Debates of May 16th, 2023

Criminal Code

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am gratified that the NDP was able to force the withdrawal of amendments G-4 and G-46 in February, which caused such consternation to law-abiding gun owners across the country. What has replaced them, as members are well aware, are provisions that tackle the ghost guns used by criminals. We have seen an epidemic in various parts of the country, like in my region where we have seen a tenfold increase in the use of untraceable firearms by criminals. That has to be addressed immediately. Law enforcement is calling for the powers that have now been put in through amendments to Bill C-21.

I would ask my colleague this. Why do the Conservatives seem so hell-bent on filibustering the bill and filibustering the considerations around ghost guns, so law enforcement can actually take action against criminals who use these ghost guns?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the hard work of my colleague on the public safety committee. I know he is always committed to ensuring that the NDP gets credit for its good work, but a lot of great rural members of Parliament from other parties, including mine, stood up and said that it did not reflect the will of a lot of their constituents. I am grateful for all of those voices. That is how this place works, and I thank the member for bringing those voices forward.

However, to the substantive question, I do not know why the Conservatives are so hell-bent on preventing this bill from going forward. It is responsible gun legalisation. We are standing up and ensuring that the voices of law enforcement, victims and many other groups are heard.

The only group that the Conservatives are standing up for is the gun lobby, and very consistently. They have been keynoting at gun lobby events. They have been fundraising off its back. They have been using the same rhetoric in the House of Commons and on their social media. It is disgraceful to be using that NRA-style rhetoric in the conduct of our work as Canadian parliamentarians. This is not the United States. We do not want to have outcomes like they do in the United States with respect to gun crime. We have a safe country because we have responsible gun laws, and these are the next steps to that.

I would like to thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his hard work.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the last decade, 81% of violent crimes have increased with the use of guns. The member mentioned future generations being impacted by this. I would ask him if this bill would help alleviate the concerns around an American-style gun culture in the future of Canada.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I did not get to talk about is all of the investments and programming that the government has made with respect to changing culture and ensuring that there is a place to go and an alternative to crime, particularly in urban areas, so that young men, primarily, have access to sport, the arts, mentors and role models. That is what is missing in so many of those communities: making sure there are services and programs available. I used to work with a justice-involved youth organization called MLSE LaunchPad, in downtown Toronto. It was an extraordinary organization that made sure there were options for kids so they could make good choices. That is exactly what Bill C-21 would do.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about Bill C-21, which was tabled by the Liberal government in May 2022. When Bill C‑21 was tabled, the Prime Minister stated that its purpose was to stop gun crime before it starts. Canadians now realize that the purpose of the bill was never to improve public safety, and the proof is in the details.

Since the Prime Minister came to power, his party has said one thing and done another. Violent crime is on the rise, street gangs do not fear law enforcement due to the Liberals' revolving-door justice system, and Canadians have reason to be afraid.

The Conservatives never supported this bill because we knew that it was more about Liberal ideology than the safety of Canadians. We knew that it was about confiscating the property of hunters and law-abiding Canadians, because it is not the first time the Liberals have tried to do that. With Bill C‑21, the Liberals also added amendments without allowing for debate in the House. It was not until Carey Price spoke out against them publicly that the Liberals cancelled their decision.

It is now clear that they did not learn anything from that public humiliation, because they are proposing to create an advisory committee that will do their dirty work for them. At the end of that exercise, hunters, sport shooters and law-abiding Canadians will have their property confiscated by this government. Step by step, amendment by amendment, the Liberals will achieve their end goal, and that is why they must be voted out.

The “red flag” measure in the bill has been rejected by law enforcement and victims' groups like PolyRemembers. This just makes the stench of Liberal hypocrisy even more blatant.

The government always does the same thing. It claims to have solutions and solemnly promises that it will fix everything, but, as we can see from Bill C‑21, it does the opposite. Regulating people whose weapons are already very well regulated will do nothing to improve public safety.

