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

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the member is practising for a movie role or not, but I suppose he does not have to deal with facts when he is just trying to display his oratorical skills.

That party is the most hypocritical party that we have ever seen in the House, because those members have voted against every anti-crime bill that this government has put forward, and now they have the audacity to stand up in the House and support a gun registry that does not mean diddly to any person with a criminal intent to use a gun, whether it has a registered number on it or not.

For goodness' sake, millions of illegal firearms are used in the majority of crimes every single day all across the country. The people using those firearms do not care whether they are registered or not, and the police, before they go to a scene, train themselves to anticipate that there could be a firearm involved whether there is a gun registry or not.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure there was an important point in that rant.

The member wants facts. How much more factual do we have to get than the chief of police of Toronto, who is the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police? We are not just making something up.

I made the point in my remarks, and I meant it, that under any other circumstance the Conservatives would be standing up and quoting what police chiefs are saying when it comes to fighting crime and keeping Canadians safe. We are quoting the most prominent police chiefs in Canada, yet the Conservatives are accusing us of playing some kind of game.

I would ask the member to look seriously in the mirror in terms of who is playing games with Canadians' safety.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech just given by the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey, and I noted two things in particular that I would like my colleague to comment on.

The member is a doctor and she just said that data do not save lives. Her statement is based on everyday data from her traditional job. I do not really understand how she can say that data, including the data found in the registry, cannot save lives. On the contrary, the information does save lives and can be used for prevention.

I would like to tell my colleague about a comment my team heard at La Débrouille, a women's shelter for victims of domestic violence in Rimouski-Neigette. Someone at the shelter said that when an abused woman seeks shelter with them, if she presses charges of course, the police consult the registry to see if weapons could pose a risk in a case of domestic violence. The shelter for abused women said that it sends at least one request a day to the Rimouski-Neigette police. We are talking about at least one call a day from one women's shelter alone, which is located in just one of Canada's 308 ridings.

In light of that comment from the women's shelter, can we not agree that the registry contains information that could be useful across the country, especially in cases of domestic violence?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right about the importance of the registry.

We can debate what we think happens when police officers pull up in front of a place. We can debate what we think all of this means, but let us remember what the leadership of the police community in Canada is saying. Let us also recognize that as of September 30, 2011, the Canadian firearms registry was accessed 17,402 times a day. If even one of those relates to my daughter, then I would rather be on the side of safety and have the information, because the opposite is what we currently have.

We recognize that there are different pressures and viewpoints from around the country on how to view this issue, but we are trying to see it from the victim's point of view, from the community's point of view, from the point of view of the police leadership in Canada. We are trying to put forward the fact that the registry makes a difference and it ought to stay. Women in Canada deserve to have this registry in place, and they deserve to know that their Parliament cares about them and their lives.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, the ending the long-gun registry act. My colleagues have spoken very passionately about the need to end this wasteful and ineffective registry, and I am very glad that the moment has arrived when we are actually able to do so.

Since my election in 2006, I have clearly stated to my constituents that I do not support the long gun registry, because it criminalizes farmers, hunters and target shooters who respect the law, but does nothing to prevent criminals from getting their hands on firearms.

I intend to keep my promise to scrap it, which is more than I can say for the NDP and Liberal MPs from rural ridings, who have long spoken about wanting to end the long gun registry but who vote to continue it whenever they are asked to take a stand on the matter. I will do as I said, as will my Conservative colleagues, and we will abolish this Liberal bureaucratic mess that infringes on the freedoms of Canadians.

As members may know, I represent a rural riding where farming is a way of life. Farmers make a living from the land and they have to protect their livelihoods. That means that a majority of the people who I represent own shotguns or rifles to safeguard their livelihoods.

The thrust of the problem is that these hard-working, law-abiding people who grow food for all Canadians are made to feel like dangerous criminals because of the long gun registry.

This long gun registry's criminalization of farmers, hunters and sport shooters is wrong. How is it possible that imposing needless and extensive red tape on these people is going to stop crime elsewhere? What is the connection between regulating the long gun in the hands of a farmer in my riding and stopping gun crime in Toronto, Montreal or Winnipeg? There is absolutely none, and what is worse is that the resources being used to administer the long gun registry could be used elsewhere to actually fight crime and protect victims.

This issue of the long gun registry demonstrates clearly the fundamental disconnect between opposition MPs and rural Canadians, and Canadians see this disconnect. Canadians elected Conservative members of Parliament on May 2, including, notably, not a single Liberal MP from a rural riding in Ontario. It is not hard to see why. Former Liberal minister of justice Allan Rock, the individual who implemented the long gun registry on behalf of his Liberal government, stated that “Only the police and military should have firearms”. This is a ludicrous statement.

