David Anderson

[An Act in Relation to Firearms, March 28th, 2018]

I think the NRA operates in the United States, Mr. Speaker.

The member across the way mentioned the long gun registry, but of course he does not want to talk about it. It cost the Liberals an awful lot in the past Parliament, and it will cost them again in the next election. He does not want the discussion to be about whether they are establishing a registry or not.

The reality is that the Liberals are not keeping their promises. The bill is not about public safety. The bill is about some sort of public relations campaign in which they are targeting legitimate firearm owners because they do not want to deal with gang violence. They do not want to deal with illegal gun activity, so they have chosen to avoid it one more time.

[An Act in Relation to Firearms, March 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I talked to a person who had been involved in this business for a while. He said that no one could get a response on the weekend. It was impossible to get a response. Now the government is telling us that every gun show across the country, every place that people go where they might be exchanging or buying firearms or whatever, are going to have to call in and get a reference number. However, no one is working.

As I mentioned earlier, someone who has been involved in this for a long time with the other gun registry said that this will require the hiring of hundreds of people to make this work. It will not be instantaneous. The authorization to transport typically will take two to three days. If that is the case, it will destroy the gun shows on which so many people across the country depend.

Also, I am very sorry that my colleague probably will not get his time today because of the time allocation motion the Liberals have brought in on Bill C-71. We are very sad to see the fact that our members are being muzzled because the Liberals do not want to have a discussion about these issues.

[An Act in Relation to Firearms, March 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Liberals are not actually dealing with the issue they claimed they were going to address which was gang violence and illegal gun activity. We know that the majority of that problem comes from smuggled guns and from firearms that have been stolen. This has nothing to do with that.

Even the member's question seems to be implying that they are going to be establishing a gun registry and that it is an important thing for them to do. Canadians across the country need to pay attention to the questions they are asking. They need to pay attention to the reference numbers that are going to be required for every single firearm transaction. Are the Liberals setting up a gun registry as they promised they would not do, or what is it that they are doing?

[An Act in Relation to Firearms, March 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, if I have any extra time, I want to share it with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

The member for Scarborough—Rouge Park talked about the number of mothers in his riding and other Canadians who have been fundamentally affected by gun violence. He must be bitterly disappointed in the bill that has come forward, because it never mentions the words “gangs” or “criminal organization”. These words never come up in the bill and yet he is talking about how he wants to see those kinds of things being impacted.

He is not the only one on the Liberal side, I am sure, that is disappointed with the bill. The members of the Liberal rural caucus have failed to protect their constituents one more time.

Here we are talking again about a Liberal-imposed gun registry. The Liberals' commitment was to deal with guns, with gang violence, and with illegal activity. This legislation would not deal with any of that.

Some familiar patterns are taking place here. Over the last while, Liberal members have been playing it easy. They want to take the easy way out. They take an initiative and when the pressure is on, they drop it. We saw that with electoral reform. We saw it with tax hikes on small businesses. They often make up phony statistics to try to make things more palatable to Canadians.

We also see them deliberately dividing Canadians in the hopes of getting some political gain. We have watched them try to isolate small groups to get some advantage. We saw that in things like the carbon tax and recently the summer jobs program. They use selective or misleading information to try to create an opportunity to advance their issues.

The Liberals want to go easy on the laws that they do not want to actually enforce. We have seen that through bills such as the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. We have seen it on immigration, where they ignore the rules and will not enforce the rules as they are put in place. We saw it again obviously with respect to the payment to Mr. Khadr, when they jumped ahead of the court and decided to make a payment because the Chrétien government would have looked bad if they had not done that.

It looks like all of those bad habits have come together in Bill C-71. The Liberals are trying to manipulate the Canadian public. They are trying to work PR angles on this with information that they know is untrue. They are using this to divide Canadians one more time. They are taking the easy way out by avoiding the real issues, which are gang violence and illegal gun activity. The Liberals are doing what they said they would not do, which is setting up the basics of a renewed long gun registry.

The way this bill was introduced showed us that the Liberals are deliberately trying to set up legitimate firearms owners as the fall guys. Someone mentioned the Prime Minister's tweet a few minutes ago. The press release that came out with the bill is another example. Part of it declares that in Canada, restricted firearms are made up of “handguns, certain rifles, and semi-automatics”. I do not know if members know about firearms laws in Canada, but this is inaccurate. It is a complete fabrication about semi-automatics. This may be the goal of the government today but that is not what the legislative reality is. Canadian firearms owners need to pay attention to this early misinformation.