The “red flag” measure is also being implemented. It is a rule that could potentially have been useful. I thought that the “red flag” measure would apply to cases where a gun owner who has mental health problems is reported, for example. The problem is that, the way the measure was designed, it is the victims who bear the burden of proof.

This week, we mark Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. We should think about the victims a bit more often. Victims bear the burden of filing a complaint with the court. That makes no sense. It has been denounced by groups like PolyRemembers and many other victims' groups, as well as by the police. Initially, doctors' groups supported the idea but, after taking a closer look, they ultimately said that it made no sense.

I was at committee when the vote took place. The Bloc Québécois agreed with us on it. We listened to the same presentations from victims' groups. The Conservatives and the Bloc members voted against the “red flag” amendment. We do not know why the Liberals dug in their heels, with the support of their NDP buddies.

When discussing public safety, we should always put victims and potential victims first. What we understand from the philosophy behind Bill C‑21 is that law-abiding citizens are being controlled and victims are not even being listened to, even though they are the main people involved. I look at it from every angle, but I still cannot understand.

Why is the government, with the support of the NDP, still taking a path that defies all logic? Who is it trying to please and, above all, to what end?

Ultimately, what we all want, or should want, is to protect public safety and Canadians. Think about what has been done in recent years. Think about the rules that were put in place under Bill C-5, which was implemented last fall. It is a disaster. Even our friends in the Bloc said that they should not have supported the Liberal government with that bill and that changes needed to be made.

Bill C‑75 was passed a few years ago. At the time, the Conservatives once again pointed out that the legislation was shoddy, particularly with respect to bail. Today, the government sees that it did a bad job drafting the legislation and that it is no good.

Every time, the government accuses the Conservatives of wanting to be hard on criminals.

Meanwhile, it develops and passes legislation that gives criminals a lot of latitude. Ultimately, criminals make a mockery of the justice system—and again, the victims pay the price. The victims do not understand.

As proof, since the government took power in 2015 and implemented all these changes, there has been a 32% increase in violent crimes. That is quite clear.

We can see the signs. Criminals are not afraid. Criminals are making a mockery of the justice system. They are making a mockery of law enforcement. Unfortunately, the police must enforce the law and the courts must apply the law as it is passed here in the House. Their hands are tied. Criminals see that and scoff at the whole thing.

A few weeks ago, I introduced Bill C-325, which will be debated when we return in two weeks. My bill addresses three things. The first is conditional release. I recently learned that some prisoners accused of serious and violent crimes, drug trafficking crimes or other crimes who are granted conditional release face no consequences when they fail to comply with the conditions. The police arrive, they see a criminal who is not complying with their conditions and all they can do is submit a report to the parole officer. I learned that, in 2014, one of our former colleagues had introduced a private member’s bill to address that. Unfortunately an election was called. My bill seeks to change the law to bring in consequences for breaching conditions of release.

The second element of my bill provides that parole officers must report to authorities when one of their “clients” is not complying with their conditions. In such cases, the parole officer must report to the police so there can be an arrest. We are talking about violent offenders.

The third element of my bill seeks to correct the problem that was created by Bill C-5, namely allowing violent criminals to serve a sentence in the community, watching Netflix at home. People saw what happened last fall. This makes no sense. It does not work. One of the components of Bill C-325 amends the Criminal Code to put an end to these situations that show the public how criminals are laughing at the justice system. That is not how we should be living in Canada. I will discuss my bill in greater detail in two weeks.

I will come back to Bill C-21. Me, I am a gun owner. When the Liberals accused us of being in the pay of the gun lobby, I felt personally targeted, since I am a gun owner myself. I have my licences. I have everything required. I am not a criminal. I passed my tests. Moreover, Quebec has the Act to protect persons with regard to activities involving firearms, the former Bill 9, which contains additional measures to ensure compliance. Membership in a gun club is mandatory. People must go there to shoot at least once a year to abide by the law in Quebec.

