House of Commons Hansard #305 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:35 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I cannot agree. The whole point of the treaty is to prohibit the sale and export of weapons to nations that are major human rights violators. It is to prohibit our nation, and all other nations that sign onto the treaty, from supporting atrocities. It does not matter if it is a rifle, a LAV tank, or a bomb, we should not be selling arms to nations where we know absolutely they will be used for war atrocities.

My colleague tried to table an amendment that would not allow for this exemption, where one could simply sell to a United States broker and in turn have it sold to a country that was committing atrocities.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:35 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was at committee today when the member asked the Department of Foreign Trade and Development about South Sudan. The officials seemed entirely unaware that this was occurring. I have heard the statistics that the member has shared about the number of times parts are shipped somewhere and then shipped somewhere else and assembled into weapons that go to countries that have human rights violations. She quoted statistics from 2014 about the lack of denial of any of these export certificates in Canada. Could she elaborate on the kind of amendments she would like to see to fix the bill?

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:35 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to have a question from the member. As I mentioned, my colleague has already submitted that amendment, which was turned down by the committee and by the minister who has brought forward this bill. It would not allow manufacturers of armaments to short circuit the Arms Trade Treaty by simply selling them or brokering them through another country. Whether the officials know this or not, they are not allowed to take policy positions. We know regularly when officials come before committee, they say they cannot express a policy, that we have to ask the politicians.

It is very clear on the evidence that we have been sitting by and allowing the sale of weapons manufactured by Canadian companies to nations committing serious war atrocities, and it needs to end.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:40 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here tonight to speak to Bill C-47. I want to note right up front that I am a bit disappointed that the government seems to have disengaged from the debate.

This is my first opportunity to consider this issue, and I am happy to stay here until midnight tonight. I was looking forward to the opportunity to ask questions and to hear the answers. It is important for Canadians as we debate this important issue.

The Liberals have a majority government and they will get the bill through, but to disengage, to not even participate in the debate is a bit disappointing.

Before I get into the specifics of Bill C-47, I want to draw attention to the connection among Bill C-71, Bill C-75, and Bill C-47. It speaks to the Liberals ideological perspective on things that are not driven in practicality.

Bill C-71 is the Liberal government's back door firearms registry. In spite of what the Liberals say, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. They claim the bill will protect cities from guns and gangs. People who have only lived in big cities like Toronto, Montreal, or Ottawa, might not understand that a law-abiding hunter or farmer who lives in a rural area considers a firearm a tool. It is a tool for ranchers and hunters. It is a tool for indigenous people.

Bill C-47 would impact law-abiding hunters and farmers, as would Bill C-71, but not in a practical way, not in a way that would make a difference. It would not make a difference in guns and gangs in cities, especially Bill C-71. However, it would create an added level of bureaucracy for many of our rural communities and our hunters and farmers.

Bill C-75 is about Liberal ideology, not practicality. Some people commit pretty serious and significant crimes. Bill C-75 proposes to reduce sentences. Do the Liberals want to reduce sentences for terrorist activities, or for crimes such as administering a noxious substance or date rape? If something ever happened to my daughter, I would be absolutely appalled if the sentence was reduced.

There was a very disturbing court case in Kamloops involving the death of a young girl. The Twitter world was filled with people, saying justice was not done with respect to the the sentence given to the person who murdered this child. Everyone had a sense that justice had not been done, yet Bill C-75 would further reduce criminal sentences for what would truly be horrific crimes.

I will get into the specifics of Bill C-47. This legislation was introduced in April, 2017. Let us talk about time management. It was introduced in April, 2017 and we are now going into June, 2018, with late night sittings so the Liberals can get what they believe to be important legislation through the House? That significantly indicates bad management of House time.

Bill C-47 would control the transfer of eight different categories of military equipment. The one we find to be the most troubling is category 8, small arms and light weapons. I understand an amendment was introduced at committee that would add “The Brokering Control List may not include small arms that are rifles, carbines, revolvers or pistols intended for hunting or sport, for recreational use, or for a cultural or historical purpose.”

It was quite a reasonable amendment, but it was voted down. I wanted to ask the government tonight why it voted it down because it would have given many of us greater comfort in how we looked at the bill.

