However, Mr. Speaker, it seems that the members opposite fail to understand that, as I have pointed out today in a few of their quotations.
However, it gets worse. Despite the objection, it is clear that both the NDP and the Liberals will bring back the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry should they ever get the chance.
The NDP leader said on December 3 of this past year:
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....
I have nothing against seeing honest farmers and duck hunters be able to have their weapons. But, you know, that honest hunter who goes out with his pickup truck, it's a registered pickup truck...the trailer's registered and the 4X4 is registered. Heck, his dog is registered.
[New Democrats] have confidence in the ability of farmers and duck hunters to fill out a form.
The Liberal leader has said he voted to keep the firearms registry. He said, “If we had a vote tomorrow, I would vote once against to keep the long-gun registry”.
It gets worse. The Liberal member for Trinity—Spadina said that he even drew a moral equivalency between hunters and jihadi terrorists. It would be unbelievable if it were not from the same party whose former justice minister said that he came to Ottawa firmly of the belief that only the police and military should have access to firearms.
The fact of the matter is that it is only our Conservative government, led by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, who will stand up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Approval for the bill is widespread. Let us listen to the former police officer from Saskatchewan, Murray Grismer, who said:
As a veteran police officer, master firearms instructor, and court-qualified expert, I am of the opinion changes to Bill C-42, the common-sense firearms licensing act, contrary to what others would have you believe, do not constitute a threat to public safety, nor do they inhibit a police officer from executing his or her duties. In fact, they enhance public safety and through the simplification of the licensing regime and ATTs greatly assist police officers in the execution of their duties, all done by the application of a little common sense.
Let us listen to Professor Gary Mauser, from Simon Fraser University, in British Columbia, who said:
I do not think that any of the changes in Bill C-42 would increase the danger to women or children through guns. At the present time, only 2% of accused murderers have any kind of firearms licence. That's a PAL, POL or the old FAC. So this is a very small group of people and nothing would change. ...gun ownership is subject to intense scrutiny to achieve a licence, and secondly, nightly to make sure that there are no restraining orders or any kind of offences committed overnight. Nothing in this bill would reduce that.
Greg Illerbrun, from the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, said:
...I understand that there are serious disconnects between the legitimate firearms users and those for whom the very mention of the word “gun” strikes unwarranted fear into their hearts. Sadly, this is the reality, which is continuously fuelled by a politically motivated and sensationalist media agenda.
Today's measures do represent common-sense improvement, and for that I thank you. Legitimate firearms owners are ready to get to work. We will help you foster the discussion and assist in creating a common-sense act that stops criminalizing the traditional lifestyle of legitimate firearms users in Canada.
Even the editorial board from the National Post was onside. It said:
...the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act...is good news for responsible gun owners and good news, as the name suggests, for common sense.
[It shows that] it is possible to streamline the process of legally acquiring a firearm without reducing the already stringent controls on their ownership, and we welcome its...passage.
This is clearly a bill that is supported by a wide cross-section of Canadian society, and what is more important, it is good sound policy that will make Canadians safer, without needless red tape. It will make sure that the criminal justice system focuses on bad guys, not on ordinary folks who forget to fill out a form.
I could go on for much longer on this issue that is very close to my heart, but I see that my time is about to expire. I would like to leave members with one parting thought. At the core of the bill is Canada's outdoors culture. I am the outgoing chair of the all-party parliamentary outdoor caucus, and I am also a member of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, the only party that has such a body.
Some members of the Liberals and NDP took debate on the bill as an opportunity to engage in a drive-by smear of outdoor enthusiasts, by saying that those who want to obey clear rules are part of “an American-style gun lobby”, as if we should hang our heads in shame at such a moniker. This is patently ridiculous, and it is offensive to the millions of Canadians who engage in hunting and sport shooting.
I want to quote Greg Farrant, from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. He said at committee:
Firearms owners in Canada are judges, lawyers, farmers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, accountants, even federal politicians, many of whom...live in and represent urban ridings. They are not criminals. They are not gang members. Rather, they are lawful firearms owners who obey the law.
The laws as they are currently drafted discourage ownership of firearms and seek to bring about the end of hunting and sport shooting in Canada. We will never stand by and let this happen. Conservatives will always fight for respect for those who enjoy outdoor heritage activities. When the vote comes at third reading on the common sense firearms licensing act, I can assure everyone in this House that the firearms community will be watching, and they will take that into consideration during the events coming up this fall.
I look forward to answering any questions.