Debates of June 19th, 2018

Firearms Act

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member comes from a rural part of Canada, as do I. No doubt in his riding there are one or two gun shows that happen in various parts of that community. The buyers and sellers who go to those shows, whether to display, purchase, offer for sale, or look at the firearms, are now being challenged. Law-abiding citizens are being challenged on that day should they transport a firearm for sale. I wonder if the member would comment on the challenges that he sees this legislation will cause these people.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. The member has brought up part of the bill that I have not really talked about, which is the authorization to transport provisions. We brought in some pretty good provisions in 2015. Once firearms owners are qualified as a restricted firearms owner, as I am, there is a provision where they can take that firearm to the range, a repair facility, or a gun show. This is all based on the criteria that they are licensed, are safe to operate that firearm, and are safe to transport it. That was what we went with in our legislation.

The new legislation proposes to rescind all of those provisions for transport, which made so much sense as they reduced the red tape, so that they would not have to call the local RCMP just to transport their firearm to get it repaired. It is crazy. The resources are already maxed at the RCMP. The last thing its officers need is be answering the phone and giving authorizations to transport.

That is what we tried to do. It is sad that the Liberal government has added a whole level of bureaucracy and red tape for lawful firearms owners. I think it is sad that when the Liberals talk about going after guns and gangs they are going after law-abiding firearms owners. They are not going after guns and gangs. I wish they would.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with the respect and support of the people of my riding, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, that I rise today to speak against any Liberal legislation that would lead to another useless, wasteful long-gun registry.

“A gun registry by any other name is still a gun registry.” That is a quote from Garry Breitkreuz, a former MP. Those words were spoken by one of the finest members of the House I have ever had the privilege of working with. Garry Breitkreuz was a legendary defender of the rights of the average, middle-class working Canadians, including hunters, farmers, and sports shooting enthusiasts. I intend to channel the spirit of Garry in my comments today.

Already the threat of the Liberal Party bringing back the long-gun registry is a topic of discussion when I am out and about at the various public engagements I am invited to attend. My constituents are following the progress of this legislation very closely. They are disgusted by the cynical, manipulative ploys of the Prime Minister and his party. My constituents assure me they will never, in their lifetime, support a government that thinks harassing law-abiding gun-owning Canadians with useless regulations is fair.

Welcome to the culture wars, where left-wing Liberal Party ideology trumps common sense.

Bill C-71, the “bring back the long-gun registry” legislation, is all about the cynical manipulation of people's fears and what the government is doing to stoke those fears. Bill C-71 has nothing to do with public safety. No sooner had the Liberals tabled this legislation than outrageous, over-the-top appeals for money by the Liberals were sent out to misinform the public about the true intent behind it. Even someone whom the government expected support from was sickened by the cynical manipulation in the Liberal money appeal:

[A] member of a gun-control advocacy group established in the wake of a 1989 shooting massacre that killed 14 women at Montreal’s Polytechnique engineering school said she was shocked at the Liberal message on the heels of the firearm bill.

Meaghan Hennegan, a survivor of the 2006 Dawson College shooting in Montreal who was shot twice by a gunman outside the building in that attack, said the Liberal fundraiser was “insulting.”

“We’ve been pushing for the legislation to be put through for almost three years, and then the second thing they do is go out and start selling it....”

Hennegan said the fundraiser makes the Liberals appear to be exploiting the gun-control issue.

Welcome to the culture wars.

The decision to include Hill+Knowlton lobbyists and Liberal insiders Peter Donolo and David Rodier as consultants on Bill C-71 is proof that the government was never really serious about consulting the public about this legislation. Donolo wrote a public opinion piece in The Globe and Mail in February, in which he said, “it is now much easier in Canada to own a gun than to drive a car.” The Liberals used taxpayers' dollars to have an opinion piece published to promote Bill C-71. Lobbyists should disclose they are being paid by the government to author articles paid for with tax dollars.

Responsible firearms owners know that legally owning a gun requires taking a safety course designed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It requires passing a written and a practical test, waiting two months to pass background and reference checks to obtain an RCMP-authorized firearms licence card, and then passing a daily RCMP background check to be allowed to keep it. All legal gun owners are registered with the federal police, and so are all the privately owned handguns and AR-15 rifles.