Therefore, when we look at all the rules in place that people must obey, I do not see why we should suddenly feel like criminals. Bill C‑21 is directly aimed at people like me. I began shooting at the age of 17 in the Canadian Armed Forces. I have always obeyed the law. I have always done what I was asked to do. Daily checks are conducted in the RCMP system to ensure that law-abiding people with registered licences obey the law. That is what is done.

Why am I now being targeted by people saying I am a criminal and in the pay of lobbies when I have my licences and obey the law?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will get a chance to expand upon this, but members should not try to fool anyone who is following this particular debate. The Conservative Party of Canada has consistently spread misinformation, whether it has been by trying to give the impression to hunters that we are after their guns, or whether it has been on indigenous rights. I believe it is being done intentionally for one reason, and that is to raise funds.

The question I would put to the member opposite is the same question I asked his colleague: When will the Conservative Party put the safety of Canadians ahead of raising money for its political party?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to my colleague’s question. What disinformation have we spread?

When the G-4 and G-46 amendments were presented in November, everyone wondered what that was about. First, Carey Price posted great social media posts to ask why he was being attacked.

Everyone, even the NDP, had to work very hard in the corners. The Bloc Québécois said that this was not going to work. Where is the disinformation? Were some models of guns on that list common hunting rifles used by hunters and indigenous peoples? The answer is yes. That is why the amendments were withdrawn.

Now they have come up with another way of reworking it. They will ask a committee to draw up a new list of firearms, in the end. That is how they will wash their hands of any responsibility. Where is the disinformation? They have directly attacked hunters and indigenous peoples.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not strictly have questions. Instead, I have comments on what I have learned from my colleague's speech.

He began by saying that the Conservative Party never supported Bill C-21. I would remind him that in committee, the Conservative Party voted in favour of most of the amendments that were on the table. However, it is understandable that they were particularly in favour of measures on ghost weapons and yellow flags, so it is not entirely true to say that they are against everything in it.

Next, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, but I would be careful before praising Carey Price. He knows that very well. We remember that when Carey Price posted his photo with a firearm in hand that was not even affected by Bill C‑21, he did so praising a firearms lobby that offered a promotional code to its members for lobby promotional material or equipment by using the code “Poly”. This is a reference to the Polytechnique killings that took place some years ago and it offered this to its members. I find that disgusting.

Now, the Conservative Party says that Carey Price knows what he is talking about. I am a hockey fan and I have a lot of respect for Carey Price's talent, but I would be careful before praising someone who praised a firearms lobby and uses the promotional code “Poly”. I will reassure him. He says that the government takes him for a criminal because he has a permit and he will no longer be able to be a sport shooter and continue to practice. If he has a permit at this time, he can continue to practise his sport. The freeze means that there are people who do not have a permit at this time and they will not be able to get one in the future.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, Carey Price did not know that the whole story behind the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights' Polytechnique discount code. I believe that if Carey Price had been aware of it, he would not have endorsed it in this way.

The fact remains that the principle is quite clear. Setting aside the promotional aspect, which was inappropriate, Carey Price's message essentially was to flag the story about amendments G-4 and G-46, which were in fact changed. That shows that there was truth in what Carey Price said.

As far as Bill C‑21 is concerned, we are against it. However, we proposed some amendments and supported others, just as we would for any other bill. Still, in the end, we cannot support the bill as a whole. It is a bit like a budget. There are things in a budget that we can support, but if there are too many things that do not suit us, we will vote against it.

We have never been against gun control in Canada. We are already one of the best-controlled societies in the world with the rules in place. As I said earlier, we have permits, we are monitored and that is great. We are not asking for less. It is just that sometimes, things are done in a way outside of what should be done to ensure general public safety.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-21. It is important for us to recognize that often legislation, like the budget, is brought into the chamber that is a reflection of what Canadians expect of the Government of Canada.

Leger did a poll regarding the manner in which the Government of Canada is moving toward the issue of gun control. There were 84% of Canadians who feel that this government is on the right track when it comes to gun control and the legislation being brought forward.

I would like to quote an article. The headline is, “MCC report calls for stricter gun laws”, and it states, “The final report of the Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) investigating the April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that left 22 people dead makes several recommendations to meaningfully change Canada’s gun laws.” This is significant.

