Debates of May 16th, 2023

Criminal Code

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord said something interesting in answer to the question from the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. He said that the Bloc Québécois did its job because of pressure from social media and the Conservatives. I am pleased to hear that today.

What the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is telling us is that the Bloc Québécois did its job and improved the bill so that hunters would not have problems because of the Liberals' bill, which was basically bad.

I simply want to thank the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for saying that the Bloc Québécois did its job on the bill and solved a problem for hunters. I thank him for that. That is what a party for the regions does.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean is clearly a team player. He is defending his colleague on this.

However, I want to make one thing clear. The Bloc Québécois went and did its job because it knew it was going to lose votes in the regions and it would not get re-elected. That is why the Bloc members ended up doing their work. In reality, they thought that Bill C-21 did not go far enough, and they do not want anything to do with firearms.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak to legislation, which, in this circumstance, is flawed, and to defend the people in my riding and across the country who believe the same thing.

The Liberals and the NDP missed the mark on Bill C-21 right from the very beginning. They should have spent their time focused on criminals and ending the revolving door of justice. Instead, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc turned their backs on hunters, sport shooters and law-abiding firearm owners, and insisted on steamrolling the democratic process. Democracy thrives on debate and discussion, on the exchanges of ideas and the ability of all parliamentarians to have their say, even if other parliamentarians do not want to hear it. If government members do not want to hear me in committee, they are going to hear me now.

This legislation would result in the freeze of lawfully owned handguns and a ban on many firearms used for hunting and sport shooting. It would target law-abiding firearm owners across the country, not criminals. That is the issue. I have been actively and loudly opposed to Bill C-21, which started, as I said, as the Liberal government's proposed legislation to ban handguns. Based on my experience in policing, I can confidently say it is a deeply flawed and misguided piece of legislation. One of the main reasons I oppose the bill is that it is based on a false Liberal premise that a ban on handguns is necessary to reduce gun violence in Canada, but the evidence clearly shows that law-abiding firearm owners are not and have never been the cause of gun violence in this country. In fact, almost all gun crimes are committed by criminals who use illegal firearms that have been smuggled in from the United States.

When it was debated in the House, Bill C-21 did not include any restrictions, potential restrictions or even the mention of long guns, only handguns. However, at committee, the government decided to introduce amendments known as G-4 and G-46, completely out of scope for the bill's original intent. The amendments were terrible and were focused squarely on hunters and legal, law-abiding firearm owners. Their implementation would have been useless to prevent gun crime, and did not include any prior consultations of any kind. We all know what happened next. The push-back from Canadians and the Conservatives overwhelmed the Liberals, who were then forced to withdraw these amendments. How did that occur? It was because the democratic process was allowed to occur. The committee was able to do its work on behalf of all Canadians. Committees are supposed to debate, hear from witnesses, weed out bad ideas and come to common-sense decisions. We would have had the chance to do just that, and do it again with the rest of Bill C-21, if the government truly valued democracy.

Furthermore, during the questioning of government witnesses on these amendments, it was identified that the decision to make these changes was made at a political level. That means that it was not recommended by bureaucrats or policy specialists. This is a clear indication that the Liberal Party is more interested in scoring political points than in implementing effective policies to reduce gun violence. This is not how a democracy is supposed to work. We need to get back to the principles of parliamentary democracy, where every voice is heard, every opinion is considered and every decision is made with the best interests of Canadians at heart.

However, this is not just about principles or the Liberals' lack of them when it comes to democracy. It is also about the impact that this legislation would have on law-abiding firearm owners across the country. These are individuals who have followed the rules, who have gone through the necessary background checks and training and who have been responsible stewards of their firearms, but instead of focusing on criminals and illegal firearms, the Liberal government is targeting law-abiding firearm owners, threatening their ability to hunt, sport shoot and lawfully own firearms.

