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.

An Act in Relation to Firearms

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

moved that Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to begin debate on Bill C-71. This is important legislation that prioritizes public safety and effective police work, while treating law-abiding firearms owners and businesses fairly and reasonably. With this bill, we are upholding the commitments that we made to Canadians during the last election. To be clear, that includes our commitment not to reinstate a federal long gun registry. As we heard a couple of weeks ago at a policy summit here in Ottawa, many Canadian communities have been facing a steady increase in gun violence over the past five years.

Crime rates generally in Canada have been on the decline for decades, and of course that is a very good thing. However, offences involving firearms are bucking the positive trend. They have become more prevalent since 2013. There were almost 2,500 criminal incidents involving firearms in Canada in 2016, and that was up by 30% since 2013. Gun homicides are up by two-thirds. Cases of intimate-partner and gender-based violence involving firearms, as reported to police, are up by one-third. Gang-related homicides, a majority involving guns, are up by two-thirds. Since 2013, break-ins for the purpose of stealing guns are up by 56%. These are realities that we need to face.

Also by way of context is this. The majority of firearms owned by Canadians are non-restricted. They are typically long guns, like hunting rifles and shotguns, used in a manner that is fully compliant with the law. In 2016, however, 31% of all gun-related homicides involved these types of firearms that do not need to be registered. Furthermore, while cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa, and Regina have been particularly hit by violent gun crime, in my home province of Saskatchewan more than 60% of such crimes actually happen outside the major urban centres. In the Atlantic provinces, there is a similar pattern, where 56% of violent gun crimes occur outside the cities. Hard evidence shows a gun violence issue that is serious, appears to be worsening, and is not confined to big cities or to particular weapons. Bill C-71 would help in five important ways.

First, it would enhance background checks for those seeking to acquire firearms. Right now, when a person applies for a licence, there is a mandatory look back over the immediately preceding five years to see whether the applicant has engaged in violent behaviour or whether he or she has been treated for a mental illness associated with violence. That five-year limitation would be removed by Bill C-71, so the applicant's full record as it relates to violence and criminal behaviour can be taken into account. This is in fact a measure once proposed in a private member's bill introduced in Parliament by former Conservative MP and cabinet minister, James Moore. As he said at the time:

...if a person has ever committed a violent crime in their life never does that person get to own a gun. If a person has ever beat his wife or ever committed rape or ever committed murder and is released from jail, never in his life does that person get to own a gun in Canada. This is effective criminal justice and this is something the Liberals should put into law.

Those are the words of the Hon. James Moore, and the provision that he was recommending is in fact included in Bill C-71. It is also important to underscore that when it comes to mental illness the background check that we are talking about involves only mental illnesses associated with violence. We all have friends and family who have dealt with mental health issues, and in the vast majority of cases there is no violence associated with it at all, so those people would not be affected.

The second important way that Bill C-71 would make our communities safer is by enhancing the usefulness of the existing licensing system.

Since 2012, when a person acquires a non-restricted firearm, there has been no obligation for them to demonstrate that they are authorized to do so. To be clear, vendors can check voluntarily, but there is no legal requirement to do so. In other words, a person could apply for a firearms' licence, undergo a background check, be denied because of a history of violence, and then go on to buy a shotgun anyway, because the seller does not actually have to check whether they have a licence or not.

Let me provide another practical illustration for why this provision should be mandatory. Picture a small firearms shop where a customer has shopped for many years. In 2016, that customer was one of hundreds of people who committed violence toward his partner with a firearm present. The court ordered him to forfeit his firearms and his licence. Today, a few years later, he drops into the usual shop looking to buy a rifle. The person behind the counter currently has the option of verifying whether the customer's licence is valid or not, but they are not obligated to do so. Having sold several firearms to this same customer over the years, the sales clerk decides that he knows the customer well enough and does not have to run a check against the licence.

Bill C-71 will ensure that the salesperson is required to make that call to the firearms program. This is just basic common sense. The process for doing so will be efficient and straightforward. The RCMP will operate a call centre, as well as an online portal that will be open 24 hours a day. The verification will take about three to five minutes, and for transactions involving non-restricted firearms, no information about the firearm itself will be sought or retained. The call is to verify the validity of the licence, not to identify a non-restricted firearm.

Third, Bill C-71 will support police officers investigating gun-related crimes and crime-related guns by requiring commercial retailers to apply good, common business practices in maintaining adequate business records of their inventories and sales. Most, in fact, already do so for economic, safety, or liability reasons, and because it may have a bearing on such practical things as their insurance.

Their records would be private and not accessible to governments, but police would be able to gain access given reasonable grounds and with judicial authorization as appropriate. This would help police trace guns discovered at a crime scene, detect straw purchasing schemes, and identify trafficking networks.

In the last few days, we have heard from some folks who have been raising concerns about this being some kind of new long gun registry, and that is simply not the case. According to A.J. Somerset, a firearms expert, a hunter, and a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, “The sales records are maintained by the retailers. So the government does not have access to them, so they can't be treated as a registry. In fact, it's going to be exactly the same system that exists federally in the United States, and nobody complains there is a registry in that case.” In fact, the requirement to keep business records has existed in the United States since 1968.

The co-owner of High Falls Outfitters, a firearms retailer in Belleville, Ontario, says that while the long gun registry tracked “where guns are kept, the home, the addresses, all these different things.... All they are asking for now is for store owners to keep records of who bought the gun, and under what PAL (Possession Acquisition Licence). It just gives the police a starting point when they have to investigate a crime.”

The fourth important public safety measure included in this bill has to do with ensuring the impartial, professional, accurate, and consistent classification of firearms by RCMP experts. Parliament, of course, will always control the definitions that create the various classes of firearms. As is the case with many other laws and regulatory frameworks, the rules will be written by the elected officials in this House and then interpreted by law enforcement.

Currently, as we all know, there are three classes of firearms defined by Parliament in the Criminal Code: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Within that frame, we will rely on the technical expertise of the RCMP, not political considerations, to determine which guns belong in which class. This means that we are repealing the authority the last government gave itself to overrule RCMP determinations.

When we repeal that power, we will automatically invalidate two decisions made by the previous government to assign a lesser classification to two particular groups of firearms, one Swiss and the other Czech. These are firearms that the RCMP, applying the definitions established by elected officials, believe to be deserving of a higher classification than the previous government gave to them. In the interests of fairness, we will grandfather the ownership of these particular firearms so innocent third parties are not put offside with the law through no fault of their own.

Finally, Bill C-71 would bolster community safety in relation to restricted and prohibited firearms, mostly handguns and assault rifles, by requiring specific transportation authorizations to be obtained for moving those types of guns through the community, with the key exception of transportation between a residence and an approved shooting range. This is an important tool for police because it helps them determine whether a person is taking their restricted or prohibited firearm to somewhere it should not be.

As with verifying a licence, the process for obtaining an authorization to transport is simply a matter of calling the hotline or logging in to the online portal. This legislation would implement practical measures, all of which are directly connected to public safety outcomes. That is why the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says it is “encouraged by the positive direction taken by [the government] towards sensible firearm legislation enhancing the tools available to #policing to ensure public safety”.

There are four other matters, which are not in Bill C-71, that I look forward to discussing with my provincial and territorial counterparts as well as with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and the Canadian firearms advisory committee.

One was raised with me by the mayor of Prince Albert, Greg Dionne, who is concerned that insufficient commercial storage rules allowed the thieves in that city to snip one cable and steal 24 handguns from a local gun shop and those restricted weapons are now in illegal circulation. It is certainly worth examining whether the current after-hours commercial storage regulations are appropriate.

Second, at the suggestion of Poly se souvient, I would like to look into whether it is reasonable for commercial firearms manufacturers to promote the sales of their wares, namely restricted and prohibited weapons, in a manner that particularly glorifies violence and simulates warfare. Is such promotion consistent with public safety?

Third, as raised by the mayor and the police in Toronto, do we need a mechanism to identify large and unusual firearms transactions, especially those involving restricted and prohibited guns, which may be indicative of some illicit straw purchasing scheme, gang activity, or a trafficking operation?

Fourth, as is done in the province of Quebec already, should other provinces consider requiring medical professionals to advise provincial authorities about persons who have diagnosed conditions that are likely to put the lives of other people in danger?

The pros and cons of these and other questions will be given very careful future consideration. As we examine these matters, our priorities will always be protecting people and communities, supporting the police, and ensuring fair and reasonable treatment for firearms owners and businesses.

Those are the very same priorities that guided us as we developed the legislation which is now before the House in Bill C-71, and they will continue to guide us throughout the parliamentary study of the bill ahead. However, as that study unfolds, as members of Parliament consider the details, if they come up with good and useful ideas that can improve the legislation, we are always open to interesting, useful, new suggestions.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. He said that we are debating a bill that is missing a few matters.

Why is the minister in such a rush to introduce a bill that is so flawed?

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

Madam Speaker, we worked very carefully with a great number of people across the country to prepare the legislation. We listened very carefully to ideas, suggestions, criticisms, and comments. The legislation has been prepared to accomplish the three objectives that I mentioned: support public safety, assist the police, and make sure that we are being fair and reasonable in the treatment of firearms owners and firearms businesses.

On the basis of all of that good work, the legislation is ready to go. It responds very directly to the statistics that indicate gun violence unfortunately has increased in this country since 2013. We do need to deal with that negative trend.

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

Madam Speaker, needless to say, this has been a divisive issue within our country. The Liberals and Conservatives have deliberately tried to turn communities and Canadians against one another.

I congratulate the minister on his efforts to come up with a more sensible approach. That said, despite the positive steps, we do still have concerns about certain aspects, particularly retailers keeping records, which is already common practice among most businesses. How is this process going to be standardized? What kind of consultation will be done?

This bill calls for a standardized process for record keeping. That is appropriate, and we support it. However, I wonder if the minister could explain how the government plans to determine best practices and standardize the process among all businesses.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome the comments by the hon. member, and I also welcome his suggestion.

As the member indicated, there are a great many well-established retailers, large and small, that already, simply as a matter of good business operations, keep records of their inventory and of their sales. They do so in a variety of ways. Some of the larger retailers do it online through a computer system. Others do it manually and enter information into a ledger.

We are certainly happy to work with the retail community to make sure that the necessary business records are in fact kept, but that is accomplished in a manner that is efficient from the point of view of the business operators themselves. I think looking at the best practices of the operators who already keep those records is probably the very first and best place to start, because that common business practice that is already in use is something that should inform the standardized requirements.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, as a member from Quebec, I still recall, with great sadness, the tragic events at the Polytechnique and Dawson College. I personally have met with representatives of victims of the Polytechnique tragedy.

What practical measures can we emphasize in order to demonstrate that Bill C-71 will help respond to the concerns of the groups representing victims of those sad events, while also preventing future potential tragedies?

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

Madam Speaker, every provision in the legislation is aimed at helping to reduce the tragic situations that the member has referred to.

Every year on the sombre anniversary dates, we all gather from all political parties to share the memories and grief, and to turn our minds to how, in reasonable and practical ways, we can make our society safer.

Improving background checks will help to make our society safer. Making sure that licences are valid when transactions occur will help to make our society safer, as will making sure that the business records are kept. While they are not generally available to government, they will be available to police forces on reasonable grounds and with the appropriate judicial authorization to pursue criminal activity with firearms.

We will have a consistent, appropriate, and professional classification system that will ensure that firearms are in fact properly classified in the three different classes that presently exist. Where a restricted or prohibited weapon is being transported, except in the case where the transportation is between a residence and a registered shooting range, the transportation will require a specific authorization so that public safety authorities like the police in local communities can know—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, I do have to cut the minister off to allow for other questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that we all have a responsibility and a duty to make things safer. You probably heard me, and a lot of other people—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to advise the member that he is to address the question to the Chair and not to the minister.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister knows that a lot of people have criticized this bill, including members of his party, I hear. The bottom line is that everyone is concerned, including members of his own caucus. The minister made a statement quite some time ago to deal with illegal guns and the fact that a lot of gangs acquire them, etc. We all know that this bill is not addressing that.

In his speech the minister mentioned what sounded like a case that happened in Prince Albert, where somebody broke in and cut the cable on guns that were stored legally. Does the minister think that is never going to happen? In a perfect world, I guess it would not, but is the minister suggesting that there be logging cables through the guns? We know that this is not dealing with gang crime and illegal guns. What is the minister's response to that?

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

Madam Speaker, as the hon. gentleman would know from studying our platform in the last election, and I am sure he has studied it in great detail, there are a number of provisions that we recommended at the time which are in the process of being implemented. The amendments contained in Bill C-71 are part of that package.

The various items I was referring to in response to the previous question will all be of assistance in helping to make our society safer. Specifically with respect to illegal guns being imported across the border, we have provided, and will provide more, resources to the Canada Border Services Agency to help the agency be more effective at the border in interdicting illegal smuggling of firearms.

We are also working with local communities and provinces, providing $100 million a year in new funding to support activities specifically aimed at gang activity using guns. That money could be used in a variety of ways, depending on local circumstances, which will not all be the same, in supporting the integrated enforcement teams that have proven to be very effective in a number of communities in ferreting out gang activity, and then marshalling a full-court press in order to deal with that activity.

There is no one single solution. It is a complex collection of things, all of which are contained in our package. The legislation is part of it, but not all of it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I resume debate, I see there is a lot of interest in speaking to this issue. I would ask members that during the question and comment period they try to keep the preamble short when asking the question to allow the member time to answer. The answer should be within the same time limit of the question that was asked. In 10 minutes, we should have at least five questions asked.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

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

Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to be rising in the House today to speak on Bill C-71. I cannot remain silent on this subject, because I see that the Liberals are once again stubbornly determined to bring back a bill that feeds their obsession with reducing crime by constantly going after honest citizens. I cannot believe they still have not learned from their past mistakes. I will explain what I mean for the benefit of those under 35 or new Canadians who have only been here a few decades, since they may not know what I am talking about.

Back when Jean Chrétien was prime minister, his Liberals introduced the Canadian firearms registry. I can tell you that not only was this idea poorly conceived, it was also a direct attack on law-abiding Canadians. Even worse, when the initiative was first introduced, the minister said it would cost about $2 million. The Liberals said they would take care of that, and that is when they created the registry and started going after honest citizens. They said it would not cost much, just $2 million. We know what happened next. Instead of $2 million, the infamous registry ended up costing $2 billion. The Liberals of the day created this initiative in an amateurish way. Worse still, they never apologized to Canadians for spending so much public money on an initiative that, in the end, was nothing but yet another attack on law-abiding citizens.

The Conservatives of Canada believe that the safety of Canadians must be the top priority of any government. Our position is very clear in that regard. Canada's Conservatives put the safety of Canadians first. I would not want the government members, Liberal members, to ever question that.

We cannot trust the Liberals when it comes to the firearms legislation. Rather than cracking down on criminals who use weapons to commit violent crimes, they are treating law-abiding gun owners like criminals. It is important to understand that. The Liberals should be going after criminals, but instead they are treating upright citizens like criminals. That is not right. When we were in office from 2006 to 2015, we worked hard to keep Canadians safe. We kept the promises that we made.

For example, we passed the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, which simplifies the firearms licensing regime, while strengthening firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic violence offences. We passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which provides for mandatory prison sentences for serious firearms offences and stricter bail provisions for those accused of serious offences involving firearms. We passed the Act to amend the Criminal Code regarding organized crime and protection of justice system participants, which provides police officers and justice officials with important new tools to help them fight organized crime, including new sentences for the reckless use of a firearm. We also funded initiatives across the country to advance Canada's crime prevention and community protection objectives under the national crime prevention strategy.

The Conservatives have a long and successful track record when it comes to security and safety. The list goes on. We created the northern and aboriginal crime prevention fund as part of the national crime prevention strategy in order to meet the specific needs of indigenous and northern communities when it comes to crime and community safety. We also created the youth justice fund in December 2006. The guns, gangs, and drugs component of this fund was introduced to put a focus on the rehabilitation of young offenders. The fund responds to youth involved in the justice system and involved in gun, gang and drug activities. We also created the youth gang prevention fund in 2006 to support community groups that work with troubled youth in order to prevent them from joining gangs by addressing the risk factors associated with gangs.

In other words, we kept our promises. We worked for law-abiding citizens, not against them. Let no one doubt our determination to fight crime.

The Liberals' Bill C-71 is further proof that this government, whose imagination is petering out after only two years in office, is just winging it.

Halfway through its first term, the government is waffling. By that, I mean the government cannot make up its mind and makes decisions based on which way the wind is blowing. The Liberals are also cowardly. For example, this bill does not address the criminal or unauthorized possession of firearms, nor does it have anything to say about gang violence.

The minister keeps trying to tell us all kinds of wonderful things, but the fact is that Bill C-71 does not have the answers. In his speech, the minister even said a lot was missing from the bill, so when I say they are “winging it”, I am talking about how they are already scrambling to fill in those gaps. They just introduced the bill. They want us to talk about it, but they admit it is missing important elements. Once again, they are listening to the Conservatives and then reacting.

The Liberals believe that the way to fix gun violence and gun crime is to go after law-abiding citizens without dealing with street gangs or organized crime. There are some very intelligent people across the way. We are not going to insult their intelligence. I just cannot believe that such intelligent people can act this way, but that is a matter for another day.

For the most part, this bill does little to nothing to improve public safety. However, it imposes a number of new conditions on law-abiding gun owners. We cannot say it enough: it is always honest folks, sport shooters and hunters who get punished. The Liberals always go after those types of people. On this side of the House, we know that law-abiding citizens are not part of the problem. Under the leadership of Stephen Harper, we dealt with criminals, terrorists, and those who promote violence. Those are the people we need to be focusing on.

On the other side of the House, we have a government that made election promises. Once in power, however, it forgot about its commitment to Canadians, and hoped that they had already forgotten what was promised. For example, some of the Liberals' promises concerning the gun registry were broken or are yet to be fulfilled.

First, they promised to give the provinces and territories $100 million per year to combat illegal activities involving firearms. There has been no mention of that. Where is the money? Where is the Prime Minister and his grand speeches?

The Prime Minister is a big talker. He is like Obama, who made grand promises that never amounted to anything. The Canadian public is starting to notice this problem, but we will talk about that another time.

The Liberals have yet to implement the marking regulations on imported firearms, even though they promised to do so as soon as they took office two and a half years ago. Two and a half years is a long time.

What is this party's leadership doing? They seemed to have all the answers during the campaign but now that they are in power they seem mostly confused. I have an explanation for why that is. There are agencies and specialists that are really talented at coming up with marketing ideas. They suggest saying this or that and predict that people will react like lemmings or sheep.

The Liberals ran a great campaign. They had a great marketing plan. When a party gets elected, it is the MPs, and not the marketing agency reps, who get to sit in the House. These MPs then find it hard to implement policy because they do not know what the marketing plan was about. At least, that is the impression we get. They had great marketing, but nothing concrete behind it. Again, who is paying for this? Canadians are the ones feeling the impact of the government's failings.

Canada is now emerging from a long night in which everyone learned the truth about a certain gifted public speaker who, in the end, had nothing to share with Canadians.

