Bill C-21

An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) increase, from 10 to 14 years, the maximum penalty of imprisonment for indictable weapons offences in sections 95, 96, 99, 100 and 103;
(b) establish a regime that would permit any person to apply for an emergency prohibition order or an emergency limitations on access order and allow the judge to protect the security of the person or of anyone known to them;
(c) deem certain firearms to be prohibited devices for the purpose of specified provisions;
(d) create new offences for possessing and making available certain types of computer data that pertain to firearms and prohibited devices and for altering a cartridge magazine to exceed its lawful capacity;
(e) include, for interception of private communications purposes, sections 92 and 95 in the definition of “offence” in section 183;
(f) authorize employees of certain federal entities who are responsible for security to be considered as public officers for the purpose of section 117.07; and
(g) include certain firearm parts to offences regarding firearms.
The enactment also amends the Firearms Act to, among other things,
(a) prevent individuals who are subject to a protection order or who have been convicted of certain offences relating to domestic violence from being eligible to hold a firearms licence;
(b) transfer authority to the Commissioner of Firearms to approve, refuse, renew and revoke authorizations to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) of the Act;
(c) limit the transfer of handguns only to businesses and exempted individuals and the transfer of cartridge magazines and firearm parts;
(d) impose requirements in respect of the importation of ammunition, cartridge magazines and firearm parts;
(e) prevent certain individuals from being authorized to transport handguns from a port of entry;
(f) require a chief firearms officer to suspend a licence if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the licence holder is no longer eligible for it;
(g) require the delivery of firearms to a peace officer, or their lawful disposal, if a refusal to issue, or revocation of, a licence has been referred to a provincial court under section 74 of the Act in respect of those firearms;
(h) revoke an individual’s licence if there is reasonable grounds to suspect that they engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking or if they become subject to a protection order;
(i) authorize the issuance, in certain circumstances, of a conditional licence for the purposes of sustenance;
(j) authorize, in certain circumstances, the Commissioner of Firearms, the Registrar of Firearms or a chief firearms officer to disclose certain information to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of an investigation or prosecution related to the trafficking of firearms;
(k) provide that the annual report to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness regarding the administration of the Act must include information on disclosures made to law enforcement agencies and be submitted no later than May 31 of each year; and
(l) create an offence for a business to advertise a firearm in a manner that depicts, counsels or promotes violence against a person, with a few exceptions.
The enactment also amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to, among other things,
(a) provide nuclear security officers and on-site nuclear response force members with the authority to carry out the duties of peace officers at high-security nuclear sites; and
(b) permit licensees who operate high-security nuclear sites to acquire, possess, transfer and dispose of firearms, prohibited weapons and prohibited devices used in the course of maintaining security at high-security nuclear sites.
The enactment also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to
(a) designate the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness as the Minister responsible for the establishment of policies respecting inadmissibility on grounds of transborder criminality for the commission of an offence on entering Canada;
(b) specify that the commission, on entering Canada, of certain offences under an Act of Parliament that are set out in the regulations is a ground of inadmissibility for a foreign national; and
(c) correct certain provisions in order to resolve a discrepancy and clarify the rule set out in those provisions.
Finally, the enactment also amends An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms so that certain sections of that Act come into force on the day on which this enactment receives royal assent.

École polytechnique de Montréal

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, 33 years ago, on December 6, 1989, a man entered the École Polytechnique in Montreal and murdered 14 women simply because they were women.

We have not forgotten Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault and Annie Turcotte.

All of us who are old enough remember where we were, who we were with and what we were doing when we heard of the massacre. In our hearts remain those feelings of confusion, horror, incomprehension, incredulity, sadness and shame that we felt after the events of December 6.

We carry in our hearts the memory of these women who died needlessly. The tragedy of the Polytechnique now carries a duty of remembrance. We must be aware of the mistakes and tragedies of the past in order to prevent them from happening again. The duty of remembrance requires words, because we must name misogyny, femicide, mass murder, armed violence. These are ugly, dark and dirty words. Unfortunately, though, they are words we continue to hear.

They continue to strike, humiliate and destroy. I would like new words to associate with the women at the Polytechnique. We need new words: love, hope, solidarity, determination.

The duty of remembrance requires us to name things, take action and live in hope. Equality is making headway, we are becoming more and more aware of misogyny, and we can win. We will never entirely win the battle against violence. There will always be tragedies.

However, I am convinced, and I want to be convinced, that we are moving in the right direction. We have no other choice. We owe it to all those who lost their lives because they were women. We owe it to the young women of the Polytechnique, to our sisters recently murdered in Manitoba and to all those who have disappeared or been murdered across Canada, to the hundreds and thousands of women killed in the past 33 years because they were women.

We need to move in the right direction. The duty of remembrance also comes with the duty to act. Better gun control laws, the prohibition of assault weapons and the firearms registry in Quebec are steps in the right direction.

I will not say that Bill C‑21 is perfect, or that the government is doing things the way it should, but I will say that we need to limit access to assault weapons and that that is also a step in the right direction.

Raising the collective awareness of sexual assault cases and of sexual crimes in general is a step in the right direction. It gives us hope.

The École Polytechnique women might have been mothers and even grandmothers today.

For 33 years, some of the survivors have gone to candlelight vigils on their own, then they brought their sons and daughters, and, this evening, we may see some grandchildren. These successive generations that share the memory of those who were lost demonstrate that we have not forgotten this tragedy, the loss, the responsibility to take action, and that we have not lost hope.

Geneviève, Hélène, Nathalie, Barbara Daigneault, Anne‑Marie Edward, Maud, Barbara Klucznik‑Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne‑Marie Lemay, Sonia, Michèle, Annie St‑Arneault and Annie Turcotte. We acknowledge our debt and we shall not forget.

Murdered Indigenous Women

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Rural Economic Development invited any member or any Canadian to give her information about the firearms that would be banned thanks to the government's amendment to Bill C-21. She must not realize the long list of hunting rifles and shotguns that are contained in the amendment. I am taking her up on her invitation.

I seek unanimous consent to table the list of hunting rifles and shotguns that will be banned if the amendment to Bill C-21 is passed. She invited me to do so.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been very clear from the beginning. We are not targeting hunters. We are targeting criminals. We are targeting the assault weapons that were used in our country's greatest shooting tragedies.

Bill C‑21 targets the criminal element with harsher sentences and with investments for the CBSA.

The Conservatives do not support this bill, which is a very bad thing. They need to change their position.

Firearms

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has launched the largest attack on law-abiding hunters in Canadian history. The government's proposed amendments to Bill C-21 would effectively ban hundreds of thousands of firearms used for hunting.

Hunting is a Canadian tradition. It is a way of life for millions of rural, remote and indigenous Canadians. However, the Liberal government has attacked these Canadians since it took office. Its own minister, who is supposed to stand up for rural Canada, is in favour of this attack on hunters. That is no way to stand up for rural Canada.

Yesterday, deer hunting season closed for most hunters in Manitoba. Unfortunately, these hunters do not know if they will be using their hunting rifles next year.

My message to the out-of-touch Liberal government is this: Hunters are not the problem, so just leave them alone.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, we need to keep our communities safe from handgun violence, and the government promised to do that. However, at the 11th hour, the government slipped an amendment into Bill C-21 that is not about dealing with handguns.

Instead, the government is now targeting rifles and shotguns with detachable clips. This is a huge overreach that would impact rural, northern and indigenous people, and the government needs to fix this.

Will the Attorney General ensure that this legislation on handguns is not going to target legitimate hunters and rural people?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, in fact the expert my colleague is referring to refuted many of the misnomers and the inaccuracies the Conservatives continue to perpetuate.

More to the point, we have a plan to eradicate gun violence once and for all. That includes investments at our borders to support CBSA. The Conservatives voted against.

That includes addressing gun crime at its root causes. We invested $250 million. The Conservatives voted against.

It also includes common-sense laws like Bill C-21, so that we can get those guns that have no place in our communities off our streets once and for all.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us talk about some facts. Just yesterday in the public safety committee, the Liberal government's own firearms expert who helped write Bill C-21 admitted on record that hunting rifles would be banned if this law is enacted.

Will the Liberals admit they have made a mistake, admit these amendments are affecting law-abiding hunters and farmers, and cancel Bill C-21?

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, I have been a hunter and fisher all my life. I have great memories of hunting with my dad and I wish he were here now, because he would support me 100%.

My friends and I have looked at the amendments to Bill C-21. We agree. Every time a firearm kills an innocent person, that hurts a law-abiding gun owner. My friends support Bill C-21. We all have to do our part to get assault-style weapons off this planet.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, last week, the Liberal government tabled an amendment to Bill C-21 that would prohibit hundreds of thousands of hunting rifles. This government wants to turn law-abiding hunters and farmers who use rifles as tools to feed their families and protect their livestock into criminals overnight.

Meanwhile, since the Prime Minister has taken office, violent crime has risen by 32% and gang-related homicides have increased by 92%.

When will the government focus on the illegal guns flooding our streets and the criminals who use them, and stop targeting law-abiding hunters and farmers?

Telecommunications Act

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite does not have to worry about a previous prime minister coming back to power, because right now what he noted is already happening. With Bill C-21, the police could come into people's homes. They are made into paper criminals just by virtue of the Liberals' declaring that certain firearms are now prohibited. It is already happening, and he does not have to wait for the best prime minister this country ever had to return.

Business of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I shudder to think what would happen if the Thursday question was not asked.

I have taken the advice the Speaker has given me and the government House leader over the past couple of weeks, so I have a more focused Thursday question. I wonder if the government House leader can inform the House as to the business of the House for this week and next week?

While I am on my feet, I was wondering if the House would give me unanimous consent to table in the chamber the list of firearms used for hunting, because there seems to be some confusion on the government side as to which firearms it would actually be banning in its new amendment to Bill C-21.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I agree with her. Hunting is not only a fine tradition, it is also an activity at the heart of many communities.

That is why the guns commonly used for hunting will still be allowed. We will make sure of it.

Bill C‑21 is about making our communities safer. Our government has been clear: Guns designed for war have no place in our communities.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, hunters across Canada carry on a proud tradition, and some are worried.

I can say from experience that spending time in nature with family and friends is not just good for mental health, it also provides food security to many indigenous families and communities.

Can the Minister of Public Safety assure us that the changes in Bill C‑21 will not affect our hunters?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague and the entire House that Bill C‑21 does not target hunters or gun owners. Bill C‑21 targets assault-style weapons like the ones that were used in Nova Scotia, Quebec City and Ontario. They caused a lot of deaths. That is exactly why we need to work together to protect all Canadians with policies that make sense.

Crime Prevention

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to rise in the House and acknowledge the great work that is being done to keep communities safe in my riding of Markham—Unionville.

In collaboration with the York Regional Police, I will be hosting my third crime prevention town hall, which provides essential safety tips and risk-management information to the residents of Markham.

Working together with law enforcement and other levels of government is critical to understanding our diverse communities and their needs. While in Ottawa, our government has taken comprehensive steps to improve public safety through our $250-million building safer communities fund and Bill C-21, which would put a freeze on handguns in our country, increase penalties for firearms traffickers and provide additional tools to law enforcement across the country.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I simply asked, Mr. Chair, if any of our technical experts are aware of any information that the Government of Canada has from consultations with anybody who hunts large terrestrial or aquatic mammals in this country. It has a bearing on the 10,000 joules, part of the order in council from a few years ago, and it is wrapped up specifically in Bill C-21.

As the witnesses have already said, hunting with those calibres and that ammunition was perfectly legal, and now it is not. I'm wondering if anybody knows what the impact of that will be on the first nations communities of this country or on other people who hunt large terrestrial land animals.

That's a perfectly legitimate question, Mr. Chair. I would like to know the answer, if the officials have it.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Alternatively, if not invested in mental health, if not invested in purchasing scanners at our ports of entry.... It would be surprising for Canadians to know that in Miramichi, New Brunswick, only 10% of the required background checks are conducted in the renewal of or the application for a current firearms licence because it's not properly or adequately funded, Mr. Chair.

These are all tangible, concrete things that would actually improve safety for Canadians and public safety for our country with five billion dollars' worth of funding, which is what the Fraser Institute estimates it would cost if the Government of Canada were to provide compensation to firearms owners should Bill C-21 and its amendments come to pass.

With regard to the perception of legal gun ownership contributing to crime, we know that simply isn't true. Under this government, the prevalence of violent crime is up 32%, and there is a fear that it will only get worse. In fact, the banning of certain firearms seems to be a political exercise, and there is a legitimate fear that the crime issue will be used by the government to ban even more lawful firearms.

As we see from some of the amendments brought forth by the government, the list is not simply semi-automatics but a wide swath of firearms. Despite the fact that handguns are used to commit the vast majority of violent crimes in Canada, long guns and shotguns are bearing the full brunt of this government's policies.

Furthermore, firearm-related violent crimes typically represent less than 3% of of police-reported violent crime in Canada, a country where individuals own more than 20 million guns. Canadians have little to fear from law-abiding gun owners.

Ironically, in the U.K. during 2019 and 2020, nearly 16,000 knife crimes were committed in a nation with strict gun control. I will add that in comparison to Canada, the U.K. reported 33% more robberies, 22% more assaults, 30% more homicides and 28% more hate crimes. Ironically, many of the European nations that are held up against Canada due to their tight gun controls, including France, Belgium, Greece and Sweden, fare much worse in their crime rate, and Germany is also comparable.

Canada is not the United States, and it is not healthy to import their cultural issues for political gains. Every loss of life is a tragedy, but it does have to be put into perspective. A 2011 study from McMaster University found no significant association between gun laws passed and firearm homicide rates in Canada from 1974 to 2008, proving that the introduction of such laws within the Canadian context has been nothing more than a political exercise.

While homicide-related deaths get much more attention within the context of firearms' being used, many of the excess deaths are tied to suicide, yet this is still a very minimal number.

On the accident front, firearms have also attracted unwanted attention, yet accidents account for 0.3% of total accident incidents, ranking well below 37% for car accidents, 18% for people falling off roofs or falling from distances and 11% for poisoning. However, nobody here is arguing that we should not drive cars.

We are focusing so much time, so much effort and so much money on something that is so insignificant that it's not even funny.

To recapitulate, this is a bad law, as it breaks the social contract that Canadians have struck with their government; comes at a great expense, potentially, for taxpayers of Canada; and fails to improve public safety.

Now that I'm done with my rant, Mr. Van Bynen, you'll be very happy to know that I have some questions.

My question for our panel of experts is this: Is there any province or territory in Canada that prohibits, through its provincial wildlife rules, laws or regulations, a hunter from hunting with a firearm that has a force of over 10,000 joules?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Yes, I do. We've had that conversation before. Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to make some introductory remarks as the shadow minister for hunting, fishing and conservation in His Majesty's loyal opposition. Then I'll get to some of the questions I have for our esteemed witnesses.

Canada was once a refuge for a rugged individual, and we would be hard-pressed to make a case for that in Canada today. Since 1850, urbanization has swept the country, practically inverting the population of urban dwellers and rural residents. Today, nearly 80% of Canadians live in an urban area. As noted by one of the members opposite, Canada has changed.

Although he's not entirely wrong in his assessment, in this process of change, many aspects of this country have been improved; however, blind nostalgia does us no favours.

As different as the country looks today compared to the one the traveller would have found in 1850, this does not mean that all traces of this old Canada ought to be erased. For those Canadians and first nations who live in remote areas or participate in the outdoor way of life, their lived reality is different from that of those who live in the most populated parts of our nation.

As you can imagine, life in places like Pond Inlet in Nunavut; Ignace, Ontario; Sept-Îles, Quebec; Corner Brook, Newfoundland; or Prince Rupert, British Columbia, resemble nothing of the urban experience in downtown Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal. One should note that the prevalence of firearms licences per 100 people is the highest in Yukon, with a rate of 19.17%. One in five Yukoners has a firearm. This compares to the national average of just under 6%, thus indicating a wide swing in licence ownership in certain parts of the country.

It may come as a surprise to the members opposite, but those participating in the hunting lifestyle are surprisingly diverse. The hunters of today are not your trappers of the early fur trade, which, by the way, is an essential part of our history and the basis of modern commerce in our nation. Hunting is a genuine family-oriented activity, enjoyed by those of all creeds and ethnic backgrounds, and in it the wisdom of past generations is passed down to the new.

I am here at committee today because, with Bill C-21, the federal government has, whether it wants to admit it or not, basically said to hunters that their way of life is going to be no more.

Guns are not weapons of war, as some politicians would like to have you believe, but an essential harvesting tool used for hunters to feed their families. It provides food security in our northern and remote communities. I've heard scoffing and other rhetoric from other politicians indicating that this way of life is not even needed in a modern Canada.

I take particular offence to what appears to be the carelessness of the drafting of not only this bill but of the proposed amendments that are before it. It is clear to me that Bill C-21 is not based on science at all. It is not based on any evidence at all; it is a simple, political decision. The problem with this is that it tarnishes the time-honoured traditions of firearms owners and sport shooters in this country, hunters included. It sullies the reputations of these good, honest, law-abiding, patriotic Canadians.

The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a proponent of naturalism, once stated that the only true freedom was found in nature alone and that one must remain close to nature and its inherent liberty and equality. It is Rousseau who created the concept of the social contract to counter the loss of freedom brought on by man's move away from the inherent freedom of nature. He believed that a man's participation in what he called unnatural collective activities infringed on his liberty and, as such, a bargain called a social contract had to be struck.

The purpose of the social contract made by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection and co-operative benefits lays out the obligations of government towards its subjects.

Although we could argue about what these consist of, John Locke, another contributor to the theory of social contracts, explained it best when he said, “...being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty or Possessions”.

Bill C-21 is a piece of legislation that breaks this social contract. Beyond the obvious point of liberty, it also infringes on both the right to possess guns themselves and a right to personal health and freedom.

This may all seem academic, but fear not. I'm about to present some real-world, concrete examples of what the infringement on the Canadian social contract means for the hunting community.

Canadians have a reasonable right to own their possessions. One of the foundational pillars of the social contract, private property, lies at the heart of many democratic systems.

We know this to be true, as even though it is not enshrined in our legislation, Canada is a signatory to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes that everyone “has the right to own property” and provides that no one shall be “arbitrarily deprived” of his or her property. “Arbitrarily” is an important word in this context, as Bill C-21 does it exactly this way.

Not only is the classification of firearms in amendments G-4 and G-46 arbitrary, but the lack of buyback or any provisions hinting at a buyback is also proof of how little the government regards the concept of property rights.

It is also striking to me that many of these guns included on the list of firearms are not solely semi-automatic, as intended by the legislation and as advertised by the Prime Minister; many are bolt-action rifles and shotguns, including the likes of the Winchester model 54, the Weatherby Mark V, the Kimber 89 African and the Montana Rifle 1999. These are not military rifles that later became popular as hunting arms; they were designed explicitly for the purpose of hunting.

A separate point I would like to make is the availability of both firearms and ammunition in northern communities. Access to firearms in northern communities is already limited, and they can be hard to come by in the make and model desired by hunters. Notwithstanding COVID-19 supply chain issues, there has been a long-running difficulty in supplying the north with these items. In fact, Canada Post will no longer ship ammunition. Now, with this proposed ban, if it comes into force, replacing these banned firearms will be difficult for first nations and Inuit in an already stretched market.

By instituting such a wide-ranging ban, the Liberal government will make if difficult for these hunters to replace their firearms, yet these people are the most likely to perform sustenance hunting. This ban will endanger a critical method of ensuring food security in a harsh environment, where groceries come at an irregular pace and with high prices.

Lastly, I would like to focus on how our new gun laws will affect the tourism sector. Hunters inbound from abroad, especially the United States, contribute significantly to our hunting sector and keep our lodges and outfitters busy. I might add that for the last two years of COVID-19, guides and outfitters in lodges have been some of the hardest hit in the tourism sector.

I can tell you, as a hunter, that these tourists often prefer to take their own firearms, as they will not only be more ergonomic but also have the added safety benefit of the hunter knowing his own firearm. Depriving foreign tourists of their reasonable hunting rifles, as proposed—I can assure you it will happen with the evergreen clause, as it's referred to—with the scheduled list of firearms will result in yet another blow to the guides, outfitters and lodges across our country.

As for the health component of the social contract, it is clearly violated by Bill C-21. Those closest to the natural world—for example, our rural Canadians and hunters—are the most impacted by the loss of liberty engendered by an increasingly urbanized society. They are also the ones most vulnerable to the loss of their physical well-being due to the prohibition of their tools and property.

As previously mentioned, this bill may, in fact, affect food security. There is also a physical health component to the firearms debate that is not often discussed, which is that of workers in remote areas. In some parts of our country and in some industries, firearms are vital to one's physical safety. In this scenario, firearms are used for self-defence. Tour operators operating in the north need to ensure that their guests are protected from polar bears and other wildlife. They have a duty of care to protect their guests.

When beekeepers go out into remote areas to collect honey from their hives, it is not at all uncommon for a beekeeper to be caught unaware by a lingering bear. This is a completely different scenario from a hunter who is walking through the woods, carrying his or her firearm, ready at a moment's notice to pursue the hunt. These are people who find themselves in a defensive position. These are people who need to be able to react and respond quickly, because their primary focus and objective while they're working is not the same as the primary focus of somebody who is hunting.

I can tell you without any hesitation whatsoever that the ability to have a shotgun that would be caught up in the evergreening clause or on the schedule that is proposed in these amendments to Bill C-21 would take a vast number of firearms away from people who are just trying to defend themselves. I know beekeepers who carry with them a Tavor because it is compact, it has five rounds, it is chambered in .308 and it will stop a bear.

Now this beekeeper is going to have his property rendered valueless and he has to go and search for another firearm or shotgun that would have similar capabilities to the Tavor, not knowing if amendment G-4 to this proposed legislation, the amendment coming through, would in fact would eventually get that new firearm caught up in the prohibited list.

This violates the social contract between Canadians and their government, and it also potentially harms the health, safety and well-being of Canadians.

I remember very vividly, because I have worked most of my life prior to coming to Parliament in the outdoor industry. I was a conservation officer with the Province of Alberta and I was a national park warden in Jasper National Park. I'm also a hunter.

There are numerous reasons people would have a semi-automatic firearm. Anybody working in the forestry industry, anybody who has done the job of timber cruising where you are going down a cut line determining whether or not a cut block is going to be productive or not for your forestry company, would carry with them a shotgun likely advertised by the manufacturer as a defender. It could be semi-automatic. It could be pump action. It would likely have a pistol grip and it would likely be polymer plastic or made out of polymer and it would be black.

It would look to the untrained eye like a scary gun, but it is the firearm that would be best used and best positioned to provide the safety benefit to somebody's son or daughter, to somebody's brother or sister, to somebody's mom or dad who is working in the outdoor environment in a situation where they could be put at risk, not to mention all of the hunters in this land.

Not everybody who hunts does so with a firearm. There are bowhunters. If you don't have the knowledge or experience of what it's like to sit in a tree stand and call or bugle for an elk or for a buck or for a bull moose, what you are also doing in that act is letting every predator in the woods know that you are there as well. It is not unreasonable at all for a bow hunter to have a safety firearm with them. It needs to be small and compact; otherwise, it does not work in that scenario.

Numerous firearms that are newly added to the list in the proposed amendments will now render firearms that were bought specifically for the purpose of personal protection by people, either through their work or through their enjoyment of hunting, useless if not worthless. Their property will be rendered useless if not worthless.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

It absolutely is, because when G-4 and Bill C-21will be implemented, that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's what the cost is going to be to Canadians. I'm going to get not just to the cost, because I think people would say they're willing to pay a price as long as it makes them safe, but what I'm arguing is that this isn't making them more safe.

The range estimate rises between $2.6 billion and $6.7 billion after you include compensation costs to owners. Then this same author has said that the addition of this potential new amendment adds another billion dollars, so it's between—and Ms. Dancho knows this too well—$5 billion and $10 billion, pretty easily, by the time it's all said and done.

For those moms of kids in our inner cities.... I'm a father of four and I want to see our streets more safe. We know that violent crime has increased by 33% under this Prime Minister and government. We know that gang crime has increased by 92% since this government took office. What they're doing isn't working. This is another bill put forward that has the image or certainly the facade that it will do something when it really won't.

We know that the cost is going to be between $5 billion and $10 billion. What could $5 billion to $10 billion do in a positive way, instead of going after law-abiding firearms owners and hunters in Canada?

It's simple math. Let's pick the lower amount, $5 billion, as the amount that we're going to calculate this on. Based on an average salary and training for the average police officer or CBSA agent of $150,000, we could put 10,000 officers on the streets for about four years. Imagine those containers. We hear that one in every 100 actually gets inspected at the border, where we know the problem is. Imagine putting another 5,000 CBSA agents at the borders to capture these guns before they get across to gang members in our inner cities. Just imagine that—or, as my colleague Mr. Calkins has informed me, with the equipment we could give those border agents to completely scan every container, we could easily pay for the manpower and this equipment to up our game at the borders dramatically to reduce the number of guns coming across. Why aren't we doing that? It's something that will have a real impact, and I guess in a positive way too.

Ultimately this ends up on the streets, and we see crime and firearms that are hurting our kids. We see the crime rates spiking and getting worse. The list that I read out earlier today is not comprehensive. As Mr. Smith acknowledged, proposed paragraph 84(1.2)(g) really opens it up to a whole bunch of other hunting firearms, potentially, and it's all for an almost zero effect, when we know that 86% of those firearms that are killing our kids are coming across the border. They're not coming from law-abiding hunters in my community. That's for sure.

My final point is we know that hunters are not the problem. We know what the problem is. Knowing what the problem is, how about our putting that huge amount of money in a place where it will actually work and keep our communities safe?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

It's relevant to Bill C-21, I know, Mr. Chair. It's completely relevant.

On the $6.7 billion, it says, “This range—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Yes. I'll continue.

As I said, Toronto Deputy Chief Myron Demkiw testified that 86% of crime guns were smuggled into Canada.

I will continue from the National Post:

Blandford said facing the nearly insurmountable task of securing Canada's porous borders and coastlines, it's not surprising Ottawa went after low-hanging fruit of punishing gun owners.

That's why I'm bringing it up today. It's because that's what we're talking about.

From the National Post:

“Legal gun owners go through a rigorous process to be vetted to own a firearm,” he said.

“Legitimate gun owners, whether they're handgun or long-rifle, are probably amongst your most law-abiding citizens in the country.”

“They're not the problem.”

The reason I bring that up today is that this is why we're here today. We're talking about Bill C-21, a bill that's supposed to make us more safe by, again, tackling the wrong element. It's going after law-abiding firearms owners and their firearms, their hunting firearms.

Let me go on to talk about what the problem is. It's very relevant to this conversation because, again, Bill C-21 is meant to address this very question: “What is the problem?”

As I have just laid out, illegal guns coming across the border are the problem. According to Toronto Deputy Chief Myron Demkiw, 86% of those firearms that are killing our kids on the streets of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are coming from across the border.

What can we do about it? I'm going to talk about how many firearms were seized at the border.

This is another article, from CTV in July 2022, and it speaks to these guns that are coming across: “The number of firearms Canada seized at the border more than doubled last year to 1,110 from 495 in 2020—the highest total since at least 2016, according to the numbers provided to Reuters by Canada's Border Services Agency.”

These are the only ones that they have seized: How many guns pour across our border and end up in criminals' hands and are, again, killing our kids?

It goes on:

Gun violence in Toronto, Canada's most populous city, reached a 15-year high in 2019, with 492 incidents involving firearms, according to police data. That number fell the following two years but 2022 is on track to rise once again.

That's the problem, and yet this government brings in Bill C-21 and brings in even a further amendment to punish law-abiding firearms owners even more.

On what Bill C-21 is going to cost Canadians, I think it's going to be relevant in my final point, because we know that even on the previous long-gun registry, which once again targeted law-abiding firearms owners, it was promised that it was going to cost $2 million and it ended up costing $2 billion.

Then what is the estimate? Well, I will read from an article from an expert. He's a Simon Fraser professor and said that the “Trudeau government 'buy back' firearms plan may cost up to $6.7 billion”.

That's prior to this latest G-46 amendment being laid on this committee's table.

I'll quote—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Okay.

I've asked quite a few questions about firearms and my colleagues will likely have more to ask.

Again, this is all to do with Bill C-21. There's a little bit of a different question. If you can't answer it, I respect that.

I think Canadians are wondering about this too, because I think Canadians want to be safer. I think the Prime Minister has led people to believe that this legislation will make them safer. In capturing hunters and their hunting rifles, we know that hunters are not the problem when it comes to crime in Canada. We all, in this room, know that I'm going to be bringing up an article that speaks to that.

Maybe I'll ask you your opinion: Are hunting rifles the problem when it comes to public safety in Canada?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Okay.

I have another question, this one on a competition rifle. The FNAR Competition .308 rifle is semi-automatic. It's chambered in centrefire calibres.

Will this particular firearm be included in the prohibition list if Bill C-21 and associated amendments pass?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

How about the Weatherby Mark 1, 2 or V hunting rifle?

It's a very common hunting rifle in Canada. We spoke with Weatherby yesterday. A thousand have been ordered by hunters this year and distributed among retailers.

Will those be prohibited if Bill C-21 legislation and associated amendments pass?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Let's go on to the Howa 1500 Hogue bolt-action hunting rifle. Will that particular firearm, if Bill C-21 passes with associated amendments, be prohibited?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Okay. I'll keep going.

I have another firearm to ask you about, the Ruger PC carbine takedown hunting rifle. Will that be included if legislation in Bill C-21 and the proposed amendments pass, yes or no?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

The easy answer is to repeal Bill C-21. Pull the legislation. There it is. That solves everybody's problem here.

Anyway, I'll move on.

The Remington 870 DM shotgun is a semi-automatic shotgun with a detachable clip. It is, at times, used for hunting. Will this firearm be included on the prohibited list of Bill C-21 and associated amendments?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I could do that following.... I'm happy to.

Let's go to the next one, the NX18. It's a hunting rifle. I have an image of it right in front of me. It's actually a semi-automatic shotgun. It's a 410. It's a hunting shotgun. Most of us have used 410s for grouse hunting, etc.

Would the NX18 semi-automatic 410 shotgun be included as a result of the passing of Bill C-21 and associated amendments?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

It's still a hunting firearm, though.

Will the Charles Daly XT3 Classic Black Ranger be prohibited as a result of the passing of Bill C-21 and associated amendments?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Once again, though, it's another hunting firearm being included in the prohibition list.

I have another question.

Will the Concari Farquharson 4 shotgun be included as a result of the passing of Bill C-21 and associated amendments?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Smith.

The next hunting firearm is the Parker breech-loading shotgun.

Is that going to be included in the prohibited list, based on the passing of Bill C-21 and associated amendments?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Let's go on to the next hunting firearm, which is the Winchester Model 54.

Will that be prohibited as a result of the passing of Bill C-21 and associated amendments?

[Murray Smith]

No. The model 702 Plinkster is a conventional .22 calibre hunting rifle. It's unaffected by what's in Bill C-21.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let's go on to the next hunting rifle, the Mossberg 702 Plinkster .22 long rifle. Will that hunting and target-shooting firearm be prohibited as a result of Bill C-21 legislation?

[Murray Smith]

The Ruger No. 1 already appears in schedule 1. It's been on that list since May 2020. There's nothing new coming from Bill C-21.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Okay, let's go on to the next one. It is on the Ruger No. 1 hunting firearm. Is that firearm going to be added to the prohibited list if the legislation, Bill C-21, passes with amendments?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

What you're leading people to believe.... Maybe I shouldn't say that. I'll have you answer the question.

Some of the firearms I've already spoken about fall into that amendment G-4 category in that paragraph to be potentially prohibited under Bill C-21 if this legislation passes.

Are you saying that they're not going to be impacted by this legislation, or are you saying that they are going to be impacted by the legislation?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

I just know that you are appearing today to answer questions based on Bill C-21 and possible proposed amendments to Bill C-21. That's how I'm basing my questions and that's why you're here today: to answer those questions. It seems pretty clear: To have the knowledge of what's on that amendment would have been.... It's a public document. It's out there. That you would have a good knowledge of that document....

I will let you know that the Browning rifle BAR Mark III hunting rifle is on the list.

I'll ask you this question. Will the Browning rifle BAR Mark III safari hunting rifle be prohibited if this amendment passes?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I'm referring to is the legislation before us today, Bill C-21, and the amendments that are also before us. That's where my questions are coming from and sourced from.

I'll continue.

Is the Auto-Ordnance M1 carbine hunting rifle prohibited, according to this amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That conforms with what Mr. Motz has said, so there is no unanimous consent.

We do have a work plan that we all agreed to that was passed by the committee. It was that the estimates would happen after Bill C-21. I understand things have changed a little bit, but let us talk among ourselves and see if we can work something out.

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

Just to be clear, Mr. Chair, can you confirm that there is no unanimous consent to hold additional meetings? In any case, I for one do not give my consent.

If we are to receive ministers to discuss supplementary estimates before December 10, that will have to be during the normal sitting hours of the committee. We can suspend our consideration of Bill C‑21 while we receive ministers, but I do not agree that we should add sitting hours next week.

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

It's on this matter, Chair, if I may. Thank you very much.

Obviously we don't agree to unanimous consent on any additional meetings. We're fine with pausing a review of Bill C-21 if the ministers need to attend, understanding that we'd return to Bill C-21 after those appearances are done.

Any extra meetings will have an impact on other resources in other committees elsewhere. That's always a concern that we have. I don't think any extra meetings are required at all, to be honest with you. If necessary, we can pass the estimates for the ministers on division, because we're going to have the main estimates coming after the new year anyway.

I don't see any need to have any extra meetings, and we certainly don't support that proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That is the suggestion I am making. We have a work plan and we're trying to follow it. The work plan is that we would bring ministers in on estimates after Bill C-21 and preferably before the break. This is a suggestion that the clerk and I look for another meeting slot next week and that if we find one, we invite one of the ministers or both ministers to attend in that slot. I'm looking for unanimous consent for that.

Before we proceed on that, Mr. Calkins wishes to speak, I believe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 51 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with regard to firearms. The committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration, and we will resume shortly, with Mr. Zimmer having the floor.

Before we resume debate, I will now welcome the officials who are with us today.

With us once again from the Department of Justice, we have Paula Clarke, counsel, and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, both from the criminal law policy section, and from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy. Joining us freshly today, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director of strategic policy, Canadian firearms program, and Murray Smith, technical specialist in the Canadian firearms program.

Thanks to all of you for joining us today. Your assistance is most appreciated. Your answers to our numerous technical questions will help us to fulfill our duties in the law-making process, and I thank you again.

I'd also note for the committee members that there is a discussion happening, as there is a desire to bring in Minister Mendicino for estimates at some point in the next week or so. The work plan we adopted provides for that after Bill C-21; however, if I can get unanimous consent to seek an extra meeting slot next week for at least one of the ministers to attend, I would ask.... Wait a minute.

I have Madame Michaud and then Mr. Calkins.

Telecommunications Act

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a couple of quick points.

First, I would correct the minister. He referred to it as Bill C-21 a couple of times earlier in his speech. I think that maybe it is on his mind. He knows that there are great changes that need to be made or scrapped out of that bill.

As for the references he talked about in his speech, to Huawei and 5G, obviously the government finally decided to ban Huawei from our 5G network just in May.

Why did it take the government so long? It was tabled here. A motion was passed in the House a year and a half prior to its making that decision.

I am just interested to know why it took the government so long to make such a critical national security decision.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very important question.

The goal of Bill C-21 is to build a bridge, a collaborative effort between the government, critical infrastructure sectors and the private sector. We developed an approach that includes excellent lines of communication in order to effectively identify the cyber-threats to critical infrastructure that might jeopardize national security and the economy.

In answer to my colleague’s question, we will work with all federal regulators to create a system to protect all critical infrastructure sectors against all cyber-threats.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, we have excellent gun control in Canada, but I think the Liberals have lost their minds. They have very quietly introduced an amendment to Bill C‑21 that will ban rifles and shotguns.

Later, when the amendment was made public, the Minister of Public Safety said that no, it was not true, that the Liberals would not ban hunting weapons. The Liberals say one thing and then they turn around and say something else. We want to know if the Prime Minister has seen the list of weapons in the amendment that bans hunting weapons. They are going to be banned in Canada. Does he know what we are talking about?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I mean under this legislation, Bill C-21 and its amendments.

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

That didn't really clarify much, Mr. Noormohamed, but thank you.

I don't want to talk about what's coming, but the Liberals have tabled several amendments to Bill C‑21. It's curious, since this one came from the government. If this bill had been so good when it was introduced, the government wouldn't be making so many amendments.

As my colleagues mentioned earlier, there is a legislative and democratic process. We knew that the main purpose of the bill was to ban handguns, so we invited experts to appear before the committee to give us their position and explain why it was a good idea or not, and we talked a lot about handguns with them.

Now the government is proposing amendments to deal with semi-automatic weapons and hunting rifles. If we had known that the government was interested in these weapons, we would have invited experts to come and talk to us about semi-automatic weapons and hunting rifles. We would have had some indication of which models should or should not be on which prohibition list. We would have had some guidance on how best to legislate.

At this point, Mr. Chair, I must admit that we were caught off guard. That's unfortunate, because we're learning it as the public has learned it, and we're trying to navigate by sight, which isn't easy.

There are a lot of things I'd like to say, so I'm having a little trouble getting my head around it.

I would like to reassure the people in my riding and in Quebec who write to me and my fellow members of Parliament a lot about their concerns. We didn't really expect this when we saw the original wording of the bill. We need to look at what's in there and ask questions before making decisions.

The Bloc Québécois' position has always been clear: we want better gun control in Canada. I think that's ultimately what everyone wants, for our cities and neighbourhoods to be safer. There are various ways to do this. Is G‑4 the right solution? I would tend to say no, but it will have to be debated.

So we're going to try to make sure that people aren't disappointed in us. Obviously, we can't please everyone. I know a lot of people are concerned about this bill. It's a very emotional issue. I think my colleagues would agree that it's not always done in a polite way, as we see on our Facebook pages, but I can understand that people feel concerned. So we will do our best to debate it.

Personally, I would like to know which firearms that are already prohibited will be included in the schedule and which non-prohibited ones will be included. Second, of the non-prohibited ones, I would like to know which are hunting weapons that are commonly used in Quebec and Canada. That would help me make a decision.

I would also like to know what will happen to people who have guns that are going to become prohibited overnight. We've heard about a buy-back program, but it's still not confirmed. People have told me about weapons they had before the May 1, 2020, order that they still own. They know they have been illegally in possession of this gun since the order in council came into effect, but they have never heard from the government about what to do with it. Should they turn it over to a police officer or the government? No one knows. We also don't know what will happen to these weapons that they want to ban. It would be beneficial for us to know that, so that we can also reassure our constituents.

As I said earlier, we support better gun control. To be honest, I don't see why anyone should have a military-style assault weapon in their basement. That's not the way it should work. However, I don't see why someone who hunts should be prohibited from doing so.

I don't know if you had any other speakers on your list, Mr. Chair. I'll give my place to my colleagues and speak again a little later.

Thank you.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure for me to be back at this committee. It's been some time since I've had the honour to sub in. It's an honour to see members from all sides whom I have had the honour of working with on a number of matters, not least of whom is Mr. Shipley, of course.

Like everyone else here today, I'm concerned about the amendments we are presently debating. More important than that, many constituents in my riding of Kenora, in northwestern Ontario, have expressed their concerns to me.

My region is home to many hunters and trappers. For a long time, this has been a major industry and a major way of life for people across the Kenora district, and that's why today we continue to be home to many sport shooters and many hunters and trappers who are continuing with this way of life.

Frankly, the proposed amendment, in my opinion and in the opinion of folks I've been talking to in the Kenora riding, may be one of the most out-of-touch amendments that has been proposed by this government, and it is currently being entertained by the committee. I question whether there has been consultation on it.

We heard some comments from Minister Mendicino, which were read out by the member beside me, indicating that there had been some consultation, especially with people across the north and indigenous communities. I represent 42 first nations in the Kenora riding, which crosses three different treaty territories as well as the Métis homeland, where hunting, fishing and trapping really are a way of life. I haven't spoken to anybody who feels they were consulted on this amendment specifically. I think that is a great cause of concern. I feel that if the government had actually consulted on this, they would not have put it forward because they would have heard the concern expressed by those individuals, particularly indigenous leaders and indigenous people across the country, that this will impact them and their right to hunt. I will get back to that in just a bit.

I want to talk about trapping first, because that's something we often lose in the discussion when we're talking about firearms.

Obviously firearms are used for hunting, but trappers need firearms as well. I don't trap, but many people I know do. I know that many trappers carry a firearm when they're checking their lines just in case they encounter a predator. Having that firearm means they're able to defend themselves if necessary, especially when they have, in some cases, semi-automatic firearms to fire off rounds more quickly. For many people, this could be the difference between life and death when they're out on their traplines.

Trapping isn't something new, of course. It's one of the longest-standing activities in Ontario. Commercial trapping dates back in the Kenora riding to the 16th century and maybe even before, with subsistence trapping dating back even further. Many indigenous people across the Kenora riding continue to do that primarily. I'm worried that if we're going to ask trappers to give up their firearms, as proposed by some of the members opposite, and purchase new firearms, it could be to their detriment. It could be a risk to their safety, especially in the northern parts of my riding.

Mr. Chair, if you don't know, I come from Kenora, which is a big city of 15,000 people in the southern portion of my riding near the U.S. border. However, my riding does extend up to Hudson Bay and includes many remote first nations, as I mentioned, and communities like Fort Severn. Fort Severn is one of the few communities—and maybe the only—in Ontario where you will frequently encounter a polar bear. When people are out, whether hunting, trapping or just in their community, this is something they need to be cognizant of. These bears can be very dangerous. Not having the proper weapon to defend yourself would be very problematic and very concerning.

That's what I've heard from the people of Fort Severn and Weagamow Lake, in my riding. I was speaking about it this morning with an individual from Grassy Narrows First Nation. All are concerned about how this is going to impact not only their ability to hunt but their ability to protect themselves when they are doing so.

In that regard, my office was recently contacted by an avid hunter, someone from my riding who was out hunting relatively recently and who encountered a number of wolves. I've never gone toe to toe with a wolf. I'm not sure if you have, Mr. Chair, but it's definitely not a situation any of us would like to find ourselves in. We would want to make sure we have the tools at our disposal to deal with that properly and to fend for ourselves. This constituent is legitimately concerned because the firearms he uses are on this proposed prohibition list. As alluded to by the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, it's not necessarily as easy as just buying new firearms. This individual is very concerned for his safety.

I recognize that this might seem a bit far-fetched for members from larger urban centres, but that truly is the reality many people across northern Ontario and many other northern and rural parts of the country face. They're not necessarily day-to-day concerns, but definitely concerns that are very real and very probable.

I'll just go back to the point, if I can, about northern Ontario being a hub for hunting and fishing. It's not just the individuals who rely on them to provide for their families, which is important, especially in the north, where there may be one store in many communities, like the Northern store, and where there are inflated prices. Even with nutrition north subsidies and different things like that, which are attempting to bring costs down, many people still can't afford to go to the grocery store, and they rely on their firearms to hunt and provide for themselves.

It's not just that. There's also a major economic component of this across the Kenora riding. Tourism is one of our biggest economic drivers in northwestern Ontario, as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the depths of the pandemic, we saw just how valuable that industry is, because it was lacking and we weren't seeing those visitors and dollars coming into our region. Hunting is at the forefront of our tourism. Most of our tourism is made up of people coming in from the northern states—Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Illinois and others. They come to stay at camps, to go fishing, to go hunting and to enjoy the beautiful scenery we have in northern Ontario. If this amendment were to move forward, it would impact the overall economy of my riding and of many others across northern Ontario.

The concern with this, of course, comes back to public safety. It's not just about the impact this is having on people in my riding, the very real impacts and challenges they will face. It comes back to the question of public safety. After all, that's why we're here. We're at the public safety committee.

We have a government under whose watch violent crime has increased. They've also taken many steps to remove mandatory minimum sentences in a number of cases for a number of crimes, including violent crimes. We're in a situation where they are so focused—perhaps for political reasons; I'm not sure—on restricting firearm rights for a lot of hunters and sport shooters when we're seeing a rise in crime and lesser penalties for those crimes.

With all due respect to my colleagues across the way, I think there are some misguided priorities there, and moving forward on an amendment like this is not actually going to address the issues they're hoping to address. I truly don't.

My comment to folks in the larger cities—places like Toronto and Vancouver—would be that taking guns away from hunters and sport shooters, and the indigenous people in my riding who are hunting just to put food on the table and provide for their families, is not going to make cities any safer. It is not going to address the issues we're seeing of guns, which are being primarily smuggled in or otherwise illegally obtained, coming into our cities. I think that's where the focus should be. I want to put that point on the record.

I'll wrap up here shortly. I know many people have comments.

As I alluded to, there are 42 first nations in my riding. The Treaties 3, 5, and 9 that are encompassed in my riding guarantee indigenous hunting and fishing rights. I won't reiterate it, but I have heard from many indigenous people and indigenous leaders from my riding who are concerned that this proposed amendment will infringe on those rights.

I want to point to a study. I won't table it of course, but it's a first nations food, nutrition and environment study that was released in October of last year, 2021. It found that access to traditional food for indigenous people is better than access to non-traditional food, and many barriers to traditional food sources continue to exist.

I worry that moving forward with this amendment we're debating will create yet another barrier that stops indigenous people from having access to traditional foods. For example, someone from Weagamow Lake in my riding emailed me expressing his frustration with the amendment. He knows, which was alluded to by the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, that many hunters, particularly in the north, have to go out and get more than one animal to feed their family or their community. They are worried that a single-action firearm may not be enough to give them the ability to take down two animals.

There is also the welfare aspect that my esteemed colleague beside me mentioned. He took a lot of my talking points, actually. Although they strive to, hunters don't always take down an animal with the first shot. Having the ability to ensure that it does not suffer and does not continue to run through the woods is an important aspect of this. That's what I heard from the constituent from Weagamow who wrote to me to say this was a concern.

I want to share a few more comments that people wrote to me.

With regard to this amendment, Aaron wrote that he's tired of seeing policies being passed when every single expert in the room says they're a bad idea. In fairness, I don't know if every single expert has said this is a bad idea. I'm sure if you get enough experts on any single topic in a room together, you'll find some disagreement.

The point I take from this is that we've heard from the RCMP, from police associations and from experts from across the country for a number of years now, not just with regard to this amendment but with regard to the original Bill C-21, if I can put it that way, and with regard to the order in council. There are many experts lining up to say that the issue is not long guns. It's not hunters or rifles. It's the smuggled firearms that need to be addressed.

Tim wrote in on that note, saying this bill and amendment will do nothing to deal with the criminals committing gun crimes. I would agree.

Mark wrote, “Please stop Bill C-21. It will take my hunting rifle and shotgun from me.”

Pam reached out about the impact of hunting and the ability to feed her family, saying “People hunt to put food on the table and feed their family, and they want to take that away.”

Mr. Chair, that's the human aspect that I'm hoping to get across, from people in northern Ontario. It's not just necessarily for sport; it's a way of life. It's about providing for their families.

Gordon from Sioux Lookout also asked how banning the sale of handguns in Canada stops criminals who do not acquire them from the local sporting goods store. He believes that this is the equivalent of banning Ford Taurus sedans to stop DUIs, Mr. Chair.

Again, these are misguided priorities. I would agree that this really is a misguided amendment and something I believe is out of touch, perhaps one of the most out-of-touch proposals that the government has brought forward.

I know there are many members who aren't from rural ridings here, but I can assure them that if they ever came to visit—I hope they do, because Kenora's a beautiful area—if they came to the gun range, or if they came to an indigenous community with me and met with some of the countless hunters, trappers and sport shooters, they would understand just how off base this current proposal is and how important it is that we—back to the first point that we heard from the Liberal member—get this right, that we have a wholesome discussion about it. I hope he and his colleagues will be faithful to those comments and work with us on this side to ensure that the proper legislation can be put in place rather than continuing down the road we're currently on.

Again, Mr. Chair, the government knows that violent crime has been on the rise. It knows that action needs to be taken, but this is not it. Maybe I'll close with that. I believe hunters, sport shooters and indigenous people across the country need to be consulted. Their voices need to be heard. I urge the government to withdraw this proposal and to go back to the drawing board and back to the consultations that very clearly need to happen.

Thank you.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I guess as a rebuttal there, I believe we likely did hear from them in reference to the original Bill C-21, which was about a handgun freeze, not about this amendment.

The government has now tabled an amendment that would significantly change the scope of the bill. That was debated in the first committee meeting. I don't want to get into a debate about the scope, but my point is that it's relevant information about the fact that the government has now introduced, through a table-drop amendment, a fundamental change to what the bill is about, and we haven't had the appropriate consultation on that.

Regardless, let's go—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks for allowing me to participate today in this important discussion. It really should be centred around public safety and making Canada a safer place versus, in my opinion, measures and in particular the amendment that has been table-dropped at the last moment for Bill C-21. It was focused on a handgun freeze but has now turned into a bill focused on arguably the most law-abiding demographic in Canada.

In fact, the statistics show that firearms owners are three times less likely to commit a crime than the average Canadian. In particular, I am here to defend people from my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. This is a huge issue in my neck of the woods. My own brothers and friends of mine, not many of whom, as far as I know, have had a speeding ticket in their life, harvested three deer during hunting season, just a few weeks ago. Every single one of them will be impacted by this ban because they all own hunting rifles that are semi-automatic with detachable magazines.

I'm here speaking not just on their behalf but also on behalf of the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I've had so many law enforcement officers reach out to me and critique this bill. The fact is, they do not believe that anything within Bill C-21, especially with the amendment, is going to actually reduce gun crime and gun violence in this country. It's focused on the wrong aspects.

I'm also hearing from veterans and even current members of the Canadian Armed Forces who feel the same way. I would challenge every member, as I have done in previous interjections, to talk to some of the PPS workers who protect us so well and keep us secure here in Parliament. They feel the same way, so this isn't just me.

I will offer a point of appreciation. I think we need to have a discussion around proper definitions and around the classification of firearms. For decades, the gun community has been calling for a complete review, a proper review with all proper consultation.

We heard Minister Mendicino speak during a media scrum just a couple of days ago, and he said he's been consulting with everybody. I'm going to get to that, because to me we should be basing every discussion and every decision around firearms in this country on data and evidence, not political science. It has to be based on the facts.

There is something else I'd like to point out. My predecessor, the Honourable Larry Miller, former member of Parliament for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for 15 years, actually tried to solve some of this. In the 42nd Parliament, he introduced Bill C-230, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firearm—definition of variant), to try to get some clarity around this. Unfortunately, it did not get past second reading. With the exception of one Liberal MP, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc all voted it down. It didn't even get a chance to be studied at committee and get through. Again, for decades we've been calling for the proper classification of firearms, so we're going to get into that here, right now.

I've been asking questions literally since a few months after being elected in 2019, at that time to then minister Blair and since then to Minister Mendicino. I have submitted written questions to try to get some clarity on the data, especially around the clause that speaks about military-style assault rifles.

For the record—and I think everybody in this room knows—I spent 25 and a half years in the Canadian Armed Forces as an infantry officer. I have carried fully automatic firearms and handguns pretty much my whole career. I slept with a fully automatic firearm as a pillow—fully loaded with a 30-round magazine on it and a round up the spout—in Afghanistan, and the gun never went off. Guns do not kill people. People kill people, not the firearms themselves.

I have a question for the officials here. I asked a question shortly after the OIC came out—which is what this amendment is now adding to legislation—on the firearms that were banned, the over 1,500 models. At that time, I asked specifically what the formal technical definition of an assault-style firearm was and when the government had first used it.

They referred to—and I just want to verify this—the consultation process and the report that was provided to the government. Was that the Hill+Knowlton Strategies report “Reducing Violent Crime: A Dialogue on Handguns and Assault-Style Firearms”? Is that the report being referred to?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to Mr. Noormohamed for those leading remarks.

I can commit to him and promise him there will be no fearmongering from me today. There will be no vilifying.

Believe it or not, most things I'm going to say today aren't even going to be my words. I have a lot of words from other people because, as I have said here many times, I am not a hunter, I am not a firearms owner, and I don't know a lot about firearms. I've learned a lot more over the last while.

Getting back to his words a little bit, if I may, this weekend I received in our office over 2,500 emails. That's a lot of emails. Thankfully we have good staff to go through a bunch of them. I'll be referring to a bunch of them here today, which I'm sure you'll enjoy hearing, Mr. Noormohamed.

The fact is, I think what has people concerned is that this was originally.... We had some great witnesses in here, and we were talking about Bill C-21. It was all about handguns. Then it came here, and it turned into an issue of long guns or, more precisely, a lot of hunting rifles, a lot of firearms.

As I said, it's not going to affect me. I don't own a gun. I don't have even the slight inclination to want to have one. I don't hunt, but a lot of my friends do. A tremendous number of people in Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte do own hunting firearms and do hunt.

I have a split riding, where Barrie is obviously a very urban area, and Springwater—Oro-Medonte is very rural. It's all farms, quite frankly, a beautiful area. Come up and visit us sometime, Mr. Noormohamed. We'll show you a nice area.

A lot of them do hunt. A lot of them also own firearms for the protection of their livestock. I have heard a lot from them, more so than I even thought we were going to hear, but it has resonated, and this has concerned many residents.

