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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There are 28 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-71. Motions Nos. 1 to 28 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the Table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 28 to the House.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 3

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 4

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 5

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 6

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 7

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 8

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 9

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 10

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 11

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 12

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 13

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 14

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 15

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 16

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 17

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 18

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 19

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 20

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 21

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 22

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 23

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 24

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 25

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 26

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 27

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 28

Bill C-71 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-71 at report stage.

In my opinion, Bill C-71 is like a bad play. Let me explain. First, with regard to parliamentary work, the government shut down debate at second reading. What is more, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security asked that it be allowed a sufficient number of meetings and witnesses, but the number of meetings was cut short. From the start, the government did not want to debate Bill C-71; it just wanted to impose the bill on us.

This bill was introduced for marketing purposes. We saw the government doing just that. The Liberals told themselves that they would introduce a bill on firearms to win votes and to get the Conservatives all worked up and drive them crazy. Well, we decided not to get all worked up. We have been smart about this. We looked at what was happening and we saw that it was not working.

Ultimately, Liberals in rural ridings are only hurting themselves. Those people are not fools. Canadians are not fools. Law-abiding Canadians can see that this bill plays politics by targeting the wrong people. It targets hunters and sport shooters while giving street gangs and real criminals a free pass. The Liberals tried to impress, but they ended up shooting themselves in the foot, no pun intended.

This also marks the return of a version of the gun registry, which was abolished a few years back. The Liberals resurrected a very insidious approach, in the form of reference numbers and records that gun retailers have to keep. When a retailer closes, the government takes possession of that information. Reference numbers are kept forever. The Liberals say there is no registry, they swear they are telling the truth, but all the elements are there. In a moment, I am going to talk about the amendments we proposed to fix these problems. All our amendments were rejected.

In order for us, the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, to do our job properly, we asked for at least seven meetings. We conducted an analysis and examined what had been done by the minister's much-vaunted committee. Incidentally, the Liberals provided a long list of witnesses they said they had consulted, yet those people said they had never been consulted, despite appearing on the list. That is another problem the minister needs to consider.

We, the members of the committee, determined we needed seven meetings to do our job properly. The Conservatives had a list of 21 witnesses representing a variety of perspectives, from firearms advocates to civil rights defenders. There was a little bit of everything. We wanted to do a good job, but the Liberals cut the number of meetings down to four and limited us to seven witnesses. We had to make some tough choices. The Liberals raced through the study of the bill. We were hoping to get things done so everyone would be happy, but it did not work. The government was in a mad rush to get it over with, because constituents in rural Liberal ridings were getting on their case, and rightly so.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness created a committee to discuss guns and street gangs. As I said at the beginning of my speech, all the focus is on hunting weapons instead of street gangs. I do not know what happened between the minister's consultations and the tabling of Bill C-71, but the bill contains absolutely no mention of street gangs. This has yet to be cleared up. It is a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes. Maybe one day we will find a solution.

When the minister introduced the bill, he wanted to scare people. He spoke about the serious problem of the rise in crimes committed with firearms in Canada. What he did not say was that the Liberals were using 2013 as their reference year. In the past 10 years, 2013 was the year with the fewest crimes in Canada. He spoke about a surge in crime, but the crime rate was returning to its usual levels. They used the 2013 statistics to indicate that there was an surge in gun crimes and that something had to be done about it. However, crimes are not committed by hunters and sport shooters, but by street gangs. Nevertheless, there is nothing about that.

The other serious problem, as I pointed out at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, concerns first nations. As much as the Liberal government cares about all issues that affect first nations, it did not consult them and is now to some extent ignoring the problem. In committee, a representative from Saskatchewan told us that first nations would not abide by Bill C-71, first, because it is unconstitutional, and second, because guns are traditionally handed down from generation to generation. Canada's first nations are saying that Bill C-71 does not apply to them and that they will go to court to have it declared unconstitutional if the government tries to impose it.

What are we to do, then? The Liberals introduced a bill that does not address the issue of street gangs and that indigenous people are going to disregard. The only ones left are the hunters and sport shooters, who will once more be subject to stricter gun controls, which are already the strictest in the world.

The first nations issue is not a partisan matter, but it is very troubling. When we return in the fall, we need to clarify that, because the fact that indigenous peoples are not concerned about Bill C-71 and are not following the rules is problematic. We cannot have one type of security for one group of individuals and another type for other groups. We must all be on equal footing.

Our committee meetings to ask witnesses questions were limited, but we still did our work. We brought forward 45 amendments to Bill C-71. We took our work seriously. I will list a few of them, so that Canadians can see that they were reasonable.

First of all, we addressed the issue of firearms classification. It is currently the government that determines which firearms are restricted or prohibited, but Bill C-71 puts that entirely in the hands of the RCMP. We proposed an amendment that would give the minister the authority to change the classification of firearms based on recommendations from the manufacturer and the RCMP. Thus, we are proposing that the RCMP and the manufacturers still do their jobs, but that the government retain the power to make certain decisions to prevent the RCMP from making all the decisions, without the government being able to intervene.

Then, there are the chief firearms officers, who will be able to visit the premises of firearms retailers and check their records without a warrant. The government can therefore enter into the place of business of law-abiding retailers with no particular reason other than they sell arms. I believe this needs justification and a warrant.

Now, I want to talk about the date. Today is June 18, and on June 30, a list of 20 prohibited firearms will come into force, even though the bill is still being debated in the House. The firearms that will be prohibited are currently restricted. We are not even at third reading, and the Senate has not yet studied it. We asked the government not to set a fixed date and to implement the act once the bill passes, but the government rejected this legitimate amendment.

As for the list of firearms, the RCMP will now decide which firearms are prohibited, but the bill lists the firearms that will be prohibited. The government lists the firearms in the bill, even though it says that the RCMP will draw that list sometime in the future. This makes no sense. We proposed another amendment to fix this.

Lastly, I want to talk about the reference number that will be required for a transaction. This number will be retained and recorded. This government is therefore creating a registry, no matter what it claims.

No matter what the government said, it is bringing back some form of registry through the backdoor.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on this bill and for his work on the committee.

I wonder if the hon. member could remind us why the Conservative Party put forward an amendment to remove punishment for such offences as making a false statement to procure a licence or to procure customs confirmations, tampering with licences, unauthorized possession of ammunition, non-compliance with a demand to produce a firearm, contravention of conditions of licences, and trafficking in firearms. That was one of the amendments that was put forward.

I was reading comments from Mr. Randall Koops at committee, where he enumerated all the offences for which the Conservatives as a party were putting forward that there be no punishment, yet even after he enumerated them, the Conservative members of the committee voted in favour of that amendment. Of course, we voted against it, because we think there should be penalties for trafficking in firearms.

I wonder if the member could explain to the House why the Conservatives wanted to remove penalties for those offences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, but I admit that I do not remember the 45 amendments. Was it a Liberal amendment or a Conservative one? I believe she said it was one of ours, but it was not. Thus, I cannot answer because, unfortunately, I do not remember that amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, North Island—Powell River, there is a lot of serious concern about the bill. I thank all the people from my riding who are sending emails and letters.

One thing that has been brought forward to me is about having access to the gunsmith with one's PAL card. Right now, people could be out using their guns, and if something happens and they are concerned, they have the ability to transport them to a gunsmith to get the issue remedied. However, with the changes in the legislation, one thing that concerns me is that this would be removed.

A lot of people in my riding share the concern about shooting a gun that does not work. It is a live gun. How does one store it to protect one's family or keep it safe when one travels? Then one has to ask to transport it again. Having a live gun in one's home is a major concern.

I wonder if the member has a similar concern, and if there is anything in these amendments that would protect Canadians in this way. Could the member share a little about what he heard in committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Indeed, what she asked about was one of the 45 amendments that we moved. It does not make sense to legitimate gun owners who will no longer be able to have their guns repaired. They have to do different things, and they always need a reference number or other number to do such and such a thing. We moved an amendment to avoid this type of situation, and the government rejected it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his obvious knowledge of the bill. He knows the harm that it could do. Again, it would be attacking not gang crimes and the underworld of illegal firearms, but law-abiding firearms owners. That seems to be the pet whipping horse of the government.

The member across the way tried to imply that we were soft on crime, which is absolutely not the case. Everybody in this place knows that.

Why does the member think that the government, once again, instead of doing what it said it would do to fix gang crime, illegal firearms, and that kind of thing, at the end of the day is attacking only law-abiding firearms owners?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I believe that the answer is a lack of courage. It is easy to go after hunters, sport shooters, people who obey the law, but it is not easy to go after criminal groups. There are many, many ways of illegally bringing guns into the country or procuring guns. We know what the answers are, but there are answers that the government would rather not talk about. I think that there is a lack of courage to admit certain things.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight to speak to this important legislation.

During the last election, we made a promise to take pragmatic action to strengthen the laws governing firearms use in Canada. Bill C-71 upholds this commitment to introduce sensible new measures on firearms, and that includes the commitment not to reinstate a federal long-gun registry. From the start, the bill has been guided by the priorities of protecting the public and communities, supporting law enforcement, and ensuring that law-abiding firearms owners are treated fairly and reasonably. I am pleased to note that, through the bill's progress, those priorities were reaffirmed by a broad range of stakeholders, partners, and individual Canadians.

Before the bill was introduced, the government heard from many groups and individuals with diverse experiences, backgrounds, and perspectives. That includes members of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee and consultations with many groups, both in person and by phone. In March, the government took the additional step of hosting in Ottawa a national summit on gun and gang violence, with stakeholders and partners from across Canada.

All of this engagement helped to shape not only the bill itself but also the package of new measures complementing it. That package included committing up to $327.6 million over five years, and $100 million a year thereafter, to support a variety of initiatives specifically aimed at gang activity and gun crime. Bill C-71 is only one part of the package, but it is a critical part of it. I am pleased to see that it has now been strengthened through the House debates and committee review.

I was personally very pleased to introduce an amendment to the bill in collaboration with my colleague, the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which addresses the need to protect survivors of intimate partner violence and reduce the lethality of suicide attempts. In my research on firearms in Canada, I realized that there were two very important aspects of the firearms debate that were not being talked about enough: intimate partner violence, commonly known as domestic violence, and suicide.

In its 2016 annual report on domestic violence, the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario reported that 26% of deaths related to intimate partner violence involved a firearm. I also heard from stakeholders that 80% of all firearms-related deaths in Canada are suicides. Clearly, both of these factors need to be a central part of any conversation around Bill C-71.

I had numerous conversations with many national stakeholders, as well as local stakeholders in my riding, Oakville North—Burlington, which helped shape this amendment, and I would like to thank those who provided thoughtful and important insights.

Specifically, my amendment would add to the criteria that must be considered when determining eligibility to hold a firearms licence. The amendment would add the criteria of threatening conduct and non-contact orders, and add more explicit language around risk of harm to self and to others. Officials confirmed that the amendment would strengthen the criteria around licensing and add greater clarity to existing laws, so that people who are considered to be at risk of harming themselves or others would be prohibited from owning guns.

For example, if a woman has a restraining order against her abusive ex-partner, and the ex-partner legally owns firearms that he uses to threaten her safety, the chief firearms officer would now be explicitly required to take this into consideration when reviewing his eligibility for a licence. The amendment also specifies that violent or threatening conduct can include threats made on social media and other online forums.

To be clear, the amendments specify that, when considering eligibility for a firearms licence, what must also be considered are expired orders prohibiting the possession of firearms where there was an offence in which violence was used, threatened, or attempted against an intimate partner or former intimate partners.

This should reassure Canadians that, in the interest of public safety, the process through which a person could obtain a firearms licence includes a more comprehensive consideration of eligibility factors. Explicitly including the concept of harm on that list, which includes self-harm, may also have important impacts.

It is an absolute tragedy that 80% of firearms deaths in Canada are suicides, and while suicide prevention is a whole-of-society issue, there are meaningful actions we can take through legislation. This is one of those actions. Prevention experts agree that limiting access to guns for those at risk of suicide is part of the solution, along with access to mental health support. I was very proud to introduce the concept of harm through my amendment, so that it is clearly identified in the bill before us.

I will also point out that the additional new criteria introduced in the amendment reflects the types of violence that predominantly target women, for example, harassment and cyberviolence. In the online space, women are often targets of intimidation and propaganda. Young women and girls are impacted disproportionately by cyberviolence, bullying, and harassment. Adding these new factors updates our laws to reflect and address today's realities. It is consistent with the government's gender-based violence strategy.

Other amendments add some clarification to the bill. For example, the committee amended clause 1 to make it clear that the government will not recreate the federal long-gun registry. This was an important amendment put forward by the Conservative public safety critic and accepted by the committee. We now have that clarification right in the text of the bill. Indeed, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe stated during committee proceedings, “Everybody at this table agrees that this is not a registry”.

I will point out that the bill never included any components that would have permitted or required the registration of non-restricted firearms. While this amendment does not change the effect of the bill, I am confident it can provide reassurance that the long-gun registry will not be reinstated.

Finally, another amendment to clause 5 adopted at committee will help clarify that a person meeting the conditions to transfer a non-restricted firearm can transfer more than one. In practice, the amendment changes the word “a” in the bill to “one or more”. In fact, it is proposed that the bill does not limit the number of non-restricted firearms that can be transferred providing the conditions to do so are met, but once again, the bill is now clearer on this issue. It now spells out specifically that a valid licence and valid reference number attesting to the licence's validity can support the transfer of ownership of one or more non-restricted firearms.

I am grateful that all parties have played an important role in the close scrutiny of this bill. The bill started off on a solid footing. It already strengthened current laws around eligibility to hold a firearms licence. There is a new requirement for licensing authorities to consider specific information from the applicant's history throughout their whole life rather than the previous five years, as was the case prior to Bill C-71.

Bill C-71 improves licence verification, requiring anyone selling or giving a non-restricted firearm to verify the validity of the recipient's firearms licence. It improves record-keeping requirements among firearms businesses, requiring them to keep records of sale for non-restricted firearms. Responsible vendors already do this. However, making it mandatory will not only set in law what they already do, it will also provide police with an additional tool to track non-restricted firearms used by criminals.

The bill strengthens the regime around the transportation of restricted and prohibited firearms. It creates a more consistent approach to classification, responsibly leaving technical determinations on the classification of firearms to experts.

Today we have new measures with added benefits: enhanced background checks, greater certainty that no federal registry will be created, and welcomed clarification on the transfer of non-restricted firearms.

Canadians from all walks of life have told us this legislation will make a difference. It is one part of a larger package that will help make our communities safer and give law enforcement officers the tools they need to do their job.

I want to thank the members on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, all those who provided testimony and comment, and my colleagues in the House for helping shape this important legislation along the way.

I want to give special thanks to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for working with me to ensure that the amendment we put forward was reflective and would ensure that intimate partner violence would be fully recognized in Bill C-71.

I encourage all members to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess our perceptions of this bill are very different on opposite sides of the House because many of the things the member talked about were already in the legislation, particularly the eligibility with respect to those who have been involved in any kind of domestic violence or a threat to their partners. In the past it revolved around actions and activities that have taken place rather than our own perception. I am wondering if she is talking about trying to prevent suicide, and trying to prevent some of this behaviour.

The amendment that she made lends itself to thinking about perceived conduct, about perceived threats, and perceived harms. I wonder if she can tell me who is going to be making the decisions on whether someone is eligible or not. People who come from outside into a situation often do not know the people. Who is going to be making those decisions? Does she not have a concern that she is not talking about actions here? She used the word “factors” a number of times, these perceived factors. Who is going to be wise enough to be able to put her amendment into action?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the decision continues to rest with the chief firearms officer. Officials from the department who were at our public safety committee meetings confirmed with us, as I mentioned in my speech, that the amendment adds the criteria of threatening conduct. In the past, it was necessary that a conviction be in place. This language broadens that to threatening conduct, non-contact orders like restraining orders, and puts more explicit language around risk of harm to self or others.

Officials confirmed with us that it would strengthen the background check provisions, but it all does continue to rest with the chief firearms officer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the work she has been doing at committee. Throughout the study of this bill, we heard about the challenging issues of suicide and violence against women, and domestic violence in particular. We hope these issues will be addressed with the amendment which I supported.

The member raised an interesting point and I want to hear more about it. It is the notion that sometimes when legislation is being developed one is looking at what could be said for greater certainty. One of the things that Bill C-71 attempts to do, and I think some of these amendments attempt to do, is to essentially take practices that already exist, whether it is background checks or in record-keeping at point of sale, and create certainty in the law so that when law enforcement officers go into a shop, they now can assume it is likely there will be records. The idea now is that with the law they will have more certainty of that.

I would ask the member to comment on the importance of distinguishing between radical new measures and creating certainty in law, which is also an important part of how we work on legislation.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has put the words together quite well, as he often does. It has been quite a pleasure to work with him at committee.

For greater certainty is exactly what a number of these measures do in the bill, to ensure that law enforcement officers do have the tools they need. Many of these things were being done. In particular with background checks, it has provided greater certainty. In terms of keeping records, as I mentioned, many vendors already do what is being talked about.

My colleague is correct in saying that the bill in front of us is providing greater certainty on what is being done in a number of cases.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is rather interesting. However, it still leaves me kind of puzzled when we look at all these new pieces in this legislation that actually affect people who are law-abiding firearm owners. It goes after them to put in more bureaucracy and adds more burden in the fact that they own a firearm. The people it does not affect are the true targets who we should be looking at: gangs and rural crime.

Can the member tell me what is in this legislation that will actually have an impact on gangs and their access to guns, and rural crime and the access to guns?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing the term “law-abiding gun owners”. I appreciate that the majority of people who own firearms are law-abiding gun owners. Marc Lepine, who killed 14 women at École Polytechnique, also had a firearms licence. Alexandre Bissonnette, who killed six men in the mosque in Quebec City, had a valid firearms licence. We talk about law-abiding firearms owners. A lot of the times they are, until they are not.

This legislation will go a long way in protecting Canadians for public safety. I am very proud of what is in this bill and where it is going to go. I appreciate the members who have been supporting this bill, and what we are trying to do to improve public safety for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to speak to Bill C-71. There is no denying that this issue has been stirring up a lot of emotion in Canada for many years, and for good reason.

Organizations such as PolySeSouvient and victims of horrific gun crimes are advocating for gun control and courageously lending their voices to the political process to talk about that. I must say that in communities represented by members in the House from all parties, there are law-abiding gun owners. They have legal permits and use them to hunt or sport shoot. They do not want to be targeted by the legislation being passed, and we are trying not to target them. Ultimately, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to pass legislation that ensures public safety. Doing that work and finding the right balance is not always easy.

I would like to explore certain elements of Bill C-71, as well as the debate overall, which will be challenging. First of all, I want to thank everyone who appeared before the committee, especially those who represent victims' groups. Every time we study an issue, whether it be impaired driving legislation or crime and punishment legislation, victims' advocacy groups always appear. After enduring these horrific crimes, these individuals have the courage to speak publicly about their point of view and participate in the legislative process, which is already intimidating enough. I have to give them credit. I think they deserve a tremendous amount of admiration and respect.

One way to show our respect is to actually listen to them. I feel like we did listen to them in our study of this bill. As my Liberal colleague just said, that is why we adopted an amendment to try to establish enhanced criteria for background checks. I think all parties in the House agree that if we have the best background check process we possibly can, every law-abiding citizen should easily pass it. This would allow them to get a licence, and Canadians could rest assured that we are making every effort to ensure public safety.

In the same vein, that is why we support the measures to make the background check cover the applicant's entire lifetime. This is already being done on a de facto basis anyway, I might add. The courts have ruled in several cases that, despite the existing five-year time frame, there is a discretionary authority to examine the applicant's entire life. We think it is only appropriate that this be included in the legislation. That said, we also need to look at recording keeping by firearms dealers and sellers.

It is important to note that when it comes to the point of sale records, this is something that existed before from the 1970s to the 1990s, and it is something that even opponents of the long-gun registry referred to. I am thinking in particular of testimony in 2012 before the public safety committee of the then Calgary police chief, Rick Hanson. He was brought to committee to express his opposition to the long-gun registry. He specifically said that with the elimination of the long-gun registry, it would be important to bring back the point of sale records which would allow police, with a warrant, to obtain that information which, as we heard at committee, all respectable sales folks and businesses already keep at any rate.

It is the law in the U.S. as well. In fact, it is important to note that in the United States, contrary to what is proposed in Bill C-71, records would be kept for a lifetime, indefinitely essentially, whereas Bill C-71 prescribes a 20-year period. I see some distinctions there as well. It is seen as a relatively reasonable measure that allows police to have the tools they need to ensure public safety.

When it comes to an individual selling a firearm to another individual, some concerns were brought forward at committee, most notably, the reference number that would be given when an individual with a non-restricted firearm had to go through the process of ensuring the person to whom he or she was selling had a valid PAL. In that process, it is important to note that one of the concerns was the use of “singular” in the legislation, which essentially led some folks to believe there would be a reference number for each firearm being sold in a single transaction. Therefore, if one individual were selling three firearms to another individual, there would be one reference number generated for each firearm.

Officials reassured us that based on the Interpretation Act in Canadian law, when “singular” was used, it could mean plural unless otherwise specified. That being said, I brought forward an amendment, which was unanimously adopted by the committee, to add for greater certainty “one or more firearms” to ensure that only one reference number would be generated per transaction and to make it clear that the reference number would be generated for the purposes of PAL verification and not to track individual firearms and be perceived or portrayed as any sort of backdoor registry.

The other element that we must closely examine is the issuance of permits for transporting guns, the automatic permits, which Bill C-71 would change significantly. We are still opposed to automatic renewal, as we were in the previous Parliament with Bill C-42. The change being made by the Liberals is appropriate.

That said, we heard some powerful testimony concerning the ability to renew a permit automatically to transport a gun to a gun repair shop. It is extremely important because witnesses explained that having a firearm that is damaged or not operational can be a threat to public safety. Consequently, allowing gun owners to travel to an authorized repair shop would be just as appropriate as allowing them to transport a firearm from the point of purchase to the place where the gun will be stored or to a shooting range. Unfortunately, the amendment was rejected. We will continue to support this proposal in the hope that the amendment may be made in future.

The question of gang violence, as raised by the Conservatives, is a legitimate one. I do not think anyone will go that far in this direction, but it is important to understand, especially if the government says that this would be the tonic solution. I do not believe, in good faith, that is what has been presented to us. The issue of gang violence is a complex one. One piece of legislation will not resolve it and the New Democrats believe more needs to be done to tackle this. We need to tackle trafficking at the border. I know the member for Windsor West has done extraordinary work in this direction, as a member of Parliament representing a border community.

We need to do more to fight radicalization. When we think of radicalization, we think of terrorism, but we also need to look at street gangs. Street gangs prey on vulnerable youth and recruit them. That is a form of radicalization as well, and more needs to be done to tackle that.

The member for Lakeland brought forward a fantastic motion on rural crime, which the New Democrats were pleased to support, and we were pleased she supported our amendment as well. It will be before the public safety committee as part of that study. We need to look at ensuring the RCMP has the resources to tackle rural crime. Firearm theft, unfortunately, is part of that reality from some of what we have heard.

There are obviously a lot of complex issues going on and certainly, on that front, the Conservatives are absolutely correct in raising that issue and ensuring that more needs to be done to take on that issue. We will be pleased to look at that as well, because it is an important public safety issue. No one is denying that and we will continue to work in that direction.

Although the criticism that we must do more to address gang violence is legitimate, we support certain measures. A bill concerning firearms must respect the victims who are always asking us to do more. They have experienced horrific crimes and want to ensure that they live in safe communities. We must respect the law-abiding gun owners and communities affected by this kind of legislation. I believe that we achieved this at our committee meetings.

I hope that we will be able to continue to move in that direction. The current dynamic on issues like this, where all parties are contributing to a toxic debate, is unlikely to ensure public safety or to earn the respect of the communities that demand it on a file as emotional as this one.

I am proud, as a New Democrat, to be able to continue to work with all of the stakeholders involved in this file and to support the bill in the meantime. There is still a lot of work to be done by everyone.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague. I have enormous respect for the work he has done at committee on this complicated file and in representing a coherent policy on public safety and a credible balance for the rights of gun owners.

One of the things that has not really been talked about when we hear the Conservatives relentlessly attacking gun policy in the country is the issue of suicide, particularly the male use of firearms. In the United States, the single largest cause of death by a firearm is suicide not homicide.

It comes to the question of background checks. I recently had my gun licence renewed, but before it was reissued to me, my wife was called for a check on the family. I remember my wife called me, telling me how pleased she was. We often think of it in the frame of domestic violence, which is an important frame.

People who may have been lifelong gun owners and have become unemployed can suffer from depression and can turn their gun on themselves and sometimes on their own family members. This needs to be considered when we talk about people renewing their licences. A person may be a licenced owner for years, but he or she should be checked.

I would like to ask my colleague for his thoughts on the importance of having proper background checks in order to minimize family violence, self-harm, and unnecessary deaths through gun violence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the work that he does.

He knows better than I do the importance of striking a balance on this file and of expressing Canadians' legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate. In the spirit of what he said, that is exactly the type of thing we heard in committee. We heard some powerful testimony about the number of suicides committed with firearms in this country.

The Association québécoise de prévention du suicide presented an extremely important viewpoint. The association's representative talked about how people intending to commit suicide start to question their decision as the moment approaches. Depending on the method they choose, if their attempt fails, there is a good chance that they will not try again. However, those who try to commit suicide with a firearm are more likely to succeed in their attempt and will not have the opportunity to reconsider and get their lives back on track. That is something extremely important to consider. As my colleague mentioned, domestic violence is also a very important consideration.

From what I heard in committee, the three major parties agree that if we can do more to ensure solid background checks, then we should. Everyone agrees on that. What is being proposed is appropriate, but we can always look at additional measures.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague the same question I asked the member of the Liberal Party.

It looks to me like the government is targeting law-abiding gun owners with this legislation. The government is forcing them to take extra steps in order to have a long gun or a rifle.

