Debates of June 4th, 2018

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71

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

Mr. Speaker, first, as the NDP's public safety critic, I would like to say that our thoughts go out to those who were injured in the terrible bus accident on Highway 401 in Prescott, which is not far from here. We also thank the first responders who are currently on the scene. We hope the damage will be minimal.

I would like to bring some order back to the debate, so to speak. We have reviewed the various parties' positions on the bill, but we need to look at what is really before us, and that is a Conservative motion to grant the committee the power to travel. It is a motion of instruction for the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I have the honour of sitting on that committee and of being the vice-chair.

Before I talk about a few of the points that have been made about the bill, some that I agree with and others that I do not, I want to talk about the process. I think that we have had a good demonstration of why the firearms debate in Canada is unhealthy. Let me explain. I am not blaming citizens or civil society, on the contrary. Rather, I am looking at the way certain political parties are acting in the House.

We had a marathon of votes, a filibuster, which essentially used up the entire first day of debate on Bill C-71. The Conservatives, the official opposition, triggered those votes. That is their right, and I am not disputing that. On the other hand, the Liberals then arrived the following Monday morning, after we spent the weekend in our ridings, and moved a time allocation motion. As the public safety critic for the second opposition party, the NDP, I did not even have an opportunity to speak before the Liberals tabled, moved, and debated a time allocation motion. It was completely mind-boggling.

These actions to stifle debate, coupled with all these procedural games in the House, have had a significant impact on the bill. This bill concerns the acts and regulations governing the use and acquisition of firearms in Canada. All this is problematic. Unfortunately, it poisons the dialogue from the outset, which does not help anyone strike a balance between ensuring public safety and considering the needs of law-abiding firearm owners.

We cannot disagree with the principle behind the Conservatives' motion to travel. As a parliamentarian, I am always open-minded, and I am always basically open to the possibility of studying a bill in greater detail. That being said, I have to say that this motion seems to be in bad faith. We have a committee that is working fine. I do not always agree with the government's positions, since I would prefer seeing more time spent on certain studies. We just finished studying Bill C-59, the massive national security reform bill. I would certainly have liked to see more meetings and more witnesses, but all in all, I would say we are one of the best-functioning parliamentary committees.

No offence to my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, but he is acting in bad faith. He arrived the day before clause-by-clause review with this kind of motion without trying to work with his colleagues. I can say that I received no notice that we would be talking about this, and there was no discussion of the sort. This was presented and witnesses in committee were interrupted so that we could debate motions on extending the study instead of truly using the subcommittee or some other means, such as an informal conversation, to talk about this. Still, I think that it is important to say that, in principle, I am not opposed to what the Conservative Party is proposing.

I will try to provide a more extensive analysis of the points that were raised about the study and the bill. There is something that I find mind-boggling. Last Thursday, a representative of the Assembly of First Nations came to testify. In fact, my colleague mentioned that testimony. She had some very important points to raise. The NDP has always been very clear about this. It was very important. I remember one of the last agonizing debates on firearms in Canada.

Speaking of respect for their hunting and fishing rights, Jack Layton said that first nations occupied an important place. Respecting these laws means recognizing the importance of indigenous peoples.

On Thursday, the Conservatives said it was not true. They said first nations were not consulted and had to be respected, but just the day before they had opposed the bill introduced by my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, a bill to legally implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That conflicts with what they are saying in the House this evening about how Assembly of First Nations representatives said they were not consulted enough. The bill makes it clear that Canada's first nations must be respected. That is contradictory to say the least.

They have also been waging a misinformation campaign claiming that the government wants to reintroduce a gun registry, but that is not the case at all.

Let me go back to a debate that took place in 2012 about the Conservative government's bill to scrap the gun registry. Rick Hanson, who was Calgary's police chief at the time, testified in favour of the bill and against the gun registry. He said the Conservative members represented his point of view. I think it is safe to conclude that the Conservatives invited him to testify.

I will read what he said in English, which is the language he used in committee. Two key aspects of his testimony are related to elements of Bill C-71. First, he talked about firearms possession licences:

If a person is selling a firearm to another, the wording must be that the transferee must present a valid possession and acquisition licence and the transferor must check with the registrar to ensure that the licence is valid.

This was proposed by a chief of police who did not support the gun registry. Conservative MPs and people appearing before the committee have tried to tell us that it is a gun registry. In fact, it is simply a reference number, a simple bureaucratic gesture indicating that the licence was checked. That is all. It is not remotely close to being a gun registry. All witnesses on both sides of the debate agreed on that.

I can say, first of all, that I will be moving an amendment in committee, during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, to address some concerns of gun owners. Instead of having a reference number for every gun sold in a transaction between two individuals, there should be a reference number to indicate that the validity of the licence has been verified for each transaction. I asked a witness in committee this question and, instead of answering, he decided to skirt the issue and talk about other aspects that he wanted to address.

I would like to point out another aspect of Mr. Hanson's evidence. He said:

[W]e must reinstate point of sale recording. This existed prior to the gun registry and was useful for two reasons. The first is that it allowed for proper auditing of gun stores to ensure that they are complying with the law requiring them to sell only to those with proper licences. That is a starting point should that gun be identified as being used in a criminal offence.

That statement is important. I agree with the parliamentary secretary that the vast majority of businesses that sell guns have substantial, appropriate, and robust business practices. Any respectable venture must maintain these types of records, and that is as it should be. However, having a law ensures that police officers can obtain this information, with an appropriate warrant, of course.

It is important to point this out because this was in the law before the gun registry was created, and it was an element of the law that was repealed because of the registry. When the registry was eliminated, many people in the public safety community said that this element of the law had to be reintroduced because it at least gives police a tool to validate and check where a gun was sold.

One thing my Conservative colleagues and I have in common is that we have questions. How will the government enforce standardized practices for retailers? How much will it cost? What kind of consultation will the Minister of Public Safety do in developing this part of the act? We have concerns.

We also have questions about the systems that will be used, online or in other ways, to obtain a permit to transport a restricted or prohibited firearm, especially in cases in which multiple applications are made at the same time. For example, when several gun owners are participating in the same activity, they will have to transport their guns and will therefore require a transport permit. How will this work? How much will it cost? These are legitimate questions that come up in committee.

The bottom line is that emotions run high when the topic of firearms comes up, for all kinds of reasons. Some people have been victims of horrible gun crimes, while others are legitimate, law-abiding gun owners who want public policies adopted in the interest of public safety to respect the fact that they are responsible in practising their hobbies. We recognize that this is not an easy balance and that this issue raises a lot of very difficult questions. We are hearing some very worrisome testimony, and we have a duty, as parliamentarians, to do our job properly.

