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.

Motions in Amendment

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to my colleague's question is very simple. The registry was so horribly flawed when it came into play that the $2 million skyrocketed into $1 billion overnight. Our government did the sensible thing and refused to continue to throw good money after bad to do something that would not prevent crime.

There is nothing in the registry that will ever stop an individual from making a choice to break into a person's home and taking his or her registered gun. That is a decision people make. Criminals are criminals. The registry will not stop that from occurring.

We made the responsible choice of not throwing good money after bad and wasting Canadian taxpayer dollars, and we will continue on that track.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned voting the party line rather than the wishes of the constituents. I have been here for a good seven years and I have never seen a party vote the party line over the interests of the constituents more often than the party opposite, I must say.

Second, in terms of Dr. Mauser, he did not disclose the fact that he was a member of the minister's advisory panel on firearms when he appeared before the committee. In fact, many of the witnesses who appeared were part of the minister's inner circle. It was almost like having the minister's staff appear before the committee. In any event, Dr. Mauser is an advocate of having all Canadians learn how to defend themselves with a weapon, so I do not know if he really represents the views of the mainstream in this country.

The member said that the registry does not work because criminals will be criminals and they do not register their guns. However, the government has maintained the hand gun registry, so would the same logic not mean that it should be getting rid of the hand gun registry?

When the member talked about some of the peer review evidence that was presented to say that the long gun registry does not save lives, those same studies showed that gun licensing does not save lives. Therefore, why is the government not getting rid of gun licensing as well if it wants to be consistent with the so-called peer reviewed evidence that we heard at committee?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that this is an emotional and heated debate across Canada.

When he talks about taking these giant leaps, that is not what we are doing. We are doing what we heard Canadians say they wanted. Canadians said that they wanted to scrap the registry. I have not heard a mass number of people in my riding or across Canada say that we should scrap the registries for restricted and prohibited weapons. I have not heard a mass number of people talk about wanting to scrap the licensing system, so we have not gone that far and have not made that commitment.

The hon. member will recall that we did hear testimony in committee where people did say that there was not a great deal of justification for even a restricted weapon registry.

We are not prepared to go that far. We are willing to compromise. When the opposition members say that we are not compromising, this legislation is an excellent example of doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have risen in this House to speak about this bill. Clearly, the first time was at second reading.

If I had to give my speech a title, I would call it “A Mistake that Will Haunt us for Years to Come”.

I believe that the decision to abolish the firearms registry is a mistake. I participated in committee hearings where we heard from a number of witnesses on both sides. I am now more convinced than ever that we are making the wrong decision.

In the 10 minutes that I have this morning, I would like to speak more specifically about certain amendments that others moved today in this House, some of which are practically identical to those I moved at committee on behalf of my party.

Before I begin, I would like to point out two things that I found a bit disturbing about the context in which the debate took place. I mentioned one of them earlier in my question to the hon. member for Yukon, and that is the fact that we learned, following the testimony of a number of committee witnesses and as a result of a question on the order paper, that some of these witnesses had been members of the minister's firearms advisory committee.

I do not know whether you agree, Mr. Speaker, but to me, an advisory committee is a group of people with a variety of opinions on a subject, some of whom may have technical expertise on the issue, which the government consults in an attempt to achieve consensus. An advisory committee is not a club of cronies that the government stacks with party supporters. I think that the minister's firearms advisory committee looks more like a bunch of cronies than a real advisory committee that tries to examine an issue thoroughly.

I thought transparency was lacking. When the witnesses appeared, we were given to believe that they had no ties to government, that they were independent. Naturally, we would have responded differently to their testimony had we known that they were operating hand in hand with the minister.

Then there is the RCMP's annual report on the Canadian firearms program. Quite a trend has been developing over the past few years. The report seems to have been published at inconvenient times for those who are against dismantling the gun registry. For example, the 2007 report was published at the end of August 2008, which is reasonable, but the 2008 report was given to the minister on October 9, 2009, and published after the vote at second reading of Bill C-391, a private member's bill sponsored by the member for Portage—Lisgar that sought to dismantle the gun registry. The 2009 report was published on October 14, and the 2010 report was just published on January 19, well after the committee's hearings on Bill C-19 and well after the vote at second reading held last fall.

I would like to talk about a couple of amendments that were presented today that mirror the amendments that I presented in the name of the Liberal Party at committee.