What would this legislation do for rural crime or crime by gangs that do not go through this process? What is in the bill that would address that issue, which it is meant to do?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, both in my question for the member for Oakville North—Burlington and in my presentation, when we look at legislation, sometimes we codify things that are already done. Background checks over a lifetime in many cases is already done but codifying that in law is important.

As I mentioned, on point of sale records, many folks in the policing community have called for this, under a warrant, and that is also an important thing.

I said something else in my speech which is important for the member to note. He mentioned gang violence. We absolutely agree with the Conservatives that more needs to be done to tackle this issue. These two things are not mutually exclusive. We call on the government to do more to tackle that. We would be proud to work with all parties to ensure we do more about that.

The measures in the bill would create greater certainty for things that currently already happen under the law but would give that greater certainty for police among others.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague was in the House last term, could he comment on the private member's Bill C-442, which was tabled by the Conservative MP James Moore in 2003?

One of the things I keep hearing about is mental health, the issues surrounding mental health, and the reasons why the five-year check on individuals' backgrounds should be extended for a lifetime because of the ability to find out whether people are mentally stable to own firearms.

As we all know, if we watch what is going on in the U.S., there is a conversation going on about those mass killings of individuals who may have firearms legally, but have not had the background check done on them. I am curious to hear what the member's comments would be as it relates to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Indeed, the way I understood the comments in committee, all parties agreed that we should have a solid background check process. In the same vein, we heard some disturbing comments in committee, so I think that it is important to differentiate between someone with severe mental health problems and someone who has a criminal record for stealing candy from a corner store. Discretion still exists in the system, even with Bill C-71. It is an important distinction to make in order to truly understand that serious mental health problems, or other problems that can make it difficult to obtain a permit, are very different from a youthful misstep. The public service has very much understood that distinction.

Bill C-71—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure the House appreciates being notified of that by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want a little clarity on this. Could you confirm that the government House leader just got up and proposed time allocation on Bill C-71, the bill on firearms, which we are speaking about right now. Is that what happened? The government is limiting—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Essentially, the government House leader has just given notice and essentially what is the background and the rationale for that notice, which will apply at some point later on in the deliberations.

The House resumed consideration of C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Firearms Act

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a rural member of Parliament, it is extremely important for members like me to get an opportunity to speak on legislation that always has an impact, or is perceived to have an impact, in regions like ours. I represent what I think is the sixth-largest riding in Canada and the largest riding in Ontario, with one-third of Ontario's land mass. Hunting and the tradition of owning firearms is a well-known fact in the region that I represent.

In order to get a better sense of the sensitivity and difficulties in these kinds of debates between rural members and urban members of Parliament, I want to take us back a bit in history to get a better understanding of why these things can be complicated.

Since I came to Parliament in 1988, I have had the opportunity to be a part of the debate of two major pieces of legislation. These were major pieces of legislation dealing with firearms. There were three in fact, but one was pulled under the Mulroney government in 1990. There were difficulties going on in the caucus of the day in that particular Conservative government for members of Parliament. Bill C-80 was the bill, and it came in under Justice Minister Kim Campbell. She introduced it in June 1990. Interestingly, that particular piece of legislation created a gun registry for all guns in Canada. It was such a difficult debate within the rural caucus and the urban caucus of the government of Brian Mulroney that they waited for months and months before they started to debate it. They then waited for the prorogation of the House, so they could start over. Therefore, Bill C-80 disappeared. In its place, Bill C-17 came into being. Bill C-17 was also under Justice Minister Kim Campbell, and it was enacted into legislation in November of 1991.

In case people were not aware, in case they want to see how gun legislation has been created over the last 40 or 50 years, this is the piece of legislation where practically everything we are debating today was brought into play, from the possession certificates, the waiting periods, and the background checks. All these things happened under Bill C-17 in the Mulroney government.

I want to give a list of a few things that happened during this process. Applicants for a firearms acquisition certificate were required to provide more background information, including personal history, criminal history, a picture, and two references. Some of the impacts of Bill C-17 were that approximately 200 gun models moved to restricted and prohibited lists. There were limits on magazine size. If we can imagine, years ago we could have very large magazines. Now they are restricted, so that has made a significant difference in how we perceive firearms today. Firearms and ammo must be stored separately. Ammunition, before Bill C-17, was basically in the same box as one's firearm was stored. One had to keep weapons in an operable condition. One had to hide and lock guns during transportation. A 28-day waiting period was imposed for issuing of permits, which is a discussion that is still going on in the United States. It is one where it is hard to imagine how people are having difficulty understanding the importance of it. Then there was the grandfathering of automatic weapons. Of course, the big discussion of that day was whether we should or should not ban semi-automatics.

There is a history as it relates to these kinds of firearms, and the whole issue of firearms and safety of people around the world. Here in Canada, as a society that believes and will continue to believe that firearms have a legitimate use, the debate has always been a difficult one.

I used the example of what happened in the Mulroney regime to make it clear that in those days, rural members of Parliament were arguing with urban members of Parliament in the same government as to what to do and what not to do. Here is something that members should know. Bill C-17 passed by a margin of 189 to 14. In fact, the vote was whipped very strongly in the Mulroney government. There were a lot of people who were absent that day, because the Liberal Party of the day, and that caucus, voted with the government. However, many of the Conservative members of Parliament decided to be absent that day, because it was that kind of debate. Therefore, I agree with the member in the NDP who spoke before me. It would be much more helpful if we could have a debate where it was not so partisan and was not used as a wedge issue, but in fact we would spend some time talking about what is good for Canada.

I want to go back to another piece of legislation, because I want to remind members of Parliament that Bill C-51 was passed in 1978. In 1978, gun legislation was passed that brought in record-keeping by vendors. The record-keeping by vendors, the one we were talking about, which the Tories across the way are saying is a backdoor registry, has existed since 1978. The reason it came out was that when we brought in Bill C-68, the long-gun registry and the other changes, there was no need for the vendor registry, as we put it, a recording, because the registry was going to be individual persons. That was the way each gun would be recorded. However, that came out of the bill for the reason of it being a different way of looking at firearms and the firearms process.

I have been doing this for a number of years now, sitting here as a rural member of Parliament having a discussion about firearms, and trying to bring some sensibility. It is not to score political points, but to make it clear that we need to have laws, and we need to have a gun registry that makes sense. We need to have firearms laws that work or do not work, but the reality is that we need to have some sort of regulation as it relates to firearms.

The reason I am supporting this proposed legislation is because Bill C-71 would bring in a change on the five-year limitation. That would allow the CFO to consider an applicant's entire history. I think one of our major concerns in today's gun scenario, and we see it in the U.S. and in Canada, is that there are a lot of mental issues with people who have firearms. When we think about individuals who have firearms and mental issues, and I am talking about the U.S. now, we can think about what happened to those kids who died in that school. They say that those individuals died because the perpetrator was unstable. It was not because he had a firearm, but because he was unstable. Therefore, I think that this proposed legislation would go a long way to improving the ability for us to keep that particular scenario under control.

As we discuss this proposed legislation and the issues that surround it, we have to make sure we put in legislation that benefits society and is not overly difficult for firearms owners. I think this proposed legislation would do that very clearly, and that is why I will be supporting it.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there was a bit of outrage on this side of the House a moment ago. I could not believe I heard the words issued by the member opposite saying that there were a lot of mental issues among firearms owners. I hope that phrase gets clipped and put out there among the millions of law-abiding firearms owners in Canada. That is absolutely insane.

What really troubles me was the member talking about having laws that make sense. We introduced common-sense firearms legislation in the last parliamentary session, and now the government is going to turn it around and create a backdoor gun registry. There is no doubt about that. The bill talks about a registry multiple times, but it never talks about gangs, violence, and illegal use of firearms.

Why is the government in the bill before us not addressing the gang violence issues and the things that really need to be taken care of, instead of attacking law-abiding firearms owners in Canada?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, it is pretty clear that the Conservatives have been using this issue as a wedge issue to raise funds, for example, to make money.

I want to read something for the members across the way. This was a unanimous amendment to the legislation at committee. I understand that it was a Tory amendment: “For greater certainty nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.”

I do not know how many times we have to go down this road of saying that it is not a gun registry. As I said before, the mental health issue was brought forward by Conservative MP James Moore in a private member's bill. It was felt that it would be good for the chief firearms officer to be able to go beyond five years to look at the whole issue of mental health, because it is an issue in our society.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend took painstaking lengths to talk about how there has been a rural and urban divide in debate on firearms. However, never did the debate get so unfair and so divisive than under Allan Rock, his cabinet colleague from the Chrétien government. They proposed the long-gun registry as a tool for public safety, and used images and language that demonized lawful owners, including owners in Kenora, northern Ontario, across this country. To have a PAL and have the right and responsibility that comes with firearms ownership, they have to be the most law-abiding citizens.

I hate when Liberal MPs take tragic events in the United States or a tragic gang shooting in Toronto, and suggest we need to do a long-gun registry, or the backdoor store registry as a means of public safety.

The Liberals are implying that sport shooters, hunters, and lawful owners are the problem. The problem is illegally smuggled weapons from the United States, and nothing in the bill touches that. Similar to Allan Rock, we see again the Liberals demonizing law-abiding people, and not standing up for the rights and responsibilities of people in their own ridings.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member has been around long enough to have seen the divisive debate that took place in the Mulroney government. It was a sight to behold from the opposition, to the point where every day one of the members would come to me looking to find a way to deal with this as a rural member in a very urban caucus. That is what happens when we are in government. We have a very urban caucus because there are not as many rural members, so it is a divisive debate. We all agree with that, but that is not what we are debating tonight.

I was making the point that no matter who brings forward legislation, whether it is the Conservatives, the Liberals, or the NDP, it always will be divisive when it comes to firearms, because of the rural component versus the urban view of firearms.

My view is that this is a good piece of legislation. It has virtually no effect on law-abiding gun owners. This is intended to improve the ability to do background checks on people who should not own firearms because of mental issues.

In the United States, almost every week, we see massive killings, because people should not own firearms because they are not mentally competent to do so. That is what this legislation does. That is why the opposition members should vote for it. It makes a difference in—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

At the end of the five minutes, I will remind members that when the speech has been presented from one side of the House, the preference is given to the opposite side for questions and comments. If there is time, certainly I will come back to the party of the member who has just delivered their remarks. However, I have noticed members who are standing and will endeavour to make sure they get an opportunity to participate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was astounded that my colleague from Kenora would actually accuse someone like me of having mental health issues, because I am one of the law-abiding firearms owners he is talking about. On the fact that he is suggesting that changes to the law made in Bill C-71 would address the issues in the United States, I might suggest that he would be better off pursuing a Congress seat than representing the fine folks in Kenora. To imply that making the changes we need to make here in Canada is the result of U.S. legislative policies is simply misguided.

I wish I actually did not have to rise in the House today to talk about this. I wish that the public safety committee, when the current government first took office, had been tasked with actually going across Canada and talking to people. If we were going to have a serious conversation about creating a safer Canada and increasing public safety, we could have had a thoughtful discussion. We could have had a less partisan discussion on this issue. Instead, the bill just came out of the blue. Bill C-71 came late in the mandate of the government after several years of trying to get electoral reform through. The Liberals cannot pass their marijuana legislation without the Senate pushing it back. They are trying to rig the election system again through Bill C-76.

This is where we are at. We are three years into a four-year mandate, ramming legislation through with a handful of hours at second reading, one meeting with the minister and bureaucrats at committee, and three more meetings with a handful of witnesses, a mere fraction of the number of people and organizations that wanted to be represented and have their voices heard. Now we just had notice from the government House leader that the Liberals are going to move time allocation, not only at the report stage of this bill but also at third reading, making sure that the voices that are reasonable and need to be heard will not be so that they can push through what can only be described as an emotionally based agenda when it comes to firearms.

There is not a single member of Parliament in this place who would not do the right thing if given the right options and good advice and empirical evidence to suggest that the legislation was going to improve safety for Canadians. If that actually happened, if that was the approach the government had actually taken, we might have come up with some legislation that had unanimous support. In fact, my colleague from Kenora who just spoke suggested the mental health side of things. There is nothing in Bill C-71 that would actually address mental health issues. There is nothing in Bill C-71 that would address any co-operation between federal investigators, law enforcement agencies, or firearms officers and anything to with any of the provincial mental health acts.

Here is why this bill is so offensive to the law-abiding firearms community. The Liberals say that nothing about this is a firearms registry. Nothing could be further from the truth. In a previous life, before I came here, I was a tenured faculty member at Red Deer College teaching systems analysis and design. I was a database architect and a database administrator before I came here. I understand information technology. I understand how to cross-reference information. Whether it is a distributed computing system or the technology we have today, with clouds of information out there, it is very easy.

The bureaucrats, the minister, and the police officers who came before the committee made it painstakingly obvious to anyone who was paying attention that with Bill C-71, every time there was a transaction and a firearm changed hands, whether through a sale, an estate inheritance, a gift, or lending or borrowing, Canadians would have to get permission from the government. If they were at a gun show on the weekend, if they were going to Cabela's, if they were selling a firearm to their neighbour, or if they were lending their rifle to their hunting buddy to go on a trip and were not on that trip too, they would have to get permission from the government to do this first.

Here is how this would work. The Liberal government today says that it is going to have someone on staff, 24/7, 365 days a year, to pick up the phone when the buyer and seller want to have a transaction. The Liberals' original legislation actually said that for every firearm that was going to be transacted, they would need a separate reference number. This is a registry, because there would be the seller's licence and the buyer's licence.

Here is my buyer's licence. It is a document. It has my licence number, my name, my address, and the type of licence I have. Every one of those reference numbers is going to transact the serial number, make, and model of that firearm, to be cross-referenced with distributed store records. I specifically asked the bureaucrats how this would work, and they said it would be no trouble for the central transaction database, with all the reference numbers, to easily go back to a store and find out where a firearm was originally purchased.

If I buy a firearm from Cabela's or another store, and I choose to sell that firearm to a hunting buddy, who then sells that firearm to someone else, and that firearm is stolen and used in a crime, the police would have the ability to implicate me and everyone in that entire chain of sales in the act that was eventually done by a criminal, rather than focusing on that criminal.

If I sold 40, 50, or 100 firearms in one transaction as a single individual and not as a business, maybe that would trigger some kind of threshold and someone would ask what was going on. Was it an estate dispersal? Was I getting rid of all my firearms? That might have done something to increase public safety, but unfortunately, this bill would not do anything.

As a matter of fact, all it would do is create more red tape, more bureaucracy, and more expense. It would make gun shows on weekends that Canadians participate in more difficult. When I asked the bureaucrats what would happen for a large gun show in Canada, they said they would need a few weeks' notice. Now it would be up to every gun show organizer in this country to let the firearms centre know that on a weekend, it would have to staff up. Do members know how many gun shows there are in Canada? Virtually every weekend of the year there is one somewhere in Canada.

We did not talk to anyone. We did not talk to any gun show organizers. We did not hear from anyone from the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, which is in the retail business. None of those organizations were brought in to testify before the committee so that the government would have an opportunity to understand what it was it was going to do.

Bill C-71 would create a registry of firearms transactions, to be maintained by the firearms centre, which would be cross-referenced with all the records that would now be mandatory for store owners to keep for a period of 20 years or more. The period would be 20 years or more, because the legislation does not say for just 20 years. It says that if Canada acceded to an international treaty that required Canadians to store the records for even longer, it would be automatic in law that those records would need to be kept longer. It would not even come back before Parliament.

We have discovered that Canada is already involved in negotiating one of those treaties, so it is very convenient that the legislation would be there so that we could keep the records even longer.

It is a $3-billion boondoggle. We have not had a single government official say how much more the government is going to spend on the firearms centre to ramp up the staff to keep track of the new gun registry.

Classification is another thing that frustrates firearms owners. Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, actually put the decisions back in the hands of elected representatives so that at least there was some recourse for law-abiding firearms owners who, by the stroke of a pen, went from one day being law-abiding firearms owners to the next day being in possession of prohibited property.

The Liberals could have adopted a very simple fix. We simply suggested taking it out of the hands of one individual and creating a panel. I put a recommendation before the committee to have five technical experts, including police, military, and civilian experts, advise us, thereby depoliticizing the issue altogether. In this way, it would not be in the hands of one entity or in the hands of politicians. We could get a panel of actual experts to make those recommendations and fix the rules.

We know that there are three basic criteria for handguns: rimfire, centrefire, barrel length, and so on. These criteria tell us if a firearm is restricted or prohibited. There is nothing that prescriptive in the long-gun classification system. It is very subjective, and that is the problem with the rules. The minister says that it can hide behind the RCMP, because the RCMP simply has to follow the rules, but the rules are not clear. They are very subjective. It is very frustrating.

Last but not least is the notion of licensing. As my colleague from Kenora rightly pointed out, if we go back to the passage of legislation in 1977, there are firearms owners in Canada who have had licences for almost 40 years. They would now, when they went to renew their licences, have to answer for everything they did back when they 18 years old, some 20 years before 1977, for example, as if the mental health issues from 60 years ago were going to be the basis for denying them a licence. Mark my words, someone is going to go back and dredge this up, and a current law-abiding firearms owner who has had a licence for 30 or 40 years is going to be denied a licence. Do members know how to appeal that? A person has to make an application before a court. A person has to hire a lawyer, go before a court, and get a judge to overrule the decision of the chief firearms officer.

We provided an amendment at committee, which the Liberals shot down. As a matter of fact, it was an amendment proposed by a rural Liberal member from Ontario, who suggested that we create a system of appeal so that law-abiding firearms owners were not caught up in being denied their licences if they had had them for a number of years.

I could go on for another couple of hours about the failures of Bill C-71, but my time is up, so I will happily answer any of the misguided questions the Liberals have for me.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned, implied, in fact, that individuals should not be held accountable for the acts they carried out when they were 18 years old. He referenced a specific age. What if an individual happened to commit an act of violence, say domestic abuse against a wife or abuse against a child? Should that not be taken into account when assessing whether someone should have a gun licence?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it shows just how much my hon. colleague, who sits on the committee, does not understand about the continuous eligibility criteria that every firearms owner in Canada already has. Every day, every firearms-licenced owner in Canada is checked. If the police go to a domestic dispute or if any court issues an order against a person for committing any type of crime, it is automatically flagged in the firearms system. The next day, that individual will get a knock on the door, the police will show up, and if the person has firearms in the house, they will confiscate them until the issue is resolved. The fact that the member does not know that means that there are very serious problems with Bill C-71.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found it very interesting to hear what the member across the way had to say, particularly what he construed as a registry when looking at the handling of business records. He also mentioned different amendments that were not accepted. What he did not mention was an amendment proposed by the Conservatives, if anyone wants to check the record, which was unanimously accepted. In fact, my friend across the way voted in favour of it. It specifically stated, as an addition to the Firearms Act, “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.”

How does my friend suddenly construe from this legislation something that he himself voted for and say that it cannot be construed in that way?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague does not have her facts straight. The day that amendment went through at committee, I was at the Stittsville range for shooting day, where I won top marksman, so I could not have possibly been at the committee. She actually said I was. If she cannot even get her facts straight on where I was on a particular day, I am sure she has no credibility on the rest of the file.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I currently have a gun licence, both unrestricted and restricted, and I have friends who go to the range quite often.

What does the member have against the RCMP being entrusted with classifying what would be prohibited, restricted, or otherwise?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with the RCMP being involved in this process at all. I have said this publicly many times. Should the RCMP be consulted, with their technical expertise, about the classification of firearms? Absolutely, it should. Should other police officers or agencies perhaps be involved? Yes, they should. Should someone from the military be involved? Some of the issues we heard at committee were that some people are confused about what a firearm is, what an assault firearm is, and what a military firearm is versus a civilian-use firearm. Even though they might look the same, they are not the same at all. Should we have a military expert involved? Yes. Should there be civilian experts on that panel? Should there be a panel of five? I put the amendment forward. The reason I wanted to do that was to protect the integrity of the RCMP, because I have a lot of respect for the RCMP. I actually wanted to join the RCMP at one point in my career.

I do not have a problem with this. If the Liberals do not want politicians to make the decisions, and the Conservatives do not think the people who enforce the law should be the ones making the law, let us find some common ground through having a panel of five technical experts to go through this process and make recommendations on not only what the classification rules should be but on what the ultimate classifications are. That would depoliticize this and would win the trust of most firearms owners in Canada. I do not know why that reasonable amendment was turned down by the member's colleagues.

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

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today.

The people of Winnipeg Centre believe in effective gun control measures that prioritize public safety and also ensure that law-abiding gun owners are treated fairly. During its last term, the Conservative government loosened gun laws through a series of legislative and regulatory amendments. Astonishingly, Canada has seen an increase in gun violence in the past three years.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security proposed a number of significant amendments and accepted amendments from all recognized parties. A Conservative amendment even help reassure people that this was not a long-gun registry.

In 2016, there were 223 gun-related homicides in Canada, 44 more than in the previous year. This is an increase of 23%, the highest increase since 2005. In 2016, guns were the most common murder weapon used in this country. Between 2013 and 2016, the number of domestic violence cases involving a firearm increased from 447 to 586.

We proposed a suite of measures, each one directly related to strengthening public safety and security. These measures will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and help police locate firearms that have been used to commit crimes. That means Bill C-71 is very important, because it will help save lives and solve crimes.

Bill C-71 will improve background checks for people applying to obtain or renew a firearms licence. It will also require firearms sellers to check whether the buyer is authorized to own a firearm, and it will tighten up the rules governing the transportation of restricted and prohibited firearms.

It is always fun to have the chance to speak some French in the House.

The 2015 Liberal Party platform made nine specific commitments related to firearms. Bill C-71 includes the platform commitments that require legislative changes. These include repealing changes made by Bill C-42 that allow restricted and prohibited weapons to be freely transported without a permit, and putting decision-making about weapons restrictions back in the hands of police and not politicians. It is time to have the experts actually doing the work, not politicians as it was under the Harper Conservatives. We are also looking to require enhanced background checks for anyone seeking to purchase a handgun or other restricted firearms. We are going to require purchasers of firearms to show a licence when they buy a gun, and require all sellers of firearms to confirm that the licence is valid before completing the sale. We are going to require firearms vendors to keep records of all firearms inventory and sales to assist police in investigating firearms trafficking and other gun crimes. We will not create a new national long-gun registry to replace the one that had been dismantled.

In my riding of Winnipeg Centre, gang crime is an important issue. It is something that goes hand in hand with this legislation. In fact, as part of our commitment to make it harder for criminals to get and use handguns and assault weapons, and to reduce gang and gun violence in Canada, our government has announced up to $327 million over five years and $100 million annually thereafter in new funding to help support a variety of initiatives to reduce gun crime and criminal gang activities.

The Government of Canada also brought together experts, practitioners, front-line personnel, and decision-makers for a summit on criminal guns and gangs in March 2018. The criminal guns and gangs summit is an unprecedented national summit on the challenges, solutions, and best practices in the fight against gun crime, and in combatting the deadly effects of gangs and illegal guns in communities across Canada, especially in communities like Winnipeg Centre. The government heard from key stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, community and mental health organizations, indigenous groups, and government and non-governmental organizations.

I would like to quote my good friend, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness:

Too many young people have been killed and too many communities have been marred by gun crime and gun violence. It doesn't have to be this way. By working together, we can make our communities safer through greater enforcement, collaboration and prevention. The federal government is making major new investments to tackle this scourge and will bring all levels of government and our partners together to confront this problem at the Summit on Criminal Guns and Gangs.

I have already talked about some of the crime that has been going on with guns in this country, and the increase in the number of gun crimes that have been happening. However, we have also seen an increase in the number of incidents of organized crime. For instance, between 2012 and 2016, there was an increase in murders of 17%, in manslaughter of 12%, in extortion of 74%, and in human trafficking of 300%.

The meth crisis especially is expanding, facilitated by organized crime groups. The production, trafficking, and sale of illicit drugs, such as fentanyl, are often the main cause of gun and gang violence. We are taking action on that not only with this program of $327 million, but we are also ensuring that we have a bill, Bill C-71, which is trying to bring a balanced and equitable approach to what we can do and how we can work together.

I had the opportunity to read about some of the issues that are going on. We have enhanced background checks. We will ensure there is licence verification. We will ensure that record-keeping is done by vendors to be able to trace firearms used in crimes. I was looking online and I noticed that, for instance, pharmacies have to keep records for 10 years related to drug use and patients' records and who gets prescription drugs in our country. I think it is okay if we ensure that vendors actually keep some records so that if the police need them when a crime is committed we can ensure that they have the full story about what is going on.

I would also like to talk about weapons classifications. Firearms are classified as prohibited, restricted, or for anything that does not fall within those two categories, non-restricted. The Criminal Code apparently lays out the criteria for what technical aspects of a firearm make it either prohibited or non-restricted, and the associated regulations directly list several dozen models. The RCMP is tasked with analyzing new firearms and firearm variants to determine which classification they will have under the criteria passed by Parliament.

In the spring of 2015, Bill C-42 of the Stephen Harper Conservatives granted the Governor in Council, or cabinet, the ability to overrule the variant classifications made by the experts, the RCMP, and to downgrade the classifications of firearms. This was done for two groups of firearms, the CZ 858 and the Swiss Arms rifles. As a former member of the 22nd Regiment, that is very concerning to me, because when we look at a CZ 858, it is a submachine gun. It resembles an AK-47. This is a weapon that has been used in the Vietnam War, in the war in Afghanistan by the Czechoslovakian army, and in the Libyan civil war. I do not think this type of weapon should be involved in hunting, as we should have respect for animals. I know most hunters have a great respect for hunting because it is a good thing to go out onto the land to provide for one's family. However, I do not believe that a weapon that resembles an AK-47, and has been used in armed conflicts around the world, is perhaps an appropriate weapon to have in our country. Individuals who own these weapons as of June 30, 2018 will be grandfathered. The government will offer a three-year amnesty to provide owners of affected firearms with time to come into compliance with the grandfathering requirements. During the amnesty period, owners will be authorized to possess but not use their firearms until licensing and registration requirements are met.

