Bill C-71 (Historical)

An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms

Part 1 of this Act amends the Firearms Act to, among other things,
(a) remove the reference to the five-year period, set out in subsection 5(2) of that Act, that applies to the mandatory consideration of certain eligibility criteria for holding a licence;
(b) require, when a non-restricted firearm is transferred, that the transferee’s firearms licence be verified by the Registrar of Firearms and that businesses keep certain information related to the transfer; and
(c) remove certain automatic authorizations to transport prohibited and restricted firearms.
Part 1 also amends the Criminal Code to repeal the authority of the Governor in Council to prescribe by regulation that a prohibited or restricted firearm be a non-restricted firearm or that a prohibited firearm be a restricted firearm and, in consequence, the Part
(a) repeals certain provisions of regulations made under the Criminal Code; and
(b) amends the Firearms Act to grandfather certain individuals and firearms, including firearms previously prescribed as restricted or non-restricted firearms in those provisions.
Furthermore, Part 1 amends section 115 of the Criminal Code to clarify that firearms and other things seized and detained by, or surrendered to, a peace officer at the time a prohibition order referred to in that section is made are forfeited to the Crown.
Part 2, among other things,
(a) amends the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, by repealing the amendments made by the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, to retroactively restore the application of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to the records related to the registration of non-restricted firearms until the day on which this enactment receives royal assent;
(b) provides that the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act continue to apply to proceedings that were initiated under those Acts before that day until the proceedings are finally disposed of, settled or abandoned; and
(c) directs the Commissioner of Firearms to provide the minister of the Government of Quebec responsible for public security with a copy of such records, at that minister’s request.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it really rich that when my hon. colleague started his speech, he used the word “distortions”. He is accusing this side of the House of distorting the facts.

There is no greater distorter of facts than the Liberals. When I have the opportunity to speak in a couple of minutes, I will speak to that specifically, how the evidence and the stats have been so manipulated to try to sway public opinion that it is actually quite abhorrent.

We heard from Ms. Irons in committee. Her circumstance is horrible. What people need to understand about that circumstance is that the law at the time would have prohibited that individual from acquiring a firearm, as it does right now, today, before Bill C-71. It was human error that allowed that individual to acquire a firearm. This bill does nothing to prevent human error.

The fact that the Liberals are trying to suggest that this bill is going to solve that sort of circumstance is absolutely disgusting.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have had confirmation that first nations were not consulted and that they even consider Bill C-71 unconstitutional.

Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that he has the approval of first nations and that first nations people are going to comply with Bill C-71?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, we have many debates in this chamber on which there are genuine differences of opinion, when there are two different perspectives, and perhaps empirical fact does not lend itself to clearly give evidence as to which side might be right. When we have those debates, of course, we hope that those debates are informed by facts and information, that there is not distortion, and that games are not played. Unfortunately, being in the business of politics, sometimes that happens. Few times have I seen it done with such force and vigour and as over the top as on Bill C-71.

The bill in question was actually part of the platform the party ran on in the last election, from which we had a vigorous debate across this country. It was proceeded by, over the last couple of years, discussions in every corner of this country, including with first nations chiefs, chiefs of police, the firearms community, and others about how exactly the promises we made in the election platform might come to bear, might come to pass. As a result of those consultations, which I will go through in my discussion, we changed a number of elements in our platform in response to the feedback we got. It should be understood that not only was there an unbelievable amount of dialogue on this but that the imperative for action could be no more clear.

We do not hold Bill C-71 out as a panacea, as something that is going to fix all the terrible problems that deal with gun violence. By the way, gun violence manifests itself in many forms. It can manifest itself in suicide. It can manifest itself in gang violence. It can manifest itself in domestic violence. In every single one of those categories since 2013, we have seen as much as a two-thirds increase in firearms violence. Some in committee have passed that off as not a big deal. Numbers go up, and numbers go down. The reality is that for decades, when it came to gun-related injuries, gun-related violence, the numbers were on a downward trend. Since 2013, we have seen a spike way up. As sensible legislators, we should pay attention to that. The idea that we would dismiss it as not a big deal is abhorrent to me.