What may be lost in some of the speeches today is that Bill C-21 is a legislative mess. It is filled with large legislative changes, and introduces items like red-flag laws that would have negative impacts on those seeking assistance to escape from an abusive partner, for example. As PolySeSouvient put it on Twitter, “Despite opposition from coalition of women’s groups, @ndp...supports @liberal_party ex-parte/red flag measure inviting victims to go to court instead of police doing their job. @BlocQuebecois & @CPC_HQ rightly vote against.” These red-flag measures completely miss the mark on improving public safety and actually put victims at greater risk. Over 20 women's groups have reached out to the government and told it to stop. It refused and did not listen.

Bill C-21 makes up words like “military-style assault weapon” without definition, which the chief firearms officer of Alberta agrees is absolutely ludicrous. The Minister of Public Safety testified that he was relying on the committee to come up with a definition to the senseless, uneducated use of that term. The bill speaks of the creation of a Canadian firearms advisory committee that is supposed to provide pragmatic advice on Canadian firearm classifications and regulations. This is just another nifty clause in Bill C-21 that we had five minutes to debate. Just who would sit on this new committee? Would it be gunsmiths, firearm experts and chief firearm officers from across the country, or would it be the well-connected friends of the Liberals and their social justice lawyers who know nothing about firearms, who do not understand the traditions of hunting and sport shooting, have never received PAL or RPAL training, and simply do the bidding of the Liberals?

These are legitimate concerns, but instead of proper debate, we had only minutes. It is simply unacceptable. It is an assault on the values and traditions that have made Canada the great country it is today, and it is a betrayal of the trust Canadians have placed in their elected representatives to uphold the democratic process. The government should work with stakeholders and experts in the firearms community to develop effective policies that actually protect Canadians while respecting their differences of opinion and traditional lifestyles. Instead of working with stakeholders and experts, the Liberal government used a programming motion to fast-track legislation that would have serious consequences for law-abiding firearm owners. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. Democracy, including parliamentary committees and the legislative process, is supposed to be messy. It is non-linear. Sometimes governments do not get the results they want, but MPs should always have the opportunity to advocate and fight on behalf of their constituents.

Conservatives stand with law-abiding firearm owners, demanding they be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. We demand that the government focus on real solutions to the issue of illegal firearms rather than targeting law-abiding Canadians who have done nothing wrong and we demand that our democracy be respected, that our voices be heard and that our elected representatives be held accountable for their actions. As Conservatives, we believe the government should be accountable to the people. That includes taking the time to fully debate and scrutinize legislation. We are not against progress, but we are against rushing through legislation without the proper scrutiny. This is why we will continue to fight for law-abiding firearm owners, and we will continue to oppose any government that uses programming motions to rush through legislation without proper scrutiny. The use of programming motions is a threat to our democracy. Conservatives support common-sense firearms policies that keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. When we form government, creating effective policies to reduce gun violence will be a priority. Our focus will be bringing back serious sentences for repeat offenders, which were repealed by the Liberals, and reversing the government's revolving door of justice. We will invest in policing and our secure border, rather than spending billions of dollars confiscating firearms from law-abiding Canadians.

Bill C-21 has missed the mark and is simply political rhetoric. The NDP and the Liberals have steamrolled democracy, and if Bill C-21 passes at report stage or third reading, we too will have failed Canadians. My hope is that the other place will do its job well, scrutinize this bill fully and return it to the House with the many amendments it requires, or gut it completely.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague spoke about bail reform and the issues we have seen come up lately. We have introduced a comprehensive bill to address bail reform, especially when dealing with violent offenders. I am wondering if the member opposite can confirm whether the Conservative Party will fast-track this bill and give us unanimous consent to move it forward to the other place?

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

Madam Speaker, I read the bill this morning and was shocked at its lack of understanding of the total issue. If we look at what is actually being proposed in the legislation, it barely begins to scratch the surface of the issues affecting Canadians with the violence in our communities.

