House of Commons Hansard #220 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was licence.

Topics

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 1146Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

With regard to government funding in the riding of Langley, for each fiscal year since 2005-2006 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1157Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

With regard to amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act in Part IV of Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts: (a) how soon after the coming into force of these provisions does the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (the Service) expect to begin to use its new powers to intervene to disrupt terror plots; (b) what will the costs be to provide supplementary training to Service agents and employees so that they may safely use their new powers; (c) what will the costs be to provide additional equipment to Service agents and employees so that they may safely use their new powers; (d) has there been a projection of the total costs of implementing Part IV of Bill C-51, including, but not limited to, the additional cost of the preparation, issuance and execution of warrants under section 21.1, and, if so, what are the details of this projection; (e) will the Service's budget be updated to match these new powers; and (f) will the Security Intelligence Review Committee's budget be increased to match these new powers?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria had five minutes of questions and comments remaining.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for York South—Weston.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech earlier. Given the history the current government has had of not protecting the safety of Canadians in almost every endeavour where the federal government is supposed to protect the safety of Canadians, and given also that this bill, in our opinion, does not actually do anything to protect the safety of Canadians, is it the position of the member and the NDP that this bill is actually making safety worse in Canada?

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I said during my remarks, whenever a statute is introduced with verbiage like “common sense”, we know that there is something political going on. When we heard the interventions by the Conservatives, it confirmed that suspicion.

No, the bill does not make us any safer at all. Of course, that is the burden of the Coalition for Gun Control's argument and that of the Government of Quebec and of so many other interveners who pointed that out.

Moreover, when we look at the budget cuts the government has made to those who make us safe, such as the CBSA and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as I alluded to in my remarks, we see what game is being played here today.

Similarly, the decision to simply give more discretionary authority to the cabinet, rather than to stick with the classifications that are in the statute, suggests that there is an attempt to provide political cover for cabinet to make changes as it sees fit, dependant on the lobbying that is made to the cabinet on any given subject. That is also a matter that I think undermines the claim that this is somehow about public safety. It is about politics.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer to my question just a moment ago, about whether this bill would make us any safer.

In fact, as I read the bill, the bill would do a number of things that would lessen gun safety. It would make it easier to transport guns in a manner that is not known to the police. It would make it easier for cabinet to unilaterally decide to change the definitions of firearms, for the cabinet, against the wishes of the various authorities put in place to decide what firearms should be restricted, to make those restrictions null and void.

In addition, the bill would appear to give an ability for persons to have a six-month grace period to fulfill their licence requirements. Nowhere in Canada can I think of a place where someone has a grace period on a licence requirement, particularly on something as important as the ownership of a firearm. Right now, if I want to drive my car without a licence, I am in violation of the law. There is no grace period for driving my car without a licence or for not licensing my car.

Would the member like to comment on that?

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The Coalition for Gun Control, for example, would agree entirely with the his concern about the transportation issue. That was the subject of great debate before committee.

The undermining by cabinet of the restrictions on firearms, given the authority it has taken for itself in this bill, is another example of the centralization of power by the Conservatives for obviously political purposes.

The last point the member made about the grace period and the unusual nature of the grace period has also been the subject of many people in the police community and others who wonder why on Earth we would have such a period in the bill.

As my hon. friend pointed out, usually a licence is for a fixed period of time. We do not then usually say that if we forget about our drivers' licences, we will have six months to drive around, just because we feel like it, and hopefully we will not get caught by the police, but if we do, we have a grace period.

It is kind of a bizarre position to take. Not only is it bizarre, but to the point of public safety that the member so cogently raised, people have talked about how the period, when applying for a licence, is used to screen people for mental health issues, potential risks to themselves and others. If there is some sort of grace period, that can delay the information being available to the police and others for safety concerns.

Finally, undermining the Chief Firearms Officer and referring to them, as Conservatives have done, as simply bureaucrats is a shameful position to take.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to what I view as not just a bad bill, but a dangerous bill. The bill talks about common sense and when we put “common sense” and “firearms” in the same sentence, one has to wonder whether this is really just a political bill and not actually something to make us safer.

I wish I had a nickel for every time a member opposite said, “This is our top priority”. No matter what we are talking about, whether it is the environment, public safety, rail safety, drug safety or food safety, everything seems to be the Conservatives' top priority, yet the evidence is that everything has suffered budget cuts under the government. In order to provide Canadians with tax cuts, it has had to cut public services and make Canadians less safe. That is something the New Democrats do not support. In a few months' time, the NDP leader and the party, with their experience and plan, will be able to replace this tired government and actually fix the damage it has done, including the damage this bill would do to the safety regime of Canadians.

