked case, with a trigger lock on the firearms and with the firearms out of arm's reach, as required by law? If it really is a risk to public safety, then why, after waiting several weeks or more for a piece of paperwork from the CFO, is it now somehow made safe? If the CFO thought someone was unsafe, he should never have approved the licence in the first place. The entire process is nonsense. The government's bill would address this aspect as well.

As firearms owners, people are already subject to continuous eligibility screening. This means their licences are checked against the police information system to see if they have committed a crime. This bill proposes to end needless paperwork around authorization to transport restricted firearms by making them a condition of a restricted licence for routine and lawful activities. CFOs who approve licences for firearms owners would now also be approving the legal use of those firearms at the same time.

This bill would end the arbitrary discretion of the chief firearms officers. Without a legitimate public safety need, they would no longer be able to create regulations that deliberately infringe on the enjoyment of property.

This bill would make two extremely important changes that would benefit many Canadians. One is that the bill proposes to end the loophole that stops information sharing between law enforcement agencies when they are investigating the importation of illegal handguns. The other change proposed in this bill is to put the final say on the classification of a firearm in the hands of the elected government after it receives professional advice on the characteristics of the firearm.

These last two changes would end bureaucratic nonsense. I keep using that word because we can see how bogged down the process is in red tape. Yes, we need to worry about safety, and yes, we need to worry about proper training, but no, we do not need one piece of paperwork after another.

I believe that protecting Canada's heritage is at the core of the bill. Hunters, farmers, and sports shooters are at the very core of Canadian heritage and deserve representation against false perceptions that are being propagated in the House. We have heard many of them already. People are not criminals in this country just because they own firearms, nor should they be made criminals through fearmongering.

On this side of the House, we will always stand up for safe and sensible firearms policy. If we look at the eight points that I brought up, we see that they would reduce red tape and increase safety measures. They are sensible and appropriate, and I suggest that all members on both sides of the House should seriously consider supporting this bill.

They are really reducing red tape and increasing safety measures. They are sensible and appropriate, and I suggest that all members on both sides of the House seriously consider supporting the bill.

The House resumed from March 27 consideration of the motion.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Order, please. It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion M-533, under private members' business, in the name of Mr. Genest-Jourdain.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #371

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource DevelopmentPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-628, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the National Energy Board Act (oil transportation and pipeline certificate), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Shipping ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-628, under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #372

Canada Shipping ActPrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from March 31 consideration of the motion.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage respecting the request for an extension of 30 days to consider Bill C-597, An Act to amend the Holidays Act (Remembrance Day), presented on March 31.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #373

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from March 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-613, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Access to Information Act (transparency), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Parliament of Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-613 under private members' business.