There is an awful lot to cover, but I would like to talk about one final thing before the opposition can try to tear me apart. There were 1,200 Grant Park students who walked out of class on March 14, just around the time of the summit. They walked out of class because they wanted to raise the issue of gun violence in their community. They were upset with the propositions put forward by many politicians who refused to acknowledge that there is gun violence in our country, and who have not proposed adequate solutions. This is why I am very proud of what we are trying to do, which is to strike that balance not only with respect to legislative changes, which are simply reasonable changes, which is not a long-gun registry, and ensuring that we have good records in case a criminal investigation needs to be undertaken, and also having programs to ensure that we provide our youth and those who are most vulnerable an ability not to become involved in gangs and criminal activity.

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

Mr. Speaker, law-abiding firearms owners have to go through a rigorous screening and education process in order to obtain a licence to possess firearms in Canada.

I wonder if my colleague has obtained his possession and acquisition licence, and if he could give a technical description to the House of Commons on the two firearms that he listed in Canada, their usage in gang-related violence in Canada, and how many people who are law-abiding firearms owners use those, as opposed to people who own them for their farms or use them as tools in rural communities. Perhaps he could actually go through, step by step, the processes required for a law-abiding firearms owner to acquire the weapons that he mentioned in his comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact I have never owned a firearm personally. I have only used a firearm while I was in the Canadian Armed Forces. I know how to take apart a C7 or a C9. I can do all the things that are required of me not only in the exercise, but if required, even in the exercise of my duties as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. I am very proud of that.

I would point out there are a number of leading organizations that are in favour of this, such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Labour Congress, the women's shelters in Canada, the National Association of Women and the Law, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, and the PolySeSouvient. People must remember the 14 women who were killed in 1989. As well, the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control, which represents over 200 groups, and the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association are in favour of this legislation. It is an important consideration that there are many great groups that are actually in favour of this legislation.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's service in the Canadian Armed Forces. A number of veterans who are lawful users of firearms are probably wondering why the member does not have more of a background to answer the question from my colleague for Calgary Nose Hill.

I will make this a very simple question for my friend. He quoted extensively from the little PR stunt that the Minister of Public Safety had on his gangs and guns conference. He quoted the minister. He talked about that summit. Could the member point to one section of this bill that addresses gang-related violence or illegal firearms used by gangs?

[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—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I have to ask the hon. member to direct his comments to the Chair.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

At least for one more year.

Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the bill at hand, Bill C-71. We still have gangs in Toronto, and they are going to do what they want to do, when they want to do it. They are going to ignore this legislation.

I am sure they are going to go into a gun shop, buy a gun, and say, “Oh, by the way, I'm going to fill out these forms and wait my time to get that. I will take the PAL course and do all that. You bet.” It is going to do a lot for real crime. It is going to be wonderful to see these guys sitting there thinking, “I'm going to attack that yard, but I better go get my gun registered before I do it.” That is not going to happen. Let us get back to priorities.

If the Liberal government was going to bring in legislation like that, as I said, Canadians will be watching us to the nth degree.

Anyway, I think I will close there. I think I have said enough. I look forward to questions.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to hear passion from a member of Parliament when he speaks. I appreciate the member.

He talked about the political history of his riding of Prince Albert, and after a dark Liberal period, there emerged a great Conservative leader from Prince Albert, much like that previous Conservative from Prince Albert, John Diefenbaker. He is doing Diefenbaker proud, because Diefenbaker had the Bill of Rights, and it is about rights and responsibilities, as my friend from Lévis said when we had the common-sense firearms legislation, where we brought common sense and fairness back.

The approach has been different under the Liberals. They talk about guns and gangs, and they have a summit, but there is zero in the legislation on gang crime. Could the member reflect for a moment on how this, much like Allan Rock a generation ago, is another attempt to divide Canadians, and will do nothing for public safety.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, John Diefenbaker, the former prime minister, was a leader in so many ways: appointed the first female cabinet minister, recognized the importance of the north, and allowed aboriginals to vote. These are Conservative initiatives. No matter what people say, they cannot rewrite that history. Those are Conservative initiatives and they are things of which to be proud. I am sure if “Dief” were here right now, he would tell people—

[An hon. member]

Vote Andrew Scheer.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Of course, vote Andrew Scheer.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. I have to remind the member not to use the names of members of the House.

The hon. member for London North Centre.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member talk about his understanding of the bill. I have before me a quote from a gun vendor, an actual business person who has talked about the bill and his understanding of it. How does the hon. member feel about this interpretation? This gun vendor said:

[T]here's not been a real big change on the actual aspect of logging the customer's information and keeping on record what they've purchased. We already do it with ammunition, now they're just asking us to do it with guns. By doing it with guns we're going to give the police and the community the tool to begin to track where guns are purchased, how they're being trafficked and how they're being used, so that's not a bad thing.

If Bill C-71 is okay for gun vendors, if it passes their test, what is wrong with it? Why is the hon. member opposed to what law-abiding gun vendors have to say about the bill?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member found one gun vendor who was able to give him a quote that he could use in the House of Commons. However, gun vendors have become a shopping list for gangs. They break into that store and they have a shopping list of all the guns in all the areas and of who has what. Is that what we really want? I do not think so. That is just what they have delivered to the gangs. It is just a shopping list of where to get the guns they want.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I have talked over the years. I used to be a registrar before I became a member of Parliament, and I was a registrar for the chiropractor profession. Whenever we put in legislation, etc., the criminals had gotten around it before it even went before the Queen's printer. I wonder if the member could comment on how criminals do not follow the rules.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the the member from Estevan really knows his stuff. Again, here is an example of a member taking his life experience, bringing it to the chamber, and talking about things that are important to the people in his riding. Some members on the government side could learn a lot from him.

The member is right: Criminals will always find a way to do what they want to do, so it does not matter—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here tonight and talk about Bill C-71. This is an important bill for my riding. I have spoken to this a number of times.

Before I get into the bill's history, I want to talk for a minute about so many of my good colleagues around here, especially my colleagues from Quebec. We added to their numbers tonight up in Chicoutimi--Le Fjord. I am looking forward to another Conservative member coming here. I used to buy cattle in the Chicoutimi area. I also used to hunt and fish up in that area. There is no doubt in my mind that Bill C-71 is one of the reasons that Mr. Martel, apparently one of the most famous hockey coaches in Quebec, was elected tonight with a huge majority.

The reason I mention that is that Canadians everywhere, whether they are in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, in Yukon, or in Chicoutimi, Quebec, are ordinary Canadians who hate to be told they are criminals just because they like to hunt or farm and they have a rifle.

I was a farmer in my other life. Most farmers in this country, whether they hunt or not, have a firearm. They use their firearm to go after that rabid fox that gets in with the livestock, or a coyote or bear that is trying to take down a newborn calf, or as the member for Prince Albert mentioned, intruders who come on the property with the intention to steal stuff. It is commonplace in rural Canada for people to have a firearm.

Earlier, the member for Oakville North—Burlington commented that firearms owners are law abiding until they are not. What in the heck does that mean? I just shake my head at that. I have a lot of respect for that member who sits on the public safety committee but if that is not aiming a dart at a large law-abiding group of people in this country then I do not know what is. I am ticked off by her comment. I am offended by it and I am sure a lot of people across this country are offended by it as well.

Turning to some of the history as to why Bill C-71 came out, the Liberal government said it was going to do something about gang violence and the illegal firearms trade. What did it do? It did not do one thing. I have talked privately to a number of members across the way who admitted there is nothing in this legislation. This is a signal to a group of people who are absolutely against firearms for various reasons, or they are against hunting or whatever, and the ultimate goal is to get rid of firearms everywhere. It does not recognize the fact that lots of people know how to handle them.

I have had a gun in my hand since I was eight or nine years old. I was taught by my father how to handle it safely. My boys got their licence when they were 12 years old, which is what the legal hunting age was. I taught them how to handle a firearm, the same as I taught them how to ride a bike or do whatever. Respect is taught along with that. It is not just about learning how to operate a firearm. It is the same when it comes to running farm equipment. The member for Malpeque, who sits on the opposite side of the aisle, grew up on a farm. He would have taught his kids the same way. Whether it is a piece of farm equipment, a firearm, or whatever else, we have to teach the proper way to handle it and to treat it with respect and then everything will be good.

I sat in on a public safety committee meeting a few weeks ago. Some of the testimony that I heard that day would blow one's mind, no pun intended.

What came out of Bill C-71 was that the government fudged the numbers. The crime rate with firearms has been dropping since the mid-1960s, which is common knowledge. However, they really dropped in 2013. What did the government do? It used that as the base number, knowing that no way would we get the same drastic drop in firearms crime in 2014, and it went up a bit. All of a sudden, my God, the sky was falling, and everybody was shooting everybody everywhere, but that was not the case. On fudging numbers, two witnesses both said something long the same lines.

The reason I mention that is because of what we got from the member for Kenora. I have hunted and fished in his riding. I have a lot of friends up there. I am sure they will be happy after his comment tonight. He said that among firearms owners, there was a lot of mental health issues. There sure as heck is not in my family, friends, and the people who I know who hunt and handle firearms. That was a pretty blanket statement. I do not know if he meant to say it, but when I asked in a question, he pretty well repeated it, so I kind of think he meant it. That kind of thing is not helpful. It is not correct. Sure there are examples, but the one thing worth pointing out in this is when he talked about some of this mental health, he started off by talking about the U.S.

The U.S. has a way worse record and a way worse problem with firearms than we do in Canada. Why? Because we have the toughest laws in the world. We have had the toughest handgun laws in the world since the 1930s, and we are well ahead with long guns, etc.

We all know the history of 1995. In fact, one of the things that motivated me to get into federal politics was the long gun registry. I can still hear my dad. At 86, he is still hunting. He was made to feel like a criminal. My father-in-law was felt the same way. God bless his soul, he has passed away. However, he was going to bury his guns rather than register them, and he did not want to break the law. That just shows us that when we attack law-abiding firearms owners, they get upset, they want to fight back, and they shove back.

In this most recent attack, the numbers were fudged and members tried to pretend that we had the same crime problem or gun problem as the people in the United States. When members start comparing us with the U.S., they are going down a road they should never go down. It is like apples and oranges. We just cannot do it. The U.S. has problems because it does not have the same kind of laws as we have up here.

I talked about the crime rates dropping and the Canadian firearms advisory committee. My good friend from Calgary spoke a few minutes ago. About a year ago, I had a long conversation with her about this. She had a bit of a personal issue with firearms. She finally realized that she did not understand it and did not know what it was. She said she had a lot of people who hunted in her riding. What did she do? Probably the smartest thing any politician could do. She went out and got a PAL. Everybody was telling her that it was so easy to get a gun, a licence, and do all of that. She went out and did it all, and it took her over a year. There is nothing wrong with that. We are not complaining, but it just goes to show that all kinds of rules are in place. If more members went out and did what the member from Calgary did, we would be a lot better off.

Every member who sits on the Canadian firearms advisory committee should have gone out and got a PAL, like the member from Calgary did, so they would know how the system worked instead of bringing their bias to the committee.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I was at a wedding last night in my riding. It was a very beautiful night. One of the saddest moments was when a mother walked in. A month ago as her son was taking out the garbage at 11 p.m. in downtown Toronto he was shot in retaliation for a shooting that took place in my colleague's riding in Eglinton—Lawrence a few weeks before. In that case, an innocent bystander was killed.

The weapon used in that shooting belonged to someone who lived in the riding that I represent, the same neighbourhood where this young man was shot. That person owned 11 handguns legally and he ferried them around the city to different gang members to pay for his university education. This situation is something which I would like the opposite side to start to contemplate and provide some reflection for me on it. It is a serious situation in the city that I represent and real kids are losing their lives.

The mother is a nurse at St. Michael's Hospital. She found out that her kid had been shot because he was wheeled into her emergency room while she was taking care of other people's children. This is a serious situation in Toronto. I appreciate the long guns that the member opposite just talked about, the tools that are used to protect cabs and that are used to get rid of foxes that are rabid and are used to protect tree planters like my sister was. She has a long gun and she worked in the interior of B.C. for many years. I get that they are tools.

You register your tractor. You register your car. You register your boat. You register the other tools of your hobbies and businesses. I do not understand why guns make you so upset—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order. I have to ask the member to direct his comments to the Chair.

“You” is speaking of the Speaker.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is the problem with registering the guns? Second, you say there is not enough in the bill to deal with—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I think we had better go to the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is a good one. My condolences go out to the family. That is the kind of stuff that we all hate to hear about, it does not matter where it is.

Respectfully, the answer to his question is in part of the comment that he made. The 11 handguns, if I heard him right, were basically sold to gang members. If that is not the case, I would like to talk to him in private because that was my understanding from listening, that they ended up in the hands of the gangs.

Young lives were lost and I feel very bad for the mother, but I do not know what we have to do to get the hon. member and others to understand that the bill does nothing to address gang crimes and illegal firearm sales. It only puts another burden on the people who already register and are law-abiding firearms owners.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honest conversation because I think the bill does two things. It places much more stringent background checks on individuals so that when someone is acting in a way that is inappropriate, there is a longer and deeper investigation as to why that person may be inappropriately holding guns or a licence.

Second, restrictions on moving guns around cities makes cities safer. Those are two things that will make the communities that I represent safer.

Could the other side explain why registering all those other tools is acceptable, but guns somehow should be different?

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I misunderstood his first response. I thought he was going to stand and clarify it and he did not. He wants to target something that is already happening to law-abiding firearms owners. Tomorrow or the next day, I hope the member contacts me because as a law-abiding firearms owner and a politician, a legislator like he is, I would like to better understand the situation and at that point maybe we could have a good dialogue.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting evening and an interesting debate, with a lot of information and emotion. I get to follow the last three, and they are tough to follow. Many of the things I might say will be related to things that have already been said, such as gang violence, illegal guns, illegal handguns, the penalties for those people who use those illegal weapons, and the consequences that follow.

I have heard from a lot of my constituents on this. There are a lot of unhappy constituents. I just heard a member across the aisle say that it is a registry, but I heard several members across the floor tonight saying it is not a registry. It was really nice to hear a member stand up and say it is a registry, but all the previous ones stood up and said it is not a registry. This bill targets law-abiding firearms owners in my riding. It does not actually prevent the crimes. They use firearms in legitimate and lawful ways. They use them to hunt, to work, and for sport shooting. Firearms are a big part of their rural life.

I remember a few years ago when I was the principal of a high school, there were issues about guns and gun violence with youth. I happened to be in a regional meeting of principals talking about guns and other issues, and I said there would be guns in vehicles in the parking lot of my school. There were other principals from urban areas who were astounded that I would admit there were guns in vehicles in my parking lot. I said, “You bet there are.” Those are farm trucks. Those are ranching vehicles. Those guns are tools. Those students know how to use those tools. They are trained how to use them, and they are there as a tool in their vehicle. They drive the vehicle to school and they drive it home. They may use that gun as a tool on the way to school or on the way home. It is part of rural life. They are responsible for those firearms. They do not like being targeted every time a Liberal government says that we need to have a registry or more gun control.

The opposition to this bill is not just in my riding. It is across Canada. E-petition 1608 which calls on the government to scrap this law had over 80,000 signatures the last time I checked. That is the second largest e-petition in history. I do not know why that number does not give the government pause. Regardless, I am happy to have the opportunity to convey some of my constituents' concerns about the bill.

The largest source of disappointment is it has nothing to do with gang violence, illegal handguns, and crime in rural areas. My constituents say they hear about the gang violence, the shootings in cities, and they experience rural crime, but where in the legislation does it do anything about that, other than make them do more red tape as legal gun owners?

There are a lot of obvious points about the bill, but criminals are generally not using legal firearms. What is driving gun violence is gangs and illegal handguns. The illegal use of handguns will not be impacted by this legislation. Only those who already follow the law will. Criminals do not register illegal weapons nor do those who have the number filed off those weapons.

Let me move to some obvious points suggesting this legislation is poorly designed. Given that we are at report stage of the legislation, it is worth looking at some of the testimony my colleagues heard in committee. They heard from Solomon Friedman, a criminal defence lawyer in Ottawa and expert in firearms. He had some interesting testimony. We all heard the Minister of Public Safety suggest the legislation is intended to combat increasing gun violence from 2013. Mr. Friedman noted, as some of my colleagues have already said, that the year 2013 as a starting point for the reported trend was not chosen at random. As we know, 2013 was a statistical aberration in terms of violent crime and homicide in Canada. The year 2013 saw the lowest rate of criminal homicide in Canada in 50 years. If we start at a point that was the lowest, the only place it probably will go is slightly up. It looks like the Liberal government has used statistics to justify targeting law-abiding firearm owners. This is a disappointing choice.

My colleagues at the public safety and national security committee also heard from Mr. Gary Mauser. He noted that 121 of the 141 firearms-related homicides that the minister cited were directly related to gangs in cities. Where in the legislation does it deal with gangs that are working with illegal handguns? It is not there.

We know what the real issues are out there. We agree that the safety of Canadians should be our priority. However, the government seems intent on distorting the evidence to suit its particular narrative. I think many of my colleagues have pointed out why it is doing this. The Liberals are pretending the legislation will do something to combat crime, but all it does is place more regulations on law-abiding firearms owners.

At the same time, the government has introduced Bill C-75, which makes all kinds of serious crimes punishable with a mere fine. That for rural crime is a real challenge. We have many people in western Canada, in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, where rural crime rates have increased in the last two or three years. People are using guns and violence, robbing properties, and are being slapped with fines. They will be right back on those properties. It should be the reverse. If people are using guns in crimes, there should be more severe penalties. This is not how we stop gun use in crimes by letting people off with fines.

The witness testimony I noted undermines a lot of rationale for this legislation. It supports what I have heard from so many law-abiding constituents, who use their firearms for sport, work, or hunting. They are not happy that the word '“gangs” never appears in this bill. “Illegal handguns” does not appear there. However, they are even more unhappy to see the word '“registrar” in the legislation. In fact, it looks like the words “registrar” or “reference number” are used 28 times. It is a registry. As the last member from across the aisle admitted, it is a registry.

It seems pretty clear that Bill C-71 would make it mandatory to register firearms and provide reference numbers. That information would be logged by a business and then passed onto the government. The government has been insistent that this is not a new gun registry.

Law-abiding gun owners will follow the law. They will do this because they are law-abiding gun owners. They will go through more red tape because they re law-abiding Canadian citizens. That is all it is doing is providing more red tape for those people.

I was happy at first to see that the Liberals supported one of our amendments, the one that stated “For greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.” I expected they would back up their support for this amendment by actually taking action. I assumed they would then support changes that removed the elements of the legislation that essentially created a new registry. However, they did no such thing.

It makes sense that the government does not want to remind Canadians of the wasteful $2 billion gun registry we dealt with before, but we do not know the cost of what they will do with this one. There will be a lot of bureaucracy, but there is no cost assigned to this. It is going to cost money, possibly a lot.

As I said, we want concrete measures that keep Canadians safe. I know the members opposite do not have bad intentions in supporting this legislation. However, they should understand that the bill would do nothing to fight the criminal elements that are behind gun violence. They should be focused on that. Instead they try to criminalize law-abiding citizens. I know there are members who are from rural communities and have misgivings about this legislation. Again, does this stop gun violence? Does this stop the illegal use of handguns? We need handguns to be out of the hands of criminals.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to look at the blues of the proceedings of the committee on public safety in which two things happened.

The MP for Red Deer—Lacombe, who spoke earlier tonight, is a member of the committee. He said outright at committee, “everybody at this table agrees that this”, Bill C-71, “is not a registry.” Therefore, it is on record that Bill C-71 does not constitute a registry in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the Conservatives, as we have heard tonight, tabled an amendment to that same effect. Why are they playing these sorts of games when their own members have put on the record the fact that Bill C-71 does not constitute a registry in any shape or form.

What does the hon. member have to say to that?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I heard right, the member's colleague, just down the bench, just a few minutes ago, called it a registry. He called it a long-gun registry. Check the record. His Liberal colleague, sitting straight across from me, called it a registry.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed over the last few hours that the questions seem to be coming from our side of the House, and there has been a kind of hush over the Liberal side of the House. I wonder if it is not a reflection on the base that they formerly held in Chicoutimi that went rather silent, seeing a great Conservative win there, adding to our numbers here in the very near future.

I have a question for the member for Bow River. This bill does not seem to address anything dealing with gun crime, gun violence, or gang violence. It does not seem to address any of that. Have we missed something in the bill, or have the Liberals missed something in this bill?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, when I heard the member from Toronto speaking earlier about the tragedy in his riding, in a neighbouring riding, and the parents who had to deal with this. Absolutely, the Liberals have missed this piece. Illegal handguns are coming into this country, and we need to find the mechanisms by which to stop and eliminate illegal handguns. It is not in the bill.

The 121 out of 141 cases in this country were with illegal handguns. That is the problem. It is not addressed in this legislation.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on something I know my colleague did not have a chance to speak about in his intervention.

We had a rural crime task force in Alberta. Many of us had open houses throughout the province. One of the things that came out, loud and clear, was the frustration from our constituents that Bill C-71, proposed to deal with gun violence, gang violence, and illegal firearms, but those things were not in this bill.

We hear the frustration from our constituents in Alberta, where there is such an increase in rural crime. I know many of my colleagues from both sides of the floor are dealing with this issue. Could the member comment a little on how frustrated our rural constituents are throughout the country that this bill had an opportunity to address one of the largest issues that rural Canadians are facing, and it failed to do so?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if members want to see emotion in a room, they should have been in those town halls. People are scared. They are frightened. They are frightened for their lives. They are frightened because their property is being stolen constantly. Those people are using illegal weapons.

Once they are caught, it is just a revolving door, and they are back out on bail, immediately. There is not enough of a penalty for people using illegal firearms.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order. Resuming debate. Order.

The hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today and to share my comments about Bill C-71.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order. I would ask the hon. member for Foothills, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, and the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame to listen to the speeches and not be interrupting when someone else has the floor.

The hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-71 was introduced in March of this year. In his speech arguing in favour of the bill, the Minister of Public Safety called it “important legislation that prioritizes public safety and effective police work, while treating law-abiding firearms owners and businesses fairly and reasonably”. He went on to add that this bill upheld the Liberal Party's commitment not to reinstate a federal long-gun registry.

I take issue with both of those claims. What I have seen with the Liberal government's Bill C-71 is quite the opposite. Bill C-71 does not treat law-abiding firearms owners fairly, and it is abundantly clear that the Liberals are moving forward with what is, in effect, even if not in name, a new gun registry.

Let us begin with the claim that law-abiding firearms owners are treated fairly by the Liberal government. I think all Canadians believe in ensuring we treat firearms owners responsibly. We understand that, in the interests of public safety, there are sensible measures that can be taken. I think all of us in this place agree on that point. The trouble with Bill C-71 is that it is not offering any sensible measures to combat gang violence, gun violence, or escalating crime rates in our rural communities.

My Conservative colleagues and I recognize that the safety of Canadians must be the number one priority of any government, and we will support common-sense legislation related to firearms that will help keep Canadians safe, but here is the problem: Bill C-71 does not do that. It has no measures to combat the increasing rates of gun violence, domestic violence, gang violence, or to address the increasing rates of rural crime either in my riding of Provencher or across the country.

All this bill does is add greater costs and regulatory burdens to law-abiding firearms owners. In fact, the bill uses the words “registrar” or “reference number” 28 times. Do members know how many times the words “gang” or “criminal organization” appear? Zero. If Bill C-71 is not targeting criminals, who exactly is going to be impacted by this legislation? How are Canadians going to be better off for it? The answer to that first question is, unsurprisingly, law-abiding firearms owners. This bill makes the same mistake the Liberals always make on this issue. It is targeting law-abiding firearms owners instead of criminals. It is high time the Liberals stopped treating lawful gun owners like criminals.

This legislation offers plenty more red tape for those who follow the law. It will certainly create a larger burden for farmers and hunters. However, for those who disregard our laws and commit crimes, there is nothing here to dissuade them from continuing.

As I often say in this place, it is among the primary responsibilities of government to protect its citizens. In fact, our previous Conservative government understood that we could be tough on crime while respecting those who own firearms legally and operate them safely. The criminal element behind firearms violence was always where we focused our attention, yet with Bill C-71, the Liberals have entirely neglected to address the criminals who use guns to commit violence, while treating law-abiding firearms owners like criminals. Why would they do this?

As is the case on most occasions with the Liberals, they are more interested in being seen to be taking action rather than actually taking meaningful action. Let me explain.

It is difficult to address gun and gang violence; we all understand that. It is quite easy, however, to increase red tape and place new restrictions on those who are already following the rules. The Liberals get the benefit of being seen to do something even though the impact of their proposals will do nothing for the serious gun and gang violence Canadians want to see gone from their streets.

I think it is worth highlighting a CBC analysis that was undertaken on this bill, because it speaks to the way the Liberals have tried to justify Bill C-71. The Minister of Public Safety used statistics going back to 2013 to suggest that there had been a dramatic surge in gang shootings since that time. “Gun homicides are up by two-thirds”, he warned. However, he chose 2013 specifically because it was an unusual year statistically speaking. The year 2013 “saw Canada's lowest rate of criminal homicides in 50 years, and the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada”, the CBC analysis from March reads. As the analysis indicates, “What appears to make 2013 attractive as a point of comparison is that any year in the past half century can be made to look alarmingly high by comparing it to 2013.”

The Liberals want to be seen as doing something. They were able to manipulate the statistics to create a monster that does not really exist. The Conservatives know that there are still very real issues out there with respect to gun and gang violence, but the Liberals have shown they are not serious about addressing the difficult challenges.

Conservatives will not simply vote in favour of this legislation and play pretend with the Liberals. When the Liberals want to tackle serious crime, Conservatives will be the first to stand with them. In fact, they may consider looking back at our years in government for some pro tips in that regard. Canadians can count on us to fight for concrete actions to keep Canadians safe, focusing our efforts on the criminal element behind this violence. We will not join the Liberals' crusade to make life more difficult for law-abiding Canadians.