As I said from the start, I am very open to my Conservative colleagues' proposal that the committee travel and hear from more witnesses, but that has to be done in good faith. I heard a Conservative member mention political fundraising, but the Liberals are guilty of that too. They sent out emails that included a bunch of quotes from firearms owners in order to raise money. Regardless of which side of the debate we are on, we are not going to be able to adopt sound public policies that respect all of the communities affected by this bill by doing political fundraising.

I would like to continue to work on this issue in a sound and appropriate way. I recognize that there are many challenges associated with it. There are measures that raise concerns, others that are good, and still others that should be fined-tuned because the devil is in the details. At the risk of repeating myself, I want to say that, if I can get one point across in this debate, I want it to be that we need to take this issue seriously and address it in a healthy way. That is what we need to do if we really want to show respect for those who have major concerns about this bill.

I asked the minister whether he was willing to review the definitions set out in the act, those that are within the purview of Parliament and that provide the framework for the RCMP's classification work. If there is one thing that everyone has agreed on since I have been the public safety critic, it is the need to update the definitions. I hope that the minister will do that. I invite him to do so. Clarifying some of those definitions will resolve many of the problems raised in these debates.

With regard to this evening's motion, unfortunately, we believe that it is a debate that will have to wait for another day.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the NDP member from Montreal's south shore, and I always learn something, even though I may not agree with him 100%. Like him, however, we believe that the vast majority of those who own and sell guns are honest, scrupulous people who care about their fellow citizens' needs. They are never motivated by murderous or criminal aims.

I am sure the member will agree with me that the vast majority of gun crimes in this country are committed with illegal weapons from the black market that belong to people with criminal pasts who are, in many cases, members of streets gangs.

Does my colleague think it is a shame that this bill, which is all about firearms, is silent on subjects such as organized crime, street gangs, arms trafficking, violent gun crimes, and customs officers' work? Customs officers have been left out of the whole process, even though they can play a leading role in tackling criminal weapons that could be used to perpetrate heinous crimes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his kind words.

I agree with him. We have to do more to address street gangs and the proliferation of illegally obtained weapons, whether they were stolen, bought on the black market, or brought across our border. I think that giving the Canada Border Services Agency more resources, resources that have been cut over the years, and tackling the radicalization that leads young people to join street gangs would be the right approach.

Let us be honest, when we talk about fighting radicalization we are not just talking about terrorism. We are talking about all sorts of ideologies that can take advantage of vulnerable people, including young people who are then recruited by street gangs.

I completely agree with my colleague that the government cannot rest on its laurels, boast about hosting the best summit that there ever was in Ottawa, or just talk about the money that was invested. There is a lot of work to be done. I agree with that.

That said, I would also agree that we must create greater certainty in the legislation. For instance, maintaining records and files could be made mandatory for retailers, most of whom are already doing it anyway. Creating this certainty would help police officers in their work and reassure them, as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police testified before committee last week.

As I said in my speech, there are certainly some positive aspects. We also have questions about certain details regarding the implementation of some parts of the budget. The Conservatives are quite right to criticize the government for not doing enough to tackle street gangs. However, all of these things can go hand in hand. It is not one thing or the other. There are a number of factors that affect all the very complex public safety issues, as my colleague knows full well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my colleague's work on this file. As a registered gun owner representing a rural region where many people have guns because it is part of our way of life, I have talked with many people about the bill and about their concerns. I will share some thoughts I heard.

People much prefer that it be the police who decide the classification of weapons, rather than Liberal politicians. They feel that at least it is arm's length from the Liberal government.

In terms of the issue of background checks, any gun owner I know wants to have proper background checks. That is fundamental.

On the issue of keeping records, I do not hear people back home thinking it is a registry. They believe that if someone is going to sell guns, the person should keep records. That is fairly straightforward.

The question I have is on the issue of transportation and whether it is too onerous and whether or not we can fix it at committee. I would like to ask my hon. colleague for his thoughts on this aspect, because there is a lot of uncertainty about the transportation provisions and whether people would have to jump through too many hoops and whether this is something we can fix to come up with a reasonable gun policy that responds to the needs of rural people, while ensuring that gangbangers are not driving around in the city with restricted firearms in their cars.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for the work he does in reaching out to his constituents. I understand the many valid concerns that they might express about a piece of legislation.

The member mentioned stores keeping records. Keeping records has been law in the U.S. for a number of decades now, as the parliamentary secretary said. The fact is that in the United States, stores are required to keep records forever, whereas this bill says it is only for 20 years. There are certain safeguards in place to make sure this information is not circulating freely in the hands of the government in the way the information in the gun registry did.

Nonetheless, it would give certainty in the law that records would be maintained and it would also allow police, should they require a warrant, to be able to access information that might help them in an investigation of an unlawfully obtained firearm.

To the point about the transportation permits, one of the key things or big issues that we heard at committee was that often a number of law-abiding firearm owners are going be requiring these permits at the same time—for example, if a gun show is being held, or something like that.

That is why in my speech I said the devil will be in the details. We have asked the minister and others before the committee what will be done to make sure that wait times are not too long and that it will be an easy system to access so that law-abiding gun owners who are going to a gun show, for example, would be able to obtain a permit in a timely manner.

One of the ideas put forward was that maybe something could be on the Internet. Well, when we see what happens with things like Phoenix, we can be wary about how computer systems work. The devil will be in the details, but it is a concern that we hear and that we hope to see addressed moving forward.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member for Beloeil—Chambly mentioned the gun registry. I want to remind everyone listening that when the Conservative government was in power, it abolished the gun registry and, according to the minister at the time, the current member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, the documents associated with the gun registry were destroyed. I would remind everyone that the registry was supposed to cost $2 million, but it actually cost $2 billion, and although it was supposed to be perfect, it was barely 40% accurate. This means that 60% of the data going back to 10 years ago was inaccurate. This does not bode well for the registry.

The legislation provides a mechanism for transferring that infamous gun registry to Quebec. A duly elected government scrapped that registry and tossed it out. My question is very simple. Does the member think it is normal that a government, whether he agrees with it or not, but a duly elected government, could destroy a document and it just so happens that, two years later, we discover that the document still exists?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. What happened in the last Parliament was actually the opposite. The Conservatives started to destroy the data even before the bill was passed. There was the dispute with the information commissioner about an access to information request duly filed by a Canadian citizen under the law. The commissioner went to court because the Conservatives tabled a bill after the fact to make legal the illegal things they had done. In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that they had the right to destroy the data, but that in the interests of co-operative federalism, it would be better if they gave the data to Quebec.

