Debates of June 19th, 2018

Firearms Act

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is little evidence to justify the many changes found in the Liberals' firearms legislation proposed as Bill C-71. They are trying to fix a problem that does not exist. In fact, they would only further burden law-abiding firearms owners rather than actually going after people who commit crimes. I, for one, would prefer that our law enforcement agencies and the Government of Canada spend their time, energy, and resources on cracking down on gangs and criminals.

To step back for a moment, law-abiding firearms owners do not trust the Liberal government. They do not believe that the changes found in Bill C-71 would actually make our streets safer or put criminals behind bars.

I want to focus my comments on two aspects of the legislation that are deeply flawed and why I believe the bill must be defeated.

In the last Parliament, our previous Conservative government passed the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. Found in that legislation was the sensible change of introducing an automatic authorization to transport firearms. This meant that individuals were no longer required to contact the RCMP for certain routine and lawful activities as it became a condition of a restricted PAL holder's licence. This was a common-sense change. Why would law-abiding licensed owners need to notify the RCMP that they were taking their licensed firearm to a firing range? By adding the authorization to transport their firearm as part of their licence, it freed up valuable RCMP resources. It must be said that if the firearms owners did not follow the conditions as part of their licence, they would have it revoked, which is a very severe punishment.

If the government is going to give someone the right to own a firearm, to shoot a firearm, to store a firearm, to compete with a firearm, why would we not give them the automatic right to transport a firearm?

Found in the legislation, the Liberals are reverting to the old ways of not trusting responsible law-abiding Canadians to automatically transfer their firearms. Why? Well, they think it suits their political needs, and there is ample evidence to back that statement.

Before the last election, the Liberal Party went as far as scaring the public by suggesting that an automatic authorization to transport firearms was going to make Canada less safe. During question period on November 26, 2014, the now leader of the Liberals said that the right to have an automatic authorization to transfer a firearm would “allow handguns and assault weapons to be freely transported in a trunk anywhere within a province, even left parked outside a Canadian Tire or local hockey arena”. This was and remains a very erroneous statement. The law is quite clear when it says that one is only allowed to transport prohibited or restricted firearms “between two or more specified places for any good and sufficient reason”. If we dig even further into the regulations, it says that they must transfer their firearms by “reasonably direct” routes.

While the Liberals are entitled to their opinions, they are not entitled to ignore the facts. They cannot just purport something to be true while the law says something completely different.

For those thinking that calling up the RCMP every time they want to get authorization to transport a firearm is not that big a deal, let me put on the record the number of times the RCMP previously had to go through this process. Since 2008, the RCMP issued 992,139 authorizations. That is almost one million phone calls. For argument's sake, let us just say that it takes an average of eight minutes to get this process done. That is 132,285 hours that the RCMP could have used on investigating crimes and patrolling our streets and highways.

Now that we have established the inordinate amount of time this process takes, with little evidence that it actually enhances public safety, let us dig further into the numbers. If we really think that the RCMP's issuing authorization to firearms is doing something to keep our streets safe, people might want to know that over the past seven years, out of close to one million authorizations issued, only 17 have been refused. This would indicate that it is a fruitless endeavour that really does not accomplish a whole lot.

With all that in mind, what evidence did the Liberals put forward for why we have to revert to the old ways? They put forward nothing.

When the Hells Angels start calling the RCMP to let the RCMP know when they are transferring their firearms, I might change my tune on this matter. However, until criminals decide to start applying for firearms licences, I think we should call a spade a spade and admit that seeking an authorization to transfer a firearm does nothing to enhance the safety of Canadians.

The second part of this deeply flawed legislation is the removal of any oversight of the classification of firearms. For years, there was no recourse or appeal process if a firearm was not correctly classified. That meant the individuals in charge of this process could make millions of dollars' worth of property worthless with the stroke of a pen. While I am not a hunter or a sport shooter, I can understand their frustration when a firearm they have owned for years, or in some cases even decades, is suddenly prohibited.

No one in the House is suggesting that classifying firearms should not be taking place. All we are asking for is an appeal process, or at the very least a very clear understanding of the regulations that determine the classification of a firearm.

I want to be very clear that firearms should not receive a classification based on their appearance. Their classification should solely be based on their form and function.

If the Liberals wanted to provide greater clarity on the classification of firearms, they would have legislated the firearms reference table into law. The firearms reference table information is used during the process of firearms identification, classification, tracing, importation, and registration. Right now, the public has no ability to find out what is contained in the firearms reference table or to find out the justification of why a firearm was classified as it was.

I want to salute Matthew Hipwell, a former RCMP officer who served for 17 years, for bringing this issue to the public safety committee during its study of Bill C-71. It was Matthew who brought to the committee's attention that Murray Smith of the RCMP said, “the Firearms Reference Table has no standing in law. It's simply the...viewpoint of the firearms program on classification and description of any particular item.”