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

Furthermore, thousands upon thousands of foreign nationals are crossing illegally into Canada from the United States through places like Quebec. Instead of trying to contain this crisis, the Liberals seem to be trying to accommodate it. I am not allowed to say that there are not many people here to listen to me, but it does not matter. Normally, they would react by saying that I am totally wrong.

Those watching may not know this but Quebec is currently dealing with a problem, a crisis, namely illegal immigration. You may hear that we should be using another word, but I say it is illegal. The Government of Quebec is asking to be reimbursed the $125 million it has spent on this. The government is refusing, saying that it is not so bad and that everything is just fine. Sure, everything is fine. How disheartening. There comes a time when enough is enough.

The Prime Minister told people to come here because Canada is a country of refuge and that everything is great here, so people are coming. In fact, at least 50 to 100 people a day continue to enter this way.

Quebec is left footing the bill. The Prime Minister does not see a problem with that. He turns a blind eye and walks away. People are entering Canada illegally, but that is fine. Promoting Quebec and Canada as beautiful places to see is part of this marketing plan I mentioned earlier. However, this plan is not panning out in real life. These policies have a cost and will result in social problems, but the Prime Minister prefers to turn a blind eye. This issue is also causing chaos at the border.

Indeed, chaos seems to follow the Prime Minister around. As we saw in last week's headlines, we can no longer say “mother” and “father”. We have to say “parent one” and “parent two”. We no longer have the right to say someone is a man or a woman. No one knows anymore. This is plunging society into chaos. People identify as a man or a woman. Parents are saying that they cannot tell their kids that they are their mother or father, but rather parent one or parent two. The next time they are having an argument, a parent will say that he is parent one and the other is parent two. Come on. This is becoming ridiculous.

We have been seeing nothing but this sort of thing from the beginning. The minister said earlier this was not about re-establishing the long gun registry. When you read Bill C-71, it is obvious that they are being very careful. It is very subtle, which is why we, the Conservatives, are going to keep a very close eye on this.

Under this legislation, gun control would be achieved through merchants. The onus will be on firearms dealers and retailers to keep a registry, and they will also be tasked with maintaining the records afterwards. This is an insidious way of bringing back the registry. The government can deny it, but clearly, this is about putting everything in place to eventually bring back a registry.

At this point, the Prime Minister needs to decide where the real threat is. Is it street gangs or farmers? Is it sport shooters or organized crime? That is the real question.

To most Canadians, the answer is obvious. When you get up in the morning and think about it, you imagine a hunter with his firearm, or a farmer who needs firearms to keep animals from attacking his livestock. There is nothing unusual about that.

When people get up in the morning, they see that the government and the Prime Minister are saying these people are the ones they are going after. The government says that it will go after criminals and street gangs later. As the minister finally said earlier, some elements will be added to the legislation later, since the government is not ready. Honest Canadians are once again getting up in the morning and wondering what on Earth they did to become targets yet again. This is how it goes.

Eventually, the Prime Minister will have to make a decision. Does he have advisers around him who are smart enough to explain how this works in real life, in the lives of Canadians? Canadians get up in the morning and all they hope is to live a good, honest life. These are the people that the government is always going after. It needs to recognize this and stop. At some point, the government needs to stop doing this.

I am going to talk about another issue that was not addressed. There is nothing in the bill about an issue that we are just starting to hear about in the news. It is a little more complicated and involves life, criminals, the modern world, and technology. This morning, I was reading an article about the dark web. Not many people, including myself, know much about the dark web. I know that it exists, but it is complex and involves technology. This morning, journalist Jim Bronskill explained that criminals are using the darker corners of the Internet, in a similar manner as pedophiles. The same principle is used for guns: there are computer protocols that allow users to carry out transactions in hidden parts of the Internet.

We have also heard about cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which are almost impossible to trace. Criminal gangs use them to buy guns, which they are smuggling in ingenious ways. For example, they will hide a handgun in an Xbox console to get it through customs. People who buy guns on the Internet in this way do not have a licence. There is a whole criminal structure to the Internet, and the RCMP is sounding the alarm.

Police officers grappling with this type of crime and border services officers know that there is a problem. We need to look into this aspect and pass legislation that will address these problems. We would have no problem backing the government on that because we want to go after the criminals. However, we heard nothing about this, and there is nothing in Bill C-71 to deal with this problem.

Not only does Bill C-71 include no legislation that would tackle criminals, but its preamble contains misleading statements, such as the alarming statistics the minister mentioned earlier.

At the summit, the minister used 2013 as a benchmark. However, what the minister failed to mention is that the crime rate has remained fairly consistent over the past 20 years, except for in 2013, when it was particularly low. In 2014, it returned to a level comparable to that of the past 10 to 20 years. It was likely the marketing firm that decided to use data from 2013, to make people believe that there had been a dramatic increase in crime. The reality is that criminals probably stayed out of trouble that year because the Conservatives scared them. This is a matter of inappropriate marketing designed to frighten law-abiding citizens.

I will have to hurry up or I am going to run out of time.

During his summit on gun and gang violence, the minister heard from many experts in the field, but the bill in no way reflects their comments and concerns. In his speech, the minister talked about issues that are not covered in the bill, such as insufficient commercial storage rules. He talked about how a thief stole 24 handguns from a gun shop in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, but Bill C-71 does not address that.

The proposed change requiring firearms dealers to keep records for 20 years after the sale of a firearm is a burden for business people. I imagine the members opposite will someday realize that criminals could not care less about these rules. Criminals do not buy their weapons in gun shops. I mentioned the dark web, which is one of the ways they acquire guns.

We see this as yet another bill that will just annoy law-abiding people and will do nothing to target criminals, which is deeply disappointing because I think that is the most important issue here.

Let us not forget the 1993 firearms registry, which was supposed to put a dent in crime. It was useless.

I have a far more complicated problem. The government wants to stick to its agenda and act like nothing is wrong. Let us not forget that the Prime Minister's blatant and shameless lack of transparency forced us to hold a marathon voting session that lasted more than 22 hours. No one across the way had the courage to talk to the Prime Minister and have him listen to reason.

Canadians are not asking for anything complicated. They are asking for an hour-long meeting with Daniel Jean at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, so that Mr. Jean can give the same briefing he gave to the media. It is not complicated. Anyone can see that. Members of the House represent the people and the people want to be informed.

Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):

Before the Clerk announced the result of the vote:

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North and parliamentary secretary to the government House leader's vote will not be counted because he left his seat during the vote to come and speak to the Chair.

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest is rising on a point of order.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the House call for those on this side who were opposed to the motion.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

This is not a private member's bill. Therefore, the Chair called first for those in favour and then for those opposed.

Do I assume that the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest wishes to have her vote counted as opposed to the motion?

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #638

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

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, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second 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 the said stage.

Bill C-71—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill;

and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, the facts of the matter are clear with respect to Bill C-71. We had it on the Order Paper for debate on Friday. That was totally pre-empted by the official opposition. We put it on the Order Paper again yesterday. We began the debate and the opposition moved to adjourn the debate.

Clearly, there was not a serious intent on the part of the official opposition to have a serious discussion at second reading on Bill C-71. We are prepared to provide one full further day to go through that process, but the process has been truncated and pre-empted thus far by the official opposition.

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

Madam Speaker, in concert with the tabling of Bill C-71, the Ontario Provincial Police, together with regional police forces, issued an amnesty, suggesting that firearms owners in Ontario hand in their firearms. Just as it was with the carbon tax, where the federal government imposed the tax and expected the provinces to do the dirty work and collect the taxes, is it not true the Liberals are doing the same thing with this gun registry act, that they are going to implement it but have the provinces enforce it and do what they ultimately want to do, which is to see no firearms in the hands of civilians?

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

Madam Speaker, no.

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

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time when this argument keeps coming up. It is one thing to talk about the procedural shenanigans that are happening, but the issue here is that regardless of who proposed to adjourn the debate, the Liberals voted in favour of adjourning debate on the bill yesterday. Less than 24 hours ago, they were voting in favour of adjourning the debate, so I am having a hard time. Then they are heckling, but no, they do not heckle. They do not adjourn debate. They do not use time allocation. However, they do all these things anyway. That is the reality.

As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé pointed out, we have had less than an hour. We have not even gotten to an NDP speaker yet. I spent the whole day waiting to speak to this bill yesterday. I did not get the opportunity. The bill did not come back. It is not here today. However, I am getting to speak on time allocation before I even get to speak to the bill as my party's critic. Could the minister tell me how that makes sense?

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

Madam Speaker, I hear the hon. gentleman's concern and I suggest he direct his angst to the official opposition. They moved the motion.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say how disappointed I am. The minister has been a parliamentarian for many years. This is not a minority Parliament where the government sometimes has to bend to the will of other parties. Every choice the government has made, it has made to diminish the voices of other parliamentarians and the people they represent. I will bet there are people in the gentleman's riding who take offence that we have to get answers to technical questions, like the ones other members have asked, about the registrar, about how the process is to go forward. The fact that we are asking technical questions proves that the government is not allowing a proper debate to go forward.

Will the minister please explain to the House what is so important and must be rushed that he cannot even allow members of Parliament to educate the committee that will be studying this bill as to what the concerns will be, or are the members on that committee so special and know everything about this bill that other members of Parliament can add nothing to it?

I would like to hear from the minister why he thinks his government can act in such a bulldozer fashion and not let voices such as those in my riding be heard properly.

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

Madam Speaker, on the issue of technical questions, indeed, there are many technical questions with respect to the administration of any particular piece of legislation. The place where one goes into the technical details is in the work of the standing committee. That is where one asks the precise, mechanical, administrative, technical questions and gets all of the detailed information.

In terms of the broad debate on second reading, the debate in principle, I would ask the hon. gentleman in return why his party moved to adjourn the debate yesterday. We were ready to go. Those members chose not to.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's advice about where I should direct my frustrations.

I am going to come back to the first question I asked during this time allocation debate. This is an extremely sensitive subject. It is tremendously important that we be given the opportunity to pass appropriate legislation that respects all affected Canadians and communities. The minister himself has talked about the importance of having a common-sense bill, taking an approach that is respectful to everyone involved, and learning from past mistakes.

I will ask my question again. Since the minister is pushing for an approach that will not revive past feuds over firearms, why are we starting the process for this new bill with a time allocation motion? Does he not think this move runs totally counter to the very principles he claims to want to defend in his legislative approach?

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

Madam Speaker, again, with respect to the representative from the NDP and the views he has just expressed, I share a good deal of sympathy for his perspective, but it was clear, on the record from Friday and yesterday, that every time Bill C-71 was going to appear on the Order Paper, the official opposition was going to pull some stunt to try to prevent the debate from proceeding. There is that clear indication from the official opposition. It is important for the affairs of the House to be organized in a timely way, and we are in the process of doing that through the motion presented by the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, a few Canadians have been asking me why Conservatives are so intent on getting to the heart of the coverup in the Atwal India affair. It is because each time we probe, the government puts more walls up blocking the votes and now limiting debate with time allocation. That only provides us with more incentive. Clearly the Liberals are so worried about Mr. Jean giving 15 minutes of testimony to a committee of parliamentarians that they are willing to disregard democracy to do it, but I am not going to let that affect the debate on this important bill and the government's attempt to, by stealth, introduce a gun registry.

My question relates to the minister's use of statistics. The CBC on the weekend highlighted how the minister is misleading Canadians by cherry-picking statistics. He has to use five years to benchmark violent crime in Canada, because a few years ago, the level was so low that by using that timeline it makes it look like there is more of a problem than there truly is. However, to pin the changes the Liberals would be making, he only uses a statistical window of one to two years to suggest that it is rural crime and gun thefts that are the problem, as opposed to illegally smuggled weapons at the border, which we know is truly the problem.

The irony is that we have been talking about rural crimes, especially in western Canada, for two years and the Liberals have ignored it. When will the minister admit to the House that the Liberals are cherry-picking statistics and unfairly informing Canadians about the risk all just to sneak in their gun registry once again?

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

Madam Speaker, I would never admit that, because it is not true.

The fact of the matter is that there has been a distinct increase in gun-related crime since 2013. Most crime statistics in Canada have been generally going down for the better part of two decades, and maybe even longer than that. However, in 2013, there was a sudden reversal of that trend.

In 2016, there were 2,500 criminal incidents involving firearms. That is up 30% since 2013. Gun homicides are up by two-thirds since 2013. Cases of intimate partner and gender-based violence involving firearms as reported to police are up by one-third since 2013. Gang-related homicides, a majority involving guns, are up by two-thirds. Break-ins involving the theft of guns are up by 56%. This is all since 2013.

I would ask the hon. gentleman how long we should wait: two more years, five more years, 10 more years? When would he find the statistics to be convincing?

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

Madam Speaker, let us try this again.

The fact is that the government was elected two and a half years ago. As the minister has repeatedly stated, this legislation is nothing more than the Liberals respecting their campaign commitments, commitments that were made two and a half years ago. The Liberals have had two and a half years to table the legislation. The legislation was tabled on Tuesday.

The Liberals control the House agenda, despite the seeming frustration at the limited tools available to the opposition. At the end of the day, the motion to adjourn debate, whether that was presented rightly or wrongly notwithstanding, was voted in favour of by the very same Liberals.

The minister keeps saying that I should direct my frustration at the official opposition. I am asking him how he can believe that on an issue as fundamentally important to get right in respect of all communities and not go back to the wedge politics of the past, which he said he does not want to do, how on earth is it an appropriate approach to begin that debate and before even hearing from a critic of one of the three recognized parties, already be moving time allocation?

In what way does that ensure we are hearing the voices of all Canadians, so that we can get this right, as we want to do and as I imagine he wants to do, as well?

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

Madam Speaker, when Bill C-71 is called another time, my understanding, in terms of the rules of precedence, is the New Democrats will put forward the next speaker, and I will be very anxious to hear the NDP's views with respect to Bill C-71. That is how the resumed debate will begin.

The next important stage is obviously in the committee work. I am looking forward to the very good work that will be done by all members in the committee, dealing with technical and detailed questions. The hon. gentleman is a member of that committee, and I am sure he will present his views in a very able fashion.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that we have had three pieces of legislation relating to firearms since the early 1990s.

Bill C-17 under the Mulroney government brought in all the background checks, all the security checks on individuals. It is basically the same checks we still have today.

One of the key pieces of this legislation that I think is important to all Canadians, and one we see starting to unfold in the U.S., is the issue of background checks for mental issues and other issues around the individual. We all agree on the fact that that is a deficiency in the background checks that were made during the Mulroney years under Bill C-17. I think it would be useful for the minister to take some of the members who have not been around that long back to the days when all that came into play after the massacre of the 14 women at École Polytechnique. This was brought in by the Mulroney government. It is almost exactly the same as exists today.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two points. I thank the hon. gentleman for putting this whole discussion in its historical context, which is important.

There are specific provisions in Bill C-71 that will enhance the background checks that are to be done. Currently the law says that when those checks are done, when someone is applying for a licence and seeking approval to purchase firearms, the look-back over the person's history in terms of criminal offences, violent behaviour, and other types of activity that would indicate the individual should perhaps not be in possession of firearms is mandatory for a five-year period.

What we are proposing to do is to eliminate that time frame, so that the look-back can be indefinite through the lifetime of the person. It is interesting to note that the original suggestion for that change came from James Moore, a former Conservative member of Parliament.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives support protecting the safety and security of Canadians while also supporting the rights of law-abiding, innocent firearms owners.

This debate is really important to my constituency, which has faced escalating armed robberies of bars, hotels, and farm families right across Lakeland. Bill C-71 would do nothing to address the illegal gun trade by gangs or the illegal use of firearms. Bill C-71, just like always, would target law-abiding farmers, hunters, and sports shooters, who already comply with extensive rules, regulations, and paperwork.

Will the public safety minister advocate for stiffer penalties for criminals who use firearms and stop the revolving door in the legal system to stop repeat offenders? When it comes to a tougher crackdown on criminals who use guns, nobody wants that more than law-abiding, innocent firearms owners do.

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

Madam Speaker, the House could have a very useful discussion in terms of enhancing penalties for those who misuse firearms, and I would look forward to that discussion.

The hon. member should not discount the value of the enhanced background checks as was described very eloquently in the House on a previous occasion by James Moore or the improvements with respect to the licensing system or the business records, which the police, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, say will be critically important to them in tracing guns that have been used in offences, in determining straw purchases, and in identifying activity that might engage gang activity. The accurate, consistent classification of firearms is important. The transportation authorization is also important.

I would also mention the $100 million a year that we will be investing with the provinces to enhance activity at the local level against guns and gangs, including the integrated enforcement teams that have been very effective in the last number of years in cracking down on illegal gangs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #641

An Act in Relation to Firearms

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that Bill C-71 is before us again. I imagine the government felt somewhat embarrassed by how it managed this very important and sensitive file.

One thing that has become crystal clear over the last number of years when it comes to the issue of firearms in this country is that far too often, successive governments have played wedge politics with an issue that is fundamentally about respect for communities. It is about public safety, and more broadly speaking, about respect for all Canadians, including, of course, firearms owners.

When the Liberals come forward, as the minister has, with the intention of presenting legislation that seeks to provide, as he says, common-sense legislation, which is certainly, I would acknowledge, a step in the right direction, and then decide on time allocation before I, as the critic for one of the three recognized parties, have even had a chance to speak to the bill, it demonstrates, unfortunately, a lack of seriousness with respect to what is a very serious issue that we, as parliamentarians, must get right.

After less than one our of debate, the government allocated just one day of debate to this bill. The minister praised the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, saying that this committee has qualified members and that they could study the technical aspects of the bill. This is very flattering, since I am a member of this committee, but let's be serious. The vast majority of members in this House have concerns to share about this bill on behalf of their constituents.

The NDP recognizes that this bill is a step in the right direction, and we are generally in favour of it, but there are some questions we want to address in this debate, and this is not solely my responsibility, as critic. All members are responsible for raising questions. It is not just up to the members who sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to raise these concerns.

When the government moves a time allocation motion after so little time, it goes against the principles espoused by the Minister of Public Safety. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé mentioned in the debate on this motion, even the previous government, known for its record number of time allocation motions and gag orders, would not have done this.

Those principles come after excuse after excuse has been made. The Liberals have tried to blame the official opposition, saying that it moved a motion to adjourn debate yesterday. Notwithstanding whether one might or might not agree with the tactics being used in the House to make a point on certain issues the Liberals are running away from, the fact is that one party in the House voted in favour of adjourning debate on Bill C-71, and that was the Liberal Party. Despite the heckling, the Liberals perhaps should consult the Journals of yesterday's proceedings. They will see that they were the only ones in the House who voted to adjourn debate on the bill.

Moreover, last Friday members representing the Liberal Party made comments on panels, alluding to deaths in communities as reasons why we had not come to that debate, which is shameful. The Liberals have been in power for two and a half years and have not come forward with this legislation. Then they choose to blame everyone but themselves for the cavalier way in which the bill is coming through the House. That is extremely problematic. As I have said multiple times, and will continue to repeat both in the House and outside the House and at every opportunity I get, this issue should not be one in which we seek to create division and make it subject of procedural and partisan gain. It is one we have to get right.

