Debates of May 25th, 2015

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite a stretch for my colleague opposite to claim that if police officers had something to say about the bill, all they had to do was appear before the committee. Frankly, it is appalling. I would remind my colleague that, first of all, we were under a time allocation motion when Bill C-42 was being examined, and second, the details regarding when the committee would hear from witnesses and how many would appear were completely and entirely imposed on us.

As my hon. colleague knows, the Conservatives have a majority, which means that it is the Conservatives who dominate the debate in committee and who decide how many witnesses the committee can have on each side. Why did the police forces that were invited to appear before the committee not show up? There was not enough advance notice and they could not get here in time. They sent documentation instead. I invite the member across the aisle to read the documentation that was sent to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It proves beyond all doubt that Bill C-42 is an affront to Canada's public safety and that those police services do not support it. I invite the member to read what the police services sent to the committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member provide some thoughts with respect to the government being more co-operative. She made reference to consulting, but also co-operation in the House. One of the things it could have done was split the bill. For example, there are some aspects of the legislation that have some value, such as streamlining the licensing paperwork. There are issues of stronger safety training requirements and making it harder to obtain a gun in certain situations, such as a conviction of domestic violence.

I wonder if she might wish to share her thoughts on if the government had split the bill it would have had support for certain aspects of it.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.

The official opposition has often asked that bills be split up so that we can pass the parts that the entire House of Commons agrees on and then discuss the thornier issues in a subsequent bill. Unfortunately, that proposal is rejected every time, as we have seen in the past four years, since the Conservatives have had a majority in the House. Frankly, it is pathetic.

They keep saying that we voted against proposals that we in fact agreed with. At the end of the day, it is quite simply because they impose omnibus bills that, like this one, affect different regulations. This bill affects the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code. It has a number of provisions. The Conservatives often take great delight in forcing us to vote on many pieces of legislation in a single vote, in addition to often imposing time allocation motions to restrict the debate and our opportunity to speak on behalf of the people we represent in the House.

That is a flagrant lack of leadership. Unfortunately, I do not think there is any chance the Conservatives are going to split this bill.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act, but first I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Yukon.

For far too long, law-abiding firearms owners have been treated like common criminals in Canada. They have received this treatment simply for enjoying the Canadian heritage activities of hunting, sport shooting, or simply living off the land.

In fact, former Liberal cabinet minister Allan Rock even said when he came to Ottawa that he came with the firm belief that the only people in Canada who should have firearms are police officers and the military. What a slap in the face for the rural parts of this country.

Our Conservative government could not disagree more with Allan Rock. We believe there should be laws in place to combat the criminal use of firearms, but we also believe that one should not need a law degree to engage in a hobby that is as old as Canada itself.

In other words, we believe in safe and sensible firearms policies. That is why we have taken action to get tough on gang members who are illegally in possession of a firearm. It is also why we have made sentences tougher for those who use firearms to commit crimes. That is why we have made it a specific offence to engage in drive-by or other reckless shootings.

It is also why we scrapped the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. It is why we have taken needless regulations off the books. It is also why we are here today to discuss this important common sense piece of legislation.

I would like to discuss some of the key measures that the bill advances. We will simplify the licensing system by eliminating the possession only licence and converting to a possession and acquisition licence. This will, upon royal assent, give 600,000 people in this country the ability to purchase firearms. That is good news for law-abiding gun owners and good news for business in Canada.

Further, the bill would provide for a six-month grace period at the end of a five-year licence. This would allow individuals who forget to renew their licence to come back in compliance with the law without fear of becoming a criminal simply for making a mistake.

Additionally, the bill would require first-time gun owners to participate in a Canadian firearms safety course and pass that test. Members might think this has always been the case, but previously individuals did not have to participate in a class in order to get their licence. We believe it is important that all gun owners have a solid understanding of how to handle their firearms safely.

Some have said that this will lead to those who have held a possession only licence for many years to have to take this course in order to receive their new converted licence. It is absolutely not true, not intended, and is not the case.

What is more, the bill would end the needless paperwork surrounding the authorization to transport restricted firearms. Rather than requiring endless forms and red tape, the bill would effectively make a gun owners licence also the authorization to transport. Some have raised concerns that this provision will lead to some sort of concealed carry notion, which is also absolutely not true. All safe handling procedures will remain in place, such as disabling the unloaded firearm and placing it in a locked container prior to transporting it.