This has led to all sorts of problems, as the definitions to determine a classification are neither clearly nor legally defined. They are open to different interpretation and opinion. An example is the use of the word “variant”. There is no legal definition of “variant”. Another challenge in correctly classifying a firearm is the definition of “readily and easily”, which would be applied when determining if a firearm can be reconfigured.

If the firearms reference table has no standing in law, why are the Liberals completely gutting the ability of cabinet, made up of elected representatives, to overturn a wrongful classification? This was the only possible way to correct a wrongful classification. People who want to challenge the classification of a firearm would actually have to be arrested. That is the most irresponsible and undemocratic element of this legislation. Let us think for a moment. As a firearm owner, people would literally have to get arrested in order to challenge the reclassification of a firearm they may have owned for decades.

If this Liberal legislation has accomplished one thing, it has shown the need to establish clearly defined definitions of the criteria used to classify firearms. It also must be said that after reviewing all the expert witness testimony, not a single recommendation or amendment put forward by a firearms expert was accepted.

I cannot and will never support a piece of legislation that only goes after law-abiding firearms owners. There is little to nothing contained in this legislation that would crack down on criminals. Once again, the Liberals think that duck hunters and sport shooters are the problem.

While the government blindly passes this legislation, I will oppose it every step of the way. I will always stand up for law-abiding firearms owners and advocate for legislation that will actually make our streets and communities safer. Bill C-71 fails in this effort.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find this to be a very sensitive topic and I do not know a thing about firearms, but I would like to ask my colleague about his reaction to the firearm classification system. He said that people would have to get arrested in order to challenge the way a firearm is classified. Therefore, I do not understand how the Ruger Mini-14, the firearm used at École Polytechnique, is not restricted.

I understand that prohibited handguns must be in a case and have to be safely transported when driving to the firing range. This is all controlled. But I do not understand why someone would want to shoot a hail of bullets at a duck. It is just a waste of ammunition. I do not see the point.

How is it that such weapons can be of interest to sport shooters? Would my colleague help me understand that?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague's very sound question, as he probably heard in my presentation, the classification of a gun in many cases has been done on its visual aspects, what it looks like. In my comments I said very clearly that it should be based on the function and form of the gun, not the visual similarity to another type of a weapon. That is certainly true for these types of weapons. All guns should be referenced here and licensed according to the classification of the function of the particular gun.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would like to point out with Bill C-71 is the fact that when it comes to firearms and when it comes to dealing with crime, the Liberals have it all backwards. If we look at Bill C-75 and Bill C-71 at the same time, we see that law-abiding Canadians, Canadians who are jumping through all the hoops that the Liberals put in place, are being punished by Bill C-71. However, when we look at Bill C-75, the so-called enhancements of the judicial system, we see that the Liberals are downgrading all of the sentencing for a lot of the crimes across Canada.

What does my colleague have to say about the complete lack of clarity between the two pieces of legislation?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for drawing the differences in these pieces of legislation so clearly in his question.

Here we are with legislation that we need to make sure we are going to classify by the form and function of a gun when we have legislation on the other side that would soften the sentence that criminals or gang members may get for acting illegally. It is telling that the Liberal government is bringing both of these bills forward under the auspices of trying to make it tougher on crime, when both bills would actually make it softer on crime. That is the similarity between the two, and it is unfortunate that the Liberals do not really tie in the fact, with Bill C-71, that this would not do anything to make it tougher for the criminals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his involvement in filling in for us at committee on a number of occasions. He brought some great value to the work there. I wonder whether he could provide a commentary on some of the evidence that was heard from the experts who spoke to where Bill C-71 really fails Canadians.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment in regard to my sitting in on a few of the sessions of the committee. The one that was most important to me was, as I pointed out, the one where Matthew Hipwell came as an expert in managing guns, having been in the RCMP for years but now in the business as well. He pointed out that many guns seem to be getting licensed because they have somewhat dropped into the same category as something else because they look similar.

I was very clear that firearms should not receive a classification based on their appearance. It has to be based on their form and function. That is the number one thing I learned from sitting in on some of those committee meetings. In some cases, that is not how guns are licensed today, but it should be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in the House today to represent my constituents in opposing Bill C-71, which is causing concern not only in my riding, but across Canada, especially the rural regions of Quebec.

Let me provide a brief history lesson. The former Liberal government of Jean Chrétien promised a gun registry in 1995 at a net cost of $2 million. He believed that it would cost only $119 million to implement it and he would collect $117 million in fees. Well, it took only seven years before the auditor general sounded the alarm in 2002, saying that the cost of this initiative had reached $1 billion. Two years later, it was valued at $2 billion. It went from $2 million to $2 billion.

That does not include the harm caused to thousands of hunters and farmers across the country, some of whom lived hundreds of kilometres from major centres and risked having their guns confiscated if their registrations or renewals were not done on time. That is when we noticed the disconnect between the Liberals and rural Canada and we still see it today. We had to wait for a Conservative government to make things right.

