Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to be here tonight to debate Bill C‑21 and the proposals to protect public safety and the rights and privileges of hunters and gun owners.
I would like to begin by mentioning that, as a member of Parliament, I represent a rural riding in Nova Scotia, Kings—Hants. There are many hunters and many people who own handguns and firearms in my riding.
It is part of our way of life. Every one of us who comes to the House does so bringing the voice and lived experiences of their constituents and, I would say, the experience of those in the communities they have the privilege of representing.
I want to start by saying that I do represent a rural riding. I have 20 minutes tonight, which is good. It is a privilege to be able to speak to this legislation for that length of time. I want to start with just a bit of a story.
My father taught me how to shoot a rifle and a shotgun. I would say it is almost a rite of passage in rural areas, although maybe a little less so now than it used to be. Guns are part of the culture in Canada, certainly the culture in rural communities. I do not actively shoot today. I have had lessons and the courses, but I do not actively hunt, and I do not actively shoot. However, I certainly respect those who do.
I can appreciate that, any time we have the conversation about public safety, gun control and legal gun owners, there can be a lot of tension. This is a challenging subject. It brings forward emotion. I have seen that at committee. I do not sit as a permanent member, but I did have the opportunity to sit in for a couple of hours last week. I have seen the debate here in the House, and how this is framed.
I hope to be able to give my perspective on the bill writ large, and maybe even, just broader, how we could tackle some of the challenges that we are seeing across the country. I want to start by saying that the issue of public safety is an important one in the country. We are seeing challenges with gun violence from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia and everywhere in between. I have a statistic.
Gun violence has increased 81% since 2009.
It is not unlike other challenges. We cannot point to one single factor, as to why there might be that certain outcome, but it is certainly an issue that we have to tackle with a nuanced approach, with a lot of different mechanisms moving forward.
I look forward to talking about Bill C-21 and also some of the work that the government is doing to try to tackle what I think is a challenging problem. We are not the United States. I do not say that loosely. We are not seeing mass shootings every single day in the news. I just got back from Washington. I have to say that, when we turn on the news and look at the United States, sadly, it is happening almost every single day.
We should not make our policies in Canada on the basis of what is happening in the United States, but we should also not be naive to the fact that, traditionally, this country has been influenced by what happens in the continent. When we talk about border policy and gun control, part of that is about trying to actually stem the tide of illegal guns that come across the border.
The minister has spoken about the work the government is doing and the investments that have been made.
These investments are aimed at stopping illegal guns from entering Canada, because they pose a problem in our communities, in our provinces and across the country.
In what we have to focus on, we have to try to strike a balance between infringing on the individual privileges that exist in this country and understanding that we cannot completely stop every single act that may happen in the country. There are people who, for a variety reasons, may want to cause harm to our neighbours, our family, our friends or our countrymen. If we could take reasonable measures to try to stop the incidents of that, I think that would be appropriate.
Everyone in the House is going to have a different perspective on what that actually is, how far the limit should be. I heard some members in the House who think that the existing laws, even before Bill C-21 was proposed, might have been too stringent and that we did not need the ones that were already there, such as the order in council in 2020.
I know there are members of the House who would stand up here today and say they are completely against it. There are other members of the House who would probably like to see Bill C-21 be an even further measure, and there are some, perhaps, who are somewhere in between, so we all bring our perspectives to this conversation.
I am of the view that we already have very good, strong gun laws. I support the measures writ large that are in Bill C-21. I have certain concerns I will address in the time I have remaining. We do have good gun laws and we do have good policy. If there are ways we can tweak it to move the yardstick as we see it here in Bill C-21, I do not see that as extremely problematic.
It is important to note that, with what is contained in Bill C-21, anyone who has been impacted by gun violence should not rest assured this bill alone would solve that. It is going to take a nuanced approach, as I said. We need to invest in the border, which the government is doing and is in the process of trying to tackle. The statistics I have before me show that CBSA has stopped more illegal guns than ever before from coming across the border, because of some of the enhanced measures that are there.
We need to invest in social programs. We are seeing some of the violence in our communities, particularly in urban centres, and some of this is driven by challenges around mental health. This is driven by addictions. It is driven by a lack of social programs for young people to have a place, mentorship and an ability to be part of something bigger. Trying to restrict guns will not solve that on its own.
