Robert Sopuck

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have no confidence in the NDP to do anything.

My colleague from Wetaskiwin, a biologist himself and a former park warden, is a man whose entire career has been in environmental conservation. He is a real environmentalist, as opposed to the other kind.

When I listened to the speeches across the way, I heard very little that dealt with this particular issue, and my colleague is exactly right: we all agree with the motion. The motion makes sense, and in my own speech I said I agree with it, but the speeches of New Democrats were all over the map. They are just trying to use this issue as a political football, and they really simply do not care.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Kitchener—Conestoga.

I am very pleased to speak in favour of the motion before us and about this very important issue. Our government is committed to protecting the environment and agrees that the issue of microplastics, including microbeads, warrants action.

I would like to deal with some of the comments from the NDP opposite. I always find it quite amusing when NDP members talk about the environment. Their concern for the environment is a phony concern. All that the NDP members care about is process, process, process. What they really want to do is stop all natural resource development.

For example, take the oil sands, which NDP members are avowed enemies of. It is interesting that 575,000 Canadian families make their income from the oil sands. The NDP must be very pleased now with the drop in oil prices and the difficulties that the oil sands are having now. That must make that side very happy.

In terms of our changes to the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, it is no wonder that the NDP is upset about it. This reduces duplication but at the same time improves environmental protection.

One of the things NDP members never talk about is Canada's environmental indicators. They shy away all the time from talking about what is actually happening in the environment, quantifying and measuring environmental change.

The track record of this government since we came to office in 2006 environmentally has been exemplary. Almost every single environmental indicator in this country, from air quality to water quality and biodiversity, has improved under our watch.

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour sneers at the recreational fishery and the anglers of this country, all four million of them, hundreds of groups across the country who engage in aquatic and water quality conservation work. I was very pleased that our government created the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program. It is partnering with almost 400 groups across the country to improve water quality and fish habitat in this country. It is a program that the other side strongly opposed. The results of this program are there for everybody to see. So far, almost two million square metres of habitat have been improved and 2,000 kilometres of aquatic shoreline have been conserved.

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour talked about the state of the fishery and the oceans. Interestingly, under our watch, in 2010 and 2014, the largest sockeye salmon runs up the Fraser River in history occurred. That was under this government's watch.

Also, recently, our government announced the national conservation plan with $50 million for wetland conservation, $50 million for upland habitat conservation and $100 million for the natural areas conservation program. What the other side does not appreciate is how ecosystems are all linked, and this kind of wetland and habitat and natural area conservation programming has very important water quality improvement implications. Again, when I think of my own province, the $18 million being spent on Lake Winnipeg is doing great things in terms of improving the water quality.

Is the job done? Of course not, but because our government focuses on real and measurable environmental results as opposed to process, process, process that only enriches the environmental lawyers, we are seeing measurable improvements in our environment.

Regarding the issue at hand, I think we have to make a distinction between microplastics and microbeads, because both are relevant to today's discussion.

Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic and they can be deliberately manufactured to be very small like microbeads typically used in personal care products. However, microplastics can also result from the breakdown over time of larger pieces of plastics. Various types of microplastics can be of concern to the environment and may require a different solution depending on their source. Environment Canada is one of the many players looking at the broader issue of microplastics.

A release of debris in the marine environment, which can include plastics and microplastics, falls under the responsibility of the federal government. Land-based sources of marine debris, including microplastics, fall under the shared jurisdictions of municipal, provincial, territorial and federal governments. This is why our government works with other levels of government.

Industries that manufacture products and packaging that use or create microplastics are also engaged in addressing this issue. It is critical that we prevent plastic from getting into the environment in the first place.

In 2014, federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of the environment, through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, CCME, adopted a vision for waste management to improve Canada's record on reducing and recycling waste. One of the key areas of shared action is to implement extended producer responsibility programs, or EPRs, to support the diversion of products from landfills. EPR allocates some of the waste management responsibility to the producer, manufacturer, or first importer of the product.

The CCME 2009 Canada-wide action plan for EPR has resulted in most provincial governments having regulated EPR programs for a wide range of products, including plastic packaging. There are residential packaging and printed paper recycling programs and beverage container diversion programs that operate in almost every province and territory across Canada, and efforts are under way to address plastic bags as well.