Also with Hill+Knowlton, David Rodier is a former lobbyist for the Coalition for Gun Control and a former adviser to Allan Rock, the Liberal minister of justice who led the 1995 passage of Bill C-68, the firearms act. Rodier co-wrote an article in Policy Options magazine in March of this year, which concluded that “[g]un control presents an untapped opportunity” for the Liberal Party to win votes in the next election.

Bill C-71 will not stop gun violence in Toronto. According to a Toronto media outlet, there has been an 11% increase of shootings in Toronto from the same time in 2017, with 176 shootings, 18 fatal.

The last time there was this much gun violence in Toronto, with 359 shootings and 52 deaths, was the year when the member for marijuana from Scarborough Southwest, who is the spokesperson for making pot legal, assumed control of the Toronto police force. The police unit he created that year to respond to gun violence had, and I quote the Toronto Star of June 8, 2018, “a 10-year history of arbitrary stops and searches, allegations of assault and a public strip search in broad daylight” and “it left troubled neighbourhoods increasingly mistrustful of officers.”

That type of approach and Bill C-71 will not stop gun violence in Toronto.

Every illegal gun does not begin as a legal gun. In Canada, restricted firearms, including handguns, are registered, and have been since 1934. Turning hunters and farmers into scapegoats to deflect attention from how badly the Prime Minister is performing sickens members of the public.

In my riding, demonstrations against the Liberal long-gun registry the last time similar legislation was brought forward were not occupied by young people being manipulated by radicals funded by foreign interests. Those demonstrations were held by middle-aged firearm owners, whose first reflex is to respect the laws of the land, whose parents and their parents before them built this great nation.

Welcome to the culture wars.

The creation by the Liberals of a new criminal class, Canadians who may happen to own a firearm, or Canadians who believe that it is their democratic right to dissent against Liberal policies they reject, and who refuse to sign loyalty attestations, is the ultimate trademark of the current federal government, which excels in the practice of negative politics. Canadians reject negative, mean-spirited politics in the same way they rejected the Liberal long-gun registry when it was first introduced in Bill C-68.

The political alienation of rural Canadians by the Liberals was a far greater loss than the $2 billion-plus that had been wasted on an experiment in social engineering. It was an experiment that backfired on the Liberal Party, and it continues to backfire. This may be the worst and most enduring product of the gun registry culture war.

When it comes to the right to use and enjoy private property, my constituents all know my stand. I defend their right to own private property with the same vigour with which I defend the right of all Canadians to dissent.

Whenever constituents in my riding hear a Liberal use mealy-mouthed words like “enhancement of community safety”, they put their hand on their wallet, run home, and make sure the lock on their gun cabinet is safe.

We should have no doubt about it: Bill C-71 is the starting point to bring back the 1995-era gun registry we all fought so hard and long to get rid of. We knew this was coming when the real power behind the throne, PMO party insider Gerald Butts, stacked the firearms advisory committee with a majority of people who lack the professionalism and expertise of the people they replaced.

It is clear the Liberals did not learn their lesson the last time, with Bill C-68. That is certainly what my constituents are telling me when they find out that the Liberals are downloading a provincial gun registry, starting with Quebec. Regulating and legislating against law-abiding people, which is what we are talking about here, is just as unacceptable today as it was back when Bill C-68 became the rallying cry for protests across Canada.

When I was first elected, I was elected on the promise to protect the rights of average Canadians. That includes opposing bad legislation like Bill C-71, an act to harass law-abiding Canadians.

Among the useless aspects of Bill C-71 is confirming the licence for non-restricted firearms transfer. It is already expected under current law when the PAL is shown to a vendor. As per section 101 of the Criminal Code and section 23 of the Firearms Act, it is already a crime punishable by five years of imprisonment to transfer a firearm of any kind to an individual who does not possess a licence to obtain or possess this type of firearm.

Having to call the CFP for every single transaction and obtain a reference number serves no other purpose than to keep a record of firearms transfer. By matching the PAL to the transaction reference number, the RCMP can connect firearms to specific individuals, and this is building the framework and infrastructure for another wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry.

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

Mr. Speaker, the facts do not matter and neither does the reality. The Conservatives have a narrative. Even though it defies reality and is just untrue, this particular member, like the members across the way, has no problem with it. It is almost like putting the blinders on: It does not matter to them if it is true or not, this is what they are going to say.

Let us take a look at what the Conservative public safety critic said. He moved an amendment in committee, which reads:

(4) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.