Let us be clear. The Conservatives support common sense gun control measures and the responsible use of firearms. It always has and it always will. In fact, it was a Conservative government that added the requirement for a firearms safety course to the national safety code in 1991. A Conservative government also amended the Criminal Code to include mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences.

Let us not forget also that street gangs do not walk around with hunting rifles. That is the first thing. They like being discreet and they prefer handguns, which are already controlled and prohibited by law since 1934. Those criminals will continue buying their firearms on the black market, probably from the box of a pickup truck in some back alley in a large urban centre. This does not necessarily happen in the regions. Bill C-71 will not change that reality.

The Conservative government suspended the mandatory registration of long guns in 2006 and abolished the firearms registry in 2012 because it was costly and inefficient. Today, instead of looking forward and finding solutions to reduce the crime rate in Canada, the Liberals prefer to take us back to the 1990s by introducing Bill C-71.

First, they tell us that the bill does not include a registry, but the wording says that a retailer who sells a firearm must check the reference number with the registrar and record it in a system, where it must be kept for a period of 20 years. What is a registrar doing other than maintaining a registry? I am not sure how this translates into English, but in French, the word enregistrement includes the word registre. The word used in the English version of Bill C-71 is “registrar”, which comes from the Latin registrum, meaning “registry”.

As Jean Chrétien said, “A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof.” The Prime Minister likes to say, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” Well, a registrar is in charge of a registry.

They can claim that this registry will be simpler than the last, but there is still going to be a registry and they should not hide that fact. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Liberals are doing. They are hiding the truth from us. The minister evidently recognized the lack of clarity of Bill C-71 when he introduced it on Monday, March 26, 2018. He indicated that there was no established standard for complying with the obligation to keep records for a mandatory period of 20 years. He recognized that certain small businesses still keep paper records. I can attest to that because I am a hunter. I am not a collector, but my son and I regularly exchange firearms, in accordance with the law and the rules, and the retailer who has sold us our guns still keeps paper records, which he will have to hold on to for 20 years.

Companies sometimes change owners, computer systems are changed sometimes every five years, and even tax documents are only kept for seven years. How did the minister decide on 20 years, which is three times longer? What are the penalties if the records are lost, misplaced, or destroyed as a result of a fire or technical malfunction?

Before introducing legislation, the government must ensure that it is complete.

Furthermore, Bill C-71 requires the owners of certain restricted firearms to call and request authorization to transport their firearm every time they leave home with it.

On March 26, 2018, here in the House, the minister said that owners could request authorization by phone or by Internet, and that the process would take about three to five minutes. However, there is no government office that can serve the public in three to five minutes.

The Auditor General criticized the Canada Revenue Agency, because it is almost impossible to get an agent on the line. Many have spoken out about similar situations of being stuck on hold for 15, 20, 40 minutes, or even longer, with employment insurance, immigration and citizenship, and other government agencies. The Liberals suddenly think that gun owners will be able to get someone on the line in less than five minutes. That is completely ridiculous.

Earlier, my colleague talked about how the Internet is not as fast in rural areas as it is in big cities. In my riding, there are some places where the Internet is not available at all. People have no way to access the Internet to get the PDFs. This will never work. Let's be realistic. Law-abiding people are going to get tired of waiting, and criminals who own illegal guns are not going to call the toll-free number to request permission to transport them.

With respect to privacy, the federal government is getting ready to transfer files from the old long gun registry to Quebec authorities that are trying to set up their own gun registry. Not only is the government doing that without the consent of the people involved, but it is also transferring information that has not been updated in a long time. Registration stopped being mandatory in 2006, which was almost 12 years ago, and the files have not been updated since the registry was abolished in 2012. The government is about to transfer files that have been out of date for six to 12 years.

I ask the Liberals across the aisle what guarantees the federal government obtained to ensure that Quebec's firearms registration service, or SIAF, is fully aware that this list is largely obsolete, and to ensure that Quebeckers do not end up in a situation where they have to prove that they genuinely no longer possess the firearm listed in the old registry or face fines ranging from $500 to $5,000.

Everything seems to point to the fact that this bill was hastily put together. Furthermore, instead of taking meaningful action to reduce crime in Canada, the government did the exact opposite by opposing mandatory sentences and consecutive sentences through Bill C-38.

I am not going to vote for a bill that will create more red tape for hunters in my rural riding and that has the potential of treating my law-abiding constituents as criminals.

Instead of trying to pass Bill C-71 before summer break, I urge the government to take a step back, listen to the concerns of rural residents, and withdraw Bill C-71 before the fall.

In conclusion, I can say that people in my riding are talking to me about this bill. I consulted my constituents and received tons of feedback, several dozen responses, in fact. Everyone is on our side. No one wants a registry, and yet, despite the government's claims, there will inevitably be a registry.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very clear speech. I understand that he was expressing the point of view of his constituents, which is certainly relevant.