One thing that was mentioned by you is that you're not banning all firearms. I don't think we've ever said that you're banning all long guns, but you're banning perhaps all the long guns that someone owns. Are you saying, “It's okay. Right now you own those two or three or four hunting rifles. You can't own those anymore. Give them up. Go to the store”? As you said, some of them are on sale. Some of the people right now are struggling. Some of the people feed their families with hunting. Are you saying, “Get rid of those ones you have now and go buy some more firearms because they're on sale”?

I don't think that's fair, and I don't think it's going to do anything for crime that's going on. That's really what we're talking about here—crime. No one wants to see anybody getting hurt, especially with a firearm.

I have done a little bit of research. Actually, I didn't do it. I am going to give some credit to my great staff, my new staff especially. She deserves a round of applause. She has gone through and found a lot of quotes from a lot of members of your party, Mr. Noormohamed, who have discussed what this bill is supposed to be about. I am going to read a few of these now, and I'm sure we'll all enjoy these, so I'll take a drink, and we'll sit back and have some fun.

The first few are from Minister Mendicino:

I spoke directly with municipal leaders and mayors, who represent rural Canada. And it is important we come up with gun policy that does reflect the varying experiences of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I've had some conversations with hunters and recreational sport shooters, who indicate as you did that they use long rifles to keep some of the wildlife away from their properties.

I quote Mr. Mendicino again, at our own committee:

We're listening very carefully to indigenous leaders to make sure that for those who hunt as part of their tradition or who hunt to eat, this bill will be consistent with those principles of reconciliation. I assure you that those conversations are ongoing.

All those were discussed before all these long rifles and hunting rifles were put into place.

I have some quotes here from Mr. Scarpaleggia from when we were debating it in Parliament:

Mr. Speaker, I left off by acknowledging that I recognize the cultural value of hunting in many communities and for many Canadians. Having visited a community during moose hunting season in particular, I understand and have seen first-hand the value that local citizens attach to that time of year.

I also understand the sentimental value, if we want to call it that, attached to certain heirloom firearms. I believe it was the member for Kildonan—St. Paul who had, at one point in her speech, talked about a rifle, a shotgun, that had been handed down from generation to generation in her family. In a sense, it represented the efforts of the family, going way back, to carve out a living in a harsh environment in Manitoba.

When I hear it like that, maybe I do want to take up hunting. That sounds nice, doesn't it, Mr. Chair?

It continues:

I understand the sentimental value of that heirloom firearm, but what I do not understand is the sentimental value of, for example, a Saturday night special or an AK-47. The rifle the member for Kildonan—St. Paul was talking about was used to carve out a space in the wilderness, I presume, but some of these weapons are used to carve up neighbourhoods through gun violence.

This bill is not about the cultural value of hunting. It is not about persecuting duck hunters or deer hunters, who do not use handguns to hunt their prey, in any event.

I would like to know if they still feel the same after this amendment—if it isn't going after hunters and prey.

During second reading,Mr. Gerretsen, on June 22, says:

As I said, all those in my family and extended family who I know have hunted for generations, have never once, during our own individual discussions about this issue around the dinner table, talked about the need for a handgun. Yes, there are concerns from time to time about weapons, and in particular those used for hunting. I can respect that, but I just do not think handguns fall into that category, nor has any hunter I have ever spoken with agreed with that sentiment.

Ms. Sgro, on June 21, says:

This is certainly not about hunters, God bless them, who can go right ahead and do their hunting. I have family who hunt deer, moose, and all of that, as well. That is not what we are talking about with this bill. We are talking about gun violence, handguns. That is what is doing the killing in my riding and throughout the city of Toronto.

Again, all those quotes were before the amendment. We'll get into some quotes regarding the amendment after this.

Mr. Gerretsen, again, on June 22, says:

I guess it really comes down to what they determine to be an impact on somebody. Would it have an impact to tell people that we do not think it is appropriate to be carrying a firearm? If that negatively impacts them because they have a passion for doing that, then I guess it would impact them. However, I do not think it would impact those who are using a firearm for the purpose of hunting, in particular, which is the example I have been using.

Mr. Turnbull, on June 20, says:

Bill C-21 is targeting handguns, not firearms used for hunting or sport shooting. However, as the Prime Minister has said, there is no reason other than these activities that the general public should need guns in their everyday lives....

Firearms owners can rest assured that, as always, we will consult with Canadians before finalizing and implementing regulations.

Mr. Fragiskatos, on June 9, says, “Hunting, as I said before, is a fundamental Canadian tradition. I do not dispute that at all. I have hunted.”

Again, Mr. Fragiskatos, on June 9, says:

Canadians who have a registered handgun, for target shooting, for example, could still use it. I emphasize that. I also emphasize that hunters are not the focus. Hunting is a Canadian tradition. People practice it, particularly in rural communities, but I have a number of constituents in my community of London, an urban area, who hunt....

In case there is any confusion, and I know that if there is confusion...let me just reassure Conservative colleagues that Bill C-21 is not about hunters.

Patty Hajdu, on June 9, says:

Madam Speaker, our government has been very clear that this is legislation that does not target hunters and sport shooters. In fact, in my own riding, I have a community of both hunters and sport shooters that are thriving and that are honoured by many of their neighbours, friends and colleagues.

This is about creating safer communities for all Canadians. Sport shooters can rest assured that we would not eliminate sport shooting nor prohibit new sport shooting enthusiasts from using business-owned handguns. In my riding, hunting has a long tradition amongst many families. The hunters I know do not use handguns to shoot a deer. Today's announcement will not affect hunters and farmers.

Well, I think the new announcement and the amendment definitely will.

Once again, Ms. Hajdu, on June 9, says:

In my riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North many people own firearms for hunting and sport shooting. The proposed legislation that was introduced last week would not restrict guns used for these purposes.

As we all know now, it does.

On June 1, MP Irek Kusmierczyk said to the Windsor Star, “We are not seeking to prevent hunting or law-abiding sportsmen”.

Those are all quotes that were taken before the amendment—before this came out. I'm sure some of those would have changed now, because if I have received 2,500 emails over the weekend, I will guarantee you that some of those rural ridings especially have received many. I know the riding of my colleague beside me is very rural, northern Ontario. I'm sure he has received many. Mr. Noormohamed says he has received them too.

Something has changed, and I think it's the amendment we are all here to talk about.

I received, as I said, a lot of emails from hunters. I'm going to read some of their emails because I don't hunt, and I don't own a gun. I'm not here to vilify. I'm not here to fearmonger. I'm here to do my job, which is to speak for our residents and to speak for Canadians.

I received this, and I'll say the first name. This is Steve's email: “Yesterday, the Liberals tabled an amendment to C-21 that would prohibit hundreds of thousands of common hunting rifles that have detachable magazines. The rifle that just a week ago I used to shoot a deer will now be the subject of a forced confiscation scheme. I just want to touch base with you about how ludicrous this is, nothing more than a punitive move against lawful owners and hunters, also a complete joke in the law enforcement community, as was the handgun freeze. The federal government has now frozen more than $35,000 of my lawfully owned assets. I can no longer use my now prohibited rifles, and my handgun collection is now worthless. If this amendment passes, that amount only increases. Thank you.”

That's one. I have another, from Andre:

I'm writing to you today as a Canadian, firearm owner, and hunter, as I am extremely concerned about the last-minute amendment the government is seeking to Bill C-21; the handgun freeze.

The amendment in the proposed bill that the Liberal government is trying to pass will ban all commercially available semi-automatic rifles and many semi-automatic shotguns, as well as currently owned and used firearms used by Canadian hunters and sport shooters.

As a hunter I want to explain the importance of this style of firearm for hunting in Canada. Semi automatic firearms including shotguns and rifles, are especially important for accessibility of those with disabilities in Canada who currently or intend to participate in hunting. These firearms are especially useful for hunters (including those with disabilities) because they allow for easier second shots if the animal is wounded, and their actions also reduce recoil significantly, which makes them especially useful when a larger, heavier-recoiling calibre is required. This is important when hunting big, or dangerous game—of which, Canada is home to. Additionally they are also easier to operate for those with disabilities and thus, safer.

Another important consideration to note is that there are millions of currently non-restricted individual firearms that meet the proposed definition of a prohibited firearm based on this amendment, and likely over a million licensed gun owners in possession of a firearm that would be prohibited by this legislation. Over a million people will see their property rendered worthless, unable to be inherited or passed down to remind future generations of past traditions; their owners having done nothing more heinous than passing the RCMP-mandated training and testing to obtain a gun license and purchasing a firearm legally.

This new proposed bill unjustly targets hunters who are made up of law abiding citizens from various walks of life including the First Nations (Indigenous) who have long participated in the lifestyle of hunting. Many of these individuals and families rely on hunting to sustain their food supply, and heading into a global recession is only going to put undue stress on these Canadians.

Bill C-21 is clearly wrong and should be stopped, even if only so as to allow proper debate through the proper democratic process. So please examine Bill C-21, the amendments being sought by the government, and please consider myself and the thousands of other constituents this legislation unfairly impacts and oppose these changes.

I look forward to hearing a response and having a discussion on this matter.

Well, he got more than a response. He got his letter read into the record, so that's nice.

We have another one here from Gordon:

I am not feeling very well today because my country, Canada will be calling me a criminal because of the firearm that I own. I have been a hunter before 1980. I was gifted the firearm in 2007 and our Uncle relived all the stories of the Moose and Deer harvested with it. I to have taken Deer with it and my son has used it with me sighting it in and always referred to the firearm as the “Heritage Gun”. But my government wants our History to stop. My government does not want him to pass it along to his Son and Daughter. Why does our government feel this 42 year old firearm and other large bore bolt action rifles that my fellow hunters use are a threat to society?

Do you have heirlooms to pass along to family members? A side table, a chair, a picture or a tea pot. Well when they get destroyed or taken from you their history is gone. Even if replaced with another the history can not be replaced, as the new one was not held in the hands of your ancestors.

If we go away for a vacation, will an American style SWAT TEAM show up at our home or will the RCMP break into our home like they did in High River Alberta. The magnitude of this amendment and its late introduction at such a late stage lacks transparency and seems under handed. Does someone have a vendetta against firearms or firearm owners? Because there is no opportunity for individuals or groups to submit evidence about the amendments.

To the Senators, the chamber of 2nd thought. Consider what they just want you to rubber stamp. Please confer with your colleagues and consider the ramifications of this law, how it was crafted and the impact on the families of all involved.

I won't read all 2,500. In case you want me to, Mr. Noormohamed, I have a few more, but not 2,500; I promise.

This one's from Corey:

As a long standing hunter I am concerned about these changes to Bill C-21. I learned to hunt as a teenager and enjoy time in the outdoors with family and friends who hunt. We all have shotguns that are maintained and stored properly. None are automatic or have magazines that store more shells than what migratory bird or other hunting regulations allow. We eat what we harvest. However, the direction of gun restrictions in Canada is going down a path that will soon impact the average safe hunter. Please do not allow this to happen. I would not want this part of our heritage of Canada to be destroyed.

Moreover the potential impact of adding hundreds of models adds significant cost to the proposed buyback program already in place for more restricted firearms.

This Bill impacts many hunters, as many of these firearms are used by hunters across the country.

Finally where is the transparency—there is no opportunity for individuals or groups to submit concern for or evidence about the amendments.

There's another one from Zachary:

My name is Zachary Peck, I am a 22-year-old wildlife biologist and a lifelong hunter. I have been hunting since I was 13 years old and it has been a long-standing yearly tradition that I have taken part in with 3 generations of my family and hopefully more to come, as well I have met some of my best friends through the sport. Since I started hunting I have also come to supplement my diet with purely game meat that I harvest. So naturally, you can see my concern when I read about the amendments to bill C-21 which included several firearms used for lawful hunting every year in our country. Further, this bill was originally put forth as an action against handgun violence and was said to have no effect on hunting or firearms used for hunting. These amendments show an extreme lack of transparency on behalf of the government and have shown that this bill is a means to an end for legal firearm owners, sportsmen, sportswomen, and other outdoor enthusiasts alike. I urge you to oppose this bill as it would be detrimental not only to me and my lifestyle but would have deleterious effects on Legal Law-abiding gun owners across this country.

This one's from Cindy:

I write to you today in response to the egregious introduction of the recent amendment to BillC21, and its subsequent impact on the country, provinces, communities, individuals and my family. From the beginning the whole BillC21 has been a disastrous piece of legislation that will do nothing to stop actual gun crimes, which has already been proven by the continuing amount of hand gun crimes currently happening after the handgun freeze came into effect. And now, you have decided, on a whim, to add in the property that my family and I have worked extremely hard for, have procured the proper certifications for, take great care and respect for, and most importantly use it as a tool to educate ourselves about many aspects of life. We have a strong relationship with the history of Canada, our Heritage and our environment due to our relationship with our property. And now, the government wants to forcibly take this from myself and my family? With no opportunities for individuals or groups to submit evidence about the amendments? What kind of Transparency is this? The introduction of an amendment of this magnitude at such a late stage reeks of deceitfulness. Although, based on the track record of this government, I am not surprised.

I would also ask if anyone within this government has questioned what kind of impact this Bill will have? What is the impact to law enforcement who will be diverted from actual crime, to confiscating law abiding citizens property? What is the added cost of these buybacks? I am sure you will have zero people who will hand over hard earned property for free. What about the economic impacts? Gun Ranges? Outfitters? Hunting Stores? Gun Shops? What are you planning to do with all the people you force out of work with this Bill?

Why are you potentially putting law abiding citizens who have never been on the wrong side of the law into a position where they have to give up their passions? Their life's work?

I expect these questions to be answered for such a strong piece of legislation to even be considered, with the vast amount of lives and livelihoods this will affect.

Thank you in advance for your efforts in putting together answers to my questions above for such a serious matter.

Sincerely,

Cindy.

I have one more:

My name is Cade.... I am 16 years old and a third generation hunter. I would first like to thank you for reading my message, it means a lot. Now that you know who I am, I'd like to explain why I'm writing to you. I am a third generation hunter from Ontario and like many Ontarians, hunting and shooting is a very important part of my life. Bill c-21 would completely put a stop to hunting and sports shooting with their illogical and senseless laws being proposed, that will prohibit ownership of semi auto shotguns and rifles with detachable magazines. Most if not all responsible gun owners here in Canada and around the world own semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines. With bill c-21, these hunting and big game sporting rifles will be illegal (as stated before) and will not only upset Canadian firearms owners but will cause poverty stricken gun owners to give up hunting completely due to not having money for a new rifle/shotgun. These laws are discriminatory not only to the poor gun owners of canada, but to the rest of the owners. Imagine, if you will, a world where you spend a substantial amount of money, an amount that you had to save up for years, for a new car only for it to be taken away because of someone who stole a car which happened to be the same make and model and went on a rampage with it. That's how we felt when we heard the news of this new bill being proposed. Due to the system's own shortcomings, criminals running loose with illegal firearms, either stolen from the United States or Canadian homes, we will lose our hobby, source of food, source of employment, source of joy, our sense of community and way of life in Northern Ontario.

Statistically, this bill will not stop shootings, In fact, they will most likely increase. The stats show that murderous shootings happen more with illegal firearms than legal ones. Firearms and handguns that are already prohibited, like the Glock 42 which could fit in one's pocket, and restricted in Canada are smuggled into our Country. To put a stop to firearm related death we must drop this bill and instead put our resources into tighter border security and much stricter sentencing for firearms related crime instead of loosening the sentencing times....

In 2021, we had 297 deaths due to gun violence. The year prior, 2020, Trudeau banned over 1500 firearms due to the Nova Scotia massacre which claimed 22 lives. I think it's important to note in 2020 we had 278 deaths from firearm related incidents. So even though he banned over 1500 firearms, we had an increase of almost 20 deaths due to firearms. If that bill did nothing to stop criminals from committing these terrible crimes, why would this new bill work?

Being from a family of hunters the ban would affect my family, community and myself more than anyone since the Bill will be banning semi auto external magazine fed rifles and shotguns and some single shot rifles. When hunting for game we are taught to make a clean shot to decrease pain and eliminate suffering for the animal. At times a clean shot is not made, but with a semi automatic the hunter can get off another round quickly to alleviate their suffering. With the banning of these types of guns, the time it would take to reload the gun, the game could have fled. If you have ever been hunting you know a fleeing wounded animal is very dangerous not only for the hunter but other people in the area and other game. I feel a fleeing wounded animal poses more of a safety risk than the guns being banned in the Bill c-21.

Thank you for your time and please support us 642,000 Ontarian hunters in this fight for our firearm rights.

It's signed “Cade”.

As I said, that's just a little snippet of the emails we've received. Everybody's nodding their head. I'm sure everyone around this table received as many as I did over the weekend, or more. As I said, we received 2,500, and that was over the weekend. I'm sure it's more now. We're hearing from regular Canadians. Again, we're hearing from people who use these hunting rifles to feed their families, to support their lifestyle.

The heirloom thing, I didn't know much about that. I'm understanding that now. As I said, not being a firearms owner, I didn't understand it all. I'm beginning to understand it a lot. These are real people. These are messages from Canadians. I think, around this table, this is what we need to think about more often. This is what we need to hear.

I'll leave it there for now, and I'll allow my colleagues to carry on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Good afternoon, everyone. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the continuation of meeting number 50 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms.

I will remind you all that our meeting last Thursday was suspended. This is why no new notice was published and distributed.

Mr. Noormohamed was speaking, and the next name on the speaking list was Mr. Shipley. Mr. Ruff has put up his hand to speak following Mr. Shipley. Madame Michaud is after that. Then it's Mr. Zimmer. Let me update my list here.

Before we go further, I will now welcome the officials who are, once again, with us today—I thank you, all, for hanging in there with us. They are available for technical questions regarding the bill.

From the Department of Justice, we have Marianne Breese, counsel, legal services, Public Safety Canada; Paula Clarke, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy.

Once again, thank you all for joining us today.

We shall resume clause-by-clause. We are undertaking the debate on amendment G-4.

Mr. Noormohamed, the floor is yours, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government's misguided approach continues with Bill C-5.

Bill C-5 reduces the mandatory minimum sentences for numerous violent crimes, including crimes with firearms. Bill C-75 made it easier for criminals to get out on bail. Now, rather than going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Liberals are targeting law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters with Bill C-21.

When will the government stop its soft-on-crime approach and get serious about public safety?

Firearms

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling raises concerns about Bill C-21. This is a bill that would make things much more difficult for law-abiding firearms owners, and it would not effectively tackle the real problems of crime in this country. Petitioners are concerned that the government is moving forward with amendments that would, in effect, ban hunting rifles and about the extreme overreach by the government while it fails to address real issues of crime.

Petitioner have a number of asks. The first is to not proceed with Bill C-21. The second is to take stronger action against criminals, smugglers and gangs rather than law-abiding citizens, and the third is to allow the airsoft industry to continue producing and selling airsoft guns.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns. That is why, in the economic statement, we added $138 million to give tools and resources to the Canada Border Services Agency to stop illegal firearms trafficking at our borders.

That is why Bill C‑21 provides for more tools to target criminal organizations, to stop the terror they inflict on communities with their guns.

It is time for the Conservatives to stop picking fights.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that we are absolutely not targeting law-abiding gun owners. The guns that we are going after are the assault rifles that were used Portapique and Truro in Nova Scotia. The guns that we are going after are the guns that were used at the Quebec City mosque. The guns that we are going after are the guns that were tragically used in Polytechnique.

Those are the assault rifles that we are targeting in Bill C-21 and it would be time now for the Conservatives to stop filibustering, study the bill, debate the bill and pass the bill so we can end gun violence once and for all.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about victims of gun violence, which disproportionately affects women. That is why Bill C‑21 proposes a “red flag” provision to protect women.

Again, when will the Conservatives support this important government initiative to make all Canadians safer? It is high time they did.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the very short answer is yes. That is exactly why we introduced Bill C‑21, which seeks to give police more tools and provide surveillance tools that will help them disrupt the activities of criminal organizations trying to illegally import firearms. That is exactly why we are proposing harsher sentences for members of organized crime. I hope that the Conservatives will finally support this bill.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, given the advanced stage at which Bill C-21 is being debated by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I would have hoped my colleague would see that the government proposes to raise maximum sentences against hardened criminals who would terrorize our communities with the drive-by shootings he describes in his question.

In addition, I am somewhat surprised the Conservatives did not support the fall economic statement, where we invested an additional $137 million to stop the illegal smuggling he is concerned about.

The only thing the Conservatives have put on the table is making assault-style rifles legal again, and that is wrong. They need to be sure they are on the right side of this issue.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have a quick rebuttal to the last answer I heard, where the member talked about Conservatives supporting this bill. We always support good legislation that comes through.

Recently on the public safety committee, we have been reviewing Bill C-21, which is questionable legislation that is coming through. What is slowing that down now is a huge amendment that has been thrown at us, not at the parliamentary stage but at the committee stage. I want to make sure there will not be any big curveballs thrown in this when it comes before our committee.

Can I get reassurance on that from the member opposite?

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we introduced Bill C‑21. The Conservatives have been quibbling with it since day one.

We need to pass this bill, which targets members of organized crime, aims to hand down very severe punishments to criminals and gives police more tools.

We will continue to bring forward legislation that makes sense, and we will continue to make investments to help our police and our forces at the border.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to be clear that at no point am I questioning Mr. Lloyd's patriotism. It's quite the opposite. I know him to be a proud Canadian. I share many of the things he holds dear, but I do want to make a point here that I think is important as we talk about this amendment. When we speak about rights and we speak about the importance of rejecting revolution, we need to be clear that this is something we hold true on all the things we talk about. Whether or not it is rejecting those who sought to overthrow the government, we should be standing firm. What I want to say is very much about the idea of why, when we talk about freedoms, it's important that we understand limitations sometimes.

The Conservative Party was prepared to launch a niqab ban against women who chose to wear the niqab. They have been adamant in their fight against a woman's right to choose. Whatever we want to talk about when it comes to freedoms here, let's be very clear that this is not about that. This is about something very different. If we're going to go down the rabbit hole here of talking about freedom, I think it's really important to say that freedom is not a licence. We have to be very deliberate, when we are talking about guns and the violence that is perpetrated by those who choose to use guns as a tool of violence, to actually realize what some of these weapons are.

There was a lot of debate about the innocuous nature of the SKS. I think it's important for us to understand that in fact the SKS is a weapon that has been used in military conflicts. Let's take a look at what some of those military conflicts might be. This is by no means an exhaustive list. If people would like, I'd be happy to provide them with a much longer exhaustive list.

That exhaustive list, which I'll just pull up here, Mr. Chair, involves everything from the Donbass conflict that we've seen very recently all the way back to the Boer War. It's been used in Vietnam. It's been used in the Suez crisis. It's been used many times. It was used in 1990 through to 1995 in the Tuareg rebellion. It was used in the Soviet-Afghan war. It was used in the war in Abkhazia. It was used in the Algerian civil war. Therefore, it is patently untrue for people to say that this is not a weapon of war. It has been used by forces in war. Let's be very honest with people about what is actually going on here.

What I find remarkable, Mr. Chair, is that we have not heard one single speaker from the Conservative side look at this list and acknowledge any weapon on there that deserves to be banned. I'm listening to this and wondering, for folks who are so concerned about public safety, why they haven't gone through this list and said, yes, we actually agree that a large number of these should be banned. Is it because they believe every single weapon on these should have free and fair licence on our streets? I'd love to know that. I'd love to know if that's the case. If it is, I think that would give us something more to reflect on.

When we think about this view that we should be tougher on crime and that we should be tougher on weapons at the borders, let's just remind ourselves of the record. During the last Conservative government, over $1 billion—over $1 billion—was cut from law enforcement agencies. RCMP labs that were reviewing firearms and tracing evidence for police forces were slashed. Entire proceeds of crime units were disbanded. Resources were taken away from CBSA along with their ability to control the flow of illegal goods, including firearms at the borders, that our Conservative friends are so concerned about.

They talked about the crime prevention programs. In terms of the programs they talked about, before the 2015 election and the national crime prevention strategy, they let money lapse from those programs. They didn't fund $28 million of the money they said they were going to put into crime prevention. We sit here listening to how we've done this terrible job of not protecting our borders when in fact we've been trying to make back the ground that was lost under the Conservatives. In 2021 we put over $656 million back into the budget to keep this country safe, with $123 million for CBSA. We put money into tracing. We put money into making sure there was a mandatory tracing policy. The things we have had to do to reverse the total ignorance around law and order of the Conservative government of the past continue to work, and Bill C-21 is part of that.

The idea that the Conservatives are good on crime and law and order is absolute nonsense. Their record speaks for it. I will take no lessons from Conservatives who talk about the importance of protecting every single one of these weapons because it is somehow part of Canadian culture that we should be able to do this.

Let's talk about Canadian culture for a moment. Let's talk about the importance of Canadian culture. Yes, absolutely, hunting is a big part of people's lives. I want to take nothing away from Ms. Dancho's family or families like hers. They have a right to hunt, as do indigenous communities. Nobody is questioning that, but let's talk about this for a moment in the spirit with which Mr. Motz and others have spoken about it.

The Conservatives proposed a barbaric cultural practices line. Had that come through when they were in government, I wonder if today people who oppose hunting could say that hunting should be reported through their snitch line as a barbaric cultural practice.

Is that the road that we're trying to go down here? I don't think so. We're trying to be reasonable. I invite my Conservative friends to go through the list of weapons that is there and acknowledge, perhaps, that there are weapons on that list that should be banned. However, this idea that we should go to a world in which every single weapon should be on our streets because “guns don't kill people, people do” is absurd.

We heard from law enforcement that the wrong types of guns in the wrong types of hands kill people. Sometimes guns in the hands of people inadvertently end up killing people. Let's get to the facts here. The facts are that the Conservatives are using this to raise money. They are using this to advance fear among Canadians and to divide Canadians. They talked about not having these politics of division, but that is exactly what this is about. When people are running through hallways, gleeful that this provides fodder for fundraising, we have a real problem.

I would argue that we have an opportunity here to actually, as we have done in this committee in the past, work together, to work together as we did on the ghost gun amendments—the first couple and the parts, rather—as I know we're going to because I know that Mr. Shipley and others on this committee believe strongly that we need to deal with some of these issues. We may have disagreements, but the beauty of this committee is that, if they disagree with an amendment, they have the right to work with other parties to defeat this amendment. However, they should not hold up the process of debating this and having meaningful conversation on this just because it serves a political agenda.

There are people in my riding who support this. There are probably people in my riding who oppose this. However, the overwhelming number of Canadians sent us to this place to deal with this in the way we have agreed to deal with it. I would really encourage the Conservatives, if they are opposed to this, to see if they can get the support of other parties. If they can't, let the will of Canadians move this bill forward. Let's actually get to the parts of this that we can agree on. Let's get some good legislation passed.

Let's not waste Canadians' time. Let's not create moments here for social media clips that allow people to go and raise money. Let's not use language like “Canadians are going to be up in arms” and “this is a declaration of war” because it's not. Using language like “it's a declaration of war” is not what Canadians want to hear from people who are elected. They want to hear that we can find ways to actually communicate with one another in a way that does not heat people up, that does not cause further friction or further animosity, and that does not cause people on social media to start to vilify people. That's not why we are here.

Again, as we think about what is the best path forward, I don't doubt that every single person on this committee actually cares about moving forward in protecting Canadians' lives. We may have different means. However, I take great umbrage to use of language like “this is a war against people” or “Canadians are going to be up in arms over this”. This is not right. We have seen the consequences of that when people like Ms. Damoff have been threatened. That is not okay.

If we are going to look at these amendments and talk about them thoughtfully, I would really encourage us all to, instead of questioning officials and asking for them for their personal opinions, ask them technical questions, as Mr. Lloyd did.

When I look at this list, I want to hear from my Conservative friends which of the weapons they actually think should be banned, which of the guns they think should be banned, so that we can actually start to save lives.

Let's have a conversation about substance. That is, in my view, the most important thing we can do. Canadians, frankly, deserve it. This should not be a database-building exercise for Conservatives. This should not be a fundraising exercise. This should be something that we look at as we have so many others things before this committee, something we should look at for ways that we can find common ground.

I want to be very clear. I speak for myself, here.

There is no sinister plot—at least that I have seen or that I am a part of—to take reasonable hunting guns away from those who have a right to hunt. This is not some sinister plot to punish indigenous communities, as the Conservatives assert. This is not some insidious plot to destroy the rich culture and heritage of Ms. Dancho's family. That is not what this is about.

To stir Canadians up into thinking that we are coming for the things that they hold dear is not right. What we are trying to do here is to take weapons that are used in wars and mass shootings to kill innocent people of all races and faiths.

We've sat quietly and listened to Mr. Motz wax poetic about how Minister Mendicino might have felt.

Let me tell you what I have heard from the victims of the mosque shooting and from other shootings like it. They felt that it was the responsibility of a government—Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat, Green, Bloc or otherwise—to protect them from the very tools that were used to murder them. That is what families of victims keep telling us. That is what our responsibility is, whether it is ghost guns, illegal guns at the border or many of the weapons on this list. Our job is to make sure we are protecting lives. Our job is to do our part—

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

Now my memory has come back, and your answer is almost identical to what it was on Tuesday.

However, my question was whether a charter-compliance analysis has been done specifically on amendment G-4 and then in reference to amendment G-46, because G-4 proposed paragraph (i) talks about the firearms listed in that schedule.

Has a charter-compliance analysis been done on the expansion of Bill C-21?

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

That's fair enough.

I don't remember if my colleagues asked this on Tuesday, but given the sweeping changes this would make to Bill C-21 and the idea that all legislation is supposed to be charter-compliant.... Bill C-21, I'm sure, has a charter-compliance component to it. Is that correct?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I very much do respect the witnesses who are before us, and I appreciate the refereeing from the sideline, from across the way.

I do have a couple of questions.

I was pleasantly pleased to see that Premier Scott Moe and our Alberta Minister of Justice Tyler Shandro have issued statements that in the coming weeks they will explore options on actions against this particular legislation and the government.

We heard Minister Mendicino at the beginning of this study suggest that Bill C‑21 relies heavily on provincial co-operation. How does the government plan to enact the sweeping ban, if you will, which will impact hundreds of thousands of Canadians all across this country, without assistance from the provinces? How do you envision seeing that happen?

Does anybody have any ideas?

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

That's a pretty definitive Bill C‑21 question.

[Paula Clarke]

We're here to answer questions regarding Bill C‑21 and the motions before us.

[Phaedra Glushek]

That particular question we would not be able to answer because it's subject to solicitor-client privilege, but what I can say is that the original bill that was tabled in 2019 did not have these amendments in it.

The next thing I can say is that there were public commitments to ban further assault-style firearms by the government following Bill C-21 and, I believe, on the reintroduction of Bill C‑21. That is what I can advise committee members in terms of conversations and public statements that have been made by the government.

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

Like on Tuesday, I believe the chair has a misinterpretation of what is and isn't allowed.

I'll ask it a different way, then.

When you prepared C-21, the original version that came before Parliament, did you have, in the background, amendment G-46 and G-4, for example, that would expand the definition of a prohibitive firearm? Was that something that you were already working on then?

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

In your initial creation of Bill C-21, were there any conversations about this particular amendment in those initial conversations?

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

That's perfect. You're aware of the comments I'm about to make then.

The statements that were made—now, admittedly, by Ms. Damoff—suggest the absolute and utter ignorance of the laws that we have in this country already and of the whole historical perspective of firearms and the use of firearms for hunting. It absolutely makes zero sense.

It identifies, again, the lack of understanding that this member has—and the Liberals, for that matter, because they're the ones pushing this misguided legislation—on the firearms that are used for military applications. It flies in the face of common sense. I can't imagine the emails we're going to get now, based on that statement. People are so frustrated with this government already and its misguided approach.

I want go back to the reason why we're debating this particular issue. For those of you who may not be aware, or need to be reminded, we are dealing with a government amendment. It's called G-4 in our package. It's a government amendment to a bill. They wrote the bill and obviously found out that there were a lot of mistakes with the bill. They decided to add some things to it that they didn't want to have covered off at the front end. That would be my perspective.

When a bill is presented, it is able to be debated in the House before it comes to committee. Before this bill even came to the committee, we had an opportunity to debate the substance of the bill. This amendment, for example—I'll get to it in just a minute—was not able to be debated. It was not even included in the bill. No one knew it was even coming. However, I believe the Liberals knew exactly what they were doing. This is a backdoor process. It was done deliberately, in my estimation.

I have an initial question for those officials who are here.

You were involved in creating Bill C-21. Is that correct?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming. I will have some technical questions for you, as I did yesterday.

Following up on the initial statement of my colleague Ms. Dancho, I really feel as though a red line has been crossed in this country with this amendment.

In this country, we don't have a Second Amendment—and I think that is appropriate—but we do have a social contract that has existed for decades and for generations. It is a social contract between the Government of Canada and society, and part of that society is law-abiding firearms owners. For generations, Canadians have accepted that regulation is an important part of cultivating a responsible firearms culture in this country and a very important firearms safety culture. Over generations, in response to exceptional instances and, in many cases, horrible tragedies, governments of all political persuasions have seen fit to put forward amendments and legislation to close gaps to try to prevent tragedies from happening.

However, whenever those laws were passed, there was always an understanding that there was no intention to target law-abiding firearms owners—hunters, farmers, sport shooters and gun collectors. There was always a great deal of deference put into legislative drafting, into having witnesses come and into creating legislation that ensured the social contract with firearms owners, with indigenous people and with hunters was preserved and protected.

I think one great example of that—and this is going to be a technical question I'll ask, so I'll put it on your radar—is section 117.15 of the Criminal Code. Section 117.15 of the Criminal Code gives the Governor in Council the ability to regulate firearms. A subsection of that was passed in 1995, nearly 30 years ago, so it isn't a recent law but an old law. It says:

(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.

It is the law of the land in this country—and it hasn't been changed since 1995—that when the Governor in Council is in the process of changing the classification of a firearm to make it restricted or prohibited, they must consider whether that firearm could be reasonably used for a hunting or sporting purpose.

I am concerned and will ask this as a direct question to the witnesses: How does amendment G‑4 interact with that provision of the Criminal Code? I think that's a very important question we have to answer today because, as I said, a red line has been crossed. As much as I appreciate the opening statement from my Liberal colleague, who said that it was not the Liberals' intention to target hunters in any way, a number of shotguns and rifles have been explicitly named in amendment G‑46 that I think any reasonable person would see as hunting or sporting firearms. I think that's quite apparent.

For this government to put forward this amendment without giving any thought to the law of the land really draws a lot of concern for me. One of these hunting and sporting rifles is the Benelli M3. It has a wooden stock and doesn't have a detachable magazine. That's interesting because proposed paragraph (g) of this amendment, which we talked about on Tuesday as the evergreen definition, talks about any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun with a detachable magazine that has the capacity to carry more than five rounds.

It's been long accepted—this is part of the social contract that I talked about—that we do not want high-capacity magazines in Canada, so there has always been a limit on centrefire ammunition: You cannot have a magazine that exceeds five rounds. Well, in Canada, we also don't have a huge firearms industry, and most hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns are manufactured in other countries. Other countries don't have this five-round magazine rule, so even though in Canada you are not allowed to have a magazine that exceeds five rounds, all the firearms that are being banned were originally designed, for the most part, as far as I know, to potentially carry six, seven or even more rounds.

In Canada, we currently have a ban. It's a criminal offence to have a prohibited magazine. It's a prohibited magazine if it carries more than five rounds. That has been a largely effective policy, and it has been accepted in this country for many years. We can use these rifles that carry more rounds, but a law-abiding person would immediately cease to be law-abiding if.... No hunter would want to use any magazine that has a capacity higher than five rounds.

However, now the government is saying they're going to approach this from the other end. They're not just going to ban magazines that can carry more than five rounds. They're going to ban any gun that could carry a magazine that has more than five rounds. In the process of adding that amendment, they're capturing an immense number of firearms, many of which are used for hunting and sporting purposes. This is why I say a red line has been crossed.

Are they banning all hunting and sporting shotguns and rifles? Certainly they're not, but that's exactly how this starts. This Liberal government will take incremental steps forward. However, I would submit that this is not an incremental step; this is a massive step. It's a step that was not talked about in the last number of federal elections in specific terms.

The government has used very ambiguous terms, such as “military-style assault weapon” or “assault weapon”. I actually agree somewhat with my Bloc colleague, who said we all want a strong definition. However, at no time was there consultation with the public, nor was there an election platform stating that the definition of an assault weapon or a military-style assault weapon would include semi-automatic or centrefire shotguns and rifles. That was never contemplated. That was not something we talked about at this committee. It was also not in the original Bill C-21. It's not something we knew about, so we didn't know to ask witnesses about it and we didn't bring specific witnesses for it.

In a way, although this bill has a number of steps in the democratic process to go through before it potentially passes into law, the addition of this amendment at this stage impugns our democracy. It removed our ability at second reading, which took place and had a second reading debate and second reading vote, and at the committee stage in the House of Commons.... It has precluded our ability to bring in witnesses and experts to talk about this issue so we can debate it. It was just table-dropped as an amendment after we completed our vigorous study, a study that I would submit did not go very well for the government.

I think Bill C-21 was very poorly drafted. It was not well thought out. A number of the well-intentioned things the government put in it were later found to be extremely flawed. Witnesses from across the political spectrum noted that these things were flawed. I won't get into those specifics, but it became increasingly clear as we got to the end of the process that this bill would have to be amended significantly. When the government recognized that these significant amendments were likely coming, it chose to table-drop massive new amendments that, in the words of one lawyer, amount to the most significant revision to the Firearms Act since the Firearms Act was passed in 1995. This is the most significant revision to the Firearms Act in the history of the Firearms Act, and it's not even being debated as its own stand-alone motion. It's being debated as an amendment during the clause-by-clause stage at committee. This is not how our democracy is supposed to work.

If this bill makes it to the Senate, there will be an opportunity for senators to look into it. However, the Liberal government, because of this last-minute, Trojan-Horse manoeuvre, has precluded my right as a parliamentarian and my privilege as a member of the House of Commons to study this bill and to debate it on its merits.

I'm stuck here at the clause-by-clause stage, when the train is already leaving the station, trying to get answers about what this is going to do. I think that raises some very serious implications for the legitimacy and the credibility of this legislation, the credibility of this amendment. I understand that some colleagues will say that they want.... In other parties, they want to vote for this, but surely they can recognize that it is a very bad precedent to set to allow any party or any government to add an amendment that was not conceived of in the original legislation, that was not discussed at all in the witness testimony and that was not brought forward until this late stage in the process.

I'll move on from that and get back to the social contract. Canada is not the United States of America, and I think that is a great thing. My family left the United States—well, the 13 colonies—in 1783. We fled from upstate New York together with our brothers and sisters in the Six Nations, the Mohawk nations. We left the Mohawk Valley of upstate New York to move to the Belleville region of Ontario. We were United Empire Loyalists, and we came to this country because we rejected the political ideology of the American revolution. We're friends with the Americans. They're our allies. We share many common values, but Canada was founded.... One of the founding peoples of this nation were the Loyalists, who came from the 13 colonies as refugees to this country with the indigenous peoples of upstate New York and other places, and with the members of the francophone Quebec nation who also.... There were entreaties from the United States to ask the Quebec nation to join in the revolution, and it rejected the revolution.

This country was founded as a rejection of the revolution. I think that is a great thing because I am a Canadian patriot. I believe in this country. I believe in the reasons for which this country was founded. I believe that we are a distinct society. We are distinct from the United States. That's why it actually offended me.... I do respect my colleague, Mr. Chiang, and his service in the police service, but it did offend me as a Canadian—when he moved this amendment and cited a Californian law—that we need to be implementing Californian, American-style laws in this country. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I can bet that the murder rate in the state of California by firearms is far greater than the murder rate in this country. That's something I'm very proud of in this country. We're a safer country. We're by no means a perfect country, but we are a country that has better firearms laws than any state in the United States. For this Liberal member to come forward and cite an American law in the American context as a reason to pass a new law in Canada.... I think that's wrong because we are Canadians. We have our own way. We are distinct. We do not need American-style laws in this country. We do not need American divisive political rhetoric in this country.

Do you know what? I think, frankly, it does.... I'm a big fan of George Grant and his work Lament for a Nation. We have seen in his book that one of the theses is that the Liberal Party of Canada has always found political power by importing American cultural debates into this country. They are breaking the social contract. This has eroded the social contract in this country, and I'm going to say why this is super dangerous for our country, and why the result of the social contract being broken is so dangerous.

However, first off, why is this Liberal government breaking the social contract with hunters and law-abiding gun owners? Is it because of public safety? No, because we've seen from the witnesses, from police and from people who are working in our inner cities, that these firearms—and we're talking about handguns and about fully automatic firearms that are heavily restricted or illegal in this country—are being smuggled in from the United States, a country with far different gun laws than we have, and they are being used to commit crimes on our streets. These are not law-abiding hunters and sport shooters.

They're not using many of the firearms that the government has listed in G-46, like a Benelli M3 shotgun. It wouldn't be used by people who are committing crimes on our streets. For the government to list that is a clear violation of our social contract.

Why are they doing that? It's because they have recognized that this is a divisive political issue that they can use to divide Canadians between rural and urban, and divide between Canadians who own firearms and Canadians who don't know much about firearms, who don't own firearms and who are afraid of firearms. They've recognized that this is a way to divide Canadians for their own political success. I think that's wrong, because we are eroding something that is very fundamental about our country.

What is very fundamental to our identity as Canadians is that we have a social contract. Firearms owners do not have explicit rights written into the Constitution of this country, but this country respects the rights of law-abiding firearms owners who follow the law, who go through the process, who get vetted by the Canadian firearms program and the RCMP, and who could have their guns taken at any time by the police, even without a warrant. If anyone calls into a police station with a claim that somebody is a threat to themselves or to others, the police have the power to act.

That's something that doesn't exist in the United States. It exists in Canada, and I think that's a positive thing. Speaking as someone who comes from a family of gun owners, we never had to be worried that our government was going to pass legislation that discriminated against us. We knew that, as long as we followed all these rules, these reasonable rules that have been accepted for generations and decades in this country, we would be respected by our government. It's only under this Liberal government that this social contract has been violated, and not for public safety reasons, which I think we could look into, but for purely political division reasons. It's purely for their own political gain.

I think that's shame on the Liberal Party of Canada. I know they have lots of members who live in rural areas who probably own firearms and probably are concerned about this legislation. I don't know how much consultation they did on this within their own caucus. I won't speculate on that. I don't know. It's just so shocking to me that they would cross this red line and that they would delve into the area of shotguns and rifles.

Moving on, I see that the government.... Actually, it was one of my questions. When I first saw this list of guns, the 310 pages or so, and G-46 came out, I was just really curious as to why the government was putting this list as an amendment to Bill C-21. In looking at the list of guns, it quickly became apparent that a lot of these guns had just been copied and pasted from the May 2020 order in council. We have since discovered, based on testimony yesterday, that somewhere between 300 and 400 additional firearms have been added to the May 2020 list. Why would this Liberal government need to pass this as an amendment? If these firearms are a threat to public safety, they could have the authority....

I guess I'll ask a quick question here: Does the government have the authority to add these firearms to the banned list using an OIC immediately?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to address this important Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I'm here to replace my colleague Kristina Michaud, who is on an overseas mission.

The Bloc Québécois believes that Bill C‑21 is important. Like Ms. Michaud, I have had the opportunity on several occasions to talk about the importance of working effectively to prevent, among other things, shootings like those that took place in Montreal in recent months from happening in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

I think a lot of work needs to be done to counter the entry of illegal guns, the black market. We've talked about this a number of times. I have often criticized and continue to criticize the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice for their laxity when it comes to illegal weapons. In that sense, I think my view is consistent with that of my Conservative Party colleagues.

That said, I would like to return to Bill C‑21. We have spoken on several occasions to ask for a clear definition of the weapons we want banned. That was part of the Bloc Québécois platform during the last election campaign. It's virtually impossible to understand if the definition isn't clear, and we certainly don't want people to be confused about the legality of a weapon. They need to know which weapons are legal and which are not.

I almost get the impression that the definition in G‑4 was written by the Bloc Québécois. I know that's not the case, since it's a government proposal, but I must say that it meets the Bloc's expectations. Now, it remains to be seen whether the definition is satisfactory.

Obviously, we are always willing to discuss, but we must take the opinions of experts into account. We have to make sure that we're working properly. I agree with my colleagues in the Conservative Party that there needs to be a clear and meaningful description of the weapons that need to be banned.

We must give a clear definition of these weapons that we want to ban in order to stop their proliferation in Quebec and in Canada. Many Canadians suffer the dramatic consequences of the use of these weapons.

The Bloc Québécois intends to vote in favour of G‑4. We support all efforts to put an end to the unfortunate shootings and misuse of firearms throughout Quebec and Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 50 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021, members are attending in person in the room or remotely using the Zoom application. I'll note that we have until 1:30 p.m., if it is the will of the committee to meet until that time. Of course, everyone has the ability to move adjournment earlier, if there is a will to do so.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with regard to firearms.

I would like to welcome back the officials who are with us today. They are available for technical questions regarding the bill. From the Department of Justice, we have Marianne Breese, counsel, Public Safety Canada legal services; Paula Clarke, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy.

Thank you for joining us today.

We will resume clause-by-clause. Amendment G-4 has been moved.

I recognize Mr. Chiang.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed in Bill C‑21 will set out an official definition of assault-style firearms. Thus, any new weapons that meet that definition will automatically be classified as such.

We are keeping our promise to tighten gun control by investing in Canadian communities, strengthening our borders and providing law enforcement with more tools to protect our communities. In fact, we seized twice as many illegal weapons at the border this year as we did the year before.

While Conservative politicians want to make assault weapons legal again, we are determined to keep our communities safe.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

If this amendment makes it into Bill C-21 and it passes with this in there, you're saying that even with royal assent, this doesn't come into force?

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we have Bill C-5 before us, which deals with minimum sentences. We have Bill C-21, which deals with guns. Now the member is going over some statistics. I realize there is a great deal of latitude. I am just pointing out that she might want to save parts of her speech for other pieces of legislation that are more—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

We heard during committee study from a number of indigenous witnesses who indicated that there had been no consultation with indigenous communities on the original Bill C-21. I would guess that if there has been no consultation on the original Bill C-21, there probably hasn't been consultation on these amendments.

Can you confirm whether or not this consultation has taken place on these amendments?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I guess I could summarize it that you don't know if there was consultation specifically on this measure about semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. You can't provide evidence today. There might be evidence and you might provide it later, but as far as you know, there was no consultation directly on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns taking place in 2019. Okay. That's interesting.

We know that there was a charter analysis for the original Bill C-21. Has there been any charter analysis updated to reflect these amendments?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Now, given that the original Bill C-21 that came to this committee didn't make any mention about banning semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, was that talked about in the consultation, as far as you know? Is that document publicly available for us to review?

[Phaedra Glushek]

The large consultation that took place with the Minister of Public Safety engaging with stakeholders, etc., took place in 2019. I understand that a report was prepared. It was a very lengthy and comprehensive consultation in advance of the original Bill C-21.

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

In essence, then, the Liberal government has tried to back-door this. This is not a reflection on you; they asked you to do something. However, they back-doored something they've said all along: “We are never going to go after industry or the hunters and farmers who have these types of firearms.” What you have done, in essence, is create a whole class of potential criminals, because they have a firearm that has the capability of receiving a magazine that can hold more than five cartridges. That's what you're saying.

With proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g), we have now created an administrative offence for a gun that's been in existence for decades and decades, and that has no history of public safety issues. We've now made millions of Canadians criminals, because they have a firearm. In reality, as Ms. Dancho indicated, if there are 500,000 of just one type of firearm in existence worth $600, then, by a conservative estimate—we're talking small “c” conservative—it's billions of dollars for that alone.

First of all, I don't understand your ruling, Mr. Chair, on how this fits with anything. It's like you have some direction, and you have to try to push this through, no matter what. I tell you, this is absolutely wrong.

This only affects the firearms that exist now or any variance that might come out in the future, as with the order in council of May 2020. We had a few firearms on that list. Then, as the days, weeks and months went by, the firearms centre added more and more firearms. Now, in this bill, we see again hundreds and hundreds of firearms added that make absolutely no sense.

We have to keep going back to remind ourselves that this is about public safety. That's what the Liberals tell us Bill C-21 is supposed to be all about. Please tell me. Show me the evidence. Mr. Chiang brought this motion forward, and I respect his service. I have 35 years in policing as well. I don't see how anything in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g) is going to have any substantive impact on public safety, period.

If we don't impact public safety, what are we wasting our time for? Seriously, what are we doing here? It is absolutely ludicrous that we have this broad-brush—

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

Thank you, Chair.

I certainly echo the comments of my colleague Ms. Dancho. The whole idea behind the premise of Bill C-21, the Liberals told the public, was public safety: It was all about public safety.

When the bill was debated on second reading to first come to this committee, nowhere did the government have this in any of their conversations. They've tried to assure Canadians now for a number of years that their attack on firearms and firearm owners in this country is legitimate and is only for public safety, when we've all seen—and clearly see—it has nothing to do with public safety.

To go back to the point I made earlier, this particular bill, when debated in the House, included none of this.

It included none of this. This is brought in at the 11th hour because the Liberals knew that if this were to be debated in the Canadian public, which this impacts, it would be shot down. Witnesses would come by the dozens and would speak against it.

Now I will challenge Ms. Dancho's comment. This doesn't affect hundreds of thousands: This affects millions of Canadians and millions of firearms. There are millions of Canadians who hunt and sport shoot. What I would like to do for some time is to go to our legislators here in the room and ask some questions.

Can you tell me the intent behind this? I'll start with item (g) here, proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g):

a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed.

Okay. As I read that, having grown up with firearms, I'd say that many firearms that are semi-automatic can't accept magazines that are different from the five-round mags; we know that anything above in this category is a prohibited device. You can't have a magazine in this category that you're talking about with a magazine greater than five rounds, but for firearms, by their simple design, can a magazine be available that has more than five? Sure. Does it fit that firearm? Sure it does, and that's already a prohibited device, as listed in the code already.

Why this is there shows me only one thing: Any firearm that is capable of receiving a magazine greater than five rounds is now going to be a prohibited device. Please tell me that isn't so. If the language that you've written here is wrong, then let's change it.

Go ahead, Ms. Clarke.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I'm going to read it just so that we're very clear about what it is we're talking about. This is the Liberal government's amendment to Bill C-21 that amends clause 1 by adding the following:

(1.1) The definition “prohibition order” in subsection 84(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

“prohibition order” means an order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament prohibiting a person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, firearm part, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things;

(1.2) The definition “prohibited firearm” in subsection 84(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (d):

(e) a firearm that is capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy exceeding 10 000 Joules, other than a firearm designed exclusively for neutralizing explosive devices,

(f) a firearm with a bore diameter of 20 mm or greater, other than a firearm designed exclusively for neutralizing explosive devices,

In particular, Mr. Chair, I would like to follow up my reading of this with some comments about (g), which reads as follows:

(g) a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed,

(h) any unlawfully manufactured firearm regardless of the means or method of manufacture, or

(i) a firearm listed in the schedule to this Part;

(1.3) Subsection 84(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“firearm part” means a barrel for a firearm, a slide for a handgun and any other prescribed part, but does not include, unless otherwise prescribed, a barrel for a firearm or a slide for a handgun if that barrel or slide is designed exclusively for use on a firearm that is deemed under subsection 84(3) not to be a firearm;

(1.4) Subsection 84(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“semi-automatic”, in respect of a firearm, means a firearm that is equipped with a mechanism that, following the discharge of a cartridge, automatically operates to complete any part of the reloading cycle necessary to prepare for the discharge of the next cartridge;

(1.5) Section 84 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) For the purposes of paragraph (f) of the definition prohibited firearm in subsection (1), bore diameter is

(a) in the case of a smoothbore firearm, the interior diameter of the firearm barrel, measured at its narrowest point, forward of the chamber and forcing cone and before the choke and any muzzle attachment; and

(b) in the case of a rifled firearm, the interior diameter of the firearm barrel, measured at its narrowest point, forward of the chamber, throat and freebore and before the crown and any muzzle attachment.

Mr. Chair, I find it important that we are being fully transparent on what this bill does. Just to be very clear, new proposed paragraph 84(1)(g) in essence bans nearly all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. When I conclude my remarks, I would like the experts we have here to provide the extensive list that I would assume they have, or would hope they have, of all firearms in Canada that would fall under this definition in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g).

Again, just to be clear, any centrefire or semi-automatic long gun that has a detachable magazine would be capable of receiving a magazine with the capacity of five or more cartridges. The way it's worded, it seems to be that it's only if it fits a magazine that has more than five cartridges, but the fact is that if you have a magazine that could fit four, it could also fit six, seven or eight. It's the slot for the magazine.

There may be some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that are not included in this, but just to be very, very clear, the Liberal government, with this amendment, is moving to ban almost all semi-automatic shotguns and rifles. We're talking bird hunters. Bird hunters use semi-automatic shotguns.

The Liberal government for seven years has been saying, “No, we respect hunters; we would never come after their firearms; it's not about that, but about the safety of our communities”, but with this amendment, there will be well over a million, and likely more, semi-automatic, perfectly reasonable, standard hunting guns that are banned. That is what we're debating today.

My colleague Mr. Lloyd mentioned the massive financial impact for this. I assume that the Liberal government, if this passes, will be providing some dignity to hunters—in rural Quebec, in the Maritimes, in rural Manitoba, in our urban cities, in northern B.C., etc.—and paying them for them.

We know that this also impacts the OIC. This has financial implications in that regard, but you've ruled that it's fine, even though there will likely be massive financial implications, possibly in the billions of dollars, because of proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g) and the rest of this amendment.