This was a Conservative amendment, and it passed unanimously. The Liberals, the NDP, and the Conservatives all said yes to it. What did the Conservative member who moved it say in committee when the cameras were off? He said, “everybody at this table agrees that this is not a registry”. That does not fit the Conservative narrative. When the cameras are on and when Conservatives believe they can make money and cause division, out comes that narrative, which is completely void of reality.

Was the Conservative member wrong when he moved that amendment in committee, or is the Conservative Party wrong in the statements it makes inside this chamber, knowing full well that this has nothing to do with the long-gun registry?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite can distort what happens in committee, but the provincial chief firearms officer would be completely within his or her authority to record not only buyer and seller information, but also make, model, and serial number of firearms being transferred. Furthermore, it would force businesses to keep 20 years of records, including on make, model, serial number, and buyers' information.

This information is another step toward a backdoor registry, and would be accessible to the CFO. The provincial CFO already has the authority to, at any time it wishes and without warrant, audit a business's records, and make as many copies as it wants. Furthermore, under Bill C-71, should a business close, all records would be turned over to the RCMP rather than be destroyed.

Then we have the issue of lifetime background checks, but I will get into that after the next question.

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

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, this is the backdoor long-gun registry. I think the words “registrar” or “register” were in the bill over 13 times.

This is a particularly interesting bill when you see it in light of Bill C-75, which I like to call the “hug-a-thug” bill. In Bill C-75, the government seems to be reducing the sentencing for all kinds of crimes.

Does my hon. colleague have an opinion on how this Liberal government is viewed by the general public in terms of Bill C-71 on the one hand, and Bill C-75 on the other?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-71 was introduced on the premise that it was supposed to stop gun and gang violence, but Bill C-75 would taking out all of the minimum mandatory sentences for crimes committed using firearms. They are at cross-purposes. Bill C-71 would regulate law-abiding citizens even more, and Bill C-75 would let criminals off the hook, allowing them to get out of jail sooner and back on the streets committing crime.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud as a licenced firearms owner to be speaking today against Bill C-71.

I have been listening to the debate, and I am quite amazed at the ridiculous comments coming from Liberal members.

For the member of Winnipeg North to claim that the amendment that was proposed by the Conservatives to ensure “with certainty” in the beginning of the bill that is not a registry and that this somehow changes the rest of the bill is ridiculous. That clause would put the rest of the act in conflict, and it is contrary to what it says. If Bill C-71 would no longer be a registry, then we should be striking out all the words in it that refers to “a registry” and “a registrar”.

As Conservatives, we will always support sound policy that ensures the safe storage and handling of firearms. All of us as licenced firearms owners have to take the proper courses to ensure that our firearms are stored kept under lock and key. We will support the proper screening of those who are applying to become firearms owners.

We want to ensure, as we go forward, that firearms are classified on function and not on visual looks. We also have to ensure that everyone who commits a crime using a firearm is properly treated under the Criminal Code. However, Bill C-75 would do none of that. Bill C-75 does not mention criminals, gangs, gun dealers, and is completely mute on the subject, and for that I am appalled.

Then, when we combine Bill C-71 with Bill C-75, the proposal coming from the Liberals to amend the Criminal Code, those guys want to look like they are getting tough on crime, but they are getting tough on legal firearms owners. When it comes down to the real criminals, the Liberals are going to take indictable offences that provide jail time and mandatory minimum sentences to criminal offenders and turn them into fines, a slap on the wrist. Those types of summary convictions are no way to treat real criminals, but that is the hug-a-thug, soft-on-crime Liberal mentality.

Here they are getting tough on firearms owners. They are going to make it more difficult for us to own and transport our firearms and transfer them to other people. However, if someone commits assault with a weapon, then that person can have a summary conviction, get a slap on the wrist and a fine. If people participate in a terrorist group or leave Canada to participate in a terrorist group, the Liberals are just going to slap them on the wrist and maybe put them on house arrest. There will be no mandatory minimums; it is going to be a summary conviction.

There are over 27 things. People could advocate for genocide, or abduct someone under the age of 16 or children under the age of 14 and get summary convictions. That soft-on-crime mentality is percolating through those Liberal benches, which is making Canada more dangerous. However, they are taking law-abiding firearms owners, the most law-abiding citizens in the country, and turning them into criminals. It is ridiculous. I find the mantra of the Liberals completely disgusting.