The commission is a non-partisan body. The chair of the commission, Michael MacDonald, is a retired Nova Scotia chief justice and the other commissioners are Leanne Fitch, who served for seven years as the chief of police for Fredericton Police Force, and Kim Stanton, a lawyer and legal scholar. Many recommendations called for stricter gun laws. This was earlier this year. The article went on to say, “The commission also determined that the safety of women survivors of intimate-partner violence is 'put at risk by the presence of firearms and ammunition in the household.'“

One of the Conservative members was critical of the red flag. When I think of the red flag component of the legislation, I think of a domestic abuse victim having to be put into a position where the spouse is a gun owner. Under the red flag now, this individual would be able to raise the issue in court and have the person's name kept off the record. I see that as a positive thing. If not directly, indirectly the commission refers to that. Those are the types of things in the legislation.

We hear members talk about ghost guns, something very real. If we were to check with law enforcement agencies from coast to coast to coast, we would find there is concern about the growing appetite to produce these ghost guns. We need this legislation. It would assist law enforcement officers to deal with this very serious issue. Let us think about it. A 3-D printer and someone with a mischievous criminal mind are a bad combination. The legislation before us would deal with that.

I want to pick up on a question that I posed to members opposite, because I really do believe that the Conservative Party's primary motivation in opposing this legislation is not because of gun owners, but because of the way Conservatives have manipulated the issue to the degree that they have raised millions of dollars for their party over the years. It is somewhat ironic when we stop and think about it. When the gun registry, for example, came into being, it was actually a Conservative idea. A Conservative senator brought it to Kim Campbell and Kim Campbell moved forward with it. She was a Progressive Conservative prime minister, and I underline the word “progressive”.

The current Conservative Party has abandoned that word. It has taken such a hard right turn. The other day, someone sent me a Twitter feed of the current leader of the Conservative Party. I could not believe it. Do we want to talk about motivation to run in elections, feeding conspiracy theories? It is totally amazing how far-fetched the leader of the Conservative Party is. He is in the non-reality zone, if I could put it that way, absolutely fact-free.

If we take a look at the gun issue, I genuinely believe that the Conservative Party is using this legislation as a mechanism to continue to spread information that just is not true. The member says, well, what kind of information? Trying to give hunters the impression that the government is after their guns: it is hard to believe. It is not true. We are not. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but we would not know based on some of the social media postings that we hear about coming from the Conservative Party.

At the end of the day, whether it is issues such as the gun registry from many years ago or other types of legislation that have come forward, the far right within the Conservative Party wants to use anything and everything that it can feed to that grouping of people in order to generate funds.

I think that when we listen to some of the reports that have come out, like I cited at the very beginning with the MCC, an apolitical, non-partisan commission, a commission that everyone supported, the report that it came forward with is very clear.

If we take a look at the information that we received from Canadians as a whole, such as, as I say, the Leger poll, 84% are saying we are on the right track.

When we talk about gun crimes, we have actually seen a decrease by 5% between 2020 and 2021.

Unlike the Conservative Party, we are after illegal guns that are coming up from the United States. Last year, 1,200 guns and tens of thousands of weapons were seized at the border. I will compare that to any year of Stephen Harper.

It is a combination of things that this government is doing to make our communities safer when it comes to gun violence, whether it is budget measures, supporting our border control officers, providing supports for law enforcement officers or enhancing the tools that are going to make a difference.

These are all the types of actions that this government has taken in response to what we know Canadians are genuinely concerned about.

I would suggest that my Conservative friends need to put the safety and concerns of Canadians ahead of political party financing and fundraising, to look in the mirror and understand the true value of this legislation, which is supported by all members, except for the Conservative members, I must say, and get behind it.

This is a good opportunity for them to take a flip-flop and support this legislation. By supporting this legislation, they would be telling Canadians that they support safer communities. They support legislation that is going to make a positive difference.