The government tends to look at anything the UN does without criticism. If the UN says we should do this, the Liberals tend to say, absolutely, how fast, and how quickly. They do not spend as much time as they might reflecting on what we do in Canada.

I would beg to differ from my colleague from the NDP. We do have a responsive system. We have a Trades Control Bureau. To a greater degree, this system has worked pretty well. Would it be better to have something that everyone uses? Absolutely, if everyone used it. We only need to look at the list of the countries that have not or will not signed onto this agreement. We have to recognize that this agreement will not accomplish what it is intended to accomplish.

I encourage anyone who might have an interest in this issue to go online and look at the list of countries that have signed on to the treaty and implemented it. However, look to the larger category of countries that have said no. People will quickly recognize that we are not creating a solution in Canada. We are going to be creating increased challenges.

Another area that the Liberals should be reflecting on is this. The Department of National Defence has always been excluded from our internal systems. Under this treaty, it will be included. Is that going to affect the nimbleness of our military, its ability to respond in a rapid response? Perhaps the the Liberals have not done as much due diligence in that area. We need to ensure our military can react rapidly to trouble spots around the world and send assistance. We often thought that sending assistance was the correct response. This does nothing for law-abiding citizens.

Yesterday in the House, the Liberals voted for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Over a year ago, at the UN, they committed to its implementation. With respect to Bill C-71, today at committee one of the first nations leadership said “We had no consultations”. This is another example where the Liberals are telling them what they are going to do. I would suggest that the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne would say that with the borders between the U.S. and Canada, the bill would impact the people, that the council did not even know about it. The fact is that over a year and a half ago, the Liberals committed to consultations under article 19, but they have not followed through in any meaningful way to that commitment.

I am disappointed that we have not had engagement, but, quite frankly, the treaty goals in the bill will not be met. Meanwhile we will create some new regulatory burdens for our Department of National Defence and people in the fishing and hunting community who will keep having to do more and more under a Liberal government. I am sure they must be terribly frustrated. This is one more example of its lack of understanding on that issue.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that really affect my riding is rural crime. I know the member talked fairly extensively about that.

When I get back home and people ask me why the government is doing this or that, I always say that the government does not see past the city limits.

I wonder whether my hon. colleague has had the same experience back home.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have had the benefit of growing up in an urban area, understanding the urban perspective, and then spending many years of my life living in a more rural community.

I often talk about my neighbour shooting a cougar that was stalking the children. It was a tool of living in a rural community. If people do not have the opportunities to live and experience both the urban and the rural lifestyles, or, even worse, if they are not willing to engage in debate about this issue, they do not understand what is happening.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

NDP

Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the presentation made by my hon. colleague, a former colleague on the indigenous affairs committee.

She quoted article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in our debate on Bill C-262 when talking about the situation in Akwesasne.

It was quite interesting in this context, because article 19 talks about consultation and co-operation “in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions”.

First of all, whom does the member consider the representative institution in Akwesasne? Second, I find it curious that members cite indigenous issues and indigenous people in situations that serve their arguments but not in the situation where the House was debating a vote to support indigenous peoples and their fundamental human rights in this place.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, what I was pointing out was not in terms of supporting my argument; it was in terms of supporting the discussion that the Liberals say one thing and do another, which I have been pointing out.

The Liberals are the ones who went to the UN and committed to implementing the declaration. It was not the Conservatives; it was the Liberals. They are the ones who did not actually have an engagement process, and they have not created the engagement process they committed to. It was not the Conservatives who committed to it; it was the Liberals. They have failed.

Today at committee, on Bill C-71, we had some representatives from indigenous communities saying there was nothing. The member does address a good issue, in terms of the representative bodies across the country, whether it is Inuit, Métis, or first nations. That is important work that has to be determined, but in the meantime I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the Liberals on this issue.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I value about my colleague is that she has a great memory for history.

I was not in politics at the time, but my recollection is that the long gun registry was a losing issue for the Liberal Party. When I look at this legislation, Bill C-71, it looks like a sneaky way of bringing that back, which would be a really bad idea for the Liberals to do.

Am I missing anything? Could the member elaborate?

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, again, if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck, it is a duck. In my opinion, Bill C-71 is a backdoor registry, and Bill C-47 is increasing the complications for our law-abiding hunters and fishers.