Nothing in Bill C-71 will fix the gang violence and the gun violence on our streets, whether it is in Toronto, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, or Vancouver. It will do nothing to stop it. Nor will it stop the crimes that we see in our rural communities and rural areas where there are more and more home invasions and properties being ransacked.

The member for Winnipeg North was saying that the bill had nothing to do with a registry. As has already been pointed out, in Bill C-71, subsection 29(1) says that we can provide a copy from the Canadian Firearms Registry to the Quebec government if the Quebec minister requests it. It is right here. The front-door gun registry, the actual registry that existed until 2015, is being moved over to the Quebec government.

The bill also talks about this issue of whether there is a registry. If there is no registry, why is there is a registrar in the bill? Bill C-71 keeps talking about the registrar. In section 23 paragraph (2) provides for reference numbers for the transfer of a firearm from one owner to another. We know that registrars keep reference numbers, because they have a registry.

Regardless of the rhetoric coming from across the way, we have a situation where the bill again establishes a backdoor gun registry on top of the front-door registry, with records being transferred to the province of Quebec.

We know that the registrar along with the chief firearms officers in each province will monitor the movement of our firearms from one area to the other. The only thing that will keep is that those of us who own firearms that are restricted in nature will be able to take them to our shooting clubs and ranges without having to get an authorization to transport that firearm.

However, if we want to take that firearm to a gun show, or a gunsmith to be fixed and maintained or even to return it to a peace officer, if we no longer wanted to have a firearm, or we did not want to pass it on to our family or sell it to a friend or a neighbour, we would have to get an authorization to transfer it. That is ridiculous, but that is the type of thing the Liberals believe in and that is what they have put in the bill. That is disturbing.

We can look at 2016 and look at what Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser University, who has done a lot of this work, had to say. Essentially he said that in 2016, out of the 223 gun murders that occurred, only 2% were committed by licenced firearms owners. Over half of them were committed by those involved in gangs. If the drug cartels, the biker gangs, the different gang organizations out there are committing most of the firearm offences, causing murders and criminality, then should we not be concentrating on them rather than giving them a pass in Bill C-75, rather than ignoring them completely in Bill C-71? Why are the Liberals always ready to turn a blind eye to crimes being committed by gangs.

We know criminals do not register their firearms. We know criminals do not buy their firearms from Cabela's or any other store that sells firearms. It is a ridiculous idea and an asinine policy to burden legal firearms owners, to burden our retail outlets that sell firearms with extra red tape and extra bureaucracy. They may not have to pay for a registration fee anymore, but we know all this data will be in the hands of the Government of Canada. We know that all this data, when it comes down to transferring firearms, when it comes down to transferring ownership between individuals, will be kept with a registrar. Registrars are the operators of registries.

Again, I am disappointed. It is almost 20 years since Allan Rock brought forward the first gun registry, which the Conservatives worked long and hard to get rid of it. I committed myself to that back in 1993. Here we are in 2018, talking about the Liberals bringing back an other gun registry. It is back to the future. It is the same old, same old when it comes to the tired Liberal governments. We cannot allow that to continue.

I call on all members of the House to vote against this poorly thought-out legislation, which would do absolutely nothing to protect Canadians. It would do absolutely nothing to enhance the screening of firearms ownership in the country. It would do absolutely nothing to help with our border services to stop illegal transport of firearms into the country.

This has been poorly thought out, but I am not surprised. It is coming from the Liberal government. It is an attack on law-abiding citizens, farmers, hunters, sports shooters, men and women who pass this culture on to their children and grandchildren, and I am proud to be part of that. I am ashamed to see the Liberals ramming this down our throats once again.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to an increase of paperwork or regulations. I posed a question earlier to one of his colleagues about retailers and how responsible they had been over the years. In fact, at one time, retailers were registering. Many of those retailers continue to register, even during this period of time when there has not been anything in place.

This legislation puts it in place. People have to register to buy when they are in the United States. I do not quite understand the connection the member across the way is trying to make, saying that this is going to be overly burdensome for our retailers.

I am interested in my colleague and friend's comments in regard to this. The Conservatives proposed amendment 40.2 in committee. A civil servant spoke about the impact the amendment would have if it were passed. Offences for which there would be punishment included making of false statements to procure a licence, false statements to procure a customs confirmation, so importing or trafficking, tampering with licences, unauthorized possession of ammunition, non-compliance with a demand to produce a firearm. That is just one of the amendments.