I am quite shocked, and I am shocked that it is in the scope of Bill C-21, even without the financial implications. Bill C-21 was sold to the public as a long-term, slow-burn ban. It's handgun-free, so to speak. It also talked about red flags and airsoft. It said nothing about an all-out war on hunters in Canada, which is what this is, Mr. Chair.

If you get a group of 10 hunters together, it's likely that 40% or half of the firearms they use are semi-automatic shotguns or files. Those are very standard hunting tools.

It's the same for farmers as well, particularly farmers who have issues with wild boars in their communities. We're seeing this increasingly in southern Saskatchewan and Alberta. They're coming in from the United States. They're extremely dangerous to livestock, to human beings and to dogs. If you are a farmer with this invasive species on your land—wild boars coming in from the United States—you're going to hope that you have a semi-automatic rifle or a shotgun as a tool to protect yourself, your livestock and the other animals you have on your farm.

There was no testimony about this whatsoever. It will impact hundreds of thousands of hunters, Mr. Chair, and farmers who use these as completely legitimate tools. It was not discussed or debated at all. Nothing in here is about an attack on hunters, and yet here we are, in proposed paragraph 1(1.2)(g). Every promise that has ever been made by the Liberal government that it is not going after hunters has been completely and utterly thrown out of the window. There was not a single witness who we were able to provide who was asked about the impact of this, whether it's on safety or whether it's on the impact of our firearms hunting community.

This is no longer about sport shooters and their handguns. This is about hunters and farmers who use semi-automatic shotguns to go goose hunting.

I was quite shocked, and we had to do a considerable amount of research in the last few days to understand if we were really seeing this correctly. I wanted to believe the Liberal government when it said that it wasn't going to attack hunters and farmers and the tools they use, to say nothing of indigenous communities, who often use semi-automatic rifles to hunt. They're very popular, in fact, in the indigenous community. We had them here. We were not able to consult them on this.

I have a lot to say on this. I wanted to introduce this off the bat. It's just to say, Mr. Chair, I was quite shocked that the Liberal government is looking to attack our hunting community in Canada.

I find it very insulting, personally. It's a personal attack on the people I grew up with, who are law-abiding citizens who use these as perfectly legitimate tools. They passed them down for generations. Now, if this passes, those will be illegal, and we didn't even have the chance to invite witnesses to debate this properly.

It has nothing to do with handguns. It has nothing to do with the handgun freeze. This is an attack on hunters, Mr. Chair, and I'm deeply concerned about it.

Thank you.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I apologize for interrupting you,

Just to be clear, you did not hear arguments from us on why this is not admissible to this bill. You did not allow us that opportunity.

You made a ruling. You said it is your opinion that it is not, but you have not heard any perspectives on it, save for one. I want to make it very clear to committee members that you did not allow us the opportunity to make our case for why we believe G-4, which will impact hundreds of thousands of people, is not admissible to Bill C-21.

To be clear, your opinion is formed on a lack of evidence on what we would like to have brought forward, should you have given us that opportunity. However, you did not. That's just to be clear.

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

Let me finish. As a result of that, Chair, I would suggest that we need to then maybe hold up all of clause 1, if that's part of it, until we get a proper ruling on whether that's admissible moving forward and whether this is a different scope from what the bill actually laid out in Bill C-21 when it was presented to the House in the first place.

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

Thank you, Chair.

In line with Ms. Dancho's comments, your statement in the document you've given on consideration for clause-by-clause study says the following:

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The Chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

I would submit, Chair, that under the second reading of this particular bill, nothing in G-4 or the other one that was mentioned—it slips my mind at the moment—were ever talked about as being part of Bill C-21. As a result of that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, when we get to G-4, it has to be ruled as admissible or not.

We can defer dealing with a specific clause of Bill C-21—we can stand it and then come back to it—but we can't do that, as I understand it, with amendments. Amendments change things in the order—

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to join my voice to the debate on Bill C-20, an act to establish the public complaints and review commission. This commission would replace the current Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. It is more than just a change of name. There is also change of provisions.

The commission would have an expanded role to also receive and deal with complaints on the activities of the Canada Border Services Agency, or the CBSA. This hits home to my home community of Langley because my community has the RCMP as its police force and is a border community, with a border crossing between the Canadian town of Aldergrove and the American town of Lynden.

Many people in my community have friends and relatives in Washington state. I am one of them. Four of my grandchildren live in Lynden, Washington, which is just a 45-minute drive from my home in Langley, not counting the time we might need to wait at the border, which is sometimes a long time and sometimes very short.

In the hundreds of times I have crossed the border from Aldergrove into Lynden, I have never had a bad interaction with anybody from the CBSA. I can say the same of the RCMP, not that I have had that many interactions with members of the RCMP, but any that I have had have always been good and positive. I have the highest regard for people who work for both agencies.

Our police officers and border security guards are at the front line of public safety and we owe them a debt of gratitude. I think of Burnaby RCMP Constable Shaelyn Yang, who was stabbed to death on October 18, just over a month ago, trying to save a homeless man's life. Constable Yang was attending at a city park along with a bylaw officer from the City of Burnaby to serve an eviction notice on a person who was camped in a public park. On approaching the scene, Constable Yang noticed there was evidence of the man overdosing. She entered into the tent with a naloxone kit. She did not come out alive.

I did not know Constable Yang at all, but I know people who did know her, who worked with her, who trained with her and who loved her. Her death is a reminder to her colleagues, and indeed to all of us, that working on the front line, whether it is with the RCMP or other police services in Canada, is dangerous work. To all police officers and other frontline workers, I thank them for their service to their communities. We owe them a debt of gratitude. We are grateful for their service.

It is in this context that I now want to join the conversation about complaints against the RCMP. During my time on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I have heard from many witnesses about the failings of the RCMP and other police services across the country.

Last year we studied alleged systemic racism in the RCMP. It was an exhaustive study. It was an exhausting study. There were 19 meetings. We heard from 53 witnesses. The study resulted in a report of 125 pages and 42 recommendations. We heard from community organizations providing services to or advocating for indigenous communities. We heard from academics working in the fields of law, law enforcement and social services. We heard from people working with people suffering mental health and addictions. As well, of course, we heard from representatives of various police services.

Whether there is racism in policing in Canada was the question we were tasked with. The first job, as always, is to define our terms. One of our witnesses, Alain Babineau, a law enforcement consultant, social justice advocate and former member of the RCMP gave us a working definition. Quoting Senator Sinclair, he said, “Systemic racism is when the system itself is based upon and founded upon racist beliefs and philosophies and thinking and has put in place policies and practices that literally force even the non-racists to act in a racist way.”

I have met many police officers. I have a family member who is a RCMP police officer. I went to law school with several former RCMP officers who then went on to become lawyers and with whom I have formed lifelong friendships. I have colleagues who have had full careers in law enforcement prior to coming to the House. I attend church with several people who are RCMP officers, and I can assure the members that not one of them is racist. They are all honest, hard-working people and law-abiding citizens who have, at heart, nothing but the best interests for their communities, neighbours and country.

Our report at the public safety committee was not about whether individuals within the RCMP are racist. The evidence is clear that we do have societal problems. It is not a problem of just the RCMP, the CBSA or the Vancouver Police Department. The problem is in our society.

When we think about racism, we might be tempted to point fingers at others, at the fathers of Confederation and at residential schools and say it was not us. We may think about our ancestors' role in slavery and say it was not us. We were not there.

A little closer to home, we might talk about the Chinese head tax and say it was before our time. Even a little closer to home, in Vancouver, we might think about the Komagata Maru incident, when law enforcement agencies turned a ship around and sent it back to India.

To make it current, we could point the finger at the RCMP, but finger pointing is not going to get us anywhere. It is certainly not going to help us find solutions to racism. We recognize that we are all part of society. We are all a product of our shared history. We are all in the same boat, so to speak, but the good news is that we are all also part of the solution.

It is in that context that I hope people would read the report from the public safety committee, and I hope they do read it. The report is simply called “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”.

Here we are today, talking about Bill C-20, an act to establish the public complaints and review commission. This draft of legislation is backed up by the report that I just talked about, that our public safety committee tackled last year.

I mentioned that the report contains 42 recommendations. Five of those 42 deal with what we call, under the current legislation, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. Evidence we heard at committee made it clear that we have a problem. The current review and complaints structure is dysfunctional, and it needs to be fixed.

Witnesses raised concerns about the transparency of the disciplinary process from the RCMP. For example, we heard from Professor Christian Leuprecht of the Royal Military College. He suggested that the RCMP should be required to make public all disciplinary decisions. That goes to transparency.

Professor Samuels-Wortley of Carleton University pointed out that transparency is required in the disciplinary processes for police who engage in misconduct to ensure public confidence in the system. We want to know what is going on.

Alain Babineau and the hon. Michel Bastarache suggested that the RCMP does not appear to be capable of addressing discrimination within the organization itself, suggesting that change must come from the outside.

All of this evidence, presented to the public safety committee, brought us to 42 recommendations. I am going to highlight just three of them.

The first recommendation was that the Government of Canada should clarify and strengthen the mandate of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, or the public complaints commission. We were not contemplating then that the whole commission would be revamped and given a new name, but so be it.

This would include creating statutory timelines for a response by the RCMP commissioner to reports coming from the commission and requiring that the commission publish its findings and recommendations. It all goes to transparency.

The second recommendation was that the Government of Canada should increase accessibility and transparency by simplifying the process for initiating a complaint. The third recommendation was to allow for a meaningful engagement of indigenous participation in the complaints commission. Let us not forget that the study was about whether there was racism in the RCMP.

Can Bill C-20, the legislation we are talking about, answer those challenges? The answer is, in large part, yes. The legislation creating the new PCRC, the public complaints and review commission, which in many ways mirrors the existing commission, would require the establishing of timelines for dealing with complaints. That was one of the concerns we heard at committee.

It would also require implementing education and information programs so the public can better understand the process, something else we heard complaints about at committee.

It outlines how complaints would be submitted, investigated and reviewed, and that there would be an annual report to the minister, who would then submit it to Parliament. That report is to include information about whether service standards are being met, the number of complaints and data about the complaints, so we can develop policy based on good, reliable data.

There are a lot of details in the bill also about what information the commission might encounter that would be treated confidentially to protect complainants and for security purposes.

There is information about the hearing process and the powers the commission will have, the powers of the superior court of record, including the power and ability to be able to subpoena witnesses and order them to give evidence. The commission will also have the ability to recommend disciplinary action, but not to carry it out.

The legislation appears to be straightforward at achieving its objectives. We will be supporting this draft bill at second reading, and I look forward to a deep dive at committee into its details, and to listen to experts.

When we are talking about police oversight, which is the police policing themselves, and border staff oversight when possible discipline might happen, we need to ask the question whether these agencies are properly resourced to do their work. We know that police services across the country are facing a recruitment and retention crisis, like almost every sector in our economy. We have a shortage of new people coming into the police services at the same time that older people are leaving, and all at the same time that we are demanding more from our police services.

Police recruitment is down and crime is up. There has been a 32% increase in violent crimes since 2015, when the current Liberal government took office. There were 125,000 more violent crimes last year than there were in 2015. Therefore, crimes rates are going up, and we are expecting more from our police services. We need to make sure they are fully resourced.

We have similar statistics for the CBSA. There is a shortage of workers. People are retiring, with not enough people coming in, and there is a higher demand with respect to their work.

Another study we recently completed at the public safety committee was about guns and gangs. We learned that most firearms used in violent crimes in Canada are handguns smuggled in from the United States. One of our witnesses stated the obvious. We live beside the largest gun-manufacturing society in the world, and we share the longest undefended border with it. This presents a big challenge for us, and we expect a lot from our CBSA to intercept the guns that are being smuggled into our country. It is not an easy problem to solve.

I know we are talking about Bill C-20, but I want to make a quick reference to Bill C-21. Bill C-21, which would make owning a handgun in Canada illegal, or more illegal than it already is, is not going to solve the problem because the people who are committing violent crimes are already illegal gun owners, to state the obvious, so C-21 does not add much value. It certainly does not keep Canadians any safer. It just further stigmatizes legal gun owners and trained and licensed sport shooters who are good and honest citizens.

Bill C-21 does not help our neighbours, but that is for another day. Today we are talking about Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission.

Our report on guns and gang violence recommended that funding for the CBSA be increased. If we are going to enhance a complaints review process for our workers, it is only fair that we make sure they are properly resourced so they can do their jobs properly. Let us also make sure they are adequately resourced with both people and money, so they can do the work effectively.

We expect a lot from our border security people. They should expect to receive the full complement of a workforce, financial resources and tools to do their job effectively.

I want to take the opportunity to say thanks to CBSA workers, including many who live in my riding of Langley. We live on a border. There are several land border crossings, and I have a lot of friends who work in one or other of those border crossings.

I want to talk about something else that touches on the police. Our safety committee met with Mr. Justice Bastarache, formerly of the Supreme Court of Canada. He presented his report to us a couple of years ago in the 43rd Parliament, entitled “Broken Lives, Broken Dreams”. This retired judge was tasked with the unenviable task of distributing and disbursing court-awarded money under the so-called Merlo Davidson Settlement Agreement to victims of sexual harassment within the RCMP. Merlo and Davidson were the two named plaintiffs in that case.

The judge's report is a stinging rebuke of a culture of sexual harassment within the RCMP. It starts with these words:

For more than 30 years there have been calls to fix sexual harassment in the RCMP.

The report then goes on to talk about the 3,086 claims over that 30-year period. He and his staff conducted 644 interviews with victims. At the end of all his work, they awarded some compensation to 2,034 victims. It is widespread. It is not a good situation.

As I read through the report, I wondered whether my pride in our national police force was misplaced. In our discussion with Mr. Justice Bastarache at committee, I related a story from my childhood, when my parents took me and my siblings to the RCMP Musical Ride. My parents were new immigrants from the Netherlands, and they told us that one of the things they were very proud of about their new country was that we could be proud of our police force, something that is not true, sadly, for every nation in the world.

Mr. Justice Bastarache told me that in his opinion it was still appropriate for us to be proud of our RCMP service. It has a proud history and it is redeemable, but in his opinion it would require outside resources, outside influences, because the RCMP could not reform itself.

I will be voting in favour of Bill C-20 at second reading, for it to go to committee for a deep dive, a line-by-line review. There, I will be looking not only for how the RCMP interacts with the public, who expect the police to keep them safe and to do no harm, but also for how this legislation would steer us towards improving the internal culture of this agency, the RCMP, that we all want to be proud of.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome, everyone.

Welcome to meeting 49 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). Today, the committee starts clause-by-clause consideration.

I'll now welcome the officials who are here with us this afternoon. They are available for questions regarding the bill but will not deliver any opening statements. We have, from the Department of Justice, Marianne Breese, counsel, Public Safety Canada legal services; Paula Clark, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy.

I thank you for joining us today.

I will now provide some guidance on the clause-by-clause consideration process for Bill C-21. Actually, I believe the clerk has distributed a document to everyone that gives the outline of how to proceed. We will start with clause 0.1, and we will go forward, but not backwards, typically, right?

Does anybody have any questions regarding the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill?

I'll recognize Raquel in just a minute.

We also have our legislative clerks here to guide us along our way, as well as our regular clerk, who is keeping an eye on us.

Ms. Dancho, go ahead, please.

Public Safety

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canadian history, we have repealed certain mandatory minimum sentences. This means that we are turning the page on the failures of the Conservative Party and its failed tough-on-crime policies.

As my colleague just mentioned, today we are beginning clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21, which will help tackle the problem of handguns and assault weapons in Canada. We need to put resources towards that in order to fight crime in Canada.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the timing of that question could not be better because this afternoon we are starting clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21, which would be transformational legislation when it comes to gun control in this country.

However, that is not all we are doing. We are also ensuring that communities have the resources they need to support young people from starting involvement with gangs. We have put a billion dollars into the border to make sure that we are bolstering our border to prevent guns from being smuggled. We know that we need a multi-faceted approach, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Today, we are here debating Bill C-20, an act that would establish the public complaints and review commission and amend certain acts and statutory instruments.

First, I want to recognize a first-year law student at Thompson Rivers University where I used to teach. I want to thank Najib Rahall, who is about to start contracts class, which I appreciate. He is now in Hansard. I thank him for turning in my wallet this weekend. He is taught by my friends Professor Craig Jones, K.C. and Professor Dr. Ryan Gauthier. I am sure he is also getting a first-class education.

I also want to recognize somebody else who is a constituent. He was also a colleague at the bar and at my work, maybe even taking my position as a Crown prosecutor. I want to recognize my friend, Anthony Varesi, on his new book on Bob Dylan. It is his second book. He wrote the first one in law school. I am not sure how he did that.

On the matter at hand, it seems the Liberals have been discussing this issue well before I arrived at Parliament. From what I can see, this matter has been discussed for about seven years. The bill was first tabled in the 42nd Parliament and died in the Senate. It was then tabled again during the 43rd Parliament. We all know what happened at that point. Despite Canadians clearly signalling they did not want to go to the polls and despite the fact there was a lot of work to be done, the Prime Minister coveted majority government and, with all candour, let that get in the way of the work of the House.

Having been here for a year, I am still learning, but what I can see is that there is a lot of work to be done. The work on this bill in the 43rd Parliament was interrupted by what amounted to a small seat change in hopes that the Prime Minister would get what he wanted. He was ultimately denied that, but there was a seat shuffle, and I am proud to stand here on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo as part of that seat shuffle.

Now we have this bill tabled a year into the government's mandate. As I was preparing for this speech, I reflected on why it took the government a year to do this. The election was about 14 months ago. I am wondering whether this was a priority. In fact, I asked my Bloc colleague a question about this. This is an important matter to discuss.

Canada has what amounts to the longest undefended border in the world. I have had countless interactions with the RCMP and with CBSA officials, some of them in my personal capacity and others in my professional capacity. These interactions likely number into the hundreds, and all but one have generally been cordial or favourable professional interactions. That is why we are here, because not all interactions and not all things go as they should both personally and professionally.

I will take a moment to recognize the work of peace officers, civilian members and staff with the CBSA and with the RCMP. In my riding, there are detachments with the RCMP, like Clinton, 100 Mile House, Clearwater and Barriere. There are three detachments also in Kamloops, being Kamloops City, Tk'emlups rural, which is situated on the traditional land of the Tk’emlups te Secwepemc, and Kamloops traffic. All of these detachments cover 38,000 square kilometres of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am grateful for the sacrifices of those who put on the uniform to keep us safe, with their backup officers often being an hour away through staffing or resource difficulties. They are there to keep people safe whenever they are in that area. These members see terrible things.

I was speaking to a bill I authored, Bill C-291, last week. I authored the bill and it was sponsored by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, and I thank him again for doing so. The bill proposes to change the definition of “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material”, because what is occurring is not pornography, it is sexual abuse, and we should be calling it what it is.

One of the things I pointed out was that police doing this job were often at a constable level and they were reviewing horrendous images, images of unspeakable horrors. Usually, in my prior work, I did not have to view this sort of evidence, but police officers did, and they are not paid enough to do so, frankly, given the work they do. I thank them for that.

Let us face it, most peace officers, people and frontline workers doing the job just want to make it home. They do not want to hurt anybody. A lot of police officers I know would love to go through a shift without having to arrest anybody. That is often not something most police officers do. At the end of the day, people in the RCMP and CBSA have a mandate to keep us safe. They are expected to do more with less resources. While this is not always fair, it is the reality of our situation.

When it comes to our frontline officers and workers, we expect leadership. We expect them to engage professionally, to do their jobs, to be equipped and to be professional in all that they do. I wish I could see the same from the RCMP commissioner at this time. It seems to me that the commissioner is not always modelling that professionalism, being vulnerable to inappropriate influence from the former Minister of Public Safety. It is ironic that Bill C-20 talks about the overseeing of frontline officers, mainly constables, but I question whether senior Mounties or, in this case, the senior Mountie is herself immune from the oversight that is required.

I point to what the member for Kildonan—St. Paul said in committee in questioning the minister. I will do my best to paraphrase her, because I cannot be nearly as eloquent as the member. She noted that the commissioner was either influenced by the government or completely bungled the investigation into the mass shootings in Nova Scotia, a terrible incident, She asked why she had not been fired. This is the professionalism, oversight and leadership that Canadians want.

At the end of the day, we are here to talk about who oversees the overseers. This came up when we were debating Bill C-9 at committee in the past week or two. That bill proposes changes to the Judges Act that are long overdue.

Before I came to Parliament, I was unaware that there was no independent oversight for CBSA. Let us not forget that these are frontline peace officers. Oftentimes and typically, they will be people's first human point of contact once they get off the plane or at a land or sea border crossing. The provisions would require the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president to respond to interim reports, reviews and recommendations within legislative timelines. This is quite important because we require, in my view, a consideration of some measure of independent oversight.

Most people here know that I come from a legal background. In my world view, the rule of law is obviously sacrosanct. Sometimes, we can have heated debates in this place, as we should, about how that should manifest itself. We may agree to disagree, but at the end of the day I think we can all agree that the rule of law is important. In fact, it is written into the preamble of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the courts, the rule of law is maintained in two ways, typically through an appellate function but also through ethical guidelines, for instance, the ethical guidelines that are being revised in Bill C-9. The overseers are overseen on legal matters by these two mechanisms.

The one question I do have when it comes to Bill C-20, and this came up in Bill C-9, is the question of consultations. I believe my colleague for the NDP raised this. I am not sure what, if any, consultations were done, but this obviously needs be explored at committee, if the legislation successfully passes on second reading. Let us face it that governments of all stripes often fail on these issues. We have seen it on the extreme intoxication bill. I call on the government to make this a priority.

CBSA has extraordinary powers, detention, arrest and search. These are sweeping powers where charter rights are often diminished. This bill would replace the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP with the complaints and review commission.

Let us examine the backdrop in which peace officers within the RCMP and CBSA are expected to do their job. It is important to evaluate that backdrop as we consider the independent oversight for peace officers doing their job.

My constituents frequently complain to me about what they have termed, and others have termed, catch and release. I hear about this from police officers from across the country. This is why I put forward Bill C-274, because our bail system must be reformed.

I have compassion for police officers doing their job and arresting the same person again and again, only to know that this person will be released shortly.

The government, though it is dealing with the oversight issue in Bill C-20, has not addressed key bail decisions in the last few years, which has led to a catch-and-release system. It is in the interest of all Canadians that the government do so.

There has been a 32% increase in violent crime since 2015. This is not lost on this side of the House. We have Bill C-5 and Bill C-21. The word “victim” is not in either piece of legislation.

It saddens me to say, and I am surprised to be saying this, that drive-by shootings can now result in a community-based sentence. That does not feel right in my heart, but, more important, from a legal perspective, it is not logical.

The Regina v. Nur decision struck down mandatory minimums for section 95 of the Criminal Code, possessing a restricted firearm with readily available ammunition, in this case a handgun. In that instance, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the appropriate sentence, as I recall, would be 40 months in jail.

That is what it said the appropriate sentence would be for a relatively young man. I believe the accused in that case was 19 or 20 years old. We are here debating, not long after Nur was struck down, whether that should actually result in a jail sentence when our highest court, which has frequently struck down these cases, said that this should have been 40 months in jail.

On the one hand, we have Conservatives who have often advocated for mandatory minimums. It was the Harper government that passed many of the mandatory minimums. On the other hand, we have, across the aisle, people who say that there should be no mandatory minimums.

I would advocate for a middle-ground approach, one that has mandatory minimums that operate in a constitutionally compliant manner. I have stated this to the Minister of Justice, that this is the appropriate middle ground. Unfortunately, he did not heed my exhortation to do so.

Police and CBSA officials are operating within an environment that has 124,000 more violent crimes than last year. This would make up almost my whole riding. Canadians are tired of this. Also, there were 789 homicides in Canada last year and 611 in 2015, which is a 29% increase.

Police and CBSA are in situations in which gun crime is a concern. I recall reading in the news a couple of years ago about a shooting of a teenager who was innocently driving with his parents. There was a person in my riding, a case of mistaken identity, who was shot down at a hotel. This is the situation our police are operating within. These were sons, brothers and friends.

There has been a 92% increase in gang-related homicides since 2015, yet when we come to the House to debate legislation on public safety, the debate is whether or not to relax these types of penalties rather than make them more stringent so that gang-related homicides would ultimately go down rather than up.

If members ask anyone in the system, I anticipate they will tell them that organized crime is so difficult to investigate. That is why they call it “organized”. There is intimidation, often a layer of distancing, money and organization.

If I were a police officer or a CBSA officer, I would be concerned with the proliferation of firearms. I remember one of the first cases I dealt with which involved now staff sergeant Kelly Butler, one of the best police officers I have encountered. She pulled a vehicle over and what was revealed inside the driver's jacket was a loaded sawed-off shotgun. I remember holding that firearm when it was in evidence. The firearm was illegal. The stock and the barrel had been cut off, so it was probably about 10 to 12 inches long. That is the environment our peace officers and CBSA officers are operating within.

Our border is porous, and there is a concern of what to do about it. The public safety minister has earmarked, as I recall, $5 billion to target law-abiding gun owners who are not accounting for crimes. Bill C-5 and Bill C-21 will be targeting that. Where could $5 billion be spent when it comes to our border and enforcement of illegal guns? I ask that question rhetorically because I have some pretty good ideas.

There has been a 61% increase in reporting sexual assaults since 2015. I have two bills on sexual offences. We obviously had the #MeToo movement in that time, which is always important. My wife was telling me that she saw a sign recently that said, “No means no”, but we have to go one step further and say, “Only yes means yes”. Only consent itself is consent.

To conclude, this proposed act would create an obligation for the RCMP commissioner and CBSA president to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety. The report would inform the minister of actions that the RCMP and CBSA have taken within the year to respond to recommendations from the chairperson.

This is great, but one thing I learned in my first year in Parliament, while sitting on the veterans affairs committee is that, just because a recommendation is made, does not mean it will be acted upon. My hope is that, when these recommendations are made, they will actually be acted upon, otherwise they are worth nothing more than the piece of paper they are written upon. It is easy to use words, and we have frequently said that, but I call on the government to act.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to read Bill C-21, which is our attack on gun crime, in which we increased the maximum penalties for very serious gun offences.

Another important part of Bill C-5 is the reintroduction of the possibility of conditional sentence orders, which allow our judges, based on the person in front of them, to fashion a punishment that fits the crime. Again, it concentrates our valuable judicial resources on serious crimes. It is a direction that even Justice Michael Moldaver has exhorted us to do, because that is what the system—

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

Thank you.

To conclude, I asked you to provide the committee with a list of suggested amendments if you had any, but I heard you say that you were completely in agreement with the amendments proposed by groups like PolySeSouvient.

This group did indeed give us a helpful list of suggested amendments designed to provide more protection to victims of stalking or domestic violence, and the committee is pleased to be able to work with them to try and improve Bill C‑21 wherever possible.

Thank you for your time this evening, and your testimony.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Martin, you mentioned how long it can take to revoke a licence. It may be somewhat more technical, but in clause 41, Bill C‑21 amends section 89 of the Firearms Act to require the competent authority to advise the chief firearms officer without delay when it makes, varies or revokes a protection order. Some groups have pointed out that the expression “without delay” is somewhat vague and doesn't mean much, and have suggested setting a specific time period, like 24 hours.

Does this proposal strike you as reasonable? What's your opinion?

After that, I would like to hear Ms. Riendeau's point of view.

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

Thank you. Mr. Chair.

Thank you ladies, for being here with us this evening.

I wanted to ask you about the red flag provisions on which we've heard several different points of view. I understand some of what you have been mentioning. Rather than ask why you are against measures of this kind, I will focus on your proposals.

Ms. Riendeau, your organization, and several other women's groups, signed a letter dated May 7 requesting that red flag measures be removed from the bill. In their place, you said that the proper use of existing mechanisms in the system, such as the person of interest criterion in connection with firearms, should be encouraged. For example, members of the community, including health professionals, should be encouraged to report any red flag situation.

A little earlier, I asked Dr. Kapur about Anastasia's law, a Quebec statute that you are probably familiar with. It allows health professionals to report any situation, as soon as they have suspicions. Do you think that the presence across Canada of that kind of legislative measure could be more beneficial than red flag measures like the ones included in Bill C‑21?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses today.

Ms. Martin, I will apologize on behalf of the committee for the short notice. I know that all of the witnesses are doing good work to save women's lives, and the time you take to prepare and appear before the committee is greatly appreciated by all of us.

I want to ask about red flags because we have heard conflicting testimony on that provision in the bill. I've spoken with the women's shelter in my riding about the fact that this is an additional tool that is not meant to replace calling the police, but a tool that a woman could use. For example, if she is married to a police officer, she's probably not comfortable calling the police. Likewise, if she's an indigenous woman she might have a complete mistrust in the police because she might get arrested for a probation order violation, which is a true story.

We've heard testimony that we should get rid of it completely. Are you opposed to this being an additional tool, because it has been tweaked from the original Bill C‑21 so that this can now be done anonymously and also so that someone else can go to court on behalf of the woman.

I'm just wondering about that. Perhaps, Ms. Martin, we can start with you, and then I welcome the other ladies chiming in on it.

[Lise Martin, Executive Director, Women's Shelters Canada]

Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.

Before I begin my presentation, I would like to express my frustration at the late invitation, three days prior, to appear before this committee. We are a small organization with limited resources and a very full agenda. Taking the time to prepare for and attend the session on such short notice presents significant challenges and does make us wonder if the link to gender-based violence against women is simply an afterthought for the committee.

Women’s Shelters Canada is a national, non-profit organization representing 15 provincial shelter associations and over 600 violence against women shelters and transition houses across the country. Bill C-21 is an important bill for those of us concerned with gender-based violence. Having said that, we do have some concerns and suggestions as to how the bill could be strengthened.

Guns are used to terrorize, injure and kill women and their children in urban as well as rural settlings. We know that the risks are higher in rural communities where there are more guns, more opposition to gun control and fewer supports for women living with violence.

According to the Canadian Femicide Observatory, there was a 26% increase in the killings of women and girls from 2019 to 2021. In 2021, 173 women and girls were violently killed. When known, 38% of these murders were with a firearm. As a result of these killings, 164 children were left without a mother. The 2021 report made it abundantly clear that, proportionate to their population size, small, rural and remote communities bear a larger burden of femicides than urban ones.

Firearms cause harm to women in ways other than by death and injury. In our annual “Shelter Voices” survey, we ask shelters to report on a specific 24-hour period. One of the questions is this: To your knowledge, how many women currently residing at the shelter have been threatened by a gun? Since the survey began, the average number of shelters that have responded is 230, and the average number of women staying at the shelter on that day who had been threatened by a gun is 100. The link between guns and violence against women is clear, as is the link between guns and the instance of lethality for victims of domestic violence.

It is my understanding that the bill will revoke an individual’s licence if they have engaged in an act of domestic violence, stalking or become subject to a protection order. In order to maximize the potential benefits of this, we feel that there are several concerns that need to be addressed.

We feel it is necessary to define domestic and family violence within the bill. Our suggestion is to refer to the definition of family violence recently adopted in the Divorce Act.

We have concerns in terms of the time it may take between when it is deemed that the firearm must be removed and when this happens. It has been documented numerous times that women are at the highest levels of danger of lethality when they make it known to their abuser that they are leaving the situation.

The bill authorizes the issuance, in certain circumstances, of a conditional licence for the purposes of sustenance or employment. We strongly feel that the employment exemption must be removed. One example here is the case of police officers. Although there is limited research in Canada, research done in the United States suggests that officers are more likely to abuse their domestic partners than the general public. In Nova Scotia alone, 14 police officers from across the province have been charged with crimes connected to domestic violence since 2012.

In closing, I would like to stress the importance of the need to improve the processes associated with screening gun owners and removing firearms from people who are at risk to themselves or others.

The federal government uses its powers to make decisions about who can have firearm licences. Despite the fact that several measures were introduced to help ensure this power, multiple inquests and inquiries have shown that this is not being done. We strongly recommend ensuring that there is strong language reinforcing this responsibility. The need for greater resources, commitments and accountability measures will be key in the successful implementation of this bill.

Women's Shelters Canada has been advocating for a national action plan on gender-based violence for over a decade. Key to our call for a national action plan is the need for consistency across and within jurisdictions in policies and legislation that address gender-based violence against women. It will be important that this be an integral part of the implementation of this bill.

Finally, as a member of the Coalition for Gun Control and as a signatory to the brief submitted by the National Association of Women and the Law, we would like to publicly state that we are in agreement with both of their detailed recommendations.

Thank you very much.

[Louise Riendeau, Co-responsible, Political Issues, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale]

Good evening.

I thank the members of the committee for letting us bring our perspective to the issue of gun control based on our experience with thousands of women who are victims of domestic violence.

The Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale includes 46 assistance and shelter homes located in different regions of Quebec. Our organization feels that Bill C‑21 will certainly improve the safety of Canadians.

Tonight, we will be talking specifically about the safety of women who are victims of domestic violence. We would like to highlight two positive aspects of the bill as it relates to domestic violence. The first is the fact that a firearms licence will not be issued when there is a protection order in place. The second is the fact that the licence can be revoked if a person has committed acts of domestic violence.

On the other hand, we are concerned about some of the provisions in Bill C‑21.

The first, called “red flag” measures, enable a person to go directly to court to request the revocation of a firearms licence. Since victims and those close to people with issues can already go to the police department or the chief firearms officer, we think these measures are unnecessary and may even be counterproductive for victims. We are concerned that police officers, instead of taking the investigative steps to revoke a licence, will ask victims to do so themselves. In our view, it would be much more burdensome for a victim to go to court than to go to the police department.

Therefore, we recommend that clauses 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, which introduce these “red flag” measures, be withdrawn. As we have stated, we believe that the current system, where concerned individuals can go to the police department or to the office of the chief firearms officer, is more appropriate and better adapted to the reality. Victims don't have the energy or the fortitude to go to court to request licence revocation at a time when they have all kinds of steps to take to escape violence and protect themselves.

The second provision of concern to us is the provision indicating that the person whose licence is revoked would have a so‑called reasonable period to deliver their firearms to the police or otherwise dispose of them. While a search is possible, it is not automatic. In addition, the period may give some abusive spouses or ex‑spouses time to kill their spouse or children. Therefore, we believe that firearms should be delivered promptly, to a police officer.

Improvements can also be made to other aspects of the bill. In our view, it would be wise to include a definition of spousal or domestic violence in the bill. This would make it possible for a licence to be revoked in cases of domestic violence. It would also ensure that police and chief firearms officers consider the entire situation, not just the physical acts of violence that constitute offences.

This definition should cover all aspects of coercive violence or control. The Divorce Act already contains such a definition. Domestic or family violence is not just physical or sexual abuse that is an offence, but is expressed in a variety of manifestations that are intended to control a spouse and her children.

This evening, I am submitting to the committee tools that our association has just produced for judicial actors. The documents titled “Comprendre le contrôle coercitif” and “Principales manifestations du contrôle coercitif” outline many of the tactics used by abusive spouses to infringe on the freedom and safety of victims. I am also adding the document “Le contrôle coercitif, prédicteur de risques homicidaires.”

Research has demonstrated the links between coercive control and spousal homicide. For example, in the United Kingdom, a study of 358 spousal homicides showed the presence of coercive control in 92% of cases. In Canada, other studies found that spousal homicides occurred in the context of separation and that homicide or attempted homicide was the first act of physical violence for one-third of victims.

I think we really need to go further and expand the scope of the bill. Police officers and chief firearms officers need to be given all the elements necessary to recognize the presence of coercive control, rather than just looking at incidents of physical violence. Inserting a definition of violence in the bill that includes coercive control would be a first step

Police response can also be greatly improved, and police officers can be made to take victims' concerns seriously by being provided with training to assess situations based on known risk factors.

I am a member of the committee that reviews domestic violence deaths in Quebec. In the vast majority of cases, several risk factors were present, but the responders often did not recognize them. Therefore, it is really necessary to provide the police and the office of the chief firearms officer with an exhaustive list of risk factors related to domestic or family violence, which will enable them to handle the requests with all the necessary seriousness. They also need to be trained beforehand to recognize the presence of domestic violence even when there is no physical assault or offence. The tools I have submitted to the committee could be used for these purposes.

Other improvements are also desired. We have read the brief filed by PolySeSouvient and the brief filed by the National Association of Women and the Law, and we fully support them. They contain a number of recommendations for better gun control and safety for women.

As I said, we believe that Bill C‑21 is a step in the right direction. However, we hope that improvements will be made to ensure better protection for women and children who are victims of domestic violence.

We remain available to the committee for discussion.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I keep on hearing on the word “ban” being used in place of a phrase. I think it's important to use the correct terminology. What Bill C-21 does is that people who currently own handguns will be allowed to keep them and use them. They may not be able to buy a new one, sell the one that they own or transfer it to another person after Bill C-21, but they will still be able to use the handguns they currently legally own. It's very important to get that clearly on the record.

Secondly, for the vast majority of people who are out there using long guns, Bill C-21 is not going to impact them. People with a possession and acquisition licence can still go out and buy a bolt-action rifle or a shotgun. This bill is not going to impact them.

If there are restrictions trying to control the number of handguns in Canada, and people still want to get into sport shooting disciplines, there are still options with rifles. Would you agree with all of that? There are options for people to engage in sport shooting with rifles.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Giltaca, an article in Le Droit in May 2022 reported that, even before the nature of the proposals in Bill C‑21 was known, your coalition said it was prepared to oppose arbitrary, punitive, and ineffective measures and to defend the ability of legal gun owners to own and enjoy their lawfully acquired property. We understand that you are against gun bans in general. You say that they don't work and that you don't really believe in them.

However, it is rather curious that, on the other side of the border, our neighbours to the south are carrying out a debate going in a direction contrary to your view. More and more American groups are calling for tighter gun control. As of last May, guns have become the leading cause of death among young Americans, ahead of traffic accidents, according to a recent study by health officials that shows a sharp rise in gun homicides in the United States.

Don't you feel that, by comparison, our gun control prevents tragedies like those repeatedly suffered by the Americans? I want to acknowledge that we have had our share of tragedies. However, the situation is quite pronounced among Americans. What do you think about that?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Dr. Kapur, thank you so much for appearing, especially on such short notice. You talked about mandatory reporting for firearms. We know it's difficult because it crosses several jurisdictions, including rules that doctors impose on themselves.

I'm wondering if you'd be supportive of a federal requirement for mandatory reporting. It's something that we could hopefully put into Bill C-21. If there were reasonable grounds to show that a patient might pose a danger to themselves or others, then there would be a mandatory requirement that you report that belief to a peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer for use as evidence in an ex parte application.

My question though is whether that amendment would hold up, given that health professionals are regulated by provincial colleges. Would it also open you up to civil and regulatory actions? I'm curious to hear what your take on that would be.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Giltaca, I'd like to come back to some of your comments.

I still find it rather curious that you said you contacted organizations like PolySeSouvient because you would have common interests. Indeed, I have also seen several tweets in which you have been quite aggressive towards them. I'll read one.

It says, “All anti-gun people are irrational, hyperbolic, dishonest, low-ability, slanderous, hateful fearmongers”, whatever that means.

So I can't imagine how you were able to work with that organization.

In your opening remarks, you mentioned all the groups that came to the committee to tell us how Bill C‑21 was not the solution to the gun problem. However, I think you may have failed to mention all of the groups that came to us and said that Bill C‑21 had some positive effects and that maybe we should go further.

I think that should also be considered, as well as polls that show that the majority of gun owners support, among other things, an assault weapons ban: 77%, according to Environics Analytics, and 70%, according to Léger Marketing.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

You're being ignored by this government. This democratic government is ignoring the perspective of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have concerns about legislation that disproportionately affects them, and you guys can't even get a meeting. That's very disturbing to me.

The Liberal government has repeatedly said that their legislation doesn't target law-abiding firearms owners, but I think we've seen with Bill C-71, the handgun freeze, and now Bill C-21, that the primary impact of this legislation is solely on law-abiding handgun owners or law-abiding firearms owners. Why do you think that is?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Of course, you can't obviously speak for every single person, but it's a large constituency.

Given how large the constituency of people's views you represent or are aligned closely with is, and the importance of firearms legislation to your community, it would seem prudent that any government consult with you guys about its proposals. Did the government consult with your organization or, as far as you know, any like-minded organizations when drafting Bill C-21?

[Rod Giltaca, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights]

Members of the committee and Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to chat with you. I really appreciate it.

I guess we can just jump right into it.

Concerning Bill C-21, there are some provisions in this bill—or maybe the motivation behind them—that our group can support. The reason I say that is we want a safer Canada too. In fact, I might add that we share a lot of the same safety concerns as a lot of the individuals and groups that you've heard from in this committee so far as well.

For example, we support revoking the licence of those who are guilty of domestic violence or those who are subject to a protection order, granted that the order was proven and justified. That's really important because, obviously, we don't want innocent people being caught up in a new system like that. We support those kinds of things because they just make sense.

We obviously don't want the wrong people being able to legally buy guns—although, in my experience, that and a lot more already happen. Currently, anyone can contact the police at any time if they have a safety concern involving firearms. It's taken very seriously and the police have the legal ability to search and seize almost anything, depending on the level of concern they have for public safety. You've heard that before. You're not hearing that from me for the first time.

There are other provisions in the bill that, of course, are absurd. I think most people realize that already.

There's a new charge for modifying a cartridge magazine. It's already a very serious criminal offence to be in possession of a cartridge magazine that can contain more than the prescribed number of rounds. The possession offence is the only one you could ever really prove anyway, unless you caught someone with a prohibited cartridge magazine in one hand and a file or a drill bit in the other. Plus, you can 3-D print magazines. That provision really doesn't serve any practical public safety purpose.

Another example, unfortunately, is raising the maximum penalty for firearms trafficking from 10 to 14 years. I'm not aware of anyone—ever—who got 10 years for firearms trafficking. I don't know that, because I haven't been on CanLII for days on end, but I have just never heard of that. I have heard a lot to the contrary, and you guys have heard that as well from law enforcement professionals. That measure ends up being a little bit meaningless too.

When I look at those two measures it just says to me that these are opportunities for tough-on-crime talking points. I just don't think there's a place in legislation for that kind of stuff. It's a bit of a concern.

We're most concerned about the handgun ban. I understand the limitations of this committee process and why we're here. I will just offer a little bit of perspective and we can talk about the provision after that.

To say it simply, the handgun ban is unjustified. The committee heard some great information in this process and, obviously, some blatant misinformation. You've heard from numerous active duty law enforcement personnel that the ban on handguns of licensed individuals will have no meaningful benefit to public safety. Here's a quote from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police:

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.

That's fair enough. They continued:

However, we continue to maintain that restricting lawful handgun ownership will not meaningfully address the real issue....

They go on to talk about gangs and other criminal activity. That's right from the Association of Chiefs of Police.

You've heard numerous retired members of law enforcement say essentially the same thing. You've heard from an exceptional criminal defence lawyer that the handgun ban won't change the behaviour of criminals or the level of access they have to illegal firearms. You've heard from sport shooting organizations that the ban will hurt them in the short term and extinct them in the medium term.

You've heard from gun owners that their property will be taken from them for no fault of their own whatsoever, and that their identity and culture is repugnant and there's no place in Canada for them. I would suggest that law-abiding, licensed firearm owners are deserving of respect and they're just as entitled to their place in Canada as anyone else, as outrageous as that might sound.

For those who don't own guns, the nuclear option of gun bans sounds reasonable only because it's predicated on the idea that handgun ownership is some frivolous, self-centred and unnecessary hobby and that it ought to just be swept away, along with the 650,000 people that are licensed to own handguns in Canada.

I'll tell you, that does not align with reality at all. Therefore, I don't envy you for having to deal with a bill like this. I would ask that you explore other options to mitigate the illegal handgun problem—which we all can see very plainly—before supporting a ban that affects only those who comply with the law.

I appreciate your time and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 46 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I am informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms.

We have two panels of witnesses today. For the first hour, we will have with us, by video conference, from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Dr. Atul Kapur, emergency physician and co-chair of the public affairs committee; and in person here with us in the room, we have, for the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, Rod Giltaca, chief executive officer and executive director.

Welcome to you all. We will start by giving each group an opportunity to make a five-minute opening statement.

Dr. Kapur, please go ahead for five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Langlois, when the government tabled Bill C‑21, it presented four or five measures or provisions that would help in the fight against illegal firearms trafficking, such as an increased maximum sentence for firearms trafficking. However, according to an article published in the Devoir in June, when you were asked if longer sentences would prove useful, you replied: “We know that, generally speaking, criminals are more motivated by the fear of getting caught than of longer sentences.”

I am inclined to agree with you, and I often give the example of William Rainville, a young man who had no criminal record and crossed the border with approximately 250 firearms in his possession. He was sentenced to five years in prison and released on parole less than a year later.

Do you believe that this measure will really help in the fight against firearms trafficking? If not, what do you think would be useful?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you very much.

Professor Langlois, I'd like to begin with you.

The Vancouver Police Department, as well as other police forces like the CACP, has shared with us their concerns about ghost guns and the ability for people to make their own weapons at home and to order parts. One of the opportunities for us in Bill C-21 is to start thinking about adding provisions that look at regulating trigger assembly, slides, barrels and so on.

What impact do you think this would have on the problems of today and, more importantly, on solving the policing problems of tomorrow in terms of gun violence?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both witnesses for being here.

Dr. Langmann, thank you for your comments in regard to youth deterrence and youth at risk initiatives there. I agree that it's something we need to be focused on.

I'm a firm believer—and I think the evidence is clear, as you've indicated—that Bill C-21 is flawed. I've only been on this committee for five or six meetings, but most of the witnesses I've see at this committee have been critical of aspects of Bill C-21 as it's proposed. We've seen that pieces of this legislation are already covered in existing laws. This has been mentioned by many witnesses.

This seems to be ideologically based on a fear of firearms. We've seen what can only be described as a complete lack of understanding of sport shooting, recreational airsoft, recreational firearm use at ranges and the culture that is built around not only the safe but legal use of firearms.

We have all heard the saying that if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Some would think that you can legislate away gun violence, but the fact is, those who would use a gun to commit a crime will likely not care about laws or the good intentions behind the creation of those laws.

I'm kind of curious about that. What practical advice would you give this committee on what we need to add to Bill C-21? Is Bill C-21 or sections of it even worthy of saving? Where do we start, and what do we need to do to fix it?

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

Thank you. That's very interesting.

You touched upon the issue of ghost guns. This phenomenon is increasing, and sadly, Bill C‑21 does not really tackle the problem. I know that you have a few suggestions to make. I also know that the government seems ready to make amendments to its bill. If it doesn't, I would like to do so.

What would be your recommendations in terms of legislation on the best possible way to tackle ghost guns?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Langlois. Thank you for accepting our invitation to testify before the committee. I am pleased that we are able to benefit from your expertise.

The issue of firearms in Canada and in the U.S. is precisely your field of expertise. Since this bill was tabled, I have received many comments and emails from people who are worried, and I’m sure that is also the case for my colleagues. People think that Bill C‑21 will take away their right to own firearms, as if we had something like the U.S. second amendment. You know what I mean.

Yesterday, we heard from representatives of PolySeSouvient, who said they were concerned to see this kind of American‑style gun culture show up more and more in cities like Montreal and major Canadian cities. In these cities, young people are increasingly joining street gangs and other young people want to get firearms to protect themselves.

I am wondering if you believe that some ideologies or reflexes that are more American regarding firearms possession are slowly finding their way into Canada. Do you think Bill C‑21 can help protect us from that?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I appreciate what you're saying in your research, but to me what you're saying is that the existing legislation hasn't been as effective as we would like it to be for the outcomes. That would lead me to conclude that what we should be doing is considering the provisions of Bill C-21 to enhance and strengthen the safety measures that we're trying to create.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Yes, that's something you mentioned.

With Bill C-21, we're talking about a gun buyback that the government is contemplating, which will potentially be in the billions of dollars. Do you think that money would be far better spent on addressing the mental health challenges in Canada? Would that actually have a greater effect on reducing suicide, reducing domestic abuse and reducing overall gun crime in this country?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Earlier in this study, we had witnesses from Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns. They claimed that Bill C-21 and other similar gun control policies will significantly reduce the overall rate of suicide in Canada. They said they had strong evidence. They said they would provide it to committee. I just did a review this morning and they haven't provided that evidence to committee yet.

Other than your work in the Canadian context, I haven't seen any peer-reviewed study to suggest that this kind of legislation will reduce overall suicides. Are you aware of any evidence that suggests otherwise?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Jumping on that, I heard Mr. Langlois talking about the prevalence of ghost guns, which we're very concerned about.

It feels like we have traditional approaches to constrict the supply of guns. I think Bill C-21 is definitely a traditional approach.

Given the reality of ghost guns, do you think that Bill C-21 will actually be effective in any way at reducing gun violence in Canada?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, As an Individual]

Thank you for letting me present my research regarding Canadian firearms legislation and its association with homicide, spousal homicide, mass homicide and suicide in Canada.

I am an assistant professor of medicine at McMaster University and an emergency physician in Hamilton. I serve as an academic peer reviewer in the areas of firearm control, homicide, suicide, violence and gang deterrence for academic journals and have four peer-reviewed publications on legislation and the effects on homicide and suicide in Canada.

I have submitted my studies and a report regarding the current proposed legislation to the committee. However, I will briefly summarize it.

Bill C-21 proposes two significant regulations: an essential ban on handgun sales and a regime allowing for emergency firearms prohibition orders. My research on previous Canadian legislation is applicable in answering the question of what the effects of this legislation may be.

Since 2003, the number of restricted firearms, including handguns, has doubled from 572,000 to 1.2 million. However, the rate of overall firearm homicide has not increased, nor has the rate of homicide by handguns. While there has been a recent increase similar to the levels in the early 2000s, the rates of homicides have actually fluctuated about a steady mean when statistical analysis is performed. Please see the graph attached to my brief.

In the 1990s, legislation banned over 550,000 firearms, many of them handguns. However, research has demonstrated that there was no statistically significant benefit regarding homicide, spousal homicide or mass homicide rates from this. While suicide by firearm decreased, hanging replaced it and no overall changes in suicide occurred. Other jurisdictions, such as Australia and England, have also applied significant controls to handguns and no statistically significant changes in homicide rates were detected.

In terms of emergency prohibition orders, currently a system exists where anyone can report a firearm owner to the CFO. I personally have been involved in this process as a physician with psychiatric patients and have found the response to be quick and efficient regarding the removal of firearms and licences.

For physicians, there's currently a system where one can detain a patient under an application for psychiatric assessment if one has justified concerns for homicidal or suicidal intentions. I utilize this method regularly. At such a point, we can explore risk reduction with suicidal patients. I have concerns about expanding this process further in terms of sharing confidential patient data with a CFO without consent. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has also warned about this in their 2001 report on the firearms program.

In the 1990s, Canada made changes allowing people to report concerns to the CFO and allowing the CFO to revoke licences and confiscate firearms. Unfortunately, research demonstrates that these Canadian regulations have had no effect on homicide, spousal homicide or mass homicide rates. Interestingly, a recent study on protection orders in California also revealed no associated benefit from similar regulations.

In summary, the evidence so far demonstrates that handgun laws will have no associated reduction in homicide rates or overall suicide rates. The replacement of the current emergency protection system is redundant.

The proposed recent gun bans and new regulations may well cost billions of dollars to implement and enforce. The current finance minister announced recently that Canada will need to adopt equal cuts for all new spending. Nova Scotia needs to invest $500 million in its health care system. My city currently faces emergency wait times of six to eight hours, and it takes me months to have a psychiatric patient seen by psychiatry. The money being considered for these firearms programs would have greater effect being invested in health care where lives would benefit.

Thank you.

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

Okay.

A first nation in northern Saskatchewan reinstated a state of emergency following gang- and drug‑related incidents. The first nation asked the federal government for help in controlling crime. You were quoted as follows in this article:

We need immediate action for this community. They’re in a crisis. Their school, their children, they deserve to be safe, they deserve to be protected from gangs. And I call on the gangs to please stop what you’re doing, and quit selling death to our people.

Some communities are currently the direct or collateral victims of gang‑related violence.

Do you think Bill C‑21 would help fix this problem? One of the clauses in the bill is aimed at fixing the problem of illegal firearms and their trafficking by increasing maximum sentences for these crimes. In my opinion, this will not change much, but I would like to hear what you have to say.

Do you think Bill C‑21 will have a positive impact on reducing gang‑related violence?

[Regional Chief Terry Teegee]

Thank you for that question, and certainly, it's a very difficult one.

For me, if you're talking about communities, my uncle was shot and murdered by gun violence. That was over 30 years ago, and certainly at that time there were none of these laws. The relations with police were perhaps not as good. I think what has changed is the relationship with the RCMP, in that there is more involvement with our chiefs and council, and knowing the community. At that time, I think the issues were the unresolved issues of residential schools and the ongoing issues of the next generation dealing with that, with the violence that was brought back to the communities. Unresolved issues with mental health and addiction really contributed to the death of my uncle.

I think we're getting better. I know in my community there are preventative measures. There are more opportunities for our youth. They are really coming down on the issues of drugs within the community. It's not the same for all communities. We're not all in the same place.

I think in speaking to this that perhaps some of these issues.... Albeit Bill C‑21 has good intentions for stemming the tide of gun violence and gang violence, I think there are unintended consequences. What we're really voicing here with my colleague from FSIN is that those first nations people who are law-abiding citizens are utilizing this as part of their traditions, as part of their treaty and as part of their culture, especially when it comes to subsistence hunting and trapping.

[Regional Chief Terry Teegee]

From a criminal's perspective, quite simply, perhaps it will.

