Debates of May 1st, 2015

Criminal Code

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to yet another Conservative gun bill. We seem to have had a lot of Conservative gun bills in this session of Parliament. Maybe that is because they like them so much, but it is also because the Conservatives are trying to whip up Canadians into a sense of outrage about the, as they call it, red tape around firearms.

It is not red tape when the laws of this country are designed to protect people. The laws of this country are designed to protect people, protect police officers and protect ordinary citizens. One of the ways we protect people is by keeping dangerous firearms out of the hands of people who intend to do bad things with them.

We also protect people by making sure that we cannot confuse, in this case, a BB gun with a real gun. That is part of what would happen as a result of the Conservative amendments to the Criminal Code about firearms storage and transportation. It would become possible for a police officer to become confused over whether or not a gun sitting on somebody's car seat is a BB gun. We do not want a situation to happen where weapons of this ilk become something that could cause confusion and could cause something bad to happen.

The biggest issue facing the folks in my riding with regard to guns is the proliferation of handguns. The proliferation of handguns has happened because the government has reduced the number of people working at the border of this country. As is documented on many occasions, handguns are coming into this country in large numbers, into the hands of children in my riding.

Nothing in the bill would change whether or not the government has the effective resources at the border of this country to prevent children and young people from possessing and using much more dangerous firearms.

I am surprised the Conservatives did not bring the bill forward as a government bill rather than a private member's bill, but that is another problem we are dealing with. Conservatives like to bring forward private members' bills to do government business so there is not enough time to properly debate it.

The bill is part of another process of making sure that the Conservatives can deregulate and de-red tape, in their view, the use of firearms in this country.

In many cases the guns that are being exempted by the government from these regulations could cause serious bodily harm. If they could cause serious bodily harm, they need to be handled safely, transported safely, I believe, in the same manner we would transport any other firearm. However, the government would like some firearms to be exempted from the storage and handling requirements.

It is perhaps a little difficult for some members opposite to understand that these things can, in fact, cause serious bodily harm. While at the same time, we have a porous border that allows literally thousands of handguns to flood the streets of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and other places, we have the government focused more on making it easier for people to transport guns generally.

This is only one of a series of bills on gun control and gun legislation that have done nothing to protect people, and that is part of what a government is supposed to do, protect people.

The Conservatives have made it easier for Canadians to own guns. They have made it easier for Canadians to own dangerous weapons. They have made it easier for Canadians to not have to let the police know about those guns. They have made it easier for the criminal element in this country to get handguns by getting them across the border, because the border has become so porous. We no longer have the ability to stop these things at the border.

When I go to a grade 10 classroom to talk to them about politics, I ask these 12, 13, 14, 15-year-old kids how many of them own an illegal handgun or know somebody who has one. Half the hands go up in the class. That is the reality we face in my riding. The proliferation of handguns is enormous The current government has done absolutely nothing to stop that flow of handguns at the border. I have not ever gone into a class and had them say, no, nobody has a gun any more. In fact, they repeat it every time I go, and that is because it is becoming so easy to acquire these things.

What is the government doing about it? It is passing laws that would penalize people by putting them in jail for having one, yes. First, however, we have to stop them coming into the country. They are all illegal. The way to stop them being used is to stop them coming into the country. We are not doing that. These are not guns that are being manufactured in a Canadian facility and being given to grade 10 kids. No, that is not what is happening. They are being traded on the black market, in the city of Toronto. That black market is getting literally thousands of firearms from firearms shops in the U.S. that do not care whether or not somebody has proper ID or proper certification.

Anything that the current government does to lessen public safety is something that we will be opposed to. We have analyzed the bill and part of what the bill would do is to lessen public safety.

We do not like lessening public safety when it comes to meat inspections. That has happened under the current Conservative watch.

We do not like the lessening of public safety when it comes to the rail system in this country. We have seen what lessening of public safety does when we had a train derailment in Lac-Mégantic. Forty-seven people were killed and a town was destroyed in Lac-Mégantic. What the Transportation Safety Board, very clearly, said is that the current government had failed, that it had failed to enforce and keep up with the systems that were necessary to ensure that the rail system is safe in this country. It is not getting any better. The Auditor General and the Transportation Safety Board said that rail safety in this country is in a perilous state, as we have seen with the spate of wrecks in the past two years since Lac-Mégantic. We have had Gogama, we have had Gogama a second time, we have had a wreck in New Brunswick, we have had wrecks in Saskatchewan and we have had wrecks all over the States.