I represent a suburb of Montreal, so I do not really face this reality on a regular basis. He talked about how he and his son exchange firearms, following all the rules of course. Since I am not an expert, I wanted to ask him what someone who is familiar with firearms would have to say regarding the firearms used in the most recent attacks. He was quite right that criminals carry small firearms that they trade in an alley in the back of a truck. However, the hoodlums who have shot people recently have done so with firearms that, I think, are available in sporting goods stores, with a gun licence. What do hunters have to say about that? The vast majority of Canadians use firearms to hunt, which is an entirely noble activity. How do hunters react when they see hoodlums shooting all over the place with firearms that should never be sold freely?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I almost feel like returning the question and asking him what he thinks of the hoodlums who drive around and use a car or van to kill dozens of people, as was the case in Toronto recently. The principle is the same. The problem is in those people's heads; it is not the firearms themselves. Some people collect firearms, just as other people collect other everyday items or trinkets. I do not think that is the problem. On top of that, people who use firearms to commit crimes are often deranged, as we have seen on many occasions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick comment and a question.

It continues to be concerning that the Conservative Party wants to insist that this is about a gun registry, when we know that this is not about a gun registry. Even Conservatives have said that. When the bill went to committee, they even moved an amendment to that effect, which was supported by all parties. However, that does not fit the Conservative narrative. They want to continue to mislead Canadians, and that is entirely up to the Conservative Party.

The specific question I have for the member is this: Does he believe that individuals in society should be able to have a restricted weapon in their trunk or on their back seat wherever they want to go? From the Conservative Party's perspective, do these individuals have any responsibility to at least make a notification that they are driving around, or should they be able to just drive around with a restricted weapon?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to something my colleague said earlier. We see less of these in Quebec, but the rest of Canada holds what are called gun shows. People who own firearms gather together in villages, municipalities, usually very small communities and bring their firearms. That means they are transporting their firearms from one place to another. Imagine the situation. Before leaving home, these people have to contact the department by telephone or Internet to get a document that will allow them to bring their firearm to a gun show. That is just one example.

Obviously, that is just red tape on red tape, an administrative burden that most people do not need. Someone responded earlier that this will affect less than 10% of people. Why have a rule for 10% of the population? What about the 90% of law-abiding people who have no issue? Why pass legislation for only 10% of the population?

I think that people obey the law, particularly hunters, those who collect firearms, and people who take their firearms to gun shows to show them off to others with the same passion. We must not forget that these are passionate, law-abiding citizens.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand this evening to discuss Bill C-71. It is a bill that is going to change the Firearms Act, and Canadians do not trust the Liberals when it comes to firearms. That is abundantly clear.

One of the things I want to draw into this debate is Bill C-75, which is a bill the government is bringing in to change sentencing for a multitude of crimes in Canada. What are the Liberals doing in that bill? They are reducing the sentences for over 27 significant crimes. One of the crimes they are reducing them for is participation in a terrorist plot. They are reducing the sentence.

Why are the Liberals doing this? It is because they have a “hug a thug” theory that if we would just like terrorists better, they would not perpetrate terrorism against our country. We have seen this on display already. They have given $10.5 million to a terrorist named Omar Khadr. They are now reducing their crimes and have given citizenship back to terrorists.

Canadians do not trust the government when it comes to getting it right. When the Liberals come out with firearms legislation that they say is going to reduce crime, Canadians do not believe them. They say that their track record up to this point has been to reduce sentences, not to reduce crime. We have seen a dramatic increase in crime across Canada.

I was in Toronto earlier this month and met with people who said that break and enters were up in their community. In my community, we have seen rural crime up significantly across all parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan. When the Liberals introduced Bill C-71 and said that this was going to reduce violent crime and gun crime, Canadians looked at the government and said, “Really?” Nothing it has done up to this point has reduced crime whatsoever, and now we are supposed to expect that suddenly, with Bill C-71, the Liberals are going to reduce crime.

What would the bill do? Would it increase sentences for criminals? Would it ensure that if a firearm was used in a crime there would be more restrictions? If weapons were smuggled in from another country, would that change anything? Would it enhance border security? No, it would not do any of that.

What would it do? It would target the people who already have a firearms licence. People who have a firearms licence would now be required to go through an extra hurdle, an extra hoop to jump through, and call whenever they transferred a firearm.

Where I come from, firearms are a fact of life. Typically, every household has a number of firearms. It is just the way the world works where I come from. Firearms are exchanged on a regular basis. There are entire Facebook pages committed to exchanging firearms. Someone says, “I have a firearm. Come and check it out.”

The Liberals rolled out this legislation and said that we do not even have to show a firearms licence to get a firearm in Canada. That is news to me, a firearms owner who has a firearms licence. I need to show my possession acquisition licence, my PAL, every time. I have never gone to buy ammunition and forgotten my PAL and asked to have it sold to me. They have to see my licence before they sell me any ammunition.

The criminals who robbed my local firearms store certainly did not show their PAL. They just broke in and stole the firearms. That is what we are dealing with.