I would remind my colleague that his former party, the Coalition Avenir Québec, is a party in Quebec's National Assembly, which unanimously voted to establish a provincial registry. That was their decision, not ours. I think that if we really believe in co-operative federalism, like the leader of the official opposition, the least we can do is let Quebec's National Assembly decide what it wants to do with the Quebec data that was preserved by law.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we think that we will be looking at clause-by-clause study on Bill C-71. I have an amendment that would add in a check to make sure that before any gun could go to an owner, we would look to see if they have convictions for violence or threats to an intimate partner. I wonder if I will have support from the New Democrats tomorrow in committee to strengthen the bill in this way.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. We have heard and talked a lot about gang violence, and I do not want to downplay the importance of that at all, since it is very troubling, but we also heard a lot about domestic violence and suicide and the issues that are at play there, and they are really important.

On the spirit of the amendment that the member is proposing, absolutely, I am prepared to support that type of amendment. One of the things that came forward is that anything that can be done to bring further clarity and a robust process around background checks in the name of public safety is something all parties support. Hopefully we will continue to see that support, despite the vigorous debate we can have over some of the other elements of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to provide opportunities for members of the public safety and national security committee to travel to meet with additional stakeholders on the many issues raised by experts, academics, user groups, victims groups, and more, who have been flagged to our committee.

What is worse than the fact that almost no one seems to support this bill as a solution to the issues facing Canada from gun and gang violence is that we have heard from so few people on the issue at committee.

In March of 2018, e-petition 1608 was initiated. It asks the Liberal government to scrap Bill C-71 and instead devote more resources to policing in Canada. In just two months, it has become the second-largest e-petition in Canadian history, with nearly 79,000 signatures to date in opposition to Bill C-71, because the bill is viewed as an attempt to bring back the gun registry while not tackling the source of firearms violence in Canada, which is gangs and organized crime. In fact, it is second only to the petition that objected to the Liberals breaking their promise on electoral reform.

Canadians across the country are upset at the current Liberal government for breaking another election promise. Whether the Liberals agree or not, Canadians from the north, the Atlantic, the Prairies, the pacific and central Canada all consider Bill C-71 as having the makings of a new registry that targets law-abiding gun owners and does nothing to tackle illegal firearms, gun violence, and gangs.

A government MP might want to point out that since e-petitions only came into effect in 2015, the Liberals are almost certainly going to be the ones who break the record. That is a fair comment. The selective use of statistics and facts to sell a policy or position is wrong and only causes Canadians to be distrustful of government, politicians, and the political process. It undermines democracy. That is probably why so many Canadians, almost 79,000 in the e-petition, feel that the Liberals have been arrogant and misleading in their use and presentation of facts. That makes it more important for this committee to break free from its limited view of the issue and to visit with the Canadians who will be impacted by the legislation.

It is important to ensure that information that comes before Parliament is accurate. The Minister of Public Safety appeared before the committee and made the following comment:

While crime rates in Canada overall have been on the decline, thankfully, for decades, the rate of gun violence has been going up in recent years. Between 2013 and 2016

—indeed, we heard the same numbers presented by the parliamentary secretary just minutes ago—

the number of criminal incidents involving firearms rose by 30%. Gun homicides in that period went up by two-thirds. Intimate partner and gender-based violence involving firearms was up by one-third. Gang-related homicides, most of which involve guns, were up by two-thirds. Break-ins for the purpose of the stealing of firearms were up by 56% between 2013 and 2016, and by a whopping 865% since the year 2008.

It sounds like there is a real crisis, an epidemic of major proportions, related to licensed firearms and their users taking to the streets and committing crimes. However, we should look at what the experts said about the current government's manipulation of information.

Solomon Friedman, from the Criminal Lawyers' Association, says that “The Criminal Lawyers' Association supports criminal law reform that is modest, fundamentally rational and supported by objective evidence. On each of these measures, Bill C-71, in our view, fails to meet that mark. First, the proposed reforms in Bill C-71 are unsupported by the evidence. In fact, in presenting its rationale for this bill, the government has misrepresented the objective statistical data to create the appearance of a problem that simply does not exist. As a society, we are the poorer for it when government promotes criminal legislation on a misunderstanding, or worse yet, a willful manipulation of what it claims is empirical evidence. On May 8, 2018, the Honourable Minister of Public Safety...told this committee that between 2013 and 2016, the number of criminal incidents involving firearms rose by 30%. Gun homicides in that period went up by two-thirds. Those numbers are alarming. They give the clear impression that gun crime and homicide by firearm specifically are a rampant and increasing problem in our society.”

Friedman continues, “With the greatest of respect to the Minister, that is simply not the case. The year 2013, the starting point for the purported trend was not chosen at random. As we now know, 2013 was a statistical aberration in terms of violent crime and homicide in Canada. 2013 saw the lowest rate of criminal homicide in Canada in 50 years. To put that in perspective, every single year since 1966 has been worse than 2013. It's not surprising that the three years following 2013 would be worse, as well.”

Moreover, Friedman observes, “The truth of the matter is homicide by firearm has, in fact, been steadily declining in Canada since the mid 1970s and when an appropriate sample size is taken, the alarming trend that the Minister purported to identify is seen for what it is—a selective manipulation of statistical data. The rate of homicide by firearm, when viewed over a 10-year period, a reasonable sample size, has remained relatively stable. In fact, it was slightly lower in 2016 than it was 10 years earlier in 2006.”

Here we have a criminal defence lawyer destroying the highly questionable evidence provided by the minister. That is what shocks us. Having spent 35 years in policing, I know that such questionable evidence would never be allowed in a courtroom. A judge would severely admonish the lawyer who presented patently false evidence, and that lawyer could risk being disbarred.

Additionally, we heard from Dr. Gary Mauser about the information that the Minister of Public Safety presented as facts. Here is what the committee heard from Dr. Mauser. First, he pointed out that 121 of the 141 firearms-related homicides were directly related to gangs in cities. Therefore, the rate of violence in Canada is a a result of more gangs and gun-related shootings. The word “gangs” does not appear anywhere in the bill. Therefore, it appears that the minister's statistics of of increasing on gun violence are really just selective use of figures, and wrongly attributed to licensed, law-abiding gun owners.

In rural areas, the professor pointed out that Statistics Canada's own numbers show that while first nations make up only 5% of Canada's population, they make up 24% of the victims of homicide and 36% of those accused of homicide. This should not surprise us, as crime and violence are usually tied to poverty and a lack of opportunity.

The Minister of Public Safety said at committee:

Right now, when a person applies for a licence, there's a mandatory look back over the immediately preceding five years to see whether they have in that period of time been engaged in any violent behaviour or been treated for a mental illness associated with violence. Bill C-71 will remove that five-year limitation so that a person's entire record will be taken into account. That will help ensure, quite simply, that people with a history of violence do not get guns.

