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.

Bill C-71—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister about Bill C-71.

The government has clearly stated that it will not reintroduce a gun registry in any way, shape, or form. In January, however, the Government of Quebec implemented a mandatory gun registry. All Quebeckers must register all firearms, be they long guns or restricted weapons. Now that creates a problem: if someone from New Brunswick, Ontario, or elsewhere in Canada wants to sell a firearm to a Quebecker, or vice versa, the transaction has to be registered.

I would like to ask the minister if there were any discussions with Quebec about this. Was Bill C-71 designed to make it easier to record transactions in the Quebec registry?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, we said in our election platform, and have said repeatedly since, that we would not return to any form of a federal long gun registry. That was the explicit promise, and that promise is being delivered exactly as we made it.

In relation to provincial governments, as the honourable gentleman knows, provinces have jurisdictions, which are their exclusive domain. The issue has been tested in the courts in the province of Quebec, and the legislative provisions Quebec has come forward with have been determined to be within the jurisdictional competence of the provincial Government of Quebec.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the time allocation motion before us today.

The firearms issue stirs up a lot of emotion, and with good reason. Actions taken by both the Liberal and Conservative governments have sown division. They have tried to judge Canadians based on their postal code or lifestyle. That is extremely problematic because when the goal is to ensure public safety and sound public policy, it is important to have a meaningful debate that welcomes appropriate questions and results in appropriate legislation. I have said a lot of nice things about the minister to the media, because I think this is a step in the right direction.

However, we have a great many questions. Our constituents are asking us questions. We want to raise their concerns during this process, during this debate in the House of Commons.

Why table a time allocation motion on such an important and often controversial issue? Why prevent us from asking these questions?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have a good deal of sympathy for the position that has just been taken by the representative of the New Democratic Party. In the proceedings thus far, the NDP has not had an opportunity to participate in the debate. The House will know that we have on two occasions attempted to bring Bill C-71 to the House of Commons, last Friday and again yesterday. On both occasions, the official opposition chose a different procedure and stymied the opening of a discussion on Bill C-71. There were two speeches, mine and the official representative of the Conservative Party, and then the Conservative Party moved to adjourn the debate before even giving the NDP an opportunity to be heard.

I understand that is not a fair situation with respect to the NDP. However, the honourable gentleman's grievance is not with the government. His grievance is with the official opposition, which is obviously not interested in having a serious discussion about this legislation. The better place for that discussion to be had would be in the standing committee, where the various parties can call forward witnesses, talk about the provisions of the act in detail, and bring forward whatever amendments they think are appropriate to improve the legislation.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I get confused with the messaging coming out of the government, not just on firearms issues but yesterday it wanted debate and today it is going to cut it off. There is no consistency.

The minister keeps bringing up the point that he is not bringing back a registry when all points lead to it. Registrars look after registries. Is this registrar responsible for the menu up in the cafeteria or the parliamentary restaurant? What is his job if it is not to look after that registry? This is a backdoor registry; everything points to it. I would like to hear how the minister is going to explain that, because let us make it clear, registrars look after registries.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, the reference to the official who is named in the legislation that the hon. gentleman has just made is one that goes back many years. In fact, the term “registrar” existed in the legislation all through the term of the Harper government, and it did not change that language.

The fact of the matter is that if the standing committee thinks it has a better title, such as CEO, director general, chief official, or whatever, we would certainly be prepared to entertain an amendment to change the title.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, through you, I want to express my absolute disappointment. As a person who represents a rural riding, I am doing my due diligence in talking to my constituents and gathering information. Having this debate shortened so dramatically leaves less time for us to have that robust discussion, send that information, and make sure that it is said in the House.

I really think it is important to point out that the Conservatives moved the motion to adjourn debate but the Liberals are the ones who voted to end the debate, so when we are talking about what happened here, I see two wrongs and they definitely do not make a right. Therefore, I would like the member to explain to my constituents why we are not being allowed to make sure their voices are heard in this place.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, beyond the two opportunities where we already tried to bring the bill to the floor of the House for debate, there will be one full day of debate assigned to this legislation. Therefore, there will be opportunity.

When examining the provisions of the legislation in detail, as we all know, the real spade work is done by the diligent members who serve on the public safety and national security committee of the House of Commons. That is where witnesses can be called, where the evidence can be examined in detail, and where amendments can be proposed.

I certainly encourage all members to participate in the upcoming debate in the House, and that the members of the standing committee do their due diligence to examine every single clause of the bill to make sure it is in the public interest.

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

Madam Speaker, what we have seen is an appetite from Canadians as a whole, in all regions of the country, to see legislation brought forward that truly reflects what they expect the Government of Canada to do.

I am very much aware that the Conservatives brought the motion to adjourn the debate the other day. As the minister has pointed out, we are sympathetic to making sure the New Democrats will be afforded the opportunity to speak. My understanding is that the NDP, and members, will be afforded the opportunity to ask and participate in the debate, not only during their speaking time but also through questions and answers, as well as at committee, and so forth.

I wonder if my friend and colleague could provide comments on just how important it is, from a Canadian perspective, that we move forward on this very important piece of legislation.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is important for the House of Commons to not only debate matters but to also come to decision points, take votes, and make decisions.

The improvements in the legislation with respect to background checks, licence verifications, and business records, and the changes on classification and transportation authorizations all reflect what we promised Canadians during the course of the election campaign. The bill faithfully applies those election promises. All of it is in pursuit of three goals: public safety, assisting police in investigating crimes, and making sure that all of this is fair and reasonable in its application to all Canadians, including law-abiding firearms owners.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, Joe Jordan is a former Liberal MP. I remember reading a couple of weeks ago that he suggested that if the Liberals were to bring this bill in, they should pass it as quickly as possible, basically before Canadians are really aware of the contents and can step forward and oppose it. Therefore, it looks like members of the rural caucus from across the way have failed their constituents one more time.

I want to ask a specific question about reference numbers. There is a procedure that is being introduced to track firearms' sales across Canada. In order to obtain a reference number, businesses need to not only have the buyer's name but also the buyer's licence number, as well as the firearm's serial number. Therefore, we see all the foundations being put in place for a registry across Canada. However, we are told that private transactions would also require a reference number.

At any point, will the process to obtain a reference number for a private transaction require the firearm to be identified in any way?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, just to be absolutely clear, I would like the hon. gentleman to ask that question once more, so I get the detail of what he is asking.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. That is not how it works. The minister can answer the question.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, to be very clear to the hon. gentleman, the answer is no. When a licence verification is under way the purpose of the verification is to ensure the licence is valid. There is no reference to any particular firearm.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I quote:

Clear ministerial accountability to Parliament is fundamental to responsible government, and requires that Ministers provide Parliament with the information it needs to fulfill its roles of legislating, approving the appropriation of funds and holding the government to account. The Prime Minister expects Ministers to demonstrate respect and support for the parliamentary process.

That was from the letter in “Open and Accountable Government” from the PM to his ministers.

What we have now is a bill that was tabled last week. We have had less than one hour of debate. Even the Conservatives when they were in a majority government never did time allocation with less than one day of debate.

We have not even had the chance to participate in the debate on an important piece of legislation. The government is showing complete disrespect for the House. I wonder how the minister can justify calling time allocation on such an important bill, with what the Prime Minister said in the mandate letters to his ministers. This is the 31st time they have done that in the House.