With this particular piece of legislation, I would have to make a phone call to ensure that my PAL was up to date. It says right on my PAL whether it has expired. That should be good enough. When I renew it, I have to fill out all the paperwork again. Once every five years, I have to fill out the paperwork again. They phone my wife to make sure that she is okay with me having firearms. Every time I renew, I have to fill out my wife's contact information, her email address, etc.

[An hon. member]

Is she okay with it?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

The member is heckling me asking if my wife is okay with it. She is definitely okay with it.

Let me tell the House, those firearms put food on the table at my house. Every other year, I typically get a moose in the freezer, and a white-tailed deer or two, as well. That is definitely what we are using those firearms for.

I use firearms for other things as well. I do not know about anyone else, but there are not many things that are more exciting on a Friday night than going to a buddy's house, throwing a few skeets in the air, and taking them down with a shotgun. That is a lot of fun. I am not sure if the Speaker has ever participated in that, but that is a lot of fun.

This particular legislation targets people like that, people who just want to hang out on a Friday night and shoot some clay pigeons out at the gravel pit. I want one of those new Benelli shotguns. I am not sure if members have seen them but they are amazing. However, now if I want to sell my shotgun to my brother, who has a PAL, and he can show it to me and I can make sure the date on it is good, I will now have to call the RCMP to make sure that the card I am looking at, that has a date on it, that says it is still good, is actually still good. I will have to call in there, and he is going to have to call in as well.

What sense does that make? All that does is it makes life more miserable for firearms owners. That is what we are looking at with this piece of legislation. It is not so much about reducing crime; it is not going after gangsters or drug dealers in urban centres. This is going after firearms owners. This is trying to reduce the number of firearms in the country, just for ideological reasons.

I know that the Liberal government is only worried about reducing the number of firearms because, at committee, the Liberals were layering requirements on legal firearms owners, firearms dealers, and firearms stores, making sure that they keep records for 20 years, make all these phone calls, and register all these transactions.

This is registry. Whether or not a firearm is being registered or the transaction is being registered, the government is keeping tabs on the firearms in this country. Given all of that, I know that the only thing this bill is there to do is to reduce the number of firearms in this country. At committee, we moved an amendment to change the date on which the bill would come into effect. The date that this bill comes into effect is June 30, 2018, a week from now.

I do not think that this bill will be passed into law by June 30. However, that is the date in the bill. We expect that this bill will probably be passed into law sometime in the fall. We said that we wanted to make an amendment to change that to “whenever the bill comes into law”. The Liberals said no, they could not change that date. The date is June 30, and if the bill comes into law much later in the future, that date still has to be used.

That is so that we reduce the number of firearms that will come in under the exemption that is going to be in place after this bill is passed. The Liberals explicitly say that they want to reduce the number of firearms that come into this country. That is what this bill is all about. It is reducing the right of Canadians to bear arms. It is reducing the right of Canadians to buy firearms.

My NDP colleague over here always asks why people need a particular firearm. I am not a stamp collector. I know nothing about stamps. I take my hat off to those people who are stamp collectors. I ask them all the time why they need a particular stamp. They have lots of good reasons why they need a particular stamp. I think, well, all the power to them.

I have friends who are that way with firearms. They never use them. They have them sitting in their collection. When I go over to their house, they open the door on their gun case and say, “Check this out. Look at the new firearm I just bought. Is it not amazing?” I ask what they are ever going to use it for, and they say they are not going to use them, they just think they are cool. That is the same way for a lot of our firearms owners. They just want to be able to show that they have the coolest firearm on the planet Earth. They do not intend to use it. They just want to have that firearm in their collection. I do not necessarily understand it, just like I do not understand the stamp collector.

I think it is a right of Canadians to own property that brings them enjoyment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, but there are some nuances we have heard on this side of the House, and one of them is that the bill has nothing to do with gangs and guns in our cities. I want to take him back to a moment in 2017, when the Minister of Public Safety announced $100 million to fight guns and gangs in our cities. What did the party opposite do? It voted against it, not once, but multiple times.

The Conservatives advertise that this is a backdoor gun registry, which we know is false. Any farmers or hunters are not going to feel the pain of an application. They are not going to feel the pain of a test. They are not going to feel the pain of any extra costs to do what they have been doing every single day. Why is the Conservative Party of Canada collecting data on law-abiding citizens of Canada who own guns?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are continually going on the record saying that this is not a federal gun registry, and yet the bill takes the data from the old long-gun registry, which sat with the courts until the Liberals came into power and the courts handed it back to them. It makes a provision in the law to allow the Province of Quebec to gain access to the entire former federal gun registry. If that is not a federal gun registry, I do not know what is.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I sat through the very passionate debates about the gun registry in the House, and I want to remind everyone that often these debates have certain real-life underpinnings. One was the École Polytechnique massacre. There are other cases around the country where people who should not have had guns got their hands on them and real people died.

I thought the comparison my hon. colleague made between stamps and guns was an inappropriate one for the very obvious reason that guns are objects that can do serious damage and kill. I do not think any philatelist has ever killed anyone with his or her stamp collection.