Second, I want to discuss the Liberals' claim that Bill C-71 somehow would not reintroduce a gun registry. Now, I know that my Liberal colleagues and the Prime Minister bristle when any assertion is made that this bill is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to bring back the federal long-gun registry. We have heard the Prime Minister say that they are committed to not restoring a long-gun registry and that they are not restoring a long-gun registry; it is that simple. However, somebody needs to explain to the Prime Minister, and to my hon. colleagues, for that matter, that when the federal government is using a federal registrar to keep records on law-abiding firearms owners, that is a gun registry. It is that simple: registrars keep registries. This bill is not about restricted firearms. This is not about illegal guns. The Liberals want to use a federal registrar to keep records on non-restricted firearms and law-abiding firearms owners.

Again, the bill uses the words “registrar” or “reference number” 28 times, and the words “gang” or “criminal organization”, zero times. That is why we on this side of the House have called out this proposal for what it is. It is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to bring back the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry that Conservatives were given a clear mandate to eliminate. I find it interesting that the Prime Minister dismissed this long-gun registry as a failure back in 2012. This was despite his vote in favour of keeping it intact earlier on. Therefore, we should not be surprised that he has changed his mind again. Now he wants a new registry, he just does not want to call it a registry. However, if it walks like a registry and if it talks like a registry—I think members know where I am going—it probably is a registry.

Here is why these kinds of registries do not work. In Canada, 93% of gun crimes that result in death are committed with illegal guns by people who should not have them. The people the government should be targeting with this bill are not legal firearms owners, but those in possession of illegal weapons. Therefore, why in this legislation are the Liberals ignoring gangs, and instead targeting hunters, farmers, and northern Canadians? I serve a rural riding. A lot of good, law-abiding people own firearms, and nobody knows better than hunters and farmers the importance of gun safety and the social responsibility that comes with owning a firearm. That is why it is deeply insulting to have the Liberals consistently impugn not only those people's ability to be responsible citizens, but the kind of moral equivalency we see the Liberals trying to draw between violent gang members, criminals, and then law-abiding firearms owners. The Liberals need to stop focusing their fire on law-abiding farmers, hunters, and northern Canadians, and focus it on felons, on gangs, and on the flow of illegal guns across the borders. However, instead, they continue to target law-abiding citizens, trying to trip them up into an offence by changing the rules.

I do not see any merit in this piece of legislation as it stands. It would not achieve what the Liberals say it will. Instead of targeting gangs and illegal guns, they have stubbornly chosen to keep law-abiding Canadians in their crosshairs. That is why I will be voting against this bill.

That said, I am pleased to highlight that Conservatives have been behind initiatives to address crime in Canada. As I close, I want to highlight the recent efforts of my colleague, the member for Lakeland, and her work to draw attention to rural crime in particular. I was pleased to second her motion, Motion No. 167, which called for an in-depth study of rural crime rates and trends, as well as the current resources available for rural policing and whether they are sufficient. This represents just one of the many efforts by the Conservatives to tackle crime and improve the lives of law-abiding Canadians. I am pleased to say that motion was passed unanimously by this House. With that, I want to close.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the conversations and the presentations. However, when I listen to the Conservatives, I wonder how they lost the last election. When they describe all the things they did and how perfect it was, I do not understand how Canadians did not choose them. They did not choose them because they did not do a good job. Let us be honest with that. They did not do a good job.

What parts of this bill do the Conservatives not like? They do not like the background checks. Is there something wrong with the background checks that they do not like? Or, is the part that they do not like the fact that the police would be able to track the guns? What parts do they not like? Those two parts, in my opinion, are extremely important to Canadians. Canadians want to make sure those are accessible to them. Maybe the member can enlighten us and tell us why they do not like those two very important components in this bill.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question as to why Conservatives did not get elected two and a half years ago, I am looking at two and a half hours ago, at what happened in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I am thinking that the member across the way needs to get his head out of the sand, or maybe out of the ocean, and start looking at the surf clam scam in his own area of the country. I believe his brother was recently awarded a contract by the federal government for a surf clam licence, a company that did not even have a boat. If he wants to talk about reasons why people do not get elected, we do not have to look very far.

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

Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister put forward an investment of $327 million over five years to look at the gang issue and reduce crime in our country. Under the previous Conservative government, there was only a $5-million investment over a three-year period. Instead, we have $327 million to try to get at the heart of the matter in ridings like Winnipeg Centre or Winnipeg North, or in places like Toronto and Vancouver, places that are really affected and impacted by the gang violence that goes on in our country.

I would like to correct the record. The member said that the government was not doing anything. In fact, we are doing a lot of things related to this. We are building on expertise with the provinces and territories and working with practitioners, police agencies, and social groups. These are groups such as Ndinawe and Ma Mawi, groups that work in our communities day in and day out trying to make a difference.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with the bill we are discussing. The hon. member and friend from Winnipeg Centre should look at the legislation carefully to see if this is something that would really address the situation he is talking about, gang violence in his own constituency, which is a significant problem. I realize that and acknowledge that this is a serious issue in his riding.

I will affirm very clearly, from my understanding of this legislation and from what I have read, that this will not help you at all, because it is not law-abiding gun owners you have a problem with. It is gangs, illegal guns, and the drug trade, which will only get worse once Bill C-45 is passed later this week by the Senate. You will have nobody else to thank for that but yourself—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order. I remind the hon. member for Provencher that when he says “you”, that is the Speaker, and I do not think he means that.

We have time for a very short question or comment by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the members across the way like to say, “Why do you as Conservatives not like this bill”? We like to keep things quiet within our caucuses, but the media got hold of the fact that there are a number of rural ridings on that side of the House that are very upset with this legislation. As well, I believe a constituent in the riding of the member for Lethbridge has put forward a petition that has the largest response in Canada—

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, this bill would do nothing to address the serious issues that the government should be focusing on: gun violence, criminality, and the illegal use of guns. I do not know why the Liberals would pit rural members against urban members in their caucus.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions I want to ask tonight to kind of wrap this up.

One of the main questions, as I sat here and listened tonight, is that I fail to understand why the Liberals do not even seem to know the basics of what this proposed law is about. I heard a number of things this evening that are concerning. They do not seem to know what the past requirements were for background checks. I heard a number of people talking about that. They do not seem to understand that they have been adequate in the past. There has been a good system in place for doing background checks, and it has worked well for Canadians. They do not seem to know that firearms owners have to be registered and be licensed themselves in order to own a firearm. Earlier we heard someone ask why we treat guns differently than some other things. Well, the reality with firearms is that one actually needs to be registered. One has to take the course and get the certification.

I was really concerned a little earlier about why the Liberals approach firearms owners in the way that they do. When the member for Oakville North—Burlington said that all gun owners are law-abiding until they are not, I wondered what she meant by that. There is some sort of attitude of superiority that the Liberals come with in regard to firearms owners, and we have seen this for 25 years. We saw it with Bill C-68 and the fact that they would never back down on that legislation. It cost them dozens of ridings across this country. Several elections later, they have come back with another piece of legislation. I think we are beginning to see both in Ontario, and with the results in Quebec tonight, that the attitude the Liberals have is starting to irritate Canadians. I think we are going to see a response to that, and an even better response from our perspective, in the next federal election.

Also, I do not think the Liberals understand that there is no right to firearms ownership in this country. I think everyone needs to be reminded of that. The only reason that we can own firearms is because the government gives us permission. When I talk to my friends with the Canadian Wildlife Federation on those kinds of things, they say that we need to help Canadians understand that. We do not have a right to own firearms. If we do not get licensed, we are criminals. They resent that, but they will accept the fact that we need to have a licensing regime in place.

Another concern is that I am wondering why those Liberals who have firearms owners in their ridings do not seem to be willing to listen to them. I want to point out that at the committee, the leader of the opposition in the Yukon legislature was not allowed to speak. I am told that there was not a single northern Canadian who was able to testify on how the bill would impact their way of life. I want to read a little from his briefing, which said, “unlike the provinces, Yukon only has one Member of Parliament. This leads to situations where the input of Northerners is often an afterthought and not taken into account. This is the case with this piece of firearms legislation..”.

I can tell members that there are others. I have another notice on this situation from members of the Yukon Fish and Game Association, who are very concerned that they cannot track down their MP and talk to him about this issue. This is a member who has been around on this issue before. He should be standing up for his constituents. Why is it that the Liberals in the rural ridings, the ones whose constituents depend on having access to firearms for much of their livelihood, are not speaking out?

As my colleague mentioned earlier, we heard about a few of the ridings where there was concern about this, but these Liberals need to speak out. We are getting to the end of the proposed legislation, and it is basically the re-establishment of a semi long-gun registry, where every transaction that takes place at a gun store is going to be recorded for 20 years. The firearm, serial number, the name of the person who bought it, along with their PAL number, will be recorded. That certainly has all the makings and all the components of a firearms registry, and we do not hear anything from the other side.

Another concern is why the Liberals always need to manipulate things on this file. I can go on about this for a long time. I found it very interesting that the public safety minister from Regina has appointed a number of people to the firearms advisory committee who are clearly against firearms in any way, shape, or form. It is interesting that one of them was appointed and ended up being in the vice-chair position. She was a lobbyist. She said she would step down from her lobbying activities. The agreement she signed said that she is not to “engage in lobbying activities or work as a registered lobbyist on behalf of an entity making submissions or representations to the Government of Canada on issues relating to the mandate of this committee”. However, 10 months after signing that, this person submitted a legislative demand to the Government of Canada under the letterhead of that organization, and with her signature on it.

I would go through it if I had more time, but many of the bill's provisions happen to be exactly as she has laid them out. Is she actually doing the government's bidding, or is the government doing the lobbyists' bidding, who have said they are not going to lobby the government and then turn around and do it?

I can give members another example in which the government has felt some sort of necessity to manipulate every piece of data it can on this issue. That is around the issue of statistics. As Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” With the Liberal government, that is certainly more true than almost anything else we can say about it.

It was mentioned earlier that 2013 had one of the lowest rates ever for firearms crimes. It is interesting that even CBC recognized that the Liberals are playing games with this situation. It writes, “2013 saw Canada's lowest rate of criminal homicides in 50 years, and the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada” and “every year since 1966 has been worse than 2013.” The Liberals use a year in which the stats are lower than they have ever been, and then use that to set their base, and compare it to today. Today is still below the 30-year average, but the Liberals' news releases completely mislead Canadians. When the government has to resort to that kind of manipulation and misinformation, we can see that it is not very comfortable with the legislation that it is bringing in.

The article goes on to say that the “homicide rate in 2018 will be similar to or lower than it was...in 2008...or in 1998”, and well below 1988 and 1978, and similar to what it was in 1968. We certainly did not get that from the Liberal press release we saw.

There are a number of other important issues we need to touch on. A member across the way was speaking tonight about the Assembly of First Nations. I wanted to ask him a question. The AFN has said that it was not consulted before Bill C-71 came forward. The AFN also said that the bill violates first nations treaty rights, and that it is going to launch a constitutional challenge. It is interesting to note that we have heard nothing about that, and there has been no response to it from the government. The Liberals claims to want to work with these communities, but when it comes to their legislation, they are very happy to set these communities aside, and ignore what they have to say about it and just go on.

We have heard comment tonight about Bill C-75 and Bill C-71 playing off each other. Bill C-75 has all kinds of penalties that are basically being written off for serious crimes. For things like terrorism, we are reducing the charges. Imagine there being a summary conviction for terrorism activity. The punishment for genocide is being reduced in Bill C-75. The penalties for organized criminal activity, municipal corruption, and so on are being reduced in Bill C-75, and Bill C-71 is making the lives of honest gun owners even more complicated and bureaucratic than ever. Why is the government doing that? Why are the Liberals ganging up on Canadian citizens, while they are happy to leave all of these other gangs to go through life the way they want?

There is another issue around mental health. We heard a member earlier tonight talk about how proud she was of her amendment. I am sure she had good intentions when she put it forward, but we are not just criminalizing activity anymore; we are criminalizing possible intent. She mentioned that CFOs will make the distinctions. How are the CFOs going to decide if someone is suicidal or not? What CFO wants to take on the responsibility for the entire province in trying to find every person with a mental health issue? It was pointed out earlier that there are police and veterans who have PTSD who want some help for their mental health issues. Are they going to come forward? Why would they do that with a bill like this when those kinds of things come into play in their lives and in their careers, and with a tool they use every day in their occupation?

We can be very proud of the record we have. We brought in a number of pieces of legislation, which have been criticized tonight. In terms of youth violence, we brought in the youth justice fund. The guns, gangs, and drugs component of the youth justice fund was launched to focus on the rehabilitation of youth. We created the youth gang prevention fund. We are very proud of that. We supported a national crime prevention strategy, and there is the northern and aboriginal crime prevention fund. We passed bills that dealt with organized crime and the protection of the justice system. We were always trying to protect the victims, while making sure criminals were the ones who paid the price for their crimes.

This bill is a long way from that. Why an entire bill that is supposed to deal with gun violence and gangs does not mention either of those things, and targets normal, law-abiding citizens, I will never understand.

The House resumed from June 18 consideration of Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to talk once again about the important public safety measures being brought forward in Bill C-71. At the top, I want to talk about the tone of this debate and some of the messages and rhetoric.

It is important we have that push, that thrust and parry that occurs in debate and on issues. However, unfortunately my inbox has been filled with enormous hate, including death threats over this issue, which is deeply disturbing and entirely inappropriate. Therefore, we really have to watch the tenor of our debate. This is about public safety and about working together to make our communities safer. We may have differences in approach, but those kinds of messages and death threats certainly have no place in our public discourse, and have been enormously disappointing.

Unfortunately, we have a serious problem in Canada with gun violence. Only a brief couple of weeks ago, at the Pickering ribfest, a shooting terrorized our community. This is a very peaceful event that has gone on for a long time. Only months earlier, there was a horrific multiple homicide then suicide, a domestic violence situation. That is emblematic of what we have seen over the last number of years where Canada has had a decrease in the crime rate overall, but the gun violence in all of its forms has been on the incline.

Some have said that it was low when we look back at 2012, so the fact it has gone up one-third is no big deal because it was so low before. A one-third spike in gun violence, when we had made such progress to drive those numbers lower, is a big deal. It is a big deal because a one-third increase represents a massive number of new victims, people who should not have been victimized, people for whom we could have avoided that situation. Unfortunately that increase in violence has manifested itself in a number of different ways. It has happened with guns and gangs, but tragically it has happened in domestic violence situations. Not often enough do we talk about the increases that have also occurred with respect to suicides.

Therefore, we need to look at this issue from every angle. We have never held out that Bill C-71 is a panacea that will solve all the problems of gun violence, but it is an important part of a broader strategy.

I also want to talk about the fact that when we introduced everything during the election campaign more than two and a half years ago, we said from the outset that we wanted to work with law-abiding gun owners to ensure the measures were as little an imposition on them as possible, while at the same time achieve our public safety objectives.

Let us talk about what we ran on in the platform and what is here today. One of the things we said in the platform, and this has been done in the United States since the 1970s, was that when a gun shop sold a gun, it would have to keep a record of that weapon. It has to keep a record of who of sold it to. Some concerns were raised by gun owners and members of the House that this information might be misused. Therefore, we made a concession in the platform, which is in the bill, that someone had to have lawful access to get that information. In other words, the only way that information could be obtained from a gun store was if it would help an investigation and help catch a criminal. It would allow a police office to go to a gun store, say a gun was involved in a crime, and ask who the gun was sold to. The only way the officer could get that information would be if it could be demonstrated, through judicial access, that in fact that information would help solve a crime. It is behind a firewall.

Unimaginably, the Conservatives have called this a “gun registry”. That is a piece of fantastical imagination and is on the level of believing in unicorns. The reality is that this information can only accessed by police to solve crimes. To describe it in any other way is frankly dishonest and it does this debate no service.

Another thing we ran on as part of our platform in the campaign was that when people were transporting a prohibited or restricted weapon, they would require a free permit to ensure they had authorization to take weapon wherever they would be going. a free permit. In this instance we are not talking about hunting rifles or shotguns; we are talking about high-powered semi-automatic rifles and handguns. We are talking about a class of weapon that is very strictly controlled.

We listened to the gun community. We listened particularly to sports shooters and others. They said that if they were taking it to their gun club directly and they were pulled over by the police for something else, then it would be self-evident they were going to their club and they should not require that authorization to transport. We thought that was a fair point, so we changed what we put in the platform and made that concession so it would only be required when they took their guns somewhere other than a gun club.

Some people have suggested that it should only be a person's own gun club, but we heard from sports shooters. They said that would be a great imposition. When they are competing in tournaments, they are not going to given the opportunity to visit multiple locations. They will have to get a permit all the time, which would be an enormous imposition for people who were doing this as a sport, as an example, or for Olympians. This is why we allow people within the province to drive to any gun club and not require an authorization to transport.

However, in the fewer than 10% of instances when people are taking their guns somewhere other than a gun club, then they are required to get a free permit to demonstrate they are taking them where they should be taking them. By the way, the permits can be emailed to them and they can show it as a PDF. Some people asked why they should do that. There are a couple of very important reasons for this.

If we look at the rules today and do a hot map of any city in Canada, not having that provision means a person can have a prohibited or restricted weapon in the car at all times and be able to explain to police that he or she is taking it somewhere. The individual is allowed to take it to so many places that effectively there is no restriction on driving around with a handgun, a high-powered semi-automatic rifle, or even a fully automatic prohibited weapon in their car.

We have heard from the OPP and the RCMP, and certainly we have heard very clearly from the chiefs of police, that there have been many instances where police officers have pulled people over for one offence and have noticed a prohibited or restricted weapon in their car. The individuals in question are not going to a gun range, the officers cannot figure out where they are going and there is nothing the officers can do. Therefore, police say it is important to have that authorization to transport, which is free and can be provided as a PDF. It provides an important public safety instrument. By the way, again, that represents only less than 10% of the cases. It certainly does not make sense to me that people are sending me death threats over this kind of measure.

As well, the bill would do a couple of other important things. It was actually Jason Kenney, a former member of the House, who talked about the need to have expanded background checks. The reason for this is that unfortunately in a five-year window, somebody's violent history may not be captured. I have spoken in the House before about instances where unfortunately, and all too often, women trapped in violent relationships do not report that violence and do not come forward. It can drag on for years. When the woman finally escapes that relationship, the individual in question can go in and buy guns legally because his violent history with women has not been reported on for more than five years. That person is then able to purchase weapons and unfortunately shoot his former partner dead. It has happened far too many times in the country.

Sadly, gun violence occurs with both registered and unregistered weapons. The measures contained in the bill, and there are a lot more than I have time to address today, do important public safety good to ensure we are a bit safer.

This is one part of the puzzle. We are putting $100 million a year into the guns and gangs strategy to build up our strength at a local community level, to make our communities stronger and more resilient against gun violence. The work we are doing to improve the situation at the border, of the illegal transportation of weapons into this country, is so vital. We saw so many cuts to CBSA and to the RCMP. We are restoring those cuts, ensuring that strength is present.

It is part of an overall strategy to make our communities safer, while ensuring we have as little imposition as possible on those who use firearms responsibly.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things to challenge. There is a requirement to register every sale, every firearm, registrar the person buying, register the seller, register the PAL number, and keep the information for 20 years. Therefore, I do not know how those guys can pretend this is not a registry. I want to ask the member something specific about that.

Section 102 of the Firearms Act allows for firearms officers to review, seize, or copy any records, kept as a requirement of a business licence, without a warrant. Under the bill, businesses are required to keep those records. How does the member square that circle? It is already in the previous legislation that firearms officers can demand that information without a warrant. The Liberals are claiming that they are going to need a warrant to go into businesses to get the information that will basically form the new registry.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member can imagine the circumstance today where there is no requirement for a store to keep a record of who they sold a firearm to. There is no requirement, but this bill would change that. I think that makes good sense, because most stores, I would say the vast majority, do keep records, but for criminals thinking of buying a gun to commit a crime, are they going to go to a store that keeps records or are they going to go to a store that keeps no records? By the way, when a person is committing domestic violence and has no connection to gangs, they would go and buy—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does the member know how many people have been shot and killed with legally acquired firearms where there was a history of violence? And by the way, her name is Lindsay Wilson. She was in my riding and she was shot and killed.

These situations are real, and our need to protect women in this country is real. This bill would do important public safety good, and it deserves an honest and real debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have three minutes and 15 seconds coming to him when we resume debate after Oral Questions.

The House resumed from June 18 consideration of Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and talk about what I believe is very important legislation. It is legislation that comes from a great deal of concern that Canadians have expressed to the government in the last year, and it is an issue that has been at the forefront in many communities in all regions of the country even before the last national election.

We saw a commitment given by the Liberal Party of Canada to look at ways to enhance background checks, for example, to have some sort of accurate and consistent classification. Legislation that was brought in from the Harper government said that we wanted to determine what would be a prohibited or restricted weapon and give that determination to politicians, as opposed to allowing the RCMP to make that determination. That is the direction the Harper government had taken on that issue.

As a result of that and other concerns, it was widely believed there was a need to bring in legislation that would make our communities safer. That is what we are talking about today in the form of Bill C-71. I have been following the debate and listening to what members across the way are saying, in particular last night when at times we were having a fairly heated exchange. Conservatives often refer to Bill C-71 as a way in which the government is trying to create a registry. There is really no truth to that whatsoever.

The Conservatives are trying to go back to the days when there was a long-gun registry and our Prime Minister has been very clear on that point. In part, the Conservatives have felt frustrated because we are keeping to the word of the Prime Minister when he said we would not be creating a long-gun registry.

No matter what we say in the House, we have had direct quotes from the Minister of Public Safety and others indicating that this does not create a registry. When the bill went to committee, the issue again came up. It was quite telling when the Conservative critic for public safety proposed an amendment to ensure, “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.”

The Conservative Party brought forward this amendment. That amendment passed unanimously, by all members of Parliament at the committee, the Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats. It ultimately led the member for Red Deer—Lacombe to clearly state, “everybody at this table agrees that this is not a registry”.

Let us contrast that to what members in the Conservative Party were saying last night in the House. They were trying to convey a message that this is all about a registry. Collectively, the Conservative Party is trying to mislead Canadians as to what the bill is about. They are doing it for all the wrong reasons.

The Conservatives want to divide Canadians and spread a mistruth about good legislation we have, legislation I believe the vast majority of Canadians would be very supportive of.

I would suggest Progressive Conservatives would be supportive of it. I understand former member of Parliament Jason Kenney, now leader of the Conservative Party in Alberta, supports certain aspects of the legislation, from some of the comments he has made. For example, I made reference to the enhanced background checks and licence verifications. There are certain situations in society where one should seriously consider not allowing ownership. Domestic violence is a great example of that. This legislation would enhance that aspect. That is a positive thing. I believe people of all political parties recognize the value of that.

It would also standardize the retail record-keeping. During the eighties and the first few years of the nineties, there was a registry maintained by retailers. It is my understanding that in the United States it has been ongoing for years. I was once told that the NRA, which many suggest is fairly right on the issues of anything related to guns, supports retail gun registries. I believe we will find many of the retail outlets are gifted these logs. They are encouraged. I see going back to the way it was, having these retail registries, as a positive thing. In the past, Conservatives have agreed to them.

Getting back now to this whole idea of the accurate and consistent classifications of firearms, if we were to canvass constituents on whether politicians or the RCMP should be doing the classification, I believe we would find a great deal of support for having the RCMP doing it. They would feel much safer with the idea of the RCMP doing it. The RCMP is dealing with the issue at the ground level.

When I think of Bill C-71, it is about making our communities safer. It is not about what the Conservatives are trying to tell Canadians it is all about, which is a gun registry, because that is just not true. In the backrooms, we will find Conservatives will admit that is not true, but it does not fit their narrative. I find that to be very unfortunate. When I am in the community of Winnipeg North, I see many of the concerns many urban and rural community members have, as well as the types of responses we have been getting to the legislation overall. I would suggest this is good, sound legislation, and the Conservatives are determined to prevent it from passing. I find that unfortunate.

I understand my New Democratic friends, and possibly the Green Party, are going to be supporting Bill C-71. If that is the case, I applaud them on making a good decision. At the end of the day, this legislation would fulfill yet another commitment the Liberal Party of Canada made to Canadians going into the last federal election. That is why I feel very good about standing and talking about yet another piece of legislation that would put into place a commitment made by this Prime Minister and my colleagues in the Liberal caucus when we knocked on doors in the last election.

It will make a positive difference in our communities in all regions of our country. I encourage Conservatives to reflect on what was said in committee by Conservatives, get behind this legislation and vote for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to assure the parliamentary secretary so quickly after his speech that indeed I plan to vote for Bill C-71. The Green Party is very supportive. In fact, I had the great honour of participating in the crafting of an amendment to the bill, working with the hon. member for Burlington. She was willing to take a Liberal amendment and craft-in my amendment, which included raising as a concern, as decisions were being made about legal gun ownership, whether there was not only a previous offence involving a firearm, but a restraining order or other concerns about violence against an intimate partner or use of a weapon in those contexts.

This bill is welcomed. There are many things we need to do to continue to advance security issues across Canada. However, this is a good bill, and I look forward to voting for it.

My remarks fall under “comments”.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the input of the leader of the Green Party on the legislation. Obviously, we agree with her and we are pleased to hear the Green Party is in support. Her comments remind me of the degree to which the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness reached out and looked for opinions from different stakeholders and, most important, from Canadians in different regions of our country. He has put together good, sound legislation.

The leader made a reference to restraining orders or peace bonds that are put in place. They are put in place because often there is a fear factor that compels a person to get a restraining order. Imagine the potential relief that this would provide, at least in part. As I say, it is positive legislation that will have a positive impact.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary implied that retailers do not keep records of firearms they sell. That is categorically wrong. All the retailers I know of keep those records, and so that is a misnomer in and of itself.