I know the public safety minister has his heart in the right place on this. I would implore him to perhaps speak to his House leader to ensure his approach is the one being put forward, given the way the government runs the agenda in this place. We cannot afford to get this type of issue wrong. The New Democrats will work and strive in that regard, both here for the limited time we have, and in committee. I can commit that to Canadians without a shadow of a doubt.

Now that I have given an overview of the procedural issues and of how the file has been managed, I would like to focus on our concerns about Bill C-71.

Gun control is an emotional issue for many people, and with good reason. This is about showing respect for those who have had to deal with unimaginable tragedies. They see the bill as an opportunity to defend their community and neighbours and ensure that no one else has to endure such tragedies. There are also law-abiding citizens who hunt or practise shooting sports. We also want to show respect for them in the legislative measures put forward.

We therefore need to strike a balance between the two while protecting the public. That is the approach we need to take when we address these issues in the House. Instead, over the years, we have unfortunately seen more divisive approaches. Gun control has been used as a political fundraising tool, and some questionable action has been taken as gun control has been turned into a partisan issue.

For members of the NDP, one thing is clear. We want to keep the public safe while showing respect for every Canadian and community concerned by this issue.

I will, however, give the minister credit where credit is due since I think that this bill is a step in the right direction. It contains common-sense measures that we can support. I am thinking of the background checks in particular.

Currently, we only go up to five years for the retention and renewal of a licence. However, in a quick study of some of the jurisprudence, in some of the precedents that have been set by the courts, they have deemed it absolutely appropriate, legal, lawful, and respectful of charter rights to go all the way back in a lifetime examination for one's background check, whether it is criminal records or other pieces that are looked at as part of this process. Members on all sides have shown support for that. Both current and previous members from all parties have shown support for it. Essentially, when it comes to background checks, the bill would bring legislation in line with what is already appropriate practice, which has been deemed so by the courts. That is a reasonable measure to ensure we protect public safety.

The other element, one that has received a lot of attention and is a key piece of the bill, is records being kept by store owners who sell firearms to Canadians. On this, let me be clear. When it comes to maintaining those records, I agree with the minister that the vast majority of reputable businesses already do so. We are seeking to standardize the practice, because it will now become part of the law, and also protect that information from government and law enforcement unless law enforcement has a warrant obtained through the courts. That has been happening for a very long time in the U.S. Therefore, I do not see it creating an additional burden on businesses.

However, following the minister's speech before the time allocation motion, I asked him what would be done with respect to consultation with business owners to ensure the standardization did not carry an unreasonable cost and that it was done in a way that was respectful of best practices. Business people know best at the end of the day. Unfortunately, while the minister acknowledged that work had to be done to have that standardization and that it would come from best practices, the details were rather sparse. Therefore, we will be looking at that to ensure the standardization of those practices do not create an additional burden on businesses. Of course some businesses may have to modify their current practices in order to be in line with what will be a legal and government-mandated process. We will keep an eye on that, particularly through the committee process.

I look forward to hearing those business people, who are the experts, bring forward their perspectives, and how to ensure the minister's consultation is done appropriately, in a way that will ease the burden on small businesses, which is already, in some regards, far too large. I say that going beyond the issue before us today.

It is very important to emphasize the issue I raised a few minutes ago and that is obtaining a warrant.

At present, it is a standard practice for businesses to keep this data. After all, it is not unusual for them to keep records about large purchases. This is not just about firearms, and any responsible business owner already does this.

The important clarification made by the bill is that this information can only be obtained with a warrant, in the context of an open criminal investigation.

As I mentioned, we will ask questions so that the minister's consultations will ensure that the standardization of practices does not create an additional burden on businesses.

The other changes that would be brought in by this proposed legislation concern Bill C-42, which was brought forward in the previous Parliament under the Conservative government. It sought to give automatic licences for the transport, for any purpose, of restricted firearms. However, members of the law enforcement community saw that as problematic, because there would be all kinds of instances where it would be difficult for them to know whether individuals, who were stopped by roadside stops, had perhaps firearms in their vehicles, or an individual with unlawful intent, which is an important point to bring to this discussion.

One of the issues is how to find the balance for lawful purposes and more routine purposes. The legislation opens the door to that. Therefore, automatic licences for transport would still be given, for example, for bringing the firearm from the location where the purchase took place to the location where the firearm would be stored. It would be the same for an individual going from the location where the firearm was stored to a shooting range. However, we have other questions over the consequences of some of the administrative burden.

Guns shows are one example. In that context, people need to transport firearms. A number of people might want to obtain an authorization at the last minute.

The changes in this bill requiring that there be a process for obtaining such an authorization are quite appropriate. We now want to know how this will be administered.

In the technical briefing, the minister mentioned several options including an Internet portal. Naturally, any MP who does business with the federal government, for example when looking into matters for their constituents, knows that responses are not always timely. I am not referring only to matters related to firearms licences.

If an added burden is created, while entirely appropriate, it must be done as simply as possible and without creating too much bureaucracy that will make life difficult for anyone seeking to get such an authorization.

Of course, we recognize the relevance of the changes being made and the fact that this legislation repeals certain aspects of Bill C-52 regarding authorizations to transport restricted firearms in all circumstances. In the last Parliament, the NDP opposed Bill C-52, but the changes being made here are appropriate and will ensure public safety.

Another extremely important aspect of Bill C-71 is the issue of weapons classification. This issue has often been controversial, but the NDP's position has always been clear. We believe that the individuals best equipped to make those decisions are the men and women in uniform who keep our communities safe, in other words, the RCMP.

One of the changes made by the previous government gave cabinet the authority to reclassify restricted weapons. That was problematic, and brings me back to the point I made at the beginning of my speech. This issue is quite divisive and has too often been politicized. Previous governments have failed to respect the expertise of impartial individuals who make common sense decisions in the interest of public safety. That is why the NDP is pleased that the RCMP will finally be given the authority to classify firearms.

The bill does leave cabinet some power, so we will look at that in committee to make sure it does not open the door to policy decisions that could result in the kinds of situations that have come up before. It became apparent some time ago that politicians are not equipped to make those kinds of decisions and that if we wanted to ensure public safety in a way that was respectful of all Canadians and all communities, experts had to be the ones making those decisions.

The second part of the bill relates to the now-defunct Bill C-52, which this government introduced quite a few months ago. The government just added some elements that we support. It repeals the Conservative government's changes to access to information laws. The changes were made because the Information Commissioner took the previous government to court over access to information requests pertaining to the gun registry. When the registry was destroyed, the previous government began to destroy the data before the House of Commons and the Senate passed the bill.

Destruction of the data was found to be illegal. I do not want to get into the politics of the registry, but citizens did have the right to request access to that information. That led to legal action between the Information Commissioner and the government.

The government is now making these changes to the law that the Conservatives had put in place to legalize something that was illegal. By doing so, it is correcting the mistakes of the past to resolve this dispute.

There is also the fact that Quebec will be getting all of the former registry's records involving its population, the only data left from the registry. Quebec's National Assembly is entitled to continue the process as it sees fit and in accordance with the principle of asymmetrical federalism.

I would now like to return to the Supreme Court decision on this issue. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had the right to destroy the data but, in the spirit of co-operative federalism, it strongly urged the government to return the data to Quebec. This bill does just that, giving the National Assembly the power to do what it wants with the data, as is its right, of course.

I will close by saying that the NDP will always support a common-sense approach that respects all communities and all Canadians and guarantees public safety.

These issues are too important not to get right. They are too important to be lost in a partisan black hole.

We will continue to strive in that direction. That is always what our approach has been, and it is what it will continue to be. I look forward to doing that both here in the House and in committee, working with colleagues in all parties, including colleagues in my own caucus, hearing the comments from their constituents, to make sure that we get this right. This is a good first step. Let us keep going in this direction.

If the minister's heart is truly in the right place, I ask that he pass that message to his House leader to make sure we have the proper time to take the necessary steps to make sure that we are addressing any questions that have been raised by me and those that will inevitably be raised by other colleagues.

There are good things here, things that we support, and we just want to make sure that we get them right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. It is possible to have a debate on firearms without being painted as gun registry supporters.

I want to ask my colleague a question about Bill C-42, since he was here during the last parliamentary session. He mentioned that retailers will have to keep records. The official opposition, meanwhile, is attacking us by calling this a backdoor registry.

Why did they not ban this practice in Bill C-42 during the last session?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I thank my colleague for his intervention.

Let us make one thing clear. The Conservatives keep raising certain issues, but we have to make a distinction between Bill C-71 before us today and the existing legislation. The reason something is still enshrined in legislation is that the change has not been made yet. If the previous government felt it was necessary to make a change, it had the chance to do so.

As my colleague mentioned, there were changes, in Bill C-42 for one, which were often problematic, and there were missed opportunities. I commend the government for trying to correct all that through Bill C-71.

What I appreciate about the government's approach, and that appreciation is contingent on the answers we will receive and the process in committee, is that the government understands that some things need to be corrected while others are fine and can be left alone. That is how to achieve the balance that ensures public safety and respect for all so as not to rehash past debates that were far too often partisan instead of being driven by the desire to create sound public policy.

I think that my colleague agrees with me on this. I hope that the government will continue on this path. We shall see.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that the Liberal government is trying to bring back the gun registry in this sneaky and indirect way. It says it is because it wants to eliminate problems with gangs and guns in big cities.

Could my colleague tell us how this bill is going to help address that, when the gangs do not adhere to the current laws?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question because it does allow me to get into that aspect, which I did not have a chance to raise in my speech.

The Conservatives have correctly raised the issue that this is far from sufficient. It is only one piece of the much larger puzzle of how we tackle the growing epidemic of gun violence. There are a few things we could do.

First of all, when we talk about counter-radicalization efforts, we often talk about it in the context of radicalized individuals committing acts of terrorism, but that also applies to dealing with gangs. Gangs, too often, are recruiting vulnerable young people. That is something that we need to stem the tide on.

Certainly, the government falls back on the money that is invested, but as with any investment made by a government, the devil will be in the details of how that money will be spent and what initiatives will be looked at. While the summit that took place here in Ottawa a few weeks ago was a welcome overture to that, it is definitely far from sufficient. That is one issue.

The other issue is tackling the issue of guns coming across the border from the U.S., which is a huge issue, and making sure CBSA has both the authority and the resources to tackle that and is able to collaborate with law enforcement. There is also the growing epidemic of domestic thefts of firearms, which is a problem, and a problem that both rural Canadians and law-abiding gun owners will look at as something they want the government to tackle as well.

There is a whole slew of issues here. I will just end with this. I think another thing that would be great to bring back, which unfortunately was a cut in the previous Parliament, is the police recruitment fund. It was a great fund that went to funding both provincial and municipal efforts. It was federal money that went to the provinces and municipalities to invest in police and policing. When that money was lost, we saw things like the Éclipse squad in Montreal being hurt by that. Their mandate, in large part, was to tackle gang recruitment and gang violence.

Those are the kinds of initiatives we can look at. Certainly more robust background checks like we see in this bill are helpful, but far from the end of that discussion. I welcome the Conservative members' contribution to the debate in that regard, because it is an important issue. This is certainly not the end of that discussion with this legislation.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised several extremely important points. People around the world these days know that gun control cannot be taken lightly. I am concerned that as a result of the petty politics in this place, the partisanship and time allocation motions, we will not have enough time to debate this bill properly and, consequently, it will have serious flaws because of the sloppy work.

Does my colleague believe that the lack of debate has consequences? If yes, what are they? What key aspects must not be forgotten in this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and comments. She has hit the nail on the head.

Background checks through an individual's lifetime instead of the past five years is a good initiative that is supported by many stakeholders across the political spectrum. In addition, repealing certain provisions brought forward in the last legislature concerning the transport of firearms is a step in the right direction.

Our questions are mainly about the cost of these measures. How will they be implemented? These are legitimate questions raised by the people we represent, on both sides of the debate. It is very important to mention this. The NDP's approach has always been to be respectful of everyone because we must protect public safety with as little partisanship as possible, even though that is the nature of this place.

As my colleague so rightly said, it is hard when the government moves a time allocation motion when there has been so little time for debate. Members must then ask technical questions during the debate on the time allocation motion because that is the only opportunity they have to do so.

I have complete faith in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, of which I am a member, and I look forward to being fully involved in this work. However, at the end of the day, members have questions to ask on behalf of their constituents. This is a missed opportunity, because we do not want the issue to be politicized. We must succeed at the first attempt, insofar as possible. That is what the NDP is going to try to do with this government's bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have in Bill C-71 is the fulfillment of a commitment the government made in the past election to bring forward reasonable and appropriate legislation dealing with a number of different issues related to safety. The Minister of Public Safety made an excellent presentation on why the legislation is good for Canada.

I believe the member across the way made reference to the NDP supporting the legislation. Perhaps he could expand on that, if in fact that is the case, and whether he has specific amendments he would like to see at committee stage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We will support the bill at second reading, but we intend to ask questions and propose amendments in committee.

That being said, I cannot provide a detailed answer to his question at this time. This bill must still be thoroughly reviewed, and I have to consult my constituents and public safety authorities, as well as my colleagues, to find out their constituents' concerns. I have already had some excellent discussions with them to ensure that I raise the most important issues in the time that I have. Sometimes we do not have as much time as we would like, but that is the reality of our work—when the speaking time is not limited by the government, of course.

I thank my colleague for his speech and I would like to reiterate that we will support the bill at second reading. We will certainly discuss it. I hope that the minister will be open to amendments and to the work done by the committee. I will certainly not be shy about approaching him and his parliamentary secretary with suggestions, which we will also raise in committee.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege to speak on Bill C-71. At the outset, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

There is a great family establishment in my riding, which is in the middle of Toronto, called Playtime Bowl and Entertainment. It is a place where mothers and fathers can take their children and their loved ones to kick back at the end of a busy week, where they can distract themselves with a bit of close time with the ones they care for and work for every day. I take my girls there, like many families in my community do.

The reason I am referring to this establishment at the outset of my remarks is this. A little less than two weeks ago, on a weekend night, shots rang out. Shortly after those shots rang out, the lives of two people were lost. This is part of a disturbing trend we have seen not only in my community, in the city of Toronto, or in the GTA, but right across the country, and it is something all members should be fully grasped with.

In Toronto there were 61 homicides in 2017, many of which were associated with some form of gun violence. In 2018, 28 shooting incidents have already been reported. This number is up 55% from this point in time last year. I want to say that this is in spite of the great efforts of local police officers with the Toronto Police Service, and with many actors within law enforcement. The reality is that gun violence is all too common in many neighbourhoods, not only in Eglinton—Lawrence but right across the country.

One of the victims whose life was lost just outside of this family establishment had been at an IKEA earlier in the day shopping for a cradle in anticipation of starting a family. This person was described as caring and humble. That is one more life that has been snuffed out as a result of gun violence. It is for this reason that so many within the law enforcement, police, and victims communities have been calling for gun law reform for so long.

Bill C-71 is a response to those calls. It contains practical and balanced reforms, including mandatory life history background checks, strengthening controls for the transport of restricted and prohibited firearms, prohibiting certain firearms that meet the Criminal Code definition and limiting their circulation through grandfathering, applying a consistent approach to the classification of firearms, and cracking down on unlicensed access to firearms. Together, these reforms prioritize public safety while ensuring their practical and fair application to responsible firearms owners.

What Bill C-71 does not do in any way, shape, or form is bring back the federal long gun registry, nor does it add any unreasonable measures for law-abiding citizens. I want to make that abundantly clear. It is focused on preventing firearms from falling into the wrong hands and keeping our communities safer. That is what I would like to focus my time on today.

Overall, crime rates in this country are much lower than what they were decades ago. However, while we are seeing a general downward trend in crime, these statistics do not tell the whole story. There is no question that illegal guns are increasingly finding their way into the hands of criminals and gang members. Handgun thefts have recently jumped up by nearly 40%. Break-ins and illegal sales in Canada are only compounding the problem. Even more concerning, there were 223 firearm-related homicides in Canada in 2016, which is 44 more than the previous year. There were nearly 2,500 criminal incidents involving firearms in 2016, which is also a major jump, to the tune of a 30% increase since 2013.

While some of our largest cities are hardest hit by these statistics, this is not just an urban problem. Rural and indigenous communities are also affected. Not every crime can be prevented, but we can and we must take measures to reduce the risks.

The first set of proposals we have introduced would help to stop firearms from falling into the wrong hands. These measures would spell out quite clearly that if a person is planning on selling or giving a non-restricted firearm, it must be verified that the person acquiring it has a valid firearms licence. This occurs automatically for restricted and prohibited firearms and that validity must be confirmed with the RCMP. Currently, verifying licences for non-restricted firearms is voluntary. We are proposing to make it required by law.

Recent police-reported information would be taken into account. For example, an individual flagged for investigation by a chief firearms officer because of a charge of domestic violence could be prevented from lawfully acquiring a firearm until the investigation was complete and the licence was returned to valid.

Further, in determining eligibility, authorities would be required to consider a history of certain criminal activity or violent behaviour over the span of a lifetime, rather than just the past five years. What we are saying is simple. If a person is eligible to own a non-restricted firearm, let us take a few minutes to confirm it. A simple phone call, for example, to the RCMP, free of charge, would answer that question.

This is one of the practical proposals regarding the firearm licensing eligibility criteria. We must also improve how firearms themselves are dealt with.

The authorities have a process for tracking firearm-related crimes, which involves systematically tracking the history of a firearm that has been recovered or seized. The chain of custody starts when the firearm is manufactured or imported, and continues on to when it is sold or transferred, and even beyond that.

What is most worrisome is when the firearms fall into the wrong hands. This is why a rigorous, effective, and unrestricted firearm tracking system would be essential for this law to be enforced.

That is where a strengthened ability to trace non-restricted firearms effectively would be essential for law enforcement.

All of this is being proposed with privacy rights top of mind. In that respect, law enforcement would have no special powers here. They would need to continue to comply with existing laws. All of it is supported by applying a consistent approach to classification of firearms, and requirements for safe and legitimate transport. It is backed by over $327 million of new federal funding to support initiatives aiming to reduce gun crime and criminal gang activities.

The government understands that changing the law is only one piece of the puzzle. Efforts like capacity-building, education, outreach, research, and importantly, more front-line police officers are being dedicated through this new federal funding. We believe in effective measures that strengthen public safety, while remaining fair and manageable for law-abiding owners and businesses. Firearm-related violence has not been the norm in Canada. We intend to keep it that way. That is why I am proud to be standing behind Bill C-71 and this legislation today.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would just encourage all members to think about the innocent lives that have been lost, to remember that in the course of debating this bill what we are trying to do is not only to pay homage to those lives which have been lost needlessly and senselessly as a result of gun violence, but also to prevent the next unnecessary loss. This bill would do that. It would do so in a way by striking a balance between having sensible laws while at the same time respecting responsible gun ownership.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think this is just an attempt to change the channel by the government. We will not even be allowed one full day of debate on a bill that was just introduced last week.