This comes around to Bill C-21 and guns utilized in urban centres. There's also the fact that more often than not, there is a connection between our first nations communities and urban centres, where many of our young people get involved in gangs. If this prevents the use of handguns and mechanized weapons within gang violence, perhaps it will prevent crime.

At the same time, as Vice-Chief Bear said, if there is a will and a way for some of this to happen, more often than not it does. Certainly the hope is that it prevents some of the gang violence. I think that's one of the things we're really concerned about.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you for expanding on that.

I'd like to address my next question to Vice-Chief Bear and Regional Chief Teegee.

Quite frankly, do you feel that Bill C-21 will assist with any crime issues in your communities?

Who would like to start? I'd like to ask both.

[Regional Chief Terry Teegee]

Some of the provisions within Bill C-21 set out what the task of the firearms officer will be. I think, ultimately, this is the cautionary tale. For example, there are many rules and regulations in regard to police officers, yet there's a high rate of death and injury of indigenous people in custody.

The reason I relate that to this is we need to be clearer on what the firearms officer's duties are and what they can and cannot do. I think it really comes down to the officer and making sure there is accountability with that officer. It's to make sure they follow the rules on what they can and cannot do.

Even though this law could set out many rules and provisions, it really comes down to the practitioner. If a practitioner of the chief firearms officer doesn't follow these rules or takes liberties with this law and these rules, what accountability measures do we have?

We could have the best version of Bill C-21 that we could have, but it sometimes depends on who the person is and how good the intentions are. Far too often, in our experience as indigenous people, those liberties are taken to the next level.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us.

I will first turn to you, Chief Teegee.

You seem to support some of the elements in Bill C‑21, but you expressed concerns about some of the measures it contains, in particular red flags and yellow flags. You wonder about the applicability of these measures to your communities and worry that the rights of first nations would not be respected.

Could you tell us more about the yellow flag and red flag measures? What worries you about their applicability? You said it was unclear. What is unclear in the bill as it is currently worded?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

When you came before the committee before on Bill C-71, you voiced your concerns that Bill C-71 may be detrimental to first nations' ability to pass on their culture and heritage in Canada. Do you want to elaborate on how Bill C-21 may or may not have a similar impact?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Regional Chief Teegee.

Both of you have mentioned a bit of concern with Bill C-21.

Vice-Chief Bear, you mentioned with Bill C-71 when you came before the committee that you were concerned it would impact the ability for indigenous peoples to pass along their culture of hunting and trapping.

I would appreciate it if you'd both elaborate on that as well.

Go ahead, Vice-Chief Bear.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here and sharing with us your thoughts on this bill. I'm very glad to say that we are able consult indigenous leaders in Canada. I think that's very important for this bill and for anything that may impact treaty rights and your constitutional rights.

First off, I was wondering what consultations were done with you or other indigenous leaders in Canada that you may be aware of during the formulation process of Bill C-21. Are you aware of any consultations? Have you been consulted?

Vice-Chief Bear, you can go first.

[Vice-Chief Heather Bear, Fourth Vice-Chief, Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations]

Thank you. I'm speaking from the beautiful unceded, unsurrendered Treaty 6 territory this morning.

Thank you for asking the FSIN to appear as a witness on this important hearing regarding firearms legislation.

The FSIN promotes and protects the interests of 73 first nations in the province of Saskatchewan, and we are committed to honouring the spirit and the intent of the treaties, as well as the promotion, protection and implementation of treaty promises. I wish to speak today about the first nations' inherent, treaty and constitutionally protected rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather, and the continued struggle that our people face when it comes to systemic racism.

The assertion of our right to hunt is fundamental to the treaty promises that were made to first nations. We understand that Bill C-21 is being put forward to address public safety concerns and includes a freeze on hunting, red flag and yellow flag laws, provisions to prevent the smuggling and trafficking of illegal firearms, the prohibition of air guns and changes to the Criminal Code.

First nations are aware of safety concerns when it involves the protection of vulnerable people and likely have no issues with the freeze of handguns, or red flag laws, as our first nations are plagued with poverty, addiction, gangs and a drug crisis that seems to be worsening every day. It's one of the reasons we call for resources to establish our own legal systems, which include tribal police forces. When it comes to the safety of our nations, we support legislation that protects our women and LGBTQ+ persons and our citizens.

While we recognize the need to have the provisions to protect individuals who may be in immediate danger, when it comes to the yellow flag laws and the Criminal Code changes, there are concerns that these provisions could be abused to target first nations citizens. This is especially concerning for treaty sustenance hunters, who will be impacted by the yellow flag laws when they choose to carry a licence. The legislation provides that anyone can contact a chief firearms officer, a CFO, to report someone under the yellow flag regime. It could lead to the potential abuse of this section by having someone complain to a CFO with little information, thereby triggering an investigation.

Everyone in Saskatchewan knows that tensions are high between private land users and treaty sustenance hunters. It is therefore concerning that some private land users could report anyone they see out hunting—which many do already—and that the sustenance hunter could have his licence revoked and his guns confiscated. When guns are confiscated from sustenance hunters, it impacts them and their families when they have merely been trying to put food on the table.

When guns are confiscated it may also impact the whole nation, especially those who hunt for ceremonial purposes, in that sometimes we only need traditional food for ceremonies. These ceremonies include feasts. We also hunt to feed our people at funerals and to celebrate. We hunt for a lot of gatherings and occasions, so when you confiscate guns, you are doing a whole lot more than just taking away a gun.

If there are no safety issues and there is no issue of domestic violence or any kind of violence, then taking away a gun impacts our nations and our citizens' ability to assert our inherent, and treaty and constitutional rights. We also view our guns as a tool of our first nations sustenance hunters.

Now we know that this new law is about revoking a licence, but many of our hunters do not get a licence because their treaty did not require a licence for our people to hunt. First nations people have an inherent and treaty right to hunt, and do not require a licence or PAL to assert that right. Despite this, our hunters are harassed by conservation officers and the RCMP.

While the intent of Bill C-21 is to address public safety issues, I would recommend amendments to ensure that it is clear in the legislation that treaty hunters do not need a PAL or a licence when asserting their inherent, treaty and constitutional right to hunt. This is the reason we did not agree with some of Bill C-71, and this new legislation is another piece of imposed law that we have to deal with, especially when our people experience systemic racism. We know that our people are overpoliced and are overrepresented in the legal systems and jails. This new law talks about an exception for sustenance hunters, but we know that if a first nations person is asking for an exception to allow him to hunt, many judges would have a hard time letting that happen, because our people are not treated fairly and are assumed to be guilty of something.

Canada needs to do better at addressing the systemic racism that exists in the colonial system. Canada needs to change these systems so that our people are treated equally.

Canada needs to work with us on bringing back our own laws. Canada needs to provide the resources so that we can establish our own systems.

Canada needs to be mindful of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to our ability to practise our ways of life. That includes hunting for sustenance and ceremonial purposes.

Canada also needs to take note of articles 2, 5, 11 and 15, and play an active role in preventing the ongoing systemic racism and injustices experienced by first nations every day.

If Canada can do all that, we will achieve true reconciliation.

Thank you.

[Regional Chief Terry Teegee, Regional Chief, British Columbia Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning.

First of all, I want to acknowledge the territory that I'm calling from, the unceded, unsurrendered, continually occupied territory of the Lheidli T'enneh.

I want to thank all the committee members for attending today, and also Vice-Chief Bear and the Métis Nation.

Since we have a very short time, I want to get into our concerns and recommendations. I think we can all agree that we want safer communities, and part of ensuring that our communities are safe includes greater restrictions on access to weapons like handguns and assault weapons.

The federal government's initiatives to restrict or freeze the sale or transfer of such weapons under Bill C-21 is commendable in this regard. However, we are very concerned about the lack of clarity with respect to red flag or yellow flag laws that are applicable to first nations people specifically on reserve and in first nations communities.

Handguns and assault-style weapons are not used for hunting. However, the provisions of Bill C-21 will establish red flag and yellow flag laws and provide no guidelines for how those new laws would apply to first nations.

This is significant, as it may affect the possession of firearms such as long guns or rifles, which are commonly and responsibly used by first nations in our first nations reserves and communities and in traditional or treaty territories for hunting purposes. Parliament must not overlook this issue if it involves possible restrictions to aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt, which have been affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 and also in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which was passed last year.

First nations women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people experience some of the highest rates of gender-based violence and intimate partner violence in the country. At the same time, first nations men and women are overincarcerated at staggering rates. First nations people remain Canada's fastest-growing prison population, despite decades of well-intentioned but ultimately ineffective criminal legal system recommendations and reforms that have failed to redress systemic racism, sexism and colonialism within the criminal justice system.

As I said, first nations people are already overincarcerated and overpoliced at disproportionately high rates. It's not clear how this proposed legislation may contribute to or enable increased discriminatory police practices or negative interactions with law enforcement.

Gangs certainly are a growing problem in first nations communities and reserves, but this legislation provides no new tools for first nations police agencies to address gang and gun violence, which is one of the ostensible objectives of the proposed bill. Gang violence stems from chronic issues such as poverty, lack of services, unemployment and intergenerational violence. Addressing these root causes would do more to reduce gang violence than imposing further restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners. We are looking for more co-operation between non-indigenous police forces, such as the RCMP, and our first nations and indigenous police forces.

Our recommended amendments are as follows.

The AFN recommends that the provisions of Bill C-21 dealing with red flag and yellow flag laws be altered to ensure that first nations inherent and constitutional rights are respected.

We recommend that you clarify how red flag and yellow flag laws will apply to first nations people, specifically first nations reserves.

We recommend that an oversight mechanism be included to ensure that the chief firearms officer consult with first nations with respect to red flag and yellow flag orders and ensure they do not restrict access to firearms commonly used in hunting.

We recommend that Bill C-21 be implemented to support first nations police services and ensure that the resources they require to maintain law and order within their jurisdictions are provided specifically in relation to root causes of gangs and gun violence.

We recommend that Bill C-21 be implemented to support first nations prevention programs for youth in relation to gang violence and illegal guns.

Finally, we recommend that Bill C-21 be implemented to support first nations prevention programs targeting gender-based violence and violence against first nations women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.

Fundamentally, the AFN asserts that the Government of Canada must conduct a process to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of first nations as required by article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, now embedded in Canada's own act on this matter.

Thank you for the time, and certainly we look forward to your questions.

Mahsi cho.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 45 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House Order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I am informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Today we have two panels of witnesses. In the first hour, with us by video conference we have Regional Chief Terry Teegee from the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations. From the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, we have Vice-Chief Heather Bear, fourth vice-chief. From Women of the Métis Nation - Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak, we have Ms. Melanie Omeniho, president.

We will start with five-minute statements by each group.

Regional Chief Teegee, please go ahead for five minutes.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I just want to say one thing quickly.

We talk a big game about trying to make a work-life balance in this place and trying to help families. I have a two-month-old. I'm not trying to do an appeal to pity here, but having an additional meeting on a Thursday night—booked with very short notice—does a considerable disruption to my life and to my family.

I have been at every single meeting we have had on Bill C-21 and I've been very involved in this process. I just feel it's somewhat.... I understand what you've done, Chair, in trying to find an additional meeting, because there was the possibility that the minister would take up our Thursday morning meeting, and I respect that. I'm not trying to derail Bill C-21's timeline in any way, but to have an additional meeting on Thursday to accelerate this is not something that I gave my consent to, and frankly, is disrespecting my work-life balance.

I understand if members of the committee want to have a vote on it, and want to do that, but we talk a big game about having a work-life balance with family, and if we're going to vote to just override that for some members because some people want to accelerate this, then I guess those are just empty words.

That's all I have to say about that. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that you acted in good faith when you wanted to reserve a time slot.

We heard Commissioner Lucki and the minister on Monday, but I wasn't aware that we had slowed down our study of Bill C‑21. I thought we could continue meeting in our usual time slots this week.

What is really worrying me is that we are getting closer to the date that amendments have to be tabled. I don't know what the other parties think, but we are not quite ready yet. Procedures must be followed with the legislative clerks to ensure that our amendments are admissible. That is what is worrying me.

I understand that we want to speed up the study, but if I look at the last work plan that was submitted by the clerk, we still have plenty of dates in December. If some members are worried that we won't be able to finish our study on Bill C‑21 before the holiday break, I would answer that there are still quite a few time slots available during our regular committee hours.

We all agreed in good faith and we have discussed the motion for a few minutes now. Why the change without any consultations?

I am mainly worried about tabling the amendments. On which date will we be able to do so if we have a meeting Thursday evening? From what I understand, we are no longer meeting on November 17th.

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

Okay.

The other thing is, like Mr. Shipley, I'm involved in the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of the Emergencies Act. That happens on Thursday night as well. Ms. Bendayan is on that committee too. I too wish to participate in the Bill C-21 study, but I will be at the Emergencies Act meeting, so I won't be here that night.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Just to be clear, as of last Thursday, there was this plan to have a Bill C-21 meeting on Thursday night.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

My second concern is that I feel a bit of the goodwill that we put forward in the motion.... I think it's fair to say and I think it's acceptable that we put forward a motion to have options if the meeting yesterday were to take away from Bill C-21. I feel that goodwill has been taken advantage of, Mr. Chair.

The goodwill we put forward to work together on that has now been manoeuvred so there's a new meeting. That's not what the work plan is that we agreed to. We agreed as a committee to a very specific work plan. We're preparing our amendments. We have members of our committee who are flying home for funerals and others who are flying to be home with their families.

I'm just quite concerned that the goodwill we established now seems to not be a consideration in this regard. The first I heard about that was yesterday, but it sounds like this has been worked on since Friday. I'm not sure why, as the vice-chair, I was not informed of this until I heard it from a staff member. I didn't hear it from you. I didn't hear from the clerk.

I'm just a bit disappointed in the process of this, given that this committee has worked very hard for a whole year to come together on issues that I would say we normally don't agree on. We found a way to work together, so I'm just concerned that perhaps there's a new tone that we're setting by doing this. I'm concerned about what that means for our working together moving forward.

Perhaps you can explain to us why we weren't informed of this—why I wasn't informed of this—until late yesterday?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Yes. I gave you great praise last week about fitting in meetings. You are going above and beyond now in fitting in meetings, so it's good work, I think.

For full disclosure, I have a funeral Friday morning that I have to be back home for, so I will be travelling Thursday night. I'd have to find a replacement on Thursday night, and that may not be the easiest. I've sat in for the rest of Bill C-21, so I'd like to be here. It's unfortunate, obviously. I can't change those plans, so I'll take the will of the room and see what happens. Unfortunately, I would not be able to attend personally on Thursday evening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I stand corrected—Thursday evening.

That came about because I was trying to make sure we didn't lose time on this bill while we accommodated the meeting with the minister and the commissioner. When I thought they were available to us this coming Thursday, in the morning, I was looking for another meeting slot in order to do Bill C-21, and that was as of last Thursday. That's what I believed. We nailed down that meeting on Thursday night. We have witnesses lined up. The clerk had to go through whatever gyrations and administration to get it done. It's there. It's available. It's locked down.

When I discovered that the minister was not going to be available on Wednesday morning, or the commissioner, I kept it so that we would have options. For example, perhaps the minister would have been available for this meeting. When I found out that the minister was available on Monday, and we heard through the grapevine that AGRI were not going to be using their meeting slot, we were able to nail that down. That's how we came to this situation.

It's not cast in stone. It's an option. It seems to me a waste if we throw it away. We have an opportunity, as the witnesses are all lined up to go forward with it, but it's really a decision for the committee to make.

Mr. Shipley, do you have a comment?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to what my colleague, Mr. Van Bynen was saying. He mentioned that the police association has suggested that airsoft guns should be banned because they look too much like real firearms. We have also heard the story of a person who was stopped and arrested by the police because they seemed to be carrying a firearm, when in fact it was a camera on a tripod.

According to the officials from the Fédération sportive d'airsoft du Québec, there seems to be a gray area in Bill C‑21, which targets airsoft guns, but not flare guns or starter pistols that are used at sporting competitions, although they look like real firearms.

Do you think there is a problem in the bill and that the government really wanted to target the airsoft industry?

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

I just have one last question in the minute and half or so that I have left.

As I understand it, an unamended Bill C-21—and I think my NDP colleague creates a dangerous legal precedent and some ambiguity around the possession of airsoft firearms, although they're not really firearms in the extent of it—would cause a really chilling effect on the industry and a real minefield, if you will, for those who are in the sport.

It's been stated by public safety officials and legislators that airsoft people don't have to worry with Bill C-21. It's fine for those who continually use these, yet the new classifications, as we know, prohibit these devices. It sends some mixed messages.

Where do you see us going from here?

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

One challenge that many Canadians have with Bill C-21 is that it seems to target law-abiding citizens, who have never been the problem—and stats confirm this—with the gun violence we're seeing in our country. It doesn't focus on the acts of smuggled firearms used by criminals.

If you look at this piece of legislation, what recommendations would you make to ensure that the legislation is focused in the right direction, forgetting your industry in airsoft?

How can we ensure that this firearms legislation actually makes a difference for public safety and actually focuses on those who commit crimes with firearms—the criminals? How do we do that?

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

Mr. Hackenbruch, does the inclusion of airsoft in Bill C-21 seem to be more ideologically driven than driven by public safety?

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

I think the struggle our committee is having with Bill C-21 is that the way it's written does not give us a lot of wiggle room on how to amend it to what the industry would like to see. It's not easy for us to insert requirements for age, requirements for membership of a national organization or requirements to sign a waiver, because Bill C-21 basically amends the Criminal Code, changes the definition of what a replica firearm is and deems certain firearms to be prohibitive devices.

You are right in the concerns you have for your industry, because after Bill C-21, if it is passed as written and you were the owner of one of these, suddenly, if you were to transfer it to another person, you could be charged with weapons trafficking. If you were to have a bunch of them, the police may say that you are possessing a bunch of them because you are going to traffic them, so I can understand the very real concerns that people have.

I'm just going to make a comment here. One of the options before our committee is that we may just have to send the government back to the drawing board, because I don't think enough consultation was done. We have such a narrow laneway open to us to try to incorporate what the industry is asking for, and I agree. I think a lot of the concerns are very reasonable.

Airsoft in Canada provided me with a briefing. They've taken some time to specify their understanding of the bill and some of the options they would like to see.

You have a business. You have quite a large stock of airsoft. Can you talk a little about how difficult it would be, given your stock of airsoft guns and the imports you get, to make the changes to require that a certain percentage of the barrel be coloured? Could you rank them by how difficult it would be to make the major manufacturers comply with what you're proposing?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad you brought up the issue of pellet guns. I grew up with a pellet gun, and I know a lot of my friends have pellet guns. A lot of them look like real rifles from a distance. Of course, functionally, you can see the difference right away.

You said that the unintended consequences of how Bill C-21 is currently written could potentially also impact the owners of pellet guns and their ability to sell or transfer what they have lawfully purchased.

Can you expand a bit on that as well?

[Scott Hackenbruch, Director, Airsoft Association of British Columbia]

Thank you for having me here to talk about Bill C-21 and its impact on airsoft.

My name is Scott Hackenbruch and I am the director of the Airsoft Association of British Columbia. I have played airsoft for over 15 years. I have organized and run some of the largest games in western Canada.

The Airsoft Association of B.C. was founded to represent the players of our sport, educate the public and work with government, law enforcement and various other stakeholders to ensure that we can safely practice our sport and help it grow.

We've seen countless stories of people whose lives have been changed for the better by the sport. In addition to being a player, business owner and organizer, I am also a new father, and I hope to one day be able to introduce my son to the sport that means so much to me, in a safe manner and also at the appropriate time.

Some of the most heartwarming and gratifying stories are when parents approach me to tell me about how transformative airsoft has been in their children's lives. Learning how to communicate clearly and effectively, gaining sportsmanship, building long and lasting friendships, and cementing bonds with their parents are just a few of the stories I've been fortunate enough to be a part of.

We have heard testimony in this committee that has spoken of the public safety concerns that our law enforcement and officers potentially face due to the misuse of airsoft devices. We want to solve these problems with a constructive and collaborative approach.

We've also heard from our colleagues in the ASIC and the FSAQ about the potential of Bill C-21 to effectively end airsoft in Canada. Fear, uncertainty and doubt permeate our community. Overnight, families and businesses with life savings invested in the industry could see their livelihoods destroyed and would be left with vast amounts of merchandise they can no longer sell, export or return to the manufacturers, should the bill in its current form pass. This would devastate many in an already difficult economy.

Prohibiting the importation, sale or transfer of an airsoft device that is intended to exactly resemble or resemble with near precision a firearm will remove the vast majority of devices available to the Canadian market. Due to the relative size of our consumer market, it would be unlikely that manufacturers would design and build custom airsoft devices for our retailers and distributors.

The broad definition would also leave it open to interpretation that anything resembling a barrel with a grip and a trigger could be considered a firearm, regardless of its being intended to resemble a commercially available firearm or not. One thing is apparent: This is a complex and nuanced issue.

Airsoft is a competitive team sport that relies heavily on integrity and character. We value rules. We value safety. For the last two decades, airsoft has been a self-regulated sport in which the community has determined the equipment and regulations needed to compete in a safe and responsible manner. We recognize the need to work with the greater community of Canada to ensure that we can safely enjoy our sport and address the needs of Canadians.

We propose one or more of the following solutions to address those needs in the short term. These include adding an 18-plus minimum age to the purchase of an airsoft device; mandatory transportation in an opaque and solid container; warning labels on the packaging of airsoft devices informing the end user of the potential consequences of misuse; orange tips required for the sale and transport of airsoft devices; and the dissemination of educational materials through retailers, local fields and provincial associations.

A more comprehensive solution may be the implementation of a national organization or a group of provincial organizations. To purchase an airsoft device in Canada, it would be compulsory to be a member of one of these organizations. This would remove the burden of cost for any regulatory framework from the federal government, while addressing concerns for the public safety of Canadians.

As representatives of our community of players, we are standing before our duly elected representatives asking you to consider the joy, friendship and growth this sport has brought to every one of us. It has built lifelong friendships, sparked entrepreneurial spirit and led us to push our boundaries. These are foundational qualities that improve and enrich our community every day. We are ready to work together with you on finding a solution that will keep us all safe.

I thank the committee for the time and welcome any questions you may have.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Provost, you can count on the Bloc Québécois to propose such an amendment if ever the government does not do so.

When you testified during our study on firearms and street gangs, you said that all magazines should only contain five bullets and that the industry was perfectly capable of doing this.

The government promised regulations that would ban magazines that could be converted to their full illegal capacity.

Since we had to wait four years the last time before regulations were put into place, do you have any hope that this will happen quickly, or do you think that we should amend Bill C‑21 to tackle the problem, rather than wait for regulations?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much to the witnesses for appearing today and helping guide this committee through our study of Bill C-21.

I took note when you were making your opening remarks and you made reference to the May 30 press conference announcing Bill C-21. I remember Minister Mendicino making a promise, I believe it might have been to a reporter's question, about bringing in an additional amendment.

Thank you also for providing my office with a list of some of the ways Bill C-21 can be strengthened.

You identified the fact that there's a problem with the definition of prohibited weapons, and I find this is a constant with all legislation. When you try to make a list of something, there's always the danger that you're missing out on something or that it can be expanded. I think that's why, although the original OIC was around 1,500, it's now climbed to 1,800. Of course, manufacturers can exploit loopholes by simply saying, “We have a new model that's not on the list, therefore it's allowed.”

We haven't yet seen what this amendment will look like. I hope my Liberal colleagues are working with the Minister of Public Safety to bring forward what he promised the public.

Can you help guide this committee as to how you would like to see that definition included? Could you share any thoughts to help guide our committee on that particular amendment?

[Heidi Rathjen]

Stuff is happening right now. For example, a group such as the International Practical Shooting Confederation has been lobbying for decades to have its sport recognized by the Olympics. It is making progress and gaining recognition. This is a big international lobby that faces no opposition, because groups like ours do not have a seat at the table.

Consequently, it is very possible that new sports such as handgun shooting will be added to the Olympic program. With the way Bill C‑21 is currently worded, shooters in these sporting categories would also be exempt. That is why we are asking that the bill limit exemptions to those shooting categories that are currently on the Olympic program.

Moreover, we have tried to find ways to prevent any loopholes. Sport shooters can suddenly express a desire to become Olympic shooters. There are no standards in place and we can't question the sincerity of these people. Under such conditions, will there be a new wave of shooters looking to participate in the Olympic Games who will be exempted from the ban? This would allow them to buy any type of firearm, because we know that the act does not limit the definition of a handgun to Olympic shooting weapons.

These are possible scenarios that would allow people to circumvent the exemption, which would be against the spirit of the act as it is intended.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today, ladies. We are very grateful.

Thank you for your courage and thank you especially for carrying on fighting for the last 33 years, which is far too long. I know that you have been waiting for legislative amendments for a long time. Unfortunately, Bill C‑21 is not yet what is needed, and I know that you would like to see changes.

On the other hand, we have been receiving requests from other groups who would like to dilute certain provisions of the bill. You know as well as I do that the International Practical Shooting Confederation, otherwise known as the IPSC, is asking to be exempted from the national ban on handguns.

Can you explain to us why it would not be a good idea to exempt as many groups as possible? I agree that this would make the ban practically useless.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all three witnesses for being here and sharing your stories. That can't have been easy, but it's important for us to hear from you, so I just want to begin by thanking you.

My first question has to do with a provision in Bill C-21. A chief firearms officer may issue a conditional licence despite a person having engaged in domestic violence “if the revocation constitutes a virtual prohibition against employment in the only vocation open to the individual.”

I know, having spoken to the women's shelter in my riding, Halton Women's Place, that the women who come to their shelter are in an abusive relationship with someone who works as a police officer or a correctional officer, and a firearm would remain available to that individual because of their occupation.

Do you feel that condition should be removed?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Obviously, many of you have been through very tragic incidents in the past, and our hearts go out to you as you try to carry on with your day-to-day lives.

My first question today is for Ms. Rathjen and Ms. Provost, please.

In your organization's brief on Bill C-21, you state that you, along with other major women's organizations, oppose the ex parte red flag measures that invite victims to go to court themselves to have firearms removed from their abusers. Can you please explain why you oppose this measure?

[Nathalie Provost, Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient]

My name is Nathalie Provost. I am the spokesperson for PolySeSouvient, and I am also one of the persons wounded during the femicide that took place at the Polytechnique. I will be speaking with one of my former classmates, Heidi Rathjen, the coordinator for PolySeSouvient.

Here with us today are: Serge St‑Arneault, the brother of Annie St‑Arneault, who is representing the families of the victims; Stéphane Rouillon, a survivor and graduate of the Polytechnique, and Hélène Thibault, who also graduated from the Polytechnique. Both of them are volunteers with PolySeSouvient. We also have with us William Sylvain and Juliette Gagnon, members of the Confédération pour le rayonnement étudiant en ingénierie au Québec and the student organization NOT HERE.

Today, we will be talking about ways we can improve Bill C‑21. We believe that this is how we can make the best contribution. Please note that some of the things that we will be talking about today are requests that we have been making for nearly 33 years now since the massacre.

We know that the problem of gun violence is complex and that the causes of violence are vast and diverse, but one thing is certain: the combination of bad intentions and an easy access to firearms increases the risk of severe injury and death. That is our prime concern.

We are asking for a robust legal framework for firearms which exponentially increase the risk of violence. We have to reduce the risk of firearms falling in the wrong hands.

I know what I'm talking about. I came face to face with a man holding a powerful gun with a high-capacity magazine. The Polytechnique shooter, just like other mass murderers, was the legal owner of the weapon.

No ordinary citizen should have the legal right to own weapons that give them the ability to kill many people in a matter of seconds by simply squeezing a finger. That's the reason that we, along with the majority of Canadians, are seeking a ban on handguns and assault rifles, as well as high-capacity magazines.

We are here today to help make Canada safe for us and our children; that is our main goal. This is a crucial bill for us. After watching violence increase over 33 years, we believe it is one minute to midnight: we have to act now, and you have the power to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 44 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Today we have two panels. In the first hour we have with us, by video conference, Meaghan Hennegan, spokesperson for the families of Dawson. In person in the room today we have, from PolySeSouvient, Heidi Rathjen, coordinator, and Nathalie Provost, spokesperson.

We will ask each group to present an opening statement of up to five minutes. We will start with—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but we did not agree to that. We didn't even discuss that as a committee.

The motion in good faith put in a clause that, if this meeting that happened today were to overtake a Bill C-21 meeting, we would have an extra meeting, but because that did not happen, there was no conversation among all parties. There was nothing on the record, and we did not agree to that, so that is something you unilaterally did without our consent. Is that what I'm understanding?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We didn't have this slot then. The whips have been advised; the whips are aware of this. I would encourage you to take it up with the whips, but currently the plan is to finish up Bill C-21 on Thursday so that we can go ahead with clause-by-clause after the constituency week.

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

Can you clarify that, Mr. Chair?

We said that we agreed to hold an additional meeting so that this study wouldn't delay the study of Bill C‑21. Since this meeting was held today, will we still have an extra meeting on Thursday on Bill C‑21? So we'll have two meetings on Thursday. Is that what you mean?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

That wraps up our questioning.

Thank you, Commissioner, for being with us today and assisting us in our inquiry.

I would like to advise the committee that it looks like we'll be able to finish witness testimony on Thursday for Bill C-21, so I'm asking everyone to get their amendments in by close of business on the following Thursday so that we can take up clause-by-clause the following week.

With that, thank you all—

Go ahead, Madame Michaud.

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

It's rather strange that you announced the May 1, 2020, regulation banning certain assault weapons, two days after Commissioner Lucki pressured, or allegedly pressured, Superintendent Campbell to disclose the weapons used. The weapons used in the Portapique shooting were covered by this regulation.

It's rather strange that you announced this immediately afterwards. I know that you had been working on it for a long time. You said that you had been working since 2018 on this regulation, which was to ban certain assault weapons.

However, we get the impression that you acted in response to this unfortunate event, in order perhaps to gain public support or approval. It seems to me that this is also what happened with Bill C‑21. This was announced just days after the shooting in Texas, which was appalling.

Can you confirm that the fact that this regulation was announced only a few days after the shooting isn't a coincidence?

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and other legislation.

This initiative is welcomed because the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been updated since 1999, and much has happened since then. I do not want to overstate the significance of what is going on here. This draft bill streamlines a program that is already in place and has been working effectively for many years. This is more about the administration of a program than bold, new ideas about the environment.

I want to talk about a couple positive things with this draft legislation. The preamble of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would read, “every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment”. The preamble of the legislation would also recognize, “the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.

We have no arguments with these broad, aspirational statements, but that is what they are. They are broad, aspirational statements. There is nothing in the bill that gives substance to these statements. In fact, we are going to have to wait two years to see the government's implementation framework to see what the government considers to be a healthy environment.

This is typical Liberal Party virtue signalling. It is devoid of substance. This is what Canadians have learned to expect of the Liberal Party: lofty words with little substance.

Another positive thing in this bill is that the government listened to stakeholders, and that is always welcomed. There were experts were familiar with the benefits and risks of chemicals used in the everyday life of Canadians. Toxic substances need to be used in a safe manner, and we need to listen to experts. Bill S-5 preserves the risk-based approach to chemical management as opposed to the hazard-based approach. My understanding of the distinction is that the preferred risk-based approach focuses on actual outcomes. It does a risk-benefit analysis.

Clearly, not all hazards can be removed out of our lives, but they can be managed, and that is what this bill does. That is a good thing, and we accept that. The bill also continues the tradition of being fact-based and evidence-based. We need to follow the science, use a precautionary principle, and make decisions based on the best evidence available at the time. Generally, we accept these principles. All government decisions should be based on facts, not on ideology. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has a fairly poor record.

For example, if we take Bill C-21, which is the bill that would ban all handguns in Canada, that bill is being studied at the public safety committee right now. The public safety committee has just finished a study on reducing gun and gang violence in Canada. We heard from more than 40 witnesses who are experts in the field, and not one of them said that the problem was handguns owned by lawful gun owners.

As a matter of fact, what we were told was that the vast majority of guns and firearms used in crime in Canada were smuggled in from the United States of America. The U.S. is the largest gun manufacturing economy in the world, with whom we share the largest undefended border with in the world. Admittedly, this creates a big problem for Canadians, but taking the frustrations out on lawful gun owners is not the solution to this problem.

Wanting to stay positive, I am now going to turn to the Conservative Party's record on the environment. It is well known that Canada's most successful pro-environmental prime minister was the Conservative, Brian Mulroney. In the 1980s, acid rain was a big problem in both Canada and the U.S. Our great lakes were dying off. The environment was suffering. Fish stocks were in decline.

Mr. Mulroney claims that his biggest and proudest achievement was the Canada-U.S. air quality agreement, which finally broke the back of acid rain. This achievement was not about virtue signalling. It was about achieving real, measurable results. It took real effort. It took co-operation with our neighbours. It took political will and stamina. It took the common-sense approach that Conservatives prefer.

We understand that global climate change is in fact global. We need to work with our allies, our trading partners and all peoples on this planet, as we did with the acid rain agreement.

Take plastics, for example. With the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the bill we are talking about today, plastic manufactured items would be listed as toxic. We knew this was coming, and here is what our Conservative Party campaign platform from last year contained: “To meaningfully contribute to tackling ocean plastic, we must recognize that plastic is a global problem”. Further on, our platform said, “The current government’s approach has been heavy on slogans but light on action. Declaring plastics ‘toxic’ isn’t helping our environment but is driving jobs out of Canada.” Again, this is common sense, not the flash and bang that we learned in a high school drama class. Let us get down and do the work.

The same goes for the Liberal Party's carbon tax, which ignores the international threats to our global environment. The Liberals want Canada to produce less carbon, so their solutions is to leave our natural resources in the ground and let other countries rack up carbon debits, to produce less natural gas and let Russia fill the void in Europe and to produce less oil and make Saudi Arabia and Venezuela happy.

It would be one thing if the Liberals' version of a price on pollution actually had the desired effect, but despite a lot of pious talk on emission reductions, Canada is falling further behind. Now the Liberals are going to triple the carbon tax. How high does it have to go before we will actually start to see our emissions come down? Maybe in a few years' time we are going to see what effect the tripling had. Maybe it is going to have to be tripled again after that. Canada is a big and cold country. We are going to consume energy just to survive and operate.

More and more people, admittedly, live in urban ridings and can take public transit, like those in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove, where I am very happy to say the squeaky wheel got the grease and we got a commitment that the SkyTrain will come to Langley. However, many people living in rural areas simply do not have that choice. Ask a family in rural B.C. if they will pull their kids out of hockey because the price of gas is too high. Of course they will not. They will take the pickup truck, see the price at the pumps and be reminded why they are so irritated by the federal government. Then they will drive the 100 kilometres to a hockey tournament. This is what we do. This is how we live.

I want to end on a positive note. I will be supporting this draft bill, not because I support the government's failed environmental program but because the bill would streamline the administration of an important part of the federal government's work, namely the management of risks and hazards in our natural environment. We all want a healthy environment, and the Conservatives like the idea of things being managed in the most efficient way possible. This modest bill is a step in the right direction.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for their invitation to once again appear before this committee on this matter.

Let me begin by once again acknowledging the profound tragedy at the heart of this discussion. The events of April 18 and 19, 2020, were the worst mass shooting in Canada's recent history. Twenty-two people lost their lives, and their families and loved ones continue to mourn them. This senseless act of violence continues to reverberate throughout Nova Scotia and across Canada. We cannot begin to fathom the grief and the loss caused by this event.

On the matter before this committee today, I will begin by repeating part of my opening remarks from when I last appeared on this issue in July. At no point, Mr. Chair, did I direct the RCMP in any operational matter, including on public communications. I did not ask them to release any specific information, nor did I receive a promise from them to do so. As you will find in all of my public statements from that time, I confirmed that identifying the weapons used was a decision wholly within the purview of the RCMP.

My testimony on this point from July 25 continues to stand. The independence of police operations is a principle that I have not only respected but also vigorously defended over my nearly four decades in law enforcement and throughout my subsequent career as a federal member of Parliament and minister.

I would not and I have not ever directed police to release information pertaining to an investigation, nor did I do so in this case. I do understand the recording of a call between the commissioner and her subordinates has been identified by the RCMP and subsequently released by the Mass Casualty Commission. Neither I nor my office were participants on this call. My conversations with the RCMP during that period, and generally throughout my time as Minister of Public Safety, were with the commissioner directly.

I understand that Commissioner Lucki will be appearing in the second hour of today's meeting and she will be far better placed to speak to specific details of what occurred between her and her subordinates.

The order in council that was announced in May 2020 had been the result of many, many months of work. I was in fact leading consultations across Canada alongside my former colleague, Minister Goodale, on the question of assault-style firearms and handguns as early as October 2018. As a government, we first signalled our commitment to get assault-style weapons off our streets in the 2015 Speech from the Throne. Work on the OIC began almost immediately after I became the Minister of Public Safety, as it was one of the priorities given to me in my mandate letter from the Prime Minister.

To put these regulations together, we needed to invest the time to get it right, and so this work was undertaken throughout the fall of 2019 and the spring of 2020. Through this OIC, Mr. Chair, we banned 1,500 plus of some of the most dangerous weapons that were at that time still legal in Canada. These are weapons that were designed to kill people and to do so efficiently. Weapons that were captured in the OIC were used in the polytechnique massacre, in the Fredericton shooting of two police officers, in Moncton, in Mayerthorpe and at the Quebec City mosque. The AR-15 alone has been used in some of the most deadly mass casualty events in the United States within the last decade, including most profoundly and concerningly the horrific murders of little kids at Sandy Hook.

Mr. Chair, gun violence is a complex problem and combatting it requires complex solutions. The order in council was a significant and positive step forward for the safety of Canadians, but that work, as you know, is not done. Just over a week ago, the Prime Minister announced a freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns. I also understand that your committee is currently examining legislation from my colleague, Mr. Mendicino, on this very issue in Bill C-21.

Mr. Chair, we continue with this work as a government because we know that effective gun control regulations can save lives. Our first priority has been and will always be to ensure the safety of all Canadians.

I thank the committee for their attention. I look forward to your questions.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I'd like to address my last question, in the time remaining, to Mr. Gélinas and Mr. Wall, because you both made very interesting comments. You each worded them a little differently, but in your opening remarks you both made very similar statements.

Mr. Gélinas, you said that Bill C-21 should be targeting real weapons. I hope nothing was lost in translation, but that's the way it came across. Mr. Wall, you said that Bill C-21 was not aimed at the right target. Perhaps you could expand on those two statements, gentlemen.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Do you think one of the negative consequences of Bill C-21 is that we could see an increase in smuggling operations, since legal handguns would be unavailable for purchase? Do you think it could cause an increase in smuggling?

Perhaps I'll go to Mr. Wall for that.

[André Gélinas]

If I may, I would like to answer this question.

Bill C‑21 in no way meets the needs of the police. You are absolutely right on that point. We don't have enough police officers. We can't even replace the police officers that retire every year. When we set up special units to deal with urgent situations, we are taking away officers from other units that are deemed less important but actually are important.

Yes, we should be welcoming and encouraging police seizures. However, we should realize that we are seizing just a minute portion of all the guns coming into the country. As my colleague said, an individual was stopped last year with 249 guns in his possession. You know, criminals only have to be lucky once, whereas we, the police, have to be lucky all the time. Obviously, when an individual is stopped with 249 firearms in his possession, we can't even imagine the massive number of guns that are coming into the country without being intercepted. From that point of view, it is obvious that we will always be trying to catch up.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today, and thank you for the service you've put in for many years.

I'm sure that over the many years you've worked, you've heard about how tough it is to get enough resources to do your job, and that hasn't changed. We've heard quite a bit over these hearings that it's getting tougher and tougher, so I'd like your opinion on this, please.

In 2021, the SPVM launched a new police unit, the integrated team against firearms trafficking. Between February and August 2021, it carried out 19 searches, made 17 arrests and seized 27 illegal weapons, which was obviously good work.

Do you feel that Bill C-21 could lead in the direction of using already strained police resources and could actually hinder targeted teams like this from doing their job by removing resources?

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

Thank you, Mr. Gélinas.

I'm sorry, but I have to get to another question. Thank you for that answer.

Monsieur Wall, I'd like to talk to you.

In your opening statement, you mentioned the fact that sport shooters who belong to clubs and practise regularly with their handguns should be exempt from Bill C-21. Chief Evan Bray of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police confirmed the same thing. It is his position that a handgun freeze is one method of reducing access to these types of firearms, but he does support law-abiding handgun owners' ability to practise their sport.

I asked him if we could find a middle ground here by imposing stricter requirements for membership, demonstrating an actual need for the handgun through regular practice and so on. Do you have any further comments on the middle ground that we're trying to reach with respect to the provisions in Bill C-21

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Monsieur Gélinas, I'd like to start with you, please.

In your opening remarks, you covered many different parts of Bill C-21. You mentioned the fact that there are existing red flag provisions in the Criminal Code, and that's true. If you look at existing sections 109 and 110, there are mandatory prohibition orders and discretionary prohibition orders.

I think the testimony we've received on the proposed addition through Bill C-21 of this red flag law is probably what we as a committee are struggling with the most. A number of witnesses are quite concerned that the provisions in Bill C-21 are going to unfairly place the onus on someone who might be the victim of firearms-related violence to go through an already overburdened court system by themselves.

We've certainly heard from police services what their primary wish is: If someone finds themselves in a threatening position, they should always go to the police first. In our previous panel, Chief Evan Bray of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said that, absolutely, police should always be used as a first resort. However, he was also in favour of other avenues being available to people.

Do you see any instances where the provisions in Bill C-21—these new red flag provisions and going through a court system—might be preferable to using the police?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for agreeing to come and testify today before the committee. We are grateful for your expertise. Both your positions on this issue are clear and pretty similar. You're saying that Bill C‑21 will not help with the problem of illegal firearms trafficking, and I pretty much agree with you.

Mr. Wall, you suggested other solutions that, in my opinion, would not necessarily require legislative amendments and could be put into place in a parallel fashion, such as investing more money and sending more resources to the border.

Mr. Gélinas, you mentioned that certain clauses contained in the bill were ineffectual, such as those that pertain to altered cartridge magazines and increased maximum sentences. I would like to know which clauses contained in Bill C‑21 you support or find truly useful, but I get the impression that your answer will be rather short.

To help you along, I should inform you that I'm going to submit an amendment to the committee once we start the clause-by-clause study of the bill, with the aim of adding a clear definition of assault-style military guns to the Criminal Code. Because of the way the government proceeded when it published the amnesty order prohibiting 1,500 models of firearms, these firearms are still on the market, including the SKS carbine, a model that was used recently to kill police officers.

Do you think that we could strengthen Bill C‑21 by including clauses on assault-style guns or on ghost guns and tracing, as was suggested earlier? In your opinion, what amendments could be made to the bill that would be necessary and useful?

I would ask Mr. Wall to answer first. Then Mr. Gélinas.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gélinas and Mr. Wall, I would like to start by thanking you for the work you do to protect our families and communities.

I would like to talk about ghost guns. As you know, there has been a proliferation of ghost guns because of 3D printers and access to firearm components online. We are looking for solutions to this problem, whether via Bill C‑21 or regulations.

Mr. Gélinas and Mr. Wall, would you be in favour of measures to regulate the possession, sale and importation of firearm components, such as barrels and slides, which are used to make ghost guns?

[André Gélinas]

Bill C‑5 undermines our judicial system and boosts the arrogance of criminal groups. Criminals study their surroundings and get advice from their lawyers. So, when they're told that there are no more mandatory minimum penalties, there are no longer any deterrents.

The other element in this regard is that criminals look at what is going on around them. When I tell you that they study their surroundings, I mean that they look at Bill C‑21 and realize that the government is targeting people with licences who, in the vast majority of cases, are not a problem. The message this sends to criminals is that the government is not focusing on the real problem. It's abolishing minimum mandatory penalties and continues to intervene in areas where there appear to be no problems at all.

[André Gélinas]

I will answer your question, if I may.

You are absolutely correct. In fact, Bill C‑21 will do absolutely nothing, because, as my colleague Mr. Wall mentioned, the number of handguns from Canada is really too small compared with what is coming over the border. It's a disproportionate number.

The solutions are clear. We need to concentrate on the border and certain territories, in particular Akwesasne, where Canadian police services cannot intervene. They are not authorized to enter. That is where many of the firearms are coming from.

Experience has shown that illegal handguns are very present in cities like Montreal and Toronto. Geographically speaking, the Akwesasne reserve covers territory in Quebec and Ontario, as well as the United States, which is considered the main firearms producer in the world. Obviously, we will always have to deal with this, since the Canada-U.S. border is the longest land border in the world, and it is not guarded. Obviously, we can't do anything in the U.S. In other words, we can't get them to legislate to resolve their firearms problems.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Wall and Mr. Gélinas, for sharing your expertise in criminal matters.

I have several questions for both of you.

Since 2015, there has been a 32% increase in the number of violent crimes across Canada. We know that most of the firearms used to commit these crimes are illegal.

My questions are as follows.

First, could Bill C‑21 really do anything about the increase in the number of violent crimes in our communities?

Second, what measures would really be effective in countering the rise in violent crime?

[Stéphane Wall, Retired Supervisor, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, distinguished members of Parliament, hello.

I am a retired supervisor at the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal. I work with the media and elected officials to explain the job of police officer and the reality on the ground. I am one of the three founding members of the Communauté de citoyens en action contre les criminels violents, the CCACV, which, on January 26, 2022, recommended 16 actions at the different levels of government, including the federal level. You have just heard André Gélinas, another founding member of the CCACV. Mrs. Anie Samson, who was once deputy chair of the City of Montreal executive committee, is the third.

Victims of violent crime and their loved ones are our inspiration. We believe that, in Canada, the rights and freedoms of victims and their loved ones when it comes to life, health and safety should trump the rights and freedoms of violent criminals.

We believe that a responsible legislator must adopt laws and regulations aimed at the right targets, i.e. violent criminals, including members of street gangs and organized crime, who almost always use illegal firearms in their shootings, often from moving vehicles.

In our opinion, when we become complacent in the face of serious crimes committed by criminals who possess, discharge or point a firearm, which we appear to be doing in Bill C‑5, which we also spoke about in committee, you can be sure that there will be two major social consequences. First, there will be an increase in criminals' sense of impunity, already a subject of boasting by members of street gangs on social media and in videos disseminating gangsta-rap culture. Second, there will be a drastic increase in the number of victims in the same neighbourhoods as the violent criminals, who are already over-represented according to Statistics Canada figures for 2021. These include Blacks, who accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in 2021, and indigenous people, among whom the homicide rate was six times higher than among the non-indigenous population in 2021.

Bill C‑21 is not aiming at the right target. It is a superficial measure that will in no way reduce the number of shootings perpetrated by violent criminals, who almost always use illegal firearms. Instead of hitting the right nail, i.e. illegal firearms trafficking over the border and through indigenous reserves, it is hitting a nail that will change nothing. It targets licensed firearm owners who legitimately use their guns to hunt or practise shooting sports.

Let's look at a few measures proposed by the legislation to counter firearms trafficking.

First, the maximum sentence for firearm offences, including trafficking, is increased from 10 to 14 years. In reality, courts almost never sentence offenders to 10 years. So why would they suddenly sentence them to 14 years? The young William Rainville, for example, who was arrested in Dundee with almost 250 Polymer80 handguns and firearm receivers, was given five years in prison, but was released barely one year later.

Second, the bill proposes prohibiting companies from promoting armed violence in their sales and marketing activities. Wouldn't it be better to prohibit street gang members from promoting armed violence on social media, where they threaten their enemies with firearms, show off their impunity from justice, their invincibility, their money and their victims of procuring?

Let's compare. By using the same logic that Bill C‑21 is based on, to solve the problem of drunk driving and prevent criminals on the road from causing numerous deaths, we could pass legislation prohibiting anyone, even those who are licensed and follow the rules, from owning a motor vehicle. You can see that the solution doesn't fit the problem.

What proportion of handguns used to commit crimes come from Canada? The figures I'm going to give you are taken from an online presentation by the RCMP in 2022 to the national firearms task force. In 2021, 10% of all handguns used to commit crimes were from Canada. They were therefore legal. The remaining 90% either came from the United States and therefore could not be traced, or were ghost guns designed to circumvent the law. So, in 2021, of all crimes involving handguns, 9 out of 10 were probably committed using illegal handguns. Since the beginning of 2022, 16% of all firearms used have been from Canada. In other words, of all crimes involving handguns, 8.4 out of 10 are committed using illegal handguns.

How can legislators target these illegal handguns? First, they need to ensure better surveillance at the border and around the Akwesasne reserve. They need to add cameras, drones, electronic surveillance equipment and high-speed boats, as well as patrols and border controls by the Canada Border Services Agency, the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec and the Ontario Provincial Police. They also need to increase the number of vehicle inspections on the roads near the border and the number of inspections of all types of motor vehicles leaving the indigenous reserve by land, sea or air. In addition, they need to implement a procedure obliging the CBSA to file criminal charges with every seizure. Prosecution is currently very rare. Also, they need to increase collaboration between the RCMP and the U.S. authorities in investigations. Lastly, they need to provide better funding for the network of informants living near the border and on indigenous reserves.

In conclusion, legislators must aim at the right target and not sport shooters or hunters who have the necessary licences. In addition to hunters, legislators should at least exempt sport shooters who train regularly, who are registered with a recognized shooting club and who take part in at least one competition a year to retain their acquired rights.

Thank you for your time.

[André Gélinas, Retired Detective Sergeant, Intelligence Division, Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, honourable members, hello.

My name is André Gélinas, and I am a retired detective sergeant. I worked for the information division of the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal. I was asked to appear here today to share my expertise on different aspects of Bill C‑21.

Before addressing the subjects of interest, I would like to clarify a few things. My presence here is apolitical and nonpartisan. For the past two years, I have been a police reporter for various media outlets on television, in newspapers and on the radio. I am not a member of any lobby or pressure group. In the past year, I have met with federal members of Parliament from every party to share my expertise and provide support for some of their projects and initiatives.

In my humble opinion, Bill C‑21 fails to achieve the very noble goal of increasing public safety by ensuring effective and judicious arms control based on a pragmatic analysis of the situation.

The bill suggests that a freeze on the sale and importation of legal handguns for target practice by licence holders will have a substantial effect on the declining safety of major Canadian cities.

Moreover, by choosing to publicly announce the bill with pomp and circumstance in Montreal North, a borough that is particularly affected by street gangs, they are suggesting that there is a causal link between the violence in this neighbourhood and the handguns legally acquired and used for safe and closely supervised sports activities. This is not true. It's the result of lobbying based on an emotional and ideological analysis, certainly not on observations made by the police on the ground.

It's important for you, members of Parliament, to understand that this situation will definitely not have the desired or announced effect. An overwhelming majority of the handguns used by criminals and seized by police services after shootings and brutalities perpetrated by street gangs, criminal biker gangs and the Italian mafia were illegally acquired and originate in the United States, a country in which the sale of firearms is virtually unrestricted thanks to a constitutional right.

Only a considerable and real intensification of border controls and the right of police officers in certain indigenous territories to enforce the law could possibly help the situation. That's the only way for police services to ever solve the problem of the illegal firearms supply when demand is increasing on a daily basis. If these measures are not put in place right away, we will never be able to gain control of the situation, and there will always be more firearms entering the country than we can seize. It would be like trying to empty out the St. Lawrence River with a bucket.

This bill targets legal weapons that are used by Canadians who meet high levels of screening and training criteria imposed by the government under the supervision of the police services, when we know full well that the real problem is all the illegal handguns. No criminal worth his salt wants to procure a legal, and therefore traceable, handgun. It's simply not in their interest. We want to solve the problem of shootings, but we aren't targeting the right firearms. This bill will absolutely not have the effect it is meant to, and the situation will remain more or less the same or deteriorate if we do not adopt pragmatic solutions based on a proper analysis of the situation.

Moreover, the bill contains measures prescribing the reporting of concerns, flag laws, in order to ensure surveillance of firearm owners. That's great, and a step in the right direction. However, any police officer with any experience at all on the ground knows full well that this procedure has existed for decades. Reporting has always been part of the solution, along with preventive seizures and licence suspensions. In 1998, when I was a young constable, I preventively seized firearms during domestic violence calls. There is nothing new in this bill, and it contains absolutely no new procedures. In short, there is nothing new under the sun.

The bill also proposes creating a new offence: modifying magazines to exceed their legal capacity. This offence is useless, since simple possession of a high-capacity magazine is legal under the Criminal Code. No criminals specialize in modifying magazines. Users do it themselves. It is a very simple modification. This new offence is a solution to a nonexistent problem.

The bill also proposes raising the maximum penalty for people found guilty of firearms trafficking from 10 to 14 years. At first glance, this appears to be a good move, but no defendants have ever been sentenced to the current 10‑year maximum sentence for this offence. The measure will have no real effect. It is another example of an ineffective measure.

Then the bill proposes allowing the police to obtain an electronic surveillance warrant for new firearms possession offences in sections 92 and 95 of the Criminal Code. Once again, this is a good idea that will have no real effect. These crimes are always investigated because the firearms in question are related to other criminal offences that authorize the use of electronic surveillance.

Lastly, I would like to point out the negative effects of the bill on gun clubs and sport shooters. Jobs will be lost, and there will be no new generation of people practising the sport.

Thank you for your time. I am prepared to answer your questions.