I think this answers the member's questions. It is a long gun registry, just not in name.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK

Madam Speaker, once again, it is a pleasure to rise in this place to give my comments in tonight's debate on Bill C-47, but before I do so, perhaps I can expand upon a couple of the comments made by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who talked a little about the procedural aspects of what is happening tonight.

If anyone is actually watching these proceedings tonight, they would notice that there is no debate happening. We are scheduled for debate, we are supposed to be having debate, but “debate” means that there are two sides debating, and the Liberals have chosen not to participate in this debate. That is their prerogative, and they can certainly do as they wish, but from a procedural standpoint, I would like to point out a couple of items.

Number one, if the discussion on Bill C-47 collapses, and by that I mean if no further speaker stands to offer comments, it means that the bill would get passed. Why is that important? It is because, as the government knows, there was an offer made earlier tonight to members on the government side that if Bill C-47 collapsed—in other words, if no one got up to speak—and if the government would not introduce another bill, we would all go home. Not to make it appear that we do not want to do our jobs, the reality is that every extended hour we spend in this place is costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. The lights have to remain on, staff have to be here, security has to be here, the cafeterias have to remain open, and, ultimately, Bill C-47 will be passed. The government knows that, it has a majority, yet we sit here wasting taxpayers' dollars and not even participating in the debate.

I find it shameful that members on the government side who say they want to actively debate will not even comment on their own legislation. I will put on the record that the government is playing games here. We could all be cutting back on the expenses that taxpayers are being forced to pay, but Liberals do not see it that way, and I find that almost unconscionable. That is on the procedural side of things.

I will turn my remarks now to Bill C-47. I will make a couple of brief comments on the bill itself, which of course is about the Arms Trade Treaty. The reason I am bringing it up is the fact that any arms treaty should recognize the legitimacy of responsible gun owners who wish to own guns for their personal use, for their recreational and sporting activities, but the treaty does not recognize the legitimacy of that. For that reason, and that reason alone, I cannot support Bill C-47.

However, we should not be surprised, because this is just the latest in a long litany of Liberal attempts at gun control that have ended badly. The member for Sarnia—Lambton referenced it just a few moments ago when she talked about the failed Liberal long gun registry back in the 1990s and early 2000s. For those who have perhaps forgotten the history, let me remind them that in 1995, then justice minister Allan Rock introduced the long-gun registry as a piece of legislation in this place, ostensibly and purportedly, according to him, that it would save lives.

History has taught us many things, and one of the things it has taught us about this failed attempt at a good piece of legislation was that the long-gun registry did nothing to save lives. What it did do, as was found out in later years, was cost Canadian taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars. In fact, in 1995, the then justice minister, the hon. Allan Rock, stated in this place that, by his estimations, the long-gun registry, once fully implemented, would only cost $2 million a year. At that point in time, many people took him at his word, because there were no real records or precedents for what a registry of that sort would cost taxpayers, but, luckily, for the taxpayers of Canada, a former colleague of mine, Mr. Garry Breitkreuz, from Yorkton, Saskatchewan, knew that this figure of $2 million was obscenely low, that it certainly could not be anywhere close to that and that it would cost much more. Hence, for years thereafter, Garry Breitkreuz filed ATIPs, access to information requests, time after time, month after month, year after year, getting limited, if any, response from the government.

Finally, after years of diligent and persistent requesting of the government for pertinent information on the cost of the gun registry, it was revealed that the gun registry did not cost $2 million, but $2 billion.

What did it accomplish? Did it accomplish anything? Did it save lives? Well, I am here to argue that it most certainly did not. Why not? It is because the one fundamental flaw in the rationale and reasoning of Allan Rock, back in those days, supported by every Liberal in Canada is seemed, was that criminals do not register guns.

We have seen over the years an influx of illegal handguns and other guns coming across the border from the United States to Canada, but the people who brought these illegal guns across the border had no plans to register their weapons. Therefore, the gun registry legislation was absolutely worthless. To say it cost $2 billion for a worthless piece of legislation and call it obscene is being kind to the word obscene. It absolutely was one of the largest fiscal mistakes the former Liberal government has made in that party's long history.