The public is barely starting to find out about this and realizing that the government is creating a gun registry again. The parliamentary secretary claims not, but how else can the bill refer to a registrar and that transfer authorizations need to be obtained from the registrar? That transfer authorization would have a number attached to it. A record of all the transactions and sales by firearms businesses would need to be kept for 20 years and be available on demand.

How can the parliamentary secretary claim that this is not just a renewed gun registry?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can claim that because the provisions which are being put forward in this legislation are entirely sensible. They are practical and they are balanced. They call for a number of things, such as enhanced background checks.

I would ask the member to find me one member in the chamber who does not believe that in so many other areas and aspects of life where we require some due diligence before giving people access to cars or to any other aspect of life in a similar way we would not require the same kind of due diligence, in fact enhanced due diligence, when it comes to giving access to firearms, which presents some risk. Those are the types of practical measures which I would think would be embraced by all members in the chamber.

When it comes to the type of dilatory tactics that we have seen, it is a bit rich coming from members on the other side who used time allocation in ways never seen before in the history of this chamber. We will take no lectures from the Conservative opposition when it comes to debates in the chamber.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I go on to the next question, I just want to remind hon. members that the rules in the chamber are that one side asks a question, the other side answers, and we try to hear both sides. I am not sure that what we are hearing now is actually shouting, but it is heckling going back and forth and it is getting a little bit out of hand.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence has highlighted exactly what this legislation is about. It is about a sensible approach to making sure that responsible gun owners can continue to participate in the activities that they do and at the same time make it safer for Canadians, and in particular as I see it, younger Canadians.

This legislation would strengthen the process by which somebody can obtain a firearm. Currently, the CFO, the chief firearms officer, can only look back five years into somebody's history when making a determination as to whether or not the person can own a firearm.

The member has had a lot of experience in his previous career, and I am wondering if he could comment as to how this legislation could transform the way we genuinely look at somebody's history and whether he thinks it is a good idea that we look even further back than just five years.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for all of his work on this file.

Having had the benefit of playing a role within the criminal justice system, I am familiar with the fact that there is an increasing amount of gun violence. As I described in my remarks, that is not an issue which just impacts big cities. It is an issue which we are seeing start to increase in trend in rural areas as well.

It only makes sense that we provide the tools that are necessary to law enforcement and to those who are looking to sell firearms to individuals, that we provide the mechanisms they need to do the due diligence to ensure that we are not providing access to any firearm to any individual who may pose a heightened risk. This is common sense. This is sensible.

I look to my friends across the aisle and I put the challenge to them to tell me why we would only want to look back five years when we know that individuals who are engaged in organized crime often have a history which reaches beyond that temporal limit. I put that question back to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to take part in this debate today.

Canadians must see their government take a stand, as communities across the country are suffering the consequences of gun-related crimes and violence.

We are not talking about making sweeping changes or imposing unreasonable measures on responsible gun owners. I would not support such measures, and that is not what we are doing. We are also not talking about restoring old measures, like the long gun registry.

Our Prime Minister made this very clear when he spoke in Hawkesbury, in my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. On the contrary, we are talking about taking an objective look at the problems, facts, and evidence, to fix shortcomings and to develop a practical approach to combatting gun violence.

Bill C-71 builds on the government's commitment to take a responsible approach to prioritizing public safety, while being practical and fair to firearms owners. This is a direct response to a growing problem.

Statistics Canada published a report entitled “Homicide in Canada, 2016”, which paints a clear picture of the situation. The data for 2016, the most recent year for which we have data about the situation, are alarming. According to the report, for the third consecutive year, there was an increase in both the number and rate of firearm-related homicides.

The report states that, in 2016, there were 223 firearm-related homicides in Canada, which is 44 more than in 2015. The data also show that there were 2,465 firearm-related criminal offences in 2016, which is 30% more than in 2013.

These numbers speak to the tragic trend playing out in our streets and communities. The reason for this trend is clear: the wrong people are getting their hands on weapons, sometimes by breaking and entering or cross-border smuggling, sometimes through illegal sales by licensed owners or arms trafficking by organized crime. These circumstances increase the number of handguns on our streets and the amount of gun violence in our otherwise peaceful communities.

We can reverser this trend by making sure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands by improving the effectiveness of background checks and the firearms licensing system.

Bill C-71 includes, among other things, practical proposals and a more rigorous background check process for issuing licences.

Under this bill, verifying gun licences will be mandatory for the sale of non-restricted firearms. Anyone who wants to purchase or receive that kind of firearm, from either a business or individual, will have to demonstrate that they have a valid licence. What is the point of having a licence if the holder cannot prove that it is valid? In addition, the business or individual will be required to verify the validity of the licence with the RCMP. At present, the verification process is optional when transferring non-restricted firearms. The government does not track those sales. This bill addresses that gap.

As for strengthening the background check process, the authorities who determine eligibility will have to take into account certain information reported by police services, as well as other factors related to the individual's entire life, rather than only the previous five years.

Furthermore, if an individual has been convicted of a violent offence involving firearms or drugs, if he or she has been treated for mental illness involving violent tendencies, or if he or she has a history of violent behaviour, authorities will be obligated to take that into account as part of the overall history.

What is more, all licence holders are currently subject to continuous eligibility screening. That means that when the chief firearms officer is informed of certain interactions with police, he could suspend the licence pending further investigation in order to determine whether the person is still eligible to be a licence holder. This is one of the reasonable changes that can be implemented to ensure that firearms do not end up in the wrong hands.

Whenever we see the devastation that results from gun violence, we often ask why the person was armed and how this could have been allowed. The answer can be complicated.

It may be that the individual never turned in their firearm after being required to do so, or that a person without a licence bought a gun on the black market or brought a gun into the country illegally. Often what happens is that straw purchasers acquire guns legally and then transfer or resell them illegally. Enhancing gun traceability mechanisms would be a practical way of better monitoring where guns end up when this happens.

That is why this bill will require firearms businesses to keep transfer and inventory records on non-restricted firearms. Although this is common practice in the industry, we want to make it mandatory today. This will be a clear rule for all new entrants interested in selling firearms. By making this practice mandatory, we will be giving police an important tool for identifying suspects in gun-related offences, which will support criminal investigations. The government will not own the records and will not force retailers to provide this information without a warrant. If the police wants any of the information for its investigations, it will have to follow the normal Criminal Code procedure for obtaining personal information. These records will have to be kept by firearms businesses, not the government, for at least 20 years.

In 2016, 31% of the guns recovered after gun homicides were firearms that did not require registration, a category that includes long guns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. This is a good example of the current situation. Guns are ending up in the wrong hands, which is why we are taking concrete action on licence verification and guns traceability.

All this is reinforced by the proposal in Bill C-71 to standardize the classification of firearms and strengthen requirements for the safe and legitimate transportation of firearms. The Government of Canada's number one responsibility is to keep Canadians safe. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has clearly demonstrated his commitment to stamping out gun crime and gang activity. In fact, he recently announced a federal investment of more than $327 million over five years and $100 million per year after that to address this priority.

Thus, the proposed combination of pragmatic reforms that are the direct result of our 2015 campaign promise will further support this priority objective. It seeks to reverse the rising gun violence in our country and we are certain that it will have real and lasting impacts. These are practical, targeted, and well-thought-out measures which, as a whole, will enhance the safety of our communities. In making these changes, we have ensured that our efforts are fair, effective, practical, and safe. We believe the bill achieves that objective. The funding for our police forces and Bill C-71 are tools to combat violence.

As a rural MP, I am proud to support this bill, which does not entail a test, application, or additional costs, and does not impact our farmers and hunters. That is why I am supporting this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech in the House of Commons today in this key debate.

This is an essential debate, because the government is rushing Bill C-71 without the proper ability for people to ask questions. Why did the minister, yesterday, in refuting allegations about this being a backdoor registry, suggest that the only record required would be for owners of stores, who would keep a record of the name and the PAL, the possession acquisition licence? He neglected to say the make, the model, the type, the serial number, and a range of other issues. Was that omission a way to discount our suggestion that this is a backdoor registry? It seems that by omitting the types of information contained in the Liberals' old long-gun registry, the minister is trying to deflect our claim that this is indeed the reintroduction of the long-gun registry by stealth. I know that in that member's riding, which is not far from here, a lot of people have concerns about the return of the long-gun registry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that the Prime Minister was in my riding and reiterated the fact that we were not reintroducing the long-gun registry. I would also remind him that the Conservatives presented a motion to adjourn the debate on Bill C-71 yesterday.

The member was in cabinet in the previous government. Through Bill C-42, the Conservatives did not introduce any motion or any law to ban the practice of the Canadian Tires or Cabela's of the world of refusing to get details from gun owners. Why did they not do that back then? When the retailers have to call the RCMP or the chief firearms officer, they will not ask for any details about which guns people bought.

I would remind him that the only gun registry in this House is the Conservative Party's. They ask for names, for emails, and for donations to the cause. It is the only party that is making a gun registry about law-abiding citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have already seen that Quebec has a firearms registry. The government says time and time again that it will not introduce a long-gun registry because it already has one for restricted and prohibited firearms. When the Liberals say that they will not introduce one, are they not really just leaving it to the provinces to construct one themselves?

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

Mr. Speaker, no.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeing the Liberals' fascination with guns. They are always attacking guns, and they never seem to recognize that it is not the gun that is the a problem, it is the person behind the gun.

As I look at this legislation, I wonder what is being done about rural crime and things that affect people on a day-to-day basis. If I saw something in this bill that actually addressed rural crime, I would say that maybe there was something here, but there is not. The Liberals keep going after something simple like the mechanism, not the problem. What are they going to do to change that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the member is asking about gang violence in our cities and communities, because I would remind him that on November 17, the Minister of Public Safety introduced $327 million to fight exactly that. While opposition members delayed debate in Parliament last week, all the members on the other side of the House voted against those measures. I hope they will be honest with their constituents and tell them that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in debate on Bill C-71. I feel particularly lucky, because the government is once again limiting debate on matters before Parliament, something the deputy House leader of the Liberal Party suggested it would never do when it was in opposition. However, we now have had well over two dozen opportunities for time allocation and omnibus legislation, particularly in implementing budgets, something he called an assault on democracy in the past.

What I find so interesting is that the hashtag used by Liberal MPs during the election was #RealChange, and what we see is a real change from what they promised. A lot of them in ridings like Peterborough, Northumberland—Peterborough South, Bay of Quinte, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, Kenora, and Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, where the previous speaker is from, have told their constituents that they opposed the previous Liberal majority government's targeting of law-abiding gun owners in the form of a long-gun registry, which was premised on fighting crime but was fighting crime by attacking the rights of law-abiding citizens, many of whom are among the most law-abiding citizens in the country. Statistics can prove that. There are responsibilities that come with possessing the right to have a firearm. These are already among the most law-abiding citizens, or they do not get that right.

I should say that I am going to divide my time with the capable MP for Lakeland.

Once again, we have the same approach. All those MPs are now quite worried about keeping their promises to their constituents. They are quite worried, because they see the same approach the Liberal government, under Jean Chrétien and Allan Rock, took to firearms regulation.

The Minister of Public Safety, his parliamentary secretary, and a number of other MPs hosted a summit on guns and gangs. They made a lot of news about that, but in Bill C-71, there is nothing to tackle gang-related crime. There is nothing to tackle illegally smuggled weapons at the U.S. border. In the Conservative government, we armed the CBSA and gave it additional resources to make sure that illegal weapons could be caught coming into the country, which is the problem.

Not only do we not have that, there is no reference in this bill to increasing penalties for the use of guns in violent crime or gang-related organized crime. None of that is there. Just like Chrétien and Allan Rock, the Liberals talk about the need for legislation because of crime and then go after law-abiding sport shooters and hunters in rural Canada from aboriginal communities. These are the people who would have to suffer the consequences of Bill C-71 and the backdoor registry, which I will speak about in a moment.

Even on the weekend, we heard the Minister of Public Safety try to evade questions from CBC Radio on The House. I invite people to listen to that. He used a five-year period when talking about gun violence. He did that because 2013 was the lowest year in modern records for violent crime involving guns in Canada. He used that as a starting point to try to show dramatic increases in crime. Seconds later, the minister had to acknowledge that the Liberals only use a one- to two-year time frame to suggest that this bill is needed because guns are coming from robberies in rural areas or robberies from stores.

The Liberals are saying that the problem is domestic. They are saying that the problem is not the illegal smuggling of weapons from the United States, which I would suggest to this House is the problem with guns and organized crime. They are not using a possession and acquisition licence when running guns from the United States. The minister uses a one- to two-year timeline to suggest that there is a real problem with thefts of firearms from stores and rural properties.

What is terribly ironic in that for two years members of the Conservative caucus have been demanding a response from the government with respect to rural crime, because we have seen a large increase. Not only has there been no response, no additional RCMP resources, and no strategy, but now the government is blaming crime rates in rural Canada and using it as a justification to bring in a backdoor gun registry.

If the government is trying to not cherry pick statistics, why a five-year window for gun violence statistics as a justification for Bill C-71 and a one to two-year window to suggest the problem is domestic based? The CBC caught him in that conundrum, and he tried his best to avoid it.

We are also seeing a change, allowing final control to go from government and cabinet to bureaucrats. I have the utmost respect for the RCMP and all its specialized units, but as a veteran, a lawyer, a parliamentarian, I am very much of the view that Parliament creates the laws and the RCMP enforces the laws. It does not write the laws.

The government has grandfathered in the bill a number of firearms that it is reclassifying. Why did it do that? Because it is admitting that reclassifications are unfair. I would like to see a change to the bill that makes grandfathering permanent going forward, so if there is ever a reclassification, people affected and their property rights are grandfathered. The government seems to admit that grandfathering is required here. Why not make it prospective going forward?

Here is why. Law-abiding owners who follow all the rules and regulations with respect to their firearm are suddenly, because of one meeting of some bureaucrats, declared criminals or in possession of an illegal weapon when they have owned and used that weapon for sport shooting or hunting for many years. Suddenly, with one blanket move, what dozens, hundreds, or thousands of people already possess is somehow deemed illegal. If the Liberals are going to grandfather them in the bill, they should grandfather them going forward. I would like to see that.

The very fact that the Liberals use grandfathering is an admission that the reclassifications we have seen in previous years have been unfair to people who follow the rules and are law-abiding.

This suggestion by the Liberal government that this is not a backdoor registry is laughable. I mentioned a number of ridings before. The Liberals are going to have to go to the ridings and say how this is not a stealth attack to bring back the registry. As I said earlier, yesterday in the House the Minister of Public Safety suggested to the House, “All they are asking for now is for store owners to keep records of who bought the gun, and under what PAL (Possession Acquisition Licence).” That is incomplete. That is actually not accurate. What Bill C-71 says, and I am quoting from section 58.1 (1), “(b) the business must record and—for a period of .... make, model and type and, if any, its serial number....” This is in addition to the two elements that the Minister of Public Safety suggested.

On top of that, the use of the term “registrar”, the data, all of this is in a backdoor way. The problem here, as the member for Kenora, another riding where people are going to be asking questions, is that the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney brought in background checks. We agree with background checks. Enhancing those are fine. However, when the legislation is premised on tackling guns and gangs, and we look at the legislation, there is zero on illegal weapons smuggled from the United States, zero on organized crime, and zero on gangs.

There is a total focus on the registration, the recording, the auditing of people who are following the rules, the people who are using these in rural Canada, hunters, farmers, and first nations. The Liberals have set up the argument as having to tackle urban crime. Once again, it is a back-door attempt to regulate and reclassify law-abiding users.

To have a PAL, one has to be law-abiding. These are some of our most law-abiding citizens. Therefore, I wish the Liberals would stop this pitting of rural Canada versus urban Canada and be straight with all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member opposite to take a look at page 208, under part 4 of the budget that was just dropped. The Conservatives voted against the section under part 4 entitled “Taking Action Against Guns and Gangs”, which is a $100 million a year investment to deal with the issue the member raised. He suggested that we were not doing anything about it. They voted against taking action and supporting communities that were experiencing violence, one of which is mine, a downtown riding in the middle of Toronto.

We just had an innocent bystander shot in our city by an individual who had access to 11 legal guns. He was a legal gun owner. When police officers found that individual and recovered the gun involved in the shooting, they could not recover the other 10 guns. That responsible gun owner had somehow irresponsibly lost those 10 guns, including shotguns. Because we could go back and find out where they were purchased, we then had access to all the other people the guns had been shared with and all the other crimes they had committed.

There needs to be a structure around how urban crime happens, and it does not just happen with guns smuggled across the border. It does not just happen with long guns. It happens with hand guns and pistols. We need a way to restrict those weapons and control their movement in cities to make them safe.

I appreciate that rural crime needs a different approach and that we need to respect long gun owners in rural Canada. Those guns are as much tools as they are a hobby or sporting utility. However, the reality is that this proposed gun legislation will make our cities safer and it will make responsible gun owners completely different from irresponsible gun owners. Therefore, when there are clear rules to follow, all of us are safer, all of us do better, and that is why the legislation is so needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend for Spadina—Fort York demonstrates in the House the way the Liberals are spinning urban issues versus rural issues. I said that there was nothing in Bill C-71 on guns and gangs. That is the reason the legislation is before the House. The member had to quote the budget and some general allocation of funds. There is nothing in the bill. I invite the member to rise on a point of order and point me to something in the bill, because there is nothing in here with respect to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member asked me to rise on a point of order, and the point of order I would like to raise is that quite clearly he has not read the legislation. I can point him to where it helps.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We are getting into debate. I want to remind hon. members that when they rise on a point of order, it is because something is in contravention of the rules. I do not think inviting the other side to rise on a point of order is quite kosher. I will leave it at that. I put that out there as more of an advisement than anything else.

The hon. member for Durham.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that clarification. I appreciate the the fact that the member for Spadina—Fort York tried his best to correct the record from his previous intervention, but clearly was unable to.

The member is going back and forth. We need to control and ensure there is an urban crime strategy and therefore the Liberals have brought in Bill C-71. The challenge here is that none of this addresses gang-related gun crimes or organized crime. By going to the store level as opposed to the home, the Liberals are trying to bring in the registry by a back door. In several Parliaments in the past we saw that it did not work, it did not hit crime, it cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and it targeted law-abiding people as opposed to law breakers.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a rural riding on Vancouver Island. We certainly have had the initial knee-jerk reaction to Bill C-71. However, the vast majority of gun owners in my riding own non-restricted firearms. When I have a cursory look at Bill C-71, I do not think anyone will see much of a change once the bill becomes law.

I want to question the member on the backdoor registry, because I am trying to understand the Conservatives. They like to support law enforcement and they want to support gun owners. If police officers have a case involving a firearm, does the member not agree they should have a tool, through a warrant, to seek out more information about a possible firearm that was used?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member pointed to what law enforcement had right now. Enforcement officers do have the power to seek warrants. They have the power, supervised by our courts, to search a premise, demand property, tap phones, all these sorts of things. Law enforcement already has the tools to investigate.