That is not the only misinformation that was presented. CBC, of all organizations, did an analysis of the statistics used by the Liberals in their press release and their communications. The Liberals focused on 2013. CBC reported that 2013 saw Canada's lowest rate of criminal homicide in 50 years, the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada. Every year since 1966 has been worse than 2013. The Liberals took a year when all the stats were lower than they have been for decades and they used that to compare to today, and today is still below the 30 year average. Just a few minutes ago a Liberal member actually used those statistics again.

The CBC report goes on to talk about Canada's homicide rate. It said that the rate in 2018 is similar to or lower than it was in 2008 or 1998. It is well below 1988 and 1978. It is similar to what it was in 1968. The rate today is very close to that in 1928. It goes on to say that if one were to ask how 2016 compared with the decade before, one would find the rate of firearms homicides remains boringly unchanged, including the rate of homicides with handguns. I am sure some members have been taken with that article and have read it through as well.

The CBC report concluded that none of this constitutes as they call it a “steady increase”. The CBC said that this is what a statistician might reasonably call a steady decrease.

It is not accurate to say that offences involving firearms have become more prevalent, especially since 2013.

That is not the only place where the Liberals have been misleading Canadians. There is a second media report. The CBC, after the government briefing I assume, stated, “Police will be able to determine who exactly was the last licensed firearms owner to purchase a particular gun.” If the government has the capacity to track the last legitimate owner of every firearm in Canada, that actually accomplishes the goals of a firearms registry.

Are the Liberals setting up a gun registry or are they not? They have given up on gangs and they are ganging up on Canadians. In this process they need to distort the facts or they know that Canadians will not accept that. The bill itself is a lot of nothing and what is there for the most part is targeting legitimate gun owners and business people as it lays the foundation for a new registry.

Again, the CBC article says that every firearm will be tied to its owner. That is not possible unless the government uses a new reference number system, which we will talk about in a couple of minutes, to track individuals and their firearms. People need to pay attention to this. This is the foundation for establishing a registry. It lays out the components of a registry. There is a front door registry by returning all the data to Quebec.

Canadians also need to ask if any other data exist, because in the legislation it says that the changes that we made will be designated to have never existed. If there is other data that exist, are the Liberals going to bring that back and use that across this country? We need to know that. Some people should start taking a closer look at this.

It sets up a backdoor registry. In the past when people purchased a firearm they had to verify that the other person had a licence. Businesses have put that number on file and everyone I have ever dealt with has done that. Adding new requirements, such as the reference number, the serial number, the buyer and a 20-year hold, allows for the establishment of a gun registry. The reference number for private transactions is even more interesting because it actually makes no sense. It will not be one single bit effective unless it is the first step in requiring the private registration of firearms. Again it is a registry.

This needs to be understood. It has a pile of consequences. It has consequences regarding the invasion of privacy, the question of financing the register, and the entire reference implementation and how it is being put together.

I talked to a friend who has been involved in this for a while and he said this new set-up is going to require hundreds of employees in order to handle these reference numbers. I would like to know what the budget is. Is it perhaps $2 million like the last one? What number will that grow to? We need to know that quickly.

The provision on background checks requires the examination of extended time periods on the application process. It is okay, but is it really effective? Those background checks are already very thorough.

I want to wrap up by saying that this bill divides Canadians on bad assumptions. The manipulated data make it look like there is a growing problem when there is not one. The legislation targets only legitimate firearms owners and marks them. The Liberals have avoided the hard work because gang issues are hard to deal with. Regular Canadians are a lot easier to beat on.

The Liberals have come forward with a phony piece of legislation. It sets the groundwork for a front door registry and a backdoor registry. It uses deliberately distorted statistics to scare people. None of us knows what it will cost. It will make it more expensive and inconvenient for honest people. It will lay the groundwork for the registry in Quebec and the foundation for a registry across this country. It picks out legitimate firearm owners and does not deal with the problems the Liberals claim they are trying to address.

[Privilege, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I think one of the reasons for the request today is that today is the deadline for much of the application process around the Canada summer jobs program. We did not want to waste your time, Mr. Speaker. We had hoped that the pressure would lead the government to drop the requirement. That is not so, and now we find ourselves here today.

I am rising on the same question of privilege, on the Canada summer jobs program. I want to highlight two points that I think are relevant to this discussion. In order to do our jobs as members of Parliament, we must be able to represent our constituents fairly, based on the charter and on the legislation passed by Parliament.

While the policies of the various parties guide them as they move forward, until these policies are implemented through legislation, they do not become the law of Canada and they cannot direct MPs in their work.

