Bill C-19 (Historical)

Ending the Long-gun Registry Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to remove the requirement to register firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted. It also provides for the destruction of existing records, held in the Canadian Firearms Registry and under the control of chief firearms officers, that relate to the registration of such firearms.

Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently on the bill today.

We on this side of the House generally support the thrust of at least one-third of the bill dealing with the so-called Lucky Moose event a couple of years ago in Toronto. My colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, introduced legislation to deal with that unfortunate incident some time ago. It was collected up by the members opposite in Bill C-60, which, unfortunately, failed to pass and died on the order paper.

First, I want to thank my colleague for Kitchener—Conestoga because I believe he said that the government would be willing to listen and to make amendments to the bill. I hope he said that because so far we have not seen a whole lot of willingness on the part of members opposite to accept any kind of reasonable amendments to any of the bills that have been before us.

My other comment has to do with the apparent priorities of the members opposite and the government. It appears that we have an inordinate preponderance of bills dealing with guns, crime, punishment and defence of personal property, but we are not spending a whole lot of time dealing with other very serious issues in our country, such as jobs.

The number one complaint I hear from my friend from Prince Edward Island is that his constituents need jobs. The same is true in my riding. People seem to have given up in large measure looking for jobs because there just have not been any for so many years in my riding.

We also have a serious first nations issue that appears is being glossed over by the government. Apparently no action is being taken to help the citizens of Attawapiskat, except to blame them.

We have reported cuts to services for seniors and for persons seeking EI such that they cannot even get answers on the telephone to their issues. They come to my office, as I am sure they do in many other members' offices, saying that they cannot get through and can I help. Our role should not be to replace the civil servants of the country.

I am hoping that, once this bill is disposed of, we can start moving into some real priorities and move away from the crime, punishment and gun agenda that seems to be dominating what we have been talking about.

The bill contains two essential ingredients. One is to give better permission to a citizen's arrest. There already is permission for a citizen's arrest in the Criminal Code, but citizens have to apprehend people in the act. They cannot find them later and arrest them. That is essentially what the bill hopes to accomplish.

It seems to be fairly clear on the surface. We look forward to the day when the committee will have a chance to study the bill in some depth, have representations from witnesses and experts in the field and to make amendments to make it absolutely certain that what we do will not have any unintended consequences.

I have a personal experience with citizen's arrest. It was a dark and stormy night, if members will pardon the use of the term. One night a couple of years ago, it was pouring with rain when I pulled into my driveway and saw a brand new bicycle sitting at the end of my neighbour's driveway. It seemed quite out of place. I picked up my cellphone and called my neighbour. He did not answer right away, but I heard his car door slam. I thought he was putting the bicycle in his car.

When I went over to his car, I discovered that it was not my neighbour, but somebody else who was about to get on the bicycle. I stopped the gentleman and asked him what he was doing. He said that he flat tire, that he had been at a friend's house and that he was trying to find a way to fix it.

He was quite drunk too. By that time, my neighbour, who had seen that I had phoned but had hung up on him, came out to the street. I asked him if it was his bike. He said that it was not his bike and asked what the gentleman was doing there. I looked at my neighbour and told him that he was just fixing a flat. However, the gentleman with the bike had a little box in his hand. The little box was a very unique piece of equipment for resting the tip of a welding torch that came from Princess Auto.

My neighbour looked at it and said, “I bought one of those today. Where did you get that”? The gentleman said a friend of his had given it to him. My friend went back to his car and looked, and it was gone. He accused the man of stealing it, which he denied. We ended up discovering that not only had he stolen that, but he had a couple of other things from my friend's car. At that point he got on his bike and tried to ride away, and I stopped him. I said, “No you don't. You're not going anywhere”.

This was not an act that was very smart because who knows whether this guy had knives, guns, or whatever else, but it was an instinctive reaction. That is part of what we are trying to deal with here. The instinctive reaction was that he should not go.

