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.

Ending the Long-gun Registry Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I have never suggested that for a minute. As a matter of fact, I argued the opposite. I argued that gun owners are law-abiding and sterling citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are honest country people who work hard and play by the rules. That is why we find the long gun registry so egregious and so offensive. When gun crimes are committed in far-off big cities, who gets punished? We do.

Parties opposite make a great show of their support for the working people and the “common man”. I am particularly reminded of the old NDP versus the new NDP. The old NDP had a modicum of respect for the people who live on the land, work hard and play by the rules. I am thinking of that party's former leader, Audrey McLaughlin, who, as I discovered after reading some Hansards from years back, had some serious doubts about the long gun registry. All parties opposite have evolved into parties of the big-government elites and union bosses, who strive to expand government control over the lives of these same working people that those members purport to support.

I am especially puzzled at the support for the long gun registry by Liberal and NDP members from Newfoundland and Labrador in the Maritimes, where they have such grand hunting traditions, such as the seal hunt in Newfoundland, moose hunting, bird hunting and all of that. I have even travelled to Newfoundland myself and have enjoyed the particular local delicacy called bottled moose. Those from Newfoundland know exactly what I am talking about.

For those of us who represent rural constituencies, and for my constituents in particular, I would say that our innate country common sense tells us that punishing law-abiding gun owners is simply not right.

To the people in my constituency a firearm is a tool, like a chainsaw or a tractor, that obviously must be used with care, but as freedom-loving Canadians, people in my constituency view firearms ownership as a symbol of their Canadian citizenship or a symbol of the trust that should exist between the people and their government.

I am reminded of what George Orwell said many years ago when he was commenting on firearms ownership by ordinary British citizens. It perhaps does not quite apply to us here, but it does have some wisdom. He said:

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.

Most firearms in Canada are owned for the purpose of hunting. For many of us who grew up hunting, it is a sacred activity that is often difficult to describe, so I will quote the eminent evolutionary psychologist Randall Eaton, who said of boys in particular in his book From Boys to Men of Heart: Hunting as Rite of Passage:

The instinct to hunt awakens spontaneously in boys, but the taking of a life opens the heart and tempers that instinct with compassion. If we want to transform boys into men who respect life and are responsible to society and the environment then we need to mentor them in hunting as a rite of passage.

He further notes:

The hunt is the ideal way to teach universal virtues, including generosity, patience, courage, fortitude and humility.

Others may not agree with that, but I am describing a true, honest and active culture in this country that is very important. Members opposite may laugh, but to many of us, and to me in particular, it is important.

I used to be the hunting columnist for the Winnipeg Free Press, and I remember interviewing a young man who had just taken his very first deer. In his own words to me, he said:

Even though it was just a doe, that deer was better than any fantasy I ever had, and it was even better because my dad was there with me every second and I could share my excitement with him...I could no longer understand how people could be against hunting since it was now something that was so dear to me and it is a passion that I can share with my dad and will share with my children when the time comes.

What happens as well is that people who hunt and have a relationship with wildlife and the land often take up careers in conservation, myself included. I caught my first fish when I was 4 and I got my first ruffed grouse when I was 14. I have had a wonderful 35-year career in conservation, and it started there. These experiences with my dad affected me profoundly.

There is a vast array of grassroots conservation activities in my own constituency. I went on at some length about hunting because without firearms we cannot have hunting, and the long gun registry is actually an attack on a culture and on an innocent, productive and wonderful way of life.

Bill C-19, the bill to get rid of the long gun registry, represents a real and tangible victory for those who cherish the particular way of life that I have described. It is a way of life that understands where our food comes from, reveres nature and values hard work and family traditions. Quite simply, this culture makes our country what it is.

Over and over again in the campaigns I have been in over the last year, my constituents have told me about how important the issue of the long gun registry is. In my constituency we have many issues that deal with agriculture, health care, rail service, and so on; however, the long gun registry came up as a particularly egregious affront to the innate country common sense that is represented by my constituents. The communities in my constituency have a very deep and profound relationship with the land. They are confident people who work hard and, as I said, value the fact that they play by the rules. Those are the people in this country whom we should be rewarding, people who work hard and play by the rules.