I will speak for a few moments about specifically why it is so important and why this bill addresses some of those things. Then I will speak about many of the other things our government is doing to try to address the broader problem.

I will start with background checks. Background checks are not a new concept to this House in terms of going back five years. In fact, it was former minister Jason Kenney who proposed that background checks should go past five years. We agree, and that is why it is in this legislation.

Some may ask why that is important. Let us take a domestic violence situation. Let us take a situation where a young woman is in a relationship with a man with a violent past. There may be violence in that relationship, but she is afraid to come forward, and she stays in that abusive relationship, sadly. However, eventually she escapes. She leaves. The man, outraged, purchases a gun, legally, because he has no connection to the criminal market, and then kills his former girlfriend. That happens, very sadly, all too often in this country. Someone who has a violent history, particularly a violent history against women, should not be able to legally purchase a gun.

Some have asked what happens if that person had a minor transgression in the past. The legislation is very clear that we are dealing with circumstances that specifically deal with a history of violence or mental instability. These are individuals who clearly should not be able to get weapons. Just because that did not happen in a five-year window does not mean that if it is longer than that, they should be able to purchase weapons.

The committee heard very moving and compelling testimony from Alison Irons, who lost her daughter Lindsay. She talked very specifically about this exact circumstance. It particularly hit home, because Alison was a resident of Ajax.

I have look at other circumstances and have talked, as I did as a critic and I do now as a parliamentary secretary, again and again about circumstances where people who had violent histories that went back further than five years were able to walk in and a buy gun and then shot someone dead. Now members tell me that this legislation does not have force or effect. That is absolute nonsense.

The reality is that background checks are essential, not just in those circumstances but in circumstances in which people are in a situation of self-harm and have a history of hurting themselves and of general instability. We have an obligation to make sure that those people also do not own firearms.

Another item in the bill, which, confusingly, the Conservatives have tried to conflate as a registry, is the requirement that stores keep records on the guns they sell. There are two things that are very important about that. One of the things we added as a change from what we moved in the platform was to say that for police to get that information, they would require judicial access. That means that for police to get the records of the store, they would have to demonstrate that they were going to help them solve a crime. Why on earth would anyone be opposed to that? How on earth could anyone say that would be a bad idea?

Let me give members some examples. Let us say that someone commits a crime. A weapon is found. Police go back to the store and ask where the gun came from. Who was it was sold to? Right now, some stores do not keep records. Most do. In fact, in the United States, this requirement has been in effect for decades.

When the police walk into the store and ask for that record, if the store clerk says that they do not keep records, that is the end of the search and the end of the investigation. Clearly, it makes sense for those records to be kept so that we know what happened to those firearms in an instance when they were used in a crime.

The notion that somehow it is a registry, when the only way the government could ever see it is with judicial access when it would help solve a crime, is not only misleading but is playing politics with crime. It is beneath this place. To send out Facebook ads saying that there is a new registry coming, based on this flimsy nonsense, instead of debating the actual public safety merits of the bill, is abhorrent.

Another element of the bill that has been discussed is the ATT. We did talk during the campaign about an authorization to transport. Let us remember that we are speaking about restricted and prohibited weapons. We are not talking about hunting rifles. We are not talking about shotguns. We are not talking about unrestricted weapons. We are talking about semi-automatic weapons that are restricted, we are talking about handguns, and we are talking about people who are allowed to own prohibited weapons. It is a very limited class of firearms. What we said during the campaign was that any time people put those in the car and drive them someplace, they had better prove that they have a reason for where they are taking them.

We listened to the firearms community, and many said that if they were taking them to their gun range, it would be pretty clear where they were taking them, and they should not have to get an ATT. By the way, that constitutes a little more than 90% of the cases. It was pretty reasonable, so we made a change. We backed off and said we were only going to require gun owners to have that authorization to transport if they were taking their guns somewhere other than the gun range. That leaves about 10%, 8%, or maybe 7% of the cases, depending on the year. In this instance, we are again talking about someone who is transporting a restricted or prohibited weapon.