That is a powerful message and, coincidence would have it, it is factual and it would be nice to see coming from the Conservative Party.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a rural member of Parliament, I find it deeply troubling that it seems to be that, of all the left-leaning parties in this House, the only people the Liberals can get to speak to this legislation seem to be urban members of Parliament. There are Liberal members of Parliament who have a very different view, but the Liberals even tried to silence those opinions from being shared at committee. They are censoring them and it is absolutely shameful.

The conversation around flip-flops is something. Can the member acknowledge that the Liberals have flip-flopped so many times on the gun issue? It was the Liberal Prime Minister, when he first ran in 2015, who promised Canadians that he would not come after their guns and promised that he would not bring back a front or backdoor gun registry. He bragged about being able to play with the weapons of his protection detail when he was a kid. Supposedly, at one point, he understood it, yet now we have the Prime Minister who has said there are farmers and hunters who will lose their guns because of this legislation.

He wants to talk about flip-flops. Can the member at least acknowledged that the Liberals have flipped and flopped so many times on this issue? They are playing politics that are damaging the rights of so many Canadians who are simply looking for security when it comes to firearms ownership. The law-abiding individuals who own those guns in our communities, the indigenous folks who own those guns in our communities and so many others, are sick and tired of being targeted by the Liberal partisans.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Again, just a reminder to keep questions and comments as short as possible so everyone can participate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member just made my point. He is giving a false impression. He is trying to say to farmers, hunters and indigenous people that we are going to take away their guns. That is balderdash. That is not the case.

Does the member not realize that he is doing a great disservice to the whole debate, a debate that Canadians from coast to coast are concerned about? They want safer communities. This legislation would provide safer communities.

On the record, in terms of rural versus urban, the member might note that I periodically get the chance to stand up and address legislation. I always welcome that. I never look at it as an urban-rural split. I like to think that I am very sensitive to all rural issues. It is one of the reasons I spend a lot of time talking about agricultural issues.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with some of the changes made to Bill C-21 along the way, and I really want to highlight the extraordinary work of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. We saw her take charge and manage this file for the Bloc Québécois. We are all very proud of what has been done on this file, which was very complex and whose path was very chaotic. I believe that the final result is very impressive.

One of the issues of great concern to people in my riding, and probably in many others as well, is that of airsoft guns, the controversial replica toy guns. Many people back home will be satisfied. As we worked on Bill C‑21, we also raised the issue of smuggling, crime and gun trafficking at the border. I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to tell us more about this.

What will Bill C‑21 do to fight organized crime and gun trafficking at the border?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, right off, I would mention the issue of ghost guns. That is a growing issue that has been raised by law enforcement officers all over the country. I believe this is a great attempt to deal with that specific issue.

I want to pick up on the member's comments that there has been a great deal of co-operation, in good part because of the NDP and the Bloc. We have seen stronger, healthier legislation than when it was first introduced. It goes to show that if the opposition works with the government and the government works with the opposition, we can have better legislation. We do appreciate that support.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am very proud of the work that my NDP colleagues have done in ensuring that indigenous peoples' rights are protected, that hunters and lawful gun owners are also protected.

Why is it so important to make sure that this bill is passed right away so we can make sure there is a better sense of public safety in urban settings?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a sense of urgency to the legislation. One of the reasons it is going to be able to pass is because of the support of the New Democrats to bring in the time allocation that will be necessary.

The Conservative Party of Canada has made it very clear that Conservative members will not support it; they will go out of their way to ensure that this legislation never sees the light of day. Without the support of at least one opposition party, the Liberal government would not be able to get the legislation passed, because we need time allocation. Otherwise, the legislation would not pass because of the commitment by the Conservative Party not to see it pass.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to be able to stand in this place and debate the issues that are so important to my constituents and Canadians.

It is interesting. As we enter into debate on this subject, I have heard, today and over the course of the last number of months, an emphasis on a massive disconnect that exists. I have heard this in the previous members' speeches. I have been hearing it in questions and comments. I heard it at committee. I was a regular member of the public safety committee in the previous Parliament, but not in this Parliament. However, I had the chance to participate in some of those meetings.