The legislation will also help ensure that people who acquire firearms are actually licensed to own them. Since 2012, all that has been required in this regard at the time of a sale is that the vendor have “no reason to believe” that the purchaser is not licensed. It's a double negative. Vendors often check anyway, but they are not, in fact, required to do so.

That statement is absolutely false. Under the current law, gun shops are required to ensure that anyone purchasing a firearm possesses a valid gun licence.

Furthermore, a legal expert told the committee that it “should bear in mind that there is no stand-alone scheme for regulating firearms in Canada outside of the criminal law. Accordingly, any violation, no matter how minor or technical engages the criminal law process. As all justice system participants know well, the criminal law is a blunt tool. It is more akin to a sledgehammer than a scalpel, and most importantly, it is an ill-suited implement of public policy. Indeed, this legislation creates new criminal offences where none were needed. For example Bill C-71 will make it an offence for a firearm owner to transfer a firearm, meaning to give, sell, or barter, to another person without first obtaining a reference number from the registrar of firearms. Let me be clear. It is already a criminal offence to transfer a firearm to an individual who is not authorized to possess it.”

The expert stated that “Section 101 of the Criminal Code prohibits the precise conduct. It is punishable by a maximum of five years in prison. In fact, I have personally represented retailers who have been charged under the existing scheme for failing to check licence validity.”

Furthermore, the legal expert continued, “The government says that the new provisions under Bill C-71 are required to ensure that firearms are not transferred without lawful authority. Not surprisingly, the existing offence under section 101 is entitled “Transfer without authority”. However, under Bill C-71, one law-abiding licensed firearm owner can transfer a firearm to another law-abiding licensed firearm owner and still commit a criminal offence if the government is not duly notified. This does nothing more than create another trap for the unwary, a trap that carries with it criminal consequences. And for what? It is not for actual public safety, but for the appearance of public safety.”

I had that same issue when the minister appeared before committee, suggesting that gun shops today, or anyone for that matter, can easily sell a gun to anyone who does not have a licence. Today, before Bill C-71 comes into effect, that is still a criminal offence.

The minister may be confused about what a serious crime looks like given his government's proposal to have all manner of violent criminals walk free with a slap on the wrist or a fine, criminals like those convicted of assault with a weapon, human trafficking, participating in a terrorist group, impaired driving causing bodily harm, forced marriage and marriage under 16, advocating for genocide, or participating in organized crimes, just to name a few. These are serious criminal offences, just like selling a firearm to someone without a licence is a serious criminal offence. It gets a person up to five years in jail. That is more than some child sex offenders are receiving.

It is not just the Liberal minister who tabled this legislation who has been getting his information so very, very wrong. When a professor emeritus from Simon Fraser appeared before us, the Liberal member for London North Centre, someone who has taught at a university, attacked him for not having the article peer reviewed, if one could imagine. Peer review is the process of academic review where many academics with similar backgrounds question and review one's work to ensure its accuracy.

The MP for London North Centre basically reiterated the view of a website with limited credibility. The article he attacked was in the top legal journal in the world, according to Journal Citation Reports. The article was cited in Supreme Court cases in the United States. I am not sure if the member has ever seen a courtroom, but judges are sticklers for the facts. The member's contention after these facts were pointed out to him was that he only revisited the fact it was not peer reviewed. Apparently, all law reviews are done by legal students. I guess the Harvard Law Review just does not meet the high standards of an untenured professor from Western.

This brings me back to the main point. The Liberals are highly misinformed, from the minister to the member for London North Centre, as they cannot even be bothered to see what our firearms safety training course looks like let alone understand it. They appear to prefer to insulate themselves and their views from anyone they disagree with and go out of their way to discredit anyone who demonstrates how wrong they really are.

Mark Twain is known for revising an old English expression, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” In this case, the Liberals do not want to worry about facts, just a good story to achieved their desired impact on the issue. That is why it essential that we have more input.

In our final panel of witnesses, the committee heard from Heather Bear, vice-chief of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations in Saskatchewan. To be honest, had the Conservatives not raised the fact there had been no first nation witnesses regarding the impact of the bill on them, I do not think we would have heard from any first nations at all.

Vice-Chief Bear brought a wealth of understanding from the perspective of first nations. They, like many people in rural areas, are hunters. They use firearms for legitimate cultural, spiritual, family, community, and sustenance purposes. Through Vice-Chief Bear, we heard quite clearly that first nations had not been consulted, that the duty to consult on legislation that impacts first nations was not met, that the legislation completely misses the mark, and that it would make it harder for law-abiding hunters while doing nothing to deal with their issue of gangs and gun violence.

If we need any further evidence, Hugh Nielsen, a master firearms instructor from B.C., asked for a show of hands of MPs who had taken a firearms safety course.

None of the Liberals could say that they had one. The Liberals, with their 30-plus rural seats, could not find one rural MP who wanted to sit in to provide some expertise and understanding of the issues around firearms safety and training.

The committee is undertaking very important work. It is important to a record number of Canadians that we get it right. It is not good enough to hear from a select group and ignore most of what we hear.

As an example, my office, along with other members, received 20 briefs from the committee clerk less than 24 hours before the deadline to submit our amendments. Since drafters need time to get their work done, basically none of those briefs were received in time for the work to be considered by committee.

We heard from no one from the north. Not a single voice from the territories was included in the debate. No chief firearms officer submitted testimony. Thousands of Canadians seeking to be heard on this issue are being ignored so the minister and the Liberals can achieve their deadline, a bad deadline on a bad bill. No one in Canada is better for it.

The facts presented by experts show, time and again, that the committee needs to hear from more people across the nation. I would like to quote a letter I received from a resident in Oakville, responding to some comments made by his member of Parliament to a witness at the public safety committee meeting last week. This constituent took it upon himself to verify the stats used and found that the member from Oakville had made a mistake. The member had suggested that 26% of homicide by gun violence were women at the hands of their partners. Looking through the stats of what she said and the source she used, this constituent found that the number was half of that, 13%. I understand that 1% is too much.

That constituent dug even deeper into the records and stats and found the following, and I will read the results, “Shooting was a factor in 33% of homicides between 2003 and 2012. Of that 33%, 13% of the victims were women who died at the hands of their partners, where a gun was used.” Since the bill would target only licensed firearms owners, he checked into that as well and found that only 2.7% of those accused were licensed firearms owners.

We have a bill that the Liberals claim would protect women from domestic violence, but it would not. The vast majority of the accused are not licensed firearms owners; they are unlicensed firearms users.