From a global perspective, Canada is not considered to be a significant contributor to marine plastic waste. However, it is important that all members of the international community take steps to prevent plastics from entering the marine environment. To this end, in Canada, disposal at sea without a permit from a ship, aircraft, or platform of any substance, including plastics, is generally prohibited under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Canada also participates in a number of international initiatives geared toward better protection of the marine environment. The personal care industry is also taking steps that will assist in dealing with this issue, and some multinational companies have publicly announced their intention to phase out the use of microbeads in personal care products. I encourage Canadian companies to continue to explore opportunities to reduce or eliminate the use of microbeads.

In the plastics industry sector, a voluntary initiative called Operation Clean Sweep is geared to prevent plastic pellet losses to the environment. In Canada, 95 plastics companies have already signed on to this international initiative, which is promoted in Canada by the Canadian Plastics Industry Association. Again, I encourage all Canadian plastic sector companies to join the program.

Although efforts are already under way that will help address the issue of microplastics, this government certainly agrees that more can be done, and Environment Canada will continue to monitor scientific developments, including those of several Canadian universities and other research organizations.

For example, work is under way with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a U.S. federal agency that is focused on the condition of the oceans and the atmosphere. In May 2014, the agency released a Great Lakes land-based marine debris action plan in which both plastics and microplastics are targeted, and the University of Waterloo and the University of Western Ontario are both working with American universities on this particular issue. This scientific information will assist the department in better understanding the issue and determining whether more actions are required.

Canada will continue to participate in various international fora that are examining the issue of microplastics, including the International Maritime Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme. The goal of all of these multinational efforts is to better understand concerns regarding microplastics so that governments can put forward the appropriate measures where required.

Our government's chemicals management plan will prioritize microbeads for assessment. The chemicals management plan represents a major undertaking by this or any government. Few other countries can boast of such a major systematic effort to evaluate and address chemicals within their borders. It is a legacy that our government is proud to stand on, and one that will benefit Canadians for generations to come.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to concerns and to outline some of the actions that have already been put in place to address issues surrounding microplastics. Naturally, there is more work to be done, and we are committed to continuing to follow this issue closely and to take action.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of serving with the member for Mississauga South on the environment committee, and I had the honour of visiting her constituency a couple of times.

A project that was funded in her constituency, the Rattray Marsh project, was funded under our recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program. Our study of the Great Lakes water quality, spearheaded by the member for Mississauga South, showed that the value of wetlands was enormous in terms of improving water quality and conserving biodiversity.

I would like the member to talk about the Rattray Marsh project in her constituency, which is contributing so greatly to improving fish-spawning habitat and water quality in her area.

[Criminal Code, March 10th, 2015]

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.

[Criminal Code, March 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, prevention is the best offence. We did have a court decision that labelled these devices as firearms. I am acting quickly to have a private member's bill that would deal with the decision by the courts, which we think is problematic at best. Nothing is being changed here. Basically, apart from the decisions made by the courts, the bill represents support for the status quo.

I want to again make the point that it is a criminal offence to point an air gun at any individual 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, and that should mollify the police.

[Criminal Code, March 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the point I have made is that I am pleased to be part of a government that strongly supports a way of life that millions of Canadians embrace. Obviously, this is a private member's bill.

In terms of the concerns from police, it is still a criminal offence to point an air gun or to act as if it is firearm. Therefore, those provisions will remain intact.

[Criminal Code, March 10th, 2015]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Agriculture, February 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, is a bill designed to modernize and strengthen federal agricultural legislation, support innovation in the Canadian agriculture industry, and enhance global market opportunities. Unfortunately, the NDP must oppose all of these positive items, because it voted against the bill.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agricultureplease provide an update on this important piece of legislation?

[Taxation, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians support the tax relief our government has brought forward to date and will continue to deliver going forward.

The Liberal carbon tax is simply not the way to deal with economic issues in our country, and Canadians do not want to be on a path to higher taxes and more debt. Creating a job-killing carbon tax would be reckless and would increase the cost of everything and the tax burden on middle-class families. That would especially hurt low-income families and rural people, the kind I represent.

The Liberal leader first ran for office on the promise of a carbon tax in 2008. This is who he is. Canadians know that the Liberals want to bring in this job-killing carbon tax. This is their goal.

Our Conservative government is lowering taxes for families and putting more money back into their pockets. Keeping taxes low and creating jobs are essential to keeping this economy on the right track. We will never punish Canadians with a job-killing carbon tax.

[Petitions, February 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions is from hundreds more Canadians who are petitioning our government to pass the common sense firearms licensing act. These Canadians understand the importance of updating Canada's firearms laws to ensure the way of life of Canada's hunters, anglers, and trappers is respected while keeping Canada's communities safe.