The government has been very clear. Sometimes when we listen in the House, we would not know there is anything else going on because there is such a focus on this piece of legislation as opposed to on the broader work happening. I just want to highlight that this is going to be crucial in the days ahead. Those who go back to their community and talk about this legislation need to also talk about everything else that is happening in the context of solving the issue, because putting forward simplistic solutions to very nuanced problems is not going to get us very far.
Sadly, my riding, Kings—Hants, is where the worst mass murder in our country's history took place.
I remember well that day, three years ago. I woke up on a Sunday morning, and my wife brought to my attention that there was a shooter on the loose in Nova Scotia. It ended not too far down the road from me. Of all the members of Parliament in the House, and I do not wear it as a badge of honour and I do not wear it proudly, I have been able to see exactly the way in which gun violence has impacted communities in my riding in the most tragic way.
That brings me to the point of what Bill C-21 would actually do. There is a lot rhetoric. The word “misinformation” is getting used too much. There are a lot of overblown dynamics of what this bill would and would not do, so let me lay it out. This bill would establish a formal handgun freeze, in that one would not be able to import or buy a handgun unless one is an exempted individual under the legislation.
The bill would establish really important red flag laws. I want to recognize the member for Oakville North—Burlington. She has taken a considerable amount of abuse sitting on the public safety committee. She and I may not agree on exactly everything, but I am proud of the work she does. I texted her the other day when this bill made its way through committee. Notwithstanding a few of my concerns, I said that this would make a difference. I just want to go on the record and say that. Some of the red flag laws would be for intimate partner violence. There would be an ability for the RCMP to be aware of those individuals who could be red-flagged, and there could be a court process to revoke a gun licence until such time as we know it is safe for an individual to have one.
With respect to yellow-flag laws, as opposed to a court order, which is a higher threshold, the chief firearms officer already has a lot of discretion in the country. They would have the ability to revocate a licence and actually obtain the gun in a situation where it was demonstrably the case that they had to prevent an individual from harming either themselves or other people. Those are good things. In fact, Conservatives voted, I believe, for some of these measures. I have not heard all the speeches tonight. The Conservatives do not like to talk a lot about that, but there are some good measures for which there is undoubtedly a pretty good consensus in this House to move forward.
With respect to ghost guns, there was no criminal provision for someone who would take disparate parts and be able to build an actual gun that could cause harm. There would now be actual criminal provisions against ghost guns. Again, this is something that was approved across party lines, and I certainly commend that.
The legislation also walks back, as members will remember, the dreaded amendments. With respect to the amendments that the government sought to table, the intention was right. The application was wrong, in terms of what it would do. There was massive confusion. In fact, when I was back home in my riding just recently, I was still getting asked questions on what the government had tabled, back before Christmas. Thankfully, that process has been simplified. There is going to be a definition of a prohibited firearm, but it would only be on models moving forward.
Let me repeat that. I have listened, certainly tonight, to the Conservatives suggest that certain guns and hunting rifles would be banned. That is not the case. Any current model would not be touched by this prohibited firearm definition. That is extremely important, and it is not being recognized by the official opposition. I understand the members might have grievances and policy differences, but they should not frame this in a way that is not what is actually happening. That is extremely important.
The bill would also require firearms manufacturers to identify what the gun was actually designed for, moving forward. Therefore, either future models would have to conform to this definition or they would be prohibited in the country. That provides the certainty and clarity that gun manufacturers would like, and it would put an onus on them to identify that. Again, it is forward-looking. There is not one single aspect about a current long rifle in the market today. That is something that is not being stated enough here in this House.
The bill would establish a committee. I should say that this committee has already been established, as the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford rightly pointed out earlier in the debate. It would now be re-established to advise on the existing models on the market with respect to any that it might deem should be prohibited. I want to make it very clear, though, that this is not just a committee that would put a list together and say what is prohibited. There would still be ministerial discretion involved. That is important. Moving forward, members of Parliament could actually engage the minister once the committee re-establishes and identify models.
That was part of the problem with the amendments in the long list; there were a few hunting rifles that were included. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety made it very clear that this was not the intent, but that was how it applied. Therefore, I am glad that the government went back and recalibrated this to get it right.