Some have said that police cannot pull someone over because a weapon is in the car. I can tell members that I have talked with police officers who say that they have pulled folks over for one thing and have noticed that there was a prohibited or restricted weapon in the car, and they have asked where they were taking it. Under the current regime, there are a number of places people can say they are taking it. In fact, a person could drive every day of the week with a prohibited or restricted weapon in the car and never have to have a reason or excuse for it.

This legislation says that in those limited circumstances in which a person is taking a weapon somewhere other than the range, it will require an ATT. By the way, it is free, and it can be sent electronically so that people can just show it on their phones.

It is important, as a government, to send a message that if a person has a prohibited or restricted firearm, it is a very special privilege, and if a person is going to be out in the world with that, there are a very limited number of places a person can take it.

By having clear legislation on the requirement to have an authorization to transport, that sends a clear message that one cannot drive around with a restricted or prohibited weapon anywhere one wants to go. I think that is a reasonable way of working with law-abiding firearms owners in making sure we do not have thugs who can just throw weapons in the back of their car and drive anywhere they want to go.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are all for public safety. Twenty years is a long time. Many businesses change hands. We all know that when we buy a gun from Cabela's or somewhere else in this country. We know that gangs in this country will not walk into a store and register their names or do all the things they have to do. This is what we want to have corrected in this country through Bill C-71. Law-abiding citizens are being picked on in the bill, while gang members are not. Law-abiding citizens have for years and decades been law-abiding. They are the safest with guns, yet the bill does little to give them any support whatsoever.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Conservative colleague for his expression of concern, because I have been quite baffled, having read Bill C-71, as to why the Conservative Party is alarming people who are legal gun owners, lawful citizens of Canada. I understand it better now, but when I read the legislation, it does not add up.

I think this legislation as very valuable. I ask my hon. colleague if he disagrees that it is not better to ensure that when we do checks on someone's history, in terms of mental health and whether we would want such an individual to own a gun, that we do not stop at the current legislation, which only goes back five years, but that we actually look at the lifetime record of an individual and decide whether that person should be able to buy a firearm. Surely a lot of Conservative families and communities would feel very relieved to know that there was a lifetime check, not just the current five years.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, during my speech, I talked about it. The Liberals are singling out law-abiding citizens in this country, and that is a problem. I only have to talk about Allan Rock in the House when we talk about the gun registry. Two million dollars turned into $2 billion very quickly. We are very concerned about this. We know where the government is going with this bill. We see another registry. This is totally what the government is doing.

Why has it not consulted with first nation groups? The hon. member talked about that. It is another disturbing point, because day in and day out, all the Liberals talk about is the indigenous people and how important they are to this country, yet they have not consulted them on Bill C-71.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a great deal of opposition from the Conservative Party in regard to Bill C-71. I believe it is the only party in the House. The New Democrats, the Greens, the government of the day, and I expect even the representative from the CCF have ultimately recognized the value of Bill C-71 as a piece of legislation that is needed.

The Prime Minister talked about the importance of the issue. It is now before us. I am not 100% sure that it is at committee, but I believe it is. Let us avoid this backdoor stuff, because that is not reality. Within the current legislation, what is it specifically that is so upsetting to the Conservative Party?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak on Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

While the Liberals tell us this bill is all about tackling gun violence and violent gang activity, we see nothing at all in it even remotely touching on these issues. Instead, the Liberals are planning to unload even more excessive regulations on law-abiding gun owners, treating them as if they were real criminals. Once again, as we have seen all too often in this place, with the policies and the bill that the Liberal government has introduced, they have their priorities mixed up and are punishing hard-working, law-abiding Canadians instead of addressing the problems facing people across this country.

With respect to gun violence, this bill quite noticeably leaves the problems of gang violence, illegal gun trading, and rural crime totally unresolved. It is shameful. The Liberals do not touch on these very important issues at all. How then can they claim the bill accomplishes anything other than making criminals out of law-abiding gun owners across this country.