For me as an MP, those people are my top priority. Many of them are employed in the natural resources industries of farming, ranching, mining, energy production and so on. We know the importance of the natural resource industries and of our rural communities, and it can almost be said that the people who work and thrive in our natural resource industries are carrying the country. They, in effect, make our country what it is.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how will the government respond to the honest, hard-working police chiefs, police officers and other front-line workers across this country, including youth protection workers, ambulance attendants, paramedics and nurses, in cities and in rural areas, who say that the registry is useful in the context of their duties or that it makes their work environment safer?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues have gone a long way to answer that question, but I would like to quote the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism), the member for Beauce, who said very succinctly that it's very important to measure results, not intentions.

I will grant that the members opposite, in their desire to keep the long gun registry, have good intentions and actually care about public safety, but what counts is results. As one of my colleagues said, we have a number of police officers on this side of the House, and to a person they say that the long gun registry is useless to them. All of us have had contact with police officers in the street and in their cars, and I make a point of asking them. I have not come across one front-line police officer who says the registry is of any use whatsoever.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to have a discussion with people who think that what they are saying is right and true, and whatever anyone else says is wrong or is false. I will not fall for that ideology.

I have friends who are hunters. No one is attacking hunters. We are talking about protecting human life by ensuring that weapons are registered. We need licences to drive our cars. When people go hunting by boat, they need a licence. So it is only normal to have to have a licence for a firearm.

Now, what is even worse is that I can already hear the shredders. Not only are they going to scrap the firearms registry, but they also want to shred and destroy the registry. The people of Quebec want the registry. The Quebec government wants to have that information to create its own registry.

If the government respects people so much, why are the people of Quebec not entitled to respect so that Quebec can create its own registry? In the meantime, in spite of the Conservative cult, we will take care of our own affairs in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, as was noted earlier, every province is free to create their own long gun registry. However, in order to eliminate the long gun registry, which is nothing but information, the information itself has to go as well. If Quebec wants to spend millions on an ineffective long gun registry, I suppose that is its right.

I notice that the members opposite never present any real evidence about the registry actually affecting crime rates. My colleague from Fundy Royal made the point that if it were so incontrovertible that the registry worked, then I think people's views on this side might be different. There is not a shred of evidence that it works. We need results on crime control, not pious good intentions.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about tradition in his riding.

In my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac, people participate in a variety of sports. We have farmers and many of them use long guns. Hunting is a way of life. I also have had a chance to visit of number of ranges in my riding where people are taught to respect firearms and to use them safety, not to be scared of them. I think there is a lot of fearmongering that we should be scared. That is one thing that will be taken away. One of the concerns that those people had was that we were intruding on their ability to teach their kids the responsible use of firearms, as well as to hunt and everything else.

Could the member comment on some of that tradition and why people feel so insulted by the existing law?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that others do not see the connection between hunting and firearms. To me, it is pretty obvious. If we take away the tool that is needed to hunt, we actually kill hunting.

In terms of the member's comments about safety, there are three shotgun sports not related to hunting. There is trap shooting, skeet shooting and sporting clays. They have been practised for decades around the world and, because of the safe handling that my friend talked about, there has not been one accident in those sports despite the millions and millions of shotgun shells that have been fired. That is a testament to responsible firearm ownership.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with some brief comments. The member for Nipissing—Timiskaming said that by passing the bill that is before us we will save $2 billion. I would very much like to understand how he is going to save $2 billion by scrapping the firearms registry. The money has already been spent and it will never come back. It is virtually an insult to tell Canadians they are going to save that much. What is going to be saved is $4 million. Four million dollars a year to save lives; I think that is worth it. Honestly, I think Canadians deserve it. Four million dollars is not too much, even if it saves only a single life. The statistics tell us there has been a significant decline in deaths and attempted murders in spousal violence situations since the firearms registry was established. The registry is working; it is saving lives.

I cannot believe that the Conservatives really want to abolish our firearms registry. The Parliament of Canada should continue to do everything it can to protect the women of this country. It should do everything it can to protect gay people and members of cultural communities. We are all affected by violent people, by acts of aggression, by violence. We have had enough.

We have the tools in front of us that can protect us, that help us and that can save lives. At a cost of $4 million a year, I honestly think it is worth it. The bill to abolish the registry today is a slap in the face to Quebeckers. Quebeckers who want the firearms registry are being told too bad, they will pay twice for the same registry. The Conservatives think that by abolishing it, they will save $2 billion dollars. That makes no sense. Quebeckers are being told tales. They are being told to believe that it is worthwhile to destroy it. But what is really being done is to make Quebeckers pay twice for a firearms registry that cost an arm and a leg, as we know.