Let us take my situation, for example. As the House knows, I served in the Canadian army for 20 years. During that time, I was trained for, carried and fired guns of all description: pistols, rifles, light machine guns, heavy machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, et cetera. I also trained other soldiers in their safe operation and acted in the capacity of range safety officer on many occasions.

The Liberal position enunciated by Allan Rock would be that despite all of this training, experience and responsibility, now that I am retired, I should have no access to firearms as a hunter or sport shooter and, to make it worse, I should be criminalized by the long gun registry if, for whatever reason, I missed a long gun registration deadline, even if it was not my fault.

This situation must change, and I am very pleased and proud that we now have the opportunity to change it.

I would also like to draw attention to a statement made by the hon. member for Mount Royal to the effect that destroying the long gun registry is synonymous with destroying evidence. Since I am a generous man, I will assume he misspoke. I say this because, interestingly enough, his statement implies that Canadians living in rural areas are criminals about whom evidence must be gathered, whether or not they have committed a crime. We on this side of the House fundamentally disagree with this attitude of the opposition members.

Hunters, farmers and sport shooters are not the people that we need to target if we want to keep our streets and communities free from gun-related violence. We need to target criminals and continue with the practical and concrete measures that the Conservative government has taken in this regard—measures that, I should add, the opposition has rejected. The opposition parties are speaking out against anti-crime measures that work and they are firmly supporting those that do not.

It is clear to the experts that safer streets and communities come from tough, effective laws and from smart crime prevention programming. Our government has taken concrete actions in both of these areas. Whether it is through increasing sentences for crimes involving guns, increasing sentences for gang crime, putting more police on the streets, or improving investments in crime prevention, our government believes in effective crime-fighting measures.

These are the kinds of measures that keep Canadians safe, not increasing bureaucracy, paperwork and red tape on law-abiding Canadians, with the threat of a criminal record if they do not.

Members need not take my word for it. Let me read the following quote: “The federal government has recently introduced a bill to end the long gun registry introduced by the Liberals in the mid-1990s. University of Ottawa criminologist Ron Melchers said the registry has had little to do with the decline in firearm homicides, adding that its absence will also make little difference”.

This is what the experts are saying.

I would also like to address a common inaccuracy used by the NDP and the Liberals. They say we register cars and boats, so why not guns? The fact of the matter is that if I am late filling out the paperwork to register my car, I get a small fine, but if I am late filling out the paperwork to register my shotgun, under the current system I am threatened with being charged, convicted, given a criminal record and perhaps being sent to jail.

Another point about the registration of cars and boats is that we only have to register them if we are going to use them. We can store a car in the backyard or garage and leave it unregistered for as long as we want. It is only once we start using that car that it has to be registered. However, if I store a long gun in a locked storage container in my basement and I do not look at it for 15 years, it has to be registered that whole time, or else I am committing a criminal act under the present long gun registry.

Turning law-abiding sport shooters, farmers and hunters in rural regions into criminals is not an effective means of gun control.

The bill before the House today is, in fact, very simple. It makes it possible for this government to do exactly what it promised—to abolish the expensive and ineffective long gun registry. It is not complicated. Members simply need to vote for or against it. Are they in favour of imposing useless bureaucracy on farmers because of their occupation? Are they in favour of treating hunters like criminals simply because they own firearms?

I know where my constituents stand, and that is why I will be voting to support the ending the long gun registry act. I call on all members opposite to do the same.

They need not listen just to me. The NDP member for Western Arctic said, “They say [the long gun registry] is effective, but effective for what?”

The NDP member for Timmins—James Bay said, “What rural people were concerned with is wasting money tracking down your grandfather's 20-gauge rifle as opposed to putting money into urban gun violence”.

Many similar statements have been made by both NDP and Liberal MPs who are members of the House today. It is my hope that they will reflect on the words that they themselves have spoken, that they will represent the will of their constituents and that when the time comes to vote, they will do the right thing, stand in their place and vote to end the expensive and ineffective long gun registry, which has criminalized responsible and law-abiding Canadians for far too long.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have some unfounded allegations from the government and its stakeholders.

I think we on this side, as do government members, realize that no one in this House thinks hunters and farmers are criminals. What the member just spoke about, the fact that a person becomes a criminal if he does not register, are things that the NDP tried to eliminate in the bill it introduced last year. We tried to eliminate the irritants and we can still do so.

The member who just spoke also indicated that the issue is all black or white, either you are for it or against it, when reality is somewhere in the middle. I would like to know why the member who just spoke will not agree to work with the NDP to create a bill that could eliminate the irritants but would still help police forces do their job. The arguments made by my colleague from Hamilton were very clear: police forces need the registry and use it regularly.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is simple: why does the NDP refuse to work with the government to abolish the long gun registry?

The registry does not work and does not help police officers fight crime. We need to implement measures that will help them. Every time this government tries to do so, the NDP votes against it. When we try to include more money and resources in the budget for police forces, the NDP votes against it.