These systems that the government claims are the rail safety systems of the future are not doing the job. They are not preventing the massive fireballs that happened. Those trains are still rolling through the centres of cities.

The notion that we should use legislation to make Canadians less safe is something that I will oppose. One of the functions of a proper government, of a government that will be in place in October 2015, when the NDP takes over, will be to protect Canadians, to protect their health, to protect their well-being, to protect their ability to live near a rail corridor, because many Canadians do, and to protect people from illogical and unthought-out changes to the Firearms Act.

It is all well and good to suggest that the changes to firearms storage and transportation is only about BB guns, and that everybody knows that BB guns cannot hurt anybody and why are we getting so upset about BB guns. These things are made to look like real guns. That is what they are. They are real guns. They are something that will hurt somebody quite seriously. When I was young, I was hit with a pellet gun. Luckily, the wound was very superficial because it hit a piece of leather on my shoe before it hit my foot. I was not hospitalized as a result, but I very well could have been. It was merely one of these toy guns that the Conservatives suggest do not need regulation at all.

They can cause serious bodily harm, their confusion makes it difficult for the police to sometimes know what they are and, therefore, we will be opposing the bill.

[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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their thoughtful speeches.

I am the chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, and proudly so. We are the only political party that has such a caucus in Parliament. Over the last year, my caucus members and I have met with dozens of hunting, angling, trapping, and outdoor groups across the country. Contrary to popular opinion, the culture of the outdoors—angling, hunting, trapping and fishing—is very much alive and well. My friend from Prince George said it well when he used the term “culture”. We are the only political party and the only government that so strongly defends the outdoor culture.

Contrary to popular belief, this is not a declining culture in our country. In fact, the request for hunter safety instruction is growing by leaps and bounds across the country; this community is roaring back. There are some four million people in this country who hunt, fish, and trap. It is a sizeable part of our country.

In order to help and work with this very important constituency, we put forth Bill C-42, which was widely and positively received by the hunting and sport shooting community. In the environment committee, we are doing a major study of hunting and trapping, and in the fisheries committee we are doing a major study of recreational fishing. Why do I mention those two committee studies? That is because both of those studies in each committee were strongly opposed by the Liberals and the NDP. We were shocked by that opposition. It is the first time that those committees have studied these topics: hunting and trapping in the environment committee, and recreational fishing in the fisheries committee.

Interestingly, the members of the hunting and angling community are Canada's first, foremost, and most effective conservationists. Their appearance before our committee was astonishing. They described the conservation activities that the hunting and angling community does across the country, which this government strongly supports.

In terms of my bill, which is basically a kind of housekeeping bill, as my colleague from Prince George said, we are ensuring that such activities as paintballing and owning a BB gun are not subject to criminal sanctions if some paperwork is not done. This important legislation responds to the needs of the owners of paintball guns, BB guns, and air rifles, providing much-needed clarity with respect to how Canadian law treats this type of property.

How do these devices differ from firearms? They are essentially pneumatic devices that propel projectiles by means of compressed air. This differentiates them from regular bullet-firing firearms, which use a propellant charge. Air guns are commonly used for hunting, pest control, recreational shooting, and competitive sports; for example, the Olympics include 10 metre air rifle and 10 metre air pistol events. Beyond this, they remain popular with thousands of Canadians because they are quieter, more affordable, and their regulation is not nearly as stringent as with true firearms.

Air guns are generally divided into the following categories.

First we have air guns, in which the shot or projectile will not cause serious injury or death. These devices fall outside of the scope of the Firearms Act. An example is a harmless air gun made out of clear plastic, or a device that is a child's toy. The next category includes those air guns that have the potential to cause serious bodily harm, injury, or death, and these fall under the Criminal Code.

I would note, as well, that my colleagues across the way were talking about the potential criminal use of air gun devices. I would point out that it is a criminal offence to point an air gun, or to act as if it is a firearm. If a store is robbed by an individual with an air gun, for criminal law purposes it is treated the same as a firearm.

My bill simply reduces red tape on law-abiding Canadian citizens. This is what Canadians want. I ask all members to support this bill and ensure that we continue to move toward safe and sensible firearms policies in this country.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Wednesday, May 6, 2015, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 2:17 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:17 p.m.)