I picked up my cellphone and dialed 911 while I was holding his bike. He was too drunk to ride it anyway. I got 911 on the phone. The response was, “Police, fire, ambulance”.

I said, “Police, there is a man breaking into a car and I have apprehended him”.

They said, “Are you sure”?

I said, “Yes, he's standing right here. Do you want to talk to him”?

They said, “No, but we'll send somebody right away”.

Well, within two minutes, there were six police cars in front of my driveway. Clearly, the message is that if we tell them we have apprehended somebody they will come quickly.

Then an ambulance arrived because the guy had a cut on his hand. Then the fire truck arrived. I asked the fireman driving the fire truck why they had come. He said the guy might set himself on fire and they would put it out.

My point is, I acted out of instinct, not out of having read the law that says what I can do in a circumstance like that. That is part of what we are trying to deal with here, to make a reasonable instinctive reaction lawful. If my neighbour had not been there with me, if I had just apprehended this man while he was stealing from my neighbour's car, I would have in fact been in violation of the law. That will not be the case any more under this change, I think. It is a little unclear.

In retrospect, I probably should not have done what I did because who knows what he might have had. As it turns out, when the police did arrive, it was still pouring rain. They made him take off his coat and when they emptied it they found all kinds of stuff that he had already stolen. The bicycle was something he had probably already stolen. He had been out of jail only two days. He really wanted to go back there because it was dry and warm, and this was his way of getting back into jail and to someplace safe in the riding. He was actually, in some way, trying to be a better person because they discovered that he had put some air freshener, that he had stolen from the local drugstore, in his underwear.

The point of the story is, as citizens we react instinctively, not because we have read the law. It is that which we have to keep in mind as we craft these things. We do not actually act, necessarily, in our best self-interest when we are reacting to what we see and know is a crime.

The other story that I mentioned a few moments ago happened a year ago in my riding. An ice cream truck was robbed at gunpoint in the middle of a sunny afternoon, with children and parents all around the ice cream truck, and two very obviously bad people with a gun. The only person, at that point, in any immediate serious danger would have been the ice cream truck driver/operator, who was facing the wrong end of, we assume, a loaded gun.

The current laws on self-defence have given people the ability to defend themselves under the current legislation. They have the right, maybe, if they feel an immediate threat, to pull their own gun, if they have one. I do not know of too many ice cream truck drivers who carry around guns, certainly not in Toronto. Maybe they do in some more rural areas of Canada, but not in Toronto.

The issue then is, at what point does this become dangerous to the rest of the people. The concern I have is that the bill would change the rules from someone who is feeling their own personal threat to a threat of force being used against them or another person. We would expand the notion of self-defence to include another person.

Maybe the jurisprudence actually covered that in the past. I cannot find that on a layperson's reading of the law. I am not a lawyer. I do not have the kind of background that some of our colleagues do. We hope that through committee they are going to be able to tell us that this legislation would actually just repeat what used to be there. However, when I read it, I immediately thought of that incident with the ice cream truck.

If this law had been in place, and if everybody had read it, which I am going to say most law-abiding citizens do not go around reading the law, but if they had read it or if it was common knowledge that we could defend the life of someone else, then the concern I have is that we end up with someone across the street who sees the ice cream truck being held at gunpoint, or who thinks it is being held at gunpoint, maybe they do not actually see clearly enough to know what is going on, and they reach into their cupboard to get their unregistered long gun. I am hearing cackling from the other side of the House.

That unregistered long gun then becomes a use of deadly force in a situation involving children, in a situation involving ordinary civilians. We have now created a situation that should not have been created. We have now escalated this into what is perhaps going to become a deadly shooting spree. We do not need that to happen. We do not need vigilantism. We do not need people to feel they have the right to use force in situations that endanger themselves and endanger others as a result of a bill that may have been written with some unintended consequences in it.

