Robert Sopuck

[Income Tax Act, January 29th, 2016]

Some mess, Madam Speaker. The OECD consistently rated Canada as having the best economy in the world under our government.

I was part of the minority government for a little while, back in the day of the so-called deficits the member talked about. We heard a lot of whining from the Liberals' and the NDP in those minority years. Their basic complaint was that we did not spend enough.

Paul Wells wrote an article in NewswatchCanada. In a quick summary, he said said that in this government's first 100 days,

some patterns have been set; Ministers talk to media anonymously, afraid to be quoted; trouble abounds and surrounds; from free-falling oil to terrorism, to shots in feet, the Liberal Govt faces both external and self-inflicted woes.

Has the government melted down so fast in so short a time? I do not think so.

[Income Tax Act, January 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have already committed the cardinal error of public speaking, which is following a terrific speech. I want to thank my colleague for her wonderful maiden speech. She is a welcomed addition to the Conservative family in the House. I think we will all have to run like crazy to keep up with her, and that is a good thing.

Before I talk about the subject at hand, I would like to refer to something that came up in question period, which quite vexed me.

The member for Prince Albert talked about Ukraine and said that the government was crying crocodile tears for Ukraine. I remember in November 2014, I had the honour of accompanying the then prime minister to the G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia. At that particular meeting, the prime minister had to shake hands with Vladimir Putin. He said to Mr. Putin, “...I'll shake your hand...”, and then he looked him right in the eye and said, “You need to get out of Ukraine”.

Imagine those on the other side, with the leader they have, ever doing such a thing, standing up for Canada, standing up for principle. He would probably want to take a selfie.

As well, the other side downplays the human tragedy that is occurring because of the economic downturn. Often anecdotes and personal experiences are as important or more important than numbers and statistics.

There is a gas station just outside of Winnipeg that I stop at when I drive back and forth between Winnipeg and my constituency. I chat with the proprietor. We have become friends. We were talking about the low price of gas and he was quite worried about it. I asked him why. He said that every day there would be a person or a family stop at the gas station. These people were heading back home to the Maritimes. With the Alberta economy collapsing, they have lost just about everything and their only alternative is to return to the Maritimes. The Maritimes are a wonderful part of the world to be sure, but they are economically stressed. However, these people have to pack up everything, leave secure, well-paying jobs, and go back home to live with mom and dad, trying to rebuild their lives.

The Liberal and NDP war on the resource industries is a war on rural communities as well. These have real and dire human consequences that we lose sight of at our peril.

On the topic at hand, I would like to point out that the Conservative approach is very much one of encouraging personal growth and development through our taxation and financial policy systems. Our goal is to ensure that people are as independent as they possibly can be, that they have fulfilled their ambitions, and that they are allowed to chart their lives in a way they choose. Government policies can encourage that kind of independence or can discourage it.

As Conservatives, we firmly believe that government's role is to enable self-sufficiency and reduce the reliance on government so people can chart their own course, and TFSAs are exactly in that mould.

I hate to say it, but I think it is true, and the record bears it out, that both the Liberals and the NDP on the other hand want more people dependent on government, and I am not sure why. The policies and programs that Liberal and NDP governments have put in place at both the provincial and federal levels across the country result in more and more people becoming dependent upon government. The creation of that kind of dependence, in my view, creates grave problems for society.

Canadians have a lot of pride, and charting one's own path in life enhances that pride. Government has a role to provide mostly a hand up as opposed to only a hand out.

Again, I would like to bring in the personal here. When we brought in our last budget with income splitting, the universal child care benefit, and all those great benefits for families, I received an email from a single mother from the town of Swan River in my constituency, from Ms. Mackenzie Danard, and she gave me permission to use her name.

She wrote to us to thank us for our tax policies. Keep in mind, this is a single mother on a very low income. She wrote, “This helps a lot for single parents”. She also added, “Thank you for helping us raise our children”. So much for the idea that Conservative budgets are for the rich. As I said in my speech yesterday, Conservative members of Parliament are the party for the working people of the country. No one should ever forget that.