If we look at the restrictions placed on the types of offences that are going to be covered, it is a start. With Bill C-75, the Liberals were warned to begin with about what exactly it was going to cause and were told to stop it. They did not, and now they have to backtrack and try to fix it.

It does not go far enough. It is a beginning, and it certainly is not something that I can support in its entirety. It needs a lot more work.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague. He knows how the study of Bill C‑21 went in committee. He was there. He understands the concept of a consequential amendment. There were several of them for the government's ghost guns amendments. There were some on my amendment for the magazines. A valid possession and acquisition licence is now required for buying a magazine and ammunition. I was very pleased to see that there was unanimity on this. The Conservative Party was in favour of this measure. It is a good measure.

That is how it was, except for a consequential amendment. At some point, my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe got carried away and said that it made no sense to stop a hunter who is getting ready to hunt a rare bird, if his licence is not valid because he is missing a magazine. The official who was there gently reminded him that if the licence is not valid, he could not go hunting, he could not use his gun. Despite that, the Conservatives voted against this amendment.

I would like my colleague to explain why.

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

Madam Speaker, I too have enjoyed working with my colleague from the Bloc on the public safety committee off and on for a couple years. I have always generally appreciated her approach to and understanding of some of the legislation we deal with.

The Conservatives did support legislation that attempted to curtail what we call ghost guns. It is something that law enforcement has called for across the country. We knew the government was going to fast-track this bill, and the NDP were going to support it no matter what. However, at least we could try to work with other opposition parties to provide some amendments that were going to be helpful for public safety. Addressing some of the issues of ghost guns would do exactly that.

My understanding of that is that Canadians are able to acquire magazines or gun parts for use in ghost guns. We needed to start somewhere, so the Conservatives did support some of these amendments simply because we wanted to ensure that the bill before us was better than what the Liberals were presenting.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the member's speech and he was talking about a confiscation program. I do not know how much that is going to cost. Maybe it is $1 billion or $2 billion. I do not know if there is a figure out there.

Does the member think that money could be spent somewhere where it would have an actual effect on rising crime, especially gang and organized crime?

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

Madam Speaker, the order in council from May 2020 listed 1,500 firearms, now nearly 2,000, that the government was saying would be prohibited. Handguns and other firearms ended up being of no value, and the Liberals said they will basically confiscate them. They call it a buyback but I call it confiscation, because we cannot buy back something that we do not own to begin with.

The billions of dollars that this will cost, which will do nothing for public safety, could be used in such a greater capacity to deal with our borders, to deal with law enforcement initiatives and to take illegal guns smuggled from the United States off our streets. Then the court systems can deal with criminals the way they need to be dealt with.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on an issue that is, quite frankly, very near and dear to my heart. It is near and dear because before Grandpa Jack passed away, I got to hunt with him for many years for deer on, ironically, Manitoulin Island. I am very blessed to still have the opportunity to meet my father at 4:30 in the morning at his house to go chase wild turkeys with my uncle Tom. I guess it is really near and dear to my heart because I am hoping that my grandson Levi, who just turned two years old a couple days ago, will have the same opportunity to enjoy the outdoors with his “Pip”, which is me.

Today, I stand in solidarity with law-abiding gun owners across Canada. For generations, my family has been hunters. My dad got his first gun at the age of five. He, as I did, grew up on a farm. Most farmers owned guns and most family members of the household learned how to use them. Besides supplementing their food supply, farmers used guns to keep predators from their livestock. From one generation to another, each was taught how to handle a gun safely and responsibly.

My dad passed his knowledge and love of hunting to me and my two brothers. Traditions are important. We need look no further than to first nations that support these very same traditions. Hunters today still eat what they hunt and share with their wild-game-loving neighbours, just as I did Saturday night at the Gosfield North Sportsmen club's wild game dinner back in my riding.

Hunters respect nature. We are the original conservationists. We hunt according to seasons, designed to cull the herds, to curtail the behaviours of predators such as coyotes and to preserve wildlife.

