Debates of June 4th, 2018

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a great deal of opposition from the Conservative Party in regard to Bill C-71. I believe it is the only party in the House. The New Democrats, the Greens, the government of the day, and I expect even the representative from the CCF have ultimately recognized the value of Bill C-71 as a piece of legislation that is needed.

The Prime Minister talked about the importance of the issue. It is now before us. I am not 100% sure that it is at committee, but I believe it is. Let us avoid this backdoor stuff, because that is not reality. Within the current legislation, what is it specifically that is so upsetting to the Conservative Party?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, during my speech, I talked about it. The Liberals are singling out law-abiding citizens in this country, and that is a problem. I only have to talk about Allan Rock in the House when we talk about the gun registry. Two million dollars turned into $2 billion very quickly. We are very concerned about this. We know where the government is going with this bill. We see another registry. This is totally what the government is doing.

Why has it not consulted with first nation groups? The hon. member talked about that. It is another disturbing point, because day in and day out, all the Liberals talk about is the indigenous people and how important they are to this country, yet they have not consulted them on Bill C-71.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Conservative colleague for his expression of concern, because I have been quite baffled, having read Bill C-71, as to why the Conservative Party is alarming people who are legal gun owners, lawful citizens of Canada. I understand it better now, but when I read the legislation, it does not add up.

I think this legislation as very valuable. I ask my hon. colleague if he disagrees that it is not better to ensure that when we do checks on someone's history, in terms of mental health and whether we would want such an individual to own a gun, that we do not stop at the current legislation, which only goes back five years, but that we actually look at the lifetime record of an individual and decide whether that person should be able to buy a firearm. Surely a lot of Conservative families and communities would feel very relieved to know that there was a lifetime check, not just the current five years.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are all for public safety. Twenty years is a long time. Many businesses change hands. We all know that when we buy a gun from Cabela's or somewhere else in this country. We know that gangs in this country will not walk into a store and register their names or do all the things they have to do. This is what we want to have corrected in this country through Bill C-71. Law-abiding citizens are being picked on in the bill, while gang members are not. Law-abiding citizens have for years and decades been law-abiding. They are the safest with guns, yet the bill does little to give them any support whatsoever.

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

Mr. Speaker, for decades leading up to 1995, retailers selling guns had to keep track of the transactions. It was common sense. It was not a registry of any kind. We did it for a very long time, and it disappeared with the long-gun registry and the repeal of the long-gun registry. It looked like a mistake, and it is being corrected now.

Does the member and his party think that we should not keep track of the sales of guns in any way, shape, or form?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think we should. I am wondering about gang members, though, because we do not see any legislation that targets them. That is the biggest issue with the bill. Law-abiding citizens have been law-abiding forever in this country. Now we have gang members that are not registering guns. The bill does not talk about them, so we are upset about the bill.

The other issue we are upset about is not talking to first nations. The committee did not hear enough information from first nations. We think this is important. They have a big say on this too.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, we have many debates in this chamber on which there are genuine differences of opinion, when there are two different perspectives, and perhaps empirical fact does not lend itself to clearly give evidence as to which side might be right. When we have those debates, of course, we hope that those debates are informed by facts and information, that there is not distortion, and that games are not played. Unfortunately, being in the business of politics, sometimes that happens. Few times have I seen it done with such force and vigour and as over the top as on Bill C-71.

The bill in question was actually part of the platform the party ran on in the last election, from which we had a vigorous debate across this country. It was proceeded by, over the last couple of years, discussions in every corner of this country, including with first nations chiefs, chiefs of police, the firearms community, and others about how exactly the promises we made in the election platform might come to bear, might come to pass. As a result of those consultations, which I will go through in my discussion, we changed a number of elements in our platform in response to the feedback we got. It should be understood that not only was there an unbelievable amount of dialogue on this but that the imperative for action could be no more clear.

We do not hold Bill C-71 out as a panacea, as something that is going to fix all the terrible problems that deal with gun violence. By the way, gun violence manifests itself in many forms. It can manifest itself in suicide. It can manifest itself in gang violence. It can manifest itself in domestic violence. In every single one of those categories since 2013, we have seen as much as a two-thirds increase in firearms violence. Some in committee have passed that off as not a big deal. Numbers go up, and numbers go down. The reality is that for decades, when it came to gun-related injuries, gun-related violence, the numbers were on a downward trend. Since 2013, we have seen a spike way up. As sensible legislators, we should pay attention to that. The idea that we would dismiss it as not a big deal is abhorrent to me.