TFSAs, tax-free savings accounts, are exactly in line with our philosophy of promoting independence. Again, I am not one who thinks government does not have a role in society. It certainly does. I have never been shy to encourage the spending of government resources on projects and programs that help people. We certainly need tax resources to ensure the health of our society, but they should be kept at a minimum.

The tax-free savings account is kind of a companion to the RRSP. It helps people to become independent. TFSAs are open to all citizens over 18. Let us contrast this with the Canada penson plan. Many members opposite want to see the Canada pension plan contributions increase.

The Canada pension plan, in and of itself, is a pretty good program. However, it is a matter of degree. TFSAs are complementary to the Canada pension plan. Unlike the Canada pension plan, tax-free savings accounts introduce choice in how one invests their money. They also accumulate in one's own personal account. If people contribute to CPP, even an added CPP, and they unfortunately happen to pass on before the eligibility date, there is nothing left for the family. At least with a TFSA a legacy is left that can be passed on to the next generation.

The attacks on the tax-free saving plan are completely unwarranted. My colleague who spoke before me listed chapter and verse the number of groups across the country, including seniors groups. I am in the over 60 club, if the truth be known . My generation is strongly supportive of the approach our government put in place.

I would like to go to the personal about TFSAs. On May 13, 2015, in Hansard, I quoted a constituent of mine who sent me an email. She gave me permission to use her name. Ms. Wendy McDonald is a hard-working wife from Newdale, Manitoba. Her husband farms, and they have children. They were visiting in Ottawa. They said:

The reason we were able to afford our trip to Ottawa was due to our income tax refund, which was larger than expected due to income splitting law...our family chooses to put the child care benefit money we receive directly into RESP for our 2 children, and I will be one of the Canadians that will benefit from the increased allowance on TFSA accounts because saving is important to me and allows me to be fiscally responsible in my own household

This is a family, the McDonalds from Newdale, that is charting its own course in life. These people are independent, saving money for their kids and for their retirement, using the tools our government put in place. These are tools the new government is trying to take away.

My last point is in regard to the so-called tax hike on the wealthy. A typical Liberal, NDP trait is to always penalize success, always envious of people who do well, always thinking that people who succeed in life are just lucky. Most people succeed in life because of hard work and governments should have policies in place that support and reward hard work.

I have The Fiscal Monitor from the Department of Finance. It is very clear. For the April to November 2015 period of the 2015-16 fiscal year, the government posted a budgetary surplus of $1 billion. What could be clearer than that? Our government left a financial legacy of which I am very proud. It is a government that I was certainly proud to be a part of, and in four short years we will be back.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member just proved my point yet again, making a comment about the state of Canada's environment under our previous government, with not a single measurement, not a single number, not a single example. It was nothing but hyperbole. That is what the other side does. The Liberals have no mathematical, quantifiable evidence regarding the environment. They are afraid to talk about it because the environment improved considerably under our watch.

Could my colleague elaborate on the very human cost of the decline in the energy industry, not just in Calgary and Alberta but across the country? Could he talk about what it means to families and their futures, their incomes, and their hopes and dreams with the current decline in the energy industry? The decline, I might add, has partly been caused by bad public policy by the current government.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I really thank the hon. member for proving my point. Notice how in the questions she asked there was not a single quantifiable item. There was nothing about the state of water quality, nothing about air quality, nothing about biodiversity. It was all about process.

I was on the fisheries committee and the environment committee for my four years. I had a front row seat in the changes to the legislation there. I challenge any member of any party in the House to prove that any of that had any negative environmental effect, because it did not.

By the way, the Navigable Waters Protection Act is not a conservation of environment act, it is a navigation act that was written in 1895 and we modernized the act.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in response to his first point about New Brunswick, all I can say is that talk is cheap. These are real consequences. I will accept that the minister's intentions are good. However, good intentions are not enough. It is all about policy, process, programs, and the signals they send in the street to encourage them to grow and develop. The wrong policies, the wrong programs, and excess delays due to lengthened environmental processes result in the closure of towns and projects that are not built.

In terms of fixing the National Energy Board process, quite frankly, all environmental processes should focus on the environment. The members opposite are implying that somehow the environment was degraded under our term. I have proven with my numbers from Environment Canada that the environment improved mathematically on our watch. Environmental processes should focus on the environment.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill.