We are seeing a massive disconnect between rural and urban Canada. There are many Liberals who would try to diminish that and use fanciful language to suggest that they are somehow listening to those voices and whatnot. However, I can say very clearly that when I have canvassed and spoken with many constituents, they feel entirely abandoned by the Liberal government and say that its political and ideological agenda is unfairly targeting them.

We are debating Bill C-21. Many Canadians have followed this debate very closely. It is interesting, because the debate has evolved quite substantially. I am going to go back to 2015; at that time, we had the then leader of the Liberal Party, who is now Prime Minister, making it very clear that he thought that the situation with firearms in Canada was in a good place. He promised not to bring back a gun registry. He was quoted saying that his protection detail used to let him play with their service revolvers and that he had a great deal of respect for those firearms owners.

However, it seems that as the years have gone by, scandals have erupted, and there has been a gradual diminishment of Liberal support from across the country. Thus, the Liberals seem to fall back on an old tactic. When they are failing, they go back to attacking those whom they think they can score political points against.

I would suggest that with the introduction and the amendments that were initially proposed, and now as the Liberals have rammed through this legislation that is supposed to be about firearms and is messaged in the guise of public safety, it is really just an attack. It is an attack from a government that is floundering and needing to change the channel from scandals, mismanagement and where the country is at, because so many Canadians are suffering.

Instead of dealing with the real issues that Canadians are suffering from, the Liberals are saying, “Look over here.” They are simply going to something that they think they can score political points on. That is cheap politics. It increasingly furthers that rural-urban divide that I mentioned. Moreover, when those sorts of games are played, it does not actually create good public policy. We have seen that here.

We have a very large bill with a significant level of complexity, with far more than I would be able to fit in a 10-minute speech. However, while the Liberals say that this is about Canadians' safety and taking guns off the streets, it is ironic that they absolutely fail to acknowledge that the problem is not law-abiding firearms owners. The problem is not those who go through training, who keep up their certification and licensing, and who are legally allowed to own firearms in this country.

There are more than two million firearms owners, many of whom I am proud to represent, coming from a rural area. Those individuals are hunters, sport shooters and farmers. In fact, for many farmers and ranchers, a firearm is a tool. I am not sure the Liberals quite understand this. It is a tool like any other. It is important to acknowledge that.

Yet, we have the Liberals attacking these individuals with this gun-confiscation regime, and they are saying that it is about public safety. The reality is that it does nothing. In fact, when I asked at committee whether some of the policies that had been brought in at a provincial level had resulted in any reductions in crime, the Liberals could not answer those questions.

I think it is ironic and unfortunate that we see the politicization of this issue. We see a Prime Minister who is bogged down by scandal, corruption and mismanagement targeting 2.1 million Canadians for cheap political points. When Canadians can hardly afford to put food on the table, what do the Liberals do? They go back to talking about guns.

However, I want to talk about the public safety issue specifically, because that is a huge issue. We have seen a massive increase in violent crime. We have seen a massive increase in the illegal use of firearms, yet we see how, instead of the Liberals addressing the real root of the problem, they just go after the easy target of law-abiding firearms owners. They target them instead of doing the hard work that is required to deal with smuggled guns, violent criminal behaviour or a broken bail system.

The unfortunate reality is that there are Canadians who are dying as a result of violent crime. There are victims, and it is because of a soft-on-crime agenda that the Liberals refuse to acknowledge as part of the problem. My constituents are sick and tired of it. They see how damaging the soft-on-crime agenda is to the public safety of our entire country, including rural and urban areas and everywhere in between. However, instead of doing anything about it, the Liberals say it is those who are trained and vetted, those who have a check run against them in the police system every single day to ensure that they continue to be allowed to own those firearms.