I hope that as a result of serious thought and serious study at committee, the bill will in fact have possible flaws like that one corrected, where we create problems where there are none, where there are unintended consequences, where the mere notion that the law permits someone to use force to defend someone they do not even know and someone that maybe does not need defending, and create a sense of vigilantism.

That is not what we want in this country. We are not a country of vigilantes. We are not a country of people who go around raising arms against other people in order to defend life, limb and property. That is not what we do in Canada. That is not how we behave.

I am not trying to justify, in any way, any criminal acts by people with guns at ice cream trucks. It was one of the most disturbing stories I had heard in a long time about the level to which the violence in my riding has gone to. It is not something that I appreciate. The police are well aware and the police, I believe, have now arrested the perpetrators. They are in jail and we can rest a little easier.

However, my concern is I do not want to have a situation where we pass a law that somehow gives people the thought that they can enter into a fray like this and start shooting. That is not what we want. That is not what we expect from our ordinary law-abiding citizens.

As it turns out, no one was harmed in that robbery, except the owner of the truck who lost some money. However, there were no guns fired. There was no violence and no damage to anyone. Yet, this law might give some the thought that they should enter into this with guns blazing. That is not the country we live in. That is not the country we want. That is not the country I think I want to belong to.

So, we have a situation where this bill ought to go before a committee and be studied in a reasoned and unpressured way. The last two bills that the government brought forward were rushed to the point where closure was invoked on several occasions and in the case of Bill C-10, there were 208 clauses dealt with in clause-by-clause analysis in two days. Two days is not an appropriate amount of time to give serious sober thought to a bill that has enormous consequences.

We understand that the committee was rushed to the point where witnesses were crammed together, were not given sufficient time to answer questions, and questions were not able to be put to these witnesses in a thoughtful and reasoned way because there was so much rush put on this. I hope, based on the statements made by my friend from Kitchener—Conestoga, that the government is actually going to sit down and listen, pay attention, and accept reasoned amendments to this bill put forward by the opposition.

As I understand it, on both Bill C-10 and Bill C-19, many amendments were put forward, but—

Public Safety and National Security

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

My constituents in Crowfoot and millions of Canadians have been waiting for this moment for more than 10 years. Bill C-19 would scrap the failed and costly long gun registry. This bill would decriminalize law-abiding responsible firearms owners and users all across Canada. I am pleased to present this report.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know, we are talking about the title now. It may seem strange, but, as my colleagues have said since the beginning of our study of this Bill C-19, starting right when the government introduced the bill, it does not come as a surprise, we were expecting it. True, there was an election campaign promise that, as soon as they got into power, there would be a bill to abolish the long-gun registry. That happens after almost every election. No surprise there.

Perhaps what profoundly surprised people this time, ourselves included, was becoming aware of clause 29, which talks about destroying the data. That was never in any previous version.

Though I am against what is now called the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, I am still going to raise my hat high to the Conservatives who have tried, at least for a few seconds here, to hide the truth. By that I mean that, after all the discussions on previous bills, including Ms. Hoeppner's, who has always led the charge on them, they have succeeded in amending it so that it has become worse than it ever was.

Even worse again, people have come here to tell us that they are interested in getting the data and keeping them up-to-date. The government does not want the registry to exist, but it has been so clever about it that it has even taken steps to make sure no one, absolutely no one, can have access to, or use, the data. All this because we know how to collect information in Canada with our legislation on information and preserving information, either through Library and Archives Canada or the Privacy Act.

Let me repeat, I am not quoting raging fanatics, for heaven's sake! I am quoting representatives from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, including Mario Harel, the chief of the Gatineau police service, who was here in his capacity as vice-president of the CACP, together with Chief Matthew Torigian. Calling the bill simply the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act and making us believe that our streets will become extremely unsafe when this bill goes into effect, is tantamount to misleading the public or taking us for fools.