Finally, the Minister of Public Safety may not realize this, but the bill would do nothing to deal with gun crimes in Florida schools. Sadly, the minister has framed the tabling of the legislation as dealing with a school shooting in another country. Nothing could be more disheartening than watching an old politician tell Canadians that because of a tragedy, he will take action, knowing full well that there is nothing in his action that begins to deal at all with these victims, that tragedy or stopping similar future incidents. This is the kind of conduct that breaks the confidence of governments and the Canadian public with specific politicians.

To maintain the confidence of our system of government, to maintain our democracy, to ensure we get public safety and the confidence of our public systems, this committee needs to ensure we have heard from all relevant parties, industry, victims rights groups, indigenous peoples, firearms users, police, other levels of government, and from silenced Liberal members.

I urge the House to support this motion and ensure that all members of the committee get public safety right. The protection of Canadians is the top priority for the House, and we cannot afford to allow the partisan antics of the Liberals to shake the confidence of Canadians in our communities, in our democratic institutions, and in our country.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. He is well aware of the respect I have for him as a person and as a professional. He knows better than anyone, and better than many of us, the impact of firearms and how much attention we should be giving them.

I would like to talk to him about a contradiction. Former Conservative minister James Moore sponsored a bill, which died on the Order Paper, that would have enhanced, or at least strengthened, the requirements for background checks and reference checks. Some Conservatives believe that is a good idea, but others are against the idea of seeing any mention of that subject in the bill.

Given the Conservative Party's ambiguous position, I would like the member to explain his personal stance and his party's stance on background checks.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend across the way, who I also respect personally and professionally.

I believe background checks serve a purpose. Currently, we have a five-year background check and a daily check for those who already have a valid licence. However, there is a matter of concern that I have heard from gun owners across the country. It is not the fact that we want to expand background checks, which should never alarm anyone who is a law-abiding gun owner, and it never will. The issue is that at what point would an error from 20 years ago, a lapse in judgment 20 years ago, or an individual who has returned from a war theatre, or someone who has had a mental health challenge at some point in their lifetime, prevent people from hunting or having possession of a firearm when they no longer pose a threat to themselves or or to anyone else? We have not heard from the government how that would be regulated or how the regulations would ensure we have a mechanism in place that would be fair to the individual applying for a licence and would protects public safety. Public safety needs to be the number one priority.

Quite frankly, some of the witnesses we heard at committee suggested that some of the enhanced background checks would have value. I agree. We just need more time to flush those out so we can put some parameters around what that might look like in amendments for the bill moving forward.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have heard from the Conservative benches that there is concern about gang crime. However, gang crime is not part of this proposed legislation, and not all bills contain everything that is related.

I know the member has background in this area. I have talked to a lot of people who prosecute gang crime. It seems to me that what is needed in that instance, and what I hear from them, is that they need more resources. In most communities, if we ask the police officers, they know who the bad actor is, but they just cannot go after them. However, a lot of information can come from things like forensic accounting and getting people to go over tax records. They got Al Capone for tax evasion, but they never actually got him for anything else.

I wonder if the member has any thoughts on whether we should boost criminal justice, prosecution, and investigations with things that are a little outside of what we normally would think about. More of this is done in the U.S. from what I understand. We could go at the tax records and go after people for those offences, and then the rest of the crimes would kind of unravel from there.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree that providing police the resources to deal with gun and gang violence and drug enforcement is critical as we move forward in this day and age. However, what I find disturbing are the proposals I see in Bill C-71, which go in the opposite direction. Rather than making participation in a criminal organization a more serious criminal offence, and it is difficult to prosecute in the first place, the Liberals would make the possibility of a hybrid offence, like a dual offence, a summary conviction. Therefore, someone who is a member of a gang could receive a fine or six months maximum in jail.

Yes, there needs to be resources allotted to policing. We heard from the Liberals that Bill C-71 was a multi-pronged approach. It would go with the $327 million that was put toward guns and gangs announced last fall, and $100 million annually going forward. However, we have not seen how that will play out. We talked to the policing community. It is not so much that it needs more need bodies, which it does, but it needs the lawful mechanisms to make it palatable to go after some of these criminals.

The member talked about financial crimes. It is a booming business in Canada, because our laws make it almost impossible to try to convict individuals who are profiting from organized crime.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner for his years of service as a law enforcement officer. He is very knowledgeable about this.

I am very concerned that the legislation would do nothing to make the public more safe. That is the argument the Conservatives have had all along. If the clauses in the legislation would do something useful for public safety, they would have the support of the Conservative side of the House.

Dr. Mauser, professor emeritus, and the Criminal Defence Law Association, which is interestingly on our side of the issue in this case, pointed out that there was nothing empirical in the evidence to suggest that any of the legislation would do anything.

At several points in time during the committee meetings we had, and there were only three of them outside of the minister's appearing, my colleague had an opportunity, because the motion before us is about the committee travelling. Did my colleague have any experience in dealing with the provincial mental health acts? Does he think Bill C-71 adequately addresses issues where people or the police come into contact with people with mental health issues?

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

Madam Speaker, during committee, I personally asked witnesses a number of times whether they would support legislation that would empower background checks and then deal with or prevent those who had been dealt with under provincial mental health act legislation from acquiring a firearm that would present a danger to themselves or to others. All the witnesses we heard from were very supportive of that sort of concept. Again, that is a step in the right direction, but it needs to have some very strict parameters around how it is applied, who would be the adjudicator of this, and who would make the decision of how far back to go and what level of threat would the individual be to himself, or herself or others. It is important this be done carefully.

What I am concerned about is that the current government has not given us the trust in it, that it will get it right in the regulations. I am not sure that will be the case. I would like to see it in legislation how this will be applied and how it will look, to ensure, as I said previously, we have the balance between public safety and to ensure no one presents a danger to himself, or herself or others.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on this. When I reapplied for my gun licence, the officials did a background check. They called my wife. That is important because things can change. We have seen horrific levels of violent gun deaths for middle-aged men through suicide. Who else will be able to warn that there is a problem other than family members? The background checks can do important work, especially if we talk about the horrific levels of male suicide tied to gun violence.

Does my hon. colleague not think in these instances that we can do better and we can start to identify these issues so we can start to ensure guns are not be in the hands of people who could do harm to their families or to themselves?

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

Madam Speaker, the answer quite simply is yes. Enhanced background checks would help in these areas. It is critical that for those individuals who have presented a change, maybe from when they applied before or are applying for a new licence, as much information as possible is obtained to make an informed decision on whether the individuals present a danger to themselves or to others. Domestic violence situations are critical. As people know, the Conservative government instituted legislation that took firearms away from those who were convicted of domestic violence.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House of Commons to represent the fine people of Red Deer—Lacombe, many of whom are law-abiding firearms owners who are entrusting me to try to make some semblance of sense out of yet another attack on the law-abiding firearms community across Canada. I will do my best.