This legislation would not combat the number one problem we have as far as crimes and firearms are concerned, and that is illegal firearms. It is illegal guns that are smuggled in, primarily from the United States. There is no mention of that whatsoever. In fact, this is what I would call lackadaisical legislation in the sense that farmers, sports shooters, and competitive shooters are the most law-abiding people I know. This is simply laying over more red tape on top of people who are already obeying the laws. Could the parliamentary secretary explain how that would substantially reduce firearms violence in Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to give the impression that retailers did not already maintain some sort of a registry. This legislation puts it into place in a very formal way, as it was done in the late 1980s to early 1990s. Former Conservatives actually supported that.

The member asked what the legislation would do in regard to illegal guns. Do the Conservatives think we can pass legislation that would make it illegal to have an illegal gun?

The member talked about the legislation. Now it appears that the only opposition to the legislation is that it does not deal with illegal gun owners and possible regulations. The member did make reference to regulations also. I do not believe the Conservative Party truly understands what the legislation would do. It is good, sound legislation that would have a positive impact. There is nothing wrong with voting in favour of it.

Does it deal with illegal guns in the manner in which the Conservatives hoped it would? It likely does not. If the Conservatives can come up with a way that would assist the government in legislation of that nature, by all means they can make the suggestion.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

I have been a member of this place for nearly 13 years. I am proud that over that time I have played a part in legislation that ensures Parliament is reaching three important objectives: first, that laws are put in place to protect the public from violent crime; second, that we are standing up for victims of crime and their families; and third, that law-abiding Canadians are treated with respect.

In this case, Bill C-71 misses the mark on all three of these objectives.

I recognize, and indeed our previous Conservative government recognized, how important it is to ensure that violent offenders and those who intend on using weapons to commit crimes are taken off the streets. I am certainly an advocate for legislation that targets dangerous offenders, protects our public, and ensures justice for victims and their families. I am proud that over my time here, I have been able to do my part to do just that.

In 2013, I introduced Bill C-479, an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders. This legislation, which received all-party support, made certain that violent offenders who were clearly not remorseful or ready to be reintegrated into society could not drag their victims and their families before the Parole Board every year needlessly.

Indeed, any laws that aim to tackle violent crime must also seek to protect victims of violent offenders and their families from being re-victimized. They must also ensure that these offenders, those that are among the most likely to reoffend, do not get that opportunity.

By introducing legislation such as the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, and the Tackling Violent Crime Act, among many others, our Conservative government implemented productive, common-sense policies that treated firearms owners in the manner that any law-abiding citizen should be treated, while also cracking down on violent offenders and protecting the rights of victims.

The Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act took the power to reclassify firearms out of the hands of the RCMP and officials and put it in the hands of parliamentarians, who could be held accountable by the public. In doing so, our government sought to prevent any law-abiding citizen from being criminalized due to an unsubstantiated classification change.

The Tackling Violent Crime Act mandated jail time for serious gun crimes and made bail provisions stricter for those who had been accused of such crimes.

The Organized Crime and Protection of Justice System Participants Act provided police and justices with crucial new tools to fight against organized crime and to target reckless shootings by adding a new offence for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, regardless of whether the person caused or meant to cause bodily harm.

Of course, who could forget that we repealed the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, which did absolutely nothing to reduce crime, but did waste millions in taxpayer dollars to treat law-abiding Canadians like criminals. In fact, I would challenge my Liberal colleagues to show me any data that would prove that there has been any increase in firearms crimes from legal firearms owners since the firearms registry was eliminated.

These are just a very small sample of the measures our previous Conservative government took to protect our communities and keep Canadians safe.

It is a shame now that the current Liberal government is trying to undo the progress we made. We have seen over the past two and a half years that the government cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting the public, while also protecting the rights of farmers and recreational and competitive firearms owners.

Bill C-71 proposes a myriad of changes that would potentially criminalize law-abiding Canadians, while doing nothing to target violent offenders or organized crime. The bill would put firearms classification powers back in the hands of unelected officials who Canadians cannot hold accountable, and risks unsubstantiated changes that would indeed create legal problems for people who have done nothing wrong. For my colleagues across the way, we experienced that in the last session when changes were made. Some members of Parliament who possessed firearms were criminalized by the changes.

What is worse is that the Liberals are pretending they are not trying to bring back the long-gun registry, which is nothing less than misleading. This bill would create a registrar to keep track of transfers of non-restricted firearms, yet the government insists it is not bringing back the long-gun registry.

I took the liberty of doing a quick Google search for the word “registrar”, and right at the top of the page was a definition that read, “an official responsible for keeping a register or official records.” That certainly sounds like a long-gun registry to me, and it sounds equally as wasteful and ineffective as the last one.

Originally, our caucus was optimistic about the government's intentions when it accepted our amendment at committee, which stated, “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.” However, much to our surprise, it rejected our additional amendments that would have ensured that the elements of Bill C-71 to bring in this new long-gun registry were taken out of the bill. The government can say that it is not bringing back the long-gun registry, and I have heard it say that many times, but that does not make it true.

Meanwhile, Bill C-75, the government's legislation that proposes to overhaul the Criminal Code, would reduce penalties for very serious crimes, in some cases down to simple fines. The penalties for crimes like participating in the activities of a terrorist group, advocating genocide, and participating in organized criminal activity are being reduced in one piece of legislation, while farmers are being potentially criminalized in another. That is absolutely shameful.

The riding I represent, Flamborough—Glanbrook, is home to many farmers, hunters and sport shooters. These are people who are legally and safely using their firearms to protect their livestock and their crops, and who are participating in recreational pastimes that are ingrained in our national heritage.

I have heard from a wide variety of firearms owners in my riding who are deeply concerned that the government is targeting them through this bill, while completely neglecting to address rising crime rates in rural communities across the country which are particularly derived from illegal imported firearms.

I personally enjoy going down to the range for recreational purposes, and I completely understand the concerns of my constituents. They are concerned that they could be randomly criminalized by bureaucrats who they would be wholly unable to hold to account. They are concerned that the government is increasing red tape and treating them like criminals when they have done absolutely nothing wrong.

As has already been pointed out by our Conservative caucus several times throughout debate on this bill, this new long-gun registry that the Liberals are bringing in through the back door is treating law-abiding Canadians like suspects, and that is just not right.

The tandem of Bill C-71 and Bill C-75 is symbolic of much of the last two and a half years, where the government has been terribly ineffective on numerous files. The Liberals introduced these two pieces of legislation with the notion that they wished to tackle gun violence. However, they are doing nothing of the sort. What these bills would do is potentially criminalize law-abiding farmers, hunters, and sport shooters, and reduce the penalties for very serious and violent crimes. What they would not do is make our communities safer.

Canadians want to feel safe in their communities and their homes. They want a government that ensures that those who pose a threat to them and their families are taken off the streets. Bill C-71, and Bill C-75 for that matter, would do nothing of the sort.

This legislation is not only deeply flawed, but wasteful, and quite frankly offensive to the thousands of law-abiding Canadians who it will affect. Our Conservative caucus is determined to ensure that the laws we produce in this place protect our communities and respect the rights of law-abiding Canadians. Anything less is not good enough.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I disagree with the member and his comments. If we look at this bill objectively, we see it is a bill that does an extremely good job of protecting the rights of lawful gun owners for the recreational and sporting purposes. However, at the same time, it moves to strengthen the laws that we do have around gun legislation.

I know the member talked quite a bit about this being a form of a registry. He said that this was just a way of it coming in through the back door. I know that has been an ongoing Conservative talking point since this debate has come back to the chamber. However, the situation is this. If members heard what the minister said this morning, he commented directly that the Conservative members on the committee admitted the fact that this was not a gun registry. He even went beyond that. He read out a motion put forward by a Conservative member, specifically identifying that this was not to be construed as a registry, which would be the fact for anybody who would be implementing this law.

Does the member disagree that the Conservative members of that committee did their due diligence? With respect to the ones who we would think would be inclined to know something about what was going on because they studied the legislation, does he disagree that they did not know what they were doing when they put forward that amendment?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer my colleague from Kingston, which is my hometown. It is a nice place. Too bad it is represented by a Liberal.

The fact that the word “registrar” is in the bill indicates, as I mentioned, that there must be something that the registrar is responsible for, and that must be a registry.

To do a bait and switch like the member is suggesting, in order words, to accept one of the amendments that my colleague suggested but dismiss four of the others to assure that there was not any registry, is exactly the case that we are talking about here.

Earlier today, the public safety minister mentioned a guns and gangs summit that happened here in Ottawa. I do not see anything that would be a product of that summit that happened here enshrined in the bill. I do not see anything giving resources to law enforcement. I do not see anything providing new regulations in order for them to investigate the importation of illegal guns.

As the parliamentary secretary mentioned earlier, we cannot possibly make something illegal that is already illegal. Well, we can certainly draft legislation that would help with enforcement of the importation of illegal firearms.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two things I want to ask my colleague.

When we come to buy a firearm under this new legislation, we will have to register the sale. We will have to register the firearm itself. The person who is buying it will need to register. The shop that is selling it will need to register as part of the transaction. The PAL number will need to be registered. Then the information will need to be kept for 20 years. Does the member not see that this is the establishment of a registry?

The second part of my question has to do with the fact that the Liberals are saying that this information will not be available to anyone without a warrant, except section 102 of the Firearms Act already allows a firearms officer to review, seize, or copy any records kept as a requirement of a business licence without a warrant.

I would ask my colleague if he has some concerns about the fact that one part of the act says that they do not need a warrant, and yet the Liberals are misleading Canadians into believing that this information that is being held in gun stores is going to be private, unless there is a warrant involved to access that information.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I have a profound amount of concern in regard to everything the member said, not the least of which is this is simply another layer of red tape that is going to be another cost to taxpayers. It is information that is already available. I have already mentioned, and the parliamentary secretary agreed, that retailers already now make sure that every sale is recorded in their own store. A law enforcement officer can go into those stores and check it. This is simply another way to add red tape and make it more difficult for the average Canadian to comply with these laws.

I would also like to point out that the other thing the bill does not address are victims of violent crime. Concern for victims by the Liberal Party has been totally absent in this session. In fact, the victim ombudsman's office has been vacant for months, and the Liberals have not even had the courtesy to make sure there is a victim ombudsperson there to deal with the concerns of families who have been victimized in Canada.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon on behalf of law-abiding gun owners in Simcoe—Grey, like me and those across the country who feel that Bill C-71 is an intrusive piece of legislation designed as a backdoor entry for the revival of the Liberal long-gun registry.

I am not sure why this needs to be said yet again, but when it comes to gun crime, criminals do not care about a registry, background checks, or any other piece of legislation the Liberals bring forward. Criminals are criminals, because they break the law. They are not signing up for a background check or registering their guns. They will not be calling in for a reference number when they try to buy or sell an illegal firearm. They are criminals. They do not believe that they need to abide by this law or, quite frankly, any other.

The Liberals can introduce all the legislation they want, including Bill C-71, but it will have little effect on the very matter it attempts to address. All the legislation in the world is not going to stop a gang member in downtown Toronto from pulling an illegal handgun out of his pocket and shooting someone in cold blood.

Now, support for front-line policing can help decrease the crime rate, but this legislation will not. One would think that the Minister of Public Safety would understand this. If he does indeed understand this, then why is he only blindly following the orders of the Prime Minister's Office? Perhaps like his more urban colleagues he actually does not understand the situation and thinks that cracking down on farmers and hunters, people like my grandfather and my neighbours in Creemore, will actually help lower crime rates in our cities.

I know that he has produced a slew of statistics designed to instill fear in Canadians because of rising gun homicide rates in major Canadian cities. The Liberals seem to be very concerned with increasing criminal possession of firearms. This is something we should all be concerned about, yet the Liberals have neglected any investment in technologies or services to intercept illegal firearms passing across the border from the United States or other countries into Canada. Who could trust a government that cannot even stop people from illegally walking into our country, to be able to stop people bringing in illegal hand guns or smuggling guns?

Earlier this year, the Minister of Public Safety touched on the insufficient commercial storage of firearms. He used the example of a theft in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, which led to 24 handguns being stolen from a local gun store by a suspected gang member. What he failed to describe, though, was any effective legislation that would prevent this act from happening again.

Backdoor gun registries do not prevent theft and illegal trade. Sound legislation that is enforced, along with front-line support for local law enforcement can. Sadly, the Liberals have continued to fail to provide adequate funding to the provinces to support efforts to combat illegal gun activity, exactly as the minister himself has lamented.

This legislation, as I mentioned, is a blatant backdoor attempt at reintroducing the intrusive long-gun registry. Through this bill, criminal suspicion of law-abiding firearm owners will just ramp up once again. Bill C-71 is legislation designed to criminalize law-abiding gun owners and compromise the integrity of an already well-functioning system.

The mandatory record-keeping by retailers will simply lead to the re-establishment of the long-gun registry by another name. Instead of a list, the government will just ask for a series of receipts. A database is still a database, and can and will be traced to the original purchase, so let us not be surprised when those receipts become a list, and law-abiding gun owners find themselves on it.

In addition, the long-gun registry was criticized by Canadians for its considerably large cost, and the level of suspicion incited on gun owners. An increase in the size of government bureaucracy and red tape, a well-known Liberal trait, will accompany this legislation as well.

For many Canadians, rural and urban, firearms ownership is of great cultural significance. For some, it is multi-generational, with grandfathers passing on their love of hunting to fathers, who pass it on to their sons and, increasingly, to their daughters. For many others, shooting is a hobby, an afternoon at the range with friends on a weekend.

However, the public safety minister and the Liberals like to distort statistics to instill fear in Canadians as a reason to take actions like this. The minister's friends in the media will use headlines littered with firearm homicides, particularly from the United States, in order to feed that fear. Unfortunately, this legislation would not address the source of the problem at hand: gang violence and organized criminal activity. Those conducting the majority of homicides, gangs, and those who facilitate organized crime would continue to slip through the cracks with this legislation,.That is the very matter that needs to be addressed.

Canadians already feel safe with the current gun control laws. The RCMP knows those who have been issued licences and the strict process that has to be followed to receive them. We have in place today sensible legislation and regulations that are appropriately followed and actively monitored by highly trained members of the RCMP. We can all agree that increasing gang violence is a grave concern and a tremendous burden on those who have witnessed or have been involved in tragic events. We all want to prevent the next tragedy conducted by a person using an illegal firearm. However, the Liberals are focused on the wrong place and on the wrong people.

Increased gun control has not prevented organized crime in the past. Likewise, this legislation would not be a step forward in combatting that crime, only a step into the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

The safety of Canadians should be the number one priority of any government. Legislation like this would not protect Canadians from violent crimes. What it would do is continue to perpetuate the sense that law-abiding gun owners, like farmers, duck hunters, my constituents, those who follow all the rules and laws, are the problem when we really need to support front-line policing to tackle gangs and organized crime.

I will be voting against this legislation in support of my law-abiding constituents, the men and women in Simcoe—Grey, many of whom own guns and utilize them on their farms, hunt, and spend time at the range with their friends. I encourage all Liberal MPs to support their law-abiding gun owners as well and to vote against this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can explain to those who are interested and are following the debate why the Conservative critic, when this bill was at committee, after moving an amendment, stated very clearly, “Everybody at this table agrees that this is not a registry.” That was after an amendment was moved by the Conservative Party which states:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.”

It is very clear from the Conservative critic and Conservative members at committee that this has nothing to do with a gun registry, and yet Conservatives in the House, when the cameras are on, try to make a point that this is all about a registry.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member opposite. There are a number of law-abiding gun owners in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Yukon. Why are the members who represent those ridings not speaking out on behalf of their constituents, as I am for mine? There are law-abiding gun owners in my constituency, individuals who follow the rules and the law. I am wondering why they should find themselves as part of a list that, as I said in my speech, is going to become a registry, one that puts those people in a position where they should not be questioned, but the Liberals want to question them every single time, about their gun possession.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it lamentable that the last speaker has politicized this by saying the Liberals want to bother legal gun owners at every possible opportunity. On an issue as important as ensuring, for instance, that lifetime background checks are conducted, a lot of legal gun owners in my riding absolutely agree that somebody who has had significant issues of violence in their lives should be reviewed with more than a five-year background check. It should be lifetime. I do not think it is appropriate to try to stir up partisan vitriol on an issue as important as making sure that Canadians are safe, not from legal gun owners who are responsible hunters or who use their guns for target practice or for sport in a responsible way. We know people get killed by their intimate partners and there are warning signs, and this bill would increase the extent to which those warning signs will be flagged.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this in my speech previously, and my constituents in Simcoe—Grey raise this continually. They feel safe. We have current gun control laws. The RCMP know who has been issued a licence for strict possession, and people have gone through the process of receiving their licences. We know who these people are already, and Canadians know that we have sensible gun registration regulations already.

What I think we are concerned about, and my constituents are concerned about, is when a receipt ends up on a list, and that list becomes a registry. All of a sudden, those law-abiding citizens do not feel like they are being treated like law-abiding citizens any longer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. We have Bill C-71 here. We have a good firearms registry in this country, because people who want to participate in firearms activities have to be licensed and get the proper certification. This bill just adds more bureaucracy. It is more of a process. It creates more difficulty for legitimate people to actually be involved in these kinds of hobbies.

I would like to have my colleague just comment on the difference between this bill, which reflects the attitude of the government on Bill C-71 and the fact that it is clamping down on legitimate, honest people across this country, and Bill C-75, which reduces the sentences for things like terrorism, genocide, criminal activity, organized municipal corruption, and those kinds of things.

Could she reflect on that a bit?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his outstanding work in this House, especially on these issues that involve public safety. Like him, I find it shocking and surprising that within the same week we are talking about two bills that deal with public safety concerns, and the Liberals seem to be on both sides of the answer to this question.

What is it? Is it that we actually are here to make sure Canadians are safe, or is it that we want to have such open, liberal access to things that we put Canadians at risk?

I do not think the government knows, and that is why we see these pieces of legislation that are not clear to Canadians about making sure they are safe on Canadian soil.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we to go the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, I will let him know that there will only be about six minutes remaining before we need to interrupt for private members' business. He will get his remaining time, of course, when the House gets back to the motion that is currently before it.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we saw different iterations of the firearms registry come before our Conservative government, and one of the mandates we had was to get rid of the registry. We did so with the exception of two copies, as we are told by the Information Commissioner. It was preserved for a person named Bill Clennett, who had made an ATIP request because he wanted to preserve that part of the data.

It seems more than strange in reference to my colleagues' comments about it not being a registry, not a backdoor registry, not a front door registry, etc.

I beg to differ, and I will quote from Bill C-71 itself. Many folks are watching this debate, especially law-abiding firearms owners who are concerned about this bill and how far it goes, and I am going to let them decide.

This is what I call the front door registry, the one that is not supposed to exist. The minister has said the government is not going to re-establish the registry. I even looked at the talking points of the Liberal Party. I looked at my phone, and the Liberals say on Twitter, “No new gun registry”.

The bill states:

The Commissioner of Firearms shall—for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of the Firearms Registration Act, chapter 15 of the Statutes of Quebec, 2016—provide the Quebec Minister with a copy of all records that were in the Canadian Firearms Registry on April 3, 2015 and that relate to firearms registered, as at that day, as non-restricted firearms, if the Quebec Minister provides the Commissioner with a written request to that effect before the end of the 120th day after the day on which the Commissioner sends written notice under subsection (2).

That is not legislation from two years ago. This is from Bill C-71, the legislation we are debating on the floor of the House right now. It seems more than strange that the minister can stand and say what we are saying is false, that we are calling what they are proposing a new firearms registry.

I will read it again, for those who did not hear:

for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of the Firearms Registration Act, chapter 15 of the Statutes of Quebec, 2016—provide the Quebec Minister with a copy of all records that were in the Canadian Firearms Registry

—that is giving the hard drive to the Quebec minister if they ask for it—

on April 3, 2015 and that relate to firearms registered, as at that day, as non-restricted firearms

I am a person who owns handguns, so I am a restricted firearms owner. We are already on a registry in the database for that purpose alone. Prohibited firearms owners are there as well, but the government says it is not creating a new non-restricted firearms registry.

I said it twice, but the Liberal members here do not seem too interested in the facts of their own bill, which are that the minister is going to pass a copy of the registry that was supposed to have been destroyed with the previous government to the Province of Quebec to re-establish a firearms registry.

I do not know how much clearer we can be. What are they going to do when they have a former firearms registry that is now three years old? They are going to update that firearms registry data.

Let us say the Quebec minister makes a request for this firearms registry of the data that was supposed to have been destroyed, and brings it into the province. This is speculation, of course, but we need not look too far to see what is going to happen. The Quebec government takes its copy and then chooses to update it. Here we go again. We have a firearms registry that is going to happen in Quebec as a result of this legislation.

The troubling part of this is that the Information Commissioner preserved a copy because of the request by one individual named Bill Clennett. That is the only reason this copy has been preserved. I am told there are two copies of this. The only reason it sits in a vault to this day is to honour a request by that individual. For no other purpose does it exist.

Therefore, for the minister now to offer a copy of that to the Quebec government goes against a Supreme Court ruling saying that the jurisdiction lies within this place and in the federal government.

It also strikes me as strange that a previous government's mandate was to destroy the registry. It made attempts to do that. Because of a request, it has been preserved. It is clear this registry's data as they sit, the two copies that exist in this vault, need to be destroyed once this requirement is met. To me, this is an obvious case of establishing a firearms registry through the front door. When I come back, I will also speak about the registry as it sits, as they try to get it through the back door.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House next gets back to the question, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies will have four minutes remaining for his remarks, and of course the usual period for questions and comments.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies has four minutes coming to him from when he last rose in debate on this matter.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will carry on with where I was before. We talked about part 1 in my reference to what the Liberals are bringing into the front door registry, by giving a copy of the Quebec registry data to Quebec. This is the backdoor registry, as we have referred to many times. I am sitting with my colleagues here, who are largely from Alberta, who know Bill C-71 well. One of the things we picked up on right away when we saw the first draft of this bill was that it would establish that backdoor registry in what is called a registrar, and that the issue of a reference number will be necessary for the transfer of firearms either from a store or from individual to individual.

It would help people who are watching tonight to hear the actual language within the bill. They have heard a lot of promises from the Liberals that they are not going to re-establish a long-gun registry. This lays out in clear language that this is exactly what is going to happen.

A registrar is the head of a registry. That is why the person is called a registrar. Regarding the reference number, the bill states:

The Registrar shall issue a reference number if he or she is satisfied that the transferee holds and is still eligible to hold a licence authorizing them to acquire and possess a non-restricted firearm.

That alone establishes that this is a registry. I will go into the details too of what is going to be required. One of the things that disturbs us as Canadians was the cost of the former registry. That is one of the big reasons we were opposed to it. It was somewhat of a $2-billion fiasco. That amount of money could have been invested in policing the border and dealing with gangs and guns. They could have put the money where it would really make a difference as opposed to building a bureaucracy.

The registrar would be required to issue a number for the transaction to occur. All that exchange of information would happen. Instead of the information being on government servers somewhere, the government would mandate the business owners to record it and keep the information. The bill states:

(a) the business must record and, for the prescribed period, keep the prescribed information that relates to the business’ possession and disposal of non-restricted firearms;

Again, it is a record of non-restricted firearms interactions and transactions. The bill then states:

(b) the business must record and — for a period of 20 years from the day on which the business transfers a non-restricted firearm, or for a longer period that may be prescribed — keep the following information in respect of the transfer:

We are talking here about 20 years or more. This is what would be part of the registry that the Liberals are denying is there. It continues:

(i) the reference number issued by the Registrar,

(ii) the day on which the reference number was issued,

(iii) the transferee’s licence number,

That number pinpoints every one of us. If I am going to be that licensee, my name is on my licence and it is attached to the number, so it picks out and says who the person is. It continues:

(iv) the firearm’s make, model and type and, if any, its serial number; and

(c) the business must, unless otherwise directed by a chief firearms officer,

This is the concerning part:

transmit any records containing the information referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) to a prescribed official if it is determined that the business will cease to be a business.

Part of the concern is where the government tends to go. It tends to creep out. It does not tend to pull in and be more efficient. My concern is that businesses are going to be required to provide this information to the chief firearms officer at his or her request. In this day of real-time information, where we have regular monitoring of our Google accounts 24-7, etc., it is going to be easier to update that information on a real-time basis. That is what most firearms owners, especially non-restricted firearms owners, are concerned about. This is supposed to be only something that is solicited, based on the needs of a particular request of an RCMP officer or whatever. This makes that jump to where it becomes a transmission where the RCMP are monitoring firearms sales on a real-time basis, all the time.

I was in New Brunswick for a few days last week. One thing that was most alarming to the people there was that it is one thing for the Liberals to say they are not going to establish a registry and then do it. Something that rural Canadians are concerned about is not just the registry, but ultimately it is the broken promise that the Liberals were not going to establish a registry.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am becoming more and more convinced that this is really good legislation based on some of the arguments I am continuing to hear from the members of the opposition. We can tell that everything they continue to bring up, whether it is with respect to a registry or the terminology that is being used, they are just red herrings, one after another that they are trying to throw out there in hopes that something is eventually going to stick.

The reality of the situation is that nobody believes that this is a registry. Members do not have to take my word for it. The member for Red Deer—Lacombe said that at committee. He said that nobody believes that this is a registry. The Conservatives brought forward an amendment at committee to specifically say to those who would be implementing the law that in no way will this be considered a registry. However, that is not good enough. The Conservatives continue to go on with their talking points, which clearly have been drafted and given to them in the lobby, about how this is a registry, because just maybe it will stick.

The truth of the matter is that it is not sticking. If the member believes that this is a registry, would he kindly explain why the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, who is a member of the same party, does not feel the same way?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberals are highlighting how they will take a quote and spin it and twist it to make it into their factual argument. It is absolute baloney. The fact that they would take somebody who is an advocate in the firearms community and twist his statement to somehow be supportive of their legislation is absolutely disgraceful.

In this chamber we have seen members across the way deny the fact that this is a registry. They have called what we are saying a falsehood when it is absolutely the truth. I have read to this House the verbatim words of the language of this bill which say it is exactly that. It gives a copy of the registry to Quebec. It could not be any more blatant that it is a front door registry.