In addition, the bill would end the arbitrary and discretionary authority of chief firearms officers in Canada. Firearms laws should be applied consistently across Canada. There should not be discrepancies between one province to another. It is ineffective and causes a lot of confusion for law-abiding citizens of this country. Unelected officials should not be making decisions that potentially impact the property rights of millions of Canadians.

On top of that, the bill would end the problem of arbitrary and unfair reclassification of firearms, which we saw as recently as in the last couple of years. Last February, thousands of Canadians were rendered criminals overnight by a mere stroke of some bureaucrat's pen. There was not one elected official who had been consulted about this decision. Our government disagrees with the decision specifically, and also disagrees with this process generally. That is why this bill would give the elected government an oversight mechanism to reverse ill-considered classification decisions made by bureaucrats.

Lastly, the bill would strengthen the Criminal Code provisions related to firearms prohibition orders. When someone is convicted of a serious domestic violence offence, they would automatically be barred from possessing firearms. There is a sound reason for that. According to police-reported data, in 2011 there were almost 95,000 victims of family violence in Canada, accounting for one-quarter of all victims of police-reported violent crimes. Between 2000 and 2010, two-thirds of spouses accused of homicide had a family history of violence involving the victim. That is why this bill is so important. It would reduce red tape for law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters, but it would also refine our gun control system, making it more effective and more sensible.

We have heard where the other parties stand. The Liberal leader has said that if he had to vote again today, he would vote to keep the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. The Liberal member for Trinity—Spadina said that emotional reasons from firearm advocates was not enough evidence to continue to allow ammunition to be sold to the Canadian public. The NDP leader has been clear about his desire to bring back the long gun registry, recently calling the data contained therein “useful data”. However, he seems to know that Canadians from the west and the north have no time for such bureaucratic schemes. Speaking in the Yukon, the NDP leader said that he would not consider bringing back the registry. Which is it? I guess that depends on who the leader is talking to: the press gallery here in Ottawa, or the average everyday citizen of the west or the north.

It is about making firearms policies safe and sensible. It is about good old-fashioned common sense. I am proud to stand up to support this legislation, and I hope every member of this House will do the same.

Canada is a large and diverse country with a historic background of hunting, angling, and outdoor life. This legislation supports law-abiding citizens from coast to coast to coast, and I ask all members of this House to stand up and support it.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my riding mentioned, so I thought I would rise to ask a question about the sale of ammunition in cities, in particular hollow-point bullets. These bullets are known as cop killers because they can pierce the armour that protects our first responders.

Does the party opposite not believe that the safety of our first responders, and police officers in particular, should be paramount as we craft any firearms controls? Do the Conservatives not believe that there should be restrictions on selling ammunition, particularly in urban centres where it is not used for any rational purpose?

No one is hunting squirrels in downtown Toronto that I am aware of. Is there not a case to be made that our first responders be protected by making sure that the powerful ammunition which is not used in hunting, and in the recreational or cultural capacity that was spoken to, be restricted? Is there no value to restricting those sorts of things in dense urban areas?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Well, Mr. Speaker, the parties opposite like to talk about supporting first responders, but when it came time to vote for the firefighters tax credit, of course, they voted against it.

In terms of firearms legislation, all one has to do is to look at some of the changes we have made to make sure we crack down on criminals in this country that were not supported by the members opposite.

After the tragedy last year in Moncton where three RCMP officers were slain, we brought forward legislation that ensured the perpetrator of that heinous crime was going to serve three consecutive life sentences. Previous to that legislation, that person would have only served one life sentence, or three life sentences at the same time. We made changes. Those parties across the way voted against that. If they had their way, that person would have been out in 25 years and would have been in his fifties. Now he will be in jail until he is 98 years old.

We stand up and support our first responders. We will take no lessons from them about how to support our police officers, our firefighters, our search and rescue officials in this country.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the Leader of the Opposition, and I want to read a quote from something he said on December 3, 2014 and get the member's comments on it. The Leader of the Opposition stated:

I think that it is possible to provide the police with the tools to better protect the public and themselves by making sure they’re able to follow every gun, and it doesn’t have to be the registry as it was before. But it does have to be a form that allows the governments, federal and provincial, to keep track of those guns. That’s our bottom line.