I do not know if my colleague comes from a rural riding, but if that is the case, I am almost positive that some of the farmers and hunters in his riding would like to see the long gun registry abolished.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, front-line police officers have told me that because there are so many illegal and unregistered firearms, whenever they attend a domestic violence situation, even if there is no record of any firearms being in that resident, they always treat it like there could be one in the residence.

Therefore, previous members' statements are contrary to what the police chiefs have said. Could my hon. colleague verify comments that he may have heard regarding police preparedness training when they are going into a domestic violence situation?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to police officers in my riding and they have expressed exactly the same concern. They treat all situations as high-risk situations. They have no confidence in the gun registry because the gun registry is riddled with errors. The gun registry may show that there is a gun in a home when in fact there is not or it may show that there is no gun in a home, when in fact there is. They have no confidence in it, so they treat all situations as high-risk situations.

I will just take a moment to point out what I see to be quite logical.

When a crime is committed with a long gun that has been registered with the long gun registry, it is quite evident that the crime was not prevented by the registry. The registry has failed in preventing that crime from occurring with a registered long gun.

When a crime is committed with a long gun that has not been registered for whatever reason with the registry, it is quite obvious that, once again, the long gun registry has failed to stop that crime with the non-registered long gun.

I really must put this back to my opposition colleagues. They keep saying how effective the long gun registry is in preventing crime, yet I have given two opposite examples that show that the registry has no role to play in preventing crime. They must answer that question because the long gun registry oppresses law-abiding Canadians and law-abiding Canadians are the ones who register their guns, not the criminals.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to debate Bill C-19. Once again, the Conservatives are showing their narrow ideology in trying to eliminate the Canadian firearms registry. This registry is strongly defended by our police forces and by the majority of Canadians, but this government is choosing once again to ignore reality.

The arguments in favour of this bill are not very convincing, while there are many arguments against the bill that are backed by data and by groups that work in protecting Canadians. Yes, the initial cost of the registry was exorbitant, but it has already been paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Abolishing the registry will not bring back the billions of dollars that have already been spent. According to the RCMP, abolishing the registry would result in direct savings of just a few thousand dollars. That is what the lives of the thousands of people saved by this registry are worth to the Conservatives. If this government claims to want to destroy the registry to save money, then to them, a life is worth nothing. This so-called savings is nothing compared to the unavoidable increase in the cost of police investigations that will result from abolishing this registry. In other words, the Conservatives' main argument for wanting to abolish the registry is simply ridiculous.

The other argument frequently used by the Conservatives for destroying the registry is that it is supposedly ineffective. This argument does not hold water. Police forces, as we have said a number of times today, consult the registry more than 17,000 times a day and want the registry to be maintained. It allows police officers to plan their operations better when they have to intervene with individuals, which contributes to the safety of our police forces. The registry also helps reduce the cost of police investigations. When a long gun is used in a crime, police officers can easily track the firearm and its user.

The registry has also helped save many lives. Even though the majority of murders are committed with handguns, long guns are used in the majority of spousal murders and suicides in which firearms are involved.

Various women's advocacy associations want the registry to be maintained. Year after year, long guns are used in two out of every three murders when firearms are involved. The registry has greatly helped diminish the number of spousal murders. For example, only a third as many spousal murders were committed with long guns in 2007 as in 1996, despite the population growth, which shows the usefulness of the registry.

These long guns wreak even more havoc on Canadian society when we consider suicide. Year after year, close to 60% of firearms suicides are committed with long guns. The registry makes it possible to quickly determine if, for example, a depressed person owns a firearm, which allows authorities to save many lives. The number of firearms suicides dropped from 569 in 2001 to 475 in 2004, proving once again that the registry works.

Since we know that most homicides committed with firearms are suicides, it is of the utmost importance for the government to take action. However, this government is irresponsible and would rather ignore the facts and introduce a bill that will lead to the death of hundreds of Canadians. The survivors of the various massacres that have occurred in Canada also want the registry to be maintained.

On one hand, the Conservatives say that they are on the side of victims of crime but, on the other hand, the Conservatives ignore and turn their backs on those victims when they take a stand that does not correspond with the Conservative ideology. This government is illogical. The Conservatives say that they want to make our streets safer by imposing repressive bills and, yet, they want to allow the free circulation of firearms. This clearly shows that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Conservative ideology.

In addition, one of the main reasons that there are problems with the registry is that the Conservatives did not enforce the legislation. By giving offenders amnesty since 2006, the government has been sending the message that the laws pertaining to the registry are not important and that the Conservative government supports offenders. As a result, millions of firearms are still not registered. What credibility does this irresponsible government have when it states that the registry is ineffective given that it is directly responsible for the problems with the registry?