Prior to my election as the member of Parliament for Essex, I was an outfitter operating in the Far North. I had the honour and pleasure of working with many first nations guides. Camps like mine, scattered across Canada's vast terrain, help preserve a traditional way of life. We bring resources and jobs to the local communities.

Interestingly enough, my riding of Essex is home to the Jack Miner Migratory Bird Foundation. Jack Miner was an avid outdoorsman and hunter who founded a sanctuary for the conservation of migrating geese and wild ducks. I suppose I could dedicate this entire speech to his list of achievements, but suffice to say, he became world-renowned. As the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau said of him, “Jack Miner, with his vision and determination is largely responsible for those conservation measures in existence today.”

As I said previously, hunters are the original conservationists. They are also law-abiding citizens. Every gun owner in Canada has to go through rigorous certification and training. Our guns are stored under lock and key. We hone our skills at licensed shooting ranges, and we transport our guns in the prescribed way.

Our government knows that the smuggling of illegal guns across the U.S. border is the true source of gun violence in Canada, yet no matter the facts, law-abiding gun owners are the ones negatively impacted by this new proposed legislation. Why is that? Is it ignorance? Is it government overreach? Is it virtue signalling to their voter base? Is it all of the above?

Sadly, the proposed new gun law restrictions are based on emotion, not on facts. Bill C-21 is divisive. It pits rural Canadians against urban Canadians. It serves no practical purpose because it ignores the real source of gun violence. It trifles over types of guns, which only serves to show how profoundly uninformed the government truly is.

Bill C-21 inexplicably also captured, or had the potential to capture, the airsoft and paintball industries in its net, thus jeopardizing these recreational activities and the businesses that go along with them. It is often hard to relate to something that one is indifferent to. However, beyond curtailing our own passions and pursuits is something more fundamental: the erosion of our charter rights and freedoms under the guise of public safety.

Law-abiding gun owners are the low-hanging fruit for the government's obsession with exercising more and more control over the lives of Canadians. Bill C-21 exploits the fears and emotions of Canadians without any bearing on the facts. It is yet another in a long line of such laws that represent a slow and steady erosion of a gun owner's charter rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. My hope is to cast Bill C-21 in a light that even Canadians who are not recreational gun owners could find a point of agreement on regarding what the government should do and, equally importantly, should not do to address gun crime.

Canada is a democracy. The people elect their government, and the government serves the people. The Constitution of Canada is based on the rule of law. As long as citizens are obeying the laws of the land, they are to be free to go about their daily lives. For the government's part, those we elect to govern us are to only pass laws that are necessary and beneficial.

Furthermore, the onus is on the government to prove that any restrictions on a citizen's liberty are necessary and beneficial. Every law that is restrictive in its nature must be thoroughly scrutinized, and we must make a compelling case for its justification. There should be no benefit of the doubt, no ignorance masquerading as facts, no cynical appeal to emotion.

Our Constitution contains the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What happens when our laws become unjust, as Bill C-21 is? Even more alarming, what happens next? Will this open the floodgates? Is the real goal to end gun ownership entirely? The fact is that those who commit violent crimes using a gun do not obey the law, any law, no matter how restrictive. They always find an illegal way to acquire firearms, chiefly by smuggling. The government knows that.

To my point about the need for balance to ensure that laws are just, when regulations become too restrictive for the law-abiding and enforcement too lax for the criminals, the law becomes unjust. That is exactly what has happened with firearms owners in Canada.

However, this will not end with firearms owners. A government's appetite for control is only whetted by each new measure of control it seizes from its citizens. The only ones who can curb this appetite are the citizens themselves. Maybe hunting is not someone's thing, but they should be concerned nevertheless.