Through the added requirements for the Canada summer jobs program, the Liberal government has created barriers based solely on its party policy. The requirement to attest to Liberal Party policy limits my capacity to represent my constituents and creates an issue of privilege for me. It has also made it impossible for many of my constituents to access a government program because of their inability to support the Liberal Party policy.

My role requires me to support the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that includes the right to belief, faith, personal conscience, and opinion. I have been happy to do that. Indeed, in the 17 years I have been here, I have never seen or had to deal with an applicant for the Canada summer jobs program who did not accede to the rights laid out by the charter and the Parliament of Canada. There have been many programs I agree with, and many others I disagree with. However, the rights and requirements of each were a matter of parliamentary discussion and decision.

However, that is no longer the case. This winter, that all changed. In its implementation of the 2018 Canada summer jobs program, the government added additional requirements for my participation and for the participation of my constituents. Long-time recipients of CSJ funding were denied even the opportunity to apply because of the additional requirements, which consisted of an attestation that emphasized Liberal Party policy. These rejected applicants included private businesses, charities, camps, and municipal governments.

The issue here is not actually the content of the attestation, on which people hold a variety of positions. It is about having to agree to it at all. Members must not be required to adhere to the governing party's policy in order to access programming. That is a practice that may take place in other countries, but it has never been part of our national fabric. When we had a vote in the House, every party had representatives who supported that position.

The required attestation has impeded my ability to represent my constituents. As many have pointed out, the issue is not whether we agree with Liberal Party policy in this case. The issue is the requirement to attest to it. We allow many different points of view in this country. Requiring applicants to assert belief in a policy and MPs to attest to it in order to participate is a question of privilege.

There is a second aspect to my question of privilege. The government has presented and insisted that misleading information, which is a condition for a question of privilege, be part of the Canada summer jobs program application and participation.

The charter and LGBT rights are enshrined in law and codes. As I mentioned, in 17 years I have never had an applicant who has made an issue of this in his or her application.

The issue of reproductive rights is a topic of much discussion, both in this country and around the world. It is clear that there is a wide variety of positions on those rights, even in this House. The one thing they are not is a charter right in Canada. The admonition to legislate on this issue was invited by the Supreme Court some 25 years ago, and to this point Parliament has declined to legislate.

Inaccurate and misleading information is part of the attestation that individuals and organizations must sign. It has been reinforced by numerous other communication pieces of the government. It is that misleading information that has made it impossible for me to participate, and that has prevented my constituents from participating.

Our members' privileges can be violated by the provision of inaccurate information. If we look at the attestation, we see that it is inaccurate. I and the applicants are required to adhere to the charter and respect LGBT rights, but we are not required to subscribe to Liberal Party policy distinctives around reproductive rights in order to participate in Canadian—

[An Act in Relation to Firearms, March 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, Joe Jordan is a former Liberal MP. I remember reading a couple of weeks ago that he suggested that if the Liberals were to bring this bill in, they should pass it as quickly as possible, basically before Canadians are really aware of the contents and can step forward and oppose it. Therefore, it looks like members of the rural caucus from across the way have failed their constituents one more time.

I want to ask a specific question about reference numbers. There is a procedure that is being introduced to track firearms' sales across Canada. In order to obtain a reference number, businesses need to not only have the buyer's name but also the buyer's licence number, as well as the firearm's serial number. Therefore, we see all the foundations being put in place for a registry across Canada. However, we are told that private transactions would also require a reference number.

At any point, will the process to obtain a reference number for a private transaction require the firearm to be identified in any way?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 26th, 2018]

With regard to concerns about human rights: what are the details, including dates, of all occasions when the Prime Minister has raised human rights with the following governments (i) China, (ii) Iran, (iii) Russia?

[Supplementary Estimates (C), 2017-18, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I was out when the vote started, came in, and voted, so I think my name should be removed from the roster.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the great job he is doing here today and his very interesting speech.

I want to change the direction a little. Daniel Jean is not the average civil servant. The members across the way are trying to convince us there is some sort of attack on the civil service here, but this is a person whose career has actually led him to the position of national security adviser. I would like to ask my colleague whether he believes the Liberals are actually damaging Mr. Jean's reputation, because I do not think any of us believe he came out and did that security briefing without being pushed out there by the Liberals.

The PM refuses to give clarity. There is no clarity from the foreign affairs minister, and Canadians really do not think Mr. Jean came up with this story on his own. I wonder if the member could comment on whether he thinks the Liberals will continue working to destroy Mr. Jean's career, or will they let him come forward and be clear on what really happened that day and speak to the rest of the members of Parliament?

[The Environment, March 22nd, 2018]

It's a tax on a tax.