I do realize that there is a wide variety of perspectives on gun ownership in our country. We are a big country. What might be an appropriate position in a rural area where there are farmers and hunters is a very different thing from that in an urban riding, like the one I represent. This chamber should represent that diversity of views.

What would my hon. colleague propose would be good legislation that would be directed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs that should not have them, as opposed to legislation like this, which is meant to tighten up regulations so that we ensure responsible gun owners in this country are complying with the rules and that police, in particular, have a tracking system so they can track guns, and those who should not have guns do not get them?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my best proposal is there just would be no criminals in our country. That would make everything a whole lot easier.

One of the things that would work better is to ensure that our border security is a little tighter, ensure police have the proper resources to do their work, but also just create a culture where we all understand how firearms work and how they are used in this country.

One of the things the Liberals said right out of the gate is that people do not have to show their licence in order to purchase firearms or ammunition. That is patently false. I would ask my hon. colleague what he sees in this particular bill that would do anything to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. What would help a great deal is to ensure that the black market is not full of firearms.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

This legislation would have an impact on many of my constituents who are law-abiding gun owners. In fact, this legislation would have a big impact on many Canadians.

Hunting is a big part of the livelihood, traditions, and recreational choices of a significant number of Canadians. Some Canadians also own firearms to protect their crops, livestock, or themselves from rabid animals, and animals like bears or coyotes. Others enjoy competing in recreational shooting sports and some are collectors. Whether they are hunters, farmers, sport shooters, or collectors, what these Canadians can be certain about is that Bill C-71 would result in greater unnecessary restrictions.

I do want to be clear that public safety should always be the priority of any government. Safe and sensible firearm policies are necessary to ensure public safety. Mandatory firearm safety courses, safe storage and transportation measures, and licensing are all common sense measures that contribute to public safety in Canada, measures law-abiding gun owners follow already. Under the guise of tackling gun violence and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, the Liberal government has brought forward Bill C-71.

The Liberal government's rhetoric is deceiving. A review of this legislation quickly reveals that the Liberals have completely missed the mark. This legislation would do nothing to address gangs, gun violence, and escalating crime rates in our rural communities. Instead, it would target law-abiding gun owners. It would treat Canadians who legally own firearms as criminals. In fact, a measure in this legislation has the potential of inadvertently making criminals of Canadian men and women who have legally purchased a firearm.

The Liberals are repealing parts of the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. Specifically, the bill would put the ability to classify weapons solely back in the hands of RCMP bureaucrats, meaning the legislation we have before us would allow the RCMP to prohibit a firearm without notice. That could result in the confiscation of a firearm that was legally purchased and the owner could then be subject to criminal charges.

In 2014, unelected bureaucrats decided to reclassify Swiss Arms rifles and CZ 858 rifles. They were reclassified as prohibited, making it illegal to import, buy, sell, or own them. These rifles had been legal in Canada for years and many responsible law-abiding gun owners had purchased these rifles legally, but the decision to prohibit them turned these lawful gun owners into criminals in possession of prohibited firearms.

Our former Conservative government enacted common sense legislation that restored the property rights to these individuals. It created an appropriate balance, where based on expert advice, the government makes the rules and the RCMP interprets and enforces them.

Another measure that this legislation repeals is the authorization to transport a firearm to specific routine and lawful activities. The Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act automatically gave individuals with a licence authorization to transport their firearm to a shooting range, a police station, a chief firearms officer, a gunsmith, a gun store, a gun show, a border point, and home from the place of purchase. As indicated in the act, this measure was common sense. It removed unnecessary red tape.

Bill C-71 would repeal these measures. It would only allow for a firearm to travel to a shooting range or home from a place of purchase. Any other of the aforementioned activities would require a specific authorization to transport, issued at the discretion of the province's chief firearms officer.

Issuing authorizations to transport firearms to routine locations, like a gunsmith for repair or to the chief firearms officer for verification or registration, is unnecessary. It in no way addresses the criminal element behind gun violence.

Let us talk about the real elephant in the room tonight. This legislation is a backdoor attempt to bring back the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry. The long-gun registry introduced by Chrétien's Liberal government was costly. Canadians were told it would only cost them $2 million, but in the end it cost more than $2 billion, and for what purpose? It was ineffective. There is no evidence that the long-gun registry prevented any crime in Canada. It seems that criminals and gang members never took the time to fill out the necessary paperwork. And there is no evidence that the new registry would be any different.

I admit that the Liberals have said that this legislation does not reintroduce a firearms registry. At the committee stage, they even voted in favour of a Conservative amendment denouncing any effort to re-establish a registry of non-restricted firearms. However, by now we all know that what the Liberals say and what they do are often very different.

The Liberals are said to be tackling crime through this legislation, but words like “gang” or “criminal organization” are not found in the text of the bill. What we do find are words like “registrar”, “registration”, “records”, and “reference number”. That is because this legislation creates a registry of non-restricted firearms. Bill C-71 would require firearm retailers to create and manage a registry of licensed non-restricted firearms buyers, which is a registry they would need to surrender to the chief firearms officer upon request. People would also require permission from the RCMP registrar of firearms to buy, sell, give, or loan a non-restricted rifle.