I do not know what the member needs in order to know the truth. The member across the way who is trying to say that we do not know what we are talking about should read all of the language in the bill that re-establishes the registry on multiple fronts. I think he should try to do that tonight in his spare time.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member comes from a rural part of Canada, as do I. No doubt in his riding there are one or two gun shows that happen in various parts of that community. The buyers and sellers who go to those shows, whether to display, purchase, offer for sale, or look at the firearms, are now being challenged. Law-abiding citizens are being challenged on that day should they transport a firearm for sale. I wonder if the member would comment on the challenges that he sees this legislation will cause these people.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. The member has brought up part of the bill that I have not really talked about, which is the authorization to transport provisions. We brought in some pretty good provisions in 2015. Once firearms owners are qualified as a restricted firearms owner, as I am, there is a provision where they can take that firearm to the range, a repair facility, or a gun show. This is all based on the criteria that they are licensed, are safe to operate that firearm, and are safe to transport it. That was what we went with in our legislation.

The new legislation proposes to rescind all of those provisions for transport, which made so much sense as they reduced the red tape, so that they would not have to call the local RCMP just to transport their firearm to get it repaired. It is crazy. The resources are already maxed at the RCMP. The last thing its officers need is be answering the phone and giving authorizations to transport.

That is what we tried to do. It is sad that the Liberal government has added a whole level of bureaucracy and red tape for lawful firearms owners. I think it is sad that when the Liberals talk about going after guns and gangs they are going after law-abiding firearms owners. They are not going after guns and gangs. I wish they would.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with the respect and support of the people of my riding, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, that I rise today to speak against any Liberal legislation that would lead to another useless, wasteful long-gun registry.

“A gun registry by any other name is still a gun registry.” That is a quote from Garry Breitkreuz, a former MP. Those words were spoken by one of the finest members of the House I have ever had the privilege of working with. Garry Breitkreuz was a legendary defender of the rights of the average, middle-class working Canadians, including hunters, farmers, and sports shooting enthusiasts. I intend to channel the spirit of Garry in my comments today.

Already the threat of the Liberal Party bringing back the long-gun registry is a topic of discussion when I am out and about at the various public engagements I am invited to attend. My constituents are following the progress of this legislation very closely. They are disgusted by the cynical, manipulative ploys of the Prime Minister and his party. My constituents assure me they will never, in their lifetime, support a government that thinks harassing law-abiding gun-owning Canadians with useless regulations is fair.

Welcome to the culture wars, where left-wing Liberal Party ideology trumps common sense.

Bill C-71, the “bring back the long-gun registry” legislation, is all about the cynical manipulation of people's fears and what the government is doing to stoke those fears. Bill C-71 has nothing to do with public safety. No sooner had the Liberals tabled this legislation than outrageous, over-the-top appeals for money by the Liberals were sent out to misinform the public about the true intent behind it. Even someone whom the government expected support from was sickened by the cynical manipulation in the Liberal money appeal:

[A] member of a gun-control advocacy group established in the wake of a 1989 shooting massacre that killed 14 women at Montreal’s Polytechnique engineering school said she was shocked at the Liberal message on the heels of the firearm bill.

Meaghan Hennegan, a survivor of the 2006 Dawson College shooting in Montreal who was shot twice by a gunman outside the building in that attack, said the Liberal fundraiser was “insulting.”

“We’ve been pushing for the legislation to be put through for almost three years, and then the second thing they do is go out and start selling it....”

Hennegan said the fundraiser makes the Liberals appear to be exploiting the gun-control issue.

Welcome to the culture wars.

The decision to include Hill+Knowlton lobbyists and Liberal insiders Peter Donolo and David Rodier as consultants on Bill C-71 is proof that the government was never really serious about consulting the public about this legislation. Donolo wrote a public opinion piece in The Globe and Mail in February, in which he said, “it is now much easier in Canada to own a gun than to drive a car.” The Liberals used taxpayers' dollars to have an opinion piece published to promote Bill C-71. Lobbyists should disclose they are being paid by the government to author articles paid for with tax dollars.

Responsible firearms owners know that legally owning a gun requires taking a safety course designed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It requires passing a written and a practical test, waiting two months to pass background and reference checks to obtain an RCMP-authorized firearms licence card, and then passing a daily RCMP background check to be allowed to keep it. All legal gun owners are registered with the federal police, and so are all the privately owned handguns and AR-15 rifles.

Also with Hill+Knowlton, David Rodier is a former lobbyist for the Coalition for Gun Control and a former adviser to Allan Rock, the Liberal minister of justice who led the 1995 passage of Bill C-68, the firearms act. Rodier co-wrote an article in Policy Options magazine in March of this year, which concluded that “[g]un control presents an untapped opportunity” for the Liberal Party to win votes in the next election.

Bill C-71 will not stop gun violence in Toronto. According to a Toronto media outlet, there has been an 11% increase of shootings in Toronto from the same time in 2017, with 176 shootings, 18 fatal.

The last time there was this much gun violence in Toronto, with 359 shootings and 52 deaths, was the year when the member for marijuana from Scarborough Southwest, who is the spokesperson for making pot legal, assumed control of the Toronto police force. The police unit he created that year to respond to gun violence had, and I quote the Toronto Star of June 8, 2018, “a 10-year history of arbitrary stops and searches, allegations of assault and a public strip search in broad daylight” and “it left troubled neighbourhoods increasingly mistrustful of officers.”

That type of approach and Bill C-71 will not stop gun violence in Toronto.

Every illegal gun does not begin as a legal gun. In Canada, restricted firearms, including handguns, are registered, and have been since 1934. Turning hunters and farmers into scapegoats to deflect attention from how badly the Prime Minister is performing sickens members of the public.

In my riding, demonstrations against the Liberal long-gun registry the last time similar legislation was brought forward were not occupied by young people being manipulated by radicals funded by foreign interests. Those demonstrations were held by middle-aged firearm owners, whose first reflex is to respect the laws of the land, whose parents and their parents before them built this great nation.

Welcome to the culture wars.

The creation by the Liberals of a new criminal class, Canadians who may happen to own a firearm, or Canadians who believe that it is their democratic right to dissent against Liberal policies they reject, and who refuse to sign loyalty attestations, is the ultimate trademark of the current federal government, which excels in the practice of negative politics. Canadians reject negative, mean-spirited politics in the same way they rejected the Liberal long-gun registry when it was first introduced in Bill C-68.

The political alienation of rural Canadians by the Liberals was a far greater loss than the $2 billion-plus that had been wasted on an experiment in social engineering. It was an experiment that backfired on the Liberal Party, and it continues to backfire. This may be the worst and most enduring product of the gun registry culture war.

When it comes to the right to use and enjoy private property, my constituents all know my stand. I defend their right to own private property with the same vigour with which I defend the right of all Canadians to dissent.

Whenever constituents in my riding hear a Liberal use mealy-mouthed words like “enhancement of community safety”, they put their hand on their wallet, run home, and make sure the lock on their gun cabinet is safe.

We should have no doubt about it: Bill C-71 is the starting point to bring back the 1995-era gun registry we all fought so hard and long to get rid of. We knew this was coming when the real power behind the throne, PMO party insider Gerald Butts, stacked the firearms advisory committee with a majority of people who lack the professionalism and expertise of the people they replaced.

It is clear the Liberals did not learn their lesson the last time, with Bill C-68. That is certainly what my constituents are telling me when they find out that the Liberals are downloading a provincial gun registry, starting with Quebec. Regulating and legislating against law-abiding people, which is what we are talking about here, is just as unacceptable today as it was back when Bill C-68 became the rallying cry for protests across Canada.

When I was first elected, I was elected on the promise to protect the rights of average Canadians. That includes opposing bad legislation like Bill C-71, an act to harass law-abiding Canadians.

Among the useless aspects of Bill C-71 is confirming the licence for non-restricted firearms transfer. It is already expected under current law when the PAL is shown to a vendor. As per section 101 of the Criminal Code and section 23 of the Firearms Act, it is already a crime punishable by five years of imprisonment to transfer a firearm of any kind to an individual who does not possess a licence to obtain or possess this type of firearm.

Having to call the CFP for every single transaction and obtain a reference number serves no other purpose than to keep a record of firearms transfer. By matching the PAL to the transaction reference number, the RCMP can connect firearms to specific individuals, and this is building the framework and infrastructure for another wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry.

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

Mr. Speaker, the facts do not matter and neither does the reality. The Conservatives have a narrative. Even though it defies reality and is just untrue, this particular member, like the members across the way, has no problem with it. It is almost like putting the blinders on: It does not matter to them if it is true or not, this is what they are going to say.

Let us take a look at what the Conservative public safety critic said. He moved an amendment in committee, which reads:

(4) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.

This was a Conservative amendment, and it passed unanimously. The Liberals, the NDP, and the Conservatives all said yes to it. What did the Conservative member who moved it say in committee when the cameras were off? He said, “everybody at this table agrees that this is not a registry”. That does not fit the Conservative narrative. When the cameras are on and when Conservatives believe they can make money and cause division, out comes that narrative, which is completely void of reality.

Was the Conservative member wrong when he moved that amendment in committee, or is the Conservative Party wrong in the statements it makes inside this chamber, knowing full well that this has nothing to do with the long-gun registry?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite can distort what happens in committee, but the provincial chief firearms officer would be completely within his or her authority to record not only buyer and seller information, but also make, model, and serial number of firearms being transferred. Furthermore, it would force businesses to keep 20 years of records, including on make, model, serial number, and buyers' information.

This information is another step toward a backdoor registry, and would be accessible to the CFO. The provincial CFO already has the authority to, at any time it wishes and without warrant, audit a business's records, and make as many copies as it wants. Furthermore, under Bill C-71, should a business close, all records would be turned over to the RCMP rather than be destroyed.

Then we have the issue of lifetime background checks, but I will get into that after the next question.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, this is the backdoor long-gun registry. I think the words “registrar” or “register” were in the bill over 13 times.

This is a particularly interesting bill when you see it in light of Bill C-75, which I like to call the “hug-a-thug” bill. In Bill C-75, the government seems to be reducing the sentencing for all kinds of crimes.

Does my hon. colleague have an opinion on how this Liberal government is viewed by the general public in terms of Bill C-71 on the one hand, and Bill C-75 on the other?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-71 was introduced on the premise that it was supposed to stop gun and gang violence, but Bill C-75 would taking out all of the minimum mandatory sentences for crimes committed using firearms. They are at cross-purposes. Bill C-71 would regulate law-abiding citizens even more, and Bill C-75 would let criminals off the hook, allowing them to get out of jail sooner and back on the streets committing crime.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud as a licenced firearms owner to be speaking today against Bill C-71.

I have been listening to the debate, and I am quite amazed at the ridiculous comments coming from Liberal members.

For the member of Winnipeg North to claim that the amendment that was proposed by the Conservatives to ensure “with certainty” in the beginning of the bill that is not a registry and that this somehow changes the rest of the bill is ridiculous. That clause would put the rest of the act in conflict, and it is contrary to what it says. If Bill C-71 would no longer be a registry, then we should be striking out all the words in it that refers to “a registry” and “a registrar”.

As Conservatives, we will always support sound policy that ensures the safe storage and handling of firearms. All of us as licenced firearms owners have to take the proper courses to ensure that our firearms are stored kept under lock and key. We will support the proper screening of those who are applying to become firearms owners.

We want to ensure, as we go forward, that firearms are classified on function and not on visual looks. We also have to ensure that everyone who commits a crime using a firearm is properly treated under the Criminal Code. However, Bill C-75 would do none of that. Bill C-75 does not mention criminals, gangs, gun dealers, and is completely mute on the subject, and for that I am appalled.

Then, when we combine Bill C-71 with Bill C-75, the proposal coming from the Liberals to amend the Criminal Code, those guys want to look like they are getting tough on crime, but they are getting tough on legal firearms owners. When it comes down to the real criminals, the Liberals are going to take indictable offences that provide jail time and mandatory minimum sentences to criminal offenders and turn them into fines, a slap on the wrist. Those types of summary convictions are no way to treat real criminals, but that is the hug-a-thug, soft-on-crime Liberal mentality.

Here they are getting tough on firearms owners. They are going to make it more difficult for us to own and transport our firearms and transfer them to other people. However, if someone commits assault with a weapon, then that person can have a summary conviction, get a slap on the wrist and a fine. If people participate in a terrorist group or leave Canada to participate in a terrorist group, the Liberals are just going to slap them on the wrist and maybe put them on house arrest. There will be no mandatory minimums; it is going to be a summary conviction.

There are over 27 things. People could advocate for genocide, or abduct someone under the age of 16 or children under the age of 14 and get summary convictions. That soft-on-crime mentality is percolating through those Liberal benches, which is making Canada more dangerous. However, they are taking law-abiding firearms owners, the most law-abiding citizens in the country, and turning them into criminals. It is ridiculous. I find the mantra of the Liberals completely disgusting.

Nothing in Bill C-71 will fix the gang violence and the gun violence on our streets, whether it is in Toronto, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, or Vancouver. It will do nothing to stop it. Nor will it stop the crimes that we see in our rural communities and rural areas where there are more and more home invasions and properties being ransacked.

The member for Winnipeg North was saying that the bill had nothing to do with a registry. As has already been pointed out, in Bill C-71, subsection 29(1) says that we can provide a copy from the Canadian Firearms Registry to the Quebec government if the Quebec minister requests it. It is right here. The front-door gun registry, the actual registry that existed until 2015, is being moved over to the Quebec government.

The bill also talks about this issue of whether there is a registry. If there is no registry, why is there is a registrar in the bill? Bill C-71 keeps talking about the registrar. In section 23 paragraph (2) provides for reference numbers for the transfer of a firearm from one owner to another. We know that registrars keep reference numbers, because they have a registry.

Regardless of the rhetoric coming from across the way, we have a situation where the bill again establishes a backdoor gun registry on top of the front-door registry, with records being transferred to the province of Quebec.

We know that the registrar along with the chief firearms officers in each province will monitor the movement of our firearms from one area to the other. The only thing that will keep is that those of us who own firearms that are restricted in nature will be able to take them to our shooting clubs and ranges without having to get an authorization to transport that firearm.

However, if we want to take that firearm to a gun show, or a gunsmith to be fixed and maintained or even to return it to a peace officer, if we no longer wanted to have a firearm, or we did not want to pass it on to our family or sell it to a friend or a neighbour, we would have to get an authorization to transfer it. That is ridiculous, but that is the type of thing the Liberals believe in and that is what they have put in the bill. That is disturbing.

We can look at 2016 and look at what Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser University, who has done a lot of this work, had to say. Essentially he said that in 2016, out of the 223 gun murders that occurred, only 2% were committed by licenced firearms owners. Over half of them were committed by those involved in gangs. If the drug cartels, the biker gangs, the different gang organizations out there are committing most of the firearm offences, causing murders and criminality, then should we not be concentrating on them rather than giving them a pass in Bill C-75, rather than ignoring them completely in Bill C-71? Why are the Liberals always ready to turn a blind eye to crimes being committed by gangs.

We know criminals do not register their firearms. We know criminals do not buy their firearms from Cabela's or any other store that sells firearms. It is a ridiculous idea and an asinine policy to burden legal firearms owners, to burden our retail outlets that sell firearms with extra red tape and extra bureaucracy. They may not have to pay for a registration fee anymore, but we know all this data will be in the hands of the Government of Canada. We know that all this data, when it comes down to transferring firearms, when it comes down to transferring ownership between individuals, will be kept with a registrar. Registrars are the operators of registries.

Again, I am disappointed. It is almost 20 years since Allan Rock brought forward the first gun registry, which the Conservatives worked long and hard to get rid of it. I committed myself to that back in 1993. Here we are in 2018, talking about the Liberals bringing back an other gun registry. It is back to the future. It is the same old, same old when it comes to the tired Liberal governments. We cannot allow that to continue.

I call on all members of the House to vote against this poorly thought-out legislation, which would do absolutely nothing to protect Canadians. It would do absolutely nothing to enhance the screening of firearms ownership in the country. It would do absolutely nothing to help with our border services to stop illegal transport of firearms into the country.

This has been poorly thought out, but I am not surprised. It is coming from the Liberal government. It is an attack on law-abiding citizens, farmers, hunters, sports shooters, men and women who pass this culture on to their children and grandchildren, and I am proud to be part of that. I am ashamed to see the Liberals ramming this down our throats once again.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to an increase of paperwork or regulations. I posed a question earlier to one of his colleagues about retailers and how responsible they had been over the years. In fact, at one time, retailers were registering. Many of those retailers continue to register, even during this period of time when there has not been anything in place.

This legislation puts it in place. People have to register to buy when they are in the United States. I do not quite understand the connection the member across the way is trying to make, saying that this is going to be overly burdensome for our retailers.

I am interested in my colleague and friend's comments in regard to this. The Conservatives proposed amendment 40.2 in committee. A civil servant spoke about the impact the amendment would have if it were passed. Offences for which there would be punishment included making of false statements to procure a licence, false statements to procure a customs confirmation, so importing or trafficking, tampering with licences, unauthorized possession of ammunition, non-compliance with a demand to produce a firearm. That is just one of the amendments.

Would my friend agree with me that his Conservative colleague, who happened to be your critic for this legislation, advanced that amendment? Would the member opposite support that amendment as his colleague did? I would be interested in the member's thoughts.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members to speak through the Speaker. I am sure he did not mean my critic. The Speaker does not have any critics. The Speaker is very neutral.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had read the bill, it says in the summary, “(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.” It is a registry. It is red tape. There is extra cost. That was not required for the past five years, but it has been brought back with a vengeance by the Liberals.

We should keep in mind that the information that was kept voluntarily by retail outlets was done for warranty work. It was done because retailers were standing behind the products they sold. That is why they were keeping that buyer information. They were not sharing it.

I find this quite disturbing. Again, the misinformation and rhetoric coming from the Liberals is not at all helpful in informing this debate.

I would also like to point out that as Conservatives, we will always work on policy that will develop the best possible way to keep criminals behind bars.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the work in the committee, I was very proud to have someone from my riding, Sid Nielsen, come forward. He is an instructor in our riding. He does a lot of fantastic work. He recently took my son through his process to get his PAL. I really appreciate his work.

One of the things he has brought up and has shared a lot of concern about is the fact that right now on the licence, on the PAL, after this legislation goes through, people will no longer have the ability to take their guns to a gunsmith. Today the minister sort of talked about it, but he really did not answer the question. That is a huge concern.

If people have live guns in their homes and they are waiting for permission to transport them, it could be a high-risk situation. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been to the member's riding. It is a very rural riding, and I am sure there are a lot of hunters and gun owners who obey the law and want to ensure they handle the guns safely.

One of those things people do to handle their firearms safely is ensure they are properly maintained. In this legislation, people now will have to get an authorization to transport their non-restricted firearms to a gun shop. That makes absolutely no sense at all. We should be able to take our non-restricted firearms and restricted firearms to the gunsmith to get them fixed as required.

The removal of that provision in the legislation by the Liberals does not enhance public safety; it is actually undermining it by potentially making guns dangerous because they could misfire, they could be poorly maintained. Sometimes, extra bureaucratic work has to be done. The people will have to contact the firearms officer for the province to get an authorization so they can move their firearms for the one particular day they have been give authorization to do so. That is silly.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand again in the House tonight on behalf of the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot to speak to Bill C-71. For those perhaps watching at home, we need to at least give some context as to why we are here.

Today is June 19. We are scheduled to break for the summer this week, and the government is trying to push legislation through that it would like to have before the summer break. We anticipate tomorrow that it will bring forward the cannabis bill and may well try to push that through. However, today the government has put time allocation on a gun bill, Bill C-71. It is trying to do it at the very end of a session, thinking that the opposition will probably not stand and debate it too long. We will stand and fight bad legislation as long as it takes to represent our constituents and Canada.

The government has brought in through the back door another piece of gun legislation. Some say it is an easy step from here to a gun registry. Others say this is a gun registry, albeit not as expensive as the $2-billion boondoggle the Liberals attempted before. This bill sounds an awful lot like a piece of gun registry legislation.

For those watching, there may be some who say, “There is so much gang activity. There is so much crime in our major cities. Why doesn't the government stand up and do something to fight that crime?” This bill is in response to that. The minister stood and said that they were concerned about gun offences and crime and other things and that the bill would answer that.

We talked to every gun club, firearm association, rifle association, and recreational, angling, and sporting association. I do not know of one that supports this legislation. Why is that? The reason none of them support the legislation is a tough one. First, their major frustration is that they see that this would do absolutely nothing to curtail crime, gang crime, street gangs, and that type of criminal activity that is on some of the streets of our major cities. The government says it is going to bring forward a bill that will remedy some of those problems. Every gun association I know of says that this is not going to solve any of it, because all the government is doing with the legislation today is adding red tape, making it more difficult to own a firearm and making it more frustrating for those who have to transport a firearm.

I am a registered firearm owner, and I know exactly what has to happen when people want to own a firearm. I know the courses they have to take. I know the regulations around safe storage they have to accommodate. I know that those who typically get a licence and go through and register for the course are, by and large, very safe gun operators. I have met many who are speaking to youth and children about the safe operation of a firearm.

What would Bill C-71 do? Why is it problematic? Why are people standing and opposing this type of legislation? First, for the background check for an individual, it would leave the five-year background check and basically look at the entire lifespan to see if a person should qualify for a firearm. Therefore, anyone who, even in high school, ended up in fisticuffs with someone, and 20 years later wanted to obtain a firearm, that could come up in this background check. Someone could very well evaluate the information and say that the person is disqualified.

I have had cases in my constituency where, at the time of a divorce, a very stressful time, people have said things that 15 minutes later they would not have said. In fact, I had one case of a lady who phoned my office and basically told my staff that when she was asked if there was any domestic offence, she said that she was scared of him and that he had all these firearms, and they came and confiscated his firearms. By the way, the same lady contacted me probably a year or so later and told me that she had said that, but they had settled, and he was not a problem at all. Now, how could he go about trying to win back his firearms?

There are just so many questions about this new piece of legislation, but there should not be a question about one thing. This legislation would make it more difficult for law-abiding firearm owners, such as farmers and hunters, to operate and purchase all of the above. It would extend the background check. We do not know about the qualifications of those who would be evaluating the information or what the criteria for the evaluation would be based on. Why would there be no appeal process in this?

The Speaker is calling time, and I have not made it to my fifth point. I have not made it to the second.

The second point I think is very problematic is that it would limit the amount of transportation of that firearm. It used to be that if I wanted to purchase a firearm, I could bring it home immediately. My understanding is that one could still do that. However, now if there was a problem with a restricted firearm, I could not just take it to a gunsmith for repair. I would have to call in and explain it all. I would now have to go through more red tape if I was going to get my firearm fixed. A lot of times, when people do this, it is exactly when they are ready to use it in the lead-up to hunting season, when all of a sudden, they realize that the firing pin is not working right and they want to get it fixed.

Why would transport to and from a gun store for appraisal for a sale be taken away? We do not know, other than that the Liberals want to add red tape to frustrate those gun owners.

The other issue is licence verification. To me, this is very important. In my riding, in Hanna, Consort, Castor, Torrington, and a lot of other communities, they have gun shows. At these gun shows, people come from all across Canada. In a little town of 200, 300, 400, or 500 people, and in Castor maybe close to 800 people, they will fill the arena. People will come from across Canada, and maybe some from the United States, to purchase old collector firearms or new firearms. To do a transfer, even at a gun show, they would now have to get a purchasing number and a transfer number. They would have to go through all this red tape, in a rural riding where there is very little cell coverage to begin with.

A concern that has also been brought to me is what the chances would be, on a Sunday afternoon, of being able to get through to a government number to get that verification number. What are the chances? If I tried to get through to Revenue Canada today, I would need to be prepared to sit on the line for 45 minutes. If at a gun show I wanted to purchase a gun from maybe a farmer or someone who had a booth or table there, now they would have to call in and get a number and verify my licence. In my opinion, it is going to shut down an economic driver in some of these small towns where they have gun shows on the weekends.

I could go on. I have not talked at all about other parts of licence verification. I am told that my time is up. To sell a firearm, they would have to keep records for 20 years.

It is bad legislation. I would encourage all members of the House to fight crime and recognize that we have to do things about crime, but this would not solve anything.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on one of the themes my colleague ended his speech on, which is the issue of crime and criminality. Right now in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, specifically in Surrey, but not only there, we have a very serious gang problem and a gang war going on. A number of young men, primarily South Asian young men, have been shot to death, sometimes in public, not only putting them at risk but also sometimes innocent bystanders.

The community in Surrey is really upset about this and the lack of action they see by their Liberal representatives and the government. One thing they raise is that the government announced $375 million for a strategy last fall to deal with these kinds of problems, and they have not seen a nickel of it in their community or anywhere.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague has any thoughts on how this legislation or the government's approach to dealing with crime in our communities may be impacted by the bill and what suggestions he would have for the people in Surrey who want their streets safe and their young people to have opportunities so that gang life is not attractive to them.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. This does not address the issue of criminality. It does not address the issue of unauthorized possession of firearms by gangs. It does not at all touch on gang violence. I have news for the Liberals. There are not a lot of gun shops in my constituency where gangs are coming to purchase firearms. In some cases, it may be those stores they try to rip off to access firearms. The criminal element in our country brings in illegal firearms, and we see very little going to that.

The member has a problem in his riding that he is very vocal about, and that is the opioid crisis. I saw in an article today that 4,000 Canadians have been killed in the opioid crisis, and they do not know how to respond to that one either. We do not have a problem with long guns and law-abiding gun owners.