The first troubling thing about Bill C-71 is that it does nothing at all, as I mentioned, to address gang gun violence in this country. While the bill seeks to implement mandatory registries or transfers of non-restricted firearms to be kept by businesses and other firearms vendors, which by the way is a practice already being done voluntarily by many businesses in this country, it does not propose solutions to the problems of gang violence and criminal gun violence.

These are very worrisome problems that deserve a real response from the government, instead of a bill demonizing law-abiding gun owners. Public Safety Canada notes that shooting-related homicides remain a chronic problem in this country even though overall crime rates have gone down compared to previous decades.

We take particular note that Public Safety Canada has specifically highlighted the enormous role that gang-related gun violence plays in this national trend. The department states:

Gang-related murders involving guns is no exception. In 2016 alone, police reported 141 gang-related homicides, 45 more than in 2015.

The department also states that gun violence is increasing in rural areas. We certainly know that in my province of Saskatchewan. In Canada, three out of 10 violent gun crimes happen outside a major city. Overall, the territories and my province of Saskatchewan have the highest rates of firearms-related violent crimes.

Criminals are not registering their guns by legally obtaining them in gun shops. They are not phoning the office of the chief firearms officer before transporting their guns in their cars. Gang members are not the ones who are going to be following the regulations outlined in Bill C-71.

This bill will only be a major thorn in the side of law-abiding gun owners and, as a result, it will do nothing to prevent the criminal gun violence being perpetuated by gangs and is the occurring increasingly in rural Canada. In Saskatoon alone, gun violence is on the rise, according to the Saskatoon Police Service.

The Saskatoon Police Service says that shootings are often gang related. Where are gang members getting their guns from? That is the million dollar question. Are they walking into gun stores and going through an extensive background check? Are they making sure their purchases are kept in the 20-year business registries, which under this bill will hold detailed information, including their personal information, the reference number of their purchase, and the serial number of their firearm?

Not according to the Saskatoon police and their Superintendent David Haye, who says that the firearms police are recovering generally come from break and enters.

Unsurprisingly, when it comes to guns, criminals do not act like law-abiding gun owners. Criminals act like criminals. We know that, but the Liberals seem to be missing this consideration in Bill C-71. Piling a backdoor gun registry onto law-abiding gun owners by mandating that gun sellers keep a 20-year-long registry of all their transfers for non-restricted firearms does nothing at all to prevent gun crime, precisely because of the way criminals act, not the way those who are following the rules do. The Liberals expect, with the bill before us, that gang members will suddenly begin acting like law-abiding gun owners as soon as it is passed. It is an absurd assumption, and it proves once again that the Liberal government has its priorities totally backwards when it comes to the very important issues of gun violence and organized crime in this country.

The second really worrisome thing about the bill is that it would increase the regulatory burden on responsible law-abiding gun owners without providing any real benefit for Canadians in return. Canadian gun laws are already vast and extensive.

In order to legally purchase a gun in this country a person must have a possession and acquisition licence. They go through extensive background checks and firearm safety training before they can even get a licence. They must submit references to the RCMP from those who can vouch for their suitability as a gun owner. They must then submit this information to a photo guarantor who can confirm that the photo sent by the licence candidate is completely accurate. Once a Canadian acquires a possession and acquisition licence, they are then subject to an automatic daily background check that is run through police and courthouse databases. The RCMP notes that these daily checks determine if there is any new information indicating that a licence holder may have become a public safety risk.

Nonetheless, the Liberals still want to implement a backdoor registry. We all know that they do. They are still determined to treat law-abiding Canadian gun owners as if they are the problem, and as if they are the ones responsible for gun violence in this country. This is totally unacceptable, and it is unfair to Canadians who obey the laws, such as hunters and sport shooters.

None of the measures proposed in the bill even tackle the issue of violent gun crime. The bill would simply impose additional burdens upon respectable gun owners. In fact, a report published by Statistics Canada back in 2012 found that only 4% of administrative firearm violations occurring in this country that year, and outside of Quebec, were connected to gun violence. The Liberals did not understand when Jean Chrétien was the prime minister that a gun registry did not respond to the problem of gun violence. The Liberals still do not understand that in 2018.