Would my friend agree with me that his Conservative colleague, who happened to be your critic for this legislation, advanced that amendment? Would the member opposite support that amendment as his colleague did? I would be interested in the member's thoughts.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members to speak through the Speaker. I am sure he did not mean my critic. The Speaker does not have any critics. The Speaker is very neutral.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had read the bill, it says in the summary, “(b) require, when a non-restricted firearm is transferred, that the transferee’s firearms licence be verified by the Registrar of Firearms and that businesses keep certain information related to the transfer.” It is a registry. It is red tape. There is extra cost. That was not required for the past five years, but it has been brought back with a vengeance by the Liberals.

We should keep in mind that the information that was kept voluntarily by retail outlets was done for warranty work. It was done because retailers were standing behind the products they sold. That is why they were keeping that buyer information. They were not sharing it.

I find this quite disturbing. Again, the misinformation and rhetoric coming from the Liberals is not at all helpful in informing this debate.

I would also like to point out that as Conservatives, we will always work on policy that will develop the best possible way to keep criminals behind bars.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the work in the committee, I was very proud to have someone from my riding, Sid Nielsen, come forward. He is an instructor in our riding. He does a lot of fantastic work. He recently took my son through his process to get his PAL. I really appreciate his work.

One of the things he has brought up and has shared a lot of concern about is the fact that right now on the licence, on the PAL, after this legislation goes through, people will no longer have the ability to take their guns to a gunsmith. Today the minister sort of talked about it, but he really did not answer the question. That is a huge concern.

If people have live guns in their homes and they are waiting for permission to transport them, it could be a high-risk situation. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been to the member's riding. It is a very rural riding, and I am sure there are a lot of hunters and gun owners who obey the law and want to ensure they handle the guns safely.

One of those things people do to handle their firearms safely is ensure they are properly maintained. In this legislation, people now will have to get an authorization to transport their non-restricted firearms to a gun shop. That makes absolutely no sense at all. We should be able to take our non-restricted firearms and restricted firearms to the gunsmith to get them fixed as required.

The removal of that provision in the legislation by the Liberals does not enhance public safety; it is actually undermining it by potentially making guns dangerous because they could misfire, they could be poorly maintained. Sometimes, extra bureaucratic work has to be done. The people will have to contact the firearms officer for the province to get an authorization so they can move their firearms for the one particular day they have been give authorization to do so. That is silly.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand again in the House tonight on behalf of the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot to speak to Bill C-71. For those perhaps watching at home, we need to at least give some context as to why we are here.

Today is June 19. We are scheduled to break for the summer this week, and the government is trying to push legislation through that it would like to have before the summer break. We anticipate tomorrow that it will bring forward the cannabis bill and may well try to push that through. However, today the government has put time allocation on a gun bill, Bill C-71. It is trying to do it at the very end of a session, thinking that the opposition will probably not stand and debate it too long. We will stand and fight bad legislation as long as it takes to represent our constituents and Canada.

The government has brought in through the back door another piece of gun legislation. Some say it is an easy step from here to a gun registry. Others say this is a gun registry, albeit not as expensive as the $2-billion boondoggle the Liberals attempted before. This bill sounds an awful lot like a piece of gun registry legislation.

For those watching, there may be some who say, “There is so much gang activity. There is so much crime in our major cities. Why doesn't the government stand up and do something to fight that crime?” This bill is in response to that. The minister stood and said that they were concerned about gun offences and crime and other things and that the bill would answer that.

We talked to every gun club, firearm association, rifle association, and recreational, angling, and sporting association. I do not know of one that supports this legislation. Why is that? The reason none of them support the legislation is a tough one. First, their major frustration is that they see that this would do absolutely nothing to curtail crime, gang crime, street gangs, and that type of criminal activity that is on some of the streets of our major cities. The government says it is going to bring forward a bill that will remedy some of those problems. Every gun association I know of says that this is not going to solve any of it, because all the government is doing with the legislation today is adding red tape, making it more difficult to own a firearm and making it more frustrating for those who have to transport a firearm.

I am a registered firearm owner, and I know exactly what has to happen when people want to own a firearm. I know the courses they have to take. I know the regulations around safe storage they have to accommodate. I know that those who typically get a licence and go through and register for the course are, by and large, very safe gun operators. I have met many who are speaking to youth and children about the safe operation of a firearm.