My issue is always the premise for this debate. The member for Spadina—Fort York had to go to the budget to provide some reference to gangs. The Liberals always premise legislation like this as a way to tackle gang violence. However, when we look at the details, it is not. It is once again targeting the very law-abiding people who try to treat this right, and have done so responsibly. Going after responsible Canadians is not the way to fight urban crime. We need a real strategy from the government, rather than divide Canadians once again.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as with Liberals in the past, Bill C-71 targets legal and responsible gun owners while doing nothing to combat the criminal and unauthorized possession of firearms, address gang violence, or combat crime in Canada. The lack of focus on crime is particularly frustrating for everyday Canadians, who have felt helpless as crime, with increasing violence, has become a crisis in rural communities, as it has in Lakeland. It also shows how out of touch the Liberals are with rural Canadians who legally own firearms and need them for protecting livestock and pets from predators or for humane euthanasia of livestock suffering from fatal, catastrophic illness or injury when a vet is hours and miles away. For example, on March 5, a cougar attacked a group of farm animals at a rural Comox Valley property, killing a lamb and injuring a donkey. The owner called the RCMP and then shot at the cougar, and the predator subsequently ran away. These are the everyday uses of firearms by farmers and rural Canadians in remote communities.

Responsible firearms owners in Lakeland have seen what Liberal predecessors did, with the creation of a long gun registry, which treated law-abiding firearms-owning men and women as suspicious and nefarious by default, and they have been bracing for legislation similar to Bill C-71 to be introduced. It epitomizes the Liberals' approach of swinging blindly at an issue, in this case the real and serious problems of the unauthorized possession of guns, gang violence, and actual gun crimes, and penalizing only those who have done nothing wrong. Constituents in Lakeland are disappointed but not surprised that the Liberals missed the mark so badly. Tyler Milligan, a proud gun owner who enjoys going hunting with his grandkids, said this: “As a very active hunter and a competition shooter, I feel this bill is an attack on law-abiding gun owners, and I feel that this bill is not targeting issues that Canada has related to guns.”

It is clear that this legislation was created by individuals who have no experience with law-abiding gun owners and no understanding of the legitimate use and need for firearms in rural and remote communities, or of those for whom firearms are culturally and socially significant, representative of pioneering and western heritage, or treasured family heirlooms.

Bill C-71 is yet another broken promise. The Liberal election platform said that the Liberals would take pragmatic action to make it harder for criminals to get and to use handguns and assault weapons in crimes, but law-abiding firearms owners' guns are not on the streets. They are safely secured and locked up in safes and cabinets, or they are on the range or in the fields with their owners. These people are not criminals. They should not be penalized for their choices to hunt or to sport shoot. The Liberals are repeating history and showing that they have learned nothing from the mistakes of past Liberal governments that were expensive and burdensome when it came to the legal possession of firearms in Canada, while being ineffective in actually addressing the criminal use of guns.

Bill C-71 also gives an indication of planned prohibitions to come. I get the strong sense that while the Liberals are trying to reassure Canadians by saying they are not banning anything today, Bill C-71 sets out a framework to implement bans in the future. Proposed subsection 12(9) does not explicitly state who would make the determination of which firearms could be added to a restricted list and under what legislative authority. It is also not clear if there would be any sort of appeals process or provision should a heavy-handed, behind-closed-doors decision without evidence or consultation be made to add a firearm to the list, penalizing law-abiding gun owners. I ask members to forgive the skepticism of everyday Canadians, but there have been mistakes made with incorrect firearms classification in the past, when there was, at the very least, a check and balance of elected officials. With this power removed, who would be left to ensure that law-abiding firearms owners are not suddenly and immediately criminalized and unfairly targeted by incorrect firearms classification? Anyone who supports civilian oversight of law enforcement should be concerned about Bill C-71.

Let us be honest. There is little trust to begin with between law-abiding firearms owners and the Liberals of today. Perhaps the aspect of Bill C-71 that I have already heard the most concern about is the creation of a registry by another name, a backdoor registry. The Liberal campaign also promised explicitly not to create a new national long gun registry to replace the one that had been dismantled. However, under Bill C-71, businesses would be forced to keep a record associating individual people with specific, individual firearms. If this is not a registry, what is? It would create a registry without actually saying so. Under this legislation, firearms owners would be issued a reference number by a registrar. What do registrars do? They maintain registries. Canadians know that the long gun registry, which the previous Conservative government scrapped, was wasteful and ineffective, and did nothing to combat gun violence.

It is incredibly disappointing and frustrating for law-abiding gun owners to face new costs, responsibilities, and hurdles, when that will do nothing to get illicit firearms off the streets, or deter or punish criminals who use firearms in their heinous acts.

The Liberals claim that Bill C-71 is safety legislation. The public safety minister is cherry-picking statistics to maximize the illusion that the situation in Canada is dire, and that this particular legislation is desperately needed. Let me be clear. Conservatives believe strongly in making our country as safe and secure as possible and taking logical and effective steps to empower law enforcement and to protect vulnerable and innocent Canadians.

Let us look at the facts of what the public safety minister could have done to make Canada safer.

The public safety minister held a guns and gangs summit, but chose not to address gangs in this apparently flagship legislation.

The public safety minister has mentioned the insufficient commercial storage for firearms, but has not expanded on the issue and does not deal with it in Bill C-71, which does not allow us to debate it.

The Liberals have failed to invest in technologies to enhance the ability of the hard-working men and women who serve as border guards to detect and halt illegal guns from the U.S. into Canada.

Instead of spending $8.5 million on a skating rink on the Hill, next door to the largest skating rink in the world, the Rideau Canal, maybe if the Liberals wanted to choose a campaign promise to follow through on they could have provided, as they promised, $100 million per year to the provinces and territories to combat illegal gun activity.

Bill C-71 does nothing about any of that. It does nothing to combat gang violence in B.C.'s Lower Mainland, gun violence in the GTA, or the escalating crime rates in rural communities, which are making many in my home province of Alberta vulnerable and they feel totally abandoned by the government's slow inaction on crime.

Perhaps the Liberals will listen to Jennifer Quist, from Lakeland, who writes that people “have lost the 'small town' way of life to constant waves of crime without the punishment. It is the unlawful who run the show around here, the criminals with nothing to lose who win at this game.” She also wrote, “Such bureaucracy in a time when all we hear about is the way our government is wasting the money of the taxpayer.”

What the Liberals ignore is that responsible firearms owners across Canada are careful and conscientious. They believe in a culture of safety in the possession and handling of their firearms. They, more than anyone, want stiffer penalties and real action against those who use firearms to commit crimes, and against gang activity that puts us all at risk.

Roy Green gave a good explanation of what law-abiding firearms owners do. He stated:

To legally own a firearm in Canada comes with responsibility. When not in approved use, a trigger lock, at least, must be engaged on each gun. Ammunition must be stored separately from the gun it is intended for. And separately doesn’t mean an ammo box parked beside the firearm. Separately means just that — perhaps rifle in one room, ammunition in another. Gun owners with children frequently will store their firearms, trigger locks engaged, in a gun safe with ammunition in a locked box some distance away.

These are citizens committed to safety, who are vetted to ensure they can acquire a firearm, not thugs on the streets who are quite obviously not worried about laws, rules, regulations, or paperwork.

I would like to end by imploring rural members of the Liberal backbench to listen to the common-sense concerns they are hearing from their constituents about this legislation. They know, as well as I do, that Bill C-71 does nothing to combat criminal activity and illegal possession or use of firearms. Law-abiding gun owners should not be treated like criminals. I hope these Liberals will not give in to caucus pressure to vote for this ill-conceived legislation, and instead will do the right thing and listen to the hunters, farmers, and sport shooters in their ridings, who are not criminals.

Bill C-71 should be scrapped. The Liberals should listen to everyday Canadians about what it is like to legally own and responsibly handle firearms. They should take action to crack down on criminals, protect the security of innocent Canadians, and prevent more victims of crime. The Conservatives will not support legislation like that. We will continue to be in favour of concrete actions that will actually keep Canadians safe. There are no new measures in Bill C-71 to combat gang or gun violence in urban areas, or to address the serious concerns of escalating armed crime in rural communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me once again try to put before the House how this helps people in urban settings who are dealing with extraordinary gun violence. I want to start by saying that I have been to more burials for people in one of the neighbourhoods I represent than I have been to funerals for my own family. Gun violence is so serious in urban settings, and the margin of error is just not there. When a gun goes off in a crowded urban area, people get killed. We had an innocent bystander killed this week in Toronto. The gun that killed her was owned by a “responsible“ gun owner, a licensed gun owner. All 11 guns this individual owned, including long guns, were in an arsenal in the riding I represent. The ability to transport handguns around the city without stronger regulation and restriction allowed this individual to “lose” his guns. Those guns have been lost in the streets of Toronto, and they make my city, my community, and the residents I represent very vulnerable.

This legislation, which would restrict the transportation of handguns in cities, because they are restricted weapons, is good for Toronto. Thank goodness so many gun owners are responsible and do what they have to do about locking up their guns, separating the ammunition, and disassembling the trigger mechanism. Thank goodness that happens. However, the lost handguns from so-called responsible gun owners are killing children in Toronto. This legislation addresses it and builds on the investments made in the budget to deal with this very dangerous issue in Toronto.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here is what is happening in my riding of Lakeland. A single woman was working alone in a store at a hotel. Four men, masked with bandanas, sunglasses, and hoodies, entered the lobby and forced her to lie down on the ground. She tried to look up and was reportedly hit several times about the head, suffering minor injuries. She was unable to get a good look at the robbers' appearance and clothing. They were armed. They robbed her. This is a town that has repeated robberies. The RCMP was called immediately afterwards. That was in Vegreville.

More recently, after an armed robbery in Bonnyville, an employee was shot and three suspects were arrested. There are robberies happening all over the place in the rural area where I live, on farms up and down the highway. What is happening is that criminals, who are not worried about adhering to rules, laws, or paperwork, get a slap on the wrist and go out to repeat those exact same offences.

The reality is that Bill C-71 does not do one thing to address any of that. It does nothing to protect my rural constituents who are facing that kind of crime. If the member was being honest, it does not do anything to protect the constituents in his riding either.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lakeland, Alberta has a rural riding very similar to mine. Her clear understanding is the opposite of what the member across the way is trying to get across. I sympathize, and I am sure my colleague does, that there is a problem identified with illegal guns and murders when the trigger is pulled in a large urban centre. It is obviously different.

Everyone here, especially on this side of the House, wants communities to be safe, but we cannot target rural areas just because they have a larger number, on average, of law-abiding firearms owners, who use them to hunt and to protect their property.

When I was actively farming, the odd time over the years I would have a rabid fox among my livestock. I have a right to protect my property, and that is what the gun was for. That gun was there all the time. We cannot have the same rules there. I would like my colleague to comment on that, and why the Liberals continue to pretend they are not creating a backdoor gun registry.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I share the view of my colleague. He and his neighbours, just like me, legitimately need to use firearms as tools in their lives as rural Canadians, as farmers and producers.

What is deeply troubling is that the Liberals are trying to say they are putting forward effective legislation to increase safety and security, but at the same time they want to reintegrate terrorists and talk about removing mandatory minimum sentences, which our government put forth to act as a deterrent and real punishment against heinous crimes and the use of guns by criminals. They mused about removing consecutive sentencing. They clearly have a soft-on-crime approach, which I think we will see when they finally bring forward their criminal justice reform.

That is exactly right. We should be taking action to crack down on criminals, not target law-abiding, responsible firearms owners in any way in Canada.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

I am proud to take part in this debate. As communities across the country face the devastating consequences of gun crime and violence, it is important for Canadians to see the government taking a stand. Doing so does not have to mean making radical changes or placing unreasonable measures on responsible firearms owners, nor does it mean a return to the measures of the past like the long gun registry. On the contrary, it means taking a clear-eyed look at the problems, the data, and the evidence, filling the gaps that need to be filled, and taking a practical approach to tackle gun violence.

Bill C-71 follows up on the government's commitment to take this responsible approach, prioritizing public safety while being practical and fair to firearms owners. It is also a direct response to a growing problem.

The Statistics Canada report entitled “Homicide in Canada, 2016” paints a clear picture of that problem. The year 2016 is the last year for which we have data on this issue and the numbers, frankly, are startling. It indicates that for the third consecutive year, firearms-related homicides increased in both numbers and rate. It tells us there were 223 firearms-related homicides in Canada that year, 44 more than in 2015. The statistics also tell us there were 2,465 criminal firearms violations that year, an increase of 30% since 2013. These figures reflect a tragic trend on our streets and in our communities.

My community is no exception to this reality and in fact faces alarming rates of gun and gang violence. I have the honour of representing the city of Surrey alongside several other members in this place. Last year alone, there were 45 firearms-related incidents in our community, including the riding of Cloverdale—Langley City. While this was a declining trend from previous years, it is still extremely concerning and one of the most important and frequents issues I hear about when door knocking and talking to constituents in the community.

Stories persist in our region of shootings taking place in residential areas that leave bullet holes in homes and front doors, and people are concerned for their safety and that of their families.

The first shooting in Surrey this year took place on 64th Avenue, a main road with gas stations, a variety of businesses, and residential housing in the surrounding area. It is unacceptable that anyone should feel unsafe or that this type of violence could erupt in our neighbourhoods at any given time.

The root of the trend is clear. Guns are falling into the wrong hands and this is happening in communities across the country. Sometimes, they are acquired by break-ins or by smuggling across the border. Other times, they are acquired through illegal sales by licenced owners or through firearms trafficking by organized crime. This only fuels the rise of handguns on our streets and more firearms-related violence in our otherwise peaceful communities, such as my home community of Surrey.

One way we can make a difference in keeping guns out of the wrong hands is by enhancing the utility of background checks and the effectiveness of the existing licensing system. One of the practical proposals in Bill C-71 would allow for a more rigorous licence verification process. Under this legislation, licence verification for non-restricted firearms sales would be mandatory. If people want to purchase or receive such a firearm from a business or an individual, they would be required to prove they have a valid licence. Further, the business or individual would be required to confirm the licence validity with the RCMP. Currently, this verification process is voluntary for non-restricted firearms. This legislation fixes that deficiency.

As part of strengthened background checks, authorities determining eligibility would have to consider certain police-reported information and other factors spanning a person's life, rather than just the last five years. If people have been convicted of certain criminal offences involving violence, firearms, or drugs, have been treated for mental illness associated with violence, or have a history of violent behaviour, authorities would be required to consider those factors over their life history.

Further, all licensees currently undergo continuous eligibility screening. This means that when a chief firearms officer is made aware of certain police-related interactions, they may place a licence under administrative review, pending an investigation to determine if the individual continues to be eligible to hold a licence.

This is only one of the reasonable reforms we can make to ensure firearms do not fall into the wrong hands. When we see the devastation gun violence causes, we often ask ourselves, “Why did that individual have a gun? How could this have been allowed to have happened?” In some cases, the answer can be quite complex. It may have been someone who never surrendered their firearm when they were supposed to, or it may have been someone without a licence or who smuggled or purchased a firearm on the black market.

Illegal gun sales often happen through so-called straw purchasing in which a licensed owner purchases firearms legally and then sells or transfers them illegally. A practical approach to this problem is to strengthen current tracing measures in order to better track the flow of firearms when that happens.

That is why under this legislation firearms businesses will be required to retain, transfer, and inventory records related to non-restricted firearms. While that is common practice in the industry, we will be requiring it by law. Making it mandatory will better support criminal investigations, giving police an important tool to help identify suspects of firearms-related offences.

In addition, under Bill C-71 business records must include information like the reference number of the licence verification, the licence number of the transferee, and information on the firearm that is sold or transferred, thereby ensuring firearms are only being sold to those with a valid licence. Firearms businesses, not the government, would need to maintain these records for at least 20 years.

In 2016, 31% of recovered firearms from gun-related homicides did not require registration. That included long guns, for example, hunting rifles and shotguns. Case in point, guns are falling into the wrong hands and that is why we are taking concrete action on licence verification and tracing.

All of this is bolstered by proposals in Bill C-71 that will provide consistency in classification of firearms and strengthen requirements for the safe and legitimate transport of firearms.

The Government of Canada has no greater responsibility than keeping Canadians safe, including citizens of my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has clearly demonstrated that we will crack down on gun crime and criminal gang activities by recently announcing $328 million over five years and $100 million annually thereafter to reduce gun crime across Canada. This announcement took place in Surrey and reflects our government's commitment to investing in measures that will reduce crime in our communities.

Our approach to public safety also includes investing in our youth so that we prevent them from coming into contact with guns and gang violence in the first place. In February, I had the opportunity to announce $5 million over five years in federal funding for the national crime prevention strategy to help expand the YMCA's plus-one mentoring program. We are building on the proven success of this program of directing at-risk youth away from interactions with the justice system and ensuring they have the support and guidance they need.

Our approach is multi-pronged, recognizing that public safety is paramount.

The Minister of Public Safety also recently hosted a summit on gun and gang violence, bringing together partners from government, law enforcement, academia, community organizations, and mayors from some of Canada's largest urban centres to tackle gun and gang violence.

These measures, along with the legislation before us today, demonstrate a package of sensible reforms and actions flowing directly from the platform commitment we made in 2015. They are aimed at reversing the increasing trend of gun violence in our country and we are confident they will make a real and lasting difference. These are practical, targeted, and measured steps that, when taken together, will make our communities safer.

In making these changes, we have ensured our approaches are fair, effective, practical, and safe. We believe we have achieved that.

I am proud to give my full support to Bill C-71 and encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. My community will be grateful for the improvements we will see in the safety of our neighbourhoods.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, repeatedly the Liberals have maintained that this legislation would not recreate a gun registry. They say it is not a backdoor reassertion of the gun registry, yet we see in this legislation the word “registrar” and the words “reference number” a total of 28 times.

If there are no concerns about this being another registry, why did the Department of Justice recently ask for some clarification? It is raising concerns about the potential on reasonable search and seizure of the private information of law-abiding citizens. If it is not a concern, why would the Department of Justice have raised this red flag?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to reiterate the statement that our government has made over and over again as we have looked at the bill. It is not an intention. It is not intended. It will not recreate the long gun registry and that is it. It will serve to strengthen the safety of our communities, our neighbourhoods, and the people of my community of Cloverdale, an area that will be pleased with these changes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague. I represent a very large rural region, and I am a registered gun owner. I have just gone through the re-licensing process, and I was very pleased at the checks and balances that were in place. In fact, the RCMP called my wife to ensure that I should be someone who could have access to a gun. She thanked them for taking those checks, because the gun owners who I know want to make sure that guns are not falling into the hands of people who should not have them.

The gun owners I know follow the rules in terms of safe storage, of making sure of licensing, and when they deal with gun stores, those gun stores take their responsibility very seriously. What I am looking at here will codify what for many is a practice already in place to prevent the bad operators.