[Brian Sauvé]

I think anything we can do in Canada to address intimate partner violence and the threats thereof is a good thing. As for challenges that we've identified, as I mentioned, I don't think Bill C-21 goes far enough, and I don't think we're looking at the downstream activities of it. For example, we've spoken already about the overburdened policing system, the expectations of the community and mandates added to police officers.

Is this going to create an extra burden in our already overburdened court system? We are seeing in a number of provinces that there are not enough Crown prosecutors, there are not enough judges and there's not enough trial space. Even if we end up in a court proceeding for a red flag or yellow flag, however that might look, is it going to be addressed in a timely manner? If it's not addressed in a timely manner, is that person continually put at risk? The downstream impacts of this are something we need to consider.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For this question, I think I'll turn to Mr. Sauvé. It will again be on the subject of the red-flag laws.

I want to invite your perspective, because we've heard Chief Bray from the CACP talk about it being another avenue. We're trying to balance that with the testimony we've heard from several groups—and we've also had letters and submissions—that feel it's very troubling to place the onus on someone who might be at risk of victimization, from firearms or other dangerous devices in the home, to go through a lengthy court process.

I understand that in emergency situations, the police like to underline that you should always call the police if you believe someone's life is in danger, especially with respect to a firearm. However, if you look at the provisions in Bill C-21 and at creating this new system where someone can go through a court system and remain anonymous, are there instances, in your view, where that court system is justified? Do you support having this additional avenue for people?

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

Exactly. That's the problem with this legislation. Bill C-21 criminalizes people who aren't criminals.

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

Yes. Thank you for that.

Mr. Sauvé, I have a couple of questions for you.

I appreciate some of the comments you made with regard Bill C-21 being focused incorrectly—I'm paraphrasing what you said—and also the comments that Mr. Lloyd was getting to. Mr. Bray will talk about the municipal aspect. You're talking about the confiscation of firearms, which the government wants to call the buyback program, and the impact of that on resources. If the government is expecting law enforcement to gather up these firearms, there is an impact on public safety since resources will be deployed for doing this rather than responding to public safety issues on the street.

Mr. Sauvé, first, if the RCMP is required to confiscate firearms, how do you see that impacting your frontline officers, your ability to respond to hot calls to 911, for example, and public safety?

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

It's nice to see you again, Mr. Sauvé and Chief Bray. It's been a while.

It's interesting how different police officials from across the country have varying perspectives. As I think Chief Bray mentioned, even within the CACP there's a wide range of perspectives on the application of firearm legislation, whether it be Bill C-21 and the OIC or others from the previous iteration of Bill C-21 in the previous Parliament.

My question is simple: Do criminals follow the law?

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

Okay. Thank you for that.

With regard to airsoft guns, I appreciate the previous testimony you've given in response to other questions. I think there's a realization around this committee table that perhaps the way Bill C-21 is currently written could be amended.

You would agree with trying to put in requirements that distinguish them ultimately from the appearance of a real firearm, and putting any measures into the legislation that specify that to give police services more peace of mind when responding to calls.

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

I appreciate that feedback. Thank you.

Moving on to the handgun freeze, you did say that the CACP is in favour of a national approach to managing the issue of handguns in Canada. You believe that a handgun freeze is one method of reducing these types of firearms, but what struck me in the second part of your statement is you said, “while allowing existing law-abiding handgun owners to practice their sport.”

I know that to be authorized to have a restricted firearm such as a handgun, you have to have proof that you practise or compete at an approved shooting club or range. There are exemptions carved out in Bill C-21 for Olympic-level and Paralympic-level shooters, but other shooting disciplines have raised concerns that they might be edged out because of how Bill C-21 is currently written.

CACP has said that it wants existing law-abiding handgun owners to be able to practise their sport. Do you believe a middle ground to this would be to require people in those other disciplines to provide more proof that they are actively engaged in their sport? In other words, should they provide actual proof that they have a demonstrated need to own a handgun?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for helping guide our committee through its study of Bill C-21.

Chief Bray, I'd like to start with you. You made comments with regard to the red flag laws, and I know the statement on the CACP website states that you support the red flag law and “its goal to help reduce gender-based violence, intimate partner violence, and self-harm by limiting access to firearms by those who pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.”

We've had a lot of testimony on the proposed red flag law, and a lot of groups have problems with some sections in Bill C-21. They are worried that too much of an onus is being placed on a potential victim to go through a lengthy court process when going through the police is preferable.

Are there gaps in our current system that justify us adding this to the Criminal Code? In other words, in what instance is it preferable for someone to go through the courts to make an emergency prohibition order against someone rather than going through the police?

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

Thank you. That's interesting.

You talk about young people and the shootings in the Montreal area. Your organization is part of the provincial working table on violence, youth and the school environment. In this context, have you heard of other solutions that might help solve this problem?

We often hear that Bill C‑21 will not solve the problem of illegal arms trafficking. In the vast majority of cases, the firearms that end up in the hands of young people in street gangs in Montreal and other large Canadian cities are illegal.

I heard you mention other measures that are needed in conjunction with those provided for in Bill C‑21. For example, we should strengthen collaboration between the various police services and the Canada Border Services Agency along the border.

Can you suggest other solutions the government could implement?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing here today.

Mr. Brochet, thank you for agreeing to testify before the committee today.

In your opening speech, you mentioned that you agreed with certain elements of Bill C‑21, particularly the increase in maximum penalties for arms trafficking. However, you had certain reservations about Bill C‑5, which removes the mandatory minimum penalties for firearm-related crimes. There is however, a link between the two.

I often give the example of William Rainville, whose story you are probably familiar with. This 25‑year‑old Quebecer smuggled almost 250 firearms over the border. He was sentenced to five years in prison, but obtained day parole less than a year later. This shows that arms traffickers are not necessarily hardened criminals or even have a criminal record. It is often their first offence. In my opinion, it is very rare that they receive the maximum penalty or the longest sentence associated with their crime.

In your experience, does it happen often that people are given severe penalties for arms trafficking? Will increasing the maximum penalty really have a positive impact?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of you for appearing and, indeed, for all you do in helping to keep Canadians safe.

I'd like to start my questions with Mr. Bray.

Chief Bray, when you were talking, you mentioned concerns related to ghost guns and components. One of the opportunities I think we have in this legislation is to think about how we address component parts, whether they are slide assemblies, trigger assemblies or barrels, and regulate them to make sure that people can't make their own weapons at home. After hearing from the Vancouver Police Department and others, I know this is a major concern. Certainly in my community in the Lower Mainland it is, and I guess it is across the country.

What are your views on what we should be doing to address this in Bill C-21? Do you think we should be spending a bit of time and effort on ensuring that the issue of ghost guns and components, particularly the regulation of components and their importation, is included? What are your views on that?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

That's interesting. Thank you.

I'll go back to the National Police Federation.

We heard recently that your members need to practise at private ranges in order to maintain proficiency. We also heard that handgun owners' mandatory membership dues are critical to the financial sustainability of these ranges and that they will close if Bill C-21 should pass.

How will the shutting down of these private ranges impact your members' ability to train?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

So it's not your revolvers.

Under this handgun freeze, as I've been made aware by some stakeholders, the reproduction of firearms that were designed before 1898, including the flintlock pistol, which I'm sure the witnesses can see here.... A muzzle-loaded flintlock pistol using black powder could also be banned under Bill C‑21.

Is it your experience as law enforcement professionals that these are being used on the streets?

[Brian Sauvé]

I can. I will start by sitting back and saying that every police officer across Canada, especially the membership of the RCMP, is fairly non-partisan. They will uphold and enforce the laws that are enacted by the legislature and interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada. In this case, regardless of how Bill C‑21, a buyback program or whatever else gets implemented, when called to do their duty of going to pick up from firearms owners firearms that may be considered to be not in compliance with the law, they will do that.

However, it just adds more duties to their already expanding mandate, so at what cost does that come to the Canadian public? It creates larger screens on the dispatch screen. It creates more files for the members to go to. Are we looking at longer wait times for other police presence—

[Brian Sauvé, President, National Police Federation]

Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to appear today.

My name is Brian Sauvé and I'm the president of the National Police Federation, the certified bargaining agent representing close to 20,000 members of the RCMP across Canada.

Firearms violence is a complex issue that requires a holistic government approach, including improvements to community and social programs, criminal justice system investments and increased health care and policy resources. The NPF has made 11 recommendations in our submissions to the committee, and I will highlight some of them in my remarks today.

First, the legislation primarily targets legal firearm owners who have followed the regulations as opposed to addressing the root causes of firearms violence. The Government of Canada is encouraged to widen its focus, as Bill C-21 narrowly focuses on the tool—the firearm—and not the criminal activity surrounding it. By only addressing the tool, you're failing to address the root problem, and the criminal perpetrator will continue to offend and victimize with different tools or with complete disregard for the legislation, as criminals do obtain firearms illegally today.

Between 2016 and 2021, the violent crime index across provinces rose 30% and the crime severity index rose 10%. Jurisdictions with the highest rates of firearm-related violent crime also have relatively high rates of crime in general. Reducing firearm violence is a key issue and should remain a priority for the government. Canada already has a strict licensing regime for firearms purchases, and the changes proposed do not address issues of organized crime or gang violence, illegal weapon smuggling, systemic causes of crime and emerging threats such as 3-D-printed ghost guns.

In addition, police services need to be properly resourced. Without the adequate resources, increased police mandates apply additional pressures to uphold and maintain public safety. The government needs to recognize the importance of providing additional support to police officers to ensure that they can focus on public safety and crime prevention. This legislation must be accompanied by additional resources for RCMP members and police services across Canada.

Second, the government should develop uniform standards for tracing firearms involved in the commission of a crime, ensuring that police services are adequately resourced to enhance tracing capabilities. Currently, not all firearms recovered as part of a police investigation are sent for tracing. In 2020, only 39% of firearms used in firearm-related homicides were recovered, and of those, only 69% were sent for tracing.

Third, we need to stop the illegal flow of firearms into Canada. While the RCMP and CBSA are intercepting many illegal firearms at the border, gun crimes are still becoming more prevalent. Without adequate resourcing, firearms will continue to make their way into Canada. Partnerships across jurisdictions with judges, prosecutors and government officials, in collaboration with law enforcement, are necessary to facilitate information sharing and for discovering illegal firearm trafficking patterns and crime syndicates. The RCMP's border integrity program must be enhanced to enable proactive RCMP investigative weapons enforcement activity and the dismantling of gangs and organized crime involved in smuggling firearms.

Lastly, Bill C-21 fails to address the increasing concern over the involvement of younger persons in shootings and gun violence. In Toronto in 2021, the average age of persons involved in shootings, as an accused, a suspect or a person of interest, dropped from 25 to 20 years of age. It is estimated that there are over 400 street gangs operating in Canada, and a whole-of-government approach is required to address gun and gang activity. Investments in diverting youth from joining these gangs must be an essential part of the plan.

Law enforcement agencies, governments, schools, social services, neighbourhood leaders and community organizations need to work together to identify and implement effective tools and programs focused on youth at risk of gun violence. Bill C-21 should focus on tackling systemic issues that allow gun and gang violence to take place. We have an opportunity here to create a unique system to deal with this issue by strengthening border controls and imposing stronger penalties to combat firearm smuggling and trafficking, thereby reducing the presence of illegal firearms in Canadian communities and how frequently they're used to commit criminal offences.

Thank you. I'll take any questions.

[Chief Evan Bray, Co-Chair, Special Purpose Committee on Firearms, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Thank you very much. I very much appreciate this opportunity. Good morning to you all.

I'm speaking to you this morning on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. My name is Evan Bray. I'm the chief of police in Regina, Saskatchewan, and am the co-chair of the special purpose committee on firearms for the CACP. The CACP represents chiefs of police and executive police leadership from across Canada.

The CACP believes that the proposed legislation recognizes that stopping gun violence requires a whole-of-society approach, including education and prevention, to address root causes, as well as law enforcement to help stop the criminal elements that are perpetrating violence in our communities. We believe Bill C-21 will help prevent victimization by way of a firearm and will improve public safety.

I just want to drill down on a couple of areas.

First of all, on handguns, the CACP supports a national versus municipal patchwork approach to managing the issue of handguns in Canada. 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 practise their sport.

However, we continue to maintain that restricting lawful handgun ownership will not meaningfully address the real issue, which is illegal firearms and illegal handguns obtained from the United States that have led to the disturbing current trend in gun violence that is largely related to gangs, street gangs and more sophisticated organized crime groups.

With regard to firearms smuggling and trafficking, we support the implementation of new firearms-related offences, intensified border controls and strengthened penalties to help deter criminal activities and to combat firearms smuggling and trafficking, thereby reducing the risk that illegal firearms find their way into Canadian communities and are used to commit criminal offences. The CACP welcomes changes that provide new police authorizations and tools to access information about licence-holders in the investigation of individuals who are suspected of conducting criminal activities, such as straw purchasing and weapons trafficking.

With regard to replica firearms, the CACP agrees with implementing initiatives that target the criminal use and diversion of firearms to the illicit market by prohibiting the importation, exportation and sale of replica firearms, specifically those that have a likeness to real firearms and are indistinguishable from the genuine articles from near or far, or that can be altered to convert them into deadly weapons. This is something the CACP urged the government to do in a resolution passed by our membership way back in 2000—22 years ago.

Replicas are encountered in the hands of criminals for street-level extortion, robbery, for personal protection from other criminals and to intimidate or terrorize victims when committing an offence. As a result, there's been a regrettable need for police officers to resort to the use of deadly force in situations where they believe replica firearms to be real. Contributing to police concerns for public safety is also the fact that imitation firearms are largely unregulated and users can acquire them very easily without proof of age, licence or competency.

The CACP is not opposed to recreational activities involving the use of airsoft guns. However, those who use these replicas for recreational purposes and who emphasize the importance of the likeness to real guns and the importance of long-range shooting capacities of over 500 feet per second to enhance the overall gaming experience have likely never found themselves in a real-life situation facing an individual engaged in criminal activity who's armed with one of these guns.

Reducing firearm-related deaths in the cases of family violence and self-harm is an easy one for the CACP to support. The red flag law, the yellow flag law and the requirement to surrender firearms during a legal challenge of licence revocation are impactful ways to help reduce gender-based violence, intimate partner violence and self-harm by limiting access to firearms for those who pose a risk of harm to themselves or to others.

Regarding the mandatory buyback program—and of course there's been a lot of talk about this—and the requirement to make assault-style weapons permanently inoperable, the CACP is still awaiting details on the implementation of such a program and the implications for and expectations of police services in Canada. Having said that, the CACP recognizes and understands concerns that have been expressed by certain provinces in the country about using Canadian police resources to confiscate legally acquired firearms from Canadians.

Ultimately, this early part of the buyback program is essentially an administrative process; it's not a policing issue. As a result, such a program could be managed by entities other than police services, thereby allowing police resources to be focused on those who refuse to follow the new law and, more importantly, on addressing border integrity, smuggling and trafficking.

In conclusion, the CACP supports improving safety for the public and for frontline police officers. Reasonable requirements on responsible firearms owners need to be balanced with protective measures to help mitigate the impact of the worst outcomes of firearms. While we agree with the proposed changes of Bill C-21 in principle, we must now focus on what they mean in practice and clarify the role police services are expected to play in enforcing these regulations.

Thank you.

[Pierre Brochet, President, Association des directeurs de police du Québec]

Good morning, everyone.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting the Association des directeurs de police du Québec to take part in this discussion.

The Association des directeurs de police du Québec groups together 34 police services working in Quebec. They include the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal and the Sûreté du Québec, as well as all of the other municipal police services.

Before discussing Bill C‑21, I would like to say that Quebec's police chiefs are extremely aware of the fact that gun violence claims victims and affects their friends and family.

We are in favour of strengthening gun control. I think that it is the right message to send Canadians. As a society, Canada sends a strong message concerning our desire to reduce the number of firearms in circulation. In particular, we wish to reduce domestic violence and mass shootings.

We are also in favour of the buyback of assault weapons, an important measure that will certainly have a positive impact. Obviously, we need to put the logistics in place and coordinate efforts with the various provincial governments. This strategy will be costly, so the federal and provincial governments need to discuss the issue thoroughly.

We are also in favour of the handgun freeze. This is an important step forward. This being said, like you, we are aware that we will have to wait a few generations before we see any real change, because the people who currently own handguns will be able to keep them. However, we think that this is a step in the right direction.

I am sure that everyone has heard about the urban violence in the Montreal area, in particular in Montreal and Laval. To reduce urban violence, we need to continue our efforts to address arms trafficking and border controls. In Quebec, most firearms seized from criminals are smuggled in from the United States.

We would also like to request that the law be modernized to include ghost guns. As you may know, ghost guns are becoming increasingly popular. People order firearm components and assemble them to produce what we call ghost guns. We need to think about the possibility of making certain firearm components illegal.

We are also in favour of a red flag law when there is a restraining order in place. This would allow law enforcement to seize the firearms of a person who is subject to a restraining order. This would obviously have a serious impact, including in the case of domestic violence.

We are also if favour of stiffer penalties. According to the association, the fact that the maximum penalty is now 14 years is very good news. However, we would like to point out that this bill needs to be consistent with Bill C‑5 to remove mandatory prison sentences for several firearm-related crimes.

The addition of two provisions allowing Canadian police services to use electronic surveillance in cases of unauthorized possession of a firearm and possession of a prohibited firearm is also good news.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 42 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Today we have two panels of witnesses. For the first hour, we have witnesses by video conference.

We will first welcome Pierre Brochet, president of the Association des directeurs de police du Québec.

We will also hear from Evan Bray, co‑chair of the special purpose committee on firearms of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

Lastly, we will hear Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation.

We will give each group up to five minutes for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I only have four minutes, so I'm very tight on time.

I'd like to ask you the next question very simply.

If Bill C-21 is enacted as it sits presently, do you feel that this would cause the end of the Olympic sport that you participated in for Canada?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for coming here today. Your testimony is appreciated.

Mr. Smith, I'd like to start with you, because what I've seen with Bill C-21 is that we seem to be presented with an either/or situation when it comes to shooting disciplines and public safety, especially with the handgun freeze—that is, no more exemptions can be made because they're going to lead to public safety issues and so on.

Concerns have been raised that if an exemption were given, people would join IPSC just so they could go and buy a handgun and then they might forget about their membership with IPSC because they would have their handgun. Do you have any thoughts on whether there's a middle road here, whether Bill C-21 could be strengthened so that a requirement for continuous eligibility would be written into the legislation so that people would have to demonstrate they're active and ongoing participants in IPSC just to satisfy some of the public safety concerns that are out there with the handgun freeze and so on?

[James Smith]

I'd like to see Bill C-21 not take place at all, but if it is going forward, as it seems it is, we would like to have IPSC added under proposed paragraph 97.1(b)(i) as equal to the Olympics and Paralympic sports.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

What exemptions would you like to see written into the law, into Bill C-21?

[Medha Russell]

We need legislation, regulations and policy. We have them in our sport. We recognize they are critical and important. Therefore, safety is number one.

Bill C-21 has provisions for public safety, but what the people making these laws need to recognize is that they need to address the 90%—or whatever that exact percentage is—of criminals or illegal persons who have no respect for life. Respect is very important in our sport. They are the ones this bill needs to address.

We are legal, law-abiding firearms owners. I don't know the exact number—hundreds of thousands. We are vetted 24-7 by the federal CPIC system. Therefore, if I were to do anything, a law enforcement officer will flag that and go to investigate, which they should. Safety is number one. We don't deny that. Therefore, through our governance and structure and the way we organize our sport, we and other shooting sports that exist in Canada ensure that this is critical and number one.

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

I'm going to cut you off because I want to move on to another line of questioning.

Obviously there's a significant difference between a sport shooter—a licensed firearm owner who is law-abiding—and a criminal who would commit offences with a firearm. We know that. We also know, again, that this legislation will do absolutely nothing to improve public safety. Unfortunately, it will not deal with the issues we're trying to deal with on illegally obtained firearms and illegal use of firearms.

Does either one of you see anything in Bill C-21 that would prevent gun crime?

I'll start with you, Ms. Russell.

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

Thank you.

I'm sure both of you—Ms. Russell and Ms. Kiejko—woke up one morning and all of a sudden you were Olympians, international sports shooters. It just happened.

We know different. Ms. Kiejko, you started at age 11, and it took you many, many years—as it did you, Ms. Russell—to acquire the skills.

With Bill C-21, how is it possible to pass on the legacy and tradition that have been instilled in both of your families in this way of life?

[James Smith]

Good afternoon.

I would like to start by thanking the committee for the opportunity to present today. I'd also like to introduce my co-presenter, who is there in person, Medha Russell. She's a long-time competitive athlete and a six-time Canadian national champion.

I am presenting on behalf of the International Practical Shooting Confederation of Canada. Our purpose today is to have the committee consider amending Bill C-21 to have IPSC added as a sport discipline under proposed paragraph 97.1(b)(i) .

Even though Bill C-21 is not an outright handgun ban, it will result in a slow demise for our sport in Canada. Having no new athletes introduced to replace the existing competitors and being unable to replace equipment as it wears out will result in the end of our sport over time. It will also close the ranges for police officers and other agencies that use our ranges for training and result in no shooting for Olympics.

IPSC was first introduced in Canada as a sport in 1976. It has continued to expand since then and currently has over 5,000 participants in every province and territory in Canada. From the inception of the sport, Canada has been a world leader by implementing a mandatory requirement for a two-day safety course in order to participate in our sport via the black badge program. In addition to the original course, the athletes must participate in regular matches to maintain their status and compete in the sport.

IPSC athletes in Canada compete and train at their local clubs, and the best from each province qualify to compete at the national championships, where the best are then chosen to advance to the World Shoot. The World Shoot is like the Olympics and is held every three years. We have proud Canadian athletes representing Canada at these international competitions every three years, typically with a minimum of 60 participants. In addition to the athletes in our sport, we also have a cadre of over 600 internationally respected coaches and officials who participate in Canada and are in demand in the rest of the world.

The International Practical Shooting Confederation is the largest shooting sport association in the world, with 109 member countries. This includes some of the countries that have banned handgun ownership, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, all of which allow athletes to compete and train in IPSC competitions.

Internationally, IPSC has been working toward recognition and possible inclusion in the Olympics and has recently been added as a full member of the Global Association of International Sports Federations, or GAISF, which is the umbrella organization for all Olympic and non-Olympic sports internationally. IPSC is a member as well of the Alliance of Independent Recognised Members of Sport. IPSC has also joined the World Anti-Doping Agency and has implemented its practices as well as policies on ethics, conflict of interest and gender equality.

In summary, the addition of IPSC as an exempted sport in the legislation would allow existing and future athletes, coaches and officials, who currently devote hundreds of hours a year in pursuit of excellence, the ability to continue in our sport.

Thank you. I'll turn it over to Medha.

[Lynda Kiejko, Civil Engineer, Olympian, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My name is Lynda Kiejko. I'm a professional civil engineer. I'm a mother to three young children, a two-time Olympian in the sport of pistol shooting and currently the president of the Alberta Handgun Association.

This is a sport and an organization that I feel is now at risk from the proposals in Bill C-21.

I'm a medallist at both the Pan American and Commonwealth Games. Currently I spend a lot of time when I could be training or with my family applying for additional permits. This is on top of the process to be able to get an authorization to transport when I'm leaving the country to represent Canada.

I've represented Canada on the world stage for over 20 years. Quite honestly, I can say that there's no greater honour than being able to wear the maple leaf and represent my country.

Recent changes and the implementation of the handgun ban have done nothing to reduce violence, in my opinion. They've done nothing to increase public safety. However, they have added several weeks to my preparation for international competition. Since the ban on the import of handguns was placed into effect on August 19, I've spent more than two weeks communicating with a government department, only for them to realize that they were not able to process my export permit, which usually takes up to about six weeks to attain. I now have to pay to bring my own firearms back into the country when I represent Canada on the international stage.

I have just recently returned from Cairo, Egypt, after competing in the world championships. I will shortly depart for the Championship of the Americas in Peru. Instead of being mentally prepared for these competitions, I am now concerned about whether I'll receive my permits in time to be able to enter my own country and come home with my competitive equipment.

The advertised purpose of Bill C-21 is to increase public safety. I really would like someone to explain to me how my firearms are a hazard to public safety. I have young children in my home, and there is no way that I would jeopardize my own children's safety, let alone anyone else's.

I'm concerned about changing rules and regulations while I'm away from home representing Canada, which literally has just occurred. Last week, I was out of the country when the new announcement came out. I really don't want to become a criminal while I'm away from home representing the country because those rules have arbitrarily been changed. I don't want to be a criminal. I do want something done about criminal activity to actually increase public safety.

I compete internationally under the auspices of the Shooting Federation of Canada, which is a government-funded recognized national sports governing body for the target shooting sports of Canada. We are also an active member of the International Shooting Sport Federation, which is recognized by the IOC.

The ISSF oversees many target disciplines involving air rifles, air pistols, small-calibre rifles and pistols, and shotgun shooting sports. There are more than just the Olympic and Paralympic events and disciplines that are recognized by the ISSF. There are a lot of events that shift over time, but they're still recognized at that international level.

Bill C-21 is an attempt to manage criminal violence. It may have some components that help do that, but my concern is that components of this bill really strangle the large portion of our sports resources.

It's competitively practised by people who are 13 to well into their 80s and 90s. It is one of the most gender-inclusive, age-inclusive and physically inclusive sports that you could possibly find. Shooting sports of all types are very inclusive. It doesn't matter your age or ability. Achieving excellence in target shooting sports is something that is a common ground for everyone.

There are numerous highly competitive shooting sports that use pistols that are not in the Olympics. We really depend on these sports to identify talent. They help to create a pathway for athletes to become Olympians. I can say that this is true. I started straight into the Olympic disciplines when I was a child. However, I know several of my teammates, competitors and people whom I have met internationally started in those non-Olympic events to be able to become Olympians and internationally recognized competitors.

As the sole shooting Olympian representing Canada in Tokyo at the 2020 Olympics, I can say that attracting new shooters and identifying potential is already becoming very challenging. With the proposed new regulations, without any increase to public safety, there's economic hardship on law-abiding citizens and shooting ranges in Canada that host multiple shooting sports events.

Without these types of events, without these types of opportunities, our shooting ranges are also going to be at risk, which means that I now no longer have a place to train to be able to get to the Olympics.

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

I understand. In fact, several groups have similar concerns.

We often hear the argument made that Bill C‑21 won't address the problem of illegal arms trafficking, for example, when illegal guns are involved in the majority of shootings. This is true in part for the majority of shootings. However, we must also be aware that, in the past, terrible crimes were committed by people who had legal weapons and valid firearms licences. These practices need to be better regulated.

As for the sport, there's no doubt that enthusiasts use devices that are still dangerous—

[Julie Saretsky]

I feel that if somebody is a danger to society or is a proven danger to society, and possibly suspected of being a danger to themselves or to the public, we should be able to flag that individual.

For us, we are most concerned that our single-action firearms not be included under that definition of a restricted weapon that we would not be able to use. Although there are positive aspects of Bill C-21 and we would like to ensure that nobody gets hurt, we really are looking to having our heritage considered and so on.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague Mr. Van Bynen for clarifying the issue of the publication in the Canada Gazette. That's not the information I had as of yesterday. Now we're on the same page.

I'll now turn to Ms. Saretsky.

I hear your concerns about Bill C‑21 and the national freeze on handguns, as well as your concerns about your sport.

However, are there elements of Bill C‑21 that you welcome? We don't just have to think about the increase in minimum sentences for smuggling or trafficking in firearms, or about revoking or suspending the firearms licence of a person suspected of committing wrongdoing, for example. There are a number of elements that seem to be welcomed by several groups.

I'd like you to talk about these elements. Do you find that there are still good things in Bill C‑21?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for joining our committee today as we go through the provisions of Bill C‑21.

I'd like to start with the Coalition for Gun Control and welcome Dr. Cukier back to our committee.

I was reading today the updated brief from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians on the red-flag laws in Bill C‑21. They are still sticking to their point from the earlier version of this bill in the previous Parliament, in that they feel that placing the onus on a family person to go through the court system is the wrong way to go. They would prefer to have a system whereby emergency physicians have a process for reporting. Unfortunately for us, though, that is primarily under provincial jurisdiction.

The testimony on how the red-flag laws are written in Bill C‑21 is kind of all over the map. I think there's an understanding out there that red-flag laws are important. They're just not sure that the way Bill C‑21 is written is the correct way to do it.

I guess I'm going to ask my question in a different way. You've had it before. Can you see any way whereby the existing clauses of Bill C‑21 can be saved, or do we need to just simply get rid of them altogether? Do you believe there is a place for a court system to be involved? We have a very high rate of suicide by firearms in Canada. Do you think there's a process whereby someone should be able to use the court system, or should it just always fall on our police services, primarily?

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

To sum up, I understand that you are in favour of Bill C‑21. Obviously, everything can be improved. Are there any improvements you would make? Does it not go far enough in some respects? I don't think so, given your point of view, but do you think some elements go too far?

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

I have one last question, and it's about assault weapons.

You know as well as I do that the May 2020 order didn't ban all military‑style assault weapons. Retailers can circumvent these regulations by bringing new weapons to market, for example.

When the government introduced its Bill C‑21, it promised that it would amend its own bill to include a section banning all assault weapons.

Do you think the government will keep its promise and make that amendment to Bill C‑21?

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

I also have a question about the freeze on handguns. Again, there seems to be a bit of a grey area. The government would leave it up to the provinces to write and send letters to the shooting clubs to let them know that this or that person is exempt. That would give the provinces a lot of leeway. While this is already how it works for shooting clubs in Quebec, some provinces have already indicated their intention to challenge Bill C‑21 or the various gun control regulations it would implement.

The federal government is implementing a national freeze on handguns that is ultimately not so national, because some provinces may decide to do things differently. In addition, the Prime Minister stated that the handgun freeze applies now, immediately. However, on the government's website, in the Canada Gazette, it says that the freeze won't be in effect until November 9.

What message do you think that sends?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us.

I'm going to pick up where you left off and continue with Dr. Cukier from the Coalition for Gun Control.

You say that if there are some exemptions, they need to be well defined or better defined. I quite agree with you that if we start exempting just about every group that asks for it, we compromise the very essence of the national freeze on handguns.

I'm wondering how you interpret Bill C‑21 as currently worded. The bill provides exceptions for high‑level shooters, such as at the Paralympic or Olympic level, and their coaches. However, it seems unclear who would be exempt from the national freeze at this point.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Do you think it makes any sense for legislation like Bill C-21 that you can have a military member, a veteran or a law enforcement member who is mandated to use a handgun for their job day to day, but under this legislation will not be allowed to purchase, own or transfer a handgun personally?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Do you think that denying veterans, who will not be exempted under Bill C-21, the ability to participate in this kind of sport shooting will have a negative impact on their well-being?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Would I be correct in saying that if an exemption were made so that Bill C-21 only applied to semi-automatic handguns, your sport would be allowed to continue and thrive?

[Julie Saretsky]

Yes.

We want to continue our sport with more Canadians. We want to grow and develop skilled target shooters and equestrians. We want the ability to continue the legacy for our youth and produce more world champions.

Again we ask that mounted shooting be part of the exempt parties listed in Bill C-21. There are many shooting sports that should be given recognition and exemption from Bill C-21, not just Olympic and Paralympic sports. Perhaps strong consideration should be given to turning the approval process over to the provincial chief firearms officers, as they're most closely in touch with the competitors and the legitimacy of shooting sports within their provinces.

In closing, eradicating our sport and letting it die with the current legislation won't have any impact on crime. It just makes mounted shooting and law-abiding citizens collateral damage. It takes away from a sport that encourages family involvement and community spirit.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Julie Saretsky, President, Alberta Mounted Shooters Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Julie Saretsky, and I am the current president of the Alberta Mounted Shooters Association.

I'm here to speak to you about amending Bill C-21 to include the sport of mounted shooting under the elite sports shooter classification or to receive an approved status, similar to the film and television industry, that would allow us to continue to grow and develop our athletes. The recent implementation of the rule that prohibits the sale, transfer or purchase of restricted handguns in Canada has a detrimental effect on the continuation and growth of our sport.

For those of you unfamiliar with the sport, mounted shooting combines target shooting and horsemanship. A team, consisting of a horse and rider, navigates a course of targets against the timer clock. The rider carries two 45-calibre single-action revolvers loaded with black powder blanks that have a maximum distance of 20 feet or six metres. Please note there are no projectiles or bullets, thereby making it a spectator-friendly sport. Our horses are highly trained athletes, and our riders exhibit exceptional riding and gun-handling skills.

Mounted shooting is a family-oriented, multi-generational sport consisting of athletes ranging in age from seven to 77. Many families travel and compete together throughout the year. One example of the family cohesiveness this sport provides is the Litvak family from Stettler, Alberta. The grandparents, Don and Cathy, compete along with their kids and grandchildren on a regular basis.

Children under 18 years of age are called “wranglers” and ride the same pattern as the grown-ups, but mimic the engagement of the targets as if they were shooting real blanks. To help children learn safe gun-handling and sharpshooting skills, along with respect for a firearm, our wranglers ground-shoot, from a stationary position, 10 targets under the direct supervision of a range master and another qualified adult.

Mounted shooting is an important sport that helps youth develop shooting skill sets and proficiencies that help them transition to Olympic and Paralympic shooting events, such as biathlon or target shooting. Additionally, the horsemanship skills gained by participating in mounted shooting help riders go on to participate in Olympic and Paralympic disciplines, such as reining, dressage, vaulting and jumping.

In the demographics of mounted shooters across the world, we'll find mounted shooters in Europe, South America, North America, Australia and New Zealand. In Canada, mounted shooters come from B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia.

The sport of mounted shooting is dominated by women, who make up 65% of active competitors. Additionally, 60% of all competitors, male and female, are 50-plus years of age. In terms of occupations, mounted shooters consist of doctors, RCMP officers, veterinarians, college professors, ranchers, farmers, Canadian Armed Forces personnel, business owners, nurses, corporate executives, city police officers, government employees, mothers, fathers and students, to name a few.

Mounted shooters tend to live in suburban and rural communities. Many mounted shooting events take place in more rural areas. These events are important and contribute to the local economies where these competitions are located. A few examples of competition locations in rural areas are Creston, B.C.; Stavely, Alberta; Carrot River, Saskatchewan; Miami, Manitoba; Blue Mountains, Ontario; and Little Bras d'Or, Nova Scotia.

On the other side of the fence, we compete in, or are invited to demonstrate, mounted shooting at events such as the Calgary Stampede; the Ponoka Stampede; the Agribition in Regina, Saskatchewan; and the Selkirk rodeo.

We help local youth groups raise money for their activities by offering them a paid role in running part of our shooting competitions.

Canada is well represented on the world stage. Since Canadians started competing in mounted shooting in 2004, we have produced many world champions and reserve world champions. Each year, an average of 15 to 20 Canadian competitors attend the world championships.

We are a very safety-conscious group. Before we can become mounted shooters, we must complete training, testing and background checks to obtain our restricted gun licences. At our competitions, safety meetings are conducted at the start of each competition day, and a range master is in the arena at all times to ensure that safe riding and shooting are exercised.

We are a passionate group of competitors who value our community, and we refer to our community as our shooting family.

[LCol (Ret'd) John Schneiderbanger]

I absolutely will, sir.

They pay the price for crime committed by others. The focus on legal handgun ownership as a way to reduce violent crimes with guns is misguided. Legally owned firearms are not the cause of increasing violent crime; gangs, drug dealers and smugglers use illegal guns and are the problem.

Finally, I am proud to represent Canada at the world level in IPSC. IPSC is an official member of the Global Association of International Sports Federations and the Alliance of Independent Recognised Members of Sports, AIMS. AIMS is recognized by the International Olympic Committee and has signed a memorandum of understanding with the IOC.

I ask that consideration be given to IPSC being added as a sport shooting discipline as part of the exemption to Bill C-21in proposed paragraph 97.1(b).

I welcome any questions that you may have. Thank you.

[Lieutenant-Colonel, Retired) John Schneiderbanger (As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear as a witness in regard to the review of Bill C-21.

I am Lieutenant-Colonel John Schneiderbanger. I'm a retired officer who served 30 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. Prior to retirement, I was the base commander of Canadian Forces Base Shilo.

I have been a firearms owner for 40 years and a competitive sport shooter for 30 years, having competed in various shooting disciplines with handgun, rifle and shotgun. I currently compete in 3-Gun and the International Practical Shooting Confederation, or IPSC.

I am an IPSC Canada national instructor and a chief range officer with the National Range Officers Institute. I have competed in two IPSC world championships and a European handgun championship. There are between 1,200 to 1,400 world-class competitors at an IPSC world championship, representing between 75 and 85 countries.

Where do I stand on Bill C-21? My greatest concern is the freeze or ban on the importation, sale and purchase or transfer of handguns in Canada. I disagree with this. It will not significantly reduce violent crime committed with illegal handguns. The Firearms Act is in place to regulate the private ownership of firearms by licensed owners and does not regulate criminals and illegal handguns.

There are aspects in the Firearms Act that need to be better enforced, which would make a difference in strengthening and achieving the objectives of the act. Examples are prohibition enforcement and licence revocation. More regulatory legislation is being added to the Firearms Act. These additions do not address the fact that over 90% of all violent crimes with firearms are committed with illegal guns smuggled from the United States into Canada.

There are over 2.5 million licensed firearms owners who want the same thing that Canadians who do not own firearms want: We all want our communities to be safe. I believe in a logical, common-sense gun control regime. I believe it's required. The regulations must be reasonable and meet the aims and objectives of what the Firearms Act is meant to accomplish. The average Canadian does not know how strict our firearms laws are. There is a lot of misinformation and incorrect information floating around. I believe that all levels of government have a responsibility to ensure that accurate information is passed on to Canadians without bias and that their decisions on laws, regulations and policies are based on hard facts, supportable statistics and credible research data—academic and technical—and not on emotion.

Many Canadians don't agree that a firearms ban on legally owned firearms and/or tighter gun control laws will reduce violent crimes with illegal guns. They believe that there is a great need to address the root causes that contribute to violent crime: poverty, homelessness, lack of job opportunities and lack of mental health supports. These root causes must be addressed if a significant impact on reducing violent crime is to be achieved.

We have heard many politicians say they are not targeting licensed firearm owners and that sport shooters can continue to enjoy their sport. It is a fallacy to believe that Bill C-21 and its freeze on handguns will not affect handgun sport shooters.

Many sport shooting disciplines will cease to exist, as no new members can join. Levels of competition will dwindle. Provincial and national championships will not be organized due to the ever-decreasing competitor base. Without higher-level competition, we won't be able to compete at the world level. As sport shooting ceases to exist, fewer people will be exposed to sport shooting and fewer people will be interested in becoming Olympic shooters. Sport shooting disciplines such as IPSC are feeder sports to the Olympics. You don't become an Olympic shooter just by asking the Canadian Olympic Committee.

Shooting ranges are supported by handgun owners and sport shooting disciplines through competitions. The reason for the existence of ranges is primarily due to handgun shooters, as these are the only locations where they can practice their sport. The membership in the sport will dwindle, so the membership in the ranges will dwindle. The ranges will lose major revenue and will eventually have to close. Many municipal, provincial and federal police services rent civilian ranges to conduct their basic and advanced firearms qualifications. It is far less expensive for law enforcement to rent civilian ranges than to maintain their own range facilities. This will be an increasing cost to police services for municipalities.

When a handgun owner dies, their legally acquired property must be handed over to law enforcement or to the government without any compensation being provided to the family. This is deferred confiscation. Many families will lose thousands to tens of thousands of dollars when these handguns are confiscated. This is unacceptable. Many families pay the price—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 41 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Today we have two panels. For the first hour, by video conference, we have, as an individual, retired Lieutenant-Colonel John Schneiderbanger. From the Alberta Mounted Shooters Association, we have Julie Saretsky, president; and we have, back again, with the Coalition for Gun Control, Dr. Wendy Cukier, president.

We will give each group up to five minutes for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with questions.

We'll start with Lieutenant-Colonel Schneiderbanger. You have five minutes, sir.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

That was part of my question. I didn't catch if there was a date, but you're saying there's no specific date. If it passes, it will be happening; we just haven't decided when.

My concern is that earlier this fall, we talked about reviewing what happened at the mass killing in Saskatchewan. That is still very present, and the investigation continues. I think the committee agreed that it was a pressing issue. There was a bit of disagreement on whether or not we would wait until the inquiry for that is over. I want to reiterate that it is the Conservative priority. I know there are a few other parties that are also interested in studying it as soon as we conclude Bill C-21, or as soon as possible, given that we would like to prevent that from happening before.... I think it is the duty to ensure that it is the priority.

I think this motion originated, in part, from a Conservative member who is no longer on this committee, Tako Van Popta. He's a very hard-working member. We are pleased with the motion overall.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm sorry. I have another amendment, Chair, and at the end of “the previously scheduled witnesses for C-21 be added to an additional meeting for the C-21 study”, it adds, comma, “including during the week of November 7th if necessary”.

It's so that if we need to meet during the break week to add the meeting for Bill C-21, we're going to commit to do it. It's “an additional meeting for the C-21 study, including during the week of November 7th if necessary”. If you can't get an extra meeting, Chair, we're going to have to come in during that constituency week.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

As my colleague just said, it's right in the motion. If we have to find extra time for Bill C-21 and we have to balance that, we will.

It's not my intention at all, Mr. Noormohamed.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I was going to say I have no intention whatsoever of delaying Bill C-21. I think we're a good enough working group here to get both done in the next two weeks.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Chair, I want to get clarification on something from Mr. Shipley.

I want to make sure that we're doing this and we're all committed to ensuring that we are not delaying Bill C-21 and that we're going to stick to the timelines to get Bill C-21 done as quickly as possible. Personally for me, that's an important commitment to hear, and I trust my friend Mr. Shipley completely when he says that. I want to make sure that is the sense of the room before I decide how I'm going to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

If we can arrange another meeting, I'm happy to do that, and that's within the scope of the amendment as we've already undertaken it. I'm quite happy to do that.

We're working with the House administration and what resources are available. As I mentioned, for two weeks we've been trying to get some more time for Bill C-21 on Thursdays, and we've been turned down. We only got this because the foreign affairs committee cancelled their meeting. Then they wanted it back, but we already had it so they couldn't get it back.

House resources are extraordinarily tight. I think Mr. Shipley is Irish. I think he's got a bit of the blarney there. He complimented the chair, and that's always good.

I'll will accept that the 4th is a different date and we can vote on that. I'm kind of reluctant...I think it already clicks with what we've agreed to, but if we want to vote on that, let's vote on that subamendment.

Are we clear on Mr. Shipley's subamendment? We are.

Mr. Noormohamed, go ahead.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm back in now because Mr. Ellis had to leave.

I think saying by the 4th is definitely a new amendment. It's a different date, a different day. I don't know how we can say it's not a new amendment. I have a lot of faith in our good chair and clerk here, and I think if you squeezed this one in here today—and kudos to you, because I think you're doing a great job—then we could probably get something squeezed in and not have to take away from the important work we're doing on Bill C-21, Ms. Damoff.

None of us is trying to do that whatsoever. That's not what's in my mind. What we're trying to do is get this dealt with as soon as possible, and I'm hopeful that we can do both in the next two weeks—keep working on our Bill C-21 and at the same time squeeze in another meeting, as we're talking about doing, to deal with this issue that's pressing and pertinent now.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I would ask whether the opposition parties would agree to having additional resources made available, particularly during the break week. We shouldn't call it break week because it's not a break; it's a constituency week. I don't know about other people, but I'm just as busy during those weeks as I am when I'm in Ottawa. It's just a different kind of busy.

I wonder if everyone would be in agreement with having additional resources made available during that constituency week so that if we're not dealing with the motion, if it passes, we would deal with Bill C-21 that week.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Chair, I've been sitting here listening quietly. I want to begin by saying to Mr. Ellis that I can't imagine what he and his fellow Nova Scotians have been going through over the course of the last little while.

All I want to say is that you have our sympathies and you have our support in making sure that those families get the justice they deserve.

I had the privilege, as a young bureaucrat, of working with Liberal and Conservative governments in dealing with victims of terrorism and victims of crime. One thing that was very important at that time was not to politicize tragedy.

I have to admit that I was almost there in terms of supporting this motion, because I do believe it's important to hear the truth.

I'm sorry Mr. Ellis has to leave, because I think this is an important point that I'd have liked for him to hear.

I think it lays bare the point I want to make, that when comments are made that the cameras aren't going to be on this, it tells you what the agenda is. That is of concern to me. If the agenda is the truth, and if the agenda is let's make sure we have the conversation, then it shouldn't matter whether it's a break week or not. It shouldn't matter whether or not the lights of the cameras are shining on it. If the media is concerned about this and it's a real story, the media will find its way to it.

Unfortunately, what we have here is people playing politics. If that is the case, I cannot see myself supporting this motion. Ultimately, I don't think it is in the interests of the country to waste time by bringing in the commissioner of the RCMP to rehash exactly what we already know. There is nothing new in that transcript. There is nothing new. For us to waste the time of Parliament in trying to create space for political opportunism is not okay. That's not what Canadians have asked us to do. What they have asked us to do is to get Bill C-21 done, to stop wasting time and to stop trying to throw roadblocks in terms of passing a piece of legislation that will prevent future tragedy.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Chair, I think every single member in the House of Commons—every single Canadian—was devastated by what happened in Nova Scotia and in the way it was done, and to imply that we weren't I actually find quite offensive. I think every single Canadian was absolutely shocked and heartbroken. The reason the inquiry was called was to get to the bottom of why things happened the way they did.

During that time we had Commissioner Lucki here. We had Minister Blair here. There's a partial recording of a phone conversation they had. It's not all there. One line has been quoted extensively, but there are a number of other quotes. Even the reference that Mr. MacGregor made about legislation coming wasn't secret. That was in our platform. That was discussed regularly. There was nothing confidential about the fact that legislation was coming forward.

Both Commissioner Lucki and Minister Blair have been very clear. Most recently Minister Blair said in the House that he did not direct the commissioner. To start implying that by not supporting this motion we're not supporting the people of Nova Scotia and the families and friends and loved ones of those who died.... That is just simply not true. We have heard from those during the inquiries. It's unfortunate to hear comments such as the media won't be here on the break week. Either we want to get to answers or we want to have a meeting so that the media is here. That also is disappointing.

I'm not going to support the motion. I think we've heard enough. I don't think anything has changed from when we had the commissioner and the minister here previously. I went through the transcript. Commissioner Lucki is the commissioner of the RCMP and she has every right to expect that the people who work for her should be respectful. Time and time again through this she was upset with timelines. She was upset with the way the media was being handled in many ways. She couldn't get a chronology for what had happened. She couldn't get a map for days. She had offered assistance to Nova Scotia and it didn't come forward. I don't think there's anything new from this transcript, so I won't be supporting bringing them back.

I do appreciate, however, the addition of an extra meeting, because Bill C-21 has to be a priority and it has to remain a priority for our committee.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

The intent here was to utilize a free time. That is why I would support the “before November 10” amendment. I think it's important, but I think both Bill C-21 and this investigation are important. It's worth the commitment of our time during the riding week.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thanks.

Rather than adjourning, I think we should just vote that down and then look at doing something on a break week.

Alistair, you said you had wording for that.

The amendment was to remove “Thursday, October 27” and replace it with “following consideration of Bill C-21”.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I think there's agreement to have an additional meeting during the break week.

We have a schedule for this week.

With all due respect to my Conservative colleagues and to Mr. Ellis for saying we have refused to deal with this, both Minister Blair and the commissioner have appeared at the committee on exactly this issue, and the commissioner of the RCMP issued a statement yesterday about the recording—which is only a partial recording, I would add—to say that nothing has changed in her statements. Therefore, to say that no one has been accountable....

They have both appeared before this committee in the past. They have been here. We did make time for them to come.

I read the transcript. I think quite frankly the commissioner is very frustrated with the local RCMP and the lack of communication from the local RCMP during this horrific massacre that occurred. She's frustrated by the way they were dealing with communications from Nova Scotia.

That's obvious, but on the date, Chair, I have suggested that it be following Bill C-21, so I guess maybe, if you want to, we should vote on that and if someone wants to put in an alternate date, then I would be open to that, Chair.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments from all parties.

About the additional meeting, I appreciate the mention from my colleague from the NDP. We did in good faith want to make efforts with this motion not to delay Bill C-21. We recognize that certainly parts of the bill in particular are a key priority for other parties and for us. That's why we added that in.

My understanding is that the Liberal whip's office was looking to have additional meetings for Bill C-21 anyway, so I believe they are very familiar with the committee's schedule. I'm surprised that now it seems we're not able to find time. I'm very confident that we can find time to have an additional meeting to fit in Bill C-21 on schedule should we need to.

In terms of the timing for the minister and the commissioner, I will say that we don't normally ask for ministers to resign or for the Commissioner of the RCMP to resign, but it's very clear, based on the audio recording and what was said in committee, that someone is not telling the truth, and that would be either the head of the RCMP or the former minister of public safety.

That is very significant. I would be pretty shocked if the minister was not willing to make time in his schedule to come and defend himself. It's the same for the RCMP. In fact, I would be very shocked and surprised. I think they owe it to Canadians to come and explain themselves. We have conflicting testimony from those involved. Again, these are powerful people who appear to have very much misled the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I would assume they would put everything aside to come and defend themselves as they have in their statements. They need to be held accountable by this committee on behalf of Canadians. I am very confident that they will make time in their schedules, as per the motion, unless there's a medical reason or they're out of the country. Even then, we have Zoom capabilities, and if they're out of the city they can still appear by Zoom. Barring some life-threatening situation, I would assume they would want to come and defend themselves and answer our questions, Mr. Chair.

It is our expectation, as the motion passes, that they will honour this motion and that they will come and explain themselves to this committee.

Last, I would say again that I am completely open to meeting during the break week. We are not looking to delay this bill. That is our intention, and I remain committed to that.

I very much appreciate working together with the opposition parties to hold this government accountable as is our duty to Canadians.

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

Mr. Chair, with respect to Bill C-21, I also have an interest in getting on with it. By my count we still have five meetings of witnesses remaining for Bill C-21. We've agreed to a total of eight meetings and we've done three meetings. If we were to continue with the current schedule, that would take us to the week following Remembrance Day, the constituency week we have.

I think the Conservatives acted in good faith with their original motion by adding that last line. I understand that it's not always easy to find an additional meeting, but we did manage to find an additional meeting today. In the interest of not delaying Bill C-21, I would be open to trying to find some time during the constituency week if that would help, but I think we should keep it open.

The only thing that concerns me is whether by naming October 27 specifically—I know that the minister and the commissioner, by virtue of their positions, are pretty busy people—we are shoehorning ourselves if they're not available. I am interested in seeing them come as soon as possible, but we do have to work with two very busy people's schedules.

With respect to the amendment, I'm not sure I'm totally in favour of it yet. I think we can find a way to accommodate both the bill and the timeliness of this particular issue that's before us.

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

I will add that, in this case, I find it quite difficult. I find it annoying that we have to put this off because I feel like it's going to take a long time to study Bill C‑21. We have a lot to look at together. I am sure we will have a lot of things to discuss when we get to clause-by-clause consideration.

This is fairly urgent, I agree. It's up in the air, we just got the transcripts of Ms. Lucki's meetings. It would be strange to come back to that in two or three months.

That said, it would be nice to have assurances from the Conservative Party members that only one meeting will be devoted to this subject and that they won't come back again with something new to try to delay consideration of Bill C‑21.

I know they are acting in good faith and they are not trying to delay Bill C‑21, but if they continue bringing urgent matters to us, we may have to delay consideration of this bill, which I see as a priority.

I'd be willing to have a meeting soon, but only one.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's an extremely important meeting that we need to have. I agree with my colleagues from the Conservative Party.

However, like my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I'm concerned that consideration of Bill C‑21 will be delayed.

Could you answer my question, Mr. Chair or Mr. Clerk: Is it possible to have a meeting outside of our regular committee hours to hold this meeting, much like we're doing today? The committee doesn't usually meet on Mondays.

Would it be possible to hold this meeting in a timely manner without using the meetings scheduled for Bill C‑21?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As a fellow Nova Scotian, I echo Mr. Ellis's comments.

I would point to the amendment to the main motion, which is delaying the examination of this new evidence that was released only last Friday but then given to the Mass Casualty Commission after the Mass Casualty Commission has finished its public hearing process, so I think it's incumbent upon this committee to delve into the details of the clear contradictions and lies in what has been said in committee, what has been said in the House, and what has been said by witnesses at the Mass Casualty Commission.

The Mass Casualty Commission is on an urgent agenda to finish their report, but they don't have the ability to re-examine these witnesses at this time because of the mandate and the way the mandate was structured by the federal government, so I would encourage all members to vote against the amendment and vote for the main motion so that we can get to this urgent study. What could be more urgent?

I understand that Bill C-21 is urgent to a number of people, but I think the mass murder of 22 Nova Scotians is of utmost importance for this committee and of paramount importance to be studied. The study of Bill C-21 can wait another meeting or two while we delve into these clear contradictions by the former minister and the commissioner.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I've read over the transcripts. I see absolutely nothing in here that changes what we already heard in two hours of testimony with Minister Blair and Commissioner Lucki.

I want to thank you, Chair, for finding the time for us to meet today so that we didn't have to lose a meeting on our study of Bill C-21. In theory, this motion that was brought forward could have had us lose two meetings on Bill C-21, which, quite frankly, on this side of the House, is a priority for us. Getting Bill C-21 passed and hearing from witnesses who are making the time to come and talk to us about Bill C-21 are a priority, so thank you for doing this, Chair.

