Bill C-71 (Historical)

An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms

Part 1 of this Act amends the Firearms Act to, among other things,
(a) remove the reference to the five-year period, set out in subsection 5(2) of that Act, that applies to the mandatory consideration of certain eligibility criteria for holding a licence;
(b) require, when a non-restricted firearm is transferred, that the transferee’s firearms licence be verified by the Registrar of Firearms and that businesses keep certain information related to the transfer; and
(c) remove certain automatic authorizations to transport prohibited and restricted firearms.
Part 1 also amends the Criminal Code to repeal the authority of the Governor in Council to prescribe by regulation that a prohibited or restricted firearm be a non-restricted firearm or that a prohibited firearm be a restricted firearm and, in consequence, the Part
(a) repeals certain provisions of regulations made under the Criminal Code; and
(b) amends the Firearms Act to grandfather certain individuals and firearms, including firearms previously prescribed as restricted or non-restricted firearms in those provisions.
Furthermore, Part 1 amends section 115 of the Criminal Code to clarify that firearms and other things seized and detained by, or surrendered to, a peace officer at the time a prohibition order referred to in that section is made are forfeited to the Crown.
Part 2, among other things,
(a) amends the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, by repealing the amendments made by the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, to retroactively restore the application of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to the records related to the registration of non-restricted firearms until the day on which this enactment receives royal assent;
(b) provides that the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act continue to apply to proceedings that were initiated under those Acts before that day until the proceedings are finally disposed of, settled or abandoned; and
(c) directs the Commissioner of Firearms to provide the minister of the Government of Quebec responsible for public security with a copy of such records, at that minister’s request.

Firearms Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[An hon. member]

Is she okay with it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my colleague's speech he talked about this being a registry, and we have heard this time and time again coming from the opposition. I would offer to the House that is nothing more than a red herring.

The Conservatives do not have an argument and do not have a solid position on this issue. Time and time again they suggest that this is a registry when they know full well that it is not. Do not take my word for it though. Let us return to the member for Red Deer—Lacombe who said in committee, “everybody at this table agrees that this is not a registry”.

In the context of being in committee where people can talk freely and have a discussion about this, members of the Conservative Party are saying that and then they come into the House and insist it is a registry.

Is the member now suggesting that the member for Red Deer—Lacombe was incorrect and that he was wrong when he said it is not a registry? Or are the Conservatives just coming here with their talking points because they have no other argument against this legislation? Is that the more plausible thing?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was dreaming of this question. I thank the member for asking it. Typical for the Liberal Party, that quote was taken completely out of context. I was right beside the member for Red Deer—Lacombe. It is a quote.

What is really interesting is that the Liberals can say whatever they want in clause 2 of this act, and then throughout the rest of the bill, they continue to act as if the bill is a registry. They keep reference numbers there. They keep the whole context of “registrar” and “registry”. It is not what we think. Tens of thousands of Canadians, who have already voiced their disapproval of this bill, still consider it to be a gun registry. Canadians have heard the rhetoric of the Liberal Party before. They could not be trusted before, and they certainly cannot be trusted now. We will wait and see.

This bill is pointless. It has nothing to do with the real issues of guns and gangs. We do not need any lessons from the Liberal Party on what Canadians know is best for them when it comes to gun legislation.