We have seen what the government does with emergency powers under the Quarantine Act. Three weeks into the pandemic, while Parliament's sole focus was providing families and businesses the income support they needed, the Liberal government sought powers that would have given it unfettered control of the public purse until the end of December 2021. The Conservatives fought back then, forced their hand and have remained vigilant since.

Since then, the Liberals have resisted accountability, rushed programs through Parliament and issued an order in council on gun control, which is the basis for Bill C-21. When Parliament finally returned to its full function after months of being shuttered, the Liberals gave us the WE scandal, ethics committee filibusters and then prorogation to avoid scrutiny. The government has proven itself incompetent, unaccountable, unethical and power hungry time and time again to advance an ideological agenda propped up by its informal coalition partners, the NDP.

Recreational gun owners are being scapegoated. I can assure members that it will not end with law-abiding gun owners. The government's sole focus should be an economic recovery plan and another to reopen our society, all rights restored.

To summarize my key points in closing, first, law-abiding gun owners are not the source of gun violence and should not be the government's scapegoats. Second, the government needs to focus on stopping the trafficking of illegal guns across the border. Last, let us uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cast this bill and every bill in this House in its bright light.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, that was another great speech written by Adam. I thank him very much for that.

I find it very interesting that the member talks about this side of the House virtue signalling, when we are continually seeing virtue signalling in regard to a ban on assault rifles coming from the other side of the House. The reality is that this House is united, with the exception of the Conservatives, in regard to doing something meaningful about banning handguns and making meaningful legislation as it relates to gun reform.

I wonder if the member could comment perhaps—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup is rising on a point of order.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to say to my colleague that we are not in government, and, unlike them, we do not use speech writers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I believe that is a point of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I think I made my point; it is more of a comment than a question. I think Canadians can take great comfort in knowing that every party in this House supports reform. Despite the differences Liberals might have with the Bloc and the NDP, there is only one party that is so adamantly opposed to having gun reform legislation, and that is the Conservative Party.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, if there is no question, I will make a comment with no answer. My comment is that I worked hard on this speech. I have been working on this speech for over a year and a half, so I find it incredibly shameful for that member to suggest that this speech was written for me. There are very few folks in this House who will know more about firearms than me, especially about hunting. I would ask him to retract the statement. Unfortunately, I do not think he is going to.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my Conservative colleague a simple question.

If the Conservatives were to form government, would they scrap Bill C-21 on firearms?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, what we would never have done is introduce Bill C-21 to begin with, because we know it is going to do absolutely nothing to curb violence. What Conservatives would have done is invest in protecting our borders and invest in our police forces to ensure that we never got to this point to begin with.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Essex for bringing his point of view to this speech.

I do hear Conservatives talk a lot about hunters, farmers and indigenous communities. What I would like the member for Essex to do, for the benefit of members in this House, is name a specific rifle or shotgun that would be prohibited as a result of Bill C-21, because when I read the bill that has been reported back to the House, it specifically makes mention of something that has been “designed and manufactured on or after the day on which this [bill] comes into force”.

Does the member have a specific make or model that would actually be banned by the bill? I would like him to stay away from anything the government currently has in its power under the Criminal Code, because it is a completely separate issue, the order in council. What under Bill C-21 would be banned by it?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that was the second or third time the member has asked that question in the House. Here is the problem: The answer is that we do not know. I will tell why we do not know. It is because of the Canadian firearms advisory committee. Here we go again, one more time. “It is not as bad as people think it is. It is going to be okay. People should not worry about their firearms that take clips in the bottom, which are the same as top-loading. It is okay. We have a firearms advisory committee.” How could we possibly trust anything else that comes from the government that will not take away legal firearms?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, Canada Revenue Agency; the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Housing.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this report stage debate on Bill C-21 to give my voice, and to speak to my residents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

I have had an intimate amount of experience with this bill, having been the former public safety critic, and I have seen just how much time it has taken up at the public safety committee. A lot of people forget that the public safety committee is also called the public safety and national security committee, and there have been important pieces of legislation held up at it because of the inordinate amount of time Bill C-21 has occupied.