As Chief Harel said, the CACP has always supported the long-gun registry. He told us the reasons for that support. He feels that it is a matter of public safety and part of our responsibility to ensure the safety of our communities, our police officers and the most vulnerable among us.

I know a number of people who are going to feel very unsafe once this bill goes into law. Many people live in surroundings where guns are common. It is no comfort for them to realize that it will be so easy to transfer and sell firearms with no registry, no registration and no permits at all, given the shortcomings of this bill.

Having this bill come into effect certainly is not a matter of public safety. It certainly is a matter of added value in law enforcement in the communities we serve, because it is useful as much in prevention as in investigation.

I agree that the registry is not up to date. It is only that way because the Conservatives themselves have not kept it up to date. At some point, the posturing has to stop, as it simply serves to support our point of view one hundred per cent. But they have no other arguments to make. That is exactly what the Conservatives are doing.

But we can start from that point. Despite the high start-up costs, the long-gun registry operates in a very cost-effective manner today, as an internal RCMP audit shows. Despite that, the Conservatives always come back to the start-up costs, which we can all agree were too high.

We believe that the registry encourages responsibility and gun owners to be accountable. Is anyone around this table against the idea of gun owners being accountable? This is unbelievable!

They also say that it “provides a reasonable balance between the exercise of an individual privilege and the broader right of society to be safe”. We are not in the United States, where people have the right to own firearms. Even so, we could debate what that sentence meant when it was drafted. There is no question here, as is the case in some countries, of letting everyone walk around with a gun in his pocket or of opening a bank account in order to get one.

The words “provides a reasonable balance between the exercise of an individual privilege” apply to hunting too. I have no objection to that. Over the years, I have had assistants and colleagues who were avid hunters. I respect that. But, when it comes to the broader right of society to be safe, we have to make sure that dangerous firearms, that are now deregulated, will not be handled in ways that the public may have trouble understanding.

Very qualified people came here to tell us that they consult the registry up to 17,000 times per day. The Conservatives tell us that this is because, when one thing is checked, something else is automatically checked at the same time. So what? That's great. It gives additional information and it hurts no one. Mr. Harris talked about that. It happened in my province. Someone did not have the right to own a firearm, true. But instead of letting the story come out in the way that it did, it would have been better to say what really happened: that someone was shot right through a door. The registry did not kill her, an unstable person did.

You will tell me that there will always be unstable people with firearms in their possession. Possibly so, but surely it is only reasonable to give those responsible for protecting us the tools to help them in their investigations. This title is simply bogus. They did not just try to hide the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act—it didn't last very long anyway—but there is also the fact that they want to destroy the data that some provinces, including Quebec, my province, were ready to take—just as they are—so that they can keep them from now on. They already have the data, but they are now being put into the position of breaking the law if they keep them. Look at the position you are putting your supposed partners in this Canadian confederation in. It is incredibly sad!

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Chair, we have very clearly heard that the Government of Quebec wants to create its own firearm registry if Bill C-19 is adopted. It's very clear. The Quebec minister of public safety himself appeared before the committee to share his position on the issue.

It also seems clear to us that the Conservative government has not received a mandate from Quebeckers to eliminate the firearm registry. So we believe that it is important to respect the wishes of Quebeckers and prevent the federal government from destroying the registry. It's a relevant tool for the Government of Quebec. We want to eliminate clause 29 to make it impossible to destroy the information so that it is accessible to the Government of Quebec and any other government that wants to create its own long gun control system.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a good idea about what's coming, but we will still repeat that clause 11 of the bill, as drafted, contains a major gap, which means that we could easily lose control. In fact, I'm going to praise my colleague, Ms. Hoeppner, because I think her bill was better than this one. It did fully cover this gap.

The study of Bill C-19 is going to leave me with a great deal of concern, a concern that was expressed to this committee by many witnesses, including victims of the École polytechnique and Dawson College, the people involved with centres for abused women, and so on. There's a danger that, at some point, over the course of the transactions, we may no longer know who owns the firearm in question.