My question for the member is this: What is his interpretation of that comment from the Leader of the Opposition?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and it floats like a duck, it is likely a duck. What New Democrats are talking about is the resurgence of the long gun registry in this country. Does it matter how we track the guns, if we are tracking the guns? That is the point that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make. He likes to say one thing in one part of the country. When he is in the east, he likes to talk about bringing back the long gun registry and tracking everybody's guns and weapons, but when he is in the west or the rural parts of this nation, he says he would never bring back the long gun registry. We see the hypocrisy in that.

Everyone can count on our government to be consistent and clear that no matter where we are in this country, whether it is downtown Toronto or in the Yukon, we will never support the resurgence of the long gun registry in Canada.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member just talked about a duck. You do not have to believe me, but when you shoot at a duck, the most you will get is a loud “quack quack”. It is not going to turn into a Stuka and it is not going to bombard you with napalm. We are talking about a duck.

Farmers who want to guard against foxes do not need a machine gun. We are talking about a fox. Could we agree that some firearms are dangerous, that they should not be owned by just anybody and that regulations are needed? Anyone who goes duck hunting with a machine gun capable of bringing down a MiG probably has a problem between the ears, and it is perhaps a good thing that they cannot get that type of weapon.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development only has about 45 seconds.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, 45 seconds will be all it takes.

We have regulations in this country. We do not allow people to walk the streets with machine guns. Hunters do not use machine guns in the streets to hunt animals. In Canada, there are sensible firearms regulations. That is what this bill is all about. It is about common sense.

I have no idea what the member opposite is talking about. Hunters and anglers in this country, people who like to be in the outdoors, want solid firearms regulations. They want to be able to follow the rules. All we are doing is passing sensible regulations to ensure that they are treated fairly, because these are honest, hard-working people.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of Bill C-42. Also, I am very happy to be joined by my colleague and friend from Wetaskiwin.

We have a number of members in the House of Commons on this side of the House who join me on the hunting and angling caucus. They do a lot of great work to promote and preserve Canada's rich and proud heritage of hunting, trapping, and sport shooting, and of course, the farmers who use in firearms in Canada as a day-to-day tool. They support a traditional and positive way of life and, indeed, a healthy way of life.

I will spend a bit of time talking about the value of firearms and what role they play in the country and then specifically about Bill C-42.

I was pleased to substitute on the public safety committee when we were reviewing the bill and the committee was undertaking the study. We heard a lot of things from witnesses, and one of the things that stood out for me was some testimony from Greg Farrant, who represents the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Mr. Farrant is tuned in, clearly, to a lot of the debate that has gone on with the bill. He understood what was going on and in fact provided testimony as the government was introducing legislation to get rid of the long gun registry.

The one point he made that really stood out was his reflection on the size of the community that engages in hunting and trapping activities in the province of Ontario and right across Canada. He said that we always get branded, and I say “we”, because I come from a long, proud tradition and history of hunting. I grew up in the Yukon territory doing that as a wonderful way of life as well and will well into my future. I say “we” in that sense. We get branded by the opposition as being part of the gun lobby, as though that is said in some sort of pejorative sense. That is what Greg Farrant said. He said that we are always branded as a gun lobby, as though that is a bad thing.

Let us talk about what the gun lobby is. We say it with pride, and we say it with the understanding, on this side of the House, of what exactly the gun lobby represents in Canada. It is not the negative, pejorative term that anyone should hide their head from and be ashamed of. What does that gun lobby do? That gun lobby participates in hunting heritage activities. It contributes millions of dollars to conservation in this country. In fact, a recent study from the United States indicates that the group four times more likely than any other group to put their sweat equity and their cash into conservation is the hunting group. That is right. Hunters are four times more likely than any other group to put their money, their time, and their effort into the valuable principles of conservation. That is something they should be applauded for.

Instead, in return, what the opposition does is call them the gun lobby, as though that is some sort of evil moniker they should hide from and have a shadow over them for.

I say that they need to stand and be proud of that one simple fact. They are the ones out there on the land. They are the ones who first recognized the need for the protection and preservation of our environmental heritage. They are the ones who recognize the depletion or the need for conservation practices and principles in a particular area or a particular region for a particular species. It is not only the species they hunt. It is the species, the streams, the habitats, the lakes, and the forests that contribute to the life processes of the wildlife populations in our country. Those people are the ones who are responsible for the abundance, the protection, and the preservation of the wildlife, lakes, land, and water in our nation.

There is no accidental abundance of wildlife in Canada. There is no accidental protection and preservation of the wilderness. There is no accidental protection and preservation of the lakes, rivers, and streams in this country.

