Bill C-19
Ending the Long-gun Registry Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act
Sponsor
Vic Toews Conservative
Status
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
Elsewhere
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, provided by the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Votes
- Feb. 15, 2012 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
- Feb. 7, 2012 Passed That Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, {as amended}, be concurred in at report stage [with a further amendment/with further amendments] .
- Feb. 7, 2012 Failed That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 29.
- Feb. 7, 2012 Failed That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
- Feb. 7, 2012 Failed That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
- Feb. 7, 2012 Failed That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
- Feb. 7, 2012 Failed That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
- Feb. 7, 2012 Failed That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
- Feb. 7, 2012 Failed That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
- Feb. 7, 2012 Failed That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
- Feb. 7, 2012 Failed That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
- Feb. 7, 2012 Failed That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
- Feb. 7, 2012 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and two sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the second day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
- Nov. 1, 2011 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
- Nov. 1, 2011 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, because it: ( a) destroys existing data that is of public safety value for provinces that wish to establish their own system of long-gun registration, which may lead to significant and entirely unnecessary expenditure of public funds; (b) fails to respond to the specific request from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police for use of existing data in the interest of public safety; and (c) fails to strike a balance between the legitimate concerns of rural and Aboriginal Canadians and the need for police to have appropriate tools to enhance public safety”.
- Oct. 27, 2011 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, not more than three further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the third day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mike Sullivan York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.
The bill fulfills Canada's treaty obligations to the UN under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, including extending international measures and beyond protecting against proliferation to now include the protection of nuclear facilities. Also, it reinforces Canada's obligation under the UN Security Council Resolution 1540 taken in 2004, to take and enforce effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as chemical and biological weapons.
At the outset, let me say that we generally support the bill. We think it is about time that the government actually lived up to its obligations under the UN, but we have some reservations about the scope of the bill.
I also want to point out that the government with its law and order agenda has an overarching propensity to deal with law and order as its prime focus. This is just one of 14 bills, I believe, that have reached the House dealing with crime or crime and punishment, or defining crime. There are many of them. There were bills about megatrials, human smugglers, mandatory minimums, military justice, the gun registry, citizens' arrest, criminal and electronic communications, human smugglers, elder abuse, accountability of offenders, RCMP accountability, the faster removal of foreign criminals, terrorism and nuclear terrorism, which would lead one to belive that perhaps Canada is going through a spate of crime that is out of proportion to everything, because these bills are out of proportion to what we are doing here in the House of Commons.
However, that is not true. The facts suggest otherwise, that crime is on the decline in Canada and has been on the decline since before the government took office. Focusing on laws to scare Canadians into thinking that crime is on the rise and making the criminal justice system harsher and less flexible is not the way to go. On this side of the House, we believe that a flexible and more systematic approach to crime is a better of dealing with it.
The bill is necessary and we agree it is necessary to adopt these laws, to abide by our agreements with the United Nations, to deal with the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, et cetera. However, let us talk about what things are still missing from the government's agenda while this bill is front and centre.
The government is making illegal certain acts of terrorism involving nuclear materials. Bravo. Canadians generally are glad that, if people try to use nuclear or radioactive material for terrorism, they will be doing something against the law and if they are caught and convicted they will face serious penalties. However, we note there are no mandatory minimums here.
What is the government doing about other things that are terrifying Canadians? In my riding of York South—Weston there was a recent spate of killings and maimings using handguns. Last week one person was killed and two others injured in handgun violence. Over the summer, there were six funerals of Somali youth who were gunned down in acts of violence all over the city of Toronto. Of course there were the horrific shootings at a block party on Danzig Street in Scarborough, which left two dead and 23 injured. What action has the government taken to stop the flow of illegal guns at our border?
It is all well and good to pass laws making terrorism and nuclear terrorism illegal, but if our citizenry is being terrorized by other things, what are we doing about that? What actions are being taken to get the guns that are already there off the street? There is no bill before us on that topic.