I notice that the motion brought forward stipulates that an additional meeting be added, but given House resources, there's never any guarantee of additional meetings. I would think that a written explanation from the commissioner would suffice, but if not, I would like to amend the motion, Mr. Chair. I'll officially do this.

Where it says that “the committee meet for one meeting, on Thursday October 27th, I move that we amend it to say that “the committee meet following consideration of Bill C-21”.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we will continue to invest to stop illegal gun traffickers. That is why I was in Montreal this past summer to announce a $40-million transfer to put towards creating a prevention strategy to end gang violence on the street.

We will work with the Bloc Québécois to get Bill C-21 passed, because it is necessary.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we have a plan to address the problem at the border. Our Bill C‑21 increases penalties for criminals and gives law enforcement new tools. We will also work with the Province of Quebec by transferring federal funds.

Finally, we have a very good partnership with the United States to disrupt criminal networks and stop illegal gun traffickers.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of this government's work and the announcement last Friday that, for the first time, a national handgun freeze is being introduced. This is a very good thing and a significant step in the right direction.

I want to thank my colleague for her co‑operation on Bill C-21. As for borders, we will continue to invest in adding resources to stop illegal weapons trafficking.

Justice

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we have been serious about protecting Canadians since we got elected. Our number one priority is to keep Canadians safe, and that is why we have introduced common sense firearms legislation, such Bill C-71 and and Bill C-21, which is at committee right now. These would keep Canadians safe. These measures are supported by Canadians, and we hope that the hon. members across the way will support us in this legislation.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Super.

Look, I've been trying to get data on things around Bill C-21 and firearms legislation over the last three years, with not very much luck. You've both given some statistics or some data. Inspector, you named a number of firearms crimes just recently. How many were done with a legal handgun?

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

I appreciate that. Thank you.

I only have just under three minutes left.

Maybe I will address my questions to our police witnesses. I'll start with you, Chief McFee.

We've heard a lot of feedback from the airsoft community with respect to Bill C-21. They are desperately trying to find a way to not only acknowledge the concerns that law enforcement has but also trying to keep alive a sport that they're very passionate about and that many members enjoy playing. They've come up with suggestions such as requiring a minimum age of 18 to purchase airsoft, opaque carrying cases and maybe a type of licensing system.

Do you have any feedback on what the airsoft community is suggesting to our committee as a way forward that offers a compromise?

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Friedman, I'd also like to continue on the red flag law, because this aspect has received a lot of mixed feedback from many different sectors.

On May 16, which I grant was before Bill C-21 was introduced, there was a letter to the minister from several organizations, including the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Women's Shelters Canada, the Ending Violence Association of Canada, White Ribbon and the Canadian Labour Congress. It's quite a broad cross-section of Canadian society.

I'll quote from the letter: “Shifting the onus of enforcement to women and third parties, as Bill C-21's “Red Flag” provisions attempt to do, is a guaranteed route to increased fatality.” Could you give your comment on that aspect?

I know Bill C-21 is also trying to protect the identity of the complainant. If we don't need to add that to the Criminal Code, can you explain how the police would protect the confidentiality of someone who might be in danger?

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

Thank you.

Apparently, I have just 30 seconds left.

In your opening remarks, you said the government relied on skewed data to introduce Bill C‑21.

Can you be more specific? Which data are you referring to?

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

I was saying that your position was quite clear in your opening remarks. I was reading a Global News article from last June in which you said you were opposed to the red flag system proposed by the Liberal government. You said the following:

...a proposed “red flag” law from the Liberals could be taken advantage of by bad actors and lead to “swatting,” where law enforcement is called on an individual for illegitimate reasons.

What I find interesting in your position is that the firearms lobby often says that the Liberals and people who want firearms legislation don't know anything about guns, because there is already a red flag system. Just about anyone can report an individual under the Canadian firearms program.

So I am trying to understand your position. What specifically are you afraid of in Bill C‑21 regarding red flags?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Do you agree with Chief McFee's assessment on the red flag provisions in Bill C-21, yes or no?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

Bill C-21 also makes it an offence to alter a magazine to exceed the legal limit of bullets. We all know that it is currently illegal to own a magazine with a capacity that exceeds the number of legal bullets. Can you, as a lawyer, explain the ridiculousness of this proposal?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Will the prohibition of handgun transfers under Bill C-21 do anything to prevent the purchase, possession and use of handguns for illegal purposes?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Friedman, a key justification for Bill C-21 is to prevent the practice of so-called straw purchasing. Is straw purchasing a widespread practice in this country?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Oh, man. Okay, thank you.

I know that police have an important role to play in combatting domestic violence. Bill C-21 proposes a so-called “red flag” law that would allow people to apply to the courts for an emergency weapons prohibition order.

The police would be enforcing this order. Is that correct?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Chief McFee.

Something that you said really stuck out for me. To reiterate what you said, is it your opinion that some provisions in Bill C-21 could have a negative impact on public safety?

[Inspector Michael Rowe, Staff Sergeant, Vancouver Police Department]

Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for your time and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this committee.

I've been a police officer with the Vancouver Police Department for over 20 years now and I've spent much of my career investigating violent crimes, gang violence, organized crime and firearms offences.

I have developed extensive experience conducting investigations and taking enforcement action against those people who use firearms to commit violence. I have seen first-hand the impact of firearms-related violence on communities across Canada and have watched the proliferation of unlawfully possessed firearms, replica firearms and prohibited devices such as high-capacity magazines and suppressors.

To date in 2022, there have been 16 shootings within the city of Vancouver. Eight of those have resulted in injuries or death, and 11 of those were identified as having a significant potential for the injury of innocent bystanders. Sixty-two per cent of those shootings also had a nexus to gangs.

During the same period, there have been 127 shootings across the Lower Mainland region of British Columbia, 74 of which have been identified as having a nexus to gangs.

As we are all aware, firearm violence is not limited to the city of Vancouver. Police officers across Canada are seeing the very real impact that the unlawful possession of firearms and the use of firearms and imitation firearms to commit crimes have on public safety in communities across Canada.

In recent years, I have witnessed the increasing proliferation of firearms. Lower costs and the increased availability of firearms have resulted in people involved in lower-level crime now having access to firearms when they would not have had access in the past.

An example of this is a street-level drug trafficker recently found in possession of a heavily modified ghost gun, a privately made firearm capable of fully automatic firing and equipped with a suppressor and a high-capacity magazine, something that we would not have seen at the start of my career.

Based on my experience, I believe that the amendments that are in Bill C‑21 reflect the need for a national approach to reducing firearm-related violence and will give police valuable tools to address firearms crime across Canada.

I've testified here before about how easy it is to simply remove a rivet from a magazine to increase its capacity and the dangers that high-capacity magazines create for communities, the police and offenders themselves.

The new offence for altering a magazine will provide police officers with much-needed opportunities for enforcement and investigation, and the benefit of creating new offences such as this is that police officers gain the ability to charge offenders and apply for judicial authorizations targeting specific offences.

Modernizing the legal definition of a replica firearm and placing controls on the importation, exportation and sale of realistic-looking replicas will help police address the very real use of replica firearms in criminal offences.

Additionally, this amendment will help the police address the growing trend of altering realistic airsoft guns to fire live ammunition.

Red flag laws will also allow citizens to access a judicially authorized process to restrict a person's access to firearms and provide police with the authority to search for and seize firearms, which will protect victims of domestic violence and those at risk of self-harm.

An ongoing trend that I have identified and testified here about previously is the emergence of privately made firearms, commonly known as ghost guns. We are seeing more and more ghost guns in the Lower Mainland gang conflict on the west coast of Canada, specifically in the hands of people believed to be involved in active murder conspiracies and also those we believe are working as contracted hired killers. Ghost guns can be 3-D printed or created from modified replica firearms. Modern 3-D printing materials produce a durable firearm capable of shooting hundreds of rounds without failure.

One of my investigations in Vancouver located a sophisticated firearm manufacturing operation capable of producing 3-D-printed firearms, suppressors and airsoft conversions. In addition to what is already included in Bill C‑21, I would ask this committee to consider regulating the possession, sale and importation of firearms parts used to manufacture ghost guns, such as barrels, slides and trigger assemblies. These parts are currently lawful to purchase and possess without a licence, and they can be purchased online or imported from the United States. The emergence of privately made firearms has reduced the significance of the currently regulated receiver and increased the importance of currently unregulated gun parts that are needed to finish a 3-D-printed receiver and turn it into a functioning firearm.

I would also support increased funding for specialized firearms enforcement teams to proactively target those offenders who import, manufacture and traffic unlawfully possessed firearms.

Finally, I would like to thank the committee for their ongoing work addressing the real threats that unlawfully possessed firearms create for our communities across Canada, and I ask that you continue to advocate meaningful legal consequences for those people who make the decision to unlawfully pick up a firearm.

Thank you.

[Chief Dale McFee, Chief of Police, Edmonton Police Service]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the parliamentary committee for allowing us to speak today about the significant safety concern relating to firearms.

I'd also like to acknowledge really quickly those families who have lost a loved one due to violence, particularly violence with firearms.

I've been in police leadership for approximately 20 years, serving both as a police chief in two services—currently, Edmonton, as mentioned—and as a former deputy minister of public safety.

As a police service in Edmonton, we see that most of our gun crime happens with handguns. We support any legislative tools and powers that might help enforce and prevent gun crime in Edmonton. Bill C-21 acknowledges that while law enforcement plays a crucial part, we must build society-wide capacity to find a balance between education, suppression, intervention and prevention.

To give you a bit of local context, over the last two years in Edmonton, as in many other jurisdictions, we have seen an increase in illegal ownership and the violent use of firearms. So far in 2022, we've taken 528 firearms off the street. This year to date, our officers have responded to 127 shootings, of which 50% resulted in injury and 85% were considered targeted. In the same time frame in 2021, there were 125 shootings, of which 57% resulted in injury. These had the potential for bystanders to be injured.

Most of the violence remains targeted, though that provides little comfort to the communities that are often left reeling in the aftermath of gun violence happening in their backyards. We continue to work diligently to mitigate these crimes, but the gangs and organized crime groups driving gun violence are growing more brazen and show disregard for the law, including the legislation we're discussing here today.

I want to break this into two parts. There are things that we support and there are some things that we have some serious concerns with. I'll try to run through these very quickly.

I'm encouraged by parts of Bill C-21 that strengthen our existing approach to firearms and that propose the implementation of new offences. Intensified border controls and stronger penalties combat trafficking and smuggling. All are beneficial and deter the criminal element. Provisions prohibiting the import and export sale of replica firearms are also greatly appreciated. The use of replica firearms to commit crime is something that we see quite often in Edmonton.

While these are good first steps, we must have balanced and impactful legislation. I want to say that I have concerns, and EPS has concerns, about the logistics, resources and long-term impacts of other portions of this proposed handgun freeze.

A handgun freeze will reduce the number of handguns in circulation in the long run. That is the belief. In the short term, we can expect that those wanting to acquire guns will find alternatives, increasing incidences of smuggling, 3-D printing and the conversion of airsoft guns. This may also increase the commodity value and motivate individuals, including lawful firearms owners, to sell their handguns through illegal channels, knowing that restrictions drive up monetary value.

Additionally, we share a border with one of the largest sources of handguns. A freeze would limit our ability to trace transactions originating within the U.S., and we'll be unable to locate a point of sale. We are told that the ban of handgun transfers resulted in an increase in handgun sales, with approximately 20,000 handguns purchased since the ban and 12,000 transfer applications still waiting to be processed.

The “red flag” law is well-intended. However, many of the proposed powers already exist under section 117 of the Criminal Code. As it stands, a law would pose a significant draw on police resources should numerous applications be granted at a time when many Canadian police services are stretched thin. This could further increase service demands.

On expanded licence revocation, with lawful firearms owners no longer able to purchase handguns, they may not be motivated to renew their licence. This may lead to an increased number of expired licences and individuals who are no longer authorized to possess handguns. There is already a backlog in enforcement in Alberta. There are already 3,700 revoked or expired PALs—possession and acquisition licences—that aren't being enforced, with some dating back 20 years.

The RCMP does not have the resources to enforce these expirations. Getting a permit for a firearm is a lengthy process. It impacts the freeze and expands licence revocation, meaning that police may lose vital information for proactive service.

On the buyback program, the police service is still waiting for more information on its implementation. Like other services, I share concerns that it will impact police resources, and I'm not sure what the benefit might be.

Not long ago, we had a large shooting event. I want to share a success story of how this works. There were multiple shooters and a large crowd, and an individual outside. Some of those people were deceased. Some were injured. Through the work that we did in relation to that, finding the firearms and tracing the ammunition, we were able to trace this to a gun that had come up through the U.S. There were multiple shootings in another Canadian jurisdiction. As a result, we, in a very short period of time, had four people in custody, preventing further offences.

If we don't start investing in the Canadian system.... The ATF is a better partner in the Canadian system, particularly the forensic laboratory service, and without it, it would have taken us up to a year to actually solve this case. Steps to strengthen our current approach and investigative tools will bring us long-term change and meaningful....

I heard it earlier today: Focus on the people pulling the triggers and the motivation. Three of our 25 homicides this year to date have been through the use of handguns. The reality is if we have someone who's motivated to do this, I'm not sure when you look at the criminal element that the handgun freeze is going to solve that, but it is going to put more strain on resources.

[Solomon Friedman, Criminal Defence Lawyer, As an Individual]

Good afternoon Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and members.

Thank you for inviting me to address you today. It's always a pleasure to appear before this committee. It's particularly a pleasure to be in person this time.

In fact, since 2011 I have testified over a dozen times before this committee and others on proposed firearms legislation and regulation. In that same time, reflective of Parliament's consistently inconsistent push-and-pull approach to firearms legislation, the Annotated Firearms Act & Related Legislation—the firearms law reference text that I co-authored—has appeared in no less than four editions.

Instead of applying an evidence-based, principled focus to law-making, governments have taken a piecemeal and haphazard approach, which has favoured symbolism over substance and rhetoric over rational decision-making. While this might be good news for legal authors, publishers and booksellers, it is decidedly bad news for law-abiding gun owners and Canadians generally. Bill C-21 is the latest extension of this trend.

Given the time constraints that have been placed upon this committee's work, I will focus my attention on Bill C-21's proposed prohibition on the transfer of restricted firearms—that is, handguns—to licensed private individuals. More accurately, it's the deferred confiscation of a million lawfully owned restricted firearms, which were purchased legally, used and stored safely, and have never posed a risk to public safety.

In my view, there are three fundamental problems with this provision. First, support for this measure comes from fundamentally bad data. Instead of addressing the core causes of handgun offences—namely the factors that drive individuals into gang activity, such as poverty, addiction and marginalization—or even focusing on the true source of the vast majority of handguns used in criminal offences—handguns smuggled into Canada from the United States—this bill targets the law-abiding, without making even the smallest dent in handgun crime.

In February, I appeared before this committee to give testimony for your study on gun control, illegal arms trafficking and street gangs. As I said then, good decision-making requires good data. I cited an example of bad data, which has been used to justify bad policy. That is the oft-heard assertion that 70% of traceable crime guns have a domestic origin. This statistic is a good example of a number that is true, false and misleading all at the same time. To start, this statistic counts only those firearms that are traceable. It is therefore, by definition, a number that will skew towards domestic firearms, as those are much easier to trace. It doesn't count firearms with obliterated serial numbers or foreign firearms that cannot be traced.

Next, the definition of a “crime gun” further self-selects and obscures our focus. Crime guns generally refer to firearms—including, by the way, pellet guns and replica firearms—seized by police in the course of their duties. This includes both offence-related and public safety-related seizures. That definition does not differentiate between a handgun used in a gang shooting and a hundred non-restricted, safely stored firearms seized from an elderly gun collector who was the subject of a police wellness check because his daughter had not heard from him in days.

You can see now why that 70% number may be true on its face but is really irrelevant to assessing what measures are necessary to address violent gun offences. In fact, in your report, this committee agreed with the accuracy of my critique.

Skewed and manipulated data can never be the basis for evidence-based policy. Canadians are entitled to legislation drafted on the basis of empirical data, not misinformation.

The second fundamental problem with the legislation is that it is a distraction and a gross misdirection of policing and other justice-sector resources. These resources are in short supply and are desperately needed to address the core causes of crime. While criminal legislation looks free on its face—it does not require an upfront expenditure—criminal defence lawyers know all too well the costs of increased criminalization and the ever-expanding Criminal Code. We as a group are not surprised as the justice system sags under the weight of well-intentioned amendments and justice is delayed and denied and charges are ultimately stayed by the courts.

Finally, this legislation suffers from the fundamental flaw that is endemic to much of this government's criminal law reform. It is a solution in search of a problem, like the hasty elimination of centuries-old procedural protections like peremptory challenges for juries, the preliminary inquiry, or case-specific responses to unpopular acquittals, which limit the rights of the accused to provide admissible evidence. These justice amendments bear the hallmarks of a government that legislates based on tweets and sound bites without taking into account the real consequences—unintended or otherwise—of their criminal law policy.

This is certainly true of the deferred confiscation provisions of Bill C-21. Legally obtained handguns in the possession of law-abiding citizens are not and have never been a public safety problem. In 2019, Vancouver police chief Adam Palmer, head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, explicitly rejected the public safety benefits of any such handgun ban, calling it “naive to the realities of...organized crime and smuggling”.

When defence counsel agrees with the policy position advanced by Canada's police chiefs, it is one more indication that these provisions are not based in evidence or data but are political in nature. Once again, it has been the case for each subsequent amendment to our firearms law.

Law-abiding Canadians, citizens who have complied with the law time and again, will pay the price. Worse yet, public confidence in our legislators inevitably erodes even further—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wilson, I would like to continue with you. You've heard clearly that there is a very real concern in there about the domestic diversion of legal handguns. I think the intention overall in Bill C-21 is to try to limit the number of legal handguns in circulation. You've concentrated very much on trying to make sure that it's not just the supply but also the demand. You want to go after the demand, but if there is a great big supply out there, there is always a chance that some can be stolen and used in a crime.

Do you have any opinion on the sport shooting discipline aspect of it? I'm trying to find a way whereby people in my neck of the woods who love the sport, who love sport shooting, can in some way continue to do what they can, but also take into account the very real concerns that have been listed by the Danforth families. Do you have any opinion on how we may be able to strike a middle ground on this very delicate question that's before our committee?

[Marcell Wilson]

I'll address the first portion of the question—our stance on Bill C-21 and whether it does or doesn't go far enough. I'll use the state of New York as an example. On May 24, 10 Black people, people of my culture, were murdered by a white supremacist. That state has one of the most rigorous gun laws in the U.S., red-flag laws included. This was not prevented by either these gun laws or by the red flag.

I'll emphasize again and say that I believe that if there had been prevention and an intervention for this young unhealthy man who committed this egregious act by somebody like Mr. Bradley Galloway.... He is a former neo-Nazi here in Canada. He does some fantastic work on keeping Canadians safe and preventing violence and pulling guys out of that world. If someone like him had gotten to that shooter, I believe that would have been the right measure to take.

To address the funding aspect, to us the issue of death and murder in Canada is not partisan. It's not a political issue, really; it's a Canadian issue and something that we all should care about. When there are people out there who can agree with our struggle or see the work we're doing and appreciate it, we greatly and strongly appreciate that in return. Regardless of what organization has even written us a cheque, we greatly appreciate that they see the work we're doing and are there to support it, regardless of what their political stances are and who they are.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your personal testimony, Mr. Wilson.

You spoke about the problem of illegal weapons. I think we are all aware of the issue of the trafficking and importation of illegal weapons. I would like to understand your personal position on Bill C‑21. Do you think it goes far enough or too far?

I believe your organization was funded by a well-known firearms lobby. That organization defends very specific positions, stating for example that it is always honest owners of legal firearms who are affected by this kind of legislation.

Yet the witnesses who appeared today have given evidence to the contrary. There are owners of legal weapons who have committed horrific crimes.

Do you agree with the positions of that organization that you are linked with financially, or do you agree that we need legislation on legal weapons?

[Ken Price]

Thank you, and thank you again for the other questions from the committee as we're working through this.

I want to say as well that the father of one of the victims affected is a retired police officer. We have that influence in terms of our thinking.

I would say again that it's not going to be about one thing.

Here's the thing: We want to be a country that is very heavily armed relative to other countries in the world. That is the fact. We have a lot of guns out there. Maybe there are a lot of good reasons for that and maybe there are a lot of reasons related to recreation. Now it's going to come time to pay the bill, so we're going to have to step up and do those things. We're going to have to fund the programs that require prevention. We're going to have to fund those programs that talk about more intense consequences for stepping outside of that. We're going to have to fund the program that says we should take those very much most dangerous guns out of here. They never should have been here in the first place. There should have been more oversight all the way along through successive governments of various stripes.

Now it comes time to pay that bill, because the gun violence is continuing to grow. We're letting more and more guns in, and if we don't do anything.... It is naive to sit here and say that supply does not have some kind of impact. It's a supply-and-demand marketplace, just like anything else. A more ready supply has got to be part of the issue.

It's all of those things, sir. It's not just one. We never said it's just about banning handguns; it's about a number of things. That's what we hope the committee will conclude, and we hope they will step up, make the recommendations and push this government to put in place the regulations and resources that will make Bill C-21 effective for all of our neighbourhoods.

Thank you.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today and taking time out of your busy schedules to help us in getting this work done.

Personally, in regard to the Danforth shooting, I have a connection to that because Julianna Kozis and my niece were on the same swim team. I met you, Mr. Price, back on July 5 at the centre when we made the announcement.

As a retired police officer, I have come across a lot of gun violence and a lot of domestic situations. I understand what a gun can do to somebody. It's not the gun itself, but it's the person who pulls the trigger and who causes the gun to go off.

Mr. Price, on our government's announcement on Bill C-21, you stated that most Canadians want more gun control measures, more community resources devoted to addressing the root causes of gun violence and more action to control guns at the border. You then said the reason you support the announcement of Bill C-21 is that it is a combination of all those things.

Could you elaborate on your position and why you believe we are taking the right steps to make our communities safer?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like, first of all, to thank all of our witnesses for coming before our committee and sharing their stories.

I will start off with a comment. I think it's quite remarkable that we have two groups of witnesses here who have both been touched by gun violence and exposure to firearms in their own ways in the same city, and are coming forward before our committee with different approaches. I think now we're getting a sense of the challenge that's before us as policy-makers as we deal with this delicate issue.

Thank you for having the courage to come before us to share your stories. I know it's not easy. Many times, you can be reliving the trauma of that lived experience when you're recounting it to us. I want you to know that we as a committee appreciate that and we are certainly taking all of your testimony into account.

Mr. Wilson, I would like to start with you. I agree with you that there's no one silver bullet to address the very complex problem of gun violence. It takes different forms in different parts of the country.

I think there is room for some legislative aspects in approaching this problem. Bill C-21 is not just about a handgun freeze. There are provisions in the bill that address tougher penalties for a variety of firearms offences. There's a considerable section of the bill that deals with emergency prohibition orders under the yellow flag and the red flag.

You must, across your lived experiences, have come across situations of domestic violence in a home where a firearm was present. Do you have any comments on the part of Bill C-21 that provides more legislative authority for someone to approach a judge, remain anonymous and get an emergency prohibition order to remove firearms from the home? Do you think that this legislative part of Bill C-21 has value? Do you have any comments to help inform our committee as we're studying those particular clauses?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many thanks to the witnesses for being here.

On behalf of my party, I, too, would like to express sincere condolences to all those of you who have been affected, directly or indirectly, by gun crimes. Your expertise and experience are very important, and I thank you.

Mr. Benabdallah, thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today. I was afraid that you would not be able to connect, because I have some questions for you.

You talked about the announcement on May 30 of this year. You stood behind the government when it announced the introduction of Bill C‑21. I know that certain other groups also backed the government at that time, because Minister Mendicino had promised them that he would amend the bill in order to ban assault weapons as well. That is not in the first draft of the bill, the one we have to consider. That was one of the conditions that certain groups gave the government for supporting this bill.

Are you one of those groups? Did the government promise you that it would introduce that amendment during consideration of the bill? Are you confident that it will keep its promise? On a number of occasions, it seemed to be in good faith and willing to ban assault weapons once and for all, and amend the Criminal Code to remove existing loopholes. But that has not always been the case. The same applies to the buyback program for assault weapons.

Do you think the Liberals will make this amendment soon?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

In the Danforth Families for Safe Communities statement on the fourth anniversary of the Danforth shooting, it states, “From the facts of our case, we advocate for actions that can be taken by all levels of government to reduce the risk of death [by] guns.”

Can you expand on this? Do you have a specific recommendation that would help this committee provide effectiveness or improve the effectiveness of Bill C-21?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you.

Bill C-21 does many things. One thing is to focus on freezing any new, legal, lawful ownership of handguns. Currently, we have trained, tested and vetted people who go through a very rigorous process and can get a restricted licence and purchase a handgun. It's focusing on those individuals.

Do you think focusing on those individuals will have any impact on what you're seeing in Toronto with the gang elements and guns? Do you see this bill meeting that need at all?

[Boufeldja Benabdallah]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for your forbearance with this delay. I was not able to connect properly. Of course, we are still dinosaurs when it comes to new technologies.

That said, for more than five years, I have been involved with the Quebec mosque, which has suffered horribly because of handguns.

I would like to speak to you straight from my heart, and share my recommendations with you, hoping that this is in line with the fight against firearms so that we can find peace for ourselves, our families, children, schools and universities, and so that Canada remains a non-violent country, where people can live in freedom and safety.

To begin, I must tell you that the gun attack on the Quebec mosque was a turning point in our existence on Canadian soil. The killer, who exercised his legal right to purchase two kinds of firearms, namely, hand guns and assault weapons, did not hesitate to enter a place of worship and coldly murder six fathers, seriously injure five other people—one of whom is now a paraplegic and still has a bullet in his neck that the health authorities were unable to remove—and traumatize dozens of people.

In fact, the entire population of Quebec and Canada was hurt by this thoughtless act, which was emboldened by the sense of power that comes from having a firearm. A person with a firearm feels invincible. That feeling can lead the person to commit thoughtless acts and to kill people. This was not the only attack. We all know there have been others, including at the Polytechnique. Those 14 girls could have been builders of our society now. The attack at Dawson College was the same type of thing. There was the attack in Portapique, and others. Unfortunately, it is a long list. Should we be pessimistic? Yes, but be we must also remain open to the possibility of implementing regulations and raising awareness in order to combat this scourge called the “possession of firearms”.

We, the mosques, were extremely glad and grateful to have had the opportunity to see the introduction of this bill on May 30 of this year, an historic day. We are honoured to have played a role in this significant and historic victory for public safety in our great country of Canada. For five long years, we have advocated for a ban on handguns, because in less that two minutes, these weapons brought tragedy to our mosque: six fathers killed, 17 orphans, five injured people and the people of Quebec and Canada shaken by something they said could not happen in Canada. And yet, it did happen here because of firearms.

Minister Mendicino, whom we commend for his sincerity and dedication, gave Canadians what they wanted, a firearms ban and the phasing out of existing weapons. I am not telling you anything new, but we must commend him. We celebrated by calling on Canadians to convey their support to their municipal, provincial and federal elected officials who are committed to this fight.

We know that the firearms lobby will fight this bill tooth and nail. The imminent passage of Bill C‑21 will put an end to this lobby group's efforts and contribute to peace on our streets and in our schools.

We presented our 10-point proposal in various fora and on various media. We also presented our proposals to elected officials who have visited the Quebec mosque on many occasions, including the right honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, honourable ministers Marco Mendicino, David Lametti, Ahmed Hussen, Omar Alghabra, Pablo Rodriguez and Jean‑Yves Duclos, along with MPs who are close to us and who have worked hard on this issue, including Rachel Bendayan and Joël Lightbound. Today, we would like to remind you of what we said to them; we are reiterating it and will reiterate it again: please listen to us and try to convince the other parties to work together to resolve this matter.

Here are the 10 points we wish to propose, we the mosques of Quebec who are part of this fight against firearms.

First, amend the bill as the minister promised to establish a broad and permanent definition of prohibited weapons, including all military-type semi-automatic weapons, which are not reasonable for use in hunting. We do not need weapons of war. I was born during the Algerian revolution and I saw the weapons of war that traumatized our parents, and I am still traumatized. We do not need weapons of war on Canadian soil.

Secondly, there must be a complete ban on the flow, sale...

[Marcell Wilson, Founder, One By One Movement Inc.]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and Mr. Chair.

Once again I'm honoured to be here. More so, I'm honoured to speak on behalf of the people and the communities that the One By One Movement serves, ensuring that their voices are amplified.

I've had the privilege to speak as a subject matter expert on gang culture theory and violence prevention at a number of round tables and events on the impacts of violence, gun violence in particular.

Today I'm going to speak to you less formally than I normally would. Today I'm going to speak to you from the heart, simply as a human being, as a person with lived experience and as a proud Canadian.

Participating in these round tables, I consistently hear statistics and reports about people who live with and face a great deal of violence daily, yet in these settings I rarely hear from people who are experiencing first-hand the majority of gun violence. I feel this is one of the reasons that we are not seeing the progress we should in combatting this issue.

I see and hear people making a living and a name for themselves speaking on behalf of people and communities they don't really know or understand, for personal gain or political leverage. Some may think that's what I'm doing now, but there's a big difference between them and me. We're not the same.

As many of you know, I am a former gang member and organized crime figure in Canada and abroad, but before I was ever involved in a life of crime, I was a victim and a survivor of gun violence on a number of occasions.

I'd like to start by sharing with you a short story of the first encounter I had involving a firearm. I was about 11 years old, playing outside with a group of friends in the southwest end of Toronto, in a public housing complex called Swansea Mews. There was a group of older guys from my neighbourhood who were involved in bad things. Some of them relentlessly bullied us kids and terrorized the community. Though we were children, we had to learn to navigate and cope the best we could with this.

On this day, a known gunman who hung out in our area decided he was going to fire shots at us kids above our heads just to see us run. I remember hearing the zing of bullets passing us. This was entertaining to him, because when I looked back as I was running for my life, I remembered seeing him laugh. I'll never forget this day.

Now, as an adult, I can look back and isolate and identify. This is one of the many root-cause risk factors that helped to lead me down a path of self-destruction. I tell you this story because when I think about this incident and this individual at the time, if Bill C-21 had existed, or a bill like it, would it have prevented this traumatizing experience from happening to me? I strongly say that it would not. It would not have changed anything, because I'm confident he did not use a legal firearm to shoot at us that day. This man was not a citizen of Canada. He was a hardened criminal, and most definitely could not have acquired a licence to legally own a gun here.

Also, I'd like to tell you about a best friend of mine, who was a highly respected gangster at one point in his life. His name was Deurgueune Cisse. After a life of crime and the many traumas he was left with due to the terrible things and the violent acts he committed and to the violence he himself endured, he sadly took his own life.

I remember speaking to him the day leading up to it. He was extremely down and didn't believe that he could, or was good enough to, get back up again. He had made his decision and he was motivated. I wish he had been able to get the help he needed before it got as bad as it did. He did not use a firearm to take his life.

The reason I told these stories is to really drive home the point that we are wasting precious time focusing on the wrong things. Through decades of data collection, we have all learned what most of the root-cause risk factors are that lead society on a path of extreme violence. Let us focus on the cheaper, most logical solution, and that is prevention. Let us get these illegal guns off our streets and treat our less fortunate better. Let us focus more on the demand and less on the supply.

I am tired, and we are tired.

Thank you for listening.

[Ken Price, Member, Danforth Families for Safe Communities]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am Ken Price. Let me introduce Claire Smith and Ali Demircan. We represent Danforth Families for Safe Communities. We're based in Toronto.

We experienced terror and tragedy from gun violence on a horrific night on July 22, 2018. It was a handgun that came to a retailer in one part of the country and was stolen and then used in Toronto to kill a girl and a teenager and injure 13 others that night. One of those injured was Ali, and another was my and Claire's daughter, Samantha. It is through the lens of that experience, therefore, and through our own subsequent findings as a grassroots group that emerged from that night that we have joined others in calling for a need for action to reduce the growing gun violence problem.

We're not here to be critical of all gun owners or of all gun ownership. Our group is made up of citizens with various levels of experience in the use of firearms, but since we were brought into this issue due to the tragedy, we are troubled that gun violence and homicide by gun have continued to grow.

We also agree that no one measure will be sufficient to combat this issue. We support Bill C-21 because it is a wide-reaching bill that has many aspects. It's not just about a freeze on handguns or a buyback of assault rifles—it has a number of items that we support—but other groups are going to talk about other measures and have given testimony in that regard.

We are going to focus on what has been called the “freeze” on handguns and the efforts to reduce the widely held private supply of handguns, which we believe is contributing to crime in this country.

It gives us no pleasure to make that statement. It gives us no pleasure to stand here and say that the domestic source of legally imported and licensed guns contributes to a significant portion of guns used in homicides and violence. As evidence, of course, we have our own experience of this being true. Through a survey of accredited news sources, we've compiled a list of incidents in which handguns were stolen or diverted, where straw purchases occurred or where licensed gun owners themselves were the ones carrying out the violence.

We combined this anecdotal and incidental information with our reading of Statistics Canada data. According to Statistics Canada reporting, for those guns that were successfully traced and used in a homicide, the number of guns traced to Canada was two and a half times greater than the number of guns traced to the United States. We realize that this number is likely to be challenged and is different from what other people are presenting in social media.

StatsCan also reports that the gun format that's primarily used in crime is the handgun, so it's not about all guns. We're not taking issue with the vast majority of gun owners who own rifles and shotguns. We are taking issue with the fact that handguns themselves are the problem.

Of course, we also conclude that there is an issue with guns coming across the border. We absolutely acknowledge that. We know that. We've talked to lots of groups that would acknowledge that as well, but we're here to say that there's not one problem to solve where supply is concerned. There are two problems to solve, and therefore the freeze is necessary, unfortunately.

In that regard, we have three comments we'd like to make about what has been proposed. All of these lead to some clarification and perhaps tightening of some of the exemptions, which I think are well-meaning but could lead to an undermining of the goal of freezing and reducing the number of handguns in the country.

First is the exemption for elite sports shooters. We think the wording needs to be clarified and tightened so that it is more clear that it's really the pistols being used in those competitions and not a general licence for handgun ownership.

We also ask that the program being supported is that which exists today. Related to this point, we're already seeing that other sport shooting organizations are coming forward and asking, “What about us?” IPSC is an example of that. Our concern is that those other organizations have very broad definitions with respect to how many and what kinds of handguns they can use. They have an open category, so virtually any handgun could qualify. We're concerned that it would undermine the objective of the bill, which is to freeze and reduce the handgun supply in Canada.

Second, we'd like to see a loophole closed that existed in our case. The person who had stolen a gun was able to buy magazines without having to present that they had an RPAL or a PAL and an ability to buy that. We would like to see that wherever a licence is required to buy a gun or ammunition, the magazine is included in that.

Third, suggestions have been made that perhaps the gun ranges themselves could get the business exemption. We understand that idea, although we're very concerned. We have seen evidence that gun ranges can be a target of theft. Therefore, should that go forward, we're opposed to this ownership model until or unless regulations are agreed to that would ensure the safety of all Canadians. We shouldn't back into that as an idea; it should be an idea that we construct.

Mr. Chair, thank you to all the MPs on this committee for their service. Maybe as Canadians we don't say that enough to our MPs. Thank you for your attention to this complex and difficult issue, and thank you for letting us make these statements today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

We're starting a little late. We will extend a little late. We can go a little further. We're still waiting for one witness, but I think as we proceed, the video conference witness will come on board with us.

I'd like to welcome you all to meeting 39 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with regard to firearms.

We have today two panels of witnesses, with one panel of three witnesses per hour.

In the first hour, we will have by video conference the Centre culturel islamique de Québec and their spokesperson, Boufeldja Benabdallah. We'll give them an opportunity to make their statement when they join us.

With us today in person we have, from Danforth Families for Safe Communities, Ali Demircan, Ken Price and Claire Smith. Thank you.

From One By One Movement inc., we have Marcell Wilson, founder, and Savino Griesi, chief executive officer.

With that, each group will have an opportunity to give five minutes of opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

We will start with Mr. Price, Ms. Smith and Mr. Demircan.

Go ahead, please, for five minutes.

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

Yes. I'm just saying that Bill C‑21 is not changing that.

When we had Public Safety officials before our committee for our first meeting on this bill, I asked them about this, because there has been talk about how businesses will be exempted. I got them to confirm that gun ranges....

For example, in my own riding of Cowichan-Malahat—Langford, the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association, as per Public Safety's understanding of this bill, would be allowed to legally own a cache of handguns, which people could come to their range to use under the lawful supervision of an RPAL holder.

Are you aware of that?

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

You are aware that in the current version of Bill C‑21 there are exemptions for people who need handguns as a part of their normal jobs or for their own protection. For example, in a previous life, I was a tree planter for eight years. I met a forester who was regularly out in grizzly country by himself. He didn't go out unless he had his .45 with him. That's an example of a profession where that would be allowed.

Is that your understanding?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bernardo, I'd like to start with you.

Bill C-21 covers a few different areas. Clause 14 does provide, for some of the offences in the Criminal Code—such as possession of a prohibited or a restricted firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, and a number of weapons trafficking charges—an increased penalty, going up from the current 10 years to 14 years, thus allowing a judge freedom to impose a harsher sentence.

Are you in agreement with that section of the bill?

[Yannick Guénette]

You are absolutely right.

The first draft of Bill C‑21 has no doubt given many people on Parliament Hill an opportunity to learn about airsoft shooting. It gives us a good opportunity to take a stand.

The definition of what looks like a firearm is quite subjective. Indeed, as long as there is a barrel, that is, something long with an opening at the end, or something that looks like a handle, almost everyone, in almost every situation, thinks it is a firearm.

Our first recommendation would be to remove the words “or intended [...]to resemble with near precision” that are found under the definition of “replica firearm” in the Criminal Code, as amended by subsection 1(1) of the current bill. In our view, this is really where the problem lies and this is the most important problem we have with Bill C‑21.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Guénette and Mr. Gauthier, thank you for accepting our invitation to testify today; we appreciate it. We met a few months ago. That's when you introduced me to this sport, which I was not at all familiar with and which I think Bill C‑21 targets quite unfairly.

Earlier I commended the approach taken by Airsoft in Canada. I would like to convey the same message to you: you have opted for a constructive approach. In your brief, which I have read, you propose solutions, a middle ground. This allows us to have a constructive dialogue, and I thank you for that.

I very much liked the questions posed by my colleague Mr. Schiefke. However, I would have liked it even more if the government had put them to you before tabling Bill C‑21. Indeed, I have the impression that the government has not consulted your industry and is proposing measures that are a bit vague.

I would like to ask you some questions in this regard. You talked about the definition of likeness in a document that the government gave us to explain how they're going to do it. The government says they want to ban air guns that look like real guns.

How do manufacturers and retailers of airsoft guns feel about this? What do they think of this definition?

To my mind, the distinction between what looks like a firearm and what doesn't is pretty blurry. I think it will have to be defined in the bill. When the committee met with the officials two weeks ago, they did not seem to know what was meant by the law. Now, before we legislate on these issues, which are quite important and can have a big impact on your industry, we should be clear.

Can you tell us more about the definition of likeness? How could air guns that are very similar to real guns be modified before they come to market?

[Yannick Guénette, First Vice-President, Fédération sportive d’airsoft du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon to everyone.

I am accompanied by my colleague, Mr. François Gauthier.

At the outset, allow me to specify that the Fédération sportive d'airsoft du Québec, or FSAQ, is in favour of the control of legal and illegal firearms that were acquired legally or by illicit means. However, because airsoft markers resemble real firearms, airsoft pellet shooting is directly targeted by Bill C‑21, and its survival is in jeopardy. This is also the case for many small and medium-sized businesses throughout Quebec and Canada. We would like to officially dissociate ourselves from the firearms lobby, because the majority of airsoft shooters in Quebec and Canada do not own firearms and have no intention of becoming owners. The people who practise this activity do so primarily for entertainment purposes, similar to life-size games with a more realistic flavour.

The FSAQ wishes to work with the government and relevant authorities to remove airsoft shooting from the provisions of Bill C‑21 and find a pathway that will allow our community to continue to practise our sport within a safe or legislated framework.

The FSAQ was created in 2018, following a meeting of several stakeholders in the world of airsoft shooting. Our primary goal, which remains the same to this day, is to promote synergy and fulfillment between players, organizers and retailers in a safe environment.

The FSAQ's mandate is to establish official sport recognition and to represent the community to various government authorities, as was the case in 2020, when the FSAQ acted as a bridge between the Quebec airsoft shooting community and the Quebec government in the context of the sanitary measures imposed following the COVID‑19 pandemic. Our exchanges allowed us to demonstrate that airsoft bead shooting is a safe sport practice that respects the recommendations issued by public health.

In its current form, Bill C‑21 will deprive practitioners of their sport, which is practised by tens of thousands of Quebec and Canadian citizens of all social strata, nationalities and generations. This would also eliminate the economic benefits of airsoft shooting across the country. It is an inclusive, respectful and diverse community, just like Quebec and Canada. Our sport allows us to bond, to stay in shape and to surpass ourselves. For these reasons, the FSAQ respectfully asks you to consider the impact that Bill C‑21 will have on honest citizens who practise airsoft shooting.

Following extensive consultation with organizations, the community and international representatives in Japan, Great Britain, California and several other countries where firearms regulations are stricter than in Canada and where the practice of airsoft shooting is permitted, the FSAQ has prepared a series of recommendations aimed at providing a framework for the safe practice of this activity, which will ensure its survival and that of the thousands of jobs attached to it. In our brief, you will find possible solutions concerning, among other things, the recommended minimum age for the purchase of markers, the transportation of markers, the appearance of markers, as well as the creation of federative and sporting bodies to ensure supervision, to name but a few.

The FSAQ encourages the government to follow the example of several countries that have done so, by working jointly with us and representatives of the airsoft shooting industry to find a path towards a safe and legislative framework, which will allow the practice of our sport without altering its realistic, immersive and recreational side.

We would like to thank the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for allowing us to testify before it about the main challenges that Bill C‑21 poses for our sport. We reiterate our willingness and openness to work together to find a viable solution to allow for the continuation of airsoft shooting in Quebec and Canada, which has been going on since the 1990s.

Thank you for your attention.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for the representatives of Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns.

I read, in an article in La Presse published in 2019, the statements of a trauma surgeon at the Montreal General Hospital, Dr. Andrew Beckett. He points out that not all cases are publicized and that he sees about one gunshot patient a week at the hospital. This is probably what prompted him to advocate for better gun control.

He said, “We need to see gun injuries and deaths as a public health crisis. It is a growing crisis in Canada, but one that is totally preventable”. He sees his stance “...from a public health perspective like the ones that led to mandatory seat belts in cars or helmets on bicycles. These are measures that save lives”.

Ms. Maggi, in your opinion, does the government sufficiently see the proliferation of firearms as a public health issue in its approach to the problem and Bill C‑21?

[Ziming Wan]

I've been working in the airsoft industry for about a decade now, and about 50% of retail sales are from the airsoft devices themselves. I believe the statistic we gathered was that over 90% of airsoft businesses expect to close immediately if Bill C-21 is passed in its current state.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Very quickly, then—and this is probably not going to get much of an answer—a constituent of mine owns a paintball and airsoft pro shop in Barrie. He says that Bill C-21 in its current form will result in a loss of 60% to 70% of his revenue and force the closure of his business that he has spent 20 years building. Are you hearing that?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you for that. If you think of anything else, you can please put that in writing to us.

I'd like to switch quickly—because I am going to be short on time—to my friends at Airsoft.

I recently received an email. I'm not going to mention the gentleman's name. He's from Barrie. It's a little lengthy, but I'm going to read a couple of paragraphs from it and ask for your input as to whether this is normally what's going on in it , because I don't play airsoft. Some family members have in the past, but I don't know a lot about it.

I'm going to paraphrase here by starting with this from my resident: “It is truly a team sport that brings together players from all different walks of life, and provides a community that accepts all sorts of people gathering around a common passion. I also believe that it has a part to play in getting the youth away from screens and video games, and puts them out into an afternoon of play, requiring some physical effort as well as critical decision making. Airsoft has helped my life personally in so many ways including sobriety. There is so much positivity surrounding the sport! I play competitively with a very active team every week but I also play on another team called AAA “Airsoft Addicts Anonymous”. We meet up usually once a month or more and it keeps growing and growing. Airsoft is for everyone, and has zero downsides. It should have no place in this bill.

“It will break my heart if Bill C-21 is passed, and these opportunities are taken away from the current and future generations of players, having their favourite sport outlawed for reasons we do not find legitimate, nor convincing.”

The letter is a lot longer, but I'll leave it at that.

Perhaps you could comment on that and tell me a little bit about the type of people who are playing this sport across Canada.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to start with Mr. Winkel.

Thank you, Mr. Winkel, my good neighbour just up Highway 11 there. I'm from Barrie—Springwater—Oro—Medonte. I'm sure you're well aware of where that is. Welcome here today.

I have just a couple of quick questions, Mr. Winkel, because we're under a tight timeline, and I'd like to get through a few here. Specifically, what amendments or changes would you like to see in regard to Bill C-21?

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

Thank you. I'm sorry for rushing you through this. I only have one minute left and I want to get a question in to the Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns.

I appreciate your opening statement regarding the red flag laws portion of Bill C-21. As you may be aware, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians was quite critical of the previous version of Bill C-21. They were quite concerned about the onus placed on family members. I know this current version of Bill C-21 has built in a lot of added protections, such as making sure a cloak of anonymity can be brought down on the person bringing forward the complaint.

Are you happy with the existing provisions in Bill C-21 as they've been reworked, as they are in their current state?

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

May I interrupt? I'm sorry about that. I have limited time.

You made some helpful suggestions for our committee in your opening statement. You recommended restricting purchasing to those 18 or older, and the risk waiver that would make a person who's purchasing understand the responsibility that comes with owning such a device.

However, when I look at how Bill C-21 is written, I'm trying to figure out how we are going to fit your amendments in, given how Bill C-21 is currently written, because we'd be adding a new subsection to the Criminal Code—specifically, a subsection 3.2 after the existing subsection 3.1 of section 84.

Have you figured out some of the wording for the technical pieces? Do you believe this existing clause can be amended properly to take into account what you're hoping to achieve? I guess what I'm asking is whether you can help guide our committee through how you would ultimately like to see this clause rewritten.

[Nicholas James Martin, Member, Airsoft in Canada]

Alistair, thank you for the question.

A few of the issues we get right now are concerns about what happens after the bill is passed. What will happen if they decide to sell it? Obviously that will be illegal under the Criminal Code, because they will be considered prohibited firearms under the Criminal Code.

The immediate chilling effect is that we have been told that we can keep the ones we have and we get to keep using them, but as Bill C-21 is currently written, section 117.03 of the Criminal Code will empower police officers to take airsoft guns on sight. There is no reason required; they don't have to have to have a reason or probable cause. They need nothing.

The fear is that if they were to go to a paintball field and play an airsoft game, a police officer could show up and take their property, and there is no way to get it back.

The fear is that we—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for helping to guide our committee through this study.

I'd like to start with Airsoft in Canada.

This summer, my constituent Jon Bell took me out to the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association and put me in some referee garb. I got to watch one of your competitions. You're right. I agree with your opening statement. There were people, young and old, all kinds of demographics, who had come to enjoy a good time in the outdoors. I'm very sympathetic to your sport.

It's obvious that people who engage with it are very passionate. As evidenced by the campaign thus far, they are very motivated to engage with this committee, so I salute you in your efforts for that political engagement.

In the way Bill C-21 is currently written, an airsoft gun is suddenly deemed a prohibited device. I know it's for the purposes of sections of the Criminal Code—weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, and so on, so it's specific sections—but what effect does it have on an owner to know that suddenly your device is now going to be deemed prohibited? What's that chill effect?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming here and sharing their unique perspectives.

I'm going to start with a question for Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns.

I found it interesting to hear—and my own research backed up your claim—that 75% to 80% of firearms-related deaths in Canada are caused by suicide. I note that the department in the last meeting justified Bill C-21 because of its ability to reduce suicide by firearms. I'm concerned, though, if you're aware of it, that a 2004 peer-reviewed study from Jean Caron showed that while gun control measures did reduce the prevalence of firearm-related suicides, it didn't reduce the overall suicide rate, as people found alternative means of committing suicide.

I think we should be promoting policies that reduce suicide overall. We know we're in a mental health challenge. It seems like this policy might have an impact on reducing firearms-related suicide, but do you have any evidence to suggest that it would reduce suicide absolutely?

[Wesley Allan Winkel, President, Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association]

Thank you very much.

My name is Wes Winkel, and I'm the president of the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association. We have a volunteer board of directors, and I represent over 4,100 licensed businesses in Canada, as well as over 40,000 employees. We have a 2018 study that shows that we have an $8.5-billion economic impact to our country's economy, and $2.6 billion of that is involved in sport shooting.

Bill C-21, as currently constructed, gives us the danger of losing another 20%. We lost 20% in the May 1 order in council, and with the handgun freeze and the airgun prohibitions, we could be looking at a total of over 30%. This could lead to over 15,000 jobs lost in Canada. Businesses in Canada have invested millions of dollars to adhere to the strict regulations and the strict regulatory environment already imposed and have done a great job in keeping guns out of the hands of the criminal element. Over 90% of handguns used in crimes are acquired through criminal means and are not sourced legally.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has denounced the handgun transfer freeze and says that it will not have an impact on crime guns in Canada. We believe that to decimate our whole industry is a mistake. It is virtually impossible for our industry to keep up with the speed and volume of regulation changes that have been coming our way, and we've spent countless hours training staff and trying to remain up to date in our regulatory environment.

We request some compromise and some relief inside Bill C-21 and in the current regulations. We've been asking for a change of the “replica firearm” definition, as previously discussed by the air gun industry. We're looking for the committee to consult the air gun industry and to find a way to identify firearms for law enforcement to ensure that they are differentiated from real live firearms and we again recommend the implementation of the 18-year-old guideline for purchase.

We request that they remove the transfer freeze on handguns for individuals. Canada has probably the largest vetted and legal handgun ownership in the world. These sport shooters conduct their sport at ranges safely and provide no risk to the Canadian public. We have many participants who operate in this safe environment, and the businesses ensure that these firearms only reach the hands of those licensed individuals. We're requesting that the government not cease the sale of firearms to these licensed, vetted individuals but rather find an alternative method to restrict ownership and to keep those vetted individuals able to purchase and stay in our sport. There's a possibility of capping licences but ensuring that we can continue to sell and trade current firearms among ourselves.

We also ask that this committee look at respecting all competition shooters with the same exceptions as Olympic target shooters. We have sport shooters at international competitions such as the Single Action Shooting Society, or SASS; the International Practical Shooting Competitions, or IPSC; and the IDPA. These are internationally recognized shooting competitions with trained shooters who have dedicated their lives to their sport. They conduct it in a safe manner and they've always adhered to the government regulations. There is no need to attack this community because certain guns are used in the criminal element.

Furthermore, our businesses are asking that the government remove the downgrade of classification of firearms inside Bill C-21. By definition, the government has declared certain firearms a higher risk to society by labelling them as “restricted” and “prohibited”, and it makes no sense why the government would want us to stop downgrading these firearms. If they've deemed that the public safety is enhanced by changing the firearms from prohibited to restricted, why would we want to limit that? Businesses have spent thousands of dollars training gunsmiths and investing in equipment to produce equipment and ensure that these firearms get downgraded successfully and safely. There is no need, at this point, to restrict that.

Furthermore, there are three more items discussed at the bottom of the regulatory amendments with the intention of implementation by order in council. We request more clarity on these things before they're brought in, and a high level of consultation with the industry, first and foremost on the magazine restriction intentions. To limit all firearms to five rounds or less would create a nearly impossible situation for the industry in conducting its business.

[Dr. Najma Ahmed, Doctor, Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns]

Thank you.

Gun injury and death is an urgent public health issue. The Canadian Medical Association declares that “Firearm-related injuries and fatalities are a major cause of premature and preventable death in Canada.” A 2020 Ontario study shows that over a 15-year period, there were nearly 6,500 gun injuries, and 42% were fatal. Another 2020 Canadian study shows that 10% to 20% of patients with firearm injuries suffer lifelong disability.

Gun injuries stress our economy and public health systems. Many of my patients never go back to work or school because of the physical and emotional trauma they have suffered. The toll on families and communities is unimaginable. Canadians have called on governments to reduce this threat to public health and well-being.

Preventing injury and death from firearms is a multi-faceted challenge that demands evidence-based solutions. Canada needs Bill C-21, with a permanent ban on assault weapons to save lives. Indisputable peer-reviewed evidence from around the world shows that restricting access to guns saves lives. The stronger the measures, the safer it is, and this is irrefutable.

Canada has work to do. We rank ninth of 36 countries in the OECD for firearm mortality.

The gun is the vector of harm and death. This is why assault weapons—firearms that can kill and maim many people in mere minutes—have no place in our communities. Banning these firearms will not necessarily make our society less violent, but it will make the violence less lethal. It has worked in Australia. It worked in Switzerland. It even worked for a time in the U.S.

A similar type of gun, the SKS rifle, which is not currently covered by the order in council, was used recently to kill two police officers in Ontario. A clear line must be drawn to ban all semi-automatic rifles as part of this legislation.

Further, CDPG supports the ban on the sale and transfer of handguns. International research shows that a woman is five times more likely to be killed in a domestic violence situation when there is a gun in the home, most frequently by a handgun. In 2019, the Canadian Femicide Observatory identified firearms as the most commonly reported means used to kill women and girls. All guns, including handguns, can be used to intimidate and control.