How does that happen? Where does that come from? It is from the gun lobby: the hunters, the anglers, the trappers, the sport shooters, and the athletes, the people who own guns and carry guns and spend time in the wilderness.

Where do we get our safety laws from? We did not create them here in the House of Commons, did we? No. Anyone who owns a gun in this country knows, as ethical, safe, law-abiding people in Canada, that they were the first to promote and teach safe ways of handling firearms. They were the ones who developed the 10 rules of firearms safety that those on the other side of the House could not list three of but that probably 90% of the members on this side of the House know inside and out, as though they are a bible to us. They were created by the hunting community and not by politicians.

We can thank the gun lobby. We can thank the conservationists. We can thank the hunters, the trappers, the sport shooters, and the athletes in the country who use firearms in a safe, responsible, and ethical way every single day in this country for the fundamental rules we now call laws.

Is it not ironic that we are here standing up to defend, change, or alter the very laws that this community itself generated? That is because it understands that firearms come with responsibilities. They are a tool to protect and preserve an important way of life, but they do come with responsibilities. It was those groups, not the House of Commons and not the provincial legislatures, that first created those laws.

I am proud to talk about the measures we are taking in Bill C-42 to ensure that those people who created those laws and do so much for the conservation, preservation, and protection of a great way of life in this country are not burdened by red tape that is unnecessary, are not considered criminals at first blush, and are not considered criminals because of paperwork errors.

Bill C-42 will merge the possession and POL licences to give people more opportunities to own firearms, to simplify things, and to reduce some of the red tape. It will merge some of the ATT conditions in just one licence so that there is a condition for that licence instead of a whole bunch of other papers of authorization, which can inadvertently trip people up and in fact make it more difficult for law enforcement to determine whether a person is in legal possession of a restricted firearm when he or she is going to and from a range. The bill contains sensible measures so that people can transport firearms to shooting ranges, gun shops, a police station, or a point of entry, all things they could do in the past but that can now all be on one licence instead of multiple licences.

Bill C-42 will also take another step to balance responsible firearm ownership and public safety. It will introduce stricter penalties for people convicted of domestic violence and stricter conditions for people involved in violent behaviour and violent activity. Who asked for that? It is the gun lobby, the firearms community, those responsible gun owners. They are every bit as offended, if not more offended, by the illegal and unlawful use of firearms as anyone in this House could possibly be, because it affects that community greatly when someone steps out of line or uses a firearm in an illegal and inappropriate manner. That is not what they taught long before we put laws in place, and it is not what they teach in the present day. Of course they are supportive of the stricter public safety measures we are putting in place. At the same time, they do not want to be treated as criminals for simple paperwork errors.

The bill will reduce red tape and formalize some of the provisions that did not have clear guidelines before, such as the rules and regulations around the determination of what the CFOs can do. Arbitrary decisions were being made from one province to the next that left everyone in a state of confusion, because they were not clear-cut. This legislation will make clear what CFOs can do and what terms and conditions they can and cannot put in place so that firearms owners, the general public, and the law enforcement community have certainty and we do not see decisions like the one made by a CFO in Ontario, who arbitrarily decided that any firearms owner wanting to go to a range with a restricted weapon needed an invitation from another range. That was not spelled out in any piece of legislation at all. It was an invention of a CFO. Clearly, firearms owners need to know what is a reasonable restriction and a reasonable condition on their licence that cannot be made up. This bill will provide that.

I will leave members with this thought. One in every five Canadians participates in hunting, trapping, and sport shooting activities in this country. They contribute $15.5 billion to the Canadian economy. This side of the House, this party, and this government will stand up for law-abiding firearms owners every single day. While I would like to encourage the members of the opposition to get on board and help support these measures in Bill C-42, it was clear from their testimony at committee that they have no intention of doing that, which is all the better for us. We will be the party that stands up for law-abiding firearms owners.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the seriousness of my colleague's presentation.

With regard to duck hunting, it was decided, through regulations and international conventions, that hunting rifles cannot contain more than three shells, to give the game the chance to escape and to prevent overhunting.

We do it for ducks. Unfortunately, we too often allow firearms to which a magazine that can hold 60, 50 or 40 extra rounds can be attached to be sold over the counter. Incidentally, it is legal to go hunting with this type of firearm with 40 rounds.