Of course, things were going quite well for Bill C-21 until those very ill-advised 11th hour amendments landed on the committee's desk with no warning. That is when the whole process got completely derailed. I am thankful that, due to a lot of pressure from the opposition parties, the government finally saw sense in February and withdrew the problematic amendments that would have really impacted so many hunters, farmers and indigenous communities, because it was quite obvious they had landed with no consultation, had completely taken committee members by surprise, and were not, frankly speaking, backed up by any kind of witness testimony we had heard at committee.

Up until that point, Bill C-21 had primarily been about a handgun freeze. There were some provisions in the bill dealing with red flag laws and yellow flag laws, there was a section covering airsoft guns, and so on, but those amendments just completely expanded the scope of the bill so they were withdrawn. That is an important point to underline here, because I have been listening to the speeches on Bill C-21 for most of the day today, particularly the ones from my Conservative colleagues. A lot of their speeches had to do with standing up for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities, which are all very admirable things to stand in this House to say and do, but the problem is that their speeches are muddying the waters, because they are alluding to amendments that are no longer part of the bill.

In several questions today during debate, I have challenged my Conservative colleagues to name one rifle or one kind of shotgun that is going to be prohibited by Bill C-21. They have all deflected and changed the channel to go on to safer ground that is buoyed by their own talking points because they cannot name a rifle or shotgun that is going to be banned by Bill C-21 as they are not in there.

Instead of reading Conservative talking points, I am going to actually read the bill. The important thing here for everyone who is listening to this debate is the new definition of a “prohibited firearm”. The key clause is as follows. I will read it into the record. It states, “is designed and manufactured on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force”.

In other words, current makes and models that are legally owned by licensed firearms owners are not touched by this bill. I underline that with an exclamation mark. They would not be touched and would still be legal. It is only for makes and models that are designed, manufactured and come on to the market after Bill C-21 comes into force.

I have heard Conservatives talk about the firearms advisory committee and how it will be stocked with Liberal appointees who will give advice and suggest that certain makes and models be banned. That is a complete red herring. I will tell members why. The government already has the power under the Criminal Code to reclassify firearms by cabinet decree. That is something that has been abused by both Conservative and Liberal governments. How do members think we got the May 2020 order in council that listed those 1,500 firearms? That certainly was not done with the aid of a firearms advisory committee, but by the Liberal government, by cabinet decree through the Canada Gazette, suddenly making a list of firearms, which was done under the existing authority of the Criminal Code.

I am actually glad there will be a firearms advisory committee, because finally we will have someone at the cabinet table advising the minister. They may come from an indigenous background, a hunting background or a sport shooting background. Why is it a bad thing to have these people provide a sober second thought on any kind of decision the government already has the power to do?

These are complete red herrings with respect to everything the Conservatives have said so far about popular hunting rifles or shotguns, which are in fact going to stay legal. In fact, I look forward to going to my local Canadian Tire and outfitting store on the day after Bill C-21 receives royal assent to show all the different makes and models that are still on sale.

There was a disappointment that I had with this bill. I put forward an amendment at committee that was going to amend the section of the bill that would provide to people an exemption from the handgun freeze. I felt that the current definition that would allow only people who were at Olympic level and Paralympic level to have an exemption from the handgun freeze was too narrow. I put forward amendments to that effect, so that it would have been expanded to the International Practical Shooting Confederation or the Single Action Shooting Society. That amendment almost passed because the Liberal member for Kings—Hants actually made a great intervention at committee where he supported my amendment, but when it came to crunch time he abstained. Therefore, on this critical amendment when he had a chance to show his constituents that he was going to sway this important part of the bill, he abstained. As a result it ended up in a five-five tie at committee and of course it was broken by the chair, so we came very close to amending that specific section of the bill.