I want to say one thing with respect to the advisory committee. It is a good process. I want to make sure that my advice is on the record; this is that the committee has to comprise individuals who are independent and individuals who know the technical specifications of firearms in this country. I know that there are strong advocates for gun control in this country who have been touched by violence. In my respectful view, that is not the place where these individuals should be. It should also not be the place of special interest groups that want to drive the gun lobby. To the extent that the government is able, I would suggest that it should try to find individuals who are not actually driven by one ideological preference or another but can provide technical advice to the minister and allow the minister to have discretion. That, to me, is absolutely key. There have been challenges with the firearms advisory committee in the past, including groups resigning because of the contentiousness of putting disparate groups together. This has to be an independent process.
We all come to the table with our certain biases, but again, it is going to be extremely important for those who are named to that advisory committee to be able to provide that recommendation based on policy evidence and not on emotion on either side of this issue.
With the last five minutes, as I have here in my notes, let us cut through some of the Conservative BS. Now, I did not say the word, but I am sorry and will rephrase. Let us cut through some of the Conservative narrative. Hopefully that is okay. Hunting rifles are not being targeted. How many times have we stated that on hunting rifles?
I represent a riding where there are a lot of hunters, and I had a lot of people call me during the amendments. Again, I mentioned already in my speech the concern around the amendment process and the confusion it was causing. For example, we were telling people to look at the list to see if their gun was listed there and whether we were banning it. However, the way the actual legislation read at the time, and the amendments that were tabled, is that it would say “the following guns are banned or prohibited, except for” and then it would name about 15 pages worth of guns that were actually being exempted and not being prohibited. We would tell people, of course, to go the list, they would ctrl+f to find their gun, but they did not scroll up 15 pages to see that it was actually exempted, and there was a lot of confusion.
However, let me make it very clear that the Conservatives are not correct when they say that this bill is targeting hunting rifles in any which way. They have no right to say that. They can have frustration with handguns, thinking that maybe they should be completely open and legal, which is fine, just say that, but anything around the hunting rifles is a complete fallacy. The bill does not apply to current guns. We can get into the dynamic around the advisory committee. I just made very clear where I stand on that, and the importance of that committee having independence, but this legislation, outside of putting a freeze on handguns, does not apply to any long rifles whatsoever. That needs to be recognized by the official opposition. I hope that they are not going to drive a narrative out to their constituents that runs contrary to what this bill would actually do.
Members of the official opposition supported a number of elements in this bill. However, they seem not to recognize that the government is taking other initiatives above and beyond. I agree with them that this bill alone would not solve gun violence. We need measures at the border, we need to be able to enhance criminal penalties, as this government has done for those who are smuggling guns across the border, and we need to invest in social programs. Even that may not solve the issue completely, and so let us not have rose-coloured glasses coming into this situation. Again, Conservatives need to recognize that this government is doing more than just what is in this bill.
However, Conservatives may agree with certain elements of the bill, and they obviously voted in committee on a majority of it. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford might be able to weigh in on this as he was a member of that committee for a considerable amount of time. My understanding is that the Conservatives actually voted for quite a bit of what is in here, but we would not know that by the way they actually speak on the bill.
I have two minutes left, and let me say that the one concern, among others, such as the advisory committee and the importance of its independence, is sport shooting. I have a lot of sport shooters in my riding.
The former warden for the municipality of East Hants is a guy named Jim Smith, and we have had a number of conversations. He invited me to the IPSC national championship that took place near the Halifax Stanfield airport last year. I have seen them work and the way in which these individuals go about their craft, and how they represent their province, their country and their locality at shooting competitions. I explained at committee that I was concerned that this legislation did not have a provision for this.
The NDP did move an amendment for it, and I would have liked to have seen that adopted, but it was not. The Bloc had moved a motion about certification, saying that if there is an annual certification, high-competitive shooters would be exempted under the Shooting Federation of Canada. I think that definition, in a regulatory measure by this government, has to include an organization like IPSC, which is a federated body all around the world, and there are hundreds of countries. Countries like Australia have banned handguns, similar to what this government is doing, but it found a pathway to keep IPSC as an organization.
I will conclude by saying that we can appreciate that for individuals who go to shooting competitions internationally, if Air Canada loses their gun, there would be no recourse, which is one of the limitations of this bill. A lot of the bill I support, and I will sleep on it tonight, but this is something I wish the government had tackled.
I will continue to call for the government to address it in a regulatory measure in the days ahead because it is important to make sure, as the minister said, that we have a pathway to Olympic shooting. That should include organizations like IPSC, which are highly professional and regulated and have really important membership.