However, I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the changing of the designation of firearms and deciding what is restricted. I personally am very uncomfortable with the cabinet and politicians deciding what is an appropriate firearm in this country, when I believe it should be law enforcement.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the decision to take the power to decide what is a restricted weapon away from politicians and put it in the hands of the RCMP. Does he think that this will be a good process of reassuring the public that decisions are being made based on public safety, and not based on political interference?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments, his responsible gun ownership, and for his question. To the point that he has raised, I have heard from many gun owners who, like my colleague, are responsible and take the proper precautions and safety measures. That is what we need in our country.

To the specific point, I had a concern when the previous government made changes and put the classification into the political process. Our law enforcement officers and agencies are trained to do this, to make informed decisions. I think that is where it should be. I am very pleased to see that Bill C-71 will make that change. I think that it is the right direction for us to be heading toward.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a home with guns. My father was an avid hunter. In the conversations I have been able to have with folks in my riding about this, mostly the response I am getting is that it is balanced, except for those who have received an email from the party of the official opposition. One of the things that I am hearing is that they are really pleased with the best practices that we are providing within this legislation that are already happening with organizations like Canadian Tire and Cabela's.

I wonder if my colleague might speak to that a bit more.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a great statement. Unfortunately, I have lost my train of thought.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to stand and talk about Bill C-71.

Members across the way should not be surprised. Bill C-71 is yet another piece of legislation in which the Liberals are saying that we made a commitment prior to the last federal election and we are fulfilling that commitment. Every day we see initiatives by the government that reflect what I believe Canadians really want to see good and responsible government doing and taking action on.

Contrast that to my Conservative friends across the way, who prefer to keep their heads in the sand, who prefer to stay out of touch with what truly are the interests of Canadians. They prefer to keep on the course Stephen Harper was leading them on. Quite frankly, I would think Stephen Harper was still leading the Conservative Party, given the behaviour those members continually demonstrate when it comes to their positions on policy.

The Conservatives should be a little cautious on that note. They should try to deviate from the old Stephen Harper agenda and move toward an agenda that at least demonstrates they are concerned about what Canadians have to say about good, solid public policy.

In listening to my friends across the way, it seems to me that they want to vote against this piece of legislation. They are talking negatively about this legislation. I would suggest that if they were to canvass their constituents, they would find there is very good, solid support for the legislation. Why? The essence of this legislation is all about public safety.

That is really what Bill C-71 is all about. It helps to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, as an example. That is a positive thing. Conservatives would find their constituents would support that. It helps police trace firearms used in the commission of a crime. Again, that is a positive thing. Conservative members would find that most of their constituents would support that. The key is they have to listen to what Canadians have to say.

We hear members across the way talk about law-abiding gun owners. The vast majority of law-abiding gun owners do an outstanding job. I commend them on the fantastic work they do to ensure there is responsible ownership. The majority of those individuals, the average law-abiding gun owner would recognize this legislation as good legislation. If we take out the spin from the Conservative Party, it would be most, if not all, Canadians. There might possibly be a few eccentrics, the ones who believe that AK37s should be in everyone's home, who might say no.

This is good legislation. Why are the Conservatives opposing this legislation? They say it is about the long gun registry. Imagine that. They continuously mention the back door. How much clearer can the government be? We have the Prime Minister, even before he was prime minister and now while he is prime minister, saying that we are not bringing in the long gun registry. It is as simple as that, end of story.

It does not matter how many times we say it on this side of the House, the Conservatives will continue to tell mistruths, untruths, on the issue. They will try to stir the pot to say that the Liberals are bringing in a gun registry, when it is just not true. The national long gun registry is done. It is gone. We are not bringing it back—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know the deputy House leader for the Liberals does not speak in this House very often, but he said in his last statement that the Conservatives in debate today have been telling “untruths” and “mistruths”. Both terms are unparliamentary. He is saying we are lying.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Now I have heard “mistruths” from both sides today, and I have let it slide. If the House prefers, we can ban it and if anybody brings it up, we will stop it, regardless of which side says it.

Do I have the unanimous consent of the House to do that for the next 10 minutes while I am in the chair?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

That will be for the next 10 minutes.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way said that I should withdraw my remarks. I withdraw my remarks, given that we are going to have unanimous consent where the official opposition and the NDP will not be able to use the word “untruth”. I think that is a positive thing.

Having said that, there is a reason we have to be very cautious with the Conservatives' approach to this legislation. The bill is actually proposing to obligate retailers to register serial numbers and so forth when they sell guns. That is something that has been taking place in the United States since 1968. We are asking Canadians to support this legislation. Let me be very specific. All it is asking in terms of a registry is to require firearms vendors to keep records of all firearms inventory sales to assist police in investigating firearms trafficking and other gun crimes. The Conservatives are against this. It is hard to believe. That is the link. That is why the Conservatives say it is about the long gun registry. They have not done their homework. It has been done in the United States since 1968 and before the long gun registry we were doing it in Canada. That means Brian Mulroney and the Conservative Party had that as a part of their law. There was not one complaint. In fact, we had one of the Conservative members talk about the good old days of Brian Mulroney when he brought in the background checks. This legislation would enhance the background checks, and the Conservatives are against that.

The Conservatives are so far out on the right on this issue, yet they do not have any problem telling Canadians information that is just not true. They are telling Canadians that it has to do with the long gun registry. That is not true. It does not and members across the way know that. We would think they would be telling Canadians what is in the legislation because that is what Canadians really and truly want to hear.

The Minister of Public Safety has taken the time to do the consultations that are necessary. He has worked with the many different stakeholders. There has been a great deal of debate within our caucus. Members of our caucus, both rural and urban, stand together on this issue because we see this as responsible legislation, legislation that is all about public safety first and foremost. That is why I believe that the Conservative Party, just looking at this legislation alone, is more concerned about spin than it is about good legislation that would have a profound, positive impact on Canadians as a whole.

In part, this legislation deals with the repeal of Bill C-42. I was in opposition when the previous government brought in Bill C-42. It is interesting that the Conservatives chose to bring it in as separate legislation as opposed to including it in budget legislation. They wanted to highlight the fact that they love to debate anything about long guns. Anything that allows them to bring up the idea of a registry, the Conservatives are all in on it. I remember the debate when I was on the other side and talking about how they were loosening up, so that if people wanted to they could put a restricted weapon in the trunk of a car, drive all over the city of Winnipeg or rural Manitoba and then ultimately get to their destination without having to have a permit that would authorize them to do that.

Many of my constituents were concerned about that. It fell on completely deaf ears of the Conservative government because the Conservatives had a message that they wanted to communicate to Canadians. That message, in my opinion, was motivated purely because of politics. To get an appreciation of this issue, we have to understand why it is the Conservative Party over the years goes out of its way, and goes even further than the NRA in the United States does, on these issues. The NRA actually supports retailers' registering guns.

I see my time has run out, although I suspect I might get a question or two.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for that dramatic and incredibly loud speech, but let us focus on the facts. The facts are we do not have a problem in Canada today with lawful gun owners. The problem the government says it wants to address is gangs with guns in urban areas. Many of those individuals do not currently follow the law. In fact, there are a lot of illegal firearms being used.

Could the member explain to me how a new law would impact on the problem of gangs with guns who do not follow laws today?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the introduction of the bill said that it is all about public safety. Public safety is number one. When we think of public safety, not only does it impact gangs in urban centres, but it also has an impact in rural communities. When we talk about public safety and the enabling aspects of this legislation, the good news is that it deals with both urban and rural communities. That is a good thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Ajax, an incredibly tragic triple homicide took place. I had the unfortunate occasion to talk to a constituent whose daughter, Lindsay, was murdered by an individual who purchased a gun legally. This individual had a history of violence, yet was able to purchase a gun.

I can talk about so many elements of how this bill protects public safety, but on the background checks particularly, often in domestic violence situations a woman does not come out about the violence in that situation until much later. If an individual has a history of violence, it may not have been before that five years when that violence occurred. Somebody who commits a violent act in the past is unfortunately very likely to commit that act in the future. In the case of Lindsay and others who were murdered, that individual is not part of a gang network and does not have access to illegal guns. The individual goes to a legal gun shop, purchases that gun, and kills somebody.

Does the member believe, as I do, that these background checks that former Conservative member James Moore believed in are essential to make sure another case like Lindsay's does not happen again?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we take a look at expanding beyond the five years, it is an incredibly positive step forward. Even from the perspective of the Conservatives, they do not seem to be criticizing that aspect as much, because I suspect some are supportive of it. I would suggest that they should support the entire piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, as my friend has pointed out with that particular individual, there are too many Canadians in all regions of our country having to go through situations similar to my friend's. That is one of the reasons it is so important that we recognize the value of this legislation. I would hope for, and l would like to see, unanimous support for it.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member will have a very short time following question period for the rest of the questions and comments following his remarks. He will have a minute and a half, perhaps time enough for one question and answer.

The House resumed from March 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The government House leader spoke recently on this matter, and there is a minute and a half remaining in questions and comments following his speech.

Questions and comments, the hon. opposition House leader.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague from Manitoba a question about this legislation. Gang and gun violence is a problem in cities like Surrey and Toronto, and we even see it in Winnipeg, yet the legislation fails to even mention gangs or organized crime. In fact, it mentions registry and registration 26 times.

Could the member for Winnipeg North please tell us how this legislation will do anything to combat the real gun crime that is happening in Canada? That is not with law-abiding Canadians. That is with gangs and organized crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I had leave to give a detailed answer, I would love to provide all the details in answering that question. Having said that, it is really important that we look at Bill C-71 as another commitment made by the government and checked off, when the legislation ultimately passes. It is all about making Canadians safer, whether it is in urban or rural Canada. This is a good piece of legislation.

Interestingly enough, the Conservatives, who I hope will rethink their position, are trying to give the impression that they are going to be voting against it because retailers are going to be obligated to register serial numbers and so forth. Keep in mind that they have been doing that in the United States since 1968. In fact, the NRA supports retailers by providing them with leather-bound registration kits. Even before we had the long-gun registry, it was being done. I do not quite understand the logic.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-71. I will note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

I am going to be very clear. I will not be supporting Bill C-71, and I will tell the House why. There are three basic reasons, although there is a whole list. I could probably give the House the top 10, but there are more reasons than that.

First of all, the Liberals cannot be trusted when it comes to firearms legislation that would do anything to get firearms out of the hands of criminals while at the same time protecting and respecting law-abiding Canadians. The Liberals cannot be trusted.

There is a statement we have all seen that is true, and that is that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. What have we seen from the Liberals when it comes to gun legislation? We all know about the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry that was introduced by the Liberals. They defended and supported it. It cost $3 billion. It penalized and made criminals out of law-abiding Canadians.

That was the very first thing the Liberals did when they had a chance to do something to combat crime. Now they are back at it. They told Canadians that they were going to introduce a bill on firearms legislation.

The Liberals are having a lot of trouble right now around the disastrous India trip. They are having a lot of trouble because they are breaking promises. The Prime Minister is failing Canadians with his ethical lapses, so the Liberals had a brainwave and decided to go after law-abiding gun owners again; that would work.

As I said, the Liberals cannot be trusted. Gun owners know and Canadians know that the Liberals are going after them instead of going after the people who are actually committing crimes.

In 2009, I was a new member of Parliament, and I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-391, which would have ended the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry. There were a whole lot of Liberal MPs who had told their constituents that they would vote to end the long-gun registry, and the first chance they had to fulfill their word, they did what Liberals do. They broke their promise, which would result in law-abiding Canadians being penalized. I want to remind the House of some of those members who broke their word and are here in this Parliament and will have to answer to their constituents.

For example, the member for Yukon broke his word to protect law-abiding Canadians. He supported the long-gun registry. The next one on the list I will not name. The third one is the member of Parliament for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. He, as well, had an opportunity to support law-abiding Canadians. What did he do? He supported the long-gun registry. The member for Malpeque promised his constituents that he would vote to end the long-gun registry. What did he do? He supported the long-gun registry. The Minister of Public Safety himself, when he was part of the opposition, had a chance to end the long-gun registry. He voted for it and supported it.

One might ask why I am bringing this up now. As I said, the Liberals cannot be trusted. They want to target law-abiding Canadians, because it is easy. It is very easy to target people who are already obeying the law, people who get a license to own a firearm or store owners who already keep records. What easy targets for the Liberals. It is so easy to go after people, under the guise of doing something to combat gun crime, who are already following best practice and already obeying the law.

First and foremost, I do not trust the Liberals. I do not trust them on ethics. I do not trust them on balancing the budget. I do not trust them on keeping their word. I do not trust them when it comes to any kind of gun legislation that would do anything to penalize criminals.

Let us remember, the Liberals actually like to protect and reward criminals. It is quite interesting that we have returning terrorists who have been fighting with ISIS who are being protected. They are being told, “We believe in you. We think you can be rehabilitated.” There is no legislation coming for ISIS terrorists who return to Canada. They will get a nice little group hug and probably more money. However, for gun owners and stores that sell firearms, like Canadian Tire, the government is coming after them.

People who have fought against our allies, like Omar Khadr, get a big payout. The Liberals had no problem just laying that down. Everything Omar wanted, he got. However, they are not standing up for gun owners. It is a whole lot of talk. The only people who actually get protection with the Liberal government are criminals. Therefore, I do not trust them.

I want to talk about the actual substance of Bill C-71, which is the same old, same old. There is nothing here that will protect anyone or do anything to fight crime.

Let us talk about the part of the legislation that will ask store owners to keep records. They are already keeping records. This is like a solution in search of a problem. Crimes are not being committed by people who are legally purchasing firearms. I will provide the statistics on that:

Analysis of a Special Request to Statistics Canada found that between 1997 and 2012, just 7% of the accused in firearms homicides had a valid firearms license (or 2% of all accused murderers).

A person in this country who has a licence to own a firearm is 50% less likely to ever commit a crime with a firearm. It is not like we have some big outbreak of people buying firearms at Canadian Tire and using those firearms in the commission of crimes, and Canadian Tire is saying to the police that it will not give them that information. That is not happening. That is not a problem that needs to be fixed.

I will tell members what is happening. I am going to refer to John Tory, the mayor of the city of Toronto. He noted that only 2% of gun homicide victims in Toronto had no connection to either gangs or drugs and that 98% of the crime that is going on has to do with gangs and drugs. That is where the problem is, and that is what needs to be addressed.

As I mentioned in my question earlier on, this bill does not even mention the words “gangs” or “organized crime”. However, it does mention words the Liberals love, like “registry” and “reference number”, which is their new one, 26 times.

Let us be clear. As per the normal Liberal way of doing things, this is getting ready to create a backdoor registry, which will then very easily turn into the regular, wasteful, and ineffective type of registry the Liberals like to promote.

Some of my colleagues mentioned some of the areas where gangs are getting guns. Let us talk about this seriously. We need to get tough on gangs and on violent crime. When we were in government, there were a lot of things we did. We had the Tackling Violent Crime Act. It provided mandatory prison sentences for serious firearms offences and stricter bail provisions for those accused of serious offences involving firearms. It tackled the problem and did not go after law-abiding gun owners and store owners.

We passed the Act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to organized crime and the protection of justice system participants, which provides police officers and officials with important tools to help them fight organized crime.

Conservatives are the party of law and order. We believe that criminals and people who use guns in the commission of crimes should know that the penalty will be swift and just. We do not believe in attacking law-abiding Canadians who are using firearms for legitimate purposes, nor the store owners who are legally, and in a principled way, selling those firearms.

Because of all their failures and the problems they have encountered over the last number of months, the Liberals are trying to import a problem that is occurring in the U.S. The U.S. gun control situation is completely different from Canadian gun legislation. However, they are trying to bring that here and somehow say that they are fixing a problem that actually exists in the U.S. It is window dressing. It is disingenuous. It is the typical Liberals saying one thing and doing something completely different. It is bad legislation, and it should be revoked.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to tell the House about a mom and two teens, the Pejcinovski family, of Ajax, who were murdered on Wednesday, March 14, in a situation of domestic violence.

I want to remind all members that last November, the Minister of Public Safety introduced $327million to combat guns and gangs. He held a summit in March prioritizing the violence of guns and gangs.

I am wondering what the member opposite will tell constituents in Ajax, or maybe her own constituents. What is so wrong with enhanced background checks for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm? What is wrong with confirming that the licence is valid? What is wrong with having vendors confirm and keep records, keeping in mind that this is not a registry and that one death from gun violence is one death too many?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have been working on this file for many years and I am a big supporter of background checks. Anyone who threatens his or her spouse or has been involved in domestic violence absolutely should not own a firearm. However, the long gun registry did nothing to combat gun violence or domestic violence. In fact, the majority of women who were murdered, were murdered with knives, not with firearms.

Let us talk about domestic violence in an authentic way, and let us deal with it. It has to do with family issues and a lot of things that do not have to do with the actual weapon used in domestic violence.

A very good friend of mine was murdered by a gangster in early 2009. She was pregnant, she was almost ready to deliver her baby, and she was murdered by a gangster with a gun. Therefore, this is very real to me.

Nothing in this legislation, nothing in the long gun registry, nothing the Liberals have introduced has addressed that. Again, they want to coddle the criminal instead of dealing with it. Sometimes it is tough to deal with. It is tough to deal with a returning terrorist, but we have to address the problem and not send a red herring somewhere else to distract. This will do nothing to combat domestic violence. That is just the fact.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the work she has done on this issue. Over the years, her name, the name of Garry Breitkreutz, and other come to mind.

I came into politics to get rid of Bill C-68 and the long gun registry. The day we did it as a government, my constituents were thrilled. We were frustrated with the cost of it. We were frustrated that it did not concentrate on crime, that it concentrated on legally owned firearms by farmers.

There are reasonable people in all parties and I would put out my plea to them. We have gun shows on weekends throughout my rural the riding. These gun shows are for collectors who sell their firearms. People come from across Canada to these gun shows and from Consort, Hanna, Camrose, Castor, and many other places in my riding. Their frustration is with respect to the registration number. Every firearm sold has a licence to purchase it, but the idea that people will have to get hold of Miramichi or a gun group somewhere on a weekend to verify that licence, they know it will shut down these gun shows.

Would my colleague respond to that?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have numerous gun shows in my riding too. They are put on by incredibly responsible and respected people. The firearms that are purchased are not firearms being used in a crime.

Licences are already being checked, because in rural Canada people are responsible. They would never want to sell a firearm to someone who would not legally be able to own that firearm. It is the bureaucracy. We are going back to bureaucracy. We are going back to seeing law-abiding Canadians being bogged down in bureaucracy. Again, the problem is that nothing is happening to combat real gun crime in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to share the time with my esteemed colleague for Portage—Lisgar.

I rise to share the disappointment of tens of thousands of Canadians who are once again under attack by the government for being law-abiding citizens.

Bill C-71, the Liberals' new gun legislation, is a regulatory bill, not a public safety bill. The Liberal government is again ignoring anything to address crime and gun violence. What is apparent is that it was drafted without any thought of what this would do to law-abiding, gun-owning Canadians, like farmers, hunters, gun collectors, and sport shooters. There is nothing in this proposed legislation that addresses any of the problems facing Canadian families, police, rural communities, first nations, inner cities, border agents, gun violence, gangs, or rural crime.

Legislation should be about the values and merits of what Canadians need to improve their quality of life, protect their communities, empower people to prosper, not the Liberal Party.