The bill should be titled “relaxing guns laws in Canada”, because that is really what it does. It would not make some common sense amendments or find some way to make more sense. It is designed to relax guns laws, and that caters to a particular lobby that the Conservatives like to cater to and have done so since they took office in 2006. They have done a number of things over the years to make it less safe for Canadians.

Bill C-42 would make it easier to transport guns. Canada has specific and very strict rules about how to transport firearms. We do not want to become like the people in the U.S., where the transportation of guns is allowed openly and without any restrictions whatsoever, in most cases. This bill would allow people much more freedom to transport their firearms without having to first know where they are going. The police will have very little way of knowing what is going on when people are transporting their guns.

In addition, and perhaps more tellingly, it would give the cabinet and the minister the power to change the definition of what is and what is not a restricted weapon. I think this in knee-jerk reaction to a decision that was taken by others than the Conservatives that they did not like. Bill C-42 would give the cabinet authority to override firearms classification definitions in section 84 of the code by the way of regulations carving out exceptions. By regulation, cabinet could deem firearms that would otherwise by captured by the definitions of prohibited and restricted firearms to be non-restricted firearms. Similarly, cabinet could deem firearms that would otherwise be prohibited firearms to be restricted firearms. It would basically transfer authority over definitions and classifications to cabinet, rather than putting the emphasis on public safety.

As we all too poignantly recall from the disaster at École Polytechnique, the classification system in our country allows very dangerous weapons to be in the hands of ordinary citizens and when those ordinary citizens are not stable, disaster can result. It would also limit provincial powers to attach conditions of licence. Why are we touching provincial jurisdiction? The government claims to want to leave everything to the provinces to decide, but as much as it can, it will get out of housing or public transit and just give money to the provinces and tell them to do whatever they want. Yet here, it would actually remove the right of the provinces to attach conditions of licence, which is not a good thing. It is not more safe.

Finally, it would grant a grace period to persons whose licences expire. Every year I get a notice from the Ontario provincial government that says my car licence is going to expire and I had better renew it. Every five years I get a notice from the provincial government saying that my driver's licence is going to expire and I had better renew it.

If the same thing were to happen with firearms licences, there would be no excuses. Is this because the government does not want to bother finding people? Is it because the Conservatives do not want to bother reminding people, because it is something that, maybe, needs a bit of a reminder. To actually grant an exemption or a grace period is dangerous, according to some witnesses.

We in the NDP put public safety first. That is very clear in all of our positions and our comments on the various budget decisions that the government has made and in all of our positions on issues like food safety. The Conservatives were in power when the listeriosis outbreak took place. Public safety was put at risk to the point where people lost their lives. This is something that we should not and cannot accept. To cut the budget of the department that is responsible for keeping people safe, such as the food safety department, is an unconscionable act of neglecting the public safety that we on this side of the House are so determined to protect.

There was the E. coli outbreak. As far as we know, no one died. People did get sick, and our reputation with the U.S. was seriously harmed. At the same time, it was the budget cuts to the health and safety of Canadians and to the safety of the system that caused public safety to be put at risk.

Rail safety is another point where the Conservative government has actually lowered the safety standards to the point where 47people in Lac-Mégantic lost their lives in July, 2013, and the centre of an entire town was decimated. The government said that it had better fix things, but since that time, there have been several other major train derailments that have taken place in other parts of the country. Only by good fortune and luck did the government escape yet another massive disaster. What do we know about the reaction of the government? We know there is one new inspector out of the hundreds of inspectors. There is no determination by the government to make our rail system safer.

In keeping with the notion of gun safety, we have learned that the RCMP is sometimes ill-equipped with its own firearms to go up against the firearms that are available to other Canadians. Some of them lost their lives as a result, and that is shameful. We know the government has cut the budget for the RCMP to the point where it has to abandon good programs in order to focus on the programs that the government says are the priority. We cannot keep juggling without running the risk of leaving some people unprotected, and that is exactly what happens.

In my riding of York South—Weston, none of what is going on in Bill C-42 would actually make anybody any safer. In fact, the problem in my riding is the preponderance of handguns, particularly among young people. When I go to a grade 10 class and ask the students how many of them own an illegal handgun or know someone who owns an illegal handgun, half of the hands go up. That is absolutely astounding, and it has been not just once, not just twice, but on several occasions that I get the same result. It means that among the residents of my riding, there are illegal handguns in the hands of young people.

This is happening because the government has cut the CBSA. It has reduced the number of inspections that go on at the border. As we discovered this week, CBSA officers do not even have access to proper information to stop criminals from re-entering Canada and stop people who have no business coming into Canada from entering.

The NDP believes that public safety is one of the most important things a federal government should be in charge of and should ensure. For the Conservative federal government to abandon public safety at every turn is absolutely wrong, and we will not stand for it. This bill would do nothing to make people safer. It would make them less safe. As a result, we will be opposing this bill.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what my colleague across the way had to say. It was very light on the facts. In fact, most of what he said was factually incorrect.