The issue is that there is so much money that is given to the file of public safety around firearms. Now the Liberals will have to add money to this type of legislation, and they will take it away from other parts within the same department that does fight crime, that does go up against the gangs and the criminal element. That is the problem. Resources that should be going to fight crime are going to fight farmers, hunters, and law-abiding firearms owners.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the discussion this evening trying to make some sense of where the opposition party would like to see us head with gun legislation. It is like climate change legislation we have discussed, where we are looking for the alternative being proposed by the Conservative Party. Is the alternative to follow the legislation the Americans have in both cases, or do they have any other positive suggestions they could make in terms of this legislation?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by my Liberal colleagues, who always like to compare us with the United States any time we defend lawful farmers and firearms owners. There is no comparison between the Canadian system and the American system. Zero. There is none.

Again, I believe that Canadians expect that we put in safe regulations, which we have. I have to go through an afternoon or a whole day of courses to be able to purchase a firearm. That is the point. The person who is in a gang does not have to go through that. He just buys one off the street, which the Liberals cannot seem to shut down.

What does the member suggest we do? First of all, we want to continue to educate. We want to say that we are all right with the PAL. We are okay with going through that type of exercise to own a firearm. The other thing we could do is continue to recognize safe storage. This is a very important part that makes sense. We do not have a problem with that. Gun owners I know realize that there are some expectations, and they all believe that this is over the top.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is little evidence to justify the many changes found in the Liberals' firearms legislation proposed as Bill C-71. They are trying to fix a problem that does not exist. In fact, they would only further burden law-abiding firearms owners rather than actually going after people who commit crimes. I, for one, would prefer that our law enforcement agencies and the Government of Canada spend their time, energy, and resources on cracking down on gangs and criminals.

To step back for a moment, law-abiding firearms owners do not trust the Liberal government. They do not believe that the changes found in Bill C-71 would actually make our streets safer or put criminals behind bars.

I want to focus my comments on two aspects of the legislation that are deeply flawed and why I believe the bill must be defeated.

In the last Parliament, our previous Conservative government passed the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. Found in that legislation was the sensible change of introducing an automatic authorization to transport firearms. This meant that individuals were no longer required to contact the RCMP for certain routine and lawful activities as it became a condition of a restricted PAL holder's licence. This was a common-sense change. Why would law-abiding licensed owners need to notify the RCMP that they were taking their licensed firearm to a firing range? By adding the authorization to transport their firearm as part of their licence, it freed up valuable RCMP resources. It must be said that if the firearms owners did not follow the conditions as part of their licence, they would have it revoked, which is a very severe punishment.

If the government is going to give someone the right to own a firearm, to shoot a firearm, to store a firearm, to compete with a firearm, why would we not give them the automatic right to transport a firearm?

Found in the legislation, the Liberals are reverting to the old ways of not trusting responsible law-abiding Canadians to automatically transfer their firearms. Why? Well, they think it suits their political needs, and there is ample evidence to back that statement.

Before the last election, the Liberal Party went as far as scaring the public by suggesting that an automatic authorization to transport firearms was going to make Canada less safe. During question period on November 26, 2014, the now leader of the Liberals said that the right to have an automatic authorization to transfer a firearm would “allow handguns and assault weapons to be freely transported in a trunk anywhere within a province, even left parked outside a Canadian Tire or local hockey arena”. This was and remains a very erroneous statement. The law is quite clear when it says that one is only allowed to transport prohibited or restricted firearms “between two or more specified places for any good and sufficient reason”. If we dig even further into the regulations, it says that they must transfer their firearms by “reasonably direct” routes.

While the Liberals are entitled to their opinions, they are not entitled to ignore the facts. They cannot just purport something to be true while the law says something completely different.

For those thinking that calling up the RCMP every time they want to get authorization to transport a firearm is not that big a deal, let me put on the record the number of times the RCMP previously had to go through this process. Since 2008, the RCMP issued 992,139 authorizations. That is almost one million phone calls. For argument's sake, let us just say that it takes an average of eight minutes to get this process done. That is 132,285 hours that the RCMP could have used on investigating crimes and patrolling our streets and highways.

Now that we have established the inordinate amount of time this process takes, with little evidence that it actually enhances public safety, let us dig further into the numbers. If we really think that the RCMP's issuing authorization to firearms is doing something to keep our streets safe, people might want to know that over the past seven years, out of close to one million authorizations issued, only 17 have been refused. This would indicate that it is a fruitless endeavour that really does not accomplish a whole lot.

With all that in mind, what evidence did the Liberals put forward for why we have to revert to the old ways? They put forward nothing.

When the Hells Angels start calling the RCMP to let the RCMP know when they are transferring their firearms, I might change my tune on this matter. However, until criminals decide to start applying for firearms licences, I think we should call a spade a spade and admit that seeking an authorization to transfer a firearm does nothing to enhance the safety of Canadians.

The second part of this deeply flawed legislation is the removal of any oversight of the classification of firearms. For years, there was no recourse or appeal process if a firearm was not correctly classified. That meant the individuals in charge of this process could make millions of dollars' worth of property worthless with the stroke of a pen. While I am not a hunter or a sport shooter, I can understand their frustration when a firearm they have owned for years, or in some cases even decades, is suddenly prohibited.

No one in the House is suggesting that classifying firearms should not be taking place. All we are asking for is an appeal process, or at the very least a very clear understanding of the regulations that determine the classification of a firearm.

I want to be very clear that firearms should not receive a classification based on their appearance. Their classification should solely be based on their form and function.

If the Liberals wanted to provide greater clarity on the classification of firearms, they would have legislated the firearms reference table into law. The firearms reference table information is used during the process of firearms identification, classification, tracing, importation, and registration. Right now, the public has no ability to find out what is contained in the firearms reference table or to find out the justification of why a firearm was classified as it was.

I want to salute Matthew Hipwell, a former RCMP officer who served for 17 years, for bringing this issue to the public safety committee during its study of Bill C-71. It was Matthew who brought to the committee's attention that Murray Smith of the RCMP said, “the Firearms Reference Table has no standing in law. It's simply the...viewpoint of the firearms program on classification and description of any particular item.”

This has led to all sorts of problems, as the definitions to determine a classification are neither clearly nor legally defined. They are open to different interpretation and opinion. An example is the use of the word “variant”. There is no legal definition of “variant”. Another challenge in correctly classifying a firearm is the definition of “readily and easily”, which would be applied when determining if a firearm can be reconfigured.

If the firearms reference table has no standing in law, why are the Liberals completely gutting the ability of cabinet, made up of elected representatives, to overturn a wrongful classification? This was the only possible way to correct a wrongful classification. People who want to challenge the classification of a firearm would actually have to be arrested. That is the most irresponsible and undemocratic element of this legislation. Let us think for a moment. As a firearm owner, people would literally have to get arrested in order to challenge the reclassification of a firearm they may have owned for decades.

If this Liberal legislation has accomplished one thing, it has shown the need to establish clearly defined definitions of the criteria used to classify firearms. It also must be said that after reviewing all the expert witness testimony, not a single recommendation or amendment put forward by a firearms expert was accepted.

I cannot and will never support a piece of legislation that only goes after law-abiding firearms owners. There is little to nothing contained in this legislation that would crack down on criminals. Once again, the Liberals think that duck hunters and sport shooters are the problem.

While the government blindly passes this legislation, I will oppose it every step of the way. I will always stand up for law-abiding firearms owners and advocate for legislation that will actually make our streets and communities safer. Bill C-71 fails in this effort.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find this to be a very sensitive topic and I do not know a thing about firearms, but I would like to ask my colleague about his reaction to the firearm classification system. He said that people would have to get arrested in order to challenge the way a firearm is classified. Therefore, I do not understand how the Ruger Mini-14, the firearm used at École Polytechnique, is not restricted.

I understand that prohibited handguns must be in a case and have to be safely transported when driving to the firing range. This is all controlled. But I do not understand why someone would want to shoot a hail of bullets at a duck. It is just a waste of ammunition. I do not see the point.

How is it that such weapons can be of interest to sport shooters? Would my colleague help me understand that?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague's very sound question, as he probably heard in my presentation, the classification of a gun in many cases has been done on its visual aspects, what it looks like. In my comments I said very clearly that it should be based on the function and form of the gun, not the visual similarity to another type of a weapon. That is certainly true for these types of weapons. All guns should be referenced here and licensed according to the classification of the function of the particular gun.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would like to point out with Bill C-71 is the fact that when it comes to firearms and when it comes to dealing with crime, the Liberals have it all backwards. If we look at Bill C-75 and Bill C-71 at the same time, we see that law-abiding Canadians, Canadians who are jumping through all the hoops that the Liberals put in place, are being punished by Bill C-71. However, when we look at Bill C-75, the so-called enhancements of the judicial system, we see that the Liberals are downgrading all of the sentencing for a lot of the crimes across Canada.

What does my colleague have to say about the complete lack of clarity between the two pieces of legislation?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for drawing the differences in these pieces of legislation so clearly in his question.

Here we are with legislation that we need to make sure we are going to classify by the form and function of a gun when we have legislation on the other side that would soften the sentence that criminals or gang members may get for acting illegally. It is telling that the Liberal government is bringing both of these bills forward under the auspices of trying to make it tougher on crime, when both bills would actually make it softer on crime. That is the similarity between the two, and it is unfortunate that the Liberals do not really tie in the fact, with Bill C-71, that this would not do anything to make it tougher for the criminals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his involvement in filling in for us at committee on a number of occasions. He brought some great value to the work there. I wonder whether he could provide a commentary on some of the evidence that was heard from the experts who spoke to where Bill C-71 really fails Canadians.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment in regard to my sitting in on a few of the sessions of the committee. The one that was most important to me was, as I pointed out, the one where Matthew Hipwell came as an expert in managing guns, having been in the RCMP for years but now in the business as well. He pointed out that many guns seem to be getting licensed because they have somewhat dropped into the same category as something else because they look similar.

I was very clear that firearms should not receive a classification based on their appearance. It has to be based on their form and function. That is the number one thing I learned from sitting in on some of those committee meetings. In some cases, that is not how guns are licensed today, but it should be.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in the House today to represent my constituents in opposing Bill C-71, which is causing concern not only in my riding, but across Canada, especially the rural regions of Quebec.

Let me provide a brief history lesson. The former Liberal government of Jean Chrétien promised a gun registry in 1995 at a net cost of $2 million. He believed that it would cost only $119 million to implement it and he would collect $117 million in fees. Well, it took only seven years before the auditor general sounded the alarm in 2002, saying that the cost of this initiative had reached $1 billion. Two years later, it was valued at $2 billion. It went from $2 million to $2 billion.

That does not include the harm caused to thousands of hunters and farmers across the country, some of whom lived hundreds of kilometres from major centres and risked having their guns confiscated if their registrations or renewals were not done on time. That is when we noticed the disconnect between the Liberals and rural Canada and we still see it today. We had to wait for a Conservative government to make things right.

Let us be clear. The Conservatives support common sense gun control measures and the responsible use of firearms. It always has and it always will. In fact, it was a Conservative government that added the requirement for a firearms safety course to the national safety code in 1991. A Conservative government also amended the Criminal Code to include mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences.

Let us not forget also that street gangs do not walk around with hunting rifles. That is the first thing. They like being discreet and they prefer handguns, which are already controlled and prohibited by law since 1934. Those criminals will continue buying their firearms on the black market, probably from the box of a pickup truck in some back alley in a large urban centre. This does not necessarily happen in the regions. Bill C-71 will not change that reality.

The Conservative government suspended the mandatory registration of long guns in 2006 and abolished the firearms registry in 2012 because it was costly and inefficient. Today, instead of looking forward and finding solutions to reduce the crime rate in Canada, the Liberals prefer to take us back to the 1990s by introducing Bill C-71.

First, they tell us that the bill does not include a registry, but the wording says that a retailer who sells a firearm must check the reference number with the registrar and record it in a system, where it must be kept for a period of 20 years. What is a registrar doing other than maintaining a registry? I am not sure how this translates into English, but in French, the word enregistrement includes the word registre. The word used in the English version of Bill C-71 is “registrar”, which comes from the Latin registrum, meaning “registry”.

As Jean Chrétien said, “A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof.” The Prime Minister likes to say, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” Well, a registrar is in charge of a registry.

They can claim that this registry will be simpler than the last, but there is still going to be a registry and they should not hide that fact. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Liberals are doing. They are hiding the truth from us. The minister evidently recognized the lack of clarity of Bill C-71 when he introduced it on Monday, March 26, 2018. He indicated that there was no established standard for complying with the obligation to keep records for a mandatory period of 20 years. He recognized that certain small businesses still keep paper records. I can attest to that because I am a hunter. I am not a collector, but my son and I regularly exchange firearms, in accordance with the law and the rules, and the retailer who has sold us our guns still keeps paper records, which he will have to hold on to for 20 years.

Companies sometimes change owners, computer systems are changed sometimes every five years, and even tax documents are only kept for seven years. How did the minister decide on 20 years, which is three times longer? What are the penalties if the records are lost, misplaced, or destroyed as a result of a fire or technical malfunction?

Before introducing legislation, the government must ensure that it is complete.

Furthermore, Bill C-71 requires the owners of certain restricted firearms to call and request authorization to transport their firearm every time they leave home with it.

On March 26, 2018, here in the House, the minister said that owners could request authorization by phone or by Internet, and that the process would take about three to five minutes. However, there is no government office that can serve the public in three to five minutes.

The Auditor General criticized the Canada Revenue Agency, because it is almost impossible to get an agent on the line. Many have spoken out about similar situations of being stuck on hold for 15, 20, 40 minutes, or even longer, with employment insurance, immigration and citizenship, and other government agencies. The Liberals suddenly think that gun owners will be able to get someone on the line in less than five minutes. That is completely ridiculous.

Earlier, my colleague talked about how the Internet is not as fast in rural areas as it is in big cities. In my riding, there are some places where the Internet is not available at all. People have no way to access the Internet to get the PDFs. This will never work. Let's be realistic. Law-abiding people are going to get tired of waiting, and criminals who own illegal guns are not going to call the toll-free number to request permission to transport them.

With respect to privacy, the federal government is getting ready to transfer files from the old long gun registry to Quebec authorities that are trying to set up their own gun registry. Not only is the government doing that without the consent of the people involved, but it is also transferring information that has not been updated in a long time. Registration stopped being mandatory in 2006, which was almost 12 years ago, and the files have not been updated since the registry was abolished in 2012. The government is about to transfer files that have been out of date for six to 12 years.

I ask the Liberals across the aisle what guarantees the federal government obtained to ensure that Quebec's firearms registration service, or SIAF, is fully aware that this list is largely obsolete, and to ensure that Quebeckers do not end up in a situation where they have to prove that they genuinely no longer possess the firearm listed in the old registry or face fines ranging from $500 to $5,000.

Everything seems to point to the fact that this bill was hastily put together. Furthermore, instead of taking meaningful action to reduce crime in Canada, the government did the exact opposite by opposing mandatory sentences and consecutive sentences through Bill C-38.

I am not going to vote for a bill that will create more red tape for hunters in my rural riding and that has the potential of treating my law-abiding constituents as criminals.

Instead of trying to pass Bill C-71 before summer break, I urge the government to take a step back, listen to the concerns of rural residents, and withdraw Bill C-71 before the fall.

In conclusion, I can say that people in my riding are talking to me about this bill. I consulted my constituents and received tons of feedback, several dozen responses, in fact. Everyone is on our side. No one wants a registry, and yet, despite the government's claims, there will inevitably be a registry.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very clear speech. I understand that he was expressing the point of view of his constituents, which is certainly relevant.

I represent a suburb of Montreal, so I do not really face this reality on a regular basis. He talked about how he and his son exchange firearms, following all the rules of course. Since I am not an expert, I wanted to ask him what someone who is familiar with firearms would have to say regarding the firearms used in the most recent attacks. He was quite right that criminals carry small firearms that they trade in an alley in the back of a truck. However, the hoodlums who have shot people recently have done so with firearms that, I think, are available in sporting goods stores, with a gun licence. What do hunters have to say about that? The vast majority of Canadians use firearms to hunt, which is an entirely noble activity. How do hunters react when they see hoodlums shooting all over the place with firearms that should never be sold freely?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I almost feel like returning the question and asking him what he thinks of the hoodlums who drive around and use a car or van to kill dozens of people, as was the case in Toronto recently. The principle is the same. The problem is in those people's heads; it is not the firearms themselves. Some people collect firearms, just as other people collect other everyday items or trinkets. I do not think that is the problem. On top of that, people who use firearms to commit crimes are often deranged, as we have seen on many occasions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick comment and a question.

It continues to be concerning that the Conservative Party wants to insist that this is about a gun registry, when we know that this is not about a gun registry. Even Conservatives have said that. When the bill went to committee, they even moved an amendment to that effect, which was supported by all parties. However, that does not fit the Conservative narrative. They want to continue to mislead Canadians, and that is entirely up to the Conservative Party.

The specific question I have for the member is this: Does he believe that individuals in society should be able to have a restricted weapon in their trunk or on their back seat wherever they want to go? From the Conservative Party's perspective, do these individuals have any responsibility to at least make a notification that they are driving around, or should they be able to just drive around with a restricted weapon?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to something my colleague said earlier. We see less of these in Quebec, but the rest of Canada holds what are called gun shows. People who own firearms gather together in villages, municipalities, usually very small communities and bring their firearms. That means they are transporting their firearms from one place to another. Imagine the situation. Before leaving home, these people have to contact the department by telephone or Internet to get a document that will allow them to bring their firearm to a gun show. That is just one example.

Obviously, that is just red tape on red tape, an administrative burden that most people do not need. Someone responded earlier that this will affect less than 10% of people. Why have a rule for 10% of the population? What about the 90% of law-abiding people who have no issue? Why pass legislation for only 10% of the population?

I think that people obey the law, particularly hunters, those who collect firearms, and people who take their firearms to gun shows to show them off to others with the same passion. We must not forget that these are passionate, law-abiding citizens.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand this evening to discuss Bill C-71. It is a bill that is going to change the Firearms Act, and Canadians do not trust the Liberals when it comes to firearms. That is abundantly clear.

One of the things I want to draw into this debate is Bill C-75, which is a bill the government is bringing in to change sentencing for a multitude of crimes in Canada. What are the Liberals doing in that bill? They are reducing the sentences for over 27 significant crimes. One of the crimes they are reducing them for is participation in a terrorist plot. They are reducing the sentence.

Why are the Liberals doing this? It is because they have a “hug a thug” theory that if we would just like terrorists better, they would not perpetrate terrorism against our country. We have seen this on display already. They have given $10.5 million to a terrorist named Omar Khadr. They are now reducing their crimes and have given citizenship back to terrorists.

Canadians do not trust the government when it comes to getting it right. When the Liberals come out with firearms legislation that they say is going to reduce crime, Canadians do not believe them. They say that their track record up to this point has been to reduce sentences, not to reduce crime. We have seen a dramatic increase in crime across Canada.

I was in Toronto earlier this month and met with people who said that break and enters were up in their community. In my community, we have seen rural crime up significantly across all parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan. When the Liberals introduced Bill C-71 and said that this was going to reduce violent crime and gun crime, Canadians looked at the government and said, “Really?” Nothing it has done up to this point has reduced crime whatsoever, and now we are supposed to expect that suddenly, with Bill C-71, the Liberals are going to reduce crime.

What would the bill do? Would it increase sentences for criminals? Would it ensure that if a firearm was used in a crime there would be more restrictions? If weapons were smuggled in from another country, would that change anything? Would it enhance border security? No, it would not do any of that.

What would it do? It would target the people who already have a firearms licence. People who have a firearms licence would now be required to go through an extra hurdle, an extra hoop to jump through, and call whenever they transferred a firearm.

Where I come from, firearms are a fact of life. Typically, every household has a number of firearms. It is just the way the world works where I come from. Firearms are exchanged on a regular basis. There are entire Facebook pages committed to exchanging firearms. Someone says, “I have a firearm. Come and check it out.”

The Liberals rolled out this legislation and said that we do not even have to show a firearms licence to get a firearm in Canada. That is news to me, a firearms owner who has a firearms licence. I need to show my possession acquisition licence, my PAL, every time. I have never gone to buy ammunition and forgotten my PAL and asked to have it sold to me. They have to see my licence before they sell me any ammunition.

The criminals who robbed my local firearms store certainly did not show their PAL. They just broke in and stole the firearms. That is what we are dealing with.

With this particular piece of legislation, I would have to make a phone call to ensure that my PAL was up to date. It says right on my PAL whether it has expired. That should be good enough. When I renew it, I have to fill out all the paperwork again. Once every five years, I have to fill out the paperwork again. They phone my wife to make sure that she is okay with me having firearms. Every time I renew, I have to fill out my wife's contact information, her email address, etc.

[An hon. member]

Is she okay with it?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

The member is heckling me asking if my wife is okay with it. She is definitely okay with it.

Let me tell the House, those firearms put food on the table at my house. Every other year, I typically get a moose in the freezer, and a white-tailed deer or two, as well. That is definitely what we are using those firearms for.

I use firearms for other things as well. I do not know about anyone else, but there are not many things that are more exciting on a Friday night than going to a buddy's house, throwing a few skeets in the air, and taking them down with a shotgun. That is a lot of fun. I am not sure if the Speaker has ever participated in that, but that is a lot of fun.

This particular legislation targets people like that, people who just want to hang out on a Friday night and shoot some clay pigeons out at the gravel pit. I want one of those new Benelli shotguns. I am not sure if members have seen them but they are amazing. However, now if I want to sell my shotgun to my brother, who has a PAL, and he can show it to me and I can make sure the date on it is good, I will now have to call the RCMP to make sure that the card I am looking at, that has a date on it, that says it is still good, is actually still good. I will have to call in there, and he is going to have to call in as well.

What sense does that make? All that does is it makes life more miserable for firearms owners. That is what we are looking at with this piece of legislation. It is not so much about reducing crime; it is not going after gangsters or drug dealers in urban centres. This is going after firearms owners. This is trying to reduce the number of firearms in the country, just for ideological reasons.

I know that the Liberal government is only worried about reducing the number of firearms because, at committee, the Liberals were layering requirements on legal firearms owners, firearms dealers, and firearms stores, making sure that they keep records for 20 years, make all these phone calls, and register all these transactions.

This is registry. Whether or not a firearm is being registered or the transaction is being registered, the government is keeping tabs on the firearms in this country. Given all of that, I know that the only thing this bill is there to do is to reduce the number of firearms in this country. At committee, we moved an amendment to change the date on which the bill would come into effect. The date that this bill comes into effect is June 30, 2018, a week from now.

I do not think that this bill will be passed into law by June 30. However, that is the date in the bill. We expect that this bill will probably be passed into law sometime in the fall. We said that we wanted to make an amendment to change that to “whenever the bill comes into law”. The Liberals said no, they could not change that date. The date is June 30, and if the bill comes into law much later in the future, that date still has to be used.

That is so that we reduce the number of firearms that will come in under the exemption that is going to be in place after this bill is passed. The Liberals explicitly say that they want to reduce the number of firearms that come into this country. That is what this bill is all about. It is reducing the right of Canadians to bear arms. It is reducing the right of Canadians to buy firearms.

My NDP colleague over here always asks why people need a particular firearm. I am not a stamp collector. I know nothing about stamps. I take my hat off to those people who are stamp collectors. I ask them all the time why they need a particular stamp. They have lots of good reasons why they need a particular stamp. I think, well, all the power to them.

I have friends who are that way with firearms. They never use them. They have them sitting in their collection. When I go over to their house, they open the door on their gun case and say, “Check this out. Look at the new firearm I just bought. Is it not amazing?” I ask what they are ever going to use it for, and they say they are not going to use them, they just think they are cool. That is the same way for a lot of our firearms owners. They just want to be able to show that they have the coolest firearm on the planet Earth. They do not intend to use it. They just want to have that firearm in their collection. I do not necessarily understand it, just like I do not understand the stamp collector.

I think it is a right of Canadians to own property that brings them enjoyment.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, but there are some nuances we have heard on this side of the House, and one of them is that the bill has nothing to do with gangs and guns in our cities. I want to take him back to a moment in 2017, when the Minister of Public Safety announced $100 million to fight guns and gangs in our cities. What did the party opposite do? It voted against it, not once, but multiple times.

The Conservatives advertise that this is a backdoor gun registry, which we know is false. Any farmers or hunters are not going to feel the pain of an application. They are not going to feel the pain of a test. They are not going to feel the pain of any extra costs to do what they have been doing every single day. Why is the Conservative Party of Canada collecting data on law-abiding citizens of Canada who own guns?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are continually going on the record saying that this is not a federal gun registry, and yet the bill takes the data from the old long-gun registry, which sat with the courts until the Liberals came into power and the courts handed it back to them. It makes a provision in the law to allow the Province of Quebec to gain access to the entire former federal gun registry. If that is not a federal gun registry, I do not know what is.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sat through the very passionate debates about the gun registry in the House, and I want to remind everyone that often these debates have certain real-life underpinnings. One was the École Polytechnique massacre. There are other cases around the country where people who should not have had guns got their hands on them and real people died.

I thought the comparison my hon. colleague made between stamps and guns was an inappropriate one for the very obvious reason that guns are objects that can do serious damage and kill. I do not think any philatelist has ever killed anyone with his or her stamp collection.

I do realize that there is a wide variety of perspectives on gun ownership in our country. We are a big country. What might be an appropriate position in a rural area where there are farmers and hunters is a very different thing from that in an urban riding, like the one I represent. This chamber should represent that diversity of views.

What would my hon. colleague propose would be good legislation that would be directed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs that should not have them, as opposed to legislation like this, which is meant to tighten up regulations so that we ensure responsible gun owners in this country are complying with the rules and that police, in particular, have a tracking system so they can track guns, and those who should not have guns do not get them?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my best proposal is there just would be no criminals in our country. That would make everything a whole lot easier.

One of the things that would work better is to ensure that our border security is a little tighter, ensure police have the proper resources to do their work, but also just create a culture where we all understand how firearms work and how they are used in this country.

One of the things the Liberals said right out of the gate is that people do not have to show their licence in order to purchase firearms or ammunition. That is patently false. I would ask my hon. colleague what he sees in this particular bill that would do anything to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. What would help a great deal is to ensure that the black market is not full of firearms.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

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

This legislation would have an impact on many of my constituents who are law-abiding gun owners. In fact, this legislation would have a big impact on many Canadians.