We have heard what Canadians need for safer communities. In ridings like mine, with vast rural areas, police can sometimes be hours away. Rural Canadians often feel they are left to fend for themselves. With crime rates increasing in rural parts of Canada by 41% in the last few years, the bill would do nothing to address the needs of rural Canada. However, it has the potential to turn rural Canadians into criminals if they own a gun.

Many Canadians have a gun because they need it. They need it to deal with with aggressive predators. They need it for their work, like farmers who may have to put an animal down or control rodents. Sadly, today, many Canadians feel they need these firearms to defend their homes, families, and property from violent attacks and criminal activities.

No one wins when those in rural Canada need to defend themselves from violent criminals. No one should be afraid in their homes, on their farms, or in their communities. However, this is the reality for far too many Canadians in rural communities in Alberta and across our great nation. The fact that this reality is ignored in this regulatory bill is a slap in the face for hard-working, gun-owning Canadians. The bill fails rural Canada and public safety.

As recent as a few weeks ago, we heard at the minister's own guns and gang conference about the challenges facing communities and police, with rising violent crime rates and, in particular, organized crime, guns and gangs. As a former police officer, I understand that police services are doing what they can with the resources available to them and with the many restrictions law enforcement have placed upon them. Criminals do not follow these rules.

We heard from the police at the summit about the increasing number of gangs that were involved in gun violence. These gangs are typically drug dealers or drug related and the shootings are related to protecting territory. These drug dealers and gang members have acquired guns through the black market, smuggling, and theft.

These people do not register their guns. They do not show a licence to buy it. They do not go through a background check. They do not submit to police scrutiny. Only law-abiding gun owners follow these processes.

Adding more processes and background checks does not improve the fight of our communities against gun violence and gangs. Nothing in the bill deals with gangs and their acquisition of illegal weapons. There is no mention of gangs, organized crime, or smuggling in the bill.

The legislation would do nothing to help rural residents in my community. It would do nothing for families dealing with gangs in Surrey. It would do nothing to help police in Montreal or the GTA. It would nothing to combat illegal weapons coming through the black market, smuggled across our borders and into our cities. However, it would provide the Liberals with an ability to say that they tabled legislation, even if it really would not deal with the problem we face.

Here is what I am hearing from Canadians in response to this proposed legislation. How will Canadians be better off with the bill? The government has not provided any evidence that Canadians will be any safer. Why are Canadians who are law-abiding taxpayers being made to look like criminals, while criminals are not being dealt with? What the minister should be concerned about is real public safety issues in Canada, keeping guns away from gangs and violent criminals.

Bill C-71 would not address these issues. It would not make communities safer. It would not protect and save lives. To paraphrase the Prime Minister, it is purely a political game.

For example, the Liberals would remove the limit on background checks from five years to indefinite to meet their promise to enhance background checks. That seems logical and a good idea. However, what would aid Canadians and Parliament is having evidence that this would actually improve public safety. Currently, possession and acquisition licences for firearms must be renewed every five years. The government checks the registry automatically against criminal charges laid in Canada against anybody who had a licence, daily.

Are there Canadians who, in retrospect, should not be receiving gun licences? How would these changes improve public safety? Would longer background checks result in more people being denied guns for good reasons? A better question might be this. If we lift that five-year background check, what reasonable limits will be placed on it?

For example, for mental health screening, what mental health issues would make someone ineligible? What about recovery? Does a minor anxiety issue make one less or more likely to be blocked from hunting? If a veteran has returned from combat and has gone through a mental health issue or battled back from an illness like depression, what would the response be from the chief firearms officer? Would hunters who have gun licences and respect every aspect of our gun laws have their licences removed because of an incident that occurred 25 years ago?

It is not just the new licensing provisions we are hearing about from Canadians. It is the real fear that the Liberals are only looking to bring back a gun registry for unrestricted guns like hunting rifles. This is their fear. In fact, government members have been pushing one line over and over again, which is that this is not a gun registry. Well, that line is as believable as the Aga Khan being a close family friend, as believable as “these taxes will only affect the rich” or “It was India's fault”.

When the Liberals keep telling the House and the public that something is not true, we all have reason to be cautious and scrutinize them carefully.

First, this bill makes specific reference to the “registrar”. I think most Canadians would agree the point of a registrar is to keep a registry. The registrar will have a list of names of licence holders and require all gun sales to consult that list in advance of the sale. That registrar will require all businesses to keep a list of sales and make them available. The registrar will take the records of a gun shop going out of business and keep those records.

The Liberal government is now changing the rules to transport guns again as well. People taking unloaded and trigger-locked guns for repair will now require permission from the chief firearms officer to do so. Then there are the new costs, which have not even been addressed. It would be no surprise to anyone in Canada if the cost of gun licences will increase as a result of all the added red tape.

What should we be doing? There is a better way than ignoring the problem. We cannot address Canada's concerns for safer communities without addressing the cause of these problems. From my perspective, and those with whom I have spoken, there are a number of things the government can do that will have a far greater impact on reducing gun and gang violence in our communities.

Let us actually provide the police the promised funding and the plan for the $327 million to tackle gangs and gun violence. Get that money into the hands of the specialized police units across the country to deal with guns, gangs, and drug traffickers. The RCMP has raised the issue of straw purchasers. Those are people who acquire guns with licences and then sell them on the black market. Instead of punishing law-abiding gun owners who follow the rules, let us empower the police and put in legislation to go after those criminals. We cannot licence the problem away.

Let us help our border agents. CBSA has had a battle, and is in a battle, of dealing with increased black market activities and tens of thousands of illegal border crossers, with no extra resources. Agents I have personally spoken to are exhausted. Let us enforce our border rules, remove illegal crossers, and give CBSA agents the tools to find illegal weapons being smuggled into the country. Let us cut off criminals from their supply of illegal weapons.

Let us focus on intervention programs that stop at-risk youth from entering gangs in the first place. The Conservatives launched these programs in 2006, and I would urge my government colleagues across the way to focus efforts on reducing the flow to new gangs and between gangs.

Finally, let us stop supporting terrorism, terrorists, and criminals and start taking the side of law-abiding Canadians. Law-abiding gun owners should be trusted above criminals.

This bill would hurt law-abiding, honest, hard-working gun-owning Canadians. I hope all members in the House will shift the focus to protecting Canadians by targeting criminals.

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the government's answers to Questions Nos. 1501 to 1510.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for whatever reason, the hon. member did not mention the significant funding increases that the RCMP and CBSA have received under this government, after years of cuts by the previous government. However, I will not ask him about that.

I want to ask him about Ben Harvey. Ben Harvey is an owner of a gun shop in Belleville, High Falls Outfitters. He said:

There’s a lot of moving parts in the proposed bill, but there’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.

Ben Harvey is a gun store owner. He knows that this is a public safety bill. Why does the hon. member not know that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the reality that people have to face is that up until now, good business practice was for people to track their inventory, track whom it was sold to, and track what was sold. That was not a requirement by law. This legislation makes it a criminal offence if a gun shop owner does not do that, which means that even an error made by these gun shop owners could result in a criminal offence.

This is a gun registry. I can have my own opinions. I have received thousands of pieces of correspondence in the last week from concerned citizens who, without exception, are fearful that this is nothing but a backdoor attempt at another gun registry, and we know how that one ended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to ask a question of my hon. colleague, because this guy knows everything about that. My colleague was an RCMP officer with a great career, so he faced and had to deal with today's issue, the issue of this bill, throughout his professional life.

Based on that, I ask my colleague what he sees in this bill that can be changed to really address the threat and the problems that we have to face with the gun registry, especially with terrorists, and also the gangs that use weapons to attack people.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was a great opportunity here for the government to deal with a growing trend in this country, and that is the increased gun violence and increased homicide rate by gangs. It is causing fear in our communities.

This bill fails terribly to address that issue. It does not provide any additional legislation on dealing with smuggling to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. It has nothing to do with improving CBSA access to tracking the smuggling of weapons. It has nothing to do with enhancing the Criminal Code to deal with those who commit criminal offences with a firearm. It is woefully lacking.

Members may want to call this a public safety bill. I am embarrassed to call it a public safety bill, because it really is not. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is more of a regulatory bill. It does not address the issue of crime. It does not address the issue of organized crime. It does not address the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, because criminals do not follow the rules. They have not and they never will.

Therefore, we need to provide a way so that those criminals cannot have access to firearms with the ease with which they do now.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see this as a set of modest improvements. The member noted in particular the question of background checks. He said that this sounds like a good idea in principle but he has a lot of questions about it. We are at second reading, and committee is the perfect time to ask questions of experts on something that sounds like a good idea in principle.

Based on the comments I heard on background checks and the ideas that the member wants to put forward, surely this is something that should be sent to committee and that the member will support. Do I take that to be right?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that the bill is coming to our committee, the public safety and national security committee. There will be a lot of issues that we want to drill down in on that, absolutely including the whole issue of background checks. Whether we will get a real understanding, we do not know. However, I am hopeful that we will have a better idea of what these background checks are going to mean, what they would actually entail, and how they would impact law-abiding Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, Taxation; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Indigenous Affairs; and the hon. member for Sherbrooke, Canada Revenue Agency.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park.

I am pleased to rise today and continue my participation in the legislative process to amend firearms regulation. I stand today as the representative of a largely rural New Brunswick riding called Fundy Royal, a riding where firearms are associated with hunting and sport. It is a riding where the vast majority of firearm owners are law-abiding, dedicated to the community, and very aware that there is growing gun crime in Canada, especially in big cities.

It is for this reason that when our party's 2015 election platform was introduced, which did include a section on gun control, I began consulting with those who were interested in the topic to ensure that I had considered it from many different perspectives, and also to counter the Conservative Party's narrative that the long gun registry would be reinstated. To clarify, Bill C-71 does not implement a gun registry, regardless of how many times that is said by the opposition.

When I was elected, I made a conscious decision to carry out my duties as a member of Parliament with the goal of listening and being persuasive rather than playing into partisan games to the detriment of my constituents. An example of my approach is my analysis and vote against Bill C-246, the modernizing animal protections act, because of the detrimental impact it would have had on our rural area.

I am glad to have been consulted by the Minister of Public Safety in advance of the tabling of Bill C-71, which allowed me to seek meaningful feedback from stakeholders in my riding, whom I now consider my firearms advisory council.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Ron Whitehead and the representatives from many of the sportsmen clubs and fish and game clubs in Fundy Royal for lending me their time and for providing candid feedback, which I was pleased to see had an impact on the drafting of this legislation. It has been my priority to identify the realities of firearm ownership in rural Canada, and to bring that perspective to be considered alongside urban concerns, which are legitimate and do need to be addressed.

In my riding, a firearm is seen as a tool. For generations, law-abiding Canadian gun owners have safely used their firearms for hunting and sport shooting, as well as predator and pest control. Canadian farmers, hunters, and sport shooters are among the most safety-conscious gun owners in the world.

This is in stark contrast to other cultures, where firearms are used as weapons. A weapon is something that is used with the intent to injure, defeat, or destroy. Our challenge is to address the crimes that are being carried out by weapons, while respecting law-abiding firearm owners. It is a fine needle to thread, but through consultation, I believe the minister has found that balance.

I am very pleased that the conversations I have had with my advisory council are reflected in the legislation as it was tabled. I would like to take a few minutes to reflect on what I heard from this group.

To begin with, there were several actions that we have already taken as a government that were well received by the council, for instance the recognition that Bill C-71 is part of a larger strategy to ensure that firearms do not find their way into unlawful hands. This is a strategy that has seen an investment of $100 million each year to the provinces and territories to support guns and gangs police task forces to take illegal guns off our streets and reduce gang violence. It is a strategy that has modified the membership of the Canadian firearms advisory committee to include knowledgeable law enforcement officers, public health advocates, representatives from women's groups, and members of the legal community, to work alongside sport shooters and hunters. It is a strategy that has made investments in border infrastructure and technologies to enhance our border guards' ability to detect and halt illegal guns from the United States entering Canada.

The Fundy Royal firearms advisory council also brought forward the concept of taking a closer look at mental health to combat gun violence. It implored the government to make sure there are enough resources available to do thorough background checks and to find a way to identify red flags.

Bill C-71 proposes to strengthen background checks. Authorities determining eligibility would need to consider certain police-reported information, including criminal and drug offences, a history of violent behaviour, and mental illness spanning a person's life, rather than just the last five years. The licensees will continue to undergo eligibility screening, as they do today.

Through the course of my discussions with constituents, the following items each resulted in recommendations that I would like to bring to the attention of the minister and to our committee as we enter that part of the process.

Currently, most gun retailers across Canada are keeping track of who buys guns and ammunition. Bill C-71 proposes to make that best practice standard across Canada. My constituents voiced concerned about the accessibility of the information gathered, and I am pleased to see that the bill requires law enforcement to have judicial authorization to attain this information in the course of an investigation.

Up until this point, legislation has required that only those licensed can purchase firearms and ammunition. However, there is no verification required. Bill C-71 proposes that the seller verify the validity of the licence to make sure that the licence is not under review or has not lapsed. I have heard from those in my constituency who are seeking clarification on how they would complete that verification, something many constituents assumed was already the current practice.

Canada currently issues an authorization to transport, or ATT, for the transportation of restricted and prohibited firearms. There will be no change for those who transport from home to an approved range in the owner's home province. However, to better track the movement of restricted firearms to gun shows, gunsmiths, across the border, or to other uncustomary locations, a separate authorization to transport would be required. I would ask the minister to consider a few points on this measure as well.

First is that consideration be given to including transportation to a gunsmith in the ATT. A firearm that is damaged or not functioning properly could be a safety hazard, and adding an additional step to transport the firearm for repair may not be in the best interest of public safety.

Second, I would like to recommend, on behalf of my constituents, that ample resources be committed to the Canadian firearms program so that the processing of ATTs and verifications of licences could be done in a timely and efficient manner so as not to impede the normal activities of firearms owners.

I think it is agreed in Canada that we all want to make our communities safe from the illegal possession and use of firearms. Doing so does not mean making radical changes or placing unreasonable measures on responsible firearms owners, but it does begin by recognizing that we have an issue. We may not in Fundy Royal, but it is happening in areas across Canada, and we must allow some flexibility to address the fact that there was a 23% increase in firearm-related homicides in 2016 compared to 2015. That is the highest rate since 2005. In 2016, shootings were the most common method of committing murder in this country, exceeding stabbings for the first time since 2012.

My family and I are blessed to have been born in Atlantic Canada, and I grew up in a time when the term “lockdown” did not exist. Kids today cannot say that. They practice them all the time. We really need to acknowledge that even in Atlantic Canada, 56% of violent gun crimes occur outside of cities.

I appreciate the approach taken by Robert Snider, president of the Moncton Fish and Game Association, in reviewing this legislation. He recently said in the Times & Transcipt:

We have looked thoroughly at the recently introduced legislation and while we neither endorse the legislation nor vehemently oppose it, we have taken a more pragmatic, neutral position of “we can live with it” for now.

The legislation will have minimal or no impact on our members who hunt.

As I said before, from the beginning of my term I have worked to engage and listen to my constituents, concerned firearms owners, and stakeholders from across New Brunswick, and I can personally say that I have learned a great many things through those discussions. I was proud that the president of the Moncton Fish & Game Association chose to publicly compliment my approach, but I want to thank everyone who took the time to speak up.

At the end of this stage of debate, this legislation will proceed to the public safety committee, where MPs from both sides of the House will have an opportunity to hear from witnesses, stakeholders, and concerned Canadians. I very much believe that better policy will be achieved because of MPs speaking to their constituents, and I look forward to ongoing discussions on the path forward.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if a gunsmith is not the likely place to take a firearm, I do not know what would be. We would take a gun to a gunsmith for a variety of reasons. One may be for safety reasons, but this whole issue has been twisted around to say that we do not take a gun to a gunsmith. Where would we take a gun if we needed to have it repaired?

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, I believe that a gunsmith is a reasonable place to transport a firearm, whether it be for repair or for other reasons. I would ask the minister and the committee to take a look at that issue in more depth and consider including that in the ATT.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention today on this important bill. I, too, see it as the right step in the right direction both to secure the opportunities for responsible gun owners to continue to participate in their sport and to strengthen our laws as they relate to guns and people getting access to guns.

One of the things the member brought up is that currently, there is only a five-year period the chief firearms officer has to look back in someone's past before making a decision. This legislation would strengthen that by looking back at someone's entire life.

I wonder if the member could comment on why she thinks that is important and a step in the right direction, given the fact that it is so important that we take a more holistic look at people's experiences throughout their lives before giving them the responsibility or the privilege of having a gun.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as we look at this situation and the ways that we can try to limit gun violence, we do need to take that holistic approach. As we learn more about things that have happened in people's pasts, the ways that we react to that, the time frames for things like PTSD to set in, and those sorts of things, I think it is really important that we look at the whole picture.

Like I said, the board or council of people that I have been meeting with to discuss firearms brought this up as something that they believe would actually strengthen our firearms regulations. They were very much looking for common-sense ways to strengthen our firearms regulations, and this was one of the things they thought would be important. Therefore, I am pleased to see it in the legislation.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats welcome the tabling of this legislation and the fact that we have a few more hours to talk about it in the House. It is important and we want to make sure that we understand it. We are both protecting people, and representing rural areas and respecting the concerns of our constituents. Therefore, I am willing to support the bill to send it to committee to make sure that it has some common-sense elements in it.

One of the elements that looks like an improvement is the removal of the five-year limit on background checks. Therefore, for anybody who had a history of mental health problems or especially a record of domestic violence, a personal record check would be able to go back through the whole life of that person.

Could the member talk more about that element and what she is hearing in her riding about whether that is hitting the right balance for Bill C-71?

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a similar question to one I had earlier. I will reiterate that, as we take a look at ways we can decrease gun violence, one of the things we know is that it actually is not the tool sometimes that is the issue but the condition of the person who is using it.

To expand and take a more holistic look at those who are applying to have a licence for a restricted firearm, I think it makes sense to look further back than just the past five years. In fact, as we learn more about mental health and PTSD, it is something that we need to start considering in a deeper way as we move forward.

I look forward to the committee's work on this, and I am pleased to see it move forward to that stage, hopefully.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to acknowledge that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

Let me start by thanking the Minister of Public Safety and his parliamentary secretary, the member for Ajax, for their diligence and hard work in bringing forward Bill C-71. This commitment was made during our election in 2015, and I am proud to be part of a government that is following through on much needed changes to our gun laws.

There are two ways of addressing the issue of gun violence, and for that matter, violence as a whole. The first is to address the root causes of violence. The roots of violence can be linked to many socio-economic conditions, and despite living in one of the most prosperous countries in the world, we know there is a lot of disparity between those who have and those who have not, and their outcomes in life. Be it education, health care, access to mental health support, we know that when young people find themselves in a conflict, they sometimes do not have the support to resolve issues in a peaceful way. Sometimes it is the local setting in individual communities that prevents them from moving forward.