What would Bill C-71 do? Why is it problematic? Why are people standing and opposing this type of legislation? First, for the background check for an individual, it would leave the five-year background check and basically look at the entire lifespan to see if a person should qualify for a firearm. Therefore, anyone who, even in high school, ended up in fisticuffs with someone, and 20 years later wanted to obtain a firearm, that could come up in this background check. Someone could very well evaluate the information and say that the person is disqualified.

I have had cases in my constituency where, at the time of a divorce, a very stressful time, people have said things that 15 minutes later they would not have said. In fact, I had one case of a lady who phoned my office and basically told my staff that when she was asked if there was any domestic offence, she said that she was scared of him and that he had all these firearms, and they came and confiscated his firearms. By the way, the same lady contacted me probably a year or so later and told me that she had said that, but they had settled, and he was not a problem at all. Now, how could he go about trying to win back his firearms?

There are just so many questions about this new piece of legislation, but there should not be a question about one thing. This legislation would make it more difficult for law-abiding firearm owners, such as farmers and hunters, to operate and purchase all of the above. It would extend the background check. We do not know about the qualifications of those who would be evaluating the information or what the criteria for the evaluation would be based on. Why would there be no appeal process in this?

The Speaker is calling time, and I have not made it to my fifth point. I have not made it to the second.

The second point I think is very problematic is that it would limit the amount of transportation of that firearm. It used to be that if I wanted to purchase a firearm, I could bring it home immediately. My understanding is that one could still do that. However, now if there was a problem with a restricted firearm, I could not just take it to a gunsmith for repair. I would have to call in and explain it all. I would now have to go through more red tape if I was going to get my firearm fixed. A lot of times, when people do this, it is exactly when they are ready to use it in the lead-up to hunting season, when all of a sudden, they realize that the firing pin is not working right and they want to get it fixed.

Why would transport to and from a gun store for appraisal for a sale be taken away? We do not know, other than that the Liberals want to add red tape to frustrate those gun owners.

The other issue is licence verification. To me, this is very important. In my riding, in Hanna, Consort, Castor, Torrington, and a lot of other communities, they have gun shows. At these gun shows, people come from all across Canada. In a little town of 200, 300, 400, or 500 people, and in Castor maybe close to 800 people, they will fill the arena. People will come from across Canada, and maybe some from the United States, to purchase old collector firearms or new firearms. To do a transfer, even at a gun show, they would now have to get a purchasing number and a transfer number. They would have to go through all this red tape, in a rural riding where there is very little cell coverage to begin with.

A concern that has also been brought to me is what the chances would be, on a Sunday afternoon, of being able to get through to a government number to get that verification number. What are the chances? If I tried to get through to Revenue Canada today, I would need to be prepared to sit on the line for 45 minutes. If at a gun show I wanted to purchase a gun from maybe a farmer or someone who had a booth or table there, now they would have to call in and get a number and verify my licence. In my opinion, it is going to shut down an economic driver in some of these small towns where they have gun shows on the weekends.

I could go on. I have not talked at all about other parts of licence verification. I am told that my time is up. To sell a firearm, they would have to keep records for 20 years.

It is bad legislation. I would encourage all members of the House to fight crime and recognize that we have to do things about crime, but this would not solve anything.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on one of the themes my colleague ended his speech on, which is the issue of crime and criminality. Right now in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, specifically in Surrey, but not only there, we have a very serious gang problem and a gang war going on. A number of young men, primarily South Asian young men, have been shot to death, sometimes in public, not only putting them at risk but also sometimes innocent bystanders.

The community in Surrey is really upset about this and the lack of action they see by their Liberal representatives and the government. One thing they raise is that the government announced $375 million for a strategy last fall to deal with these kinds of problems, and they have not seen a nickel of it in their community or anywhere.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague has any thoughts on how this legislation or the government's approach to dealing with crime in our communities may be impacted by the bill and what suggestions he would have for the people in Surrey who want their streets safe and their young people to have opportunities so that gang life is not attractive to them.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. This does not address the issue of criminality. It does not address the issue of unauthorized possession of firearms by gangs. It does not at all touch on gang violence. I have news for the Liberals. There are not a lot of gun shops in my constituency where gangs are coming to purchase firearms. In some cases, it may be those stores they try to rip off to access firearms. The criminal element in our country brings in illegal firearms, and we see very little going to that.

The member has a problem in his riding that he is very vocal about, and that is the opioid crisis. I saw in an article today that 4,000 Canadians have been killed in the opioid crisis, and they do not know how to respond to that one either. We do not have a problem with long guns and law-abiding gun owners.