I repeat that the wording of Bill C-391 was much better in this regard. The NDP and I find it unfortunate that what was in Bill C-391 was not put into Bill C-19 to fill that gap.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome here. This is the 15th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is Tuesday, November 29, 2011, and I would like to welcome you to this meeting. As you are all aware, today we will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act.

As you are aware, on November 15 the committee adopted the first report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, which among other things stated: “That the committee allocate five meetings to the consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, including its clause-by-clause consideration”. That was the motion. As you are also aware, today is the fifth meeting; thus it is my pleasure to inform this committee that I will be reporting the bill to the House in the state in which it exists at one o'clock. As I see we have a number of opposition amendments before us today, we want to deal with those in an expeditious way and hear debate on them. I would suggest we move forward on those amendments and on clause-by-clause as soon as we can.

Without any further ado, I would ask you to take your package that the table has provided for you, a package of each clause and the amendments that have come forward, amendments from the New Democratic Party, the official opposition, and also from the Liberal Party of Canada. Let's move into clause-by-clause if you have your package there.

Public Safety

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we were very pleased to hear from front-line officers over the last couple of weeks who overwhelmingly supported abolishing the long gun registry. They have asked us to get tough on violent criminals and those who prey on our children, which is what we are asking the NDP to support instead of trying to perpetuate this misleading information regarding Bill C-19, which will not change classifications of firearms, licensing requirements or transfer requirements.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why should I expect an answer that makes sense from a completely senseless government that will not listen to reason?

There is no justification for eliminating restrictions on powerful weapons that have absolutely nothing to do with hunting. The Conservatives could not care less about the advice of the RCMP, the provinces and their own advisors, who are saying that Bill C-19 will increase the sale and trafficking of illegal weapons. This is not coming from me, but from them.

Why do the Conservatives want to make things easier for criminals at any cost?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing that the NDP is left with no argument to defend the long gun registry and resorts to trying to mislead Canadians. There are no changes in Bill C-19 with regard to the classifications of firearms, to licensing, or to the requirements to have a licence to purchase or transfer a firearm. The NDP needs to stop trying to mislead Canadians and tell the truth.

Opposition Motion--Closure and Time Allocation

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the thorough examination and debate of proposed legislation on behalf of Canadians is an essential duty of Members of Parliament, and that the curtailment of such debate limits the ability of Members to carry out this duty and constitutes an affront to Canadian democracy; and, therefore,

that the Speaker undertake a study and make recommendations to amend the Standing Orders with respect to closure and time allocation, such that: (i) a Minister would be required to provide justification for the request for such a curtailment of debate; (ii) the Speaker would be required to refuse such a request in the interest of protecting the duty of Members to examine legislation thoroughly, unless the government’s justification sufficiently outweighs the said duty; (iii) criteria would be set out for assessing the government’s justification, which would provide the Speaker with the basis for a decision to allow for the curtailment of debate;

that the Speaker report to the House no later than February 6, 2012;

that a motion to concur in the said report may be moved during Routine Proceedings, and that only when no Member rises to debate the motion, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion; and

if no motion to concur in the report has been previously moved and disposed of on the 20th sitting day following the presentation of the report, Standing Orders 57 and 78 shall be deemed to have been deleted.

Mr. Speaker, this motion has been brought before the House at this time because of the government's gross overuse of shutting down debate in the House, whether it is by a formal closure motion, which shuts down debate immediately, or by time allocation motions, which provide extremely limited time for debate on crucial issues facing both the House and the country more generally.

It is important that we recognize the effect of the motion. It is not that you, Mr. Speaker, need a greater workload, but that is the thrust of the motion. The motion would remove a government's unilateral ability to shut down debate in the House and would allow the Speaker, as an independent officer of Parliament, to make the decision as to when it is appropriate to curtail debate and when it is an abuse of the process. Therefore, a request for curtailment of debate could in fact be rejected by the Speaker of the day.

