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.

Firearms Act

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was actually in the last budget, budget 2018. If the member would like to take the time to actually read the budget, he would see that it is in that budget.

The government legislation cannot be taken in isolation. It actually has to be taken as part of a whole-of-government approach. One cannot simply take things by themselves, piece by little piece, cherry-picking how one wishes to make a point. One has to take an overall consideration of all the measures that the government is taking and its actions in order to address the larger issues that affect our society.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one cannot take simple things and then equate it to a larger whole. I think the member has misconstrued the actual provisions in Bill C-42 in the previous Parliament.

The Minister of Public Safety, at the advice of his technical firearms committee, could bring a recommendation to the Governor in Council, the cabinet, and bring to his colleagues a rationale for change to the status of a particular firearm to overrule the RCMP.

The RCMP do a great job. However, that legislation did not take the power away from the RCMP. It just allowed a check. Does the member not believe in the importance of having oversight over the bureaucracies that we have in this country, that politicians should be accountable, and they should be able to act on technical advice?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try and make it short. At the end of the day, we do need experts. It is about science and it is about using data. For instance, in Winnipeg we actually did a long census looking at the homelessness issue, not only 18 months ago but just last month. We released that data. It is to allow us to make sure that we have the data and the statistics necessary to put in place good government programs.

In this case, if the experts have decided that these should be prohibited arms, we should rely on that expert testimony, and we should not, within reason, question it too much.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Prime Minister had a bit of an incident when he went to India. That trip did not go so well. It was supposed to be a visit where a bunch of photo ops would take place that ostensibly would have gained him votes in certain communities in Canada. He had very expensive costumes provided to him and very expensive photographers. He brought his own Indian chef to India. All of these things were supposed to do wonderful things for the Prime Minister's reputation, but it did not go so well. It was probably one of the worst foreign trips in Canadian history. It was ostensibly a disaster.

It was one of those moments when everything crystallized. All of the Prime Minister's gaffes, spending scandals, errors, everything that Canadians were willing to forgive just kind of crystallized in a moment. Canadians knew he was not in it for them, but in it for himself. It was that moment.

I can imagine Gerald Butts sitting around asking how to change the channel. The Liberals looked south of our border for something concerning. They looked toward gun violence in the United States and decided to capitalize on that. They tabled a gun bill in Canada in an effort to make the situation in the United States the same as it is in Canada in an effort to change the channel politically. That is disgusting. Really.

When we think about the dialogue that is happening in the U.S. around public safety and for Justin Trudeau, the so-called defender of rights—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order. The hon. member knows that we do not use the names of individual members here, but rather their titles.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister to use what was happening in the United States to try and change the channel on his debacle in India was something that I think will go down in history as a very misguided attempt to do so. He tabled the bill in the House, capitalizing on gun violence in a country that does not have the same laws as us, which is disgusting. Canada is not the United States. For colleagues who are watching around the world, my colleagues opposite are applauding that comment.

However, I am a law-abiding firearms owner, and from the moment I decided to become a law-abiding firearms owner to the moment that I actually became one, it took me a year. In Canada, it is not like buying a latte: here is a latte and so I am a latte owner. The same decision tree does not exist to be a firearms owner in Canada. We have very rigorous screening processes and education processes. For those who are watching at home, my colleagues across the aisle are laughing and mocking me. Why? It is because they have not gone through this process. Many of them do not understand the fact that a lot agricultural communities rely on firearms as a tool of their trade and there are actually hundreds of thousands of Canadians who participate in sport shooting, as I do, and I am a proud sport shooter. I am also proud to abide by the laws of this country.

I have been a member of cabinet. I am a member of the Privy Council. I have gone through extreme vetting to become part of that. I accept my responsibility to become educated on firearms and to accept a vetting process that is associated with the right to own a firearm in Canada. In fact, my name is run through databases every day to see if I have committed a crime, because I am a firearms owner. Again, my colleagues are mocking me for this. The Liberal Party is mocking me as I give this speech.

The Liberals do not understand how critical it is to be pragmatic on these issues in Canada. They do not understand the vetting that I go through. I think the vetting for me to be a cabinet minister and to have access to state secrets is actually less rigorous than it is for me to own a restricted firearm in Canada every day.

In October 2014, as many of my colleagues were here, we were subjected to a very serious incident in the House of Commons. We were shot at by a terrorist, and I had people say to me, “Well, maybe if we only had more stringent gun laws in Canada that this wouldn't have happened”. Therefore, I took it upon myself to understand what it actually took to own a firearm in Canada. The journey I went through to educate myself on this made me realize that Canada has a very strict set of laws that firearms owners need to adhere to.

Now, for the Prime Minister to table this legislation and try to deflect from his India trip when the U.S. was going through a very serious conversation around firearms legislation in a completely different context than Canada is disgusting. Why? It is because we actually have gang-related violence in Canada. Anybody who lives in Toronto wants to have a conversation about how we protect our citizens from the effects of gang violence and illegal firearms ownership.