I am very proud to speak in favour of the motion to support the energy east pipeline. I am also very proud of the environmental record of the Conservatives when we were in government.

Let me give hon. members some numbers, because too often numbers are forgotten. Members on the other side speak with passion and emotion, but never with numbers. Under our watch, there was a 9.5% decrease in per capita C02 emissions. There was a significant decline in sulphur dioxide, significant declines in nitrogen dioxide, and a very significant decline in the concentrations of volatile organic compounds.

In 2010 the United Nations said Canada had the second best water quality ranking among selected industrialized countries. All our protected areas increased by 95%, and our government designated over 135,000 square kilometres of new protected areas since 2006, the largest increase in history. There was the Sydney tar ponds cleanup; Hamilton Harbour remediation; Lake Simcoe cleanup; the habitat stewardship program; Great Lakes cleanup; the recreational fisheries partnership program; and 800,000 new hectares of habitat conserved under the natural areas conservation program. In my own jurisdiction, significant improvements were made to Lake Winnipeg with our Lake Winnipeg cleanup program,

Our government had a tremendous environmental track record, one that I am very proud of, but I am very frightened of the way the new government is operating in terms of the environment.

It is very shameful that the Liberals and the NDP have literally declared war on Canada's natural resource industries and the people and communities who depend on those industries. It is shameful, and I have the honour to represent communities and people who are supported by the natural resources industries.

Natural resources account for about 20% of the Canadian economy, and the health of these industries affects all of us. Look at the recent decline in the stock market. Look at the recent decline in the value of pension funds. Much of the stock market and most of Canada's pension plans are supported by the natural resource industries, those same industries that the Liberals and the NDP actually want to kill.

Energy is Canada's most valuable export, and in addition to creating hundreds and thousands of jobs, these energy exports fuel social programs, support transfer payments, and contribute very strongly to Canada's balance of payments.

Although natural resources are important to all people in Canada, as I said, they are especially important to rural communities, the kind I represent, where most resource harvesting and extraction is done. In fact, I could even go so far as to say the Liberals and the NDP have declared war on small-town Canada.

When a natural resources company closes down, as recently happened with the potash mine in Sussex, New Brunswick, the affected community itself literally closes down. The Minister of Natural Resources and the House leader were there to watch this, crying crocodile tears for that community, but as a person who lived in a community where a paper mill closed down, I know these are literally life and death events.

Pipelines are critical to the energy industry, and it is critical that Canada gets our crude oil to tidewater. As many people know, there is a two-price system for oil in the world, and since Canada has no pipeline access to salt water, we are essentially a captive supplier to the United States, where we receive the lower West Texas price, as opposed to the higher Brent price.

The difference was very significant four or five years ago when oil prices were very high, and from the figures I saw, we lost about $20 billion per year because we could not access the higher Brent price. This is why the energy east project is so important. That is why I am so proud to support this particular motion. Not only will this diversify our oil markets and get us higher prices, but it will generate over 14,000 jobs in the nine-year construction phase, much needed jobs, many of them in economically depressed areas. We are talking about 2,3000 construction jobs in New Brunswick alone, which is reeling from the loss of the potash mine, as I described. Western producers, eastern refiners, and all levels of government would benefit from this.

Furthermore, this would replace imported Saudi oil, which is currently being refined in New Brunswick, with Canadian crude oil instead. Who in their right mind could be against that? If that is not enough, most of this pipeline is already in place, and all that we are talking about over most of the length is a substitution of gas with oil. Who in their right mind could be against that?

It must be noted that pipelines are the safest mode of oil transportation, with 99.999% of oil shipped through federally regulated pipelines arriving at its destination without incident.

What goes into building a pipeline? When I was fresh out of graduate school with my fisheries degree, my first job was in the Mackenzie Valley, way back in the 1970s, with the first proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I had the honour of serving the entire pipeline route, along with engineers, wildlife biologists, ecologists, and land use specialists. I will never forget flying in a helicopter over the proposed pipeline route, dropping in at various streams, sampling the streams for fish and benthic invertebrates, looking at the quality of the habitat for spawning, over-wintering, and so on. The wildlife biologist did the same thing for wildlife, and the engineers looked at the capability of the land to support a pipeline, the depth of the hydrology of the stream to ensure that the pipeline would be buried deep enough and so on and so forth.