I want to hear that Parliament is going to continue to protect people who are disadvantaged, who are hurt, who are attacked, and that it certainly does not want to abolish the firearms registry. I want to keep this registry.

I would like us to remember how the firearms registry came about. My colleague reminded us that Heidi Rathjen was very much involved in the creation of the current registry. On the evening of December 6, 1989, there was a massacre at École Polytechnique in Montreal. I was there on the evening of December 6, 1989. Fourteen women were killed when Marc Lépine went to the Université de Montréal with the intention of killing feminists. After firing into the air, he convinced all the men in the classroom to leave. Only the murderer, Lépine, and his victims remained in the classroom.

Nobody wanted to believe that the lives of these people were truly in danger, but today, we do believe it. Of the nine women he shot at in the classroom, he managed to kill six. He then went along the corridor to the cafeteria. He went to another classroom. He managed to kill 14 women in less than 20 minutes. I was there on the evening of December 6. I remember my colleagues' faces, the shock, the sadness, the anger. I remember my many colleagues, Montrealers, women, who made their way to the Polytechnique. I remember the vigil and the questions we were all asking: How? Why? What happened? Fourteen women are dead? Is it true?

Were they dead because one man felt emasculated? Since that day, everywhere in Canada, on December 6, women and all Canadians remember the acts of violence committed against women. We remember the massacre at the Polytechnique in Montreal. We remember Marc Lépine's anti-feminism. Let us remember the reason for the massacre. Marc Lépine wrote on the day of the massacre:

Know that I am committing suicide today...not for economic reasons...but rather for political reasons. I have decided to send feminists, who have done nothing but ruin my life, to their Maker—to the kingdom of the dead.

That event led to the creation of the registry we have today. Since then, there have been other massacres in Montreal. We remember Anastasia De Sousa who died from bullet wounds at Dawson College in downtown Montreal. We remember how shocked people were, and the laws that have since been passed to protect our students against men and women—especially men—who cannot help themselves and who commit acts of extreme violence. Our firearms registry is there to defend those students.

We remember Valery Fabrikant, who killed four professors at Concordia University on August 24, 1992. He was successful in killing the departmental head, Phoivos Ziogas, professors Matthew Douglas and Jaan Saber, and the professor and president of the teachers' union at Concordia University, Michael Hogben, a martyr of the union movement. Mr. Fabrikant killed those people. Why? Because he thought that they had not done enough for him.

Valery Fabrikant believed that he was being wronged by the university structure of Concordia University. He hounded the members of the staff. He tracked the members of faculty. He would stalk people at their homes and at their meetings. He would follow them in the halls and the corridors.

This man turned out to be armed and he turned out to be dangerous. If we had the registry in place at that point, I have no doubt that the police would have realized the risk all of those university professors were in.

He claimed that he was provoked. That was his defence. The man is now in jail and I hope he stays there for a very long time.

A memorial is now in place at the university commemorating that event. I want us to remember the union members who were shot dead by Valery Fabrikant and the fact that the registry may very well have helped.

Today, it is my moral duty to condemn the Harper government for what it intends to do to the firearms registry. Once again—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I remind the member that he may not use the name of other hon. members in his speech.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry.

I have a moral obligation to denounce the Conservative government's decisions on the issue of the gun registry. Once again, this government is forcing a bill through without any debate. The Conservative government will surely break the record for the lack of debates in the House. Not only does the Conservative government seek to avoid compromise with the large part of the public that is very concerned, it seems to worry about things that, honestly, many people do not understand.

The government is removing the requirement to register non-restricted firearms. It is also fearmongering. It is clashing with a large part of the public and also with police, who are responsible for ensuring public safety. This government brags about wanting to make people safe and sending criminals to jail, yet they are depriving law enforcement authorities of a valuable tool.

As of September 30, 2011, the Canadian gun registry was used more than 17,000 times each day. In my riding, police in the Gaspé have said that they use the registry every day. Officers in the Sûreté du Québec consult the registry every time they respond to a situation.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I am sorry, but I am going to have to interrupt the member. It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has nine minutes to finish his speech.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. I want to remind members of what I said yesterday about the bill before us, because the members who are here today may not have heard.

The gun registry protects women, cultural communities, gays and the disadvantaged in Canada. I cannot believe that the government actually wants to abolish it.