The reason I backed this up is that during witness testimony we heard from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Their public statement on this was:

We believe that a handgun freeze is one method of reducing access to these types of firearms, while allowing existing law-abiding handgun owners to practice their sport.

I took great heart from that statement from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. We had Chief Evan Bray as a witness and he backed that up. The association does believe in a handgun freeze, but it thought there should be exemptions to allow people to continue their sport shooting.

We are at the report stage and I want to address a very confusing Conservative report stage amendment to Bill C-21. I was reviewing that and I looked at Motion No. 12, which has been put forward by the Conservative member for Kildonan—St. Paul. It is shocking because the Conservatives are actually seeking to entirely delete clause 43 from the bill. Why is that important? Clause 43 is the only part of Bill C-21 that would provide an exception to the handgun freeze. It would provide an exception to anyone who has an authorization to carry and to people who are training, competing or coaching in a handgun-shooting discipline under the International Olympic Committee. For some reason the Conservatives want to delete the exemptions to the handgun freeze from the bill. Many of their other report stage amendments that they are seeking to delete are ones that in fact they played a very constructive role at committee in helping amend. The Conservatives are all over the map here on report stage. It is quite clear that Conservatives are flailing around and it is quite evident from their speeches today.

I want to briefly address ghost guns. This was a big ask from the law enforcement departments. We had Inspector Michael Rowe, staff sergeant, from the Vancouver Police Department, who did mention that the barrels, slides and trigger assemblies are a big issue for law enforcement. The advent of 3-D printing has allowed a lot of firearms to come onto the market that are completely untraceable. As the member for New Westminster—Burnaby has stated in this House, their growth has gone exponential. Therefore, law enforcement people have very clearly asked for this amendment to Bill C-21 and I am glad to see that the committee responded in kind.

I also want to salute our NDP efforts to save airsoft. It was my amendment that passed that deleted the offending section of Bill C-21 so that the airsoft community could continue to play its sport and would not be impacted by Bill C-21. I want to thank committee members for allowing that part of the bill to pass.

I will end by also saying that there was a really important amendment to the bill, which would recognize section 35 of the Constitution Act, which of course upholds the rights of indigenous peoples. Bill C-21 would not impact that and it was important to have that clarification to the bill.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, the member questioned why Conservatives are talking to deleted parts of the bill. That is because these speeches were written for them months ago, and when they write those speeches, they write them with the intention of maximizing their fundraising capabilities at the time. I hope that clarifies it for the member.

Time after time, we see Conservatives getting up and spreading misinformation about this bill. It is with the objective of nothing other than to raise money from it. I am really glad to see that there are adults in the room, including the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals and the Greens, who are actually standing up for the best interests of Canadians.

Would the member like to comment on that?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I spoke to this last week when we were debating Motion No. 25. I made reference to the fact that, for the Conservatives, Bill C-21 is the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is why they have wanted to see it stuck in the House; that hoovering sound we can hear is the sound of the Conservative Party's fundraising machine raking in millions of dollars off this bill. I for one am glad to see that the committee has sent it back to the House, because there are two other important bills waiting to be heard. These are Bill C-20, which deals with important RCMP oversight, and Bill C-26, which looks at cybersecurity; these are both very pressing issues. It is high time the public safety committee got to work in addressing those other key issues.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, this gives me a chance to start by correcting my colleague from Kingston's observations about speeches written weeks ago. The heartfelt commentary from my colleague about hunting on Manitoulin Island were not written for him by a speech writer who has never been to Manitoulin Island.

With regard to the fundraising issue, I am not sure that it is actually true that it raises all this money. However, if it does, and given the fact that in Canada there are very strict limits on how much money can be raised per individual, does that not make the point that thousands of Canadians care very deeply about this issue? Does it not show that they are alarmed at seeing their way of life destroyed and their property taken away from them by a government that is unconcerned about their well-being? Does that not explain why the money is being raised? Does it not also explain why the NDP has such difficulty raising money on any issue that it represents?