I have done some analysis of other jurisdictions that have similar parliaments to ours, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia. Going back some 20 or 30 years, all of them moved to provide greater authority to the speaker to regulate when debate should be curtailed, limited or ended. In each of those parliaments, it is quite clear that it is the speaker who ultimately makes the decision in that regard.

The authority is different in each of those legislatures but the general wording and conduct of the speaker has always been: Is the request for curtailment or ending debate an abuse? Oftentimes the term “of a minority segment of that parliament” is used. It may be a large official opposition or it may be a small third, fourth or fifth party, but the speaker has the authority in each one of those parliaments to make the determination as to whether the request by the government to end or limit debate is an abuse of the rights of the members of Parliament.

I will move on to the context in which this motion is being put forward.

In less than two months of sitting days, we have had time allocation applied to Bill C-13, the budget bill, which was 640 pages long. We were given extremely limited time to debate it. It is the only time, that we have been able to determine, in the history of this country that such a limited amount of time has been given to a budget bill. I know the government House leader said that we had some debate on this in the previous Parliament. However, we have 100 new members of Parliament who were not here and had no opportunity to debate this in the last Parliament.

It is fundamental to our process that a budget bill be given a full extensive debate. We can go back to any number of the authorities where that is repeated over and over again, and not just in this legislature, but in every legislature that works off the Westminster model.

We then had Bill C-18 dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board. This is an institution that is well over 70 years of age. It is iconic in this country. However, on two occasions, at second reading and report stage, we were again slapped with time allocation.

The Wheat Board and the farmers in western Canada were entitled to that debate. The opposition should have been given time in both the House and in committee to deal with that issue. We were given extremely limited time given the significance of what was going to happen if the bill passed, especially when the majority of farmers in western Canada, who use the Wheat Board to sell their wheat, oppose the bill. However, again we were slapped with time allocation on two occasions.

Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, is made up of nine former bills brought together. Again the House leader said that we had time to debate this legislation. More than 100 new members did not have time to debate this extremely complex bill because they were not here in the last Parliament.

The Conservatives have accused the opposition of delaying this legislation. On more than one occasion, the NDP has offered to take the part of the bill that deals with crimes against children, sexual predator type crimes, and run it through at all stages. It already passed through the House once before, so we were quite comfortable in having that done. On the more than one occasion that we offered that to the government, it refused and then slapped time allocation on the balance of the bill.

It was the same thing with Bill C-19, the gun control bill. We were given extremely limited time to debate an issue that is topical and very controversial. As the debate has gone on, more and more evidence has come out around reasons to not do away with the long gun registry. There was no opportunity to debate that legislation in the House to any significant degree.

Finally, Bill C-20, the seats bill. The bill proposes to make significant changes to the composition of this Parliament and again we are being limited to a significant degree in our ability to deal with it. I sit on the committee that is looking at the bill and the same thing is happening there. Extreme limitations are being placed at committee with regard to the number of witnesses we are allowed to call.

It just boggles my mind when I try to understand what is going on, and I think I am reasonably intelligent in terms of understanding it. It is a complex process that is being engendered now and it is new. It is not what was here in the last Parliament at all. The bill is a new incarnation of the process. It would make a very significant change and we are being given nowhere near the amount of time that we will need.

If we continue with the practice as it is right now, Bill C-20 will be out of committee and back before the House either by the end of next week or early the week following, when we have limited time to debate it here in the House and limited time in committee. The same can be said about the other four bills that I just mentioned. They all have had limited time in committee.

That is the context that we have. We have a precedent, if we want to put it that way, in other legislatures.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

As I said earlier, we have this other precedent. If the bill passes, it will mean more work for the Speaker of this Parliament and subsequent Speakers. However, we need to find a much more proper balance in terms of our ability as opposition members to do our job. Our responsibility here is to determine whether legislation coming from the government is appropriate but we are not able to do that in the amount of time that we are being given at this point. We need to take the government's ability to limit time and place it in the hands of an independent member and, in this case, that would be the Speaker and his successors.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Your interpretation of Bill C-19 differs from mine and certainly from that of those who have drafted it and others who have appeared before that committee, but I'll leave that there.