The bill would do nothing to protect people from firearms that have been obtained illegally. It would do nothing to prevent gang violence. Further, the government has tabled proposed legislation to water down the penalties associated with gang violence and with terrorism. I stood up in the House of Commons today and asked the government to prosecute ISIS terrorists who are in Canada who are walking free, and who have confessed to their crimes on public podcasts. What is the government's response to any sort of crime in this country? It is to prosecute people who abide by the laws, under very strong penalties, very strong educational requirements, and we are not in the United States of America, for political gain, to change the channel, and that is wrong.

Every person in the House should be focused on protecting Canadians from crime and the bill does nothing. If anything, it vilifies people who have obtained their firearms lawfully and are focused on safety, who want to educate and teach people about the respect that owning a firearm carries.

Why can we not be focused on talking about how we actually prevent gang violence, prevent people from illegally obtaining firearms, instead of doing something that does none of that? All this does is prosecute farmers. It prosecutes someone like me. When I get off the plane in Calgary after a long week, I do not mind firing off a set of ammo at the range. It makes me focus and makes me respect the weapon I am holding.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

My colleagues opposite just heckled me with “Annie Oakley”. That shows how they do not understand the community, the sport, or the respect for firearms. I tabled a petition in the House asking for the members of the committee that is supposed to inform the government, the subject matter experts on this, to at least have the licence that I have, that I understand how to use, but they refused. Why? Because this is all about ideology, not about keeping Canadians safe. The government does not give two hoots about keeping Canadians safe. The Liberals care about the politics of the Prime Minister's ego because that is what is keeping them in office. That is what Canadians rejected in Chicoutimi tonight, by the way. They care about changing the channel, but regardless of political stripe, Canadians are standing up and saying this makes no sense. If we want to keep Canadians safe from firearms, then deal with the people who are illegally bringing it in and using it illegally in gang violence.

The RCMP should have an oversight with regard to firearms reclassification. People who are on the committee advising the government on this should understand the basics of requiring a licence. If the government really cares about keeping Canadians safe, it should not be watering down sentences for major crimes in the omnibus justice bill, Bill C-75. The bill does nothing to protect Canadians. All it does is vilify people who play by the rules. On this side of the aisle, we stand up for law-abiding Canadians and we will keep Canadians safe.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we talked about what priorities the government should be looking at. What does the member suggest the government could look at? Could she also give us a brief update on the election results tonight?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, across the country people are rejecting virtue signalling, do-nothing politics that cost Canadians a lot and do nothing for them. That happened in Quebec tonight and as an Alberta MP, I am so incredibly proud of the results in Chicoutimi. Between this and the election results in Ontario, people are rejecting policies that cost Canadians so much and do nothing for them and that is what the bill does.

All the bill does is create bureaucracy and inefficiency and vilify people who play by the rules. Canadians have had enough of that. They have had enough of the Prime Minister's socks, his India trip, and his spending scandals. They have had enough of $14-billion deficits. They have had enough of $8-million rinks out front. They have had enough. I have had enough.

Across this country, people are raising their voices and saying it is time for change. It is time for better policy. It is time for hope. It is time for good governance and congratulations to Chicoutimi for being the first on the vanguard of making that happen.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, the people of Chicoutimi did indeed get a chance to say out loud what all Canadians have been thinking for months. Canadians feel they are being ignored by a government whose priorities do not match theirs.

Tonight, we are gathered here to debate a bill on, among other things, the issue of firearms. Chicoutimi is home to thousands of law-abiding Canadians, including moms and dads, who consider guns to be part of their lives. They do not own guns for nefarious reasons. On the contrary, they own them because they are carrying on the tradition of their parents, their grandparents, and their great-grandparents. That is true in Chicoutimi, Hay River, Flin Flon, and Richmond. It is true from coast to coast to coast.

Based on her personal experience, could the member tell us how all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, are united on this issue, which comes down to a matter of respecting all Canadians?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a geographically diverse country. I know so many people living in agricultural communities who understand that a firearm is part of the agricultural life. I know many people in first nations communities who understand that this is part of their traditional lifestyle. I know many Olympic sports shooters who understand that when one owns a firearm there are responsibilities associated with that.

They are proud to abide by the laws we have set in Canada. They are tired of being vilified by left-wing social justice warriors who believe that the only way to reduce gang violence and illegal gun use in our country is by vilifying them. We are saying, enough is enough. They should get educated and understand that if we want to see change in this country it cannot come by making the ATT a paper or attaching it to the licence, or saying, “Oh my goodness, maybe I should phone about this.” No, the government should put forward stronger penalties for gang violence and call it out for what it is.

There is nothing in the bill that would make it more difficult for people to obtain firearms illegally. In fact, it vilifies soldiers who have PTSD and who just want to have pride in their firearms usage. It is probably going to drive people who have mental health issues away from seeking treatment. We are not talking about the respect that our soldiers who go on to have careers in training on firearms or sports shooting have for their weapons after serving our country. This bill was designed to be a weapon for the Prime Minister's ego, after his disastrous India trip and after he tried to take political credit for what was happening in the United States. That is disgusting.