The government passed Bill C-19, which cancels and will destroy the long gun registry, so less will be known about what guns are out there, and people are fearful. People in my city are fearful about what that will mean for their personal safety. They are more fearful than they were before the Conservative government took power.
In my riding of York South—Weston the bill does nothing to prevent another thing that is the single biggest crime in my riding right now, the theft of cellphones and other electronic mobile devices. Kids are being mugged and people are being injured, and yet nothing is happening from the government. The solution is simple. Make it illegal to activate phones reported as stolen, and I brought forward such a motion in the House of Commons.
So far the government is silent on things that are terrifying people, that are making people feel they are less safe than they were yesterday. Yet, we are here discussing nuclear terrorism.
It also takes aim at the risk of the environment being threatened by nuclear terrorists. Again, bravo. Canadians are worried about the environment. They are worried about the climate changes that have been felt most recently from Hurricane Sandy doing damage to both the U.S. and Canada.
What else is the government doing about the environment? The definition of the environment in Bill S-9, this bill, is almost identical to that found in the new environmental assessment act. Essentially,
“environment” means the components of the Earth, and includes (a) land, water and air, including all layers of the atmosphere; (b) all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms; and (c) the interacting natural systems that include components referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).
Bravo, again.
If a nuclear terrorist threatens any of these elements of the environment, they can be charged with an offence, and if convicted, they can face serious time. However, if they do something, the environmental effects of these actions cannot hurt any living organism, including humans. That is not so for the way that the government treats its own projects.
The definition of environmental effect in the new environmental assessment act is only about those impacts on fish, migratory species and birds. If a federal project harms the environment in such a way that human health is threatened, apparently the government does not care. Human health is no longer protected by the Environmental Assessment Act.
Bill S-9 protects human health. It therefore protects the environment better against harm than the environmental assessment act. Nuclear terrorists are treated more harshly than government projects or other projects that are of large scale and large effect and that can in fact harm the environment. Most of those projects are not nuclear terrorism, so nothing is wrong with harming human health, says this Conservative government.
Bill S-9 is a necessary part of living up to our obligations to the UN. We like the UN. We wish we were part of the Security Council. We wish we lived up to all of our obligations. One of those obligations is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the government signed on March 11, 2010. On that date the government promised, as a result of signing that convention, to report back to the UN within two years. It still has not done it.
There has been no report on what it has done so far to help persons with disabilities. So far, the government has done things to harm persons with disabilities. One of the things that treaty with the UN says very clearly we are supposed to be doing is making it possible for persons with disabilities to have equal access to information, equal access to the Internet. Yet, the government, in its last bill, removed community access funding. It therefore cut off thousands upon thousands of disabled individuals from having access to the Internet, which they had grown used to under that plan, and it is no longer available to them.
The government has apparently failed the disabled, and failed, again, one of the very important things we have signed with the UN. We agreed with the UN. We thought we would make life better for the disabled, with every measure we took and with everything we did. Yet, we have the government acting in opposition of that promise to the UN.
In addition, the bill does nothing to deal with one of the most pressing needs in my riding, and that is affordable housing. The bill is all about safety and security, but safety and security is one of the things that is most missing in my riding with regard to persons living in supported housing in the city of Toronto.
Fifteen years ago, the Liberal government got itself out of supported housing, and the federal government has done nothing to move back into that role. The City of Toronto is facing a $750 million deficit in terms of repairing these buildings, and thousands upon thousands of people are on waiting lists. Yet, we can do nothing about it. This is part of the safety and security of individuals in my riding in the city of Toronto, and in Canada as a whole.
However, the most important thing facing us is nuclear terrorism, according to the government. We have done absolutely nothing to assist those people in this country to feel more secure in where they live.
June 19th, 2012 / 5:30 p.m.
See
context
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I'm not sure if my friend is proposing an amendment to Ms. Hoeppner's motion, but if she is, I'm going to vote against it. We're not here to redebate Bill C-19. We're here to assess the regulations.
The legislation empowers the minister to pass regulations, and if that is, in fact, an amendment to Ms. Hoeppner's motion, I'll be voting against the amendment but in favour of the motion.
