Mark Holland LiberalParliamentary 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.