For those watching at home, we on this side of the House have moved a motion asking the public safety committee that is studying Bill C-71 for an opportunity to travel across the country and actually hear from affected parties and those who otherwise would not have an opportunity to come to Ottawa.

Just to put things into context of how we got here, this bill, Bill C-71, much to the dismay of the parliamentary secretary who spoke earlier and said that they have had all kinds of time to do this, is number 71. This means that it is not a very high priority on the Liberal government's index. The government has had almost three years to get to this point and table this legislation, and now it wants to ram it through the House as fast as possible. After less than seven hours of debate on this piece of legislation in the House of Commons, it was kicked over to the committee on a whipped vote, where of course all the government members voted in favour of it, including all of the members from the north, and I will talk about the north a little bit.

Now we have gone over to the committee and had two weeks of meetings. We had four two-hour meetings to talk with all of the witnesses that we need to hear from. That is simply not enough. We have to consider that we heard from the minister and the bureaucrats in the first meeting. Now that we have had the chance to have all the Ottawa bubblespeak, that basically gave us three meetings, for a grand total of six hours. In those meetings we had about two people per hour, so that means we have heard from about 12 different organizations and groups from all sides on this particular issue.

However, the real issue is that there are so many people who want to have an opportunity to actually address and talk to their government—to petition them, to make their case, to make their point.

As I go through this, if the changes in Bill C-71 actually addressed serious, violent crime or gun crime in Canada, it would actually have the full support of this House. There are things that all parties in this House can agree on. One of those is enhanced background checks. We can vary in our opinions on how effective that might be, but I do not think anybody here would disagree that enhancing background checks, going further back into an individual's history to see if there is a problem, to try to protect public safety, to try to protect people from becoming victims, to even try to protect people from themselves in certain circumstances, is going to be a bad idea. We can debate on how we are going to do that or the merits of one approach versus another and that could be implemented, but there would be a consensus in this House.

I told the Minister of Public Safety during the first committee meeting that if the government would simply table or put aside all of the other clauses in Bill C-71 that have nothing to deal with public safety and focus on that element of the bill, he would have the support of the Conservative Party, or the Conservative members of Parliament. He rejected that offer. He rejected it outright at that committee meeting. As a matter of fact, he went on to erroneously try to make the case that the measures that they are going to take are going to increase public safety.

I asked the minister point-blank, because he was trying to make the case that a source of firearms that are being used in crimes in Canada are actually domestically sourced. We know that statistically that is not true, because most firearms that are used to commit crimes have come across the border and most firearms that are used to commit crimes are not long guns. They are certainly not long guns of lawful firearms owners. In fact, Gary Mauser, a professor emeritus, actually gave us some very important statistics right from Statistics Canada that said that gun crime is lower in houses where there is a PAL holder. That is a possession and acquisition licence. It is outside of those homes, such as a home in the rural part of Canada where we have maybe high crime rates. Those are thefts, so those are not firearms-related crimes, except for potentially, in some cases, theft of firearms.

However, the gun crime in those communities where there is actually a victim is far lower than in communities where there are fewer firearms owners. This tells us that criminals do not follow firearms legislation. They never have. They never will. That is why this legislation makes little to no sense.

I am a firearms owner. I am a hunter. I grew up on a farm. I have had a firearm in my hand ever since I was legally able to do so, whether it was for vermin control or pest control. When I was in army cadets, I would use an old Lee-Enfield that was converted to a .22 to shoot targets. I participated in biathlons. I have successfully been around firearms my whole life and I have not been shot to date. I am completely confident in all of my friends and family members who own firearms and use them responsibly. I have no issues or concerns whatsoever.

What does concern me is that manufactured hyperbole is used in a political sphere to generate dissension and to create the illusion of a problem. We heard from the Criminal Defence Advocacy Society, as my colleague from Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner just quoted, that there is no evidentiary proof. I asked the Minister of Public Safety at committee where the report is from his department that says how many people will be saved with this legislation. I asked for the numbers of crimes that will be reduced and how many gun deaths will be reduced by this legislation. He does not have an answer for these questions because this is a politically-driven bill based on emotional arguments.

I am a law-abiding firearms owner and I do not want anyone to get hurt with a firearm. As a person who understands firearms, I am not saying I am a technical expert, but I have been around them my whole life. I know what the law-abiding firearms community thinks and does because I am one of them. If good proposals or measures were brought forward, I would help the government of the day convince the law-abiding firearms community that they were good measures, but I cannot in good conscience stand here and say that this is what Bill C-71 is.

We did not hear from a single witness from the north. In the Northwest Territories, Yukon, or Nunavut, hunting and fishing is a way of life, and more people do it than do not. All three members of Parliament from the north were elected as Liberals, and two of them are still in the Liberal caucus. None of them came to the committee to voice their questions or concerns. The member for Central Nova came asking questions. He was talking like a Conservative when he was asking his questions at committee because he has heard from his voters that this is an area of absolute concern. There was not one witness from the north, even though the motions were moved.

Here is who did not have a chance to testify: Randy Kuntz, a retired Edmonton police officer, who was summoned to the committee but did not have the time. Wes Winkel, the president of Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, was another. Not one witness appeared before the committee to represent the sellers or retailers in this country. As a matter of fact, in all of the questions that were posed by my colleagues across the floor at committee when it comes to the mandatory provisions of dealing with record keeping, which most store owners already do for warranty purposes and so on, the only people who were asked about it were the chiefs of police.

I am going to go back to that, because we need more clarification. When I asked the Minister of Public Safety about warrants and warrantless access to firearms records, the minister actually did not know, but he said that investigating officers would need a warrant. Then he said that the chief firearms officer, who is a police officer, would not need a warrant. Then the bureaucracy stepped in and tried to help him out with his claims. It seems that during an investigation, a police officer must get a warrant in order to access the records of a private store owner as part of their investigative process. However, a chief firearms officer can go in at any time, according to the legislation, and demand to see the records, and the store owner is then obligated to produce the records.

When I asked the chiefs of police before committee if it is that cut and dried, that black and white, their answer to my question was quite shocking. They said no, that is not the case. They said it is not cut and dried, not black and white. There are circumstances in which the chief firearms officer can pass on information to an investigating officer and vice versa.

It is not cut and dried. It is an argument that we have been asked to believe and asked to buy that is simply not true.