My colleague thinks this is amusing, but I would like to point out that the most recent mass murders in Canada were committed with this type of weapon. He thinks this is ridiculous and funny. He is typically Tory. We cannot expect a Conservative to understand the danger of a firearm.

Since there are stringent regulations to make certain firearms less dangerous, why do we not apply those regulations to every firearm?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that clearly illustrates for all Canadians how out of touch the opposition members are when it comes to this.

The reason there are three shells allowed in a shotgun for the purpose of migratory bird hunting, and that alone, is so that when ducks get out of range, people are not firing a fourth and fifth shot at a duck and wounding it. That is a condition put in place because of the ethics and values of the hunting community. It is a responsibility the hunting community wanted put into law.

I have never seen a shotgun in my life that holds 40 rounds. That is just so absurd I do not know whether to laugh or cry at that question.

If they want to talk about extended mags, which I think the member was trying to drive at, clearly he does not know that there is trapshooting in the Olympic Games, which athletes use shotguns with more rounds than that for. There is trapshooting at ranges, where they can use more than three rounds. There are many purposes for shotguns that are not illegal.

There is this conspiracy theory being generated. It is unbelievably bizarre to hear that any member in this House of Commons would think there is a shotgun on the market today that holds 40 rounds. I would love to see it, but it does not exist.

This is clearly what we are up against.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member from the north talk about the heritage and the cultural values and the safe use of firearms in hunting and in conservation. I do not dispute that story line. However, in urban areas, we deal with the fact that since 1996, close to 65,000 guns in this country have been lost or stolen. Those guns, when they show up in urban areas, cause trouble like we saw in my riding last week, where a young man was shot and a house was shot up.

My question is this: How does making it easier to bring a gun into the city, easier to travel around a city with a gun, and easier to use a gun in a city, where no one is hunting ducks, no one is hunting raccoons, and no one is going after the squirrel population, make our cities safe while we also respect the culture and the values that were spoken to?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we have very clear safe-storage laws in this country. None of that would change under Bill C-42.

What the member is forgetting is that when someone steals a gun, that is criminal intent and criminal purpose with those guns, and we have laws to deal with that. I encourage the member to support all the initiatives we have put in place to deal with that criminal kind of behaviour.

Let me quickly educate that member about this one fact. There are half a million hunters in the province of Ontario, and if he thinks none of them live in Toronto, he is out of his mind. Perhaps he is suggesting that we should have some firearms repository outside of the city of Toronto where people could store their firearms.

The member is clearly ignoring the thousands and thousands of lawful firearms owners who live in the city of Toronto and who engage in hunting activities right across the province of Ontario and right across Canada each and every day. We will stand up for them, while he ignores them.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member for Gatineau will have only 11 or 12 minutes for her speech.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time.

I have listened to just about the whole debate, in my office as well as here in the House.

I would like to speak on behalf of the people of Gatineau and the different groups with which I have had good discussions and have spoken at length about all the Conservative government's bills. They agree with the NDP's position on firearms, in the broad sense, and they agree that Bill C-42 provides a good example of the difficulty this government has of striking the right balance between security and rights.

This is also apparent with Bill C-51. The Conservatives have difficulty striking a balance between security and human rights. Furthermore, they always try to divide and conquer. That is probably what is frustrating in the long run. Bill C-42 is a fine example of this dysfunctional Parliament.

This week is our fourth-last week in the House. When I look at everything that we accomplished in four years, it is nothing but an endless list of bills. Members on the government benches simply tried to always take a stand against us, although all 308 of us here in the House are supposed to be here to improve the well-being of our constituents and of Canadians across the country.

All afternoon, after question period, members on the Conservative benches kept trying to imply that our questions on Bill C-42 meant that we were against hunters and against law-abiding firearm owners. I think that is absolutely simplistic and insulting.

We have all kinds of people in our ridings and in our caucus who are proud hunters, who follow the law and do things the right away, and who respect firearms. Our colleagues opposite are making it sound as though our questioning of the merits of a bill and what it truly aims to do means that they support hunters and we are against them.

If you look closely, you can see that more than half of the 16 pages of this bill have absolutely nothing to do with cutting red tape.

I am looking at the titles, and I know that others before me have mentioned this, but I still do not understand why the short titles in English and French do not say the same thing. In French, it is Loi visant la délivrance simple et sécuritaire des permis d'armes à feu. The word “sécuritaire” is in the bill.

However, in English it says, “This Act may be cited as the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act”.