Handguns smuggled from the U.S. are not the sole source of crime guns. A handgun stolen from a gun shop in Saskatchewan was used in the Danforth mass shooting.

We support the proposed “red flag” law. Family members, physicians and concerned individuals must have access to an efficient process to quickly have firearms removed from someone who may be at risk to themselves or others.

In Canada, suicide accounts for about 75% of gun deaths. A gun in the home increases adolescent suicide rates by threefold to fourfold. Evidence from other jurisdictions shows that “red flag” laws are effective in reducing firearm suicides.

Most people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. This is why restricting access to lethal means saves lives. Suicide attempts with a gun are almost uniformly fatal.

Public education and easy access to a confidential process for the removal of firearms would strengthen this bill. New York State offers its citizens an online application reviewed by a judge within 24 hours. We urge the federal government to work with provinces and territories to mandate physician reporting of individuals at risk of harming themselves or others.

The ban on replica guns is good but insufficient. Non-powdered firearms have the speed and force to penetrate skin or eyes and are a source of injury to children and youth. We urge the government to create a strong regulatory framework for these guns. We recommend mandatory warning and education labels on all guns and ammunition at the point of sale, similar to tobacco and other products.

The government must invest in the social determinants of health. I have seen how the traps set by poverty, racism and the lack of opportunity combined with a firearm devastate young lives. I know the government has been listening to community voices. Now it must act.

Finally, Canada would benefit from a deeper understanding of firearm injury. This bill should include a national firearms research and policy centre to study existing and potential solutions to reduce harm from guns.

For 20 years I have been treating patients devastated by firearm injuries and consoling families left behind with immeasurable grief. Our sole interest today is to protect Canadians from gun injury and death.

Thank you for listening to me so patiently. I'm here with my colleagues, Dr. Maggi and Dr. Berger, and we would be pleased to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[Brian A. McIlmoyle, Director, Airsoft in Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

My name is Brian McIlmoyle. I'm a director at ASIC, the Saving Airsoft in Canada Association. I'm joined by Ziming Wan and Nicholas Martin by video conference.

Thank you for inviting us here today.

Airsoft is a sport practised by tens of thousands of Canadians all across the country. Airsofters come from diverse backgrounds, all genders and orientations, English and French, casual or enthusiast, sport competitor or collector. Airsoft is enjoyed by those exploring military re-enactments and simulations and by costume role players attending anime conventions. Airsoft businesses employ over 1,400 people. Today is a very important day for these people.

In Canada, recreational airsoft is a $220-million industry, with more than $46 million spent annually on goods and equipment and more than $36 million on event production and tourism in the small towns that typically host these events. Bill C-21, as currently written, would shutter this industry entirely.

The Canadian film, video game and media industry is worth $9 billion-plus annually, with about $5 billion of that from films involving firearms and airsoft gear. Rubber prop guns were prohibited by Bill C-68 in 1993. Film armourers have told us that they are entirely reliant upon the Canadian airsoft retailers because of the next-day turnarounds required by film studios. They require direct access to retail sources for airsoft equipment. Without it, film productions would be delayed for weeks.

Since the accidental shooting of Halyna Hutchins, we have been told that Hollywood productions have shrunk their demand for real firearms by 60%, and increased their use of airsoft by 40%, with some film unions calling to shift entirely to airsoft. About 66% of Canadian film industry prop guns are airsoft. Film armourers that we have consulted have stated that Bill C-21, as currently written, would make Canada far less attractive for these productions, threatening that $5 billion of production.

We understand the concerns of law enforcement. In our consultations with them, they noted their top concern was mistaking airsoft for real firearms, in particular when youth and children were involved. Police are trained to treat any suspected gun as a deadly threat. This has historically included Nerf blasters, Lego, camera tripods and musical instruments. We should be taking every practical precaution to prevent any potentially tragic incident for both police officers and the persons who are accidentally or negligently abusing airsoft.

We believe the best means to mitigate these risks is an 18-plus restriction on the purchase of airsoft, which would prevent children from buying airsoft without parental knowledge. In addition, a legal acknowledgement of risk or a waiver, when signed and combined with some clear educational material, will impress upon parents and young adults the important and very mortal responsibility of owning airsoft gear.

We believe this will prevent the majority of police calls for service, resulting from accidental and negligent use of airsoft. This would also bring us in line with the majority our peers internationally.

If we are to go a step beyond that, ASIC has studied a self-regulatory system similar to the United Kingdom's Airsoft Retailers Association and the U.K.'s Violent Crime Reduction act, which stipulates membership in an airsoft association in order to possess airsoft. This kind of measure would require a higher administrative overhead, but there is a feasible appetite for it within our community.

These measures benefit from joint positions with the FSAQ, or Fédération Sportive d'Airsoft du Québec; the AABC, Airsoft Association of British Columbia; and the CSAAA, the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association.

Bill C-21's proposed redefinition of a prohibited device would eliminate airsoft as a sport by changing the legal classification of virtually all airsoft in Canada. It also affects a larger category of products, including paintball markers, pellet guns, Nerf foam blasters, etc., all of which would be impacted by Bill C-21 to varying degrees.

How Bill C-21 is written would make airsoft illegal to buy, sell, import, export or transfer. It would make it subject to confiscation without legal recourse. Current owners would be in possession of a prohibited device and subject to the relevant laws.

There is no doubt the legal regulation around airsoft is confusing. Manufacturers, importers, the CBSA and law enforcement find it confusing as well. The legal context of airsoft involves multiple sections of the Criminal Code, the Firearms Act and examples of case law that involve different definitions, qualifications and quantifications.

We suggest that this committee empower the Governor in Council to work with consultative bodies such as ASIC to more comprehensively and exhaustively define “replica firearm” and/or “airsoft” through regulation. We hope today that the committee can work with our community to develop a solution.

I thank you for your time today, Mr. Chair, and I welcome any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 38 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee commenced consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

We have today two panels of witnesses.

For the first hour, I'd like to welcome, from Airsoft in Canada, Brian A. McIlmoyle, director; Nicholas James Martin, member, who is with us by video conference, I believe; and Ziming Wan, member.

Welcome.

For the second hour, we also have, from Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, Dr. Najma Ahmed, Dr. Philip Berger and Dr. Julie Maggi. From the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, we have Wesley Allan Winkel, president.

Thanks to all of you for joining us here.

We'll start with statements from our groups of witnesses.

We'll start with Airsoft in Canada. Please go ahead for five minutes.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the safety of Canadians is our number one priority. We support victims, and we are working with them precisely to make the system safer. With Bill C-21, we are increasing penalties for crimes related to gang activity and gun smuggling.

We are strengthening the ban on firearms, which are designed solely to kill people. That is what we are doing and what needs to be done to make Canada safer.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, too many Canadians have been hurt by gun violence and our government ran on the promise to redouble Canada's efforts to tackle this issue. We always put the safety of Canadians as our number one priority. That plan includes banning and buying back assault rifles, freezing the national handgun market and raising sentences for gun smugglers. My hope is that the hon. member across the aisle will support Bill C-21 at committee and allow us to keep Canadians safer.

[Fred Gaspar]

Again, I have to be a little careful, because it's certainly a bit of a policy question. I can tell you that Bill C-21 codifies and cohesively brings together the overarching approach that the government and all members of the public safety portfolio have been using for a number of years now, starting with the initiative to address guns and gangs violence, and that is to take a multipronged approach.

Therefore, Bill C-21, as my colleague Talal has indicated, takes a look at the root causes and takes a look at initiatives that can be put in place to protect the most vulnerable members of society from a policy perspective. It underscores the kinds of investments that we have been making to support those types of outcomes through the budget 2021 provisions and the 2018 guns and gangs funding, which is intended to improve investigative capacity and enable us to better liaise with our international partners to identify the source of import threats.

I'd have to underscore that point more than anything else. It's not unlike any other kind of smuggling regime: The further upstream in the import stream that you're able to identify the threat and interdict it, the more likely you are to be successful. I think if we look at it holistically, that's the key benefit of Bill C-21 from a border effectiveness perspective: It brings together that cohesive approach through a multipronged solution to address gun violence in Canada.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you.

It wouldn't be fair that we would go this entire meeting, Mr. Gaspar, without at least turning our attention to you a little bit. You're almost off the hook, but not quite.

CBSA officers have apprehended at the border ghost guns, 3D-printed firearms, so on and so forth. This importation is obviously a serious concern. In my earlier question to the minister, I talked a little bit about this. Could you share your perspective from the CBSA's point of view on how Bill C-21 can or will or should help address this issue?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've spent a lot of time in this conversation talking about why this and why that and some important questions, but for me this always comes down to people. In 2021, 173 women were killed by either present or former intimate partners, and 40% of them were killed using guns, or just about 40%.

Deputy Commissioner Larkin, you've been the chief of police in Waterloo and you are here now in your capacity as somebody with a lot of policing experience. Do you believe that had Bill C-21 been in effect earlier, some of those lives would have been saved?

[Talal Dakalbab]

Actually, it's five or 10. If you allow me, I don't want to go into too many details, but the alteration cannot be done if Bill C-21 becomes law.

Right now, as you're probably aware, there are some magazines that could be used for multiple guns, and some of them could be removed and be on a 10. That is allowed in the law right now. This alteration will not be allowed, obviously, unless it's authorized by our colleagues or done for the proper guns. Right now, there's a gap to be addressed.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

My question is for Deputy Commissioner Larkin.

One of the sections in Bill C-21 would create a new offence. The offence is altering a magazine to hold more than the legal number of rounds, yet it's already an offence to possess a magazine that has more than the legal limit of rounds. This proposed new offence seems to duplicate an offence that already exists.

Why was this included in the legislation?

[Talal Dakalbab]

I'll take this one, if you'll allow me, Mr. Chair, because this is part of the policy work.

I believe today was the end of the 30 sitting days for the regulations. I can tell you the regulations will probably be publicly available shortly. I can't tell you exactly when yet. I don't even know that. What I can say is that in the legislation, there is clarity on transitional provisions. I can't tell you about the regulations yet, because, as I said, after the 30 days, we work on it with whatever comments we got. I can confirm that in Bill C-21, there are transitional provisions to that effect.

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

I'm sorry to cut you off, but I have less than a minute left.

On May 30, when the minister made the announcement for BillC-21, he also very clearly identified the fact that the government wanted to bring forward an amendment to capture some assault-style rifles, which had escaped.

Can you inform this committee what specific section of Bill C-21 you're seeking to amend and what it is going to look like, so we have some heads-up notice on this?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As my colleagues have done before me, I'd like to direct questions to the departmental people concerning the criteria used to define an elite sport shooter. Thank you in advance for your answer.

You said you're still consulting. The present bill isn't clear on whether you have to be an elite athlete or an active member of a shooting club to be able to acquire a handgun, for example. I know that's not your area, and I thank you for clarifying matters earlier regarding the regulations and orders that will come into force a little later.

I think it's unfortunate that the government has been saying since 2019 that it's going to do more on gun control but that consultations are still incomplete as we're examining Bill C‑21 in 2022. That's more a comment than a question. I know that's not your fault, but I had to mention it. We have to make decisions in our legislative role, but we don't yet have all the tools we need to do so. It's somewhat disappointing.

Regarding the measures in addition to Bill C‑21, you mentioned future regulations on large-capacity magazines and the possibility of requiring that long guns contain only five rounds. This bill would allow a maximum of 10 rounds for handguns and 5 for certain firearms such as semi-automatic centre-fire rifles.

When we did our guns and gangs study, witnesses told us it might be very easy to require manufacturers to make magazines containing no more than five rounds.

Are you studying that too? Is that also an additional measure that will come later because you don't have enough data to include it in the bill? What studies or consultations are you conducting on that?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you so much.

I'll turn my attention to Deputy Commissioner Larkin.

I understand that Bill C-21 will make it an offence to alter a cartridge or magazine to exceed its lawful capacity and will allow for wiretaps for this new offence. What impact do you think these measures will have on law enforcement agencies that are focused on reducing firearm violence?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Dakalbab.

In regard to regulations for guns, can you explain to this committee how this legislation will ensure that sport shooters are protected and will able to continue competing in their sports? I have a lot of sport shooters and clubs in my riding that are concerned about this new Bill C-21.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you for your answer.

I understand that firearm owners involved in acts of domestic violence or stalking will have their firearm licences automatically revoked under Bill C-21.

Could you explain the impact your department believes this will have on victims and survivors of domestic violence?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

If you do have any studies, I would appreciate it if you could submit those to the committee, maybe at a later date. I'd really appreciate looking over those studies.

My next question is for Ms. Paquette.

Something that really concerns me—and maybe you can provide some more insight—is that Bill C-21 includes a provision that says it will automatically revoke a registration certificate for a firearm after a reclassification has occurred. Won't this turn people who have legally owned registered firearms into automatic criminals? Why was this included in Bill C-21, and will there be a grace period as we've seen in the past?

[Talal Dakalbab]

To be fair, I'm here to talk about Bill C-21, so I'm personally not in a position to talk about the buyback, but—

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

Thank you.

Very quickly, Bill C-21 makes specific reference to the Olympics and Special Olympics, which have a very elite level of shooting. Do you have a sense of how many people in Canada currently qualify at that level?

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

If I were the current owner of one and I got grandfathered by Bill C-21, now I'm suddenly in possession of a prohibited device, because you have changed the definition, and there are some pretty serious consequences for owning a prohibited device. Would I feel at ease going out and using it, even though it's now deemed a prohibited device? This is the concern many in the community are having.

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

Thank you for clarifying that.

I also want to go back to airsoft. I know this is a recurring theme, but it shows that we, as members of Parliament, are getting a lot of correspondence on this issue as well.

I did ask the minister a fairly technical question, and I think he indicated his willingness to have some consultations about how we work through this, but I have to go back to the discrepancy that I believe exists between the Public Safety Canada handout, which I have before me, and how Bill C-21 is written.

If I look at the wording in Bill C-21, if it were to pass as currently written, airsoft, which looks like the real thing, is going to be deemed a prohibited device, but in your handout, you say that current owners would be allowed to keep and use those that they already own. How could a current owner use a prohibited device? I'm wondering how you square that circle.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

One of the questions I have centres on the handgun freeze. Currently, I could go and visit my local gun range. I don't have an RPAL, but if I'm under the supervision of someone who does hold an RPAL and I'm at the range, I can legally use the handgun under their direct supervision.

If Bill C-21 were to pass as is, there would be nothing stopping the range from being a business owning a number of handguns, and people could still come to the range and legally use them under the supervision of a range master. Is that correct? Is that a correct interpretation of Bill C-21?

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

That's good.

We increasingly hear that weapons are being manufactured using 3D printers. Increasing numbers of people also order parts over the Internet to manufacture their weapons once they receive them at home.

Are you starting to consider that phenomenon? Do you think Bill C‑21 could be amended to address that specific problem?

[Talal Dakalbab, Assistant Deputy Minister, Crime Prevention Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you for that question.

I'd like to clarify something here. Bill C‑21 proposes a standard for airsofts that can fire a projectile at an initial velocity of 366 to 500 feet per second and that are replicas. The act already provides that it's prohibited to use other airsoft models that are replica guns. The intent behind the bill is thus to fill the current legal void for this specific firearm class.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, of which Mr. Larkin was the president at the time, made a request to the minister that this legal void be filled.

So this measure is in response to requests that were made because it was feared that police wouldn't always be able to determine the type of weapon used by individuals. We were also informed that police officers in some cases may believe an individual is using an airsoft gun when it's actually a firearm, which puts their lives in danger.

As my colleague explained, the data are hard to find. However, as mentioned a little earlier, there have been accidents in which people were murdered or injured by bullets because they were using airsofts when police officers thought they were firearms.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much.

My first question is for the RCMP. We've had some conversations around “red flag”. The minister answered some questions.

I recall that when we studied Bill C-71, the Conservative Party opposed lifetime background checks. At the time, they were not supportive of any kind of a reporting system for mental health issues, yet we know that 75% or 80%, I think it is, of people who die by firearms are dying by suicide. Also, we know that women in particular are at risk when there's a firearm in the home. There's data that strongly supports the risk to women when there's a firearm in the home.

One of the things we did in Bill C-71 was that we extended to lifetime background checks. We listened to witnesses like Dr. Alan Drummond and Alison Irons, who talked about the need to strengthen red flags. We do have something in the bill that is better than what was in the previous version of Bill C-21, because people can remain anonymous.

That said, we also know that it's up to a judge to issue a prohibition order, and we don't control how a judge decides in a case. If a woman does go to court for that red flag, she can do it anonymously or through a women's shelter and she can appeal to the court, but we're relying on a judge to issue a prohibition order.

I was really heartened when I saw the mandate letter that was given to the RCMP that was also going to resource the chief firearms officer to ensure that calls are responded to promptly, and also, in working with local police services—in my area, it would be the Halton police service—ensure that if someone is reporting an issue with someone who has a firearm, whether that's for mental health or for gender-based violence, it's responded to in a timely manner.

Could you update us on how important that work by the chief firearms officer is and how we are progressing on that?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chiang, as somebody who lives in a city that's beset by handgun violence, as somebody who works with colleagues from across the country who have seen far too many lives lost, including law enforcement.... I was just at a funeral for an officer who lost their life in the Toronto Police Service.

The challenges are significant and they're really complex. I'm in no way trying to gloss over or simplify the complexity of that problem, but in Bill C-21 the government has made a best effort to try to put forward, for this committee and Parliament's consideration, a comprehensive legislative strategy that aims to reverse the trend around handgun violence, around organized crime, and around domestic violence and the presence of guns.

It is part of a much broader strategy that also looks to give additional resources to law enforcement to stop illegal trafficking at the border and to prevent gun crime from occurring in the first place. If we do this work together and if we remain focused, then I truly believe we can reverse the trends around the increases in gun violence and eradicate it once and for all.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

An example that I think highlights our response to organized crime in Bill C-21 are the more severe criminal sentences and maximum sentences for those who illegally traffic guns. These sentences are going from 10 years to 14 years.

You're a former police officer. I'm a former Crown attorney. I still read the Criminal Code. The last time I checked, the 14-year maximum sentence is the last stop before you get to life sentence, so that is a very strong and unambiguous signal to illegal gun traffickers that if you're in the business of trying to get illegal guns into communities, you face the prospect of serving significant time.

Second, we propose to offer new surveillance and wiretap powers to police whereby firearms offences under the Criminal Code become eligible for that particular investigative technique. It's one that will, I believe, help to disrupt illegal supply chains around firearms, both internationally and within our borders.

Those are two concrete examples in Bill C-21 that I think will help us tackle organized crime and the illegal trafficking of guns when the bill becomes law.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us today. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

As a former police officer, I'm aware of the many challenges law enforcement faces in addressing firearm trafficking and firearm smuggling.

Minister, could you please tell this committee how Bill C-21 will support law enforcement and provide additional tools to them?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

That is the goal, but I want to be clear that Bill C-21 by itself won't accomplish that. We also have to invest in law enforcement. We also have to make sure we stop illegal trafficking. We also have to put into place preventive strategies, including the building safer communities fund.

If we do those three things together, then I think we can finally reverse the trend on gun violence and put an end to it.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, our first major report at this committee addressed gun and gang violence, and it was a study on which we all worked together quite well.

I've always approached the issue of gun violence by acknowledging that a single piece of legislation by itself is not going to address the problem. It has to be taken in context with policy, effective funding of law enforcement and working with international partners, etc., and I think you would agree with me. I think all colleagues would agree with me on that.

On the question of domestic diversion, I know that's a big rationale behind Bill C-21. We heard testimony at our committee of the dangers of people owning large numbers of handguns and setting themselves up as targets for criminal organizations. It's far easier to steal a handgun that's already present in Canada than to go to the trouble of trying to smuggle one across an international border.

We made a recommendation in that report to ask for additional research into the prevalence of domestic diversion. Since that report was issued, do you have any further updates from your department on how widespread the problem is? Are there any solutions, apart from what's in Bill C-21, that your government is considering for people who may be targets of criminal organizations?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you for your question.

The purpose of the new protocol proposed in Bill C‑21, the "red flag" law and the "yellow flag" law, is to reverse the trend of intimate partner violence and firearms possession.

However, I know that certain organizations representing women and women survivors have concerns, which is why we made amendments and, I believe, strengthened the provision in the bill. I should point out, however, that this is just an option; it isn't mandatory. It's another protective measure introduced for people who want to use it. I recognize that police services must be provided with resources so they can exercise the powers they currently have.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier Mr. MacGregor raised an issue that I'd also like to discuss with you, Minister.

On May 16 of this year, several women's groups sent you a letter expressing their concern about the “red flag” measure in Bill C‑21. They feel the measure is a real problem and even said it was counterproductive to allow victims to appear on their own in court to request that an attacker's gun be seized, for example. They say that could even increase the risk to victims. I saw that the bill provides ways to ensure the victim's anonymity, but, as you can understand, victims don't necessarily have all the means they need to do that in an intimate partner or domestic violence context.

That letter was sent to you on May 16, and the bill was introduced around May 30, if my memory serves me. In short, it was introduced a few days later. I understand that it must already have been drafted at that time and that you didn't have time to make any changes. However, the position of those women's groups hasn't changed. They still think it's a bad measure and propose instead that the measures already available be used and that the community be granted more powers over education, for example.

Now that you know all that, would you be prepared to amend the bill given the fears of the individuals directly concerned on the ground?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you very much, Minister, for that response and also for the visit. I'm sure it was greatly appreciated by all of the newly trained agents who will be protecting our borders all across the country.

Minister, Bill C-21 is going to go a long way in protecting communities like mine in Vaudreuil—Soulanges and communities like Vaudreuil—Soulanges all across the country. I'm looking forward to diving in with committee members to try to strengthen the bill.

One of the questions that I and members of my community had was with regard to ghost guns. This was brought up by my colleague Mr. Noormohamed. We had an incident in Montreal just two months ago. A young man had purchased parts online and had put together a firearm that was used in violent crime in Montreal. I've received numerous emails and calls from constituents who are wondering if there's any way that we can combat this.

Minister, you mentioned earlier that you spoke with your colleagues in the United States, and I'm sure you've had discussions with other counterparts around the world. Have you heard from them any effective ways that they've been able to use to counter this? Can you share those with the committee so that you can help guide our work in the coming weeks?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the minister and his entire team for being here today.

Minister, I was very pleased to hear you say in your opening statement that Bill C‑21 was part of a multipronged plan. That plan includes investments in activities for young people to prevent them from joining street gangs, but also historic investments amounting to $321 million to strengthen our borders. That point is a source of pride in my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges. As you know, the CBSA officer training centre is located there, in Rigaud.

Please tell us how important those investments are in preventing illegal firearms from entering Canada.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

We're consulting with indigenous communities. We have consulted and will continue to consult on Bill C-21.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

See, the important thing, Minister, is that these firearms are predominantly used by indigenous people to fulfill their traditional treaty hunting rights. If you are limiting their ability to use a Lee-Enfield because of Bill C-21, you're limiting indigenous rights. This violates section 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

How is this not colonialism, Minister?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

We've taken the judgment that when it comes to assault-style rifles, they have no place in our communities. With Bill C-21, we've also taken the largest step forward in probably a generation by putting in place a national handgun freeze so that we can reverse the trend and the growth of a universe of that type of gun by about 45,000 to 55,000 new registrations every year—

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back, Minister. It's good to see you here.

I want to continue on the subject of airsoft guns that Mr. Noormohamed brought up.

I had a great summer of consulting with constituents and I got to visit the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association. They have a large airsoft course, and I played the part of a referee during a match. The people who are involved in the sport really love what they do. It's a growing sport and all sorts of demographics take part in it. They are quite concerned with how Bill C-21 is currently written, and I know that your department has received a lot of correspondence.

When you introduced this version of Bill C-21, your department was kind enough to provide a backgrounder to members of Parliament. Your backgrounder stated that current owners would be allowed to keep and use the ones that they already own, but they cannot transfer them to another person. Manufacturers will be able to sell them, but they will have to adjust the designs, and your government will consult with industry and law enforcement on how to implement the law.

The backgrounder states that current owners will be allowed to keep the ones they already own, but I'm curious how that is possible with the current wording of the bill. According to the Library of Parliament's reading of the bill, it's going to effectively make them prohibited devices. There's a bit of a disconnect here.

As a quick follow-up, what kind of consultations have you had with the industry? What are some ways that we can find our way through this impasse?

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

Just one final question.

You said you wanted us to pass this bill quickly. However, you passed a firearms bill in 2019, just before I was elected, but regulations weren't made under that legislation until several years later, in May of this year.

We can see that certain aspects of Bill C‑21 would come into force by regulation, in particular the definition of an elite sport shooter and the requirement of a licence to import ammunition.

Do you think you'll make regulations sooner next time? We had a long wait last time.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

There are lots of parts to that question.

Regarding assault weapons, we introduced a national prohibition specifically to remove all those types of firearms from our communities and committed to putting a mandatory buyback program in place.

I also agree with you that the tools proposed in Bill C‑21, including harsher penalties, won't alleviate the problem if they're used in isolation. We have to introduce a series of measures simultaneously to send a very strong and clear message to all members of organized crime. That moreover is what Bill C‑21 will do by imposing harsher penalties and establishing surveillance tools both within my department and in other authorities such as police services. The goal is to let people who want to terrorize our communities know that we've had enough and they have to stop.

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

Yes, I understand that efforts have been made and that we're increasingly attempting to intercept weapons.

I want to discuss the William Rainville case. In March 2021, he smuggled 248 handgun bodies across the border in a hockey bag. He was sentenced to five years in prison and was granted day parole barely one year later.

I don't know how much that particular measure will actually deter offenders. We know that the strategies criminals use don't often involve sending a hardened criminal across the border with a hockey bag full of guns. Instead, the people selected for the job don't have criminal records or have only committed minor offences and therefore won't receive maximum sentences. So I don't get the impression this specific measure will really discourage people from continuing to smuggle illegal weapons across the border.

However, I should note that there are some good measures in the bill. You decided to legislate specifically on high-security nuclear sites and officers. The bill also grants the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness more power than the Minister of Integration, Refugees and Citizenship.

However, it's curious to see there's nothing in the bill on assault weapons, whereas your government amended regulations on assault weapons in May 2020. In the meantime, other types of weapons have come into the market that circumvent those regulations. In addition, certain guns were initially overlooked and weren't on the list.

Why didn't you take advantage of Bill C‑21 to plug that hole regarding assault weapons?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being with us today, Minister. I very much appreciate it. However, I would have liked you to stay with us a bit longer because I have a lot of questions for you.

As you know, we currently have a serious problem in Canada's major cities. That's true of Montreal, where shots are fired every week. We often discuss this during oral question period.

In your view, Bill C‑21 will help stop gun trafficking, smuggling, organized crime and all that. Your argument's mainly based on a single measure set forth in Bill C‑21, the one that would increase maximum prison time from 10 to 14 years for those crimes.

I don't think that would really help matters at the border. As we know, many illegal weapons are smuggled across it.

Do you think Bill C‑21 should contain a more specific measure on this?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

This is why we have new tools in Bill C-21 to combat organized crime.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I am, which is why we presented Bill C-21.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank all the members of the committee for their good work on this study of Bill C‑21, which we will be discussing this afternoon.

With me today are members of my departmental team, Rob Stewart, deputy minister, and Talal Dakalbab, assistant deputy minister, along with Bryan Larkin and Kellie Paquette, representatives of the RCMP.

I want to make a few opening remarks about the scourge of gun violence, which has been impacting our country now for many years, and signal to this committee that it is up to us as parliamentarians to work together to reverse the alarming trends that have seen increases in gun violence and specifically in handgun violence. It is up to this committee not only to carefully study sensible laws that are designed with the intent of reversing those trends but also to discuss the efforts we are making to stop the illegal trafficking of guns at our borders. It is up to the members of the committee to support the work of Parliament in examining the root causes of gun crime, which requires us to work very closely with many partners, including grassroots organizations, so that we can stop gun crime before it starts. I look to you and to the various perspectives that you will be bringing from your own constituencies to have a thoughtful discussion about that today.

It is clear wherever you sit, regardless of the side of the aisle or partisan stripe, that the status quo won't do. Every time I meet with someone who has lost a loved one or who has been harmed by violence, I think we owe it to them to do more. These are far and away the most difficult conversations that I have in my capacity as a member of Parliament. I've had the privilege of speaking with the families of the victims from Portapique and Truro in Nova Scotia, from the Quebec City mosque, from the Polytechnique, from the Toronto Danforth in my hometown, and there's not a day that goes by that I don't think about them, not a single day. It is a singular motivation for me in this job to try to find a way to ensure that those tragedies don't ever occur again.

It's a complex problem. There are no easy or simple solutions to eradicating gun crime, and I readily acknowledge that, but from where I sit and from where the government sits, we need a comprehensive strategy.

That strategy is composed of a number of pillars. One is smart laws. From where we sit, assault-style rifles have no place in our communities, point final. That's why we banned them two years ago and that's why we're in the throes of implementing a buyback program that will get assault-style rifles out of our communities once and for all.

We need smart laws like Bill C-21, which, among other things, will introduce a national handgun freeze and introduce red flag and yellow flag protocols to reverse the trend in the connection between domestic violence and gender-based violence and the presence of guns, which has gone up tragically over the last number of years.

We need a bill that will provide additional tools to fight organized crime. One of the things that Bill C-21 will do when passed into law is increase maximum sentences from 10 to 14 years for those hardened criminals who would try to terrorize our communities with guns, as well as provide additional surveillance tools to law enforcement so that we can interdict those individuals who are trying to traffic guns, whether it's in our communities or at the borders.

This bill does all that. It also ensures that we deal with the challenges around straw purchasing so that criminals can be stopped from trying to use alternate individuals to purchase their guns lawfully and then have them transferred to them, and there is much more in there. I know that we're going to dig into some other substantive issues.

It is important that we study this bill. It is important that we take the steps that are necessary to stop the growth of a universe of guns and handguns, which have now become the number one type of gun used in homicides in the country.

That's not all we're doing. I have said on many occasions at this committee, in the House of Commons, in public that this government is invested in reinforcing our borders.

Over the past year, we have invested $321 million to enhance the integrity of our border. That investment has provided more resources for the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency and other police services. We have also worked closely with our American partners, whose cooperation has been significant.

I know that this is a challenge and that, despite all the progress we've made at the border, we must do more. I'm always ready to work toward other concrete solutions with my colleagues here on this committee and in the House and to continue making progress at the border.

In the end, we need to prevent gun violence.

We need to stop gun crime before it starts. That's why our building safer communities fund is such an important opportunity to work with local community organizations—to tap into their experience, tap into their wisdom, identify where the risks are, and identify those who are most exposed and can be exploited by organized crime and other elements that would put a gun in front of them so that they make the right choices instead. We have been accelerating the rollout of that fund over the last number of months, and I think it will help us round out a strategy that has to be comprehensive.

Once again, I want to thank all the members of this committee for their thoughtfulness and work.

I look forward to reading this bill, studying this bill and, hopefully, passing this bill as quickly as possible so that we can stop gun violence once and for all.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee commenced consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

With us today, we have the Honourable Marco Mendicino, Minister of Public Safety. We have as witnesses Rob Stewart, deputy minister; Talal Dakalbab, assistant deputy minister; and Fred Gaspar, vice-president, Canada Border Services Agency. As well, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Bryan Larkin, deputy commissioner, and Kellie Paquette, director general.

Please note that the minister and the deputy minister will be with us for the first hour. The remaining officials will stay for the second hour in order to answer questions from members.

With that, welcome to all.

I now invite Minister Mendicino to make an opening statement.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. We have to end this cycle. That is why we will continue to make investments in collaboration with Quebec, including $40 million to help police services, with $18 million going to prevent gun-related violence in Montreal.

We have to go even further by passing Bill C‑21, which seeks to provide more resources. We will do this work in collaboration with the Bloc Québécois.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, our thoughts are with the victims' families. This is a very difficult time.

Over the past year, we have invested $321 million to strengthen the integrity of our border. That is exactly why we have made so much progress going after criminals attempting to import illegal firearms. This is an issue with a lot of challenges.

We will move forward with our plan, Bill C‑21, which will give the police more tools and increase the penalties for those involved in organized crime. We need to pass this bill as soon as possible.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am a Quebecker, I am a Montrealer, and I am aware of what is happening in Montreal, both in my riding as well as in other ridings in Montreal.

Our goal with Bill C-5 is to increase resources to deal with serious crimes, which will always have serious consequences. With Bill C-21, we are increasing the maximum penalties for firearms offences.

We are moving in the right direction to get tough on the crimes that deserve it.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have just a comment and a question, I guess, for Ms. Dancho.

You're suggesting that we cut short the minister's appearance on Tuesday in order to deal with committee business and the calendar, or would it make more sense to do it...? We're hoping to have him here Tuesday on Bill C-21, which I think we all agree is an important piece of legislation.

Perhaps our new chair could schedule something on Thursday, following the hour with the chief of the defence staff. We're hoping he can appear on Thursday morning.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I tend to agree with what Ms. Dancho has just said. When we all have the work plan in front of us, we will be able to decide where it can fit into the agenda. On the other hand, I expect the study on Bill C‑21 to be quite long. We have a lot of witnesses to hear and we will have amendments to consider. Even with the work plan in front of us, I think it will be difficult to put our finger on a date. However, we can still do it. If we withdraw the motion today and decide on a date together, that is fine with me.

[The Clerk]

I have nothing at this point.

Just so you know, we've worked with the analysts on a work plan, since we received all the witness proposals for C-21 from the committee members yesterday. We'll soon be ready to propose a calendar for the upcoming weeks.

In the meantime, I believe Ms. Dancho has requested to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

I'll jump in on that question.

We are expecting to have the minister and officials next week, on Tuesday, in order to start the study on C-21. At this point, we are expecting to have the chief of the defence staff on Thursday.

Certainly, the longer-term plan for the committee will be largely taken up by C-21, which is our major priority at this moment. We did pass in committee the resolution to do a study on the situation in James Smith Cree Nation and the circumstances around that.

Mr. Clerk, did you have anything further to add to that?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I congratulate you on your election. I am very happy for you and delighted that we can continue to work together.

I, too, have already addressed my best wishes to Mr. Carr personally. I thanked him for the work he has done with us and wished him the best of luck in the future.

With regard to the motion, could we have a copy, virtual or hard copy? I don't know if I've got it right, but I think you'd like the study to start on October 7. We'll come back to that.

With regard to the study in general, I know that we had agreed a few meetings ago. However, I quite agree with what Ms. Damoff said, that the internal review is not quite finished, so it will be difficult to get answers from the different organizations at this stage.

Could the clerk advise us of the schedule for the next few weeks and the structure of our consideration of Bill C‑21? I would like to know when we can start receiving witnesses at committee and where the schedule will take us if we start this study.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Thanks, everyone, for your support.

I'd like to start by thanking the Honourable Jim Carr for his work to date bringing us along. We've done some great work together, and I appreciate his efforts and shall take guidance from them. I wish him well as he goes forward and deals with the health issues that he must face.

I would also like to note that Mr. Van Bynen will be joining us on an ongoing basis.

Welcome, Tony.

The original plan from last week was that today we would have the chief of the defence staff, but because of circumstances around the need to elect a new chair, that has fallen by the wayside. I understand that the chief of the defence staff will be available next Thursday, so I suggest that we proceed on that basis.

I also understand that the minister and officials will be available on this coming Tuesday to talk about Bill C-21, so we will continue on that basis.

I understand that there is a draft work plan in process that the clerk and analysts are working on. I hope to meet with the clerk and analysts early in the coming week, and we will distribute a work plan in due course.

Is there any comment?

Ms. Dancho, please go ahead.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why I hope the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑21. With this bill, we are going to give the police more tools that will help them fight organized crime so we can strengthen our borders and better protect our communities. That is what we plan to do, together with Quebec.

The House resumed from June 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Bill C-21

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is bringing forward firearms legislation that will impact lawful gun owners and not do nearly enough to address gun crime. The arbitrary handgun ban in Bill C-21 will do nothing to stop gun smuggling, nor will it prevent gang violence.

However, there are some measures of this bill the Conservatives support, such as the provision to keep firearms out of the hands of those who have committed domestic abuse. Despite the Conservatives' efforts to fast-track these pieces of the legislation, the NDP-Liberal coalition teamed up to block it, which I believe revealed their goals to be political rather than practical.

On this side of the House, our approach will always be to stand up for common sense measures to ensure that Canadians are safe and that guns are out of the hands of our criminals, instead of the soft-on-crime approach from the government.

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, beginning on Friday, June 24, 2022, and ending on Friday, June 23, 2023:

(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating remotely be in Canada;

(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House be counted for the purpose of quorum;

(c) provisions in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual and hybrid nature of the proceedings;

(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;

(e) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;

(f) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;

(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:

(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,

(ii) documents shall be transmitted to the clerk by members prior to their intervention,

(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the clerk electronically,

(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;

(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;

(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;

(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or

(ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday,

provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;

(k) if a motion for the previous question under Standing Order 61 is adopted without a recorded division, the vote on the main question may be deferred under the provisions of paragraph (j), however if a recorded division is requested on the previous question, and such division is deferred and the previous question subsequently adopted, the vote on the original question shall not be deferred;

(l) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday, provided that such recorded divisions be taken after the other recorded divisions deferred at that time;

(m) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(n) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;

(o) recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means through the House of Commons electronic voting application for all other members, provided that:

(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada using the member’s House-managed mobile device and the member’s personal House of Commons account, and that each vote require visual identity validation,

(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House, and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,

(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person take precedence,

(iv) any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system,

(v) following any concern, identified by the electronic voting system, which is raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system, the member in question shall respond immediately to confirm their vote, either in person or by the House videoconferencing system, failing which the vote shall not be recorded,

(vi) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,

(vii) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,

(viii) any question to be resolved by secret ballot be excluded from this order,

(ix) during the taking of a recorded division on a private members’ business, when the sponsor of the item is the first to vote and present at the beginning of the vote, the member be called first, whether participating in person or remotely;

(p) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special, special joint, except the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference, and provided that priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(ii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,

(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,

(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email; and

(q) notwithstanding the order adopted on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, regarding the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, until the committee ceases to exist and where applicable,

(i) the committee shall hold meetings in person only should this be necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act,

(ii) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(iii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iv) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(v) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of the House vice-chairs, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted;

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to undertake a study on hybrid proceedings and the aforementioned changes to the Standing Orders and the usual practice of the House.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this motion and talk about the extension of hybrid provisions for one year and the opportunity for the procedure and House affairs committee members to study the issue of either the use or the non-use of those provisions as they deem through their process and their recommendations thereafter.

I will take us back for a moment to March 2020. As the whole business of the pandemic was unfolding, it was about a week before this House shut down when I had a conversation with the House administration at that time asking what the pandemic plan was and what we had on the books. Of course, those who wrote it had put something together, but it became apparent very quickly upon looking at it that the intersection of what was planned with what happened in real life meant that the plan, frankly, was not of much use.

We then began a process, and I want to thank members from all parties, reflecting back on those early days in March 2020, as we attempted to find a way for Canada's Parliament to continue to do its business and to make sure that, notwithstanding the fact that we had this incredible public health emergency that sent people to their homes, Canadians knew that the seat of their democracy continued to function, continued to get bills passed and continued to put supports out there for them.

Before I talk about some of those supports, I want to take a moment to thank the House administration and officials who worked with us to create these tools and innovations to allow our democracy to continue to function. In an incredibly short period of time, an ability was developed to participate and vote virtually. This eventually led to a voting app and other refinements that have enabled members, whether or not they are sick, whether or not they are unable to be at the House for medical or other reasons, to continue to participate in the proceedings of the House and to make sure they are not disenfranchised and their constituents continue to be represented.

Members would remember that Canadians and businesses were reeling in those early days of COVID, and some three million jobs were lost. There was a real state of folks not knowing where things were going to go. Small businesses were left unable to serve their customers and wondering what their future would be. It was specifically because of the provisions we put in place, which all parties worked on with the House administration, that we were able to still get those supports adopted and make historic support available to make sure that businesses and individuals did not fall through the cracks.

Now we see the economy roaring back, and 115% of jobs lost during the pandemic have come back, compared to below 100% for the United States. We see us being a world leader in economic growth, number two in the G7 and trending towards being number one next year. It is absolutely evident that the supports that were put in place to make sure that Canadians did not fall through the cracks were what got us there.

When we think of the bravery of people opening a small business, taking a chance and putting themselves out in the world, putting their shingle out and hoping to survive, there are a lot of things they have to prepare for, such as the possibility that their product may not be as popular as they had hoped, or the long hours that they, and the people they employ, will have to put in to try to make the business successful. Of course, it is not reasonable for folks to expect that a global pandemic will be the thing that shuts them down. It was, in fact, those hybrid provisions that enabled people to get that work done.

The pandemic continues, but before I talk about the continuing pandemic, I will take a moment to talk about all the things that we got done, and not just those historic supports.

As the pandemic came and went, as we thought it was over last November and we thought that things might be returning to a sense of normalcy but we got hit by omicron, the flexibility of Parliament meant that we were able to continue to get the job of the nation done. We can take a look at how much Parliament was able to accomplish from January to June: 14 bills, not including supply, were presented, and we introduced seven bills in the Senate on a range of important issues. Many of the bills that we are passing now or that have just passed through the House are going to the Senate, and it is our hope and expectation, particularly with the great work that was just done on Bill C-28, that the Senate will be able to get that done as well before it rises for the summer. This was all done using the hybrid provisions.

Let us take a look at some of those bills.

Bill C-19 is critical to grow our economy, foster clean technology, strengthen our health care system and make life more affordable for Canadians in areas such as housing and child care.

Bill C-18 would make sure that media and journalists in Canadian digital news receive fair compensation for their work in an incredibly challenged digital environment.

Bill C-11 would require online streaming services to contribute to the creation and availability of Canadian stories and music to better support Canadian artists.

Bill C-21 would protect Canadians from the dangers of firearms in our communities, making sure that we freeze the market on handguns, attack smuggling at the border and implement red flag provisions to address domestic violence.

Bill C-22 was brought forward to reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in Canada and is part of a broader strategy that has seen more than one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. That is particularly remarkable when we think that it was this government that set the first targets ever for poverty reduction. After we set those goals, we have been exceeding them every step of the way, and Bill C-22 is a big part of that strategy.

Bill C-28, which I talked about a minute ago, deals with the extreme intoxication defence. It is a great example of Parliament in a hybrid environment being able to work collaboratively to ensure that we close an important loophole to make sure that the extreme intoxication defence is not used when murder has been committed.

These are just some of the bills that we have been able to put forward, and we have been able to do so in a way that empowered all members of Parliament to be able to participate, whether they had COVID or not.

To give members a sense of the challenges, not only was all of this done using the hybrid system and during the middle of a pandemic, but it was done while dealing with obstruction. We saw all the times the Conservatives obstructed government legislation. In fact, 17 times over the past 14 weeks, the Conservatives used obstruction tactics, using concurrence motions and other tactics to block and obstruct, in many cases, legislation that was supported by three out of the four official parties here. They took the opportunity to obstruct, yet despite that, we have been able to make great progress.

The Conservatives support Bill C-14, yet we ended up spending a night because they were moving motions to hear their own speakers. At the MAID committee looking at medical assistance in dying, where there was incredibly sensitive testimony, witnesses were not able to testify because of the tactics and games that were happening here in this place. However, despite all that, in a hybrid environment we have been able to move forward.

Let us look at last week. Last week there were five members of the Liberal caucus who had COVID, and one of these people was the Prime Minister. I do not know how many members there were in other caucuses, but all were still able to participate in these proceedings. Every day, unfortunately, thousands of Canadians across the country continue to get COVID. Sadly, many of them are in hospitals and, even more tragically, many of them are dying. This pandemic is still very much a reality.

What we have seen over the last two years is that every time we try to start a parliamentary session, we spend weeks debating whether we should or should not continue using the hybrid system. Parliament deserves stability. People are still getting COVID. They have the right to be able to participate in this place, and as has been demonstrated by the incredible amount of work we have been able to get done during the pandemic, from historic supports in the deepest, darkest time of the pandemic to the more recent times dealing with a whole range of legislation that is absolutely critical to Canadians, these provisions allow us to continue to do the work of this nation in extraordinary times.

I do not think we should be in a position such that every time we start Parliament, we continue to have this debate. Canadians need predictability, as we do not know where this pandemic or public health circumstances are going. Canadians need predictability until the House of Commons, through a committee process, can evaluate the utility and usefulness of the provisions outside of a pandemic reality to see if they should be extended or used. We need to have a proper, thorough debate in that venue, hearing from witnesses, hearing from parliamentarians, taking a look at what was accomplished and at what could be done better or differently.

We are already seeing big improvements in everything, from the services that are being delivered to interpretation. I look forward to PROC's work to see whether or not these provisions have utility, but until then, this measure would give us the stability for PROC to do its report and for Parliament to continue to function in incredibly challenging times.

That is why I think it is only prudent to pass this measure now. It is so that Parliament will have the stability to do its work, so Canadians will know this work will not be interrupted, and so we can focus instead on the business of the nation.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The government says it wants to reduce gun violence by introducing Bill C‑21, but the Montreal police service tells us that 95% of handguns used in violent crimes come from the black market.

I would like to know if my colleague thinks the government is doing enough to fight violence committed with illegal weapons. Is it doing enough at the borders, for example? Is Bill C‑21 sufficient?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-21. My Conservative colleagues have already laid out some of the bill's content and really the false narrative the Liberals have tried to advance in trying to pass this bill.

We know there is a significant crime problem in many of our urban centres, especially in those where we have seen a rise in shootings and gun crime. We also know that illegal weapons are the real problem. In the city of Toronto, the police have clearly stated that in over 85% of crimes involving a firearm in that city the weapons were smuggled in illegally from the United States. As a matter of fact, CBC reported that municipalities across the country report very similar stats. It said that, depending on the municipality, between 70% and 95% of all guns used in the commission of a crime have been imported from the United States.

The stats clearly prove that very few crimes were committed by those who are legally permitted to own them, who are the real targets of Bill C-21. Members will notice the Liberals never share that data. They never say that legal gun owners are not the problem because that is the group of people they like to target. They want to have Canadians believe that legal gun owners are the problem, are scary and need to be eliminated. They are stating in this bill that they want to see an end to the trading of these guns.

It is important that Canadians know that anybody who owns a weapon that is addressed in this bill has gone through extensive training and background checks, and the stats clearly indicate they are not the problem when it comes to crime in our cities. The Liberals have been fabricating a narrative that is completely hypocritical when we see what they have done. Bill C-21 does next to nothing to deal with smuggled firearms or target the criminals who import, sell and use them.

What makes the Liberals even more hypocritical is the fact that they have a bill to deal with these criminals, which is Bill C-5. In that bill the Liberals are reducing the mandatory minimum imprisonments for criminals who are involved in the following crimes: unauthorized possession of prohibited or restricted weapons; possession of prohibited or restricted firearms with ammunition; possession of firearms obtained by commission of an offence; firearms trafficking; possession of firearms for the purposes of trafficking; and knowingly importing and exporting an unauthorized firearm. They are reducing the penalties for the people who are actually the problem when it comes to gun crime in this country. It is clear to see the Liberals have no interest in dealing with the real problem, taking illegal weapons off of our streets.

As if we needed any additional evidence that the Liberal government would go to disturbing lengths to advance its own political agenda, in breaking news just yesterday afternoon we learned that the Liberals would jeopardize the independence of the institution of the RCMP for their political interests. The evidence in the report that was released included some of the scariest evidence of how low the government will go and how many boundaries it will break to advance its own political agenda. The Halifax Examiner exposed the rot that exists in the government and the manipulation it expects from the highest levels of what should be an independent trusted public institution.

The headline screams, “RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki tried to 'jeopardize' mass murder investigation to advance [the Prime Minister's] gun control efforts”. In her report, Jennifer Henderson stated:

RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki “made a promise” to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and the Prime Minister's Office to leverage the mass murders of April 18/19, 2020 to get a gun control law passed.

A week after the murders, Lucki pressured RCMP in Nova Scotia to release details of the weapons used by the killer. But RCMP commanders in Nova Scotia refused to release such details, saying doing so would threaten their investigation into the murders.

The Trudeau government’s gun control objectives were spelled out in an order in council issued in May 2020....

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments, specifically with respect to firearms. I know that there has been a lot said about this bill and how it would impact Canadians. I know that there have been some unfortunate comments that, in my opinion, do not exactly reflect what is in this bill, so I will use the opportunity today to try to highlight exactly what this bill would do.

First and foremost, this bill would establish a national freeze on handguns. Individuals would no longer have the ability to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns. This is extremely reasonable in today's society with what we are seeing going on not just outside of our borders in the United States, but also as we have actually witnessed here in Canada. We know that for the vast majority of those who are looking to harm individuals and utilize a gun for an illegal purpose, the weapon of choice is a handgun, and it is extremely important to ensure that there is a restricted ability for people to access these.

There would be exemptions, and there are exemptions in the bill, that ensure that those who require a weapon for security or policing purposes, etc., would obviously be exempt for those reasons. They would be able to make purchases for those reasons.

We also know that a certain number of people out there enjoy using a handgun for sport: for shooting at a range or in various ways. They utilize that. Although it might be more challenging to access a handgun in order to continue using it for that purpose, this bill certainly makes it known that this is not about attempting to regulate those individuals or prevent those individuals from utilizing a handgun for that purpose. In many cases, for sport, those individuals would not be impacted.

This bill would also establish red flag and yellow flag laws to expand the licence revocation process when it is deemed necessary in the right context.

The bill would also combat firearms smuggling and trafficking, notably by increasing the maximum penalty of imprisonment for indictable weapons offences. This is extremely important to reference because this, along with the mandatory minimum sentences bill that the House has also been debating in the past few weeks, is a talking point for Conservatives, with respect to minimum sentences being dropped primarily because the Supreme Court has determined that to be a necessity. Because those are being dropped, the Conservatives are suggesting that the government is being more lenient on those who commit certain crimes that would have otherwise been, and currently would be, regulated by mandatory minimums.

It is actually the opposite, because although the government does feel that when it comes to sentencing, judges should be the ones who are determining what sentencing is, we also recognize that for some of these indictable offences, particularly those around weapons, we would be giving greater sentencing capacity to change that maximum sentence from 10 years to 14 years. Indeed, when judges find it appropriate to increase the sentence even further, they would be given more capacity to do that.

Of course, as indicated by other people who spoke before me, there is a provision within this bill to prohibit mid-velocity replica airguns. The reasons for that are quite notable, despite the fact that we have heard some conversation about the fact that different sporting activities might from time to time require these airguns.

It is very important to point out that this bill, at least in my opinion, is not about targeting law-abiding gun owners.

Most of my uncles in particular either own hunting lodges, where they hunt with their friends and families, or have been participating as hunters for generations, quite frankly. On my wife's side of the family, my father-in-law grew up on a hunting and fishing lodge. I am quite familiar with the needs and requirements of hunters specifically, and I must admit I have never heard one of them talk about the need to use a handgun or an AR-15 for the purpose of hunting.

What we are really trying to do here is curb the use of guns for illegal purposes: for the shootings we have seen in our country and continue to witness in the United States to the south of us. That is what the issue really is here.

I know the default, and quite often used, excuse from the other side of the House is to ask why we are not going after those who are trying to bring the guns across the border, because a significant number of guns that are used in criminal activity are coming from across the border.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate today on Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments concerning firearms. This is a very important issue for the majority of Canadians, and it is particularly important for my constituency, where public safety was recently identified as a top area of concern for our community.

All levels of government and numerous dedicated organizations in my riding of Surrey Centre have been working for many years to address gun violence and gang-related violence. Rates of gun violence have continued to rise since 2009, and violent offences that involve guns have increased by 81%. With so much news content from the United States available to Canadians, we hear daily reports of shootings in the United States. We do not want this constant exposure to desensitize us to the horrific, unspeakable tragedies that come from gun violence. As we know, Canada is not immune to that violence.

Too many communities across the country have grieved the loss of loved ones. École Polytechnique, Moncton, the mosque shooting in Quebec City, and Nova Scotia are only a few of many examples of violent acts with firearms that have occurred in Canada. These examples do not even cover the number of individuals who face gun violence on a regular basis due to domestic or intimate partner violence or gang-related activity.

According to Statistics Canada, there has been a notable increase in firearm-related violent crime across many rural areas in the country, and 47% of Canadians reported feeling that gun violence posed a serious threat to their communities. This includes my own community of Surrey Centre. Earlier this year, the RCMP in Surrey reported that, in a six-day span, there had been four incidents of shots fired in the city.

From my days in high school, I saw hundreds of young boys and men shot and killed for petty disputes and turf wars. Others will recall the innocent victims of gun violence who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Paul Bennett, a nurse and hockey coach, was killed outside his home in Surrey. Chris Mohan was shot for simply being on the same floor as a gangland hit. Bikramdeep Randhawa, a correctional officer, was killed outside of a McDonald's in another case of mistaken identity. These are all on top of hundreds of women killed in cases of domestic or intimate partner violence, including Maple Batalia, a young woman studying at Simon Fraser University, who was killed on campus by a jealous ex-boyfriend.

This is far too regular an occurrence and it puts our communities at risk of being caught in the crossfire. It is clear we need to do more to address gun violence in our communities. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities, homes, schools and workplaces, and we do not want to wait for another tragedy to occur in Canada before we take strong action to address that violence.

We know that reducing access to firearms reduces the amount of gun violence. It is simple. Other countries around the world have essentially eliminated gun violence in their countries by enacting tougher laws. Scotland, Australia and New Zealand are all examples of this.