He said that we are relaxing the rules. We are not relaxing any of the rules. Public safety is not being compromised. He said that it will be easier to transport. That is totally false. The rules we have in place today will still be in place after the bill is passed. He said that the police will not know where someone is going. They today do not check the authorization to transport. They do not get that information, so that will not change.

He may not realize that in some provinces, like British Columbia, one's authorization to transport is good for three years, the same as what we are implementing now. It will become part of a licence. That is not changing. However, there is a huge discrepancy across the provinces as to how this is implemented.

He said that firearms owners will get a notice that their firearms licence has expired. Today over half of firearms owners do not get that notice. That is a very serious thing. Therefore, in the six-month grace period, if they go to buy ammo, they will realize that their licence has expired, because they will not be able to buy ammunition or go hunting.

So much of what the member said is completely misleading. He does not know what he is talking about.

Eligibility is reviewed daily. One does not need to renew one's licence. Whether one should have a gun is reviewed every night.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me read from one of the witnesses. This is from the president of the Coalition for Gun Control. She said:

We believe that relaxing the controls over the authorizations to transport will increase the risk that these firearms will be misused. If you can transport your firearm to any gun club in the province, it means you can be virtually anywhere with it.

I did not say that people got a notice that their licence had expired. I said that perhaps they should get a notice that their licence has expired in such a way that they would know in advance of an expiry, and we would not be talking here about some kind of weird six-month grace period to allow people time to do whatever it is they have to do. No other licence we have has any kind of grace period, and to impose one for gun control is making things less safe.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, what I find fascinating about the debate so far, and which the member for York South—Weston has highlighted once again, is this sort of cultural divide.

We can stand here and say we get it. Rural Canada, parts of our nation where hunting is a way of sustaining life, not just a question of privilege, is a different culture.

However, there is an urban reality to the debate that is constantly being ignored. Making it easier to transport guns in urban settings is dangerous in the same way that riding a bicycle on a highway is easier in a rural community than it is in an urban community. In North York, one does not ride a bicycle on the highway. In South River, one can. There is a difference. It is like snowmobiling. One does not snowmobile down downtown Toronto streets, no matter how much snow there is. One might do it in a rural community.

We get it.

Could the member explain why relaxing gun controls in urban centres and making it easier to transport weapons in urban centres scares people in urban centres, because of the danger guns present to communities there?

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member for Trinity—Spadina's question, because it strikes at the heart of what is going on here.

We have a system of gun control and gun legislation that has been designed around some complaints that came from rural parts of Canada. However, in my riding of York South—Weston and in many urban centres, this kind of change to the gun legislation will only make things less safe. There is nothing in the bill that in an urban centre will make things more safe. It will make it less safe.

We already have enough illegal weapons on the ground in the city of Toronto that we cannot seem to control, because we cannot stop them at the border. To make the transportation of legally owned weapons easier in the city of Toronto is something people are afraid of.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NDP member for Newton—North Delta said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

That is absolutely right

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

However, Mr. Speaker, it seems that the members opposite fail to understand that, as I have pointed out today in a few of their quotations.

However, it gets worse. Despite the objection, it is clear that both the NDP and the Liberals will bring back the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry should they ever get the chance.

The NDP leader said on December 3 of this past year:

I think that it is possible to provide the police with the tools to better protect the public and themselves by making sure they're able to follow every gun....

I have nothing against seeing honest farmers and duck hunters be able to have their weapons. But, you know, that honest hunter who goes out with his pickup truck, it's a registered pickup truck...the trailer's registered and the 4X4 is registered. Heck, his dog is registered.

[New Democrats] have confidence in the ability of farmers and duck hunters to fill out a form.

The Liberal leader has said he voted to keep the firearms registry. He said, “If we had a vote tomorrow, I would vote once against to keep the long-gun registry”.

It gets worse. The Liberal member for Trinity—Spadina said that he even drew a moral equivalency between hunters and jihadi terrorists. It would be unbelievable if it were not from the same party whose former justice minister said that he came to Ottawa firmly of the belief that only the police and military should have access to firearms.

The fact of the matter is that it is only our Conservative government, led by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, who will stand up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Approval for the bill is widespread. Let us listen to the former police officer from Saskatchewan, Murray Grismer, who said:

As a veteran police officer, master firearms instructor, and court-qualified expert, I am of the opinion changes to Bill C-42, the common-sense firearms licensing act, contrary to what others would have you believe, do not constitute a threat to public safety, nor do they inhibit a police officer from executing his or her duties. In fact, they enhance public safety and through the simplification of the licensing regime and ATTs greatly assist police officers in the execution of their duties, all done by the application of a little common sense.