I would like to remind members why we have the gun registry. What motivated Quebeckers and Canadians to create this registry? Members will recall that on December 6, 1989, 14 women were killed at the École Polytechnique in Montreal. I was there when it happened. I remember the vigil. I remember people's faces that night. They could not believe that 14 women were dead because a man felt emasculated. That is absolutely unbelievable.

I remember the faces of my colleagues that night. The shock, sadness and anger were obvious. I remember my many colleagues, the Montrealers who gathered at the École Polytechnique, the women who went to the Université de Montréal, the vigil where everyone was asking the same questions. Why? What happened? Did we understand correctly? Did Marc Lépine feel so emasculated that he had to kill 14 women?

Marc Lépine left a note that night. He wrote:

Know that I am committing suicide today 89/12/06 not for economic reasons...but rather for political reasons. I have decided to send feminists, who have done nothing but ruin my life, to their Maker—to the kingdom of the dead.

That event led to the creation of the registry we have today. We remember that before the registry was created, there was another massacre in Montreal. Valery Fabrikant killed four of his colleagues at Concordia University. I was there at that time as well. He killed four of his colleagues. Now they are dead. I want to repeat their names: department head Phoivos Ziogas; professors Matthew Douglas and Jaan Saber; and president of the teachers' union at Concordia University, Michael Hogben.

Mr. Fabrikant killed them because he felt he was not getting enough support from his colleagues. If the registry had been in place at that point, I have no doubt that those four people might be alive today. For weeks, Mr. Fabrikant had walked the halls of Concordia, perhaps with a rifle, and people suspected he was dangerous man. If police had had access to a gun registry that identified him as the owner of a firearm, I doubt that those people would be dead today.

The registry has its place. The government is removing the requirement to register non-restricted firearms. It is also fearmongering. It is clashing with a large part of the public and also with the police, who are responsible for ensuring public safety. This government brags about wanting to make people safe and sending criminals to jail, yet they are depriving law enforcement authorities of a valuable tool.

Last week, the head of the Montreal police oficers' association, the Fraternité des policiers et policières, told us that of the 14 police officers killed recently, 12 were killed by long guns. The gun registry is useful. As of September 30, 2011, the Canadian gun registry was being used more than 17,000 times a day. In my riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, police have said that they use the registry every day. Officers in the Sûreté du Québec consult the registry every time they respond to a situation such as death threats, assault, abuse and suicide attempts.

We will never be able to know the number of lives saved in the Gaspé because Sûreté du Québec or RCMP officers changed their method of intervention after consulting the registry. The Conservatives do not have a column for those figures.

What will Conservative members say to youth protection workers, paramedics and nurses? Will they apologize for putting their lives in danger as well? Likely not, since the government is dismissing their concerns like it is dismissing the opinions of victims groups, most of which continue to support the maintenance of the long gun registry. The government is adding insult to injury by destroying existing long gun registry records. This government, which was elected to represent all Canadians, is gambling with the safety of the public for partisan reasons.

As the official opposition, we have suggested other possibilities to the government. We made suggestions that would have allowed the Prime Minister and the members of his party to reach a compromise. We too want to respond to the concerns of aboriginal and rural communities, but we also want to ensure that the police have the tools they need to keep our communities safe.

In 2010, the NDP made several suggestions to alleviate the problems with the registry. Mr. Layton, who recently passed away, wanted to build bridges between urban and rural populations. He proposed decriminalizing the failure to register a firearm for first-time offenders. Previous versions of the bill allowed businesses to keep an inventory of the sale of long guns. This bill does not contain any such provisions. The government is rejecting these proposals; it prefers to pit urban Canada against rural Canada. Yet, stopping violence is a priority for both rural and urban Canadians. There is no good reason to explain the government's inflexibility.

A study by the National Institute of Public Health estimates that, in Quebec, over 2,000 lives have been saved since the implementation of the long gun registry. Furthermore, an average of one in three women who die at the hands of their husbands are shot. Most of these victims are killed with a legal shotgun or hunting rifle.

Why does the government want to reduce firearm tracking mechanisms on top of eliminating the registry? This bill also does not include any measures to ensure that firearms are transferred only to valid permit holders. The bill does not make any sense in any respect and goes against the values and requests of Canadians.

I call upon the Conservative members to regain their common sense and reverse their decision. Our future depends on it.