The fact is that law-abiding firearms owners are some of the least likely individuals in this country to commit a crime. Members from the Liberal Party talk about not wanting to import American-style politics into the debate. It is that party that is playing those sorts of divisive games and trying to throw 2.1 million Canadians under the bus so they can score a few points. Further to that, it was not Conservatives who had a former presidential candidate come and speak to their party convention, it was the Liberals. Since they are spouting off rhetoric about firearms, I would simply ask the question of whether they agree with Hillary Clinton's position on the second amendment, because she is pretty pro-gun compared with some of the things they are saying.

The hypocrisy is rich, and the consequence is that the Liberals' dividing for political gain is putting many of my constituents in an untenable position. I have many constituents who are proud of that rural heritage, that sporting heritage and that conservation heritage. I do not have time to get into the conservation aspect of hunting and how important it is for wildlife management across this country. We see how the Liberals are throwing that away.

I would just note a point I made in committee yesterday. We see a virtual ban on handguns. We see so many firearms, including hunting rifles, that will be confiscated. We see that the Liberals have devastated many small business owners across the country, those who would own gun shops and sporting goods stores. The Liberals are pretty quick to accuse regular, law-abiding Canadians of all the worst possible things, yet even in the bill there is a carve-out for federal police forces.

For example, there is the ability of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to allow its peace officers to carry firearms. Moreover, all of us in this place very much appreciate the good work that our security personnel do around here. They carry guns, and that is okay. We have the RCMP, municipal police forces and provincial police forces; their officers all carry guns, and that is okay. The Liberals are saying that they want the protection but that they do not trust Canadians.

We have here a massive disconnect between how one would actually solve concerns related to public safety and how the Liberals are simply taking an easy path, playing cheap politics and targeting many of my constituents. I would suggest that there is a clear difference in the way Conservatives would approach issues of public safety in this country. There is a political party that will go after those who do not commit the crimes and let those who do commit them back out on the streets, with weak bail and parole systems that are literally seeing people killed. That is not an exaggeration.

What is the Conservative plan? We hear often from the Liberals that they want to hear the Conservative plan, so I will give a bit of what that looks like. We would stop going after those who are least likely to commit the crimes and put the violent repeat offenders behind bars, where they belong. We would ensure that a true balance was met so that Canadians could trust the fact that they are not being targeted simply because they go through the process and are trusted to own a firearm, unlike those who are not.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about cheap politics, petty games and filibusters. Indeed, my colleague opposite talked about some of the petty games, but he did not reference the fact that so much of the time that they have been asking for has been wasted by the Conservatives through this filibuster process.

As the gun lobby is attacking members of Parliament like me on social media for standing up for public safety and responsible gun laws, it is simultaneously retweeting Conservative MPs and the leader of the Conservative Party. It it seems to me now that, similar to the United States, the Canadian gun lobby and the Conservative Party of Canada are one and the same. They are clearly bed buddies.

My colleague said that we are all urban MPs on this side, but I am not. I am a semi-rural MP, and I have a lot of avid hunters and farmers in my community as well.

However, I have two questions. First, do Canadians need AR15s to protect their farms? Do they use them for hunting? Do they use assault-style weapons and weapons of war for these “sports”, as he put it? Second, has the member opposite ever benefited from fundraising? Has he ever keynoted a gala for the Canadian gun lobby, as many of his colleagues have?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member would certainly be welcome to come and visit some of the rural communities that are absolutely furious and frustrated with how they are so quick to attack those who choose to follow the law versus those who do not.

If the member wants to talk about American-style politics, who headlined their convention? It was a supporter of the second amendment, Hillary Clinton. The hypocrisy is rich coming from that party. Specifically, it is interesting that the member was pretty quick to brag about his history in the Olympics in his pre-political life, yet what the bill would actually do, and a common-sense amendment—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe we have a point of order.

The hon. member for Milton.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every time the member gets up, he accuses me of bragging about something. I do not have to brag about going to the Olympics. I represented Canada four times. That is not bragging; it is a fact. I am not bragging—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is not a point of order; we are getting into debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I certainly would brag about the member going to the Olympics. I wish I could accomplish such a feat.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Again, we are descending pretty deep into debate here.

The hon. member for Milton.