When will the Liberal government finally make the distinction between law-abiding gun owners and the criminals who do not follow these rules? When will the Liberal government actually take meaningful steps to protect Canadians by introducing real legislation to combat gun violence and criminal activity by gangs?

That said, I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “parties” the following: “,provided that the travel does not exceed 85 calendar days,”

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not the leader of the opposition, I am the public safety critic. I am here to talk about Bill C-71 and the time I need to do my work on this topic. I would ask my colleague to direct that question to the appropriate person.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I wish I had an answer for him, since the purpose of our motion and our presence here this evening is to call for more time to do things properly.

With the little time and few meetings we had, we were unable to get any responses providing justification for Bill C-71. I think this bill is a flash in the pan, fireworks in la-la land just to have Canadians believe that the Liberals are regulating guns and that they are good and nice people. Their bill is no good. We need time to make things right.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am curious to know the member's perspective. We heard the Toronto Police Service say that Bill C-71 does not address gun crime directly. Could the member explain what he thinks the bill does and why the Liberals are in such a hurry to get it passed?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for his tone, which is quieter than usual.

We are not trying to mislead Canadians. On the contrary, we have both feet on the ground. We have said from the start that the Liberals are doing nothing but upsetting hunters and sport shooters and doing nothing about criminals. After the handful of speeches we were able to make and the few committee meetings we had, it is clear that Bill C-71 makes it mandatory to register guns and provide reference numbers. That information will be entered into a computer of some business somewhere and then forwarded to the government.

If that is not a registry, then what is it? In the meantime, the government is doing nothing about the dark web or the real criminals who sell weapons or enter Canada illegally. That is what people are telling me does not work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a bit disappointing that the Conservative opposition continues to try to convince Canadians that something is happening with Bill C-71, when in fact nothing is happening in regard to any type of a long-gun registry. The Conservatives continue to attempt to fool Canadians. They are out of touch with the reality and expectations of Canadians in regard to the whole issue of Bill C-71.

Why does the Conservative Party continue to say this is about a gun registry when it is just not the case? We know that. Whether it is the minister, the parliamentary secretary, or members of the House, they have consistently said that the bill has nothing to do with a gun registry, yet the Conservatives time and time again try to convey an untruth.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Yes, sir.

To Canadians, the problem is obvious. Why is the government wasting so many resources to control law-abiding citizens? Why is the Prime Minister obsessed with a segment of the population that has always obeyed the law? In one way or another, the Prime Minister has demonstrated a clear lack of judgment in this regard.

I have another example. I recently read an article in the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil about what is known as the dark web. Journalist Jim Bronskill explained that criminals are hiding in the darker corners of the Internet, using cryptocurrencies that are hard to trace and coming up with ways to illegally sell firearms in Canada. The RCMP and the media are aware of this, and I am sure the Minister of Public Safety is too. However, Bill C-71 contains no measures to combat that crime. Why?

That is one of the reasons why we are saying that Bill C-71 should be studied. The time for debate in the House at second reading was cut short and the bill was sent to committee. The Conservatives asked for at least 21 witnesses and it would have taken seven meetings to complete the work. That was cut down to four meetings and seven witnesses.

Right now, everything is being done to keep us from doing our job properly. The Liberals are doing this so they can claim that the Conservatives do not want to talk about firearms, because they do not want to hear about how they are wrong. What they say is not true. We are law-abiding people, and we work with law-abiding people. Talking about firearms does not prevent us from doing our job. The Liberals are preventing us from doing our job.

Bill C-71 includes no legislation that would tackle criminals, and its preamble contains misleading statements, such as the alarming crime statistics cited by the Minister of Public Safety. When he tabled the bill, the minister claimed there had been a major increase in crime in Canada, but the figures he was using as his benchmark were from 2013. The crime rate has remained fairly consistent over the past 15 years. In 2013, a Conservative government was in office, and crime was very low. The minister used those numbers to claim that crime increased in 2014 and 2015. That is some numbers fudging worthy of a clever accountant. He tried to influence public opinion by claiming there had been an increase, which is completely false.