Let us listen to Professor Gary Mauser, from Simon Fraser University, in British Columbia, who said:

I do not think that any of the changes in Bill C-42 would increase the danger to women or children through guns. At the present time, only 2% of accused murderers have any kind of firearms licence. That's a PAL, POL or the old FAC. So this is a very small group of people and nothing would change. ...gun ownership is subject to intense scrutiny to achieve a licence, and secondly, nightly to make sure that there are no restraining orders or any kind of offences committed overnight. Nothing in this bill would reduce that.

Greg Illerbrun, from the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, said:

...I understand that there are serious disconnects between the legitimate firearms users and those for whom the very mention of the word “gun” strikes unwarranted fear into their hearts. Sadly, this is the reality, which is continuously fuelled by a politically motivated and sensationalist media agenda.

Today's measures do represent common-sense improvement, and for that I thank you. Legitimate firearms owners are ready to get to work. We will help you foster the discussion and assist in creating a common-sense act that stops criminalizing the traditional lifestyle of legitimate firearms users in Canada.

Even the editorial board from the National Post was onside. It said:

...the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act...is good news for responsible gun owners and good news, as the name suggests, for common sense.

[It shows that] it is possible to streamline the process of legally acquiring a firearm without reducing the already stringent controls on their ownership, and we welcome its...passage.

This is clearly a bill that is supported by a wide cross-section of Canadian society, and what is more important, it is good sound policy that will make Canadians safer, without needless red tape. It will make sure that the criminal justice system focuses on bad guys, not on ordinary folks who forget to fill out a form.

I could go on for much longer on this issue that is very close to my heart, but I see that my time is about to expire. I would like to leave members with one parting thought. At the core of the bill is Canada's outdoors culture. I am the outgoing chair of the all-party parliamentary outdoor caucus, and I am also a member of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, the only party that has such a body.

Some members of the Liberals and NDP took debate on the bill as an opportunity to engage in a drive-by smear of outdoor enthusiasts, by saying that those who want to obey clear rules are part of “an American-style gun lobby”, as if we should hang our heads in shame at such a moniker. This is patently ridiculous, and it is offensive to the millions of Canadians who engage in hunting and sport shooting.

I want to quote Greg Farrant, from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. He said at committee:

Firearms owners in Canada are judges, lawyers, farmers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, accountants, even federal politicians, many of whom...live in and represent urban ridings. They are not criminals. They are not gang members. Rather, they are lawful firearms owners who obey the law.

The laws as they are currently drafted discourage ownership of firearms and seek to bring about the end of hunting and sport shooting in Canada. We will never stand by and let this happen. Conservatives will always fight for respect for those who enjoy outdoor heritage activities. When the vote comes at third reading on the common sense firearms licensing act, I can assure everyone in this House that the firearms community will be watching, and they will take that into consideration during the events coming up this fall.

I look forward to answering any questions.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made some absolutely ridiculous claims in his speech.

We know that there are a number of very important stakeholders that the government did not consult. The government is also disregarding the concerns that police services have about how difficult it will be to enforce the prohibition on the unauthorized transportation of firearms.

What groups did the government consult? Did it consult police services across Canada, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association before the announcement? Did it consult the provinces and territories?

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question for the opportunity it gives me to clarify some of the misinformation out there.

We did consult far and wide. In fact, at committee, police organizations were invited to attend. When the member says that it is the unauthorized carry that concerns them, an ATT, as we have it in this legislation, does not allow people to carry a gun in an unauthorized manner. That is a completely false statement. The member is misleading the public.

The ATT, authorization to transport, that would become part of the licence, would not change any of the rules as far as gun owners being able to transport their guns. People would still have to have them locked up, doubly. Most people do not realize that they have to have trigger locks and the guns have to be in a locked case. To be sure, very often gun owners will also lock them in their trunk. Things would not change because of this common sense firearms licensing act.

I wish the member would withdraw the statement that she made. We consulted far and wide. There is nothing here that would compromise public safety.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member attributed comments to me that I have no recollection of ever having made about terrorism and gun owners, which I find odd. If he would care to table the comments with me, I would love to review them. However, I think his aim is a little off, and he may want to go back to the gun range and practise a bit. One thing that is clear is that extremists in the Conservative Party are radicalizing some of the older members.

The situation on what has changed in the ATT is that people would no longer have to go directly from their house to the gun range. They would now be allowed to make several stops in between. The concern that the police and people in urban areas have is that stopping in between, especially when leaving a gun range, is an opportunity for someone to break into the car and steal guns. That is a problem that has been persistent in Toronto.

Will the member acknowledge that this is a change? If that is a change, will he explain why it is good for urban areas to present that possibility of guns getting into the hands of the wrong people?