The first was an amendment to ensure that the data would be saved. The hon. member for Yukon neglected to mention that in the province of Quebec, no mandate was given to the Conservative government to destroy the data. To make the people of Quebec pay again for basically the same data would be a form of double taxation. The Conservative government would be guilty of double taxing the people of Quebec. The people of Quebec have already paid to create the database for the registry. If they wanted to maintain the service of that registry, they would have to pay again. That is not quite fair from a fiscal point of view.

Second, doing away with the database would not only violate the spirit of the Library and Archives of Canada Act but the letter of that act as well. That is why Bill C-19 would have to amend the Library and Archives of Canada Act in order to get rid of the data as soon as possible.

The Library and Archives of Canada Act is important for maintaining records that are critical for the functioning of a democracy. It is central to the idea of access to government information by the people of Canada. Bill C-19 would not require the government to obtain the opinion of the national archivist before rushing to destroy the data.

Suzanne Legault the Information Commissioner said the following at committee:

--destroying records on this scale without first obtaining the consent of the archivist, as required by section 12 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act, not only modifies the existing records management system, which seeks to ensure transparency and accountability in the disposal of such records, but in my view also seems contrary to the Federal Court's decision in Bronskill.

--In that case... Justice Noël stated that the Access to Information Act and the Library of Archives of Canada Act are inextricably linked, such that “Parliament considers access to information in Canada and document retention as essential components of citizens' right to government information”.

To destroy the data would be a very unfortunate thing.

In terms of the transfer of firearms in Canada, I agree that the bill would create a dangerous situation. It would essentially take away all supervision of the transfer of firearms, either by gun shop owners or by individuals trying to sell weapons by phone or over the Internet, whichever way they deemed desirable. For example, it would not be necessary for someone selling a weapon, and that could be over the Internet, to check whether the purchaser had a firearms acquisition certificate. This would be problematic.

The bill says that in the vendor's mind, he or she should be certain that the person buying the weapon has a firearms acquisition certificate. But that could mean anything. That would not necessarily lead someone to check. They could call the registrar to find out, if they wanted to go through the inconvenience. However, the registrar would not have to keep a record of that call. If there were a problem down the road, such as a crime, we would not be able to go to the registrar to help with the investigation.

My colleagues opposite will probably say that firearms owners are responsible citizens. I would agree with that statement. I said it in my speech at second reading. The people I know in my community who own firearms are the most sterling members of the community. They are volunteers. They are ideal citizens. This is not to impugn people who own firearms.

I would like to give the House an example of how we are leaving the process of transferring firearms wide open. The mayor of New York City asked his officials to investigate how firearms are transferred. In the United States, if people are transferring a firearm, through Craigslist for example, they have to check whether the prospective buyer has the right to own a firearm. The process is a little stricter than it would be under this law. It was found that in, I think, 62% of cases, people disposing of firearms through the Internet or any other way would not bother checking, even when the prospective buyer said, “Look, you really shouldn't sell it to me, I may not get through the check”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was part of the committee hearings on this bill, as was the hon. member who just delivered his remarks. One of the things I found quite disturbing was the fact that over and over the opposition did more talking and perpetuated myths and half-truths in regard to the long gun registry, than listening to witnesses, especially front-line police officers.

The member opposite raised a question earlier regarding Professor Gary Mauser, a great Canadian who has contributed so much to western Canada and the rural way of life. This minister somehow accused him of being someone who believed that individuals should be able to own firearms. He said he is part of the minister's firearms advisory council. That is a well-known public fact. It appears that the opposition was not prepared for committee, did not do its homework and instead tried to propose mistruths.

Could the member tell this House what exactly he did to prepare for committee, if not find out who the witnesses were and what they were doing?

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

Mr. Speaker, I take issue with this idea that I did not prepare for committee. I have a thick binder of documentation. I read reports. When people come to committee, the first idea that comes to mind is not to ask if they are members of the Conservative Party or if they are working with the minister on this issue. We expect they will tell us what their affiliations are.

I am not saying that Dr. Mauser is not a good Canadian. I did not say that people who own firearms are not good Canadians. I repeat, the ones I know in my community are sterling individuals. That is not the issue.

The committee hearings were very instructive. As I said before, in reference to a question from the member for the Yukon, we saw evidence from social scientists that the registry does not work. That same evidence shows that firearms licensing does not work. So I do not understand why the government cherry-picks its evidence to suit its political agenda.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his speech. Earlier, we heard a member from the Conservative Party rhyme off a list of myths by number.

I have two myths to offer my colleague, and I would like him to say a few words about them. First myth: the Conservative government and the Conservatives stand up for victims. Answer: false, given that two ombudsmen for victims of crime—the current one and the former one—say that at the end of the day, the Conservatives are doing absolutely nothing for victims.

