Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the second reading of Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Firearms Act.

We all know that guns have the capacity to inflict grave damage, to take a life or save a life, or to protect people or property. It all depends on whose hand is on the trigger.

Firearms are used every day in Canada by law-abiding citizens and by criminals alike. A Torontonian doesn’t need a rifle to keep coyotes out of a barn, but a farmer in Saskatchewan does. Neither needs an AK-47 or an Uzi or a Glock.

(1450)

There is no denying that gun-related violent crimes are on the rise, which is why it is so puzzling that the government has made this bill a priority — a bill that aims to tighten current gun laws affecting law-abiding citizens — when handgun violence committed by gangs, criminals, wannabe terrorists or those with mental health issues is what is wreaking havoc in our cities today.

That is where our focus and the legislative focus should be.

Handgun homicides have increased 60 per cent in the past year. The bulk of those deaths have been carried out by gang members or criminals.

In 2016, 115 people died because of gang violence, initiation rituals, acts of revenge, drug or gun deals gone bad. This criminal activity also led to the deaths of not just gang members, but of innocent bystanders, even children playing in parks.

We clearly have a problem with the illegal use of illegally held guns in the commission of crimes.

Since the 1990s handguns have become the weapon of choice in homicides. Before 1990, Statistics Canada said shotguns and rifles were used far more frequently. Now handguns account for six in 10 homicides. I think that shines a light on the real problem.

My home province of Saskatchewan has the painful distinction of having the highest crime rate in the country, both rural and urban. Saskatchewan’s rural crime rate is being compared to the rate in Toronto. But while the rate is higher, the actual numbers tell a different story. Saskatchewan had 37 homicides in 2017, a third of which were committed with firearms. Toronto is currently at 91, 47 of which have been shootings.

Domestic violence and suicides obviously can and do involve the use of legal weapons by registered owners, although suicide by gun is at least declining. But this kind of violence also has other triggers.

Rick Ruddell, a professor at the University of Regina, who wrote a book on rural crime in Canada, offers some interesting insight. He said:

Sometimes you just have these uncharacteristic years when you’re looking at homicide, especially in small jurisdictions. You get years where numbers will spike, yet the number of attempted murders is the same, and that could just be a function of luck or good medical care. When you’re living in the country and you’re an hour away from a trauma centre, or two hours or three hours, your mortality rates increase . . .

He also said we must take economics into account. He noted Alberta’s rural homicide rates spiked several years ago, coinciding with the downturn in the oil industry and resulting unemployment.

Colleagues, we know the government is studying gang violence. Ministers Ralph Goodale and Bill Blair have recently announced the government plans to dedicate $86 million over the next five years to the RCMP and border security for detection, dog training facilities, expanding X-ray technology in coastal centres and other measures.

But most of the illegal guns don’t come through regular border points or through the post office. We know that smuggling and trafficking, not through the legal ports of entry, is a problem. We know thefts at gun shops or home robberies are a problem. We know, in other words, that crime is a problem.

The Mayor of Toronto recently pushed for municipal legislation to ban handguns in Toronto across the board. The federal government is currently asking Canadians for their input on a similar nationwide ban. Let’s have that debate rather than just focusing on the rules for law-abiding gun owners.

I know Bill C-71 is an easy way for politicians to say to their constituents and the public they are taking action and responding to the gun violence issue, but they are not.

Why are we just looking at transportation licences, mandatory recordkeeping, and the reclassification of certain rifles for legal gun owners as a way to solve the issue of violence using illegal guns?

Really, are these the biggest problems with firearms in Canada — focusing on a farmer taking his rifle from one piece of land to another, when people are being gunned down in the middle of our city streets? How can we even ensure that enforcement of these new proposed laws will be real or effective when police forces are already stretched so thin?

There are reports of people in rural Saskatchewan calling 911 to report a crime and being told to lock their doors, find a place to hide, and call their insurance company. Would you accept that advice if your family was in danger? This is outrageous. This is the kind of response that would be completely unacceptable in an urban setting.

Why aren’t we looking at increasing the ranks of police officers, particularly in rural areas, or perhaps considering tougher mandatory minimum sentences for using a stolen or illegal gun in the commission of a crime? Let’s look at disincentives for the bad guys.

Colleagues, Canadians who use guns lawfully already undergo checks on their mental health and past criminal behaviour. Now their entire histories will be looked at. No problem, but this will mean the need for more resources.

Our laws are already pretty strong in making sure the wrong people don’t have access to guns, but yes, there will always be bad guys getting through the system, any system. Their histories may be clean until, of course, they’re not.

Stores already maintain records. Most keep those records. Most would willingly share those records with law enforcement and do. Legal firearm owners are not usually the ones who are gunning down their enemies or innocent bystanders on the street.

I know this is a complicated issue, but Bill C-71 addresses only a very small part of the problem.

To conclude, my concern about this bill is that we are focused on penalizing certified legal gun owners, especially those who use rifles as tools, not weapons. It is not that the administrative burden added by this bill is impossible to manage. Many will do it. The problem is this bill does little to solve the very real problem of bad people with illegal guns killing people on the streets of this country. Thank you.