This begs the question that I know many of my colleagues on this side of the House have asked. What does a registrar do? The answer is quite simple: a registrar keeps a registry. The Liberals are using a federal registrar to keep records on non-restricted firearms. This is the “2.0” version of a federal firearms registry.

Canadians want safe and sensible firearms legislation, but that is simply not what the Liberals have offered them. Instead, they are creating more unnecessary red tape for law-abiding Canadians. They are casting suspicion on law-abiding firearms owners, while doing nothing to address the criminal element behind gun violence. Their priorities are backwards.

This is made only more evident when we consider Bill C-75, another bill introduced by the government. Bill C-75 lessens the sentences for serious and violent crimes to sentences as little as a fine. Some of the crimes that would be eligible for lighter sentencing under this legislation include participating in a terrorist activity, activities relating to human trafficking, kidnapping, forced marriage, or impaired driving causing bodily harm. These are very serious crimes. The punishment should fit the crime. A fine is not the appropriate sentence for these crimes and it is insulting to victims.

The Liberals are weakening the Canadian criminal justice system and making light of serious crimes. At the same time, they are sending a strong message to law-abiding gun owners by treating them like criminals.

I cannot support legislation that does nothing to address gangs, gun violence, and the escalating crime rates in rural communities. I cannot support legislation that enacts a backdoor firearms registry, and unnecessarily burdens law-abiding Canadians with regulations.

Bill C-71 is flawed legislation because it does not take appropriate action to prevent or deter gun violence. It burdens law-abiding Canadian citizens with red tape and villainizes my constituents who are hunters, farmers, and sport shooters.

When it comes down to it, the Liberals have again proven that they cannot be trusted to bring forward sensible and effective firearms legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, as members know, I represent Fundy Royal in New Brunswick, a largely rural area. Through the course of this discussion on Bill C-71, I have taken the opportunity to consult with many firearms owners in my riding, to understand their concerns and to feed their concerns back into this legislative process, which I found to be a very productive exercise.

Has the member across the way consulted with any domestic violence victims advocates, or with any women's groups or youth? Youth, in particular, are now in the habit of having to regularly practise lockdowns in their schools. The reality is that, even though they live in rural areas, gun regulation is very important for them. Can the hon. member share with us the consultation that she has done with other groups in her riding?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I find that question quite interesting. Again, I live in rural Canada, in Saskatchewan. Every person I have spoken to who is a law-abiding firearm owner takes the measures that he or she needs to take, by storing it safely under lock and key. These people have licences. People I have consulted with have said that the current Liberal government is not listening to them and to the concerns they have, and they do not appreciate taking nine-to-five Ottawa to rural Canada.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all hope that this is one of the last debates in the House tonight. I am pleasantly surprised because we are having an interesting conversation about the varying realities across Canada's different regions.

I understand that my colleague is opposing what might be seen as a registry. If someone said that all semi-automatic weapons were prohibited and therefore not readily available, I would think that an easing of the rules is possible.

Does my colleague think that firearms users would understand that firearms which can shoot multiple rounds from a magazine need to be prohibited and not be available for unrestricted sale? If those firearms were not available for sale, would a registry still be necessary?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what this is, though. We have a piece of legislation that is not addressing gangs and criminals, the people who are stealing these weapons. As I said, and I will reiterate, law-abiding gun owners have their guns under lock and key, so they are not easily attained. It is not fair to punish law-abiding citizens when they are doing what they need to do. What the government needs to do is look at how it can combat gun violence by gangs, in urban and rural areas. I have a rural area where we also have gang violence. It is not fair for the government to punish law-abiding gun owners. The firearms owners I have been speaking to in my riding are not happy with this whatsoever, and they cannot wait until the day in 2019 when this gets repealed.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us summarize some of the key issues I have heard from Canadians all across the country, including the nearly 79,000 who have signed the e-petition, stating that they are opposed to Bill C-71.

First, the proposed bill does nothing to tackle gun, gang or rural crime. Criminals do not register their firearms as we know.

Second, the claims made by the public safety minister, his parliamentary secretary, the Prime Minister, and the rest of the Liberals that the bill goes after criminals while respecting firearms owners are inaccurate and insulting to millions of Canadians.

Third, the Liberals will not call this a gun registry. The rest of the country thinks that it is a gun registry. I guess we will have to leave it to Canadians to decide when they vote in the next election.

We saw what the Liberal MPs really thought of Bill C-71 when we finished our work at committee. Mere moments after ratifying the legislation at committee, with the Liberal majority against the Conservative objectives, the Liberals moved to call a study on issues raised precisely by witnesses, just minutes after stifling Conservative amendments that would have improved Bill C-71.