As the justice critic, I have often said that the devil is in the details with the Conservative government. That is the kind of careful approach we have to take to the work the people have sent us here to do.

Nearly 70% of the population did not vote for this government. Those people have the right to be heard in the House and to tell the government to be careful. Saying that does not automatically mean that we are against all aspects of this bill.

When I gave my speech at second reading, there was time allocation. That is the other trend that shows how dysfunctional this Parliament is because nearly all of the bills have been subject to time allocation.

The government dragged its heels on Bill C-42 for a long time.

That was the bill we were supposed to debate the day after the events of October 22. If that bill was so good, so simple and so extraordinary, why did the government take it off the agenda only to reintroduce it five or six months later under a time allocation motion? The government dragged its feet and tried to sweep this under the rug so as not to get people too worked up, because, as one member said, there was reason to believe that some serious problems could arise in urban centres.

While my colleagues from rural areas are asking us to understand the needs of hunters, sport shooters and gun collectors, my colleagues from urban areas are making a heartfelt appeal to all those law-abiding gun owners, telling them that there is a serious problem in urban centres. Can we not just sit down together and try to find solutions that meet everyone's needs? That is not naive or sentimental; it is simply to say that, with goodwill and by working together, we can do good things.

It is possible to eliminate the irritants that are hurting law-abiding gun owners who might have made a small mistake with their registration, for they certainly do not deserve to be left with a criminal record. I completely agree, but can we also do something to make sure that we are not making things easier for gun and weapon smugglers and that we are not making the classification of weapons so simplistic and easy that it leads to serious problems? That is our most fundamental duty.

The Conservatives like to personally attack us because of some of the positions we take. Some Conservatives go so far as to try to hurt us in press releases and in front of certain groups. I am relatively active with Les Membres Sportifs de Gatineau, a hunting and fishing club. I get together with the members often. I like chatting with them. They organize activities, and one day I will very likely go with them because I am a girl who likes to commit wholeheartedly, not just with words but also with actions, unlike the Conservative government.

When the long gun registry was created, those people told me that it made them feel like criminals, but they absolutely were not. The Conservatives capitalized on that. Instead of getting rid of the sticking points related to the registry, they used it as a blunt instrument to divide Canadians. The vast majority of Canadians, if not all of them, know full well that hunting and biathlon are not being eliminated. I have no intention of doing so.

Some young cadets in my riding recently won awards in biathlon competitions. It is extraordinary to see them. Nonetheless, they learn at an early age how to handle a weapon properly and they know full well that it is like a car. They know they have to be careful when they use it and they cannot proceed any old way. There are rules.

This bill has some extremely disturbing aspects. Again, it is not about reducing red tape. It includes a number of criminal provisions and gives cabinet the regulatory power to make classification changes, which is worrisome.

My colleagues who are members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security worked hard on getting rid of these sticking points through amendments, which would have allowed us to support the bill.

As usual, the Conservative members of the committee are unfortunately always told to say no to the opposition's requests, even the reasonable ones.

I will proudly vote against this bill. Once again, I wish continued success to all Canadian hunters. I am not against them.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier on, one of the NDP speakers said, on bringing back the costly Liberal gun registry, that the party had other plans.

Could the hon. member comment on what the Liberal leader had indicated back on December 3, 2012. He said, “I voted to keep the firearms registry a few months ago and if we had a vote tomorrow I would vote once again to keep the long-gun registry”.

Exactly two years to the day, on December 3, 2014, he said he, “would not reinstate the gun registry, even in a modified form, because it's simply too divisive”. Of course, that would be political suicide. Then he said, “There are other ways to reduce gun violence...including through the classification of restricted and prohibited firearms and through the requirements imposed on the purchase of firearms”, speaking about getting rid of the bullets, taking away property.

Are the New Democrats and the Liberals looking at a joint plan as far as the gun registry?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was absolutely fascinating.

I will not even attempt to explain the Liberal leader ever in the House. It is something way too complicated for me and for any Canadian, I think.

We have been clear. There is one sentence he said that is true. As justice critic and as the person who was kind of in the lead on the long gun registry position in our party, it is absolutely not our intention to bring back the long gun registry. Our leader was clear.

The fact that we help police around the country does not mean we will be back to the way when the Liberals installed the registry in the 1990s, which created many problems and was so costly. Therefore, there will be no recreation of the registry. For the rest, let us read what the leader of the third party said a bit more.

The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2015, Act No. 1

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading of Bill C-59.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #405

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.