I will speak for a few moments about specifically why it is so important and why this bill addresses some of those things. Then I will speak about many of the other things our government is doing to try to address the broader problem.

I will start with background checks. Background checks are not a new concept to this House in terms of going back five years. In fact, it was former minister Jason Kenney who proposed that background checks should go past five years. We agree, and that is why it is in this legislation.

Some may ask why that is important. Let us take a domestic violence situation. Let us take a situation where a young woman is in a relationship with a man with a violent past. There may be violence in that relationship, but she is afraid to come forward, and she stays in that abusive relationship, sadly. However, eventually she escapes. She leaves. The man, outraged, purchases a gun, legally, because he has no connection to the criminal market, and then kills his former girlfriend. That happens, very sadly, all too often in this country. Someone who has a violent history, particularly a violent history against women, should not be able to legally purchase a gun.

Some have asked what happens if that person had a minor transgression in the past. The legislation is very clear that we are dealing with circumstances that specifically deal with a history of violence or mental instability. These are individuals who clearly should not be able to get weapons. Just because that did not happen in a five-year window does not mean that if it is longer than that, they should be able to purchase weapons.

The committee heard very moving and compelling testimony from Alison Irons, who lost her daughter Lindsay. She talked very specifically about this exact circumstance. It particularly hit home, because Alison was a resident of Ajax.

I have look at other circumstances and have talked, as I did as a critic and I do now as a parliamentary secretary, again and again about circumstances where people who had violent histories that went back further than five years were able to walk in and a buy gun and then shot someone dead. Now members tell me that this legislation does not have force or effect. That is absolute nonsense.

The reality is that background checks are essential, not just in those circumstances but in circumstances in which people are in a situation of self-harm and have a history of hurting themselves and of general instability. We have an obligation to make sure that those people also do not own firearms.

Another item in the bill, which, confusingly, the Conservatives have tried to conflate as a registry, is the requirement that stores keep records on the guns they sell. There are two things that are very important about that. One of the things we added as a change from what we moved in the platform was to say that for police to get that information, they would require judicial access. That means that for police to get the records of the store, they would have to demonstrate that they were going to help them solve a crime. Why on earth would anyone be opposed to that? How on earth could anyone say that would be a bad idea?

Let me give members some examples. Let us say that someone commits a crime. A weapon is found. Police go back to the store and ask where the gun came from. Who was it was sold to? Right now, some stores do not keep records. Most do. In fact, in the United States, this requirement has been in effect for decades.

When the police walk into the store and ask for that record, if the store clerk says that they do not keep records, that is the end of the search and the end of the investigation. Clearly, it makes sense for those records to be kept so that we know what happened to those firearms in an instance when they were used in a crime.

The notion that somehow it is a registry, when the only way the government could ever see it is with judicial access when it would help solve a crime, is not only misleading but is playing politics with crime. It is beneath this place. To send out Facebook ads saying that there is a new registry coming, based on this flimsy nonsense, instead of debating the actual public safety merits of the bill, is abhorrent.

Another element of the bill that has been discussed is the ATT. We did talk during the campaign about an authorization to transport. Let us remember that we are speaking about restricted and prohibited weapons. We are not talking about hunting rifles. We are not talking about shotguns. We are not talking about unrestricted weapons. We are talking about semi-automatic weapons that are restricted, we are talking about handguns, and we are talking about people who are allowed to own prohibited weapons. It is a very limited class of firearms. What we said during the campaign was that any time people put those in the car and drive them someplace, they had better prove that they have a reason for where they are taking them.

We listened to the firearms community, and many said that if they were taking them to their gun range, it would be pretty clear where they were taking them, and they should not have to get an ATT. By the way, that constitutes a little more than 90% of the cases. It was pretty reasonable, so we made a change. We backed off and said we were only going to require gun owners to have that authorization to transport if they were taking their guns somewhere other than the gun range. That leaves about 10%, 8%, or maybe 7% of the cases, depending on the year. In this instance, we are again talking about someone who is transporting a restricted or prohibited weapon.