Second myth: the Conservative government and the Conservatives are fighting crime. False: in my opinion, they are making a spectacle of crime. From time to time they use victims and their suffering to try to explain or justify unacceptable bills. The best example is Bill C-10—if memory serves me correctly—with which they are going to completely change the way we deal with young offenders in Quebec.

What does the hon. member think about these myths?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a rather interesting question. We heard that the ombudsman for victims of crime is against dismantling the firearms registry. A representative of victims in Canada is against the government's initiative.

Many myths have been spread by the government, if you ask me. The first myth is that this issue pits rural Canada against urban Canada. In other words, people in cities have no interest in owning firearms, but people in more remote areas need firearms for hunting, as a work tool for protecting their farm from animals, etc. Indeed, farmers need firearms.

However, in Toronto alone, the largest urban area in Canada, there are 287,000 long guns. It is not simply a matter of rural versus urban; it is an issue that concerns urban areas as much as rural areas.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to add my voice to this important debate on the ending of the Long-gun Registry Act. With this legislation we propose to finally remove a measure that has had no tangible benefit in keeping Canadians safe. Rather, it has added unnecessary paper work and placed an unfair burden on law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong besides have the audacity to own a rifle or a shotgun.

The long gun registry has played a divisive role in pitting rural Canadians against urban Canadians. It has been touted as a safety measure that protects police even as we hear from the police themselves that it is unreliable and inaccurate. It has been said to save lives. Yet no one has ever presented compelling evidence to that end. Rather, we have heard directly from Canadians and witnesses who have appeared before committee with two clear messages: it is a waste of taxpayers' money and it is ineffective.

Let us consider the cost of the registry.

The registry was put in place in 1995 with the promised price tag of around $120 million for start-up costs. Most of this was supposed to be covered by registration and licensing fees. However, in her 2002 report and the follow-up 2006 report, the then auditor general of Canada found that the costs were nowhere near that. She did a thorough review of the cost escalations in her review. She estimated that the cost of the Canadian firearms program was many hundreds of millions of dollars by 2005.

This is an affront to Canadian taxpayers. In a media story in 2003, the auditor general put it this way:

The issue here is not gun control and it's not even astronomical cost overruns. What's really inexcusable is that Parliament was in the dark.

Even more, in 2004, the CBC reported that the cost of the long gun registry was well in excess of $2 billion. Is it any surprise that these revelations were met with renewed calls to end the long gun registry? The answer, of course, is a resounding no.

Despite the attempts of long gun registry supporters to convince Canadians that the long gun registry is saving lives, there is simply no compelling data to back that claim up. It is clear to many millions of Canadians that the long gun registry is both wasteful and ineffective. It is for these reasons that our government has worked tirelessly since coming into power to end the long gun registry.

If we were to believe the naysayers, we might imagine that eliminating the long gun registry would lead to rampant gun crime and Wild West shootouts in the streets. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we already have many tough and effective measures in place that are helping to prevent gun crime.

There are three key approaches to cracking down on violent crimes.

First of all, something that would not change with Bill C-19, is a strict licensing system that is already in place. To lawfully possess a firearm, every Canadian must be in possession of a valid firearms licence.

Anyone who wants to acquire a firearm must undergo a required Canadian firearms safety course. This is not a quick online quiz. Rather, it is a comprehensive 10 hour classroom course that gives students a working knowledge of the safe handling of firearms. It also ensures that they are familiar with the laws and procedures regarding firearm ownership.

As part of this licence application, every individual is also screened to ensure there is no reason to believe that the public would be in danger if that individual gained a licence. This includes checking the individual's criminal record to see if he or she has been prohibited by law to own a gun or poses any general danger to society.

These are reasonable measures that have been widely accepted by gun owners across the country. As noted, none of that would change with the legislation we are discussing today. In fact, we feel so strongly about the effectiveness of the gun licensing system that we have invested $7 million annually to improve the screening process for first-time firearms licensees. We believe that this is helping to keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them.

Our second area of focus in gun control is the work we have done to ensure that those who commit gun crimes face stiff sentences. We have passed legislation that sets out mandatory minimum prison sentences for serious gun crimes, as well as reverse bail provisions for serious offences. We have put in place laws that target drive-by shootings that demonstrate a reckless disregard for the safety of others. There is now a mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years in prison, up to a maximum of 14 years, for these crimes. That minimum sentence goes up five years if the individual committed the act on behalf of a criminal organization or used a restricted or prohibited handgun or automatic firearm in the progress of the crime. These are tough measures. They send a strong message that those who commit violent gun crimes will face severe consequences.

