Debates of June 18th, 2018

Motions in amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-71—Notice of time allocation motion

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

Firearms Act

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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