Some have said that police cannot pull someone over because a weapon is in the car. I can tell members that I have talked with police officers who say that they have pulled folks over for one thing and have noticed that there was a prohibited or restricted weapon in the car, and they have asked where they were taking it. Under the current regime, there are a number of places people can say they are taking it. In fact, a person could drive every day of the week with a prohibited or restricted weapon in the car and never have to have a reason or excuse for it.

This legislation says that in those limited circumstances in which a person is taking a weapon somewhere other than the range, it will require an ATT. By the way, it is free, and it can be sent electronically so that people can just show it on their phones.

It is important, as a government, to send a message that if a person has a prohibited or restricted firearm, it is a very special privilege, and if a person is going to be out in the world with that, there are a very limited number of places a person can take it.

By having clear legislation on the requirement to have an authorization to transport, that sends a clear message that one cannot drive around with a restricted or prohibited weapon anywhere one wants to go. I think that is a reasonable way of working with law-abiding firearms owners in making sure we do not have thugs who can just throw weapons in the back of their car and drive anywhere they want to go.

[An hon. member]

That's what thugs do.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

What thugs do is to make sure they are able to keep weapons in their car and not have to answer any questions. That is what they are going to do. They are going to put the weapons in the car and drive wherever they go. They know that if they are pulled over by a police officer, all they have to do is list one of a million different places to explain where they are going. That is what this legislation changes.

On purchase verification, which is very important, today when we are dealing with people who are not gun store owners but individuals who are selling to another individual, there is no way of being sure that the individuals in question have an up-to-date and valid PAL. As an example, if somebody has committed a series of crimes and they still have their card, they can purchase that gun without any check. Therefore, all this legislation requires one to do is to make a very quick call. It costs nothing. No information is given about the firearm, except to say, “Hey, I am going to sell; this person is going to buy. Is everybody okay here? Is the PAL up to date? Is this person allowed to own a gun? Am I allowed to sell a gun?” If it is yes, then away one goes.

That then allows a person to sell 10 or 20 weapons and there is no information about the firearm. However, it makes sure that the people who are buying and selling are doing so legitimately and are in fact law-abiding gun owners. What we are finding is that, very sadly, many of the firearms that are now being sold on our streets are being sold not because they are being smuggled or snuck into Canada, but they are being sold from within Canada, from within the existing stock of guns. Unfortunately, that means that a lot of people are taking law-abiding firearms owners' weapons and then selling them to gangs.

These are statistics. These are facts. It has been explained very clearly by the chiefs of police, who by the way support this bill. They say it is an important change, and it is needed for public safety. I put some stock in what the chiefs of police tell us. I do not think they go around saying that public safety changes are important for no reason.

The other thing that comes up is the RCMP classification of weapons. Some have said that there should be a check on the RCMP. Let us be very clear: that check is the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code of Canada very clearly prescribes in this country what is a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, and an unrestricted weapon. It is up to the RCMP to interpret that legislation. In fact, they do it about 8,000 times a year. The idea that politicians could overturn that effectively means the provisions we put into the Criminal Code have no meaning.

It is our job as legislators to describe at the highest level what those classifications should be in terms of those prohibited, restricted, and unrestricted weapons. It is the job of the RCMP, as an independent arm's-length arbiter, to then enforce it. It is not up to politicians to say that this particular semi-automatic weapon seems to be popular, so let us just override the RCMP. The RCMP has an important job to do, and it is important that we let them do that job. That is why we made that commitment in the platform.

I mentioned earlier in my speech that these are not the only things we are doing to make Canada's streets and our communities safer. There is a litany of things we are doing to try to improve public safety, but it is a piece of the puzzle. For example, when we had the guns and gangs summit in Ottawa, which was hosted by the minister, and that I and many members of this House were privileged to be a part of, we talked about the money we are putting into communities, escalating to $100 million a year, to help build the capacity to deal with what gun and gang violence looks like in each individual community.

We saw that reality in Ajax, my home community, where unfortunately there was a shooting at our ribfest. It is unheard of for us to see this kind of gun violence in our neck of the woods. The realities of what we can do to change the problem of guns and gangs, suicides, and domestic violence differ very much from what we would see in a community, let us say, Red Deer, Alberta, or Summerside, P.E.I. Those communities need to be given the funds, resources, and support to be able to build those solutions from the ground up.