This was some 40-odd years ago, if not more. Even then, Canada was a world leader in the construction of pipelines. What was interesting is that back in the 1990s, when the price of gas went back up again, the environmental process of the day required that all of that be repeated all over again. Nothing had changed up there, but another 10-year process was put in place to do all the same surveys that we did in the 1970s, and again, ultimately, that particular pipeline was not built because the price of gas declined.

I want to talk about the environmental process. Much of what the Liberals are talking about putting in place will actually be of no benefit to the environment itself. At the briefing yesterday, I asked the staff to quantify any environmental effects that the process we had put in place had. I wanted numbers and measurements of the real environment. The staff people could not do a thing. All we are doing is talking about a process here; we are not talking about the environment itself.

The problem with these processes that the Liberals are going to put in is that delay of a single pipeline project that could improve market access could cost up to $70 million per day, not to mention the foregone benefits of property taxes, jobs, and social benefits.

I also asked the officials yesterday if there were any intent to do an economic impact analysis of the proposed process, and what I heard was basically crickets. There will be no analysis of the cost of these delays, but we do know that every day's delay costs the Canadian economy about $70 million.

One of the things that it is important to realize is that the energy business is a people business. People work in the energy industry to put their kids through school, to buy homes, and now with the energy industry in decline, these people are really suffering.

Again, going back to the environmental process that the government announced yesterday, these changes are not improvements. They are all about interference. In fact, this charade should really be called “five steps to get to no”. Under this particular process, we can easily see that after all is said and done, the answer will clearly be no. Again, Canada's oil will stay in the ground, and many of the members on the Liberal and NDP sides want Canada's oil to stay in the ground, regardless of the human cost.

I had the honour of working in the oil sands in the winter of 2009-10. I worked at a camp doing environmental assessments. I got to know a lot of the energy workers from all across Canada who worked at the camp, including moms and dads wanting to put their kids through school or to put a down payment on a house, or a young person wanting to pay their university education, or seniors working to ensure that they would have a dignified retirement.

This is the cost of what the Liberals are proposing. This is what will really happen. I find their lack of concern for the working people in this country truly appalling. It is quite clear that the only party that cares about working Canadians is the Conservative Party of Canada.

That is why I call upon all members of the House to support this vitally important project. It will contribute to nation building, provide much-needed jobs and economic benefits, and guarantee it will be done in an environmentally sound manner. This motion must be supported.

[Fisheries and Oceans, December 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, one of the first acts of the Liberal government was to approve the dumping of eight billion litres of raw and untreated sewage into the St. Lawrence River, one of Canada's most iconic waterways, in direct violation of Section 36 of the Fisheries Act. So much for the government's vaunted and phony commitments to science and the environment. Cities and municipalities downriver called it surprising, disgusting, and outrageous.

Why did the minister overturn the order issued by our previous Conservative government and allow important fish habitat in the St. Lawrence to be polluted in direct violation of the Fisheries Act?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I served on the fisheries committee with my hon. colleague from time to time. I certainly enjoyed our interactions and his intelligent questions.

Too often, when people talk about the environment, no one mentions any numbers. Environment should be less about emotion and more about math. On our watch, greenhouse gas emissions declined, ambient levels of sulphur dioxide declined on average by 4.8% per year, and nitrogen dioxide levels declined by 2.9% per year.

As well, in terms of the Fisheries Act, the changes we made were common-sense changes to protect rural communities and at the same time protect fish stocks. I would make the point that, up to 2009, the end of the period on which the Cohen commission based its report, there was definitely a crisis in sockeye salmon stocks. However, on our watch, the 2010 sockeye salmon run was a record in history, and the 2014 sockeye salmon run was even larger. The changes we made to the Fisheries Act actually worked, and the proof is in the pudding—by and large, fish stocks in this country are doing extremely well.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I read the throne speech word for word, which was not difficult to do because, basically, there was nothing in it.