I do not think the current government has learned anything from these past mistakes, because we see them time and time again trying to introduce legislation that would in fact be a back door gun registry. Whether it be Bill C-47, Bill C-71, or Bill C-75, we know that what the Liberals would love to see is another gun registry being enacted here in Canada. However, I can assure members that if they try to do that, if they try to force their position on Canadians, on rural Canadians in particular, legitimate gun owners would again be absolutely beside themselves. The first time the Liberals tried to force the gun registry on legitimate gun owners and on rural Canada, the reaction was visceral, and it will be again.

I will conclude with a true story that happened when I was on the campaign trail in 2004. During the campaign, when I was door-knocking, I did not know the gentleman living at the residence I visited, but I saw in my identification that he was a former RCMP officer. I naturally thought that he was probably going to be in favour of this. Well, how wrong I was. When I got to the door, I was met with hostility on every issue I brought forward to the point where I actually started losing my temper, which I normally do not do, particularly when I am door-knocking. It finally got to a point, after many arguments on different issues, that the gentleman asked me “What do you think you're going to do about the gun registry?” I said, “We're going to scrap it”. He said “I worked for the gun registry”. I said “Well, in that case, don't vote for me”. He said, “I won't, and get off my doorstep”.

I was laughing by the time I got to the sidewalk because it was so bizarre, but it just illustrates the visceral reaction that so many people have about this very contentious issue.

The gun registry that the Liberal government of the day tried to force down the throats of rural Canadians was something that should never have happened in the first place, but it did, unfortunately. However, for $2 billion in taxpayers' dollars, it is something that Canadians, particularly rural Canadians, will never forget, and because of that, when they see the current government introducing legislation like Bill C-47, Bill C-71, or Bill C-75, they harken back to the dark days of the 1990s when the Liberal government tried to force this obscene long-gun registry down their throats.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on the Liberal government.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

9:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I want to address one particular point.

We have had a couple of opposition members raise the issue of participation. The only thing I want to emphasize is that in the past, even with Stephen Harper, and often towards the end of a parliamentary session, we had time allocation, extended hours, and so forth.

Tonight we are in extended hours. The intention is to allow members who want to address the proposed legislation to do so. If it collapses, then we will continue to move on with other proposed legislation. That is something Stephen Harper and other governments have done. We should not be shy of working extra hours, as many Canadians have that expectation, to get legislation moving.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments to try to spin this, but the reality is that he knows as well as I do, although he probably will never admit it, that there was an agreement that was proposed to the members opposite that if Bill C-47 were left to collapse, there would be no new legislation introduced tonight. Members would simply go home and save the taxpayers, I would say, probably at least $30,000 or $40,000 from our not staying here until midnight.

That is the right of the members opposite to say no. We will gladly stay here until midnight and debate the merits of Bill C-47, but what I find absolutely unconscionable is that there is no participation by the Liberals. They were the ones who introduced this bill. They were the ones who put it on the schedule for debate tonight. It was them not us, yet they are not putting up even one speaker to support or defend this legislation. That is the worst of all scenarios, game playing and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

Madam Speaker, I was talking to one of my colleague's former colleagues, the hon. John Williams of Edmonton—St. Albert, a few months ago and he relayed a story to me about a conversation he had with a deputy minister at Public Safety. The deputy minister said, “You could give us a billion dollars every year and we could never stop the flow of illegal guns coming in from the United States of America.” This is a problem that Canada has had for a very long time. Could the member comment on how he thinks taxpayer resources could be better spent to tackle gun crime and gun violence in this country?

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right about one thing: there are many other things that could be done to benefit Canadians than throwing $2 billion of taxpayer money down the drain, as happened in the 1990s with the failed Liberal gun registry. Let us think for a moment about where some of that money could be spent: health care, and certainly on infrastructure needs. However, to literally flush $2 billion of taxpayer money down the drain on a piece of legislation that had no hope in hades of saving lives, as was its purported purpose, is something that I find almost incomprehensible. It was an absolutely dark chapter in the life of Parliament when that legislation passed, and ultimately Canadians understood that this was something that would hopefully never happen again.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member mentioned Bill C-71, and like everything else we see from the current Liberal government, a lot of it is all optics. In Bill C-71 in particular, it speaks about guns and gangs zero times, but the words “register” and “registrar” are used there well over 30 times. What is the member's his opinion of that?