I say that as a former member of the Police Services Board in Durham region. I so often saw self-evident solutions that needed to be funded and supported, but the box we had to contort ourselves in was created in Ottawa or Queen's Park. It was frankly completely disconnected from what was actually going to work on the ground in those communities. That is one of the reasons why our biggest push is for support at the community level, to give them the capacity and strength they need to be able to tackle this problem. Of course, we have done this in addition to a whole host of measures to improve border security to stop the illegal smuggling of weapons across the border.

This is something that has been brought out in testimony at committee, and I want to say it here today. It is unfortunate that every time we talk about firearms, violence, and death, we do not talk about suicide. We only talk about gangs. We do not talk about the tremendous problem we have with domestic violence as well. We have to come at this from every angle. That means the debate we have on these issues must be worthy of the weight of the issue.

That means when people send a Facebook ad pretending that there is a new registry, that dishonest action is unworthy of the debate we must have in this place. I know that for every single one of us, every member, our hearts are ripped apart when we see gun violence tear into our community. Whether it is somebody walking into a mosque in Sainte-Foy and tearing down the congregants who were just trying to pray, or a domestic violence situation in my own riding where a father killed a mother and his own children, or somebody who commits suicide in our community, the weight of what is in front of us is important. It is something that obviously I am very passionate about.

I hope that folks can see, as well, that it means we have to take action, but at the same time we must protect and support law-abiding gun owners. That is why none of these measures cost anything. Most of these measures, in fact almost in their entirety, only deal with restricted or prohibited firearms, the most limited class of firearms. Unfortunately, most of the debate against it has gone into hyperbole with respect to things that have nothing to do with this bill.

Therefore, do I think that we should go 85 days touring around on something that was in the platform and requires immediate action when we have so much other work to do? No. It is time to pass this bill. It is time to move forward on the other collective actions we can do to make our communities safe. I look forward to doing exactly that.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member had to say. However, I have just come back from a trip across Canada with Veterans Affairs, visiting many indigenous communities across Canada. I noticed that the public safety advisory committee on firearms has no one from that community on it. We know the extensive concerns around firearms in those communities. I am wondering if that concerns him that they are not represented at all on that advisory committee.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of speaking before the advisory committee on firearms, which we are trying to make more representative. Unfortunately, for a very long time, it was not representative at all. We want to make sure that we have that diversity of opinion. Certainly, we have engaged in talks with the chiefs across the country on this specific issue. I think that making sure there is a better voice on the advisory committee is a good idea. It is something that I am committed to finding a path toward. I think that advisory body needs to be as representative as possible of all the different perspectives: public health, firearms use, community, victims, technical experts, policing, and of course our indigenous communities. I think the more representative in its view, the more representatively it collects that information, the better it will do its job.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have had confirmation that first nations were not consulted and that they even consider Bill C-71 unconstitutional.

Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that he has the approval of first nations and that first nations people are going to comply with Bill C-71?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we take consultation very seriously. We spoke with the first nations chiefs on the bill. This was also something we ran on and debated at doorsteps all across the country, with indigenous Canadians, and Canadians from all different backgrounds. That was a couple of years ago now. We have had an enormous amount of discussion on the bill.

I look at all the bills before the House, and this is one of the more scoped bills. It has seen a lot of change, frankly in the member's direction, since it was introduced. I do not see other bills, particularly ones that were part of the party platform, receiving this same kind of call for additional scrutiny. There have been a tremendous number of witnesses. The bill is at the clause-by-clause stage. The member has an amendment, which I would encourage members to consider and support, that reinforces the notion that this is absolutely not a registry. That is a helpful amendment that I look forward to him moving, and I look forward to Liberal members supporting it. There are ways that we continue to work forward on this, but it is time to get the job done.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for setting the record straight and clearing up the fog of confusion and alarm created by the other side.

People from the group “Poly Remembers”, whom I had the privilege of welcoming to my constituency office, consider the bill a step forward on the traceability and registration of transactions. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which has confirmed that this is not a registry, underscored that registering transactions provides a measure of accountability.

I wonder if my colleague could explain in greater detail the advantages of this bill in terms of respect for law-abiding citizens, as well as the benefits of improving the monitoring of transactions and the traceability of firearms.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important point, which is that we tried with the bill to listen to, for example, the firearms community. I gave an example on the ATT, the authorization to transport, where we made the change that said it is not required when someone is going to their gun range. Another change we made was adding the requirement for judicial access in order to be able to go after the records, because we wanted to make it clear—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The interpretation was not working, but it is working now.