What is critical is to create a climate for investment. To want to give gumdrops to everyone is fine. That is a nice aspirational goal, and that is the kind of goal that is in the throne speech.

We need real and concrete policy, programs, and outcomes that will create a climate for investment in this country so that entrepreneurs, business people, and those people with good ideas can continue to grow the economy and help our middle class out.

What I heard from the Liberals was nothing but fluff. Their programs will do nothing to grow the economy and create the wealth this country needs to provide vital public services.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the illustrious member for Langley—Aldergrove.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the Liberal government's first Speech from the Throne. This is my first time rising in this new Parliament as the member for the newly configured riding of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. I am also the official opposition critic for wildlife conservation and Parks Canada.

First, I would like to thank the voters of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for placing their trust in me yet again, and to take a moment to congratulate my fellow members of Parliament, both new and re-elected, on their victories in the last federal election.

As the official opposition, Canadians expect us to hold the government to account and ensure that we present an alternative vision to the Liberals' agenda. That is why much of what I heard in Friday's throne speech concerned me greatly.

First, there was no mention about how to create a climate for investment and economic growth. I expected this, since the Liberals and their fellow travellers on the left, the NDP, focus on spending as much money as they can while never advancing or promoting policies that will actually create wealth.

I would remind them that a focus on creating wealth is a necessary prerequisite to spending. However, I hold little hope in this regard. Deficits will balloon under the government, while investment will wither on the vine as businesses and wealth creators are increasingly punished for creating jobs. The new payroll tax, in the guise of a changed CPP, is a perfect example.

Second, as a member of Parliament for a large agricultural and natural resources-based constituency, I was amazed and very disappointed by the complete lack of any reference in the throne speech to agriculture and rural Canada. Agriculture generates over $100 billion for the Canadian economy, and Canada's natural resources industries, largely based in rural Canada, are the backbone of the Canadian economy. Well, that is until the Liberals finish off the natural resources sector with punitive taxation and a regulatory regime designed to endlessly delay any new natural resource development anywhere in Canada.

In fact, rural communities appear to have been largely forgotten. The Liberals have made specific promises regarding public transit, for example. Of course, public transit is important in large urban centres, but it is largely non-existent in my riding.

How do the Liberals plan on compensating our communities? We do not have public transit where I live and where I represent, but we do have infrastructure needs. Will the Liberals match the investments in urban transit with rural infrastructure projects?

The Canadian natural resources sector is suffering, as are those natural resource-dependent communities in rural Canada. Crude oil is below $40. With the proposed carbon tax and onerous regulatory regime layered on top of low prices, it is clear that the Liberals and their fellow travellers in the NDP have basically declared war on Canada's energy sector and our natural resources industries.

I find this appalling because when it comes right down to it, the energy business is basically a people business. Let me explain. Canada's natural resources sector employs over $1.8 million Canadians, and the energy sector supports about 300,000 jobs alone. In the winter of 2009-10, like many of my constituents, I worked in the Alberta oil sands conducting environmental monitoring. In that capacity, I met Canadians from every province who were supporting themselves and their families by working in the oil sands. I met senior couples saving for a dignified retirement, young people saving for their first home, and moms and dads putting away money for their children's education.

Apart from the fact that Canada's oil sands operates under a strict regime of environmental compliance and real excellence, it is the people and employees, supported by the oil sands, who are the real driving force behind this vital industry. It is Canadians from all across Canada who will be affected by the Liberals deliberate strategy to shrink the oil sands.

How much of the expected $570 billion that was earmarked for new investments will now not be spent? How many manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec will not get equipment orders? How many vehicles will not be purchased by energy workers? How many homes will stay unsold? How many people from high unemployment areas who formerly commuted to the oil sands will now be forced to stay home collecting employment insurance? How many vital public services will now be starved for funds?

I had the honour in the last Parliament to be a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Both fit well with my experience as a fisheries biologist and my careers in natural resources and conservation. In those capacities, I have developed a singular focus on the delivery of real and measurable environmental results for every public dollar spent.