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK

Madam Speaker, I will be brief because I know that our time is tight. Quite frankly, resources could be best spent in perhaps increasing the police forces across Canada and perhaps in educating well-meaning and recreational hunters and shooters about the proper use of guns. However, to suggest that this piece of legislation or Bill C-71 would do anything to combat crime is a farce, because the legislation does not say anything about that. We do have a problem with crime, particularly rural crime, in this country, but Bill C-71 does not address that and Bill C-47 certainly does not. If the Liberals are serious about trying to prevent and eliminate crime across rural Canada, there are better ways to do it than this.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about the arms control treaty. I would like to say that I am delighted to be here, but I find that when the government decides to force us into these midnight sittings and then chooses not to participate in the debate, it is a bit of a one-sided conversation. Normally, when I show up to bring my viewpoints on why I am going to oppose a piece of legislation, I am looking to hear from the government about why it thinks this legislation is such a good idea, but I guess I am not going to hear that tonight.

First, I will talk about arms internationally, and then I will talk a bit about arms at home and some of the concerns I have with the bill.

First, there is this arms treaty that the UN is trying to get people to sign on to. My first concern is that there are a lot of countries that have not signed on to it. One of them, of course, is the U.S. This is concerning to me. If this was such a great treaty, a lot of countries ought to be signing on.

Here in Canada, we have the Trade Controls Bureau, which supposedly keeps us from shipping weapons to places where they would be used in internal and external conflicts, and used by people who commit human rights violations. I had the opportunity to sit at committee this afternoon, and the member for Edmonton Strathcona has already testified that she asked a question about arms that are being shipped through the U.S. into South Sudan.

This is not an isolated incident. There are parts of guns that are being assembled in other countries and sent to places where there are conflicts and human rights violations. She gave a statistic showing that the applications for these permits are pretty much all approved. Only 10 out of 7,000 in 2014 were turned down. Therefore, it appears that there is not enough traceability from where parts begin or arms are created to where they ultimately end up. That is something that ought to be fixed if we are really trying to meet the intent of the bill, which I think is to try to make sure we control where arms are going.

I was fortunate enough to go to Geneva, Switzerland with the World Health Organization as part of the Canadian delegation with the health minister. I was astounded when I was there to hear some of the members from countries across the world talk about how 684 hospitals were bombed last year. This is unbelievable and totally against the Geneva convention. In many cases, the weapons that are being used are weapons originating in countries that did not intend for them to be used in such a way. Therefore, we definitely need to tighten this up.

The Congo, for example, is at the point where its minister of health is talking about rebuilding its structure and having only 44% of the country with any kind of medical service access. It is definitely a serious issue.

If we focus on arms internationally, I talked about having better traceability. Definitely for those places that we know are committing human rights violations, we should have some eyes on the ground there to detect and eliminate those passages.

In terms of arms at home, it is important to state that we currently do not have a problem with law-abiding gun owners in Canada. We have to state this again and again. We are not having difficulty with law-abiding gun owners in Canada. We will kill more people with drug-impaired driving than we will with lawful guns in Canada. The Liberal government is rushing to legalize marijuana, which will double the number of people killed in that way. The Liberals are pretending there is a problem where there really is not.

The problem in Canada is guns and gangs in big cities, which is a problem with people who do not obey the law. If they do not obey the current gun laws, they are not going to obey future gun laws. It would be naive to think otherwise. That point cannot be made often enough. There is no problem with lawful gun ownership in Canada.

I have heard the testimony of some witnesses who talked about rural ridings. I happened to have a contingent of rural ridings in Sarnia—Lambton, perhaps not as rural as some of the people who have spoken, but there are a large number of folks there who are gun owners, many of whom are farmers. When there are no police close by or the police response time is measured in hours, not minutes, people need protection. Not only that, there are many times when one may have to take action. In the place where I live, we have cougars. It has not just happened in one year, but in multiple years, that when the weather is mild the cougars come down and attack the pigs and horses on the various farms around and the farmers have to shoot them. That is protection. I have friends who have a lot of horses. If a horse has to be put down, they do it humanely and they use a gun. In the rural environment, guns are a tool that is used wisely.