The Liberals called on the minister to address the real issues facing illegal firearms getting into the hands of criminals; administrative and process issues resulting in criminals getting firearms licences; and improving regulations on firearms storage for retailers and firearms owners. All of these issues are more productive than anything the minister has put forward, and none of the MPs on that committee had the courage to tackle these issues in the legislation when that bill was before us at committee and when they had the chance.

It is time the Liberal government start to take public safety and its duty to protect Canadians seriously. However, it is not taking these issues as seriously as it needs to. Rather, it is targeting law-abiding gun owners and delaying funding for police.

In the fall of 2017, the public safety minister made an announcement in Surrey, B.C., where there is a real gang problem. Gang violence and shootings are a regular occurrence there, and police and communities need more help to tackle these criminals. At that time, he promised $327 million to combat gangs and guns. It was a great announcement, and no doubt one that helped the Liberal MP from South Surrey—White Rock secure his seat since it was made during the by-election.

To date, not one dollar has moved on that funding. Reports suggest it will take a full two more years for the Liberals to make that funding available to police. Since that announcement, the Liberals have tabled Bill C-71, pushing the House by limiting debate and testimony, and ramming it through with almost no amendments, despite nearly every witness saying it was not a good bill.

Looking at the Liberal motions that followed the four days of study on Bill C-71, we saw that the Liberal MPs had little to no understanding of the subject matter, were confused by the current laws, and made little or no attempt to fix the problems that were clearly presented to the committee. The Liberals suggested, again, after the study had been completed, that the minister review the reference process for possession and acquisition licences.

We heard from a Liberal insider who testified, very passionately, about the tragic loss of her daughter. Her killer was described as a non-violent boyfriend but “manipulative and controlling”. He had a firearms licence and legally purchased at least one of the guns that he shot her daughter with. The witness stated that he had an arrest for drug trafficking, forcible confinement, assault, uttering threats, and received only two years probation. To be clear, this individual should never have been granted a firearms licence and was in no way eligible for one with the charges and convictions against him. It was human error that caused this to occur, not a gap in legislation.

Section 5 of the Firearms Act, as it was back then and is now, states, “A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm”. Further, it says that if individuals have been “convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code”, which is anyone convicted of an offence, they are ineligible for a firearm.

It also states that anyone convicted of “an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted”, and, “an offence relating to the contravention...of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act” is ineligible.

Moreover anyone who “has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence” is also ineligible to legally acquire a licence to obtain a firearm. That is what the legislation is currently and was before Bill C-71 was introduced. The bill specifically dealt with this section.

Clause 2 proposed amendments to section 5, so it was certainly in the scope of the bill. In fact, clause 2 was one of the few areas where any amendments were made. The committee agreed that we amend clause 2 to include language that anyone who “...has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence or threatening conduct on the part of the person against any person” or who “for any reason, poses a risk of harm to any person” is ineligible for a firearm licence. To be blunt, not much changed.

The Liberals on committee felt so strongly about this issue of reference checks that they decided to call no new witnesses and hold no added meetings. They made no call for the minister to increase resources to ensure a thorough review of reference checks.

The Liberals also called for the government to examine firearms storage and commercial storage regulations. This is ironic, since the Liberals blocked industry representatives from coming to committee. As with numerous cases during the testimony, this recommendation makes it crystal clear that the Liberal MPs who voted for Bill C-71 still have no idea what the current laws and rules are around firearms in this country.

Here are the rules as per government regulations for storage for non-restricted firearms. They must be unloaded, must be locked in a room that is hard to break into, or have a trigger lock so that they cannot be fired. Ammunition must be stored separately and locked.

For a restricted firearm, like the sidearm I used for policing, it must be unloaded, must have a trigger lock, and be locked in a room or safe that cannot be easily opened.

Ironically, the motion calls for the government to work with all relevant stakeholders, something it did not apparently think was important enough to do during the legislation. Seven of the individuals the minister says were consulted in preparation for Bill C-71 stated that they were not consulted at all, contrary to the minister's suggestion.

The Liberals finally called for the minister to look into straw purchases and that, “the Government study mechanisms to identify large and unusual firearms transactions, especially those involving restricted and prohibited guns, to better identify illicit straw purchasing schemes, gang activity, or trafficking operations”.

I find it funny, that the minister stated that Bill C-71 would deal with this issue. He said it would help police trace guns used in crimes, detect straw purchasing schemes, and identify trafficking networks. However it does not. The Liberals are now calling for it. It is clear that even though Liberal MPs voted for this in committee, they did not even believe their own minister.

The fact is that while some of the suggestions from the Liberals might have merit, they ring hollow. We had an opportunity and an obligation to go after illegal firearms, gangs, and violent crime when the bill came to committee. Sadly, the Liberals lacked the courage of their convictions and passed a pointless bill, a bill they ironically gave so little credence to that they immediately moved to do other things after voting in favour of it.

Bill C-71 would not increase the safety of our communities. It would not combat gangs and illegal firearms, because criminals do not register their guns. It would not provide new tools for police or more resources to deal with the issues. And for my colleagues in the Liberal party, it would not provide any added political cover in the next election.