June 19th, 2012 / 5:20 p.m.
See
context
Conservative
June 19th, 2012 / 5:20 p.m.
See
context
Conservative
June 19th, 2012 / 5:10 p.m.
See
context
Conservative
Vic Toews Provencher, MB
Well, absolutely. That's the only reason I'm here today given the very blatant refusal by the CFO in Ontario to respect the impact of Bill C-19. I guess there are a number of ways of handling it. You could take a court action to clarify that. You can pass a regulation to clarify it. We've chosen the regulatory measure.
June 19th, 2012 / 5:10 p.m.
See
context
Conservative
Jay Aspin Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
I would just like to say that, on the record, Thomas Mulcair came out and said that he would bring the registry back, so I don't know what we're hearing right now.
At any rate, I'd just like to say that there are a lot of socialists, a lot of free enterprisers, and a lot of communists in northern Ontario, but they're all united on one thing, Mr. Minister. This is the most popular legislation—and I'm speaking about Bill C-19—that probably was ever passed for the residents of northern Ontario, so on behalf of the residents of northern Ontario, thank you very much for leading that legislation.
We know as well that there's a lot of pushback on this. The Ontario premier has not been exactly cooperative. Would it be accurate to say that actions such as these of the CFOs like Mr. Wyatt forced you, really, to act on behalf of law-abiding Canadian gun owners in terms of further regulations introduced?
June 19th, 2012 / 5:05 p.m.
See
context
NDP
Françoise Boivin Gatineau, QC
I find that last comment interesting, because now I feel like you're shifting your interest in the sense that all through Bill C-19 it was about the hunters, the good law-abiding hunters, about the sportsmen, about the collectors. Now I feel that where you're going is that you're now the protector of the gun shops, which, we can agree, is a totally different situation, because if the onus to keep the ledger.... It's not an infraction on the person who buys; it's an infraction on the gun-shop owner, who is not asking or keeping.
Where I have a hard time following your government's position on this is that even those who were your advisers—and am I mistaken when I say—like Mr. Bernardo, who was super happy the day you filed those regulations? He has said throughout, through all the meetings he went through all the years, through all shape and form of the different types of bills you presented.... He said, “That green book has been the status quo for at least 30 years.”
I mean, it's a long time that the green book has been there. It's still there now, to this day. Even with the registration, merchants still have to do that. They have to maintain that book.
And even in front of the Senate standing committee:
Remember that all businesses are required to keep records mandated by the chief firearms office of the province that they live in. To remove the record from this registry does not remove their obligation to keep business records. Business records are mandated by the chief firearms office in the issuance of a business permit.
As well, “The RCMP only runs part of the program.” And I could go on and on.
Gun-shop owners have been highlighting the importance of the ledger. Brad Thomas, owner of Lake Huron Rod and Gun, talked to the Owen Sound Sun Times:
“You talk to any gun store, they are happy with the ledger,” said Thomas. “I don’t want this ledger to go away and I don’t know too many businesses that would.”
In a sense, as my colleague previous was just saying, it's kind of a protection on the gun-shop owner. If there's something happening with some long gun, some non-restricted gun, wouldn't you prefer to be on the safe side? And that we had, because all your....
Despite all your arguments for abolishing the gun registry—you said it would not have protected a single life, since someone with a gun would have committed murder anyway—this registry has still had a positive impact. We have seen evidence of that here in the committee. We have learned that, in an investigative context—after the fact—the registry has been useful.
The registry no longer exists, but at least, certain information on guns sold is kept, even if those are non-restricted guns.
June 19th, 2012 / 4:55 p.m.
See
context
Conservative
Candice Bergen Portage—Lisgar, MB
I have a very quick follow-up. Were some CFOs in other jurisdictions complying with the spirit and letter of C-19? How has it been across the country?
June 19th, 2012 / 4:50 p.m.
See
context
Conservative
June 19th, 2012 / 4:50 p.m.
See
context
Conservative