Dr. Langmann—

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

If you read the bill.... Let me give you a little hint here: not everything the media says is true. If you have read the bill, and the bill is also on public record...there is nothing in Bill C-19 that affects the licensing provisions of firearm acquisition and purchase. It's only the registration.

Ms. Lacasse, you said the same thing. I'm curious, because you're both being put here as witnesses against Bill C-19. Is it really your understanding that, if Bill C-19 passes, purchasing a firearm will be no more difficult than to

to borrow a book from the library?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Okay. Then I misunderstood you. I apologize.

But you also said something that I know is factually incorrect, and again it might be an issue of translation. You said that assuming Bill C-19 becomes law, it will be no more difficult to buy a firearm than it will be to buy a book at the bibliothèque. That, sir, is not correct. because you know, or you should know—and if you don't know, I'm going to tell you—that nothing in Bill C-19 affects the licensing provisions. An individual would still require a firearms acquisition certificate before he or she purchases either a firearm or ammunition for that firearm.

I need you to reconsider that statement that it is going to be no more difficult to purchase a firearm than it is to purchase a book at the bibliothèque.

Copyright Modernization Act

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I knew what the Conservatives have against this country's workers. After the tax cuts to large corporations, the subsidies to oil companies and all the inappropriate expenditures for the G8 and the G20—always with Canadian taxpayers' money—the government now wants to target our artists' income.

Many of the artists we love, admire and appreciate are not rich. The majority of them have a very modest income and, because of the nature of their occupation, it is not a stable income. They must accept contracts and work at many jobs to provide for their needs and those of their family.

In Quebec, the average income of artists is estimated at $24,600 per year, based on the 2006 census data. We are talking about $24,600 to pay for rent, food and transportation, to send one's children to school and look after their needs. That amount must also cover heating costs and the material needed to create. What makes things even worse is that, with an annual income of $24,600, Quebec artists are considered to be the richest in Canada. That same year, the average income for artists in Canada was estimated at $22,700 per year.

These numbers reflect the reality of our actors, painters and singers. Our artists are struggling to make ends meet. While all the evidence should convince the government to provide increased support to our creators, it prefers, as in Bills C-10 and C-19, to ignore the facts and please the cultural industry's big businesses. This bill is going to hurt artists and make them poorer. And they certainly cannot afford that.

The Union des artistes is worried about its members' income and so are we on this side of the House. How can artists continue to create if they do not have the means to do so? Copyright royalties are an important source of income for Canada's creators. This government must ensure creators receive their fair share and are paid for their work.

I wish this government would take out its earplugs and start listening to the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, which is asking that the bill be amended so that artists are compensated fairly for the use of their creative work in the new media.

I also wish it would listen to the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada, which is telling it that this bill is going to have a significant impact on creators' income and that it needs to be amended in order to strike a balance between the interests of creators and those of consumers. Unfortunately, as with Bills C-10, C-13, C-18 and C-20, this government prefers to turn a deaf ear.

Passing this bill would have a very negative impact on our country's cultural industry, and it would have a direct impact on creators' income. Moreover, many people are worried about producers and publishers, who would not enjoy the same protection as holders of scientific patents.

We are not stupid. Canada's copyright laws need to be reviewed. Former Bill C-32 was reviewed in committee, but the Conservatives chose yet again to ignore the recommendations made by the witnesses who appeared before the committee.

This bill could potentially create more problems than it solves. That is why I cannot support it in its current form. Even the Union des artistes finds that some of the wording is ambiguous and that court challenges are inevitable. For example, they cite the concept of fair dealing for the purpose of education and that of reasonable grounds.