The Conservatives have done nothing but sabotage the registry since 2006. This government claims to want to enforce the laws but, instead, it is sending the message that only the laws that are consistent with the Conservative ideology have to be respected. Unfortunately, that is not all. Many provinces, including Quebec, are insisting that the registry be maintained and, yet, the Conservatives are completely ignoring them. This government would rather completely destroy the registry instead of giving the data to the provinces. This shows the contempt that the Conservatives have for our constituents.

Must we remind this government that every Canadian paid for this registry, not just the Conservatives or the Conservative Party?

The people of the provinces that want to keep the firearms registry paid to create it. Are they not entitled to keep what they paid for? The Conservatives, blinded by their regressive ideology, absolutely want to destroy the registry without giving the data to the provinces. These same provinces will have to waste our money to recreate a registry from scratch. The Conservatives are showing their contempt for the provinces, especially Quebec, where 84% of voters voted against the Conservative Party. In fact, a motion was adopted yesterday by the National Assembly of Quebec calling on the federal government to transfer the firearms registry data to the Government of Quebec.

Another argument used by the Conservatives to justify destroying this registry is that it would violate the freedom of firearms users by imposing red tape. That does not stand up. Only two million people have to deal with the registry's red tape out of a total population of almost 35 million Canadians. Why destroy this registry and sacrifice the majority of Canadians to save a very small minority from the administrative irritants of the registry? Should we stop registering vehicles? That is the argument. Yet there are far more users of vehicles than of firearms. Of course, vehicle registration does not go against the Conservative ideology.

It is appalling that this irresponsible government is again trying to destroy the registry. Once again, this government is lying to Canadians to justify its position. Once again, this government is allowing U.S. interests, in this case the powerful gun lobbies, to dictate policy. It is time for this government to start listening to reason and the facts. Abolishing this registry will result in more suicides and more spousal homicides. Abolishing this registry will make police work harder and more dangerous.

This government is showing contempt for Canadians by imposing this ridiculous bill. The Conservatives always lower the bar simply because their position is dictated by regressive ideology.

I will continue to stand up for all Canadians abandoned by this government. I will fiercely oppose this irresponsible bill. I welcome any questions.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's intervention with interest. As he knows, some colleagues in the NDP have introduced a bill to actually fix some of the problems with the registry because it would be foolish to say that it is perfect. Everything can stand to improve.

I know my colleague will agree with me that the Conservatives are playing divisive politics with this bill. They are pitting urban against rural. They are pitting Canadians against one another and are refusing to compromise on anything.

Would the member be willing to consider amendments, or a different bill or ways in which we could actually improve the registry? Or is this just something that he and his party are blindly hoping to save at all costs?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I spoke about the Conservatives' ideology and how they cannot help themselves, but, once again, it is politics of division. In this case, we see men versus women. It is a clear case of where the government wants to create divisions between men and women. It did it with the poor against the rich, the middle-class and the lower-class, the religious and non-religious and urban and rural. It is a continuous process.

Hopefully the bill will not pass second reading but, if it does, I hope that in committee we will be able to put forward some amendments and that the Conservative government will be willing to acknowledge that some bills need to be amended and that it will work with members from both the NDP and Liberal Parties to make this a proper bill. If it does not want to listen to members of Parliament, it can always listen to members from some of the provincial legislatures, like the National Assembly of Quebec that just passed a motion yesterday saying that it supports the gun registry.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech earlier, when I make a commitment to my constituents, as do my colleagues on this side of the House, we keep it. We said that we would abolish the long gun registry and we are doing exactly that.

What are the member's colleagues for Malpeque, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor and Avalon going to say to their constituents about their flip-flop on the long gun registry? They said before that they would scrap it and now they are not. What do they plan to say to their constituents?

We have made a commitment to our constituents. We are scrapping the long gun registry and keeping our commitment. What are they saying to their constituents?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was saying. We should forget about the divisive part because it is understandable. That will happen in every question they ask. The fact is that some of the members in my party have decided that is the way to go. It took a while but we are finally convinced. If we look at the last two votes on the gun registry, every member of Parliament in the Liberal Party supported the maintenance of the gun registry. It is very simple.

There are members in the Conservative Party who want to abolish it but they are so scared of the Prime Minister that they will not do it. The Liberal Party is known for having an open policy. The Conservatives should wake up and allow everybody a free vote and then we would see if we could get a proper bill out of the chamber.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is actually quite consistent with the policies of the government, which is generally an evidence-free government. It does not seem to matter how many times it is told that minimum mandatories do not work, it still pursues it.

I was listening to one of the Conservative members who said that it was actually better that there be no gun registry because when police officers approach a situation, they always approach as if there are firearms. In this particular case, they are actually downloading their evidence-free philosophy on the police, implying that they would rather not know that there is something in the registry when they approach the house. Does that make any sense whatsoever?