The issue is that there is so much money that is given to the file of public safety around firearms. Now the Liberals will have to add money to this type of legislation, and they will take it away from other parts within the same department that does fight crime, that does go up against the gangs and the criminal element. That is the problem. Resources that should be going to fight crime are going to fight farmers, hunters, and law-abiding firearms owners.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the discussion this evening trying to make some sense of where the opposition party would like to see us head with gun legislation. It is like climate change legislation we have discussed, where we are looking for the alternative being proposed by the Conservative Party. Is the alternative to follow the legislation the Americans have in both cases, or do they have any other positive suggestions they could make in terms of this legislation?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by my Liberal colleagues, who always like to compare us with the United States any time we defend lawful farmers and firearms owners. There is no comparison between the Canadian system and the American system. Zero. There is none.

Again, I believe that Canadians expect that we put in safe regulations, which we have. I have to go through an afternoon or a whole day of courses to be able to purchase a firearm. That is the point. The person who is in a gang does not have to go through that. He just buys one off the street, which the Liberals cannot seem to shut down.

What does the member suggest we do? First of all, we want to continue to educate. We want to say that we are all right with the PAL. We are okay with going through that type of exercise to own a firearm. The other thing we could do is continue to recognize safe storage. This is a very important part that makes sense. We do not have a problem with that. Gun owners I know realize that there are some expectations, and they all believe that this is over the top.

Motion for Travel

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I suspect if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for me to move a motion related to travel for standing committees.

I move:

That, in relation to its study of Needs and Issues Specific to Indigenous Veterans, Part 2, seven members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to Whitehorse, Yukon, and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, in the Summer and Fall 2018, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee;

That, in relation to its study on Canada's Sovereignty in the Arctic, seven members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development be authorized to travel to Iqaluit and Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, and Yellowknife and lnuvik, Northwest Territories, in the Summer and Fall 2018, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee;

That, in relation to its study of the Pre-Budget Consultations in Advance of the 2019 Budget, seven members of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Toronto and Oshawa, Ontario, Québec, Quebec, Saint John, New Brunswick, and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, in the Summer and Fall 2018, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee;

That, in relation to its study of the Pre-Budget Consultations in Advance of the 2019 Budget, seven members of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Winnipeg, Manitoba, Edmonton, Alberta, Victoria, British Columbia, and Whitehorse, Yukon, in the Summer and Fall 2018, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee;

That, in relation to its study of the Pre-Budget Consultations in Advance of the 2019 Budget, seven members of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area and the Silicon Valley, California, and Houston, Texas, United States of America, in the Summer and Fall 2018, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee;

That, in relation to its study of the Current State of Department of Fisheries and Oceans' Small Craft Harbours, seven members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to Vancouver Island, Prince Rupert, Bella Bella and Port Hardy, British Columbia, the Lake Winnipeg area, Selkirk and Gimli, Manitoba, the Southern Georgian Bay, the Bruce Peninsula, Toronto, Meaford, Tobermory and Wiarton, Ontario, in the Summer and Fall 2018, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee;

That, in relation to its study of the Action Plan for Official Languages 2018-23: Investing in Our Future, seven members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages be authorized to travel to Whitehorse, Yukon, Regina, Saskatchewan, and Vancouver, British Columbia, in the Summer and Fall 2018, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee;

That, in relation to its study of Canada's Contributions to International Peacekeeping, seven members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to New York, New York, United States of America, in the Summer and Fall 2018, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee;

That, in relation to the Annual Conference of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees (CCPAC) and the Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors (CCOLA) Annual Conference, seven members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, in the Fall 2018, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee;

That, in relation to the 2018 Westminster Workshop and the Second Conference of the Commonwealth Association of Public Accounts Committees, three members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to London, United Kingdom, in the Fall 2018, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee;

That, in relation to its study of Indigenous People in the Correctional System, seven members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be authorized to travel to Saskatoon, Duck Lake and Maple Creek, Saskatchewan, Edmonton and Maskwacis, Alberta, and Québec and Donnacona, Quebec, in the Summer and Fall 2018, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee;

That, in relation to its study of the Canadian Transportation and Logistics Strategy (Trade Corridors), seven members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be authorized to travel to Vancouver, British Columbia, the Niagara Region and Toronto, Ontario, and Seattle, Washington State, United States of America, in the Summer and Fall 2018, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.