Hunting is a big part of the livelihood, traditions, and recreational choices of a significant number of Canadians. Some Canadians also own firearms to protect their crops, livestock, or themselves from rabid animals, and animals like bears or coyotes. Others enjoy competing in recreational shooting sports and some are collectors. Whether they are hunters, farmers, sport shooters, or collectors, what these Canadians can be certain about is that Bill C-71 would result in greater unnecessary restrictions.

I do want to be clear that public safety should always be the priority of any government. Safe and sensible firearm policies are necessary to ensure public safety. Mandatory firearm safety courses, safe storage and transportation measures, and licensing are all common sense measures that contribute to public safety in Canada, measures law-abiding gun owners follow already. Under the guise of tackling gun violence and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, the Liberal government has brought forward Bill C-71.

The Liberal government's rhetoric is deceiving. A review of this legislation quickly reveals that the Liberals have completely missed the mark. This legislation would do nothing to address gangs, gun violence, and escalating crime rates in our rural communities. Instead, it would target law-abiding gun owners. It would treat Canadians who legally own firearms as criminals. In fact, a measure in this legislation has the potential of inadvertently making criminals of Canadian men and women who have legally purchased a firearm.

The Liberals are repealing parts of the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. Specifically, the bill would put the ability to classify weapons solely back in the hands of RCMP bureaucrats, meaning the legislation we have before us would allow the RCMP to prohibit a firearm without notice. That could result in the confiscation of a firearm that was legally purchased and the owner could then be subject to criminal charges.

In 2014, unelected bureaucrats decided to reclassify Swiss Arms rifles and CZ 858 rifles. They were reclassified as prohibited, making it illegal to import, buy, sell, or own them. These rifles had been legal in Canada for years and many responsible law-abiding gun owners had purchased these rifles legally, but the decision to prohibit them turned these lawful gun owners into criminals in possession of prohibited firearms.

Our former Conservative government enacted common sense legislation that restored the property rights to these individuals. It created an appropriate balance, where based on expert advice, the government makes the rules and the RCMP interprets and enforces them.

Another measure that this legislation repeals is the authorization to transport a firearm to specific routine and lawful activities. The Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act automatically gave individuals with a licence authorization to transport their firearm to a shooting range, a police station, a chief firearms officer, a gunsmith, a gun store, a gun show, a border point, and home from the place of purchase. As indicated in the act, this measure was common sense. It removed unnecessary red tape.

Bill C-71 would repeal these measures. It would only allow for a firearm to travel to a shooting range or home from a place of purchase. Any other of the aforementioned activities would require a specific authorization to transport, issued at the discretion of the province's chief firearms officer.

Issuing authorizations to transport firearms to routine locations, like a gunsmith for repair or to the chief firearms officer for verification or registration, is unnecessary. It in no way addresses the criminal element behind gun violence.

Let us talk about the real elephant in the room tonight. This legislation is a backdoor attempt to bring back the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry. The long-gun registry introduced by Chrétien's Liberal government was costly. Canadians were told it would only cost them $2 million, but in the end it cost more than $2 billion, and for what purpose? It was ineffective. There is no evidence that the long-gun registry prevented any crime in Canada. It seems that criminals and gang members never took the time to fill out the necessary paperwork. And there is no evidence that the new registry would be any different.

I admit that the Liberals have said that this legislation does not reintroduce a firearms registry. At the committee stage, they even voted in favour of a Conservative amendment denouncing any effort to re-establish a registry of non-restricted firearms. However, by now we all know that what the Liberals say and what they do are often very different.

The Liberals are said to be tackling crime through this legislation, but words like “gang” or “criminal organization” are not found in the text of the bill. What we do find are words like “registrar”, “registration”, “records”, and “reference number”. That is because this legislation creates a registry of non-restricted firearms. Bill C-71 would require firearm retailers to create and manage a registry of licensed non-restricted firearms buyers, which is a registry they would need to surrender to the chief firearms officer upon request. People would also require permission from the RCMP registrar of firearms to buy, sell, give, or loan a non-restricted rifle.

This begs the question that I know many of my colleagues on this side of the House have asked. What does a registrar do? The answer is quite simple: a registrar keeps a registry. The Liberals are using a federal registrar to keep records on non-restricted firearms. This is the “2.0” version of a federal firearms registry.

Canadians want safe and sensible firearms legislation, but that is simply not what the Liberals have offered them. Instead, they are creating more unnecessary red tape for law-abiding Canadians. They are casting suspicion on law-abiding firearms owners, while doing nothing to address the criminal element behind gun violence. Their priorities are backwards.

This is made only more evident when we consider Bill C-75, another bill introduced by the government. Bill C-75 lessens the sentences for serious and violent crimes to sentences as little as a fine. Some of the crimes that would be eligible for lighter sentencing under this legislation include participating in a terrorist activity, activities relating to human trafficking, kidnapping, forced marriage, or impaired driving causing bodily harm. These are very serious crimes. The punishment should fit the crime. A fine is not the appropriate sentence for these crimes and it is insulting to victims.

The Liberals are weakening the Canadian criminal justice system and making light of serious crimes. At the same time, they are sending a strong message to law-abiding gun owners by treating them like criminals.

I cannot support legislation that does nothing to address gangs, gun violence, and the escalating crime rates in rural communities. I cannot support legislation that enacts a backdoor firearms registry, and unnecessarily burdens law-abiding Canadians with regulations.

Bill C-71 is flawed legislation because it does not take appropriate action to prevent or deter gun violence. It burdens law-abiding Canadian citizens with red tape and villainizes my constituents who are hunters, farmers, and sport shooters.

When it comes down to it, the Liberals have again proven that they cannot be trusted to bring forward sensible and effective firearms legislation.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, I represent Fundy Royal in New Brunswick, a largely rural area. Through the course of this discussion on Bill C-71, I have taken the opportunity to consult with many firearms owners in my riding, to understand their concerns and to feed their concerns back into this legislative process, which I found to be a very productive exercise.

Has the member across the way consulted with any domestic violence victims advocates, or with any women's groups or youth? Youth, in particular, are now in the habit of having to regularly practise lockdowns in their schools. The reality is that, even though they live in rural areas, gun regulation is very important for them. Can the hon. member share with us the consultation that she has done with other groups in her riding?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I find that question quite interesting. Again, I live in rural Canada, in Saskatchewan. Every person I have spoken to who is a law-abiding firearm owner takes the measures that he or she needs to take, by storing it safely under lock and key. These people have licences. People I have consulted with have said that the current Liberal government is not listening to them and to the concerns they have, and they do not appreciate taking nine-to-five Ottawa to rural Canada.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all hope that this is one of the last debates in the House tonight. I am pleasantly surprised because we are having an interesting conversation about the varying realities across Canada's different regions.

I understand that my colleague is opposing what might be seen as a registry. If someone said that all semi-automatic weapons were prohibited and therefore not readily available, I would think that an easing of the rules is possible.

Does my colleague think that firearms users would understand that firearms which can shoot multiple rounds from a magazine need to be prohibited and not be available for unrestricted sale? If those firearms were not available for sale, would a registry still be necessary?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what this is, though. We have a piece of legislation that is not addressing gangs and criminals, the people who are stealing these weapons. As I said, and I will reiterate, law-abiding gun owners have their guns under lock and key, so they are not easily attained. It is not fair to punish law-abiding citizens when they are doing what they need to do. What the government needs to do is look at how it can combat gun violence by gangs, in urban and rural areas. I have a rural area where we also have gang violence. It is not fair for the government to punish law-abiding gun owners. The firearms owners I have been speaking to in my riding are not happy with this whatsoever, and they cannot wait until the day in 2019 when this gets repealed.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us summarize some of the key issues I have heard from Canadians all across the country, including the nearly 79,000 who have signed the e-petition, stating that they are opposed to Bill C-71.

First, the proposed bill does nothing to tackle gun, gang or rural crime. Criminals do not register their firearms as we know.

Second, the claims made by the public safety minister, his parliamentary secretary, the Prime Minister, and the rest of the Liberals that the bill goes after criminals while respecting firearms owners are inaccurate and insulting to millions of Canadians.

Third, the Liberals will not call this a gun registry. The rest of the country thinks that it is a gun registry. I guess we will have to leave it to Canadians to decide when they vote in the next election.

We saw what the Liberal MPs really thought of Bill C-71 when we finished our work at committee. Mere moments after ratifying the legislation at committee, with the Liberal majority against the Conservative objectives, the Liberals moved to call a study on issues raised precisely by witnesses, just minutes after stifling Conservative amendments that would have improved Bill C-71.

The Liberals called on the minister to address the real issues facing illegal firearms getting into the hands of criminals; administrative and process issues resulting in criminals getting firearms licences; and improving regulations on firearms storage for retailers and firearms owners. All of these issues are more productive than anything the minister has put forward, and none of the MPs on that committee had the courage to tackle these issues in the legislation when that bill was before us at committee and when they had the chance.

It is time the Liberal government start to take public safety and its duty to protect Canadians seriously. However, it is not taking these issues as seriously as it needs to. Rather, it is targeting law-abiding gun owners and delaying funding for police.

In the fall of 2017, the public safety minister made an announcement in Surrey, B.C., where there is a real gang problem. Gang violence and shootings are a regular occurrence there, and police and communities need more help to tackle these criminals. At that time, he promised $327 million to combat gangs and guns. It was a great announcement, and no doubt one that helped the Liberal MP from South Surrey—White Rock secure his seat since it was made during the by-election.

To date, not one dollar has moved on that funding. Reports suggest it will take a full two more years for the Liberals to make that funding available to police. Since that announcement, the Liberals have tabled Bill C-71, pushing the House by limiting debate and testimony, and ramming it through with almost no amendments, despite nearly every witness saying it was not a good bill.

Looking at the Liberal motions that followed the four days of study on Bill C-71, we saw that the Liberal MPs had little to no understanding of the subject matter, were confused by the current laws, and made little or no attempt to fix the problems that were clearly presented to the committee. The Liberals suggested, again, after the study had been completed, that the minister review the reference process for possession and acquisition licences.

We heard from a Liberal insider who testified, very passionately, about the tragic loss of her daughter. Her killer was described as a non-violent boyfriend but “manipulative and controlling”. He had a firearms licence and legally purchased at least one of the guns that he shot her daughter with. The witness stated that he had an arrest for drug trafficking, forcible confinement, assault, uttering threats, and received only two years probation. To be clear, this individual should never have been granted a firearms licence and was in no way eligible for one with the charges and convictions against him. It was human error that caused this to occur, not a gap in legislation.

Section 5 of the Firearms Act, as it was back then and is now, states, “A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm”. Further, it says that if individuals have been “convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code”, which is anyone convicted of an offence, they are ineligible for a firearm.

It also states that anyone convicted of “an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted”, and, “an offence relating to the contravention...of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act” is ineligible.

Moreover anyone who “has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence” is also ineligible to legally acquire a licence to obtain a firearm. That is what the legislation is currently and was before Bill C-71 was introduced. The bill specifically dealt with this section.

Clause 2 proposed amendments to section 5, so it was certainly in the scope of the bill. In fact, clause 2 was one of the few areas where any amendments were made. The committee agreed that we amend clause 2 to include language that anyone who “...has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence or threatening conduct on the part of the person against any person” or who “for any reason, poses a risk of harm to any person” is ineligible for a firearm licence. To be blunt, not much changed.

The Liberals on committee felt so strongly about this issue of reference checks that they decided to call no new witnesses and hold no added meetings. They made no call for the minister to increase resources to ensure a thorough review of reference checks.

The Liberals also called for the government to examine firearms storage and commercial storage regulations. This is ironic, since the Liberals blocked industry representatives from coming to committee. As with numerous cases during the testimony, this recommendation makes it crystal clear that the Liberal MPs who voted for Bill C-71 still have no idea what the current laws and rules are around firearms in this country.

Here are the rules as per government regulations for storage for non-restricted firearms. They must be unloaded, must be locked in a room that is hard to break into, or have a trigger lock so that they cannot be fired. Ammunition must be stored separately and locked.

For a restricted firearm, like the sidearm I used for policing, it must be unloaded, must have a trigger lock, and be locked in a room or safe that cannot be easily opened.

Ironically, the motion calls for the government to work with all relevant stakeholders, something it did not apparently think was important enough to do during the legislation. Seven of the individuals the minister says were consulted in preparation for Bill C-71 stated that they were not consulted at all, contrary to the minister's suggestion.

The Liberals finally called for the minister to look into straw purchases and that, “the Government study mechanisms to identify large and unusual firearms transactions, especially those involving restricted and prohibited guns, to better identify illicit straw purchasing schemes, gang activity, or trafficking operations”.

I find it funny, that the minister stated that Bill C-71 would deal with this issue. He said it would help police trace guns used in crimes, detect straw purchasing schemes, and identify trafficking networks. However it does not. The Liberals are now calling for it. It is clear that even though Liberal MPs voted for this in committee, they did not even believe their own minister.

The fact is that while some of the suggestions from the Liberals might have merit, they ring hollow. We had an opportunity and an obligation to go after illegal firearms, gangs, and violent crime when the bill came to committee. Sadly, the Liberals lacked the courage of their convictions and passed a pointless bill, a bill they ironically gave so little credence to that they immediately moved to do other things after voting in favour of it.

Bill C-71 would not increase the safety of our communities. It would not combat gangs and illegal firearms, because criminals do not register their guns. It would not provide new tools for police or more resources to deal with the issues. And for my colleagues in the Liberal party, it would not provide any added political cover in the next election.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my colleague's speech he talked about this being a registry, and we have heard this time and time again coming from the opposition. I would offer to the House that is nothing more than a red herring.

The Conservatives do not have an argument and do not have a solid position on this issue. Time and time again they suggest that this is a registry when they know full well that it is not. Do not take my word for it though. Let us return to the member for Red Deer—Lacombe who said in committee, “everybody at this table agrees that this is not a registry”.

In the context of being in committee where people can talk freely and have a discussion about this, members of the Conservative Party are saying that and then they come into the House and insist it is a registry.

Is the member now suggesting that the member for Red Deer—Lacombe was incorrect and that he was wrong when he said it is not a registry? Or are the Conservatives just coming here with their talking points because they have no other argument against this legislation? Is that the more plausible thing?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was dreaming of this question. I thank the member for asking it. Typical for the Liberal Party, that quote was taken completely out of context. I was right beside the member for Red Deer—Lacombe. It is a quote.

What is really interesting is that the Liberals can say whatever they want in clause 2 of this act, and then throughout the rest of the bill, they continue to act as if the bill is a registry. They keep reference numbers there. They keep the whole context of “registrar” and “registry”. It is not what we think. Tens of thousands of Canadians, who have already voiced their disapproval of this bill, still consider it to be a gun registry. Canadians have heard the rhetoric of the Liberal Party before. They could not be trusted before, and they certainly cannot be trusted now. We will wait and see.

This bill is pointless. It has nothing to do with the real issues of guns and gangs. We do not need any lessons from the Liberal Party on what Canadians know is best for them when it comes to gun legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed, because I found the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner so reasonable in his approach when we were at committee working on clause by clause. However, I find the ramped-up partisan rhetoric on this bill to be really dispiriting.

This bill was never intended to take on gangs. Gang violence is another issue. It is related, but it is not the same thing. We have talked at committee about my own experience. It happens that a member of my family is very involved in this and is actually a prosecuting lawyer within the B.C. task force on organized crime and dealing with gang crime.

This is about tightening up the restrictions on who can own a firearm. This is a fact. It is not an invented thing at this hour of debate. It is clear that this bill extends the background check from five years to a lifetime. I think the hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner sees the sense in that. It is really important that we actually look at a history of violence, even if it goes back more than five years, that we look at the risks to intimate partners if someone has ever had access to a gun or made a threat that falls short of what is currently in the act.

He is right. What is in the current firearms act covers a lot of things, but it does not cover when an intimate partner has had to get a restraining order against someone who has threatened his or her life. Therefore, I ask the hon. member to be honourable and to admit that this bill has benefits for public safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's accuracy at committee as we were going through amendments.

The reality is that currently, before Bill C-71 came along, criminal record checks and background checks for people applying for a licence did not go back five years. We heard from those who actually do these checks that they go back over the lifetime of the individual when they apply for a PAL. The suggestion that they only go back five years is mistaken.

Is there a need to improve the inability of people to access firearms who have a record or mental health issues? Absolutely. It was the Conservative Party that was the first to bring in prohibitions, the removal of licences, and the removal of firearms from those who are convicted or accused of domestic violence.

I appreciate the hon. member's question. The current legislation is void. There are some steps to be made. I think, however, that this bill does not do it, as required by Canadians, for public safety.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” is a popular reference to William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet seems to argue that it does matter that Romeo is from her family's rival house of Montague and that he is a Montague himself. The reference is often used to imply that the names of things do not affect what they really are. Juliet compares Romeo to a rose, saying that if he was not named Romeo, he would be just as handsome and would still be Juliet's love.

In the case of Bill C-71, a gun registry by any other name is, well, a gun registry.

At committee stage, the Liberals passed one of the CPC amendments, which has been often quoted. It stated, “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.”

When the Liberals adopted this amendment, we expected that they would also support changes that would remove the elements that essentially created a gun registry. Unfortunately, they did not. They kept the registrar tracking of the transfer of firearms, keeping a centralized government record, and that is a registry by another name.

It is very cynical and disingenuous of the Minister of Public Safety and other Liberals in the House to try to skew this as support for the language of the bill. It was much like watching the President of the Treasury Board the other day defending the Liberals' slush fund in vote 40 in the estimates by quoting the current and the past PBO, pretending these gentlemen were in support of the Liberal slush fund. However, Kevin Page, the former PBO, said that there is no way it is an improvement, and the current PBO said that their incomplete information will lead to weaker spending controls.

The bill before us would remove the reference to the five-year period that applies to background checks on licence applications, thereby eliminating any temporal restrictions on such checks. It would require that whenever a non-restricted firearm is transferred, the buyer must produce a licence, and the vendor must verify that it is valid, which would require a registrar to issue a reference number for such transactions. The bill would require commercial retailers to maintain records of their inventories and sales, and such records would be accessible to the police. It would put the power to classify weapons in the hands of the RCMP bureaucrats and take it out of the hands of parliamentarians, and it would amend the Long-gun Registry Act to allow a province to keep its gun registry records. It sounds like a registry.

What is missing from Bill C-71 is any reference to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs.

What bill does mention gangs and organized crime? Bill C-75 does, but only in relation to lighter sentences. What does Bill C-75 do? It lessens sentences to as little as fines for those participating in the activity of a terrorist group, much like the returning ISIS terrorist wandering around the streets of Toronto. If the government ever gets around to having him arrested, maybe we will hit him with a fine.

The penalty for administering a noxious drug, such as a date rape drug, can now be reduced to a fine. The penalty for advocating genocide is now reduced. It is somewhat ironic that the Liberals would use the word “genocide” in Bill C-75 for reducing the penalty, when they could not bear to say the word in the House to describe what was happening to the Yazidis overseas. The penalty for participating in organized crime would also be reduced in Bill C-75.

To sum up, Bill C-71 would go after law-abiding gun owners, and Bill C-75 would go soft on crime. Maybe we will set out some tea cozies and ask returning ISIS fighters to sit around the campfire and sing Kumbaya together.

To make the streets safer, I have to ask why the Minister of Public Safety does not just get up from his seat, walk about seven benches down, and tell the Minister of Justice to do her job and appoint some judges to the judiciary. In the Jordan ruling, people have a right to a timely trial, but the Liberals have not appointed enough judges, so we are letting accused murderers go. I want to talk about some of them.

Nick Chan, from Calgary, walked free this week. Who is Nick Chan? He was charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and instructing a criminal organization. If the Liberals want to get guns off the street, why do they not appoint judges so that we can keep people like Nick Chan in jail? He has also been accused in the past of murdering three other people and has been charged with firearm offences. Here we have Bill C-71 going after law-abiding gun owners, and we let someone like Nick Chan, who is charged with illegally possessing guns, go because we have not appointed judges.

James Coady, in Newfoundland, facing drug trafficking and weapons charges, was let go because there was no judge and he could not get a timely trial.

Van Son Nguyen was released in Quebec, the third accused murderer released in Quebec because he could not get a timely trial.

Lance Regan was released in Edmonton because, again, no judges.

However, let us focus on Bill C-71. Here is the worst one. A father was accused of breaking his two-week-old baby's ankles. He had his criminal charges stayed because he could not get a timely trial. The grandmother of the poor kid said, “We were angry, we were crying, we were outraged that he was able to get off with this (ruling).”

However, the Liberal government is tying us up with Bill C-71, going after law-abiding gun owners and ignoring its duty to appoint judges, letting murders go free, letting someone who breaks the ankles of a two-week-old baby go free. This is the priority.

In a television interview, the parliamentary secretary for justice said, “We border the largest handgun arsenal in the world.” I assume he means America. However, this bill would do nothing to address that issue.

The Minister of Public Safety says, “it's the drug trade, in particular, that is an intrinsic part of gang culture and gang-related violence and arguably causes the most harm in our communities” and that it is made worse by the “opioid crisis”. What do we have? Vote 40, the slush fund, which is supposed to get money out the door faster, has $1 million to address the opioid issue.

I want to talk about the departmental plans. Departmental plans are plans that every department has to put out. The departmental reports describe departmental priorities and expected results.

I will go to the Minister of Public Safety and see what his plan says, “If we can find a way to intervene early before tragedy strikes, we should.” Here is a hint for the Minister of Public Safety. He should walk down the row and tell the justice minister to appoint some judges and then maybe we can intervene before tragedy strikes.

He talks about safer communities being central to Public Safety Canada's mandate. He invites all Canadians to read the Public Safety Canada 2018-19 departmental plan to find out how it is keeping Canada and Canadians safe.

I have read the plans. I do not think anyone from the other side of the House has, and I am pretty sure the Minister of Public Safety has not read his own plans that he signed off on.

Under the section on national security and terrorism, it sets out four different targets. Departmental results indicate that the first one is Canada's ranking on global terrorism. I am surprised the government has not even set a target to compare things to. The next is Canada's ranking on cyber security, but there are no past areas to compare it to. Then the percentage of the population thinks the right mechanisms are in place for them to respond to terrorism. Once again, there is no target set. It goes on and on.

Under community public safety, and this is great, there are seven targets, three of them have no past targets to refer to. Therefore, the government is pulling a number out of the air as the target to achieve. For the percentage of stakeholders reported consulting public safety, the target is set at 60%. However, there is nothing in the past to compare it to. For stakeholders reporting good or very good results on projects funded through Public Safety, it is 80%. Compared to what? Nothing, everything is not applicable. Here is a great one. The crime severity index is going to go up. This measures, as it says, the severity of crime in Canada. This actually goes up over last year and up over the Harper era.

For the percentage of Canadians who think that crime in their neighbourhood has decreased, the goal for next year is to have it worse than it was in previous years. For crimes prevented in populations most at risk, it shows a drop in results. For the percentage of at-risk populations, there is no target. For the difference between police reporting in first nations communities, again, it shows a drop in results. The three-year plan actually shows 23% in funding cuts to community safety.

This shows the Liberal priorities. Instead of going after terrorists, instead of going after criminals, instead of going after gangs with guns, their priority is to prey on law-abiding gun owners and re-establishing a registry. It is a shame.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his very passionate and fact-filled speech on Bill C-71. One of the interesting aspects of this that has been touched on many times today as we have debated the bill is how little mention there is, in fact zero mention, of guns and gangs in the bill, but the words “registry” and “registrar” are mentioned many times. In fact, I think it was 38 times in this legislation.

Why does my hon. colleague think that is? Why are there so many mentions of registrar and register, yet zero mention of guns and gangs? Is this in fact a registry?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. A registry by any other name would still be a registry. If we look at the definition of the word “registrar”, it says the official responsible for keeping a registry for official records. It is very clearly a registry.

The member also talked about the lack of addressing crime. In the Liberals' budget, they stated they were going to put aside $253 million immediately for addressing gun crime and then $100 million a year after that. That money does not show up in the estimates. When we look at the promise for Statistics Canada, the Liberals are spending just as much to reinstate the long-form census as they stated they were going to spend on preventing guns from getting into the hands of criminals.

Again it goes to the Liberals' priorities, a long-form census and another form of registry are more important than actually keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It is all very liberal.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today and the hon. member spoke about Bill C-75 in conjunction with Bill C-71 and the fact that the Liberals are limiting the ability of judges and giving the option of imposing lesser sentences for some of the most egregious crimes in this country. Can the member comment further on how that is going to impact Canadians?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil for his hard work on the file. I talked earlier about the failure of the Liberal government to appoint judges. We have had over 200 serious criminal cases across—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I am glad my colleagues across the way find releasing murderers very humorous. We on this side do not think it is a laughing matter.

We have had over 200 serious cases of criminals being released because the Liberals had not appointed judges. On top of this, look at Bill C-75 lowering the penalty for being involved in a gang, lowering the penalty for using date rape drugs. It is a disgrace. The government needs to set its priority at looking after Canadians and not being soft on crime.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a trifecta. I am almost like the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

I want to address an issue that the legislation fails to address and that is the issue of guns and gangs. There have been high-profile incidents. Does the hon. member think this piece of legislation is going to solve those guns and gangs issues that we saw recently in Toronto and in Surrey?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his third question and his hard work on the file. He is right in his comments. Nothing in Bill C-71 is going to address the guns and gangs issue.

I am a former gun owner. I had a couple of handguns. I belonged to a gun club in Edmonton. It is very ironic. The name of the gun club was Phoenix. It has, like the Liberal Phoenix fiasco, actually gone under. I spent a lot of time at the Wild West Shooting Centre in West Edmonton Mall. Gun owners are the most conscientious, law-abiding group and again Bill C-71 focuses on those who are following the law and it does nothing against those who are breaking the law.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 28.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 20, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 to 28.

The House resumed from June 19 consideration of Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order adopted Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-71.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #879

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 28 defeated.