I will ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to perhaps go back 30 seconds and pick it up from there.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was mentioning that the member made an excellent point in talking about the ways we have listened to the firearms community, the law-abiding firearms users in the debate. There were the changes to the authorization to transport, the ATT, saying that one is not required to get that ATT if they are going to their gun club. There was the change on store records, saying that we could only access them with judicial access. The reason was that we wanted to make it abundantly clear that the government can only get this information when it is going to help solve a crime. However, it is important, and it is one of the reasons the debate needs to move forward.

This is a small piece of a much bigger puzzle. We have a lot of work to do to deal with the problem of guns, gangs, suicide, and domestic violence. This bill needs to move forward so we can do the sensible and intelligent things it seeks to do to keep our community safe, but also so we can move forward to the other things we need to do to move the ball in this very important direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his comments. Nothing has done more to get me more votes in the next election than his speech. Nothing has done more to fill up my party's bank account and my EDA's bank account than the actions taken by the current Liberal government. It is the old fire, aim, ready approach of the Liberals when it comes to firearms.

This is a government that claims to make decisions based on evidence and science, so I would like to ask my hon. colleague the following questions. How many stores do not keep records? Where is the report from Public Safety Canada on that particular issue? Where is the public safety report that backs up any of the changes that are made in this legislation with any evidence or science, and why does the member and his party continue to create false narratives to get elected and then use emotional consensus to govern? It makes no sense.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member's question shows the difference in how we think about this issue. He stands to talk about how many votes he is going to win and how much money he is going to raise. I am here to talk about how many lives we are going to save. I am here to talk about public safety. I am here to talk about how we are going to make our communities safer.

Specifically on the member's questions, if there are no stores that do not keep records, then why would he care about putting in legislation that ensures they all do? It is absolutely absurd logic. The member is saying that because he cannot name a store that does not keep records, we should not have a rule that stores keep records. Obviously, records must be kept.

By the way, if criminals know that stores do not have a requirement to keep records, where would they want to buy a gun? Would they go to a place that keeps records, or a place that does not? If people want to open a shady gun business in today's environment, they could open a store that does not keep records, and the rules today allow it.

In terms of cases, if the member opposite wants to talk directly with people who would be affected by this bill, and whose lives would be affected by this bill, let us talk any day of the week, anytime. If he wants to stop talking about votes and money, let us talk about lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it really rich that when my hon. colleague started his speech, he used the word “distortions”. He is accusing this side of the House of distorting the facts.

There is no greater distorter of facts than the Liberals. When I have the opportunity to speak in a couple of minutes, I will speak to that specifically, how the evidence and the stats have been so manipulated to try to sway public opinion that it is actually quite abhorrent.

We heard from Ms. Irons in committee. Her circumstance is horrible. What people need to understand about that circumstance is that the law at the time would have prohibited that individual from acquiring a firearm, as it does right now, today, before Bill C-71. It was human error that allowed that individual to acquire a firearm. This bill does nothing to prevent human error.

The fact that the Liberals are trying to suggest that this bill is going to solve that sort of circumstance is absolutely disgusting.

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

It is not going to save anyone.

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

That is exactly it.

What is the Liberal government thinking, and why does it not understand that groups like the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which represents hundreds of thousands of people in the province of Ontario, suggest that this bill is not going to do what it suggests it is going to do?

Where is the consultation with groups like that? Why has the government not listened to them on this particular bill?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note that I have mere seconds to respond, which gives me a difficult challenge to be able to respond fully.

I welcome the opportunity to talk to the member anytime in more detail. However, I will say that the chiefs of police, and the police more broadly, have spoken very clearly to the public safety imperativeness. During the course of my speech, I have tried to explain, very specifically, the reasons why these measures are required.

What we hear from members opposite is vague obfuscations about there not being any answers, but they do not provide any specifics in terms of what exactly their objection is to what is in the bill. That is my contention with what they are purporting to put forward.

I look forward to clause-by-clause. We begin that tomorrow, and hopefully it will be a more productive debate.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the government's response to three petitions and 11 questions on the Order Paper.

[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.