We know our justice system has many issues. Most importantly, it has outcomes that are sometimes based on one's race. For example, young black men are more likely to end up in the justice system than their non-black counterparts. This is a result of racial profiling and anti-black racism that exists in all spectrums of the justice system.

As a government, we have to address these inequities, and to a large extent, we are doing that now. We are investing in much needed infrastructure, our Canada child benefit has lifted over 300,000 young people from poverty, and we are working hard to narrow social inequities. However, it is not enough. We have to address the real issue of guns in our communities.

The second issue I want to address is the guns themselves. The issue of gun violence is startling and the numbers really do speak for themselves. Over the past three years, Canada has seen a huge surge in gun violence. In 2016, there were 223 firearms-related murders in Canada, 44 more than the previous year. This represents a 23% increase in just one year. There were 2,465 criminal firearms in 2016, an increase of 30% since 2016. Looking at the issue with a gendered lens, from 2013 to 2016, the level of domestic violence against women where a gun was present increased dramatically from 447 incidents to 576.

The issue of gun violence is very personal to me. Over the past 20 years, I have been to way too many funerals of young people, mostly, of young racialized men who have died as a result of gun violence. My work against gun violence started in 1999 with an organization called CanTYD, the Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre. CanTYD started off 20 years ago this past February with 17 young Tamil men and women who got together to respond to the many senseless deaths in our community. It was sparked by the murder of a young man called Kabilan Balachandran, a University of Waterloo student. He was murdered by a coward who picked up a gun and killed him.

CanTYD's work has been powerful and has led to an entire generation of young people moving away from violence to becoming productive citizens of our country. I had the privilege of being the coordinator of this organization from 2000 to 2002, and I cannot recount how many funerals I attended and how many young men I saw being buried. I would sometimes just sleep with my phone on Friday or Saturday night, waiting for a call. Oftentimes it would be from either Michelle Shephard from the Toronto Star or Dwight Drummond from CityTV, asking what was going on. These calls were punctuated with calls from young people who were either afraid, or just damn angry that yet another one of their friends was killed.

There were times when youth outreach workers and I would be at the Sunnybrook Hospital. We would see the headline in the Toronto Sun or the Toronto Star, that was when we would find out the person who was hospitalized as a result of a gunshot had actually died.

Working closely with many family members, siblings, schoolmates, and parents moved me a great deal. I witnessed families change over night, mothers who would wait in front of their windows for their sons to return home one day, knowing full well they had buried their sons, but hoping it was a dream, parents who never really got over the loss of their child.

Let me just take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers, staff, board members, and the great many young people who have worked with and for CanTYD for the past 20 years. I want to thank the families who entrusted CanTYD with their children. It is because of the work of organizations like CanTYD that many young people have gone on the right path, including those who once picked up a gun. I wish CanTYD many more years of success in directing our young people.

Permit me to also thank all the great youth outreach workers and youth-serving organizations in Scarborough, many of whom I have had the pleasure of meeting and working with over the years.

Gun violence in the greater Toronto area continues to affect us all. My riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park has seen its fair share of gun violence in recent years, and shall I say, an unfair share of gun violence.

On July 16, 2012, the community at Danzig Road in Scarborough—Rouge Park got together for a celebration. Danzig is a vibrant community with a great deal of young people. In the early evening of that day, some young people came in a car and shot randomly at the crowd. Two people, 14-year-old Shyanne Charles and 23-year-old Joshua Yasay, died that day. Twenty-three people suffered injuries, making this the single largest mass shooting in the history of Toronto.

Sadly, this was not isolated. Just last year, during a weekend in July, three young men under the age of 35 were killed in Scarborough—Rouge Park by gun violence. Sadly, the spate of gun violence is expected to continue.

We have all seen recent accounts of young people in the United States, led by the young people of Parkland, Florida. It is not a right to own a gun in Canada. It is not a constitutional right to carry arms.

I have, sadly, been to way too many funerals of young people who died as a result of gun violence, and I cannot count the tears of these family members.

In the past year, I have met with members of the Zero Gun Violence Movement. The Zero Gun Violence Movement has been working since 2013 to bring awareness and advocacy to reduce gun violence in the city of Toronto and around the country. One of the disturbing trends that the founder, Louis March, consistently mentions each time we meet is that young people have clear access to guns. They know where to get them when they need them.

The Zero Gun Violence Movement, in recent years, has gathered the mothers who have lost their children to gun violence. I was inspired by the mothers who came to Ottawa recently. They spoke of their losses and hardships, and the anguish of burying sons, some of them fathers themselves. The entire family is crushed and is deeply affected by the personal loss of their child. The families are at a loss as to why governments have not moved forward in limiting access to guns. They have told me that in some places guns are easier to find than jobs. This is why we have to take ownership of this issue and find the right legislative tools to get guns off our streets.

Bill C-71 strikes a balance by respecting legitimate, law-abiding gun owners, and ensuring that minimum safeguards are extended to the public against the drastic growth of illegal guns.

I will summarize the five key elements of the legislation. First, the legislation will introduce enhanced background checks. Second, Bill C-71 will ensure that all individuals or businesses selling firearms verify that the buyer is legally able to buy a firearm before completing the transaction. Third, there is record-keeping and the tracing of firearms used in crimes. Fourth, the bill will reintroduce restrictions for transportation of prohibited firearms. Finally, fifth, it would remove the ability of cabinet to arbitrarily reclassify weapons.

Today we have the opportunity to take a path to limiting illegal guns and taking them off the streets, while ensuring that these laws do not affect law-abiding citizens. We cannot continue on the path of the U.S. where we see gun violence hold an entire nation hostage while the gun lobby refuses to regulate even the most dangerous of weapons.

As the member of Parliament of a riding where I have witnessed the deaths and destruction of young people and their families, I want to ask my colleagues of all parties to support this sensible legislation. I recognize that this alone will not solve the issue of gun violence, but I am confident that it goes far in taking guns off the street.

We must, however, continue to work to ensure that young people have the necessary supports to resolve conflict, seize opportunities, and move away from violence.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to our hon. colleague, and I have a simple comment.

There has been a lot of debate going back and forth on Bill C-71. Of course, the government has shut down debate by forcing time allocation on this bill.

Reckless misinformation is being spread by our Prime Minister. I will read into the record a tweet made by our Prime Minister on March 20: “We’re also introducing stronger and more rigorous background checks on gun sales. And if you want to buy a gun, by law you’ll have to show a license at the point of purchase. Right now that’s not a requirement.”

That is a misleading statement. It is false. Of course, he sent that out.

I would like to ask our hon. colleague what his opinion is on our Prime Minister spreading misinformation, such as in that tweet, and targeting law-abiding gun owners.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could tell the House about the number of mothers I have met in the last few years who have said to me that their son is dead because of gun violence.

It is very irresponsible for parliamentarians to stand here and play politics with a very important issue that fundamentally affects my riding, the people in my riding, young people in major cities. It is very unfortunate that this issue is being politicized.

What is important today is that we stand as a government to introduce very responsible legislation—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order, order. I am trying to hear what the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge Park is saying, but there is shouting going back and forth. I do want to remind the hon. members that some words are unparliamentary, “liar” being one of them. I just want to remind them before they get in trouble and say something that could get them expelled from this honourable chamber.

Hon. member, please continue.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is also important that we, as parliamentarians, set an example for our young people. When we talk about young people who pick up guns, there is a reason they are unable to resolve conflict. Parliamentarians need to be quite responsible in the way they address very important issues, such as gun control.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to express my thanks to the member for Scarborough—Rouge Park for his remarks. What he illustrates to me is the importance of hearing the voices of members of Parliament on the impact of issues in their riding. I am very moved by the things he had to say about his involvement in trying to prevent gun violence.

I have to say I am very disappointed the government has used time allocation. As someone who taught criminal justice for 20 years and worked for a long time with police in my riding, and as a former police board member, I would also like to be able to enter the debate on this bill. I am expressing my disappointment here that all voices will not get to be heard because the government has limited the time for this debate.

My specific question has to do with the issues around transportation of firearms. When I met with police in my riding, they were concerned that the automatic transfer permits not be a very large list, because it would encourage people to have firearms in their vehicles on more occasions. Therefore, those who break into vehicles and steal firearms would be given a lot more opportunities to get guns on the street.

It was not about worrying about the legitimate firearms owners. The police said they were worried about too many weapons in vehicles, which could then be seized by others who would use them for negative purposes.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I will be very frank. I am not an expert in firearms. Therefore, I will take that back to the minister and advise him to get back to the member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that one of the reasons I believe moving time allocation was necessary, and I was not part of making that decision, was that there were antics being put forth by the opposition repeatedly to shut down debate on this. This is the only way we have been able to force an actual debate to happen. I find it very discouraging.

The member for Scarborough—Rouge Park told a real story about why this is such an important matter to him, and the Conservatives used it as an opportunity to criticize the Prime Minister about a comment that he made.

One of the things that we have seen coming forward from this legislation is the divide between whether or not this will really work, whether or not improving the gun legislation will work, or whether we should be fighting the actual criminals, and enhancing crime legislation, like the Conservatives repeatedly put forward.

Given the member's experience, would he agree that this is solid legislation that will have an impact? Are we moving in the right direction? Should we be doing what the Conservatives have been putting forward, which is to make other laws as they relate to criminal activity stronger?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this is part of a broader set of issues that are required to support young people.

This particular legislation would get guns off the street, but it needs to be coupled with the Canada child benefit and other infrastructure support. This would allow young people to be able to focus on their life as opposed to getting involved in violence. I believe the government is already going in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I have any extra time, I want to share it with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

The member for Scarborough—Rouge Park talked about the number of mothers in his riding and other Canadians who have been fundamentally affected by gun violence. He must be bitterly disappointed in the bill that has come forward, because it never mentions the words “gangs” or “criminal organization”. These words never come up in the bill and yet he is talking about how he wants to see those kinds of things being impacted.

He is not the only one on the Liberal side, I am sure, that is disappointed with the bill. The members of the Liberal rural caucus have failed to protect their constituents one more time.

Here we are talking again about a Liberal-imposed gun registry. The Liberals' commitment was to deal with guns, with gang violence, and with illegal activity. This legislation would not deal with any of that.

Some familiar patterns are taking place here. Over the last while, Liberal members have been playing it easy. They want to take the easy way out. They take an initiative and when the pressure is on, they drop it. We saw that with electoral reform. We saw it with tax hikes on small businesses. They often make up phony statistics to try to make things more palatable to Canadians.

We also see them deliberately dividing Canadians in the hopes of getting some political gain. We have watched them try to isolate small groups to get some advantage. We saw that in things like the carbon tax and recently the summer jobs program. They use selective or misleading information to try to create an opportunity to advance their issues.

The Liberals want to go easy on the laws that they do not want to actually enforce. We have seen that through bills such as the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. We have seen it on immigration, where they ignore the rules and will not enforce the rules as they are put in place. We saw it again obviously with respect to the payment to Mr. Khadr, when they jumped ahead of the court and decided to make a payment because the Chrétien government would have looked bad if they had not done that.

It looks like all of those bad habits have come together in Bill C-71. The Liberals are trying to manipulate the Canadian public. They are trying to work PR angles on this with information that they know is untrue. They are using this to divide Canadians one more time. They are taking the easy way out by avoiding the real issues, which are gang violence and illegal gun activity. The Liberals are doing what they said they would not do, which is setting up the basics of a renewed long gun registry.

The way this bill was introduced showed us that the Liberals are deliberately trying to set up legitimate firearms owners as the fall guys. Someone mentioned the Prime Minister's tweet a few minutes ago. The press release that came out with the bill is another example. Part of it declares that in Canada, restricted firearms are made up of “handguns, certain rifles, and semi-automatics”. I do not know if members know about firearms laws in Canada, but this is inaccurate. It is a complete fabrication about semi-automatics. This may be the goal of the government today but that is not what the legislative reality is. Canadian firearms owners need to pay attention to this early misinformation.

That is not the only misinformation that was presented. CBC, of all organizations, did an analysis of the statistics used by the Liberals in their press release and their communications. The Liberals focused on 2013. CBC reported that 2013 saw Canada's lowest rate of criminal homicide in 50 years, the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada. Every year since 1966 has been worse than 2013. The Liberals took a year when all the stats were lower than they have been for decades and they used that to compare to today, and today is still below the 30 year average. Just a few minutes ago a Liberal member actually used those statistics again.

The CBC report goes on to talk about Canada's homicide rate. It said that the rate in 2018 is similar to or lower than it was in 2008 or 1998. It is well below 1988 and 1978. It is similar to what it was in 1968. The rate today is very close to that in 1928. It goes on to say that if one were to ask how 2016 compared with the decade before, one would find the rate of firearms homicides remains boringly unchanged, including the rate of homicides with handguns. I am sure some members have been taken with that article and have read it through as well.

The CBC report concluded that none of this constitutes as they call it a “steady increase”. The CBC said that this is what a statistician might reasonably call a steady decrease.

It is not accurate to say that offences involving firearms have become more prevalent, especially since 2013.

That is not the only place where the Liberals have been misleading Canadians. There is a second media report. The CBC, after the government briefing I assume, stated, “Police will be able to determine who exactly was the last licensed firearms owner to purchase a particular gun.” If the government has the capacity to track the last legitimate owner of every firearm in Canada, that actually accomplishes the goals of a firearms registry.

Are the Liberals setting up a gun registry or are they not? They have given up on gangs and they are ganging up on Canadians. In this process they need to distort the facts or they know that Canadians will not accept that. The bill itself is a lot of nothing and what is there for the most part is targeting legitimate gun owners and business people as it lays the foundation for a new registry.

Again, the CBC article says that every firearm will be tied to its owner. That is not possible unless the government uses a new reference number system, which we will talk about in a couple of minutes, to track individuals and their firearms. People need to pay attention to this. This is the foundation for establishing a registry. It lays out the components of a registry. There is a front door registry by returning all the data to Quebec.

Canadians also need to ask if any other data exist, because in the legislation it says that the changes that we made will be designated to have never existed. If there is other data that exist, are the Liberals going to bring that back and use that across this country? We need to know that. Some people should start taking a closer look at this.

It sets up a backdoor registry. In the past when people purchased a firearm they had to verify that the other person had a licence. Businesses have put that number on file and everyone I have ever dealt with has done that. Adding new requirements, such as the reference number, the serial number, the buyer and a 20-year hold, allows for the establishment of a gun registry. The reference number for private transactions is even more interesting because it actually makes no sense. It will not be one single bit effective unless it is the first step in requiring the private registration of firearms. Again it is a registry.

This needs to be understood. It has a pile of consequences. It has consequences regarding the invasion of privacy, the question of financing the register, and the entire reference implementation and how it is being put together.

I talked to a friend who has been involved in this for a while and he said this new set-up is going to require hundreds of employees in order to handle these reference numbers. I would like to know what the budget is. Is it perhaps $2 million like the last one? What number will that grow to? We need to know that quickly.

The provision on background checks requires the examination of extended time periods on the application process. It is okay, but is it really effective? Those background checks are already very thorough.

I want to wrap up by saying that this bill divides Canadians on bad assumptions. The manipulated data make it look like there is a growing problem when there is not one. The legislation targets only legitimate firearms owners and marks them. The Liberals have avoided the hard work because gang issues are hard to deal with. Regular Canadians are a lot easier to beat on.

The Liberals have come forward with a phony piece of legislation. It sets the groundwork for a front door registry and a backdoor registry. It uses deliberately distorted statistics to scare people. None of us knows what it will cost. It will make it more expensive and inconvenient for honest people. It will lay the groundwork for the registry in Quebec and the foundation for a registry across this country. It picks out legitimate firearm owners and does not deal with the problems the Liberals claim they are trying to address.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks a lot about misinformation. Of course, we cannot accuse the Conservatives of blowing things way out of proportion. That would never happen. That is not something they would do.

However, a Belleville newspaper reporter spoke to Ben Harvey who is a gun store owner and said:

There’s a lot of moving parts in the proposed bill, but there’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.

It seems Ben from Belleville who owns a gun shop thinks this is public safety legislation and is a good step forward. This is common sense gun control. Why are the Conservatives engaging in misleading Canadians on this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Liberals are not actually dealing with the issue they claimed they were going to address which was gang violence and illegal gun activity. We know that the majority of that problem comes from smuggled guns and from firearms that have been stolen. This has nothing to do with that.

Even the member's question seems to be implying that they are going to be establishing a gun registry and that it is an important thing for them to do. Canadians across the country need to pay attention to the questions they are asking. They need to pay attention to the reference numbers that are going to be required for every single firearm transaction. Are the Liberals setting up a gun registry as they promised they would not do, or what is it that they are doing?

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

Mr. Speaker, since I will not have time to speak, I will ask my colleague a question.

When the bill was introduced, the minister said that it would take firearms owners three to five minutes to make a call and that an official would be able to authorize them almost instantly to walk around with their restricted firearms.

It currently takes 45 minutes to get through to the Canada Revenue Agency by telephone, and people still do not always get an answer. Furthermore, the call centre is not open on weekends and, as my colleague was saying, people move around, and there are shows and all kinds of events across Canada. People are unable to reach officials by telephone on the weekend. It is unrealistic to think otherwise.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I talked to a person who had been involved in this business for a while. He said that no one could get a response on the weekend. It was impossible to get a response. Now the government is telling us that every gun show across the country, every place that people go where they might be exchanging or buying firearms or whatever, are going to have to call in and get a reference number. However, no one is working.

As I mentioned earlier, someone who has been involved in this for a long time with the other gun registry said that this will require the hiring of hundreds of people to make this work. It will not be instantaneous. The authorization to transport typically will take two to three days. If that is the case, it will destroy the gun shows on which so many people across the country depend.

Also, I am very sorry that my colleague probably will not get his time today because of the time allocation motion the Liberals have brought in on Bill C-71. We are very sad to see the fact that our members are being muzzled because the Liberals do not want to have a discussion about these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way talked about being muzzled. However, just the other day the government brought in Bill C-71 and wanted to have a debate on it. One speaker from the Conservative Party addressed the bill and then moved to adjourn debate. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the debate ended that day.

Now the Conservatives want to play games and so forth. However, the legislation is about public safety for Canadians. A commitment was made to Canadians in the last election and this government is fulfilling it. Even the NRA supports parts of the bill, which the Conservatives oppose. No one is saying that this is about the long gun registry. It is not about that. However, no matter how many times we say it, the Conservatives want to twist it into something it is not.

Would the member not concede that maybe the NRA's position on the bill of having the retailers record the information is a responsible approach? Why are the Conservatives even further right than organizations like the NRA?

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

I think the NRA operates in the United States, Mr. Speaker.

The member across the way mentioned the long gun registry, but of course he does not want to talk about it. It cost the Liberals an awful lot in the past Parliament, and it will cost them again in the next election. He does not want the discussion to be about whether they are establishing a registry or not.

The reality is that the Liberals are not keeping their promises. The bill is not about public safety. The bill is about some sort of public relations campaign in which they are targeting legitimate firearm owners because they do not want to deal with gang violence. They do not want to deal with illegal gun activity, so they have chosen to avoid it one more time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, March 27, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #644

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)