Why is the government so afraid of listening to store owners who sell these firearms? Maybe it is because it does not want people lined up at its door condemning the Prime Minister's tweet, which was false and misleading when he said in that tweet that when people buy a firearm or ammunition at a store, they do not need to provide identification. That was a patently false tweet, creating a misinformation campaign out there to justify this legislation.

I have never been to a store where I have been able to even touch the firearms. When I ask to see a firearm, which is in a locked cabinet, I am asked for my possession and acquisition licence. I have to lay it on the table before the firearm can be brought to me. If I want to buy ammunition, I have to provide that possession and acquisition licence or a possession-only licence in order to purchase it.

It is a patent misnomer that right now people do not have to provide identification in order to purchase a firearm or ammunition at a store. It is patently false. It is a misinformation campaign meant to justify the ends, which is this piece of legislation, which would do nothing for public safety.

Nicolas Johnson of TheGunBlog.ca spends all of his time talking about this issue. He has thousands of followers and is well connected. Why would we not want to hear the opinion of this individual, who represents so many firearms owners?

I moved a motion at committee on May 22 to hear from the Women Shooters of PEI. The Liberal government claims to be a feminist government that does everything, that puts women first and its feminist agenda first. It would not let the Women Shooters of PEI come to committee to testify. I guess when it suits the government's need to be feminist, it is feminist, and when it does not suit its need to be feminist, it is not.

Dr. Caillin Langmann, emergency medical resident in the fellowship program with the Royal College of Physicians in Canada, in the division of emergency medicine at McMaster University, is not going to be allowed to testify. He actually works in emergency.

Stacey Hassard, the leader of the official opposition of Yukon, is another person. Did I mention that not a single person from Yukon came to committee? Even the member of Parliament for that particular area did not come before committee. I remember his absence from this place for four and a half years, and I think it had a lot to do with this particular issue.

Another is Andy McGrogan, the president of the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police. Why did we only hear from select police chiefs that the committee chair wanted to hear from? Why could we not hear from one from the west?

Richard Munderich, of the Ajax Rod and Gun Club in Ontario did not appear, and that is really too bad. The parliamentary secretary from Ajax vetoed the ability for his own rod and gun club to appear. He just made an impassioned speech in here, which was not really based on anything scientific or evidentiary. One would think that the parliamentary secretary who represents the Ajax Rod and Gun Club would want his own rod and gun club to testify before committee, but that did not work out.

Gord Zealand, from the Yukon Fish and Game Association, another expert from Yukon, was another voice silenced from the North on this particular issue.

We wanted Harvey Andrusak of the BC Wildlife Federation to come here. We wanted to have Darrell Crabbe of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation come here. We wanted Bob Kierstead, who is a shooting expert and an international firearms instructor, to come here.

We wanted Kerry Coleman from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and David Clement from the Consumers Choice Centre to come here.

We wanted the Manitoba Wildlife Federation and la Fédération des chasseurs et pêcheurs du Québec to come. I think that is the first French I have spoken in the House in 13 years. As well, we wanted to hear from the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.

We did not hear from a rural crime watch group. We did not hear from anybody dealing with these issues in rural Canada at all. We did not hear from Citizens on Patrol. We did not hear from any of these groups that are affected. We heard from nobody from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities or from the Alberta Association of Rural Municipalities. The government completely ignored all of these groups.

There are other stakeholders who wanted to appear. The Firearms Outlet Canada is a gun store in Ajax that wanted to come. The Wanstalls gun store wanted to come. Al Simmons, who owns a gun store in Hamilton, wanted to come. Sports Action is a gun store in Ottawa that wanted to come. Dante Sports is a gun store in Montreal that wanted to come. Cabela's, Sail, and Bass Pro Shops wanted to come. Nobody from any of these companies or their parent organizations was even invited or allowed to testify before committee.

This legislation would directly impact them, and I think this actually violates a fundamental principle of our democracy. When legislation is being passed that directly affects Canadian citizens, they should have the right to make a pitch to the government of the day on an issue that impacts their life, but again, that is why we are here as Conservatives.

Conservatives are respectfully asking for this House to say that the public safety committee has not had an opportunity to do its due diligence and it ought to go across Canada. This is my 13th year in the House, and I have seen committees go across this country to talk about issues that affect a lot fewer Canadians than this one, having hearings and discussions. This particular piece of legislation affects over two million firearms owners in Canada alone, not to mention everyone else who wants to have a say on the matter.

People are upset about this. The vendors and retailers are upset because they have not had a chance to have their say. Why are they upset? It is because this bill would do several things. It would create a registry. Whether the government wants to admit it or not, it is a registry. I am a former database administrator, so I know a bit about this. Every time there is a transaction, and there are going to be transactions, whether it is a business-to-business sale, a business-to-person sale, or a person-to-person sale, every one of those sales has to be validated by the government now. People who go to gun shows on Sunday had better hope somebody is at the firearms centre ready to answer the phone. That is another group that the committee did not speak to. Nobody from any of the gun shows across Canada was invited to testify before the committee.

None of the transactions at gun shows, or person-to-person transactions, will be allowed to go through if somebody at the firearms centre is not answering the phone. As a matter of fact, the bureaucrats said they were going to have to be given notice. All of the gun show owners will have to notify the government that they are having gun shows, so the government can properly staff it on the weekends. Does this sound like a recipe for success and the government serving the Canadian people well? I do not think so. However, those who happen to be tech savvy can enter all of the information from their possession acquisition licences, and the buyer can get the possession acquisition licence from the seller.

Nobody has answered this question. If I have a possession acquisition licence and the person selling me a firearm has a restricted possession acquisition licence, nobody is checking to see if the person is selling me the right firearm. As a PAL holder, I am only allowed to purchase non-restricted firearms, but somebody with an RPAL could have in their possession a restricted or prohibited firearm that they could try to sell me. Is the system doing anything to validate that?

The government says it is not keeping track of information on the firearms, but there will be a reference number, so part of that reference number is going to have all of the information from my licence. It has a terrible picture, but it gives my name, date of birth, address, hair colour, eye colour, and my weight. I do not want to disclose that. There would also be the same information from the other party, and each transaction would have to be tracked. It is not each transaction, but each item on the transaction. If I were to buy three firearms at a gun show, I would have three registries with three different reference numbers, with my name and personal information on each one of those records. The name of the person I bought it from would be on each one of those records, or easily looked up, and of course the firearm information that is being transacted.

When I asked the Minister of Public Safety what the provision in the legislation was for when it comes to creating this transaction, he said we need to be able to trace the source of the crime back to the original firearm sale. Already there is an onus on law-abiding firearms owners. If someone's firearm is stolen, or a person sells it to someone and that firearm is stolen subsequent to that, the government wants to know all the way back to where that firearm was originally manufactured, purchased, and imported into Canada.