Why is this government still refusing to listen to opinions that differ from its own? Why does this government not want to work with all the players involved in copyright in order to reform it properly and adapt it to the reality of the 21st century? Such stubbornness would not be so bad if Canadians did not have to bear the consequences of the government's bad bill. Copyright in the digital age has to build on two fundamental principles: accessibility for consumers and remuneration for the artists.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government has not respected either principle. It is directly compromising the millions of dollars in royalties artists receive under current copyright legislation, and it is encroaching on consumer rights by adopting provisions on digital locks.

The fact is that this bill gives consumers rights they will not be able to exercise. The general provisions on digital locks will allow the companies to decide which legal rights can be exercised and which cannot. This unbalanced perspective will end up harming artists and educators. That is also quite worrisome.

I urge this government, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, to review this bill in light of what was said in committee during consideration of the now defunct Bill C-32 and to listen to what the artists have been trying to get across, in order to ensure that this copyright reform is balanced and beneficial to everyone.

[Eve-Marie Lacasse, Main Coordinator, Fédération des femmes du Québec]

Good morning. Thank you for welcoming us here today. We are grateful to the members of the Opposition who have lined up on the side of public safety. We note that this is not what the government has elected to do.

One of the FFQ's objectives is to combat all forms of violence and to stand up for the right to live in an atmosphere free from violence, especially for women, and the right to life and safety. We are of the opinion that this bill is inconsistent with these fundamental rights. Violence, and particularly firearm violence, still affects the lives of too many women. In Quebec, from 1997 to 2006, firearms were the method used in nearly two thirds of spousal and familial homicides, while in Canada they were used in nearly a quarter of spousal homicides between 2000 and 2009.

We observe, however, that firearms control works because, despite these high percentages, overall, the number of homicides by shotgun or rifle has fallen by 41% since 1991, while the number of non-firearm homicides fell by only 6%. The Firearms Act has therefore brought about significant progress by reducing the number of firearm assaults in spousal or family violence contexts.

Thus the number of murdered women killed by gunshot fell by nearly 50%, from 43 in 1995 to 22 in 2008. The rate of spousal murders committed with a rifle or shotgun has fallen by 70%. Although obviously there are multiple factors explaining that decline, such as more access to resources for women who are victims of violence, greater public awareness and improvement in women's socioeconomic situation so that they are able to leave a violent relationship faster, nonetheless this substantial decline is also, in part, a result of changes in gun control policies.

In terms of preventing violence against women, without the information in the long-gun registry, which the authorities can use to determine who has how many and what kind of non-restricted weapons, in real time -- according to a very recent study by the RCMP, the Canadian police consult the registry an average of 17,000 times a day -- it will be difficult for police to enforce prohibition orders imposed by the courts.

Although the government claims that Bill C-19 is an uncomplicated bill that simply eliminates the registration procedure, that is clearly not the case. The changes proposed, by clause 23, among others, will have serious consequences for public safety. This clause makes it optional for gun dealers to verify firearms licences when a gun is purchased or transferred. The only way to tell that a licence is not valid, the individual wanting to purchase a gun has a prohibition order against them, or the licence presented is forged is to check with the Firearms Officer. If the check is not done, a dangerous individual could easily purchase a non-restricted firearm, or more. Does the fact that in 2009 there were 254,036 firearms prohibition orders in force not highlight the need to preserve preventive measures like these, including the need to verify that licences are valid? Verifications, when a gun is purchased, should be of a higher degree than those carried out when a book is bought or borrowed from the library. I am using the example of the gentleman seated beside me. I'd also like to recall that the verification of licences became mandatory in 1998 to make up for the deficiencies of former measures, following the murder of a woman by her spouse.

In closing, we firmly believe that the safety of all Canadians should prevail over what some people regard as bureaucratic hassle, hassle that saves lives. In our opinion, the question should not even asked.