We have also taken decisive action to ensure that we have the appropriate level of police officers to enforce these tough laws. We have invested in significant funds in helping prevent crime through programs like the youth gang prevention fund and the national crime prevention strategy. We have invested quite a bit in my own city of Hamilton, Ontario, to ensure we keep youth from crime.

The third approach has been to strengthen our borders to stem the flood of illegally smuggled firearms from the United States. We know that the majority of firearms smuggled into Canada are coming across the 49th parallel. Our efforts to crack down on this illegal activity have taken many forms, including the deployment of the integrated border enforcement teams at strategic points along the border, as well as testing new and innovative cross-border policing models such as shiprider to combat illegal smuggling along our borders. Shiprider pilot projects, which involve specially trained and designated RCMP and U.S. Coast Guard officers jointly crewing marine vessels to enforce laws on both sides of the border, have proven to have a direct and measurable impact on cross-border criminality.

Given their success, the Prime Minister and the U.S. president have announced, in the context of a shared vision, that we would look to regularize shiprider operations, as well as leverage the shiprider concept to land-based operations. By working closely with our U.S. counterparts, we can better identify, interdict and prosecute those individuals who attempt to smuggle firearms into our country.

In light of what we know about the long gun registry, we are faced with two choices. We can continue with the status quo, pouring good money after bad into a long gun registry that is in effective and wasteful, or we can do what responsible parliamentarians should do, which is to consider the facts.

In summary, I believe there are three points we must all consider. First, the long gun registry has cost Canadian taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money, far more than they were originally told when it was put in place in 1995. Second, many police officers are telling us that the long gun registry is not reliable, full of errors and has done nothing to keep Canadians safe. Third, there is no statistic showing us that the long gun registry has had any impact in terms of saving lives or deterring individuals from committing violent gun-related crimes.

This is not a matter of partisan or personal views; it is a matter of common sense. The long gun registry has not worked since its inception in 1995. It is not working today and it will not work in the future. I ask all hon. members to stand up for law-abiding Canadians and vote to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about myths—the seven myths the Conservatives mentioned and those mentioned by the Bloc Québécois. Personally, I would rather talk about the facts. On May 2, 2011, election day, 83.5% of Quebeckers decided not to place their trust in the Conservative government or the Conservative Party for various reasons.

The Conservatives are determined to scrap the firearms registry and say “no” to the Quebec government and the province's elected members, who unanimously want to keep it. They are very competent individuals and no one is playing political games when it comes to this issue. This stubbornness shows a complete lack of respect for Quebeckers and the Quebec government.

My question for my Conservative colleague is: why can the government not be reasonable? Why will it not accept the NDP's amendments, which would keep the registry intact but remove the little snags that bother hunters and certain other groups?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member, if he looks at the blues, that I never said anything about political games. I said it was a non-partisan issue, and it absolutely is. This is about the safety of Canadians and it is about treating law-abiding citizens with respect and dignity. This is all about that.

The registry is the data. If we are saying we are going to get rid of the long gun registry, then we are going to get rid of the data. That is simply it. However, I did mention in my speech that we were very much for the licensing process already there. We have invested more money into that, and that data is very accurate.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member neglected the evidence that was put forward by the emergency room physicians of Canada, who tracked an absolutely empirical data connection between the time which the long gun registry had been in effect and a reduction in suicides involving long guns? That seems to me to be very convincing evidence as it comes from the emergency room physicians themselves.

Would the member comment on that?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that an emergency room physician was at committee. No compelling evidence was presented at committee regarding any increase or decrease as far as when the long gun registry came into effect. I think I made it very clear throughout my speech that there was no hard data and, frankly, no anecdotal data saying that the long gun registry had made Canadians safer.

I was in the public accounts committee in 2006 when the auditor general presented her report. At that time, she said that the accuracy of the data was to a point where it could actually endanger people. What I heard today from my colleague was that 4,400 firearms were stolen and were re-registered.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague expand upon the fact that even when the gun registry is abolished, every gun owner will still have to have a PAL and every gun owner will still have to have a hunting licence so things can move forward in that respect?

Would the member expand upon the fact that all of these safeguards are still in place and still have a lot to do for the safety of all Canadians?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that this is still in place. I also mentioned in my speech that this test was not something that people just cruised through. Not everybody passes these tests. It is quite intense and really ensures that people know exactly what they are dealing with, how dangerous a firearm is and how to handle them and that they also know the municipal, provincial and federal laws that govern them.