I have said before and I will say again that we do not have a problem with law-abiding gun owners. The other thing I would say is there are a lot of people who hunt for enjoyment or who have guns to practise shooting at a shooting gallery. I do not personally own a gun. However, I do not begrudge those who want the right to do so. I know that a lot of the people in the rural environment where I live have multiple guns. They have a different one for pheasant, for turkey, for moose, and for the deer. Apparently, there is quite a skill to this whole thing. What all Canadians want is to make sure that we take more control of things that could kill multiple people. We have all seen the news when people take a weapon that can shoot 50 rounds and really do huge damage. Therefore, I think there is a way of balancing that and making sure that the people who are getting guns are of sound mind. Everyone would agree that is also important.

This legislation does nothing to address any of that. This legislation, along with Bill C-71, is really a backdoor gun registry. It is bringing that back. I appreciate the history that the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan gave me, because I do recall that the long-gun registry did not turn out well for the Liberals. Bill C-47 and Bill C-71 will bring them to the same fate.

The other thing is that the bill is introducing a lot of red tape, bureaucracy, record keeping, and costs to businesses. I am not a fan of that.

If we talk about Bill C-71, the sort of partner legislation to this bill, there are a lot of unanswered questions about who does the background checks, who assesses that they are okay, and how people access the records. There is language that suggests it is a judicial process. What does that mean? Does it mean one needs to get a warrant to get that information? Is that information generally available to security organizations? Who can really access that information? Those questions need to be answered.

Also, in Bill C-71, I do not know why the government would take out the authorization to transport guns to and from gunsmiths, gun stores, border points, and gun shows. If people who own guns have to get their gun fixed, they have to take it to a gunsmith. Eliminating people's ability to transport guns to a gunsmith seems ridiculous. Similarly, if people are a fan of guns, they would go to gun shows. How would they get the guns there if they are not allowed to transport them? It just seems like a lot of roadblocks are being put up for people who are law-abiding citizens with whom we do not have an issue.

Overall, when I look at this legislation, it appears to me that it does not address the goal, which is to make sure that arms do not fall into the hands of people who would use them for human rights violations, in conflicts, or against Canada. It also does not do anything to address the issues with crime in Canada due to guns and gangs. For that reason, I will strongly oppose this legislation.

I would repeat that it is really too bad that the government has chosen not to put up any speakers in this debate tonight.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There does not appear to be a quorum in the House.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

9:20 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

We do have quorum.

Was the hon. member only rising with respect to a quorum count or did he actually want to ask a question?

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

I have a question as well.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

9:20 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, my colleagues are already excited. Just think how excited they will be after I ask the question. However, I am glad that, perhaps unusually for the Liberal side, I finally have a bit of an audience, not to imply, of course, that they were not here.

I want to ask my colleague for her view on the amendment the Conservatives proposed at committee. Members should know that Conservatives were very constructive as part of this legislative process. We introduced an amendment. My colleague from P.E.I is laughing. However, he should stay and hear this amendment, because I know there are many firearms owners in his riding, who I look forward to visiting with soon, who are concerned about this bill.

The Conservatives proposed an amendment at committee that said, “The Brokering Control List may not include small arms that are rifles, carbines, revolvers or pistols intended for hunting or sport, for recreational use, or for a cultural or historical purpose.”

This was an amendment that was asked for by stakeholders. It would have preserved the rest of the bill, the architecture of the bill, but it also would have provided clear protection. Let us be clear. There is a difference between, generally speaking, the kind of firearms that are used for recreational purposes, for duck hunting, and the ones that are used in military grade atrocities and that sort of thing.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

9:20 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I just want to allow for another question. I would ask individuals when they are asking their questions to keep their remarks to a minimum.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Madam Speaker, definitely I think that amendment would have been in line with what I said, which is that we do not have a problem today in Canada with lawful gun owners. Therefore, exempting them from this would have been the right thing to do. That said, the government has a propensity to not accept amendments. I know I have been frustrated at the health committee when I have brought multiple amendments that are well thought out, and the government has totally ignored them.

Furthermore, when things go from this House over to the other place, amendments are brought back, typically ones that are exactly the same as we brought at committee here, and they are refused again, which seems a huge waste of taxpayer money. I am not opposed at all to that amendment.