I do not have time today to talk about Bill C-47 and the Arms Trade Treaty, all of the other factors, the other registries, and all of the other information that the government has on Canadian law-abiding firearms owners. I did not have a chance to talk about the continuous eligibility. Every day, every firearms owner is flagged. Firearms owners are intelligent people. They know what laws make sense and what laws do not make sense.

I am hoping that I get a plethora of questions so that I can further elaborate on why Bill C-71 would do nothing for public safety. It is a registry, whether the government wants to admit it or not. Something cannot be traced against data that does not exist. When the data exists, it is in a registry. Trust me, this is what I used to do for a living. I built multi-million dollar software systems. I know what a database is, as a database administrator and a data architect. This is a registry, just with another name.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his very impassioned speech.

In 2016, there were 223 firearms-related homicides in Canada. That is 44 more than the year before. It was a 23% increase. Between 2013 and 2016, the number of female intimate violence victims, where a firearm was present during the incident, increased from 447 to 586. Last week, in my riding, there was a shooting in a very busy plaza where I normally buy my coffee. Luckily, no one was hurt.

Clearly, the Conservative government's plan to reduce gun violence did not work. We need to provide more support to law enforcement who risk their lives on a regular basis to protect ours.

Would the member opposite not agree that this legislation provides more support for law enforcement to keep us safe?

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

Madam Speaker, no; as a matter of fact, we heard statistics from the handful of witnesses who did manage to make it before the committee that completely debunk the myth.

Most firearms deaths in Canada are not caused by legally owned or legally acquired firearms. That is a myth. We can take a look at the statistical anomalies of the years 2013 up until 2016, and include 2013 in that number. Not only that, I did we not have the chance to talk about the fact that domestically sourced firearms also includes firearms for which the serial numbers are burned off, sheared off, or ground off, whatever the case might be, so that firearm might have actually been sourced outside of the country. It comes in, and because of the alteration made to the firearm, there is no way to trace it, so it gets lumped in with domestic firearms.

To my colleague who asked the question, if I thought some of the provisions in Bill C-71 would make her community safer, they would also make my community safer. We would both want that, and I would vote in favour of that.

The difference between the member and I is that I understand the problem in her community is likely gang related, and it is likely illegal guns, illegally owned and acquired guns, and it is likely related to violent crime.

I will be interested to see how the member votes on Bill C-75, which is going to make life easier for all the people she claims she wants to protect her voters from.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe for pronouncing his first words in French in the House of Commons, l'association des pêcheurs et des chasseurs du Québec.

Congratulations, member. I am sure the door is now wide open, and the road has plenty of opportunity for the member. I am sure he will do it again.

The hon. member, in English at that time, also expressed a real concern about hunters and those who like to fish and how we should all respect them. Unfortunately, this bill treats them as people we cannot have confidence in.

On the other hand, we see absolutely nothing in this bill to address the real problem of crime, of those who own arms to kill people, of criminals who use firearms to traffic, to commit violent crime, those involved with organized crime, and those who want to trade in firearms.

My question to the member is, what should this bill be addressing that it is not addressing?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a great question.

As my colleague aptly pointed out, the bill should be focusing not on the firearm itself, but on people who should not have firearms. It should be focused on criminals, those who steal or smuggle firearms. None of that is addressed in Bill C-71. It should be focused on things that Bill C-75 should be focused on.

Bill C-75 is the government's so-called legislation to make the justice system more efficient, which means the revolving door is going to go faster, and criminals will only suffer a bit of motion sickness going through that revolving door with ever-increasing speed. That is going to be the penalty they pay for association with a gang, theft, and all of these things that are causing people real problems.

With regard to straw purchases, there is nothing in the legislation about that. A straw purchase is when somebody might use a stolen licence to try to buy bulk firearms through illegal means and ends up putting those in the hands of organized crime. Is there anything in Bill C-71 that addresses that? No, not at all.

The enhanced check is not necessarily a bad thing, but I am not sure it is addressing the right issues. On a firearms possession acquisition licence, the chief firearms officers already have the ability to go back as far as they want, if they find something of concern.

On domestic violence, the bill does nothing. With the continuous eligibility clause on domestic violence, if a spouse calls the police and triggers that continuous eligibility, the next day the police will show up asking if there is a licence, if there are firearms in the house, saying that the have a domestic complaint and are going to take the firearms. That would already happen.

There is nothing in this bill, and there should be, dealing with mental health. When police officers pick people up on a mental health call, that should be flagged immediately. It should go into the Canadian Police Information Centre information system to see if that person has a firearms licence. If they do, there should be a knock on the door to see if everything is okay.

That is how to enhance public safety.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by my colleague because he knows this so well. I want him to address some of the misleading comments by the government to gain public support, and some of the contradictory statements. I am going to read him the actual government statement. It says, “The requirement for retailers to maintain their own private records is just that, they're private records of the retailers, and they will not be accessible to government.” However, the public safety minister, in a CBC interview on March 20, 2018, said that these records would be held by businesses only, not law enforcement or government. He mentioned how this is a registry.

I would like the member to consider and comment on section 102 of the Firearms Act, which grants the provinces' chief firearms officers full access to all store records and inventories at any time, and making copies of the records they find without explanation or justification. Bill C-71 does not repeal section 102 of the Firearms Act; therefore, the minister was not being upfront when he said that these records will not be accessible by the government or police, or that a search warrant is required to obtain them. Could he please comment on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to do so. As a matter of fact, the government seems to be in a bit of a conundrum on this, because we have heard varying and conflicting testimony before the committee. The chief firearms officer has the ability right now to go to any store and look at the records. We know that most stores keep those records anyway.

However, the chief firearms officer, after Bill C-71 passes, will also have immediate access to all of the person-to-person transactions that have been made with that associated reference number. Therefore, if I sell my firearm to somebody else, or he or she sells one to me, that will be captured as well. With respect to the business-to-business transactions, if one business chooses to sell those firearms to another, all those records will also come under the purview of government. The government will have control of those records. Should the business shut down and not pass on those records through the sale of the business, all of those records would automatically go to the government to be part of that transaction database as well.

This is where we need some further clarification. As a matter of fact, the responsible thing for all members of this House to do would be to know the definitive answer to this question. When we heard from the witnesses before the committee, there seemed to be a lot of confusion about this. The warrantless access of the chief firearms officer and the warranted access that an investigating officer would need is a blurry line. I did not make this up. This was told to us by the representatives of the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs. We have to be doing our due diligence and making sure that the privacy of Canadians is protected, and that their rights are not being violated through unwarranted search and seizure.