There are several signs that the government only wants to pass the law as quickly as possible, before the end of the parliamentary session, to boast that it has done something about firearms and that it has done good work. In reality, it is doing absolutely nothing other than penalizing hunters and sport shooters. We said this when the bill was introduced. Now that it has been studied in committee, I stand by that. That is why we need to travel across Canada to consult Canadians, especially first nations.

First nations have said that they are completely opposed to this bill at present. They are even saying that it might be unconstitutional. They claim that they were not consulted and that the law does not apply to them.

There is therefore a major problem. As the public safety critic, I cannot fathom or agree to voting on a bill that will once again affect honest citizens. Criminals will not be affected. Indigenous peoples will not be consulted and will rightly complain that the bill is unconstitutional. Why was the work not done properly the first time? There must be adequate consultation and the work must not be done willy-nilly.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, the Committee be granted the power to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

I am extremely pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this motion. We are asking for this travel time for a number of reasons. First, our Liberal friends reduced to a minimum the number of committee meetings to debate this bill. Several stakeholders have not received an invitation to appear, including first nations, unfortunately.

Are we to believe that it did not occur to the Prime Minister, who says that his government is inclusive, open and transparent, to consult first nations on the new gun registry that he wants to introduce? Who hunts as much as the first nations? Who is as close to nature as the first nations? Who relies on guns for their subsistence as much as the first nations?

I cannot stay silent on this subject while the Liberals stubbornly persist in the belief that they can reduce crime with a bill that does not even go after criminals. This is unbelievable. They obviously have not learned a thing from their past mistakes.

Young people and new Canadians who were not here when the Jean Chrétien Liberals introduced the gun registry may not know that the idea was not only poorly conceived, but also an attack on law-abiding Canadians. When the initiative was launched, the minister said it would cost about $2 million, but it ended up costing almost $2 billion.

The Conservatives of Canada believe that the safety of Canadians must be the top priority of any government. The Liberals are not to be trusted when it comes to firearms legislation. Instead of cracking down on criminals, they treat law-abiding gun owners like criminals.

When we were in office from 2006 to 2015, we worked tirelessly to keep Canadians safe. We made promises and we kept them. For example, we passed the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, which simplified the licensing regime while strengthening firearms possession prohibitions for people convicted of domestic violence offences.

Furthermore, we passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which provides for mandatory prison sentences for serious firearms offences and stricter bail provisions for those accused of serious offences involving firearms.

We also passed the Act to amend the Criminal Code regarding organized crime and protection of justice system participants, which provides police officers and judges with new tools to fight organized crime, including new sentences for the reckless use of a firearm.

These are just some of the measures we took.

The government is already halfway through its mandate, and it is faltering. It lacks courage to keep its promises. The proposed legislation does not contain a single measure to deal with the criminal and unauthorized possession of firearms, nor does it address gang violence. The Liberals think that violence and gun crimes can be fixed by going after law-abiding citizens instead of combatting gangs and organized crime.

For the most part, this bill does little to nothing to improve public safety. However, it imposes a number of new conditions on law-abiding gun owners. On this side of the House, we know that law-abiding citizens are not the problem.

I can give other examples of promises the Liberals have made on firearms issues that have either been broken or simply remain unfulfilled. For instance, they promised the provinces and territories $100 million a year to help fight the illegal firearms trade. Where is that money?

On top of that, the Liberals have yet to implement the marking regulations on imported firearms, even though they promised to do so as soon as they took office.

The Liberals have also forgotten their promise to invest in technologies that would help customs officers detect and intercept illegal arms entering Canada from the United States.

Those are some concrete gun control measures. I would urge the government to leave hunters and sport shooters alone.

Finally, the Liberals promised they would not bring back the long-gun registry, and yet that is exactly what they are doing with Bill C-71.

Yes, the wording of the bill opens the door to another registry. It is very subtle, but what is proposed is very clear.

As I said earlier, the bill does nothing to deal with street gangs, trace illegal weapons coming into the country, or combat organized crime. The Prime Minister needs to decide who the real threat is. Is it street gangs or farmers? Is it sport shooters or organized crime?