He should be standing up against gang violence in Surrey. He should be standing up against gang violence in Toronto. He should be putting forward stronger penalties for this. He has done nothing except lower penalties for this. That is what our party will continue to stand against, and I will continue to stand against.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Nose Hill gave a great presentation. It was really inspiring and hopefully our colleagues across the aisle were paying attention. I know they were awestruck because they did not ask any questions. She must have really had their attention. She must have done such a good job answering our questions that the Liberals did not ask her one question during the question and answer period.

We are talking about Bill C-71. What a loss of opportunity. The day is winding down and Liberal members want to get out of here as soon as possible. Let us just think of the things that should be going on in this chamber right now. Let us think of all the priorities of Canadians that are not a priority of the Liberal government. Bill C-71 deals with gun violence, but what would it do for gang violence? It would do nothing for gang violence, nothing for illegal ownership. Those guys just go through the revolving door and there is zero impact. Bill C-71 will not do that. We have established that quite clearly.

What about rural crime? Rural crime is a huge issue in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and rural Ontario. The farmers who have guns for shooting ducks or maybe the odd bear that may run into their yards, or for skeet shooting, are the ones now targeted. They are being told they are doing something wrong, so this legislation is for them. What about the guy who drove into someone's yard and stole a quad, or the guy who drove into someone's yard and shot at a family, or the guy who drove into someone's yard and stole things out of a shed for the fourth or fifth time? What is being done to catch those people and make sure they stay in jail? What is being done to take that revolving door away? How are judges being instructed to give sentences that actually stick? That is what the farmers would say. If we were talking about that, they would be watching us on TV and applauding all of us. However, what are we talking about? We are talking about law-abiding citizens going through more processes, more bureaucrats being hired, and a backdoor long-gun registry for people who already follow the law. It is so disappointing.

If the Liberals had their priorities right, what would we be talking about in this chamber tonight? Jobs and the economy should the top topics. We are seeing investment flee this country left, right, and centre, and the Liberals seem to ignore it. They say it will be fine; it will come back some day. It will. In 2019, when there is a Conservative government, it will start coming back, but until the Liberals change their ways, it will not. It keeps bleeding out. The numbers are very real. The impact on jobs, on our kids, and on the ability of our kids to find jobs is very real.

We could be talking about NAFTA. The NAFTA negotiations are ongoing. We could be discussing the future of that and the path forward. We could talk about the softwood lumber agreement and the forestry workers. There is still nothing in place for them. We could talk about the TPP. That would be a great thing to talk about, something the Conservatives and the Liberals actually agree on. We want to get this done and get it through the House as quickly as possible. Why has that not been put forward so we could do that this week, so that the farmers, the manufacturers, the people who require export markets could take advantage of those markets in this time of turmoil? Why are we not talking about that? No, we are telling those same farmers that we are talking about Bill C-71 and making them criminals, making their lives even more difficult if they own a .22 or a shotgun. It does not make sense to the average Canadian.

There are lots of things that people are concerned about moving forward. In the auto sector, there are tariffs coming. Where is the discussion on that? Again, the Liberals have nothing to say. They have no game plan, and yet they will talk about Bill C-71 and all sorts of things. They will keep the House going for as many days as it takes to pass legislation on pot, and yet when it comes to something like the TPP, where are they? They say, “Let's go home.” It is unreal. It is absolutely amazing.

Where are their priorities? Where are their heads with regard to what Canadians really want? The by-election proved that. Their priorities are so mixed up and delusional, somewhere out there in left field, that they have lost the basis of reality. The reality is that if there are no jobs, we cannot take care of the environment, because the environment and the economy go hand in hand. Let me repeat that: The environment and the economy go hand in hand. We have to take care of the economy in order to take care of the environment, and they have ignored the economy. That is the reality.

In five minutes, I have touched on a few things that the Liberals could take care of that would make our country a better place to live. That is just in five minutes.

The Liberals have had two years, and they have done nothing. How many bureaucrats have been hired in the last two years? The government has spent a lot of money, but on what? I do not have a new bridge in Prince Albert. I do not have a new hospital. I still have sewer and water issues on all the reserves.

However, the Liberals are in control. They have their finger on the pulse. They know what they are doing. Canadians are starting to realize very quickly that they do not. I know my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill talked about the trip to India. I think it was the BBC article that made Canadians start to look and say, “Holy cow, what did we do?” Canada is back. What does that mean? What is the Liberal interpretation of “Canada is back”? If that is what it is, please, somebody do something.

I go back to my riding to talk about a variety of things. I think back to the last long-gun registry. My riding was actually a Liberal riding, and then came the long-gun registry. It will never go Liberal again.

Do members know what happened? Do members know why that changed? It was because there were a lot of people who looked at that riding and said that the Liberals at the time, Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale, were balancing the budget. People thought they could maybe buy into that—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order. I have to remind the hon. member not to use names—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Sorry, I apologize to my colleagues.

There was balancing budgets and getting back to balancing books, things that Canadians could buy into. Then a Liberal member came to the riding and said, “You will do this. You will register your long guns. By the way, if you don't, you're a criminal, and I don't care how old you are. If you're 80 years old and you didn't register, you're a criminal.”

They turfed him. Canadians turfed a lot of Liberals. If you want to do that, then watch yourselves get turfed again. The reality is such—