That was the policy of our government, and I am very proud of our record in delivering real and measurable environmental results from our programs.

Under our watch, most measurable environmental indicators showed marked improvements. Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions declined. On our watch, the UN, in 2010, declared that Canada ranked number two in terms of the quality of our water when compared with other industrialized nations.

Our government set aside an area for national parks that is twice the size of the province of New Brunswick. We cleaned up hundreds of contaminated sites, introduced major fisheries habitat conservation programs, improved wetland conservation, and initiated major work to improve water quality in Lake Winnipeg and the Great Lakes.

I would point out to the House that within their first month in office, the Liberals have made eight funding announcements, costing Canadians almost $2.85 billion. None of that money is going to be spent in Canada, and none of those funds were approved by Parliament or even announced when Parliament was sitting. Most will be spent on international climate change projects.

The question I keep asking, both with this $2.85 billion as well as with other points in my speech, is what do Canadians get for these funds? Government spending is all about priorities, and pressing environmental investments need to be made right here in Canada. For example, Lake Erie is being seriously affected by nutrient inputs, primarily from the United States. In fact, all of the Great Lakes, where 40% of Canadians live by the way, are experiencing eutrophication from an ever-increasing number of non-point sources.

These are the kinds of environmental issues that Canadians expect governments to work on, yet the Liberal government's priority is to send almost 400 delegates to Paris, more than the U.S., Britain, and Australia combined. Generating real and measurable environmental results is what Canadians expect but will certainly not get from the Liberal government.

By the way, it was truly astonishing that the first act by our new Minister of Environment and Climate Change was to allow Montreal to dump eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence, one of Canada's most iconic waterways. This was in direct violation of section 36 of the Fisheries Act. So much for the Liberals' vaunted concern for the environment.

In the throne speech, the Liberal government promised to introduce a carbon tax, thus increasing cost to industry, further depressing energy investments, and increasing direct energy costs to Canadians. There are two groups of Canadians who will be directly affected by this carbon tax, namely low-income and rural Canadians, the kind of people I represent. If it were not so serious, I would find it laughable that the Liberals claim to care so much about low-income Canadians. They are doing their best to put at risk the incomes of poor people and those who live in remote rural regions.

I would note that both low-income people and rural people spend a higher proportion of their incomes on energy than other Canadians. It is my expectation that any carbon pricing be revenue neutral and have a mechanism to offset the negative impacts of such a tax on low-income and rural people.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the federal Liberal government wants to take us down the same energy path as its friends in Ontario. How is that working out? Ontario's Auditor General, Bonnie Lysyk, recently valuated the Ontario Liberal's vaunted green energy strategy. She noted that Ontario electricity ratepayers have had to pay billions for these decisions. Between 2006 and 2014, this cost consumers an additional $37 billion in Ontario, and will cost ratepayers another $133 billion by 2032.

In the Toronto Star recently, of all places, there was an article by Thomas Walkom entitled “Ontario's green energy botch-up a lesson for those fighting climate change”. This article talked about Ontario's approach of massively subsidizing the production of electricity from solar and wind and biomass, resulting in a massive overproduction of power from Ontario that has to literally pay other jurisdictions to take its power. Interestingly, Ontario's annual average energy surplus between 2009 and 2014 was equal to the total power generation of my province of Manitoba, one of the major hydro producers in this country.

Furthermore, by dumping excess power on the market, Ontario has depressed energy prices for all producers. As Walkom notes, “Canadians are willing to pay a price now to save the future. But these same Canadians will rebel if they believe the governments inducing them to pay carbon taxes are incompetent, venal or both”. What we see in Ontario is the likely outcome of the energy policies of the federal government.

I would like a quick word on the firearm's issue. I was chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, and my critic portfolio includes protecting the rights of law-abiding firearms owners. The Liberals have declared their intention to attack law-abiding firearms owners once again. The Liberals are soft on crime and tough on law-abiding firearms owners. Talk about reverting to type. Again, we see them wanting to repeal Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, which ensured public safety was protected while at the same time protecting the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.

In conclusion, I have stressed just a few of the questions that Canadians have been raising in regard to the Liberal agenda.