In 1996, a deadly shooting at Dunblane Primary School in Scotland killed 16 students and a teacher and injured 15 others. The following year, the U.K. Parliament banned private ownership of most handguns as well as semi-automatic weapons, and required mandatory registration for shotgun owners. The reforms required owners of permitted firearms to pass a strict licence process, which involves interviews and home visits by local police who have the authority to deny approval of permits if they deem the would-be owner a potential risk to public safety. In the last decade, there have only been three homicides by gun violence in the United Kingdom. There has never been another school shooting.

Also in 1996, in a shooting at a café in Port Arthur, Australia, a man opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle. He killed 35 people and wounded another 28. Australia's then new prime minister, John Howard, who had taken office only six weeks prior to the tragedy, led a sweeping nationwide reform on guns following the incident. Australia's National Firearms Agreement restricted legal ownership of firearms in Australia. It established a registry of all guns owned in the country, among other measures. It required a permit for all new firearms purchases, as well as a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

Similar to our own government's plan, the Australian government has established a mandatory buyback of legal and illegal guns resulting in 650,000 formerly legally owned guns being peacefully seized. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia, in the seven years after the bill, declined by 57% compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by nearly 42%. Between 1978 and 1995, 13 mass shootings occurred in the country. In the years since those mass shootings, Australians brought in sweeping gun reform, and since 1995 there has only been one mass shooting.

New Zealand has traditionally had a high gun ownership rate, but tight restrictions and low rates of gun violence. In less than the two weeks after a far right extremist killed 50 people at a mosque in 2019, authorities in New Zealand announced a ban on military-style semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines, like those the attacker had used. They also created a buyback program, as well as a special commission to explore broader issues around the accessibility of weapons and the role of social media.

Gun ownership in Canada is the fifth highest in the world. The countries I have mentioned, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand, are like Canada in that they all have a strong culture of guns. Despite this, they have successfully reduced the number of gun-related incidents and saved countless lives through comprehensive reforms and policies that address the complexity of gun violence.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recently tabled a report entitled, “A Path Forward: Reducing Gun and Gang Violence in Canada”. The committee heard from 50 witnesses who echoed the same message: Gun violence is a complex issue that will take more than one program or policy to fix. The committee heard that it will take a multi-faceted and comprehensive approach that includes all levels of government, indigenous peoples, grassroots organizations, law enforcement and social services. It will require research, collection of data, and preventative and intervention measures.

Our government is committed to addressing gun violence, and we will continue to take action in an effort to mitigate the senseless tragedies that occur at the hands of firearms, and this legislation is the next step.

For those who say illegal guns smuggled across the border are the ones that we should be concerned about, they should have spoken up when the Harper Conservatives cut CBSA staff by 30%, or when they disbanded and defunded the major organized crime unit in the RCMP that investigated cross-border smuggling. How were they silent then? Are they silent now, when it comes to reducing gun violence? The story is the same.

We re-funded the CBSA and the RCMP, and the proof is in the pudding, with gun seizures at the border being double last year from the year prior.

Our plan to address gun violence will address this complexity. Bill C-21 will establish a national freeze on handguns; establish red flag and yellow flag laws; expand licence revocation; combat firearms smuggling and trafficking, notably by increasing the maximum penalty; and prohibit mid-velocity replica airguns.

This plan is about the survivors and about communities across Canada from coast to coast to coast, which are too often touched by gun violence. Canadians told us they wanted to see more action, more quickly, and we are doing that through our commitment to do more.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-21, the NDP-Liberals' most recent attempt to scapegoat law-abiding firearms owners and to trick the average Canadian into believing they are trying to improve public safety while doing absolutely no such thing.

If we looks at the balance of the government's agenda on public safety and justice, we see that Liberals seem content to undermine both of these departments and the essential institutions that support them. This is being done in order to virtue signal and play petty politics to the detriment of our entire society.

While this is deeply disappointing, it is hardly surprising. The government is light on substantive policy solutions and heavy on press conferences and so-called alternative facts.

Today additional details came to light about interference by the government and the Prime Minister in the investigation of the tragic mass murders in Nova Scotia in an attempt to create a narrative that would fit their political agenda. This is important, because it speaks to the foundation on which substantial parts of the Liberals' firearms policy rests, including parts of Bill C-21, the bill we are currently debating.

The Halifax Examiner reported yesterday that “RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki 'made a promise' to [the] Public Safety Minister...[at the time] and the Prime Minister’s Office to leverage the mass murders of April 18/19, 2020 to get a gun control law passed.”

To be clear, that former public safety minister is now the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness.

The article makes it clear that the commissioner was being pressured by the Prime Minister's Office and the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness to ensure that information was released that would help them politically, to the detriment of the ongoing investigation and potentially placing it in jeopardy.

As the Minister of Emergency Preparedness is a former police chief, we would expect better from him. However, maybe this is how he has always operated. This is a pattern of behaviour with this Prime Minister: He puts himself first, the Liberal Party second, his donors and insider friends third, and then if there is time and the chance for a really good photo op, he might try to do something that actually helps a few Canadians.

This is an example of the first two. The Prime Minister was willing to interfere with the ongoing police investigation in order to try to leverage a political edge. This used to be unimaginable, but given the Prime Minister's SNC-Lavalin track record, it is totally in line with his character. The way someone does one thing is the way that person does everything.

I want to read part of this article, because it is important and deserves to be heard in this place. Nova Scotia Superintendent Darren Campbell wrote about a meeting he had with Commissioner Lucki, stating:

The Commissioner was obviously upset. She did not raise her voice but her choice of words was indicative of her overall dissatisfaction with our work. The Commissioner accused us (me) of disrespecting her by not following her instructions. I was and remain confused over this. The Commissioner said she told Comms to tell us at H Division to include specific info about the firearms used by [the killer]….However I said we couldn’t because to do so would jeopardize ongoing efforts to advance the U.S. side of the case as well as the Canadian components of the investigation. Those are facts and I stand by them.

Those are the words of Superintendent Campbell.

I will add that every police officer carries with them an evidence notebook. I, as a former law enforcement officer back in the 1990s, still have today my evidence notebooks in case I need to recall facts about events that happened while I was on duty.

The article continues:

Campbell noted that Lucki went on at length and said she was “sad and disappointed” that he had not provided these details to the media. Campbell continued:

The Commissioner said she had promised the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister’s Office that the RCMP (we) would release this information. I tried to explain there was no intent to disrespect anyone however we could not release this information at this time. The Commissioner then said that we didn’t understand, that this was tied to pending gun control legislation that would make officers and the public safer. She was very upset and at one point Deputy Commissioner (Brian) Brennan tried to get things calmed down but that had little effect. Some in the room were reduced to tears and emotional over this belittling reprimand.

The article makes it clear that this was not the only way that the government interfered with this investigation and the release of information, by pressuring the commissioner to break agreed-upon protocols.

The article also attributes a quote to Lia Scanlan, communications director for the RCMP, that says, “The commissioner releases a body count that we don’t even have. She went out and did that. It was all political pressure. That is 100% the minister and the Prime Minister. And we have a Commissioner that does not push back.”

Those are the words of RCMP communications director Scanlan. It is deeply concerning that the commissioner would not push back against the government on this request, but it is completely and totally unacceptable that she should ever have had to. I can only surmise that she is all too familiar with what happens to women who speak truth to power to the Prime Minister and his underlings.

This is the foundation on which Bill C-21 was constructed: political pressure and interference with the RCMP, misinformation about the perpetrators of gun violence and naked political opportunism. The bill was also announced on the heels of an American tragedy, deliberately importing American political discourse into domestic Canadian policies. The Prime Minister seems to be confused about the impact of Canadian legislation on American society, of which there is virtually none.

Unless he is announcing his plan to run for president of the United States, he should start trying to address the issues that Canadians face, not American issues here in Canada.

The firearms regimes in our two countries, Canada and the United States, are completely different. It has been made clear that the mass murderer from Texas would not be able to get a gun in Canada. In most U.S. states, a 21-year-old American with no convictions could purchase a firearm and, in pretty much every state, carry it. In about half of them, they could carry concealed with limited regulations. That is not the reality in Canada.

I am a law-abiding firearms owner. In Canada, people need to take a firearms safety course, apply for a licence and submit to a background check, not only on the initial application but on every reapplication every five years, in which the RCMP can contact former conjugal partners. Then, they wait for that information to come back for a few months, and maybe then can go and purchase a firearm and abide by stringent safe storage and transport laws. That is the reality in Canada. Every day, my ability to continue to own or possess firearms is checked against the Canadian Police Information Centre’s database to ensure that I am still legally and lawfully able to.

If only the government of the day would spend that much time following up on people who are prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms, spend that much time policing our borders and making sure that the people on our borders had the tools and equipment that they needed, and spend that much time in this chamber actually focused on criminals who commit crimes: they shoot guns in our urban centres, in our communities and in our rural areas and have no respect for the law and no respect for human life.

That is not the case with the 2.1 million law-abiding Canadian firearms owners. In fact, the data clearly says the opposite. If we are going to be harmed by somebody in the country with a firearm, the vast majority of that harm is coming from somebody who is not licensed to have the firearm in the first place.

Every gun in this country is illegal unless it is in the possession of somebody licensed to have it. We have the best firearms laws in the world, and I will put that up against the record of any other country.

It is shameful that the government is importing U.S. politics into Canada to sell misinformation to the voters of this country and disenfranchise law-abiding Canadian citizens.

The House resumed from June 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Interruption to Proceedings

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning last night's crash of the hybrid Parliament system. I was working in my Confederation Building office here in the precinct for the House of Commons, but could not log into the Zoom portion of the House's proceedings last night. We were discussing Bill C-21, the government's cynical approach to gun control, which was to be followed by Bill C-28, a response to the Supreme Court's decision that relieved extremely intoxicated criminals of taking responsibility for their crimes. These are both issues that many of my constituents are very passionate about, and I wanted to be present for the debates.

Several colleagues also tried to access the video conference for the sitting, but were unsuccessful, I was told. I also understand that a meeting of the very important Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, the committee looking into the government's choice to declare a national emergency over this winter's truck protest in Ottawa, had to be abandoned because of these technical failures.

Beyond the obvious inconvenience and embarrassment of the hybrid system, which incredibly the government House leader will be asking later today to be renewed for another year, this incident represents broadly, I believe, a breach of the privilege to be able to represent my constituents. Under the House order of November 25, 2021, which reinstituted hybrid arrangements after last year's election, “members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by video conference”. It states “may participate”. There is no caveat or qualification to that. There is nothing that says it is only applicable when all the technology lines are up.

As much as I may think the hybrid Parliament should be scrapped, the House has agreed to those arrangements until at least tomorrow, so I sought to exercise my right to participate remotely from my parliamentary office, yet I simply could not.

While I acknowledge that the House suspended last evening shortly after the connectivity problems were flagged, which was appropriate, the way the House adjourned was not, however. According to the records of the House, the sitting resumed at 8:54 last evening when the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader then sought unanimous consent for the House to adjourn. The chair then canvassed the House in the usual manner and found there was agreement for the motion. Since I was trying to attend remotely, but with a technical range that prevented me from doing so, I was unable to present for that vote. That too is a breach of my privileges.

I have since come to understand that there had been a consensus of party representatives to reconvene the House for the purpose of adjourning when it became obvious that technical issues could not be resolved prior to midnight. That said, I understand that my House leader's office had been assured by the government House leader's office that a minister of the Crown would be proposing the adjournment of the House. That is a critical point in these circumstances. Last night's sitting was an extended sitting under the House order of May 2, better known as Motion No. 11, which permits a cabinet minister to move an adjournment motion on a point of order, which is deemed adopted upon being moved. There would have been no vote and no opportunity to object. The NDP-Liberal agreement on Motion No. 11 already stripped me of those rights.

Had any of the 39 ministers of the Crown been here to manage the Business of the House, the House could have properly adjourned early under the Liberals' ruthless Motion No. 11, but they did not even manage that correctly. Instead, there was a vote and I was not able to be present for it. Your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have found several prima facie cases of privilege concerning the inability of a member to reach the House, especially when there is a vote.

Mr. Speaker Regan put it well on April 6, 2017, at page 10,246 of the Debates:

The importance of the matter of members' access to the precinct, particularly when there are votes for members to attend, cannot be overstated. It bears repeating that even a temporary denial of access, whether there is a vote or not, cannot be tolerated.

He cited favourably the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 2004, in relation to security arrangements on Parliament Hill for the visit of an American president:

The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable, and constitutes a contempt of the House. Members must not be impeded or interfered with while on their way to the Chamber, or when going about their parliamentary business. To permit this would interfere with the operation of the House of Commons, and undermine the pre-eminent right of the House to the service of its Members.

Those cases concerned physical obstruction.

Page 111 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us, “A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means.” This new hybrid world obviously presents entirely new considerations that had not even been contemplated when those previous cases arose or when our procedural authorities were written. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 112, continues, “It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction [or] interference”.

That said, Mr. Speaker, I know that you, yourself, have been seized with considering just how privilege intersects with the virtual component of our proceedings from the very beginning. When the procedure and House affairs committee first began studying these issues in the earliest weeks of the pandemic, you testified on April 21, 2020, saying, at page five of the evidence, “By not having the connectivity or by having any issues, that could be an issue down the road.”

Later you added, at page 10, with particular relevance to my situation last night, “Allowing individuals to vote is the heart of our system, and it's the base of parliamentary privilege.” You reinforced this point in your July 6, 2020, appearance before the same committee by commenting, at page six of the evidence, “It is a member's privilege to vote, and we don't want the member to lose that privilege or not be able to access it.”

The issue goes much deeper than just attending votes. I could not attend any of the virtual sitting. A predecessor of yours, Peter Milliken, bluntly made the point about connection failures to the procedure and House affairs committee on April 23, 2020, at page 19 of the evidence. He said, “It would be a matter of privilege if they couldn't get into it.”

Taking the evidence the committee heard in the spring and summer of 2020, it presented two reports which helped form the structure of the hybrid system which has evolved here. Its views on these issues are equally clear.

In its fifth report presented in May 2020, the committee wrote at page 31, “It is essential that any modifications to the procedures and practices of the House made in response to the COVID-19 outbreak fully respect the rights possessed by members under parliamentary privilege.” It continues, “Further, in the exercise of the rights accorded by parliamentary privilege, members have the right to full and equal participation in parliamentary proceedings.” Last night, I did not have full and equal participation in parliamentary proceedings.

In its seventh report, which was presented in July 2020, at page 55, the committee recommended:

That the virtual or hybrid parliament replicate the rules and customs of the House as closely as possible...in order to fully ensure the democratic role of Parliament (deliberation, accountability and decision-making), as well as the parliamentary rights and privileges of members.

Further in the report, at page 60, the committee recommended, “That members participating virtually in any proceedings of the House of Commons enjoy and exercise the same parliamentary privileges that apply to members physically present.” I was incapable of exercising the same rights and privileges as my colleagues inside the chamber last evening when the Chair canvassed the House on the parliamentary secretary's unanimous consent motion.

As for the causes of the outage last night, I would submit that identifying the origins and motivations, if any, if either can even be identified, is immaterial to this question of privilege.

First, and most important, House business was conducted in defiance of the order adopted on November 25, 2021, denying me the opportunity to participate and vote, which is in breach of parliamentary privilege.

Second, that is a matter that a committee of the House, with a privilege reference, can determine. I will quote Mr. Speaker Milliken from October 15, 2001, at page 6085 of the debates, who said:

There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has a fearsome chairman, quite able to extract information from witnesses who appear before the committee, with the aid of the capable members who form that committee of the House.

Third, even if the source of last night's technical difficulties can be readily pinpointed, I would refer you to the ruling of your predecessor, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, on March 6, 2012, at page 5,834 of the debates, where he found a prima facie case of privilege in connection with the online hacker collective Anonymous.

I have long thought that we need to get back to traditional in-person sittings of the House. Yesterday's situation is just the latest example of why it is so important.

Though I recognize I am straying into debate on Motion No. 19, which is on today's schedule, the point remains that something serious happened last night. It was something that rose to the level of a breach of privilege, and a committee needs to get to the bottom of it. Should you agree, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Criminal Code

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, whom I hold in high esteem, for the quality of his speech and his thoughtful consideration. He is proving it again today.

When I mentioned the 95% figure earlier, I was referring to 95% of violent crimes committed on the streets of Montreal. We are not talking about the same statistics. I have not seen the statistic that 75% of suicides are committed with firearms. I will trust my colleague on the validity of that figure.

Of course that is an issue. Bill C-21 could contribute to some progress in that regard, since it will reduce the number of handguns in circulation, gradually and over time.

Beyond that, I think my colleague mentioned the key elements: mental health and resources. The day that society adequately funds health care, for instance, to focus on prevention rather than the cure, or band-aid solutions after the fact, we will be well on our way to solving these problems.

My question is fundamental. It is clear where I am going with this. I am still talking about those darn health transfers. Can we just get the money to take care of our people? Then we can invest in mental health or homelessness and we can make a difference. I am sure my colleague agrees with me.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for his speech.

The member talked about some of the issues that the government has been dealing with, and spoke in terms of illusion. I would suggest that, right now, we are a country in chaos. Even the most basic government services are being bungled by this government: passports, immigration, border issues at Roxham Road, the issues with Afghanistan and Ukraine, inflation, affordability and, not least, political interference, according to a news story that came to light today.

This is a complicated issue that requires complicated solutions. Is there any confidence, on the part of the member who just spoke, in the government's ability to deal with this issue effectively? The issue is guns, gangs, illegal criminals and the illegal importation of guns that are used for violent crimes. Does the member have any confidence in the government's ability to actually find an effective solution through Bill C-21, or is this simply smoke and mirrors and just another way of the government mishandling something?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I do not understand why the government does not work with the opposition to table bills that will really make a difference.

I was talking about a definition for an assault weapon. That is important. Taking action is a Bloc proposal. We have a lot of proposals like that. Every time I rise, I am thrilled to list the Bloc's intelligent and well-thought-out proposals. I often sound brilliant when I do that, but our extraordinary research team really deserves a lot of credit.

Then there is organized crime. The people shooting at each other in Montreal are organized. They are in a gang. They want to eliminate the other gang and take over the neighbourhood. We have all watched plenty of movies and can imagine what motivates them to go and shoot someone in a restaurant, in front of children. The tragedy is that this is not a movie on Netflix. This really happens. We do not have to accept that.

As elected members of the federal Parliament, it is not only our duty but our moral obligation to act on this. We are debating Bill C‑21, which will affect 5% of the firearms being used. It is a small step forward, but it does not address the real problems. Lately, during almost every question period, my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has been asking the Minister of Public Safety when he will create a list of recognized criminal entities.

Something similar exists for terrorist groups. It gives police something to work with. It gives prosecutors tools. It makes it easier to bring people to justice. We control the laws. We have the freedom to do that.

Why not give ourselves this gift? I do not understand. Who are we afraid of? Those are the questions we need to be asking ourselves.

We are dealing with a government that will go to the media and say it is taking action on guns by passing Bill C-21, when really, the bill does absolutely nothing. I can say this because every time my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord sits down after a question in question period, that is the answer he gets. He is told every time that the government has introduced Bill C-21 and that it hopes the Bloc Québécois will support its passage. Of course the Bloc Québécois is going to vote in favour, but we need more than that. We need to tackle the root cause of the problem.

We are dealing with a government that is all about image. It does not care about tackling problems. Just look at the passport crisis we are currently facing. That is the perfect example. How long have we been talking about that? Can the government do something about it, put resources into it, open the offices on weekends?

The minister stands up and says that the offices are open on weekends, but people are telling me over the phone that the offices are not open on weekends. Then we are not supposed to get upset. For 10 years, we have been calling for employment insurance reform. What is happening? Nothing. Last fall, fathers still had to prove they were using food banks in order to get benefits. Cuts are still being made to the guaranteed income supplement. The Liberals are going to stop making cuts in July. The machine is too big. No one knows how to press the button without messing up the entire calculation. It is going to take another cheque. It is totally ridiculous. Despite the inflation we are seeing right now, the government refuses to increase the old age security pension. I could go on at length.

I asked a question about support for agriculture today. It has been more than a month since people from agricultural organizations proposed practical solutions. They are not asking for money to be thrown at them. They are showing up with a list of solutions. More than a month has gone by, and there is still no response. It is radio silence. The management of the border during the COVID‑19 pandemic is another issue. I could go on until midnight. Are we sitting until midnight? I am game.

Let us come back to the bill. This bill has positive elements. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary spoke about red-flag and yellow-flag provisions. We are aware of these provisions, and that is why we will support the bill. At the same time, there are contradictions. Bill C‑21 increases the sentence for gun traffickers in an attempt to impress the public, whereas Bill C‑5 reduces the sentences.

We say that we agree with reducing sentences, but this is not the time to reduce them for crimes committed with a firearm. The response is that, in any event, it does not change criminals' minds.

The same argument does not hold from one bill to the other, which I have a hard time understanding. Everyone in the Bloc Québécois is reaching out to the government. We want to crack down on real organized crime, the real criminals, the thugs who traffic firearms and terrorize our cities. There is work to do and we are prepared to do it. Until then, we will vote in favour of Bill C‑21 because it is a step in the right direction.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill, and I will start with a confession. I am surprised to find myself agreeing with many of the criticisms expressed by Conservative members. This does not happen very often when it comes to firearms.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-21 and will obviously try to improve it in committee. However, it does not address any of the current problems that are affecting cities, particularly Montreal. There is nothing in the bill to address the shootings on our city streets that are scaring our children. This is very serious.

The bill puts a freeze on the acquisition of new legal handguns. This is good and might help, but these weapons represent barely 5% of the weapons used in violent crimes. According to Montreal's police service, the SPVM, 95% of the handguns used in violent crimes are illegal. Bill C‑21 contains nothing more than a few watered-down measures to tackle this problem.

Where are the measures to increase resources for border services so they can curb the trafficking of illegal weapons? Where are the additional patrols? I know that I repeat this often, but I would like to remind the House that the Government of Quebec recently provided $6 million to increase patrols in the Akwesasne area.

The federal government is nowhere to be found. It must propose something to tackle this issue, whether it is resources, money, a special task force, I do not know. The bill does nothing to deal with the violent crimes currently being committed in our cities.

We are faced once more with a government that claims to be doing something and tries to give the impression that it is taking action while actually doing very little. Ideally, the longer it can make this last, the more satisfied it is, because it can repeat 100 promises three or four times in different election campaigns.

I am going to take the example of assault weapons, which can fire ammunition at insane speeds and which no one needs in real life. These weapons are a problem. The current government claims that it has already done its job by prohibiting them. It often repeats this claim in its speeches, saying that it is a good thing.

In reality, in May 2020, the government cobbled together a list seemingly at random, containing several models of weapons whose names seemed to have been picked out of a hat. Then the government declared that those weapons were prohibited. However, similar models that are just as or even more dangerous continue to be legal. This approach pushed the manufacturers of these weapons to adapt and develop other models since then.

We need to work intelligently, and for that to happen, the government needs to listen to the opposition once in a while. The opposition is not always right, but it often is right, and it makes good suggestions.

For example, we said that there was no need to make a list of weapons, but that we should consult experts and define what an assault weapon is. Once the legal framework is established, if a weapon fits in this framework, it will be banned and considered illegal, no matter what weapons manufacturers invent five or 10 years from now. That seems so logical to me, so I do not understand—

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5, the soft-on-crime bill, actually allows for lesser sentences for those who commit crimes with guns. I was wondering how the hon. member can reconcile what he sees in Bill C-21 with this soft-on-crime approach by the Liberal government.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, normally I would say it is a pleasure to rise to speak in the House, but I find it a little challenging when it is concerning Bill C-21.

In my former life, I was the mayor of a small city in Saskatchewan. One of my many roles as mayor was being the chair of the police commission. I have witnessed first-hand the full spectrum between responsible firearms owners and gang members. I am no stranger to competitive shooting or understanding the importance of the safe use of firearms. As a young boy, I won top shot numerous times in Air Cadets, and I was second in my platoon in basic officer training in Saint-Jean, Quebec. I credit this to my grandfather, who was a sniper in the offensive during World War II.

I personally know several people, and those from organizations, who are all responsible firearms owners who promote firearms safety. Today we are in the House to debate an example of the government doing something just to say it is doing something. This is something it has tremendous experience in. It is as though it legislates to generate good talking points instead of good policy. There is an old saying: “Walk around. Carry a clipboard, and look busy.” This is exactly what the government is doing: looking busy and accomplishing nothing.

As everyone watching likely knows, Bill C-21 is the Liberal government's latest attack on responsible Canadian firearms owners, another band-aid solution, another policy that would punish people instead of helping them. The government has had a habit of punishing people or industries for ideological reasons. I can name any number of examples: its carbon tax, warning labels on ground beef and, today, this attack on lawful firearms owners.

The NDP-Liberal government does not think people should hunt. It does not think farmers need firearms as tools. It does not think target shooting is a legitimate sport. The government simply does not believe anyone should own a gun. In short, it does not understand rural Canada. It is attacking us and our way of life.

Today I would like to spend some time talking about one of the aspects of this bill that has received the most attention and the most press: the handgun. Licensed handgun owners in Canada are responsible owners. For my Liberal colleagues across the aisle, who likely do not know the process but think they are experts, I would like to share with the House the lengthy process to obtain a handgun in Canada.

First, people need to go through the process to get their PAL. Again for my Liberal colleagues, that stands for a possession and acquisition licence. That involves taking the firearm safety course, passing the test and, finally, filling out the application forms and going through the needed background checks. To obtain a licence for a handgun, people also need to pass an additional safety course, which is the Canadian restricted firearm safety course. They must register the handgun and follow special storage, display, transportation and handling requirements. They may not carry the firearms on their person, they may only use them for target shooting or collecting. They may only be used at approved ranges, and one would likely need to be members in good standing at said ranges, which would come with its own background check.

After going through all these steps, it is not hard to see why handgun owners are so responsible. The cost and time to go through this process alone would deter anyone from breaking any of these rules. The question I have for my NDP-Liberal colleagues is this: What would a handgun ban accomplish that these strict rules do not already accomplish?

We all know that Canada's largest cities are experiencing a surge in gun violence. That is something that needs to be fixed, and fixed quickly, but it is not something this bill would do anything to address.

The government has never even tried to address the reasons people join gangs. Youth do it out of a sense of hopelessness and a lack of belonging. Hopelessness is created by not having a sense of responsibility. Who would when a government tries to bubble-wrap people and make decisions for them in almost every aspect of their lives?

What we want are responsible citizens who make decisions for themselves, who understand that for every decision a person makes, there is a consequence and sometimes an unintended consequence. For every decision someone makes, they have a choice between doing something good or something bad. They can either contribute to society and help their fellow man or take away from society and tear down their fellow man. What needs to be instilled in this country and future generations is a sense of responsibility, a sense of belonging and clear examples of the differences between right and wrong.

The gangs our youth are joining that commit these shootings are not using legal, registered firearms. They are using handguns smuggled over the border. Our border agency, the CBSA, needs more resources to tackle this problem. That is something that this bill, Bill C-21, falls well short of.

Recently, the public safety committee tabled its guns and gangs report, which included several recommendations to tackle gun violence in Canada, recommendations that seem to have been totally ignored in drafting this bill. It included recommendations such as creating a program to tour young offenders through penitentiaries; maintaining mandatory minimum sentences for drug and firearm-related crimes; removing the expensive firearm buyback program and allocating the money to gang prevention programs; adequately funding indigenous police forces to combat gangs and gun smuggling; and that the government actually recognize that the majority of illegal firearms in Canada are the result of smuggling.

If the NDP-Liberals were more interested in developing good policy instead of good talking points, they would have paid attention to the committee's important work. Sadly, this has not been the case.

Bill C-21 is not only short on resources for the the CBSA, but also for the RCMP. I have a constituent who has been trying, as a responsible gun owner, to contact the RCMP to register a handgun so that they are aware before the deadline. There are absolutely no resources in the RCMP to handle this influx of requests caused by the government's announcement. I have spoken to this man personally and he is very concerned. He is very concerned because he is a responsible gun owner and he wants to do the right thing, but he cannot accomplish that because of the limited resources the government has allocated to allow him to follow the rules.

As I mentioned before, I can say with near certainty that the gang members in downtown Toronto are not graduates of a restricted firearms safety course. I talked earlier about carrying a clipboard and looking busy. The government is very good at introducing legislation that does very little and simply virtue signals to their base. That is exactly what Bill C-21 is doing, virtue signalling to their base at the expense of Saskatchewan and all of rural Canada.

Finally, this being my last chance to speak before we will rise for the summer, I would like to take this chance to thank the pages, interpreters, security, IT staff and everyone else who keeps this place running. I wish them a well-deserved summer.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member said that Bill C‑21 does not target hunting rifles and that hunters are capable of managing their firearms responsibly.

This bill, however, is a half measure. The member said people should feel safe. As a member from the Island of Montreal, he knows that there are neighbourhoods where people no longer feel safe.

Does he agree that Bill C‑21, while it may be a step in the right direction, should have gone much further and should have included stricter control at the border and joint efforts to fight organized crime and smuggling as well as the registry we have been talking about for weeks that could have given us more control over smuggling and made Montreal's streets safer?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question.

Bill C-21 is a half measure, because it will have no real impact on organized crime and illegal weapons. With regard to organized crime, the Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C-279, which aims to create a list of criminal organizations.

Would the member agree with this kind of crackdown?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, from time to time, I have been critical of the record of the Liberal government when it comes to fiscal matters. It has consistently shown that it has no clue how an economy works and what policies are good for Canadians.

In fairness though, I feel I must congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety for their unintentional boost to the Canadian economy with Bill C-21. It is so rare that a Liberal policy is designed to provide economic stimulus that I feel this is worth noting.

Maclean's magazine's Ottawa bureau chief Shannon Proudfoot featured an interview with gun shop owner Ryan Simper. He said that after this bill was announced, his store sold every handgun it had in stock. Apparently, there is no better stimulus for the economy than scarcity of a product.

Maybe if the Liberals truly want to stimulate the economy, they should try other bans and see if that helps. I encourage them to look for areas where there may be an abundance of supply and lagging sales, and see if they can help those sectors of the economy. Maybe if they banned broccoli, for example, it would help vegetable sales. In the absence of a true economic plan, such acts would at least show them to be doing something worth while.

Handguns are already well regulated in this country. Anyone who wishes to own one legally must take a safety course and undergo background checks. It is an extensive, time-consuming process, and one that gun owners understand is there to provide reasonable protections for society.

However, those protections, like this bill, do nothing to stop the flow of illegal handguns in Canada. Gun violence and gun crime problems in Canada do not come from those who have taken a firearms safety course and have been cleared for gun ownership after their background check.

Responsible handgun owners, the ones targeted by this bill, are collectors or target shooters. They are not criminals. Those who want to join their ranks should not be prohibited from doing so merely because the government does not know how to deal with crime and the flow of illegal firearms being smuggled into Canada.

To me, it seems that the government, not knowing how to deal with the problem, wants to pretend to show the public that it is doing something. This bill will not help, but the government will not admit that. I think everyone in the House can agree that both gun violence and gun crime are not acceptable in Canadian society. Where we might differ is how to best deal with the issue.

It has been my experience that the Liberals are so blinded by their ideology that suggestions for improvement to their legislation fall on deaf ears. Nevertheless, I would like to offer them some ideas to accomplish their goal of reducing gun crime in Canada.

The idea of strengthening border controls and authorities to combat firearms smuggling, trafficking and related offences is something we can all agree on. I call on the government to make that the focus of this legislation. Drop the attacks on legal, law-abiding gun owners and concentrate on those who are already breaking Canadian law.

I should also point out that there are contradictions in this piece of legislation. There are some individuals who will be exempted from the provisions and would still be allowed to purchase handguns. That includes elite sports shooters who compete or coach in a handgun discipline recognized by the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee. The exemption makes sense.

We Canadians are proud of our Olympians, and we have had some success at pistol shooting competitions. In 1984, Linda Thom won the gold medal in pistol shooting at the Los Angeles Olympics, the first Canadian woman to win an individual gold medal in the summer Olympics since 1928 and the first Canadian to win a gold medal in the summer Olympics since 1968. She was given the honour of carrying Canada's flag at the closing ceremonies.

As an elite shooter, she would still be allowed to purchase a handgun if this legislation were to pass unchanged. However, what about those who want to follow in her footsteps?

I cannot think of any sport where one becomes a world-class athlete overnight. It takes hard work, dedication and training, usually for years. Wayne Gretzky had to learn to skate before he could even begin to put a puck in the net. How will the next Linda Thom become available, or a future Canadian Olympian become an elite shooter?

Even members of the government must understand that it requires practice, practice and more practice for a shooter to reach the level necessary to compete at the Olympics. Under Bill C-21, new participants in this sport would not be allowed to purchase a handgun to practice with. Apparently, the Liberals have decided that this is one sport they do not want to see Canada excel in.

The Conservatives have always stood for common sense firearms safety and strong consequences for those who commit firearms offences. We do not understand why the government wants to punish law-abiding firearms owners and make it difficult, if not impossible, for those who might want to take up a sport such as pistol shooting.

The government was first elected in 2015, and gun crime has gone up steadily each year, despite its arbitrary bans and its complicated and expensive buyback program. This increase in gun crime is not because those who own weapons legally are suddenly turning to lawlessness, but because illegal weapons are being smuggled into Canada and used by criminals. It has taken seven long years for the government to understand that there is a problem.

This belated realization comes only after it blocked a Conservative bill to toughen consequences for gun smuggling. If only it had concentrated on crime and criminals, I could have applauded its better-late-than-never efforts. Instead, it is once again targeting responsible gun owners who have committed no crimes, which makes us wonder how serious it is about really being tough on crime. After all, this is a government that intends to remove through other legislation mandatory minimum sentences for robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of offences, and possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, and more.

Members will forgive me for thinking that this new revelation that gun smuggling needs to be dealt with is just a lot of words. There are already laws on the books to deal with such acts if the government has the will and the police have the resources to enforce them. If it were serious about crime, it would not be trying to target responsible gun-owning Canadians who have followed all the rules and restrictions that come with gun ownership. Of course, they are an easy target for a government that does not seem to know how to address the issues of most concern to Canadians.

Canadians are tired of false promises from the government. This bill once again proves that the Liberals do not understand where they should be focusing their efforts in order to protect the people of Canada.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, we want to bring forward red flag and yellow flag provisions to make sure we avoid some of the challenges and make sure that when folks who should not have guns pose a threat to their partners, their guns can be taken away, as needed.

We need to continue to work with many of our stakeholders. I spent a lot of time as chair of the public safety task force in the city of Calgary. I worked with community members. I heard from community leaders and stakeholders who really wanted us to move on these issues, and I am happy that we have addressed them in Bill C-21.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I will look directly at the member and say that on this side of the House, we care about gun crime. I spent three years of my life invested in doing everything I could with respect to my job when it came to gun crime, and I believe that my colleagues share that same sentiment. We do not want to see another shooting.

My question is twofold. First off, I am sorry, as I noted the hon. member spoke about the people in his life who have been impacted by gun crime. That is horrible and we do not want to see it. However, the member cited a number of cases, and I am wondering if he knows whether the guns used were legally or illegally obtained, and why we are not going after illegal guns in Bill C-21. Second, how does he reconcile this speech with the fact that we have lowered sentences with conditional sentence orders in Bill C-5?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, after being elected to Calgary City Council in 2017, I promised my constituents I would always fight for safer communities. Since my election to the House as a member of Parliament, I have not wavered on that commitment.

As we witness horrifying gun violence south of the border alongside a steady increase in crime involving firearms across our country, it could not be clearer that at this time we need decisive action. I am honoured to rise in the House of Commons today to speak in support of Bill C-21, our Liberal government's firearms legislation.

It is a privilege to be part of a government that understands and acknowledges the extent of the problem caused by guns in our communities. I am proud that our Minister of Public Safety has brought forward this robust piece of legislation.

Today, I am speaking to Canadians whose lives have been forever changed by gun violence and am sharing why I support our government's steps to create safer communities.

Gun violence is on the rise across Canada, whether the opposition would like to admit it or not. In my time serving on Calgary City Council, I recognized the urgency needed by all levels of government to tackle gun violence. This is why I brought forward Calgary's public safety task force and served as its chair.

We brought together stakeholders from the community, academia and law enforcement as well as three levels of government to engage with those who are most affected by gun violence. We acknowledged the problem, we listened to those affected and we proposed common sense steps our city government could take to address gun violence. We did not find all the answers, but we collectively acknowledged the need for a multi-faceted approach.

Today, I am fortunate to sit on this side of the House, where the urgency needed to address the fight against gun violence is matched by meaningful action. Illegal firearms are a significant threat to public safety in Canada and worldwide. The numbers do not lie. Violent offences involving guns have increased by over 80%. The proportion of homicides that involved a firearm rose from 26% of all homicides in 2013 to 37% in 2020. Specifically, handguns were the most dangerous weapon in 60% of firearm-related violent crimes between 2015 and 2020. A multitude of statistics point to the following conclusions: Gun crime is rising across Canada, and handguns are involved more often than not.

It is not strictly an urban issue, either. Data from Statistics Canada shows that gun crime rates are high and trending upward across rural Canada. Gun violence affects all Canadians, regardless of their postal code. We have seen too many horrific crimes at the hands of guns. Countless lives have been lost and families have been torn apart due to gun crime.

It is time to deal with this. When policy-makers talk about gun violence, we often get caught up in the statistics, trends and numbers. The numbers mask a harsh reality. Gun crime destroys lives and communities.

I hear stories on a near weekly basis about gun violence impacting Calgary, my home.

On May 10, Angela McKenzie, a mother of five beautiful children, was murdered by a man with a gun in the northeast quadrant.

On May 18, a student brought a handgun to Bowness High School in northwest Calgary. Thankfully, nobody was hurt that day. A few days later, a shooting in the quiet southwest Calgary neighbourhood of Acadia sent an 18-year-old to the hospital.

Last week, a man was shot in southeast Calgary. He passed away in the hospital on Wednesday.

On Friday, 25-year-old Autumn Levi Cross Child was killed by a man with a gun in northeast Calgary.

The victims are so much more than numbers in a police report. They are real people with names, families, friends, hopes and dreams. From January until last week, only a little more than halfway through the year, Calgary has seen 66 shootings. The effect that each of these shootings has had on the broader community is immeasurable. We must do better, and our government's proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and Firearms Act are a massive step in the right direction.

The thing is, our Liberal government knows what we need to do and we are not afraid to do it. While opposition members close their eyes and pretend that gun violence is not an issue or say that we are simply punishing law-abiding firearm owners, on this side of the House we prefer to face reality and deal with the problems head-on. We are dealing with these problems through Bill C-21 because we cannot allow Canadian communities to continue to be irreparably damaged by criminals with guns.

This issue is personal to me. Like many Canadians, I have lost friends and loved ones in firearms-related incidents. I have seen the devastating impact that gun violence has brought upon communities. It is one of the reasons I put my name forward in my first election. As a Calgary city councillor, I was grateful for the opportunity to chair our city's public safety task force, serve on our police commission and learn more about gun violence.

We looked at studies and statistics and engaged with relevant stakeholders, including the Calgary Police Service, the Calgary Police Commission, community members directly impacted by gun crime and community leaders. Throughout our meetings, interviews, round tables and research, there was a recurring theme: We need to do more to keep guns off our streets.

Our government is following through on one of our public safety commitments to Canadians with Bill C-21. Bill C-21 would provide our government with several tools to reduce gun crime. It would implement a national freeze on the sale, purchase or transfer of handguns. Handguns are the preferred weapon of criminals, and action to keep them off of our streets cannot wait. They simply have no place in safe communities.

Our government is taking an evidence-based approach that would target illegal gun and gang activity. We are not targeting law-abiding gun owners with these measures. We are taking immediate action against the criminals who use guns to disrupt law and order and commit violent crimes by capping the market for their weapon of choice. This bill would directly result in fewer illegal handguns on Canadian streets.

Bill C-21 also proposes a red flag provision that would allow anybody to apply for an emergency weapons prohibition. This would immediately allow authorities to remove firearms from an individual who poses a danger to themselves or someone else—

[Jennifer Gold]

I made some suggestions, but I didn't get a chance to speak to some of the larger systemic problems and maybe where they flow from.

What I'd like to see this government move in the direction of is eradicating poverty; implementing greater support for people with mental illness and mental challenges; implementing greater education and training for the judiciary and the police; providing supports for the next generation; taking into account intergenerational trauma and strengthening gun control, such as through Bill C-21.

I think this government has an opportunity to create transformational change, and we applaud the steps in that direction that Bill C-21 and Bill C-28 reflect, as well as the recent amendments to the Judges Act and the Criminal Code that require judges to be trained on sexual assault law and social context.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour and a privilege to be able to enter into debate on the important issues that are facing Canadians.

It is interesting. I have been listening closely to the debate that has transpired over the course of today. Contrary to the government's justification for moving closure, the only three hours and 26 or 24 minutes of debate that has taken place on a previous day on what is a significant piece of legislation that impacts millions of Canadians, millions of law-abiding firearms owners, failed to actually address the lofty submissions that the government has tried to make clear.

I am proud to be a member of Parliament who represents a large rural area. I have spoken to numerous constituents over the last number of days and weeks since the most recent iteration of the Liberals' attack on law-abiding firearms' owners and it fails to address the real problems that are leading to a significant increase in violent crime in our streets and a troubling and alarming increase in crime in rural areas. It fails on both those fronts.

I have spoken with many constituents, young, old, professionals, those who have grown up using firearms and those who came to use them later in life. Notably, two stuck out from my calls over the past couple of weeks. One was a retired school principal and his wife, who came into the hobby of sport shooting. They called and asked me to reach out to them to discuss Bill C-21. They pleaded with me to try to bring some sense to the debate that is taking place regarding firearms in this country, to which I promised that I would try. Unfortunately, it seems that politics and rhetoric have blinded those on Canada's left to actually having a constructive dialogue.

I spoke yesterday with a 24-year-old man who is very concerned about how this would impact his ability to participate in his favourite hobby. He is a young, budding electrician, just finishing up his time at a polytechnic in Alberta, who is excited to get to work and start being able to invest in his hobby, yet the Liberals are taking away those opportunities.

Here we are again. Time and time again, when the Liberals dive in the polls, we can expect this sort of legislation to come forward. We see the importation of wedge issues into discourse within our country. We have seen it time and time again, certainly over the course of the time I have been elected. As I look back over my involvement in politics, this is the exact way the Liberals approach these issues.

Whether it be firearms, the issue of abortion or vaccines, an issue that was not controversial up until our Prime Minister decided to run an election campaign on it, that sort of wedge politics does not actually result in good public policy, and we see that being the case here today.

I did want to share a couple of statements that I think, hopefully, the governing Liberals would take seriously: “The long-gun registry, as it was, was a failure and I'm not going to resuscitate that”. Do we know who said that? It was the Prime Minister.

He went on to say, “I grew up with long guns, rifles and shotguns”. The Prime Minister said that, and then, going on, he said, “Yes, the RCMP guarding me had handguns and I got to play with them every now and then”, adding that the RCMP were very responsible around him and his siblings.

The now Prime Minister, then individual who was running to be Prime Minister of the country, went on to say:

I was raised with an appreciation and an understanding of how important in rural areas and right across the country gun ownership is as a part of the culture of Canada. I do not feel that there's any huge contradiction between keeping our cities safe from gun violence and gangs, and allowing this important facet of Canadian identity which is having a gun.

“Having a firearm is 'an important facet of Canadian identity'.” That was said by the then leader of the Liberal Party when he was running for office and needed some rural votes to build a coalition that obviously was calculated at the time to be successful. He did win the 2015 election, but how things have changed since that point in time. I can only come to the conclusion that it is a flip-flop, like many issues on which the Prime Minister takes a position. When things change, in terms of the political benefit or strategy of the day, that position in many cases takes a 180°. We see a backdoor gun registry: It is not a government-administered centralized gun registry, as we have seen in the past, but we have seen the Liberals implement that.

I have heard some of my colleagues talk today about some of the challenges when it comes to indigenous peoples, the reality of the indigenous way of life and the importance of firearms ownership that the Liberals may be taking away from them. I am a rural member of Parliament and a firearms owner. Having gone through the significant process, I will take a brief moment to say that all members of Parliament in this place, whether they own guns or not, should take the time and put in the effort to get their possession and acquisition licences. I suggest they would be very pleased with the fact that we have a strong suite of rules and structures that ensure there is safe firearms ownership in this country. I find the lack of understanding with regard to that very troubling, when it comes to making public policy and the legislation we have before us.

We have a significant issue when it comes to rising crime rates. There is no question. Conservatives even endeavoured to split this bill. We brought forward a motion to see parts of this bill go forward, but the Liberals said no because it did not fit their political narrative. We see a significant issue when it comes to illegal guns. We see a significant issue when it comes to mental health. We see a significant issue when it comes to rural crime and the challenges with law enforcement in many areas of our country. Bill C-21 does not address those things. It is pure and simple: It does not.

It is unfortunate that while there are several million gun owners in this country, there are many people who have not had the opportunity to understand that firearms, in many cases, are tools. This would be no more evident than when I had a dialogue with the then minister of public safety in the last Parliament. We had a discussion in the aftermath of a very tragic circumstance. I will get to some recent revelations about that in just a moment. Firearms can be used as weapons, as can anything else used with the intent to harm. A firearm is also a tool. It is something that any rural individual who has farmed, ranched, hunted or whatever the case may be has used as either a weapon or a tool. I would suggest the Liberals should be very cognizant of that reality in this place.

I would simply highlight that the allegations made today in a published article related to the shootings in the Maritimes cannot be understated. The Liberals seem to dismiss how serious the possibility of political interference in an investigation is. As I read this article just prior to question period, I was astounded by how it appears there was blatant political interference in what was an absolutely tragic circumstance. It is something that should never have happened. The fact that the government, at least according to the allegations, would go to those lengths to try to leverage a tragedy such as that for its political benefit speaks to how all Canadians and all legislators in this place should be very hesitant about passing a bill when they are willing to go to those lengths to deceive Canadians.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms. I am proud to support such crucial legislation, which is going to make a real difference in keeping communities like mine safe and free of gun violence.

Gun violence is on the rise in Canada. It presents a serious and significant threat to communities across the country, in the streets and at home. Every six days, a woman is killed by an intimate partner. This is not just an urban statistic but a rural one. Women in rural Canada are particularly vulnerable to homicide by firearms. When it comes to domestic violence, shotguns and rifles, usually legally obtained and commonly kept in rural homes, have been called “weapons of choice” by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. In violent homes, these guns are the tools of choice to intimidate and control women living in rural Canada.

The data is clear. Since 2009, violent offences involving guns have increased by 81% and 47% of Canadians say that gun violence poses a serious threat to their community.

There are going to be those who argue that if we regulate guns, we simply penalize law-abiding citizens and gangsters will still get their guns. That is simply not true. Most Canadian mass shooters did not have criminal records and got their guns legally. Let us recap: Fredericton, 2018, no criminal record, four dead; Danforth, 2018, no criminal record, two dead, multiple wounded; Quebec City, no criminal record, six dead, multiple wounded; and the Moncton shooter, 2014, three dead, multiple wounded.

Let us not pretend it is only gangs and illegal weapons that are the problem, because that is simply not true. Here is a sobering stat. The reality is that 75% of gun fatalities have nothing to do with gangs or criminals. It is because they are suicides.

When it comes to kids, let us look at facts. According to the Canadian Medical Association, one child in Ontario is hurt by a gun or firearm every single day, with 7% of those kids ending up dead.

This morning I woke up to an email from Susan, who is from my riding. She wrote me the following email: “Good morning MP Taleeb. Strongly recommend Bill C-21 to be given Royal Assent and pass in Parliament during this session. My brother was shot in his living room several years ago while writing a letter to me that was never completed.”

Susan is a real human being whose family has suffered the real consequences of firearms. This is why we must act. Gun violence affects people in all of our communities, whether rural, urban or suburban and all socio-economic backgrounds. We need to do more. We need to do more to protect our kids, our parents, our neighbours and everyone in between.

Every Canadian deserves to live without fear of violence. We know that inaction on gun control has real consequences. This is why, through Bill C-21, we are taking a national approach to protecting our communities from the harmful effects of gun violence.

Let us be clear about a couple of things. The bill is focused on putting a stop to tragedies, preventing gun crime and keeping our neighbours safe. It is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach. That is exactly what we are doing through Bill C-21, through robust, direct action in key areas that puts in place a diverse strategy on this issue from all sides.

Action on handguns cannot wait. We are putting a national freeze on handguns to address the alarming increase in gun violence to allow a rapid and effective response. This means that, going forward, no one would be able to sell, purchase or transfer handguns by individuals within Canada or bring newly acquired firearms into the country. I want to stress this, because people are going to make a point about this. Legal gun owners would continue to possess and use their registered handguns, and could sell or transfer their registered handguns to exempted individuals or businesses.

The other key pillar of the bill centres on addressing the tragic trend between gender-based violence and guns. We see this link in our workplaces, communities, at home and online. This trend continues to persist. Protecting the safety and security of survivors of violence, particularly intimate partner violence and gender-based violence, is paramount. Victims need to feel heard and supported when they reach out for help.

That's why we are introducing red flag and yellow flag laws and expanding licence revocation. Through red flag laws, survivors can make an application to the courts for an emergency weapons prohibition order to immediately remove firearms for a period of up to 30 days from an individual who poses a danger to themselves or others.

It is also essential as a preventive approach, to ensure that victims of domestic and gender-based violence feel safe, to ensure protective intervention for those experiencing a mental health crisis, and to be able to intervene in cases where people are showing warning signs of violence.

Through yellow flag provisions, an individual's licence can be suspended for up to 30 days.

Combatting gun trafficking and smuggling, and strengthening law enforcement to tackle gun violence are key aspects of our multi-faceted solution. With Bill C-21, we are working to increase the maximum penalties for firearms offences from 10 to 14 years in prison to keep our communities safe.

Taking the necessary steps to ensure we eradicate gun violence across our country will help build safer communities for generations to come. Through Bill C-21, we would ensure kids feel safer walking home from school, women will feel safer when dealing with violent partners, and racialized communities will worry less about being murdered while praying. That is what this bill would do.

This is legislation that might well have prevented the Quebec mosque shooting, the Danforth shooting, and the Moncton and Fredericton shootings. For the victims of gun violence, thoughts and prayers cannot be the best we have, but preventing the next attack by making it harder and harder for firearms to enter our communities would ensure the deaths of those who have passed would not be in vain.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.

I think that closure, or time allocation, is wrong and undermines our democracy. We need to take the time to really examine the issues.

Bill C-21 is important. I think I support it, but it raises a number of issues on which I may want to see amendments, particularly regarding law-abiding citizens who use recreational firearms.

We must make every effort to come up with solutions together. That is why I oppose closure motions.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say this to the member for Cumberland—Colchester, in whose riding these killings took place. The Mass Casualty Commission has revealed some things and we have to wait for its final conclusions. I think it was a mistake not to require all of the RCMP officers who participated in the events to be part of the inquiry and to testify. I know some of the families have even withdrawn participation because they are so disappointed with the path of the inquiry. What I will say is this. Whether the guns were legal or illegal, many neighbours tried to tell the RCMP they were scared of this man and nothing was done.

Bill C-21 will help deal with that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to Bill C-21. I am going to try to deal with a number of complex issues in a short amount of time and hope it works.

It relates to Bill C-21, and that is the use of firearms. I want to comment on some of the discussion during question period about the Portapique shootings. I think it is important to reflect on what I take away from the news media at this time, when I have a moment to say it. There is no chance of interrupting question period to put it into perspective.

As a Nova Scotian originally, I was devastated, as we all were, by the shootings at Portapique. The RCMP officer who was killed, Heidi Stevenson, was a friend of mine and I know her mother well.

It was awful to watch what happened. We will see what the Mass Casualty Commission produces as a result, but it is pretty clear to me, and I want to speak clearly to this, that the RCMP in Nova Scotia failed the public badly. I know a commission is looking at this, but the RCMP had information that was not shared. It failed to put out a warning and 22 people were killed. I know this inquiry is very important to all the families who lost loved ones.

There appears to me to have been an uncalled-for assumption by some members in question period, who put into question the integrity of the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister's Office. I am not an apologist for the Liberals, but I thought that was not what the evidence revealed. When I look at the CBC reports of what they found out, it appears to me that in the aftermath of the shooting, the Nova Scotia RCMP was all too quick to try to obscure facts from the public, rather than reveal them.

It appears to me that the RCMP commissioner, Brenda Lucki, provided more transparency and provided real information. If anyone in PMO instructed her anything, it seems to me that it would have been to tell everybody what has happened and just be transparent. I am very concerned that we let any false rumours or assumptions to besmirch the reputations of others, including Brenda Lucki, be spread in this place.

It appears to me, as in a number of other shooting incidents, that sometimes the police get it wrong. They did not move in Uvalde, Texas, when they should have, to save those children. There is a common denominator that I discern, which is that when the RCMP is slow to move or the police are slow to move, it is because the people they would have to deal with are heavily armed. I do not find the police slow to move against unarmed protesters. I do not find the police slow to move against indigenous people. However, they delay when they are at risk for their own safety, all too often. It is not always, but all too often.

In the case of the Nova Scotia shooter, we know his name. I do not want to repeat it, because of the crimes he committed. However, he was well known to the RCMP and in the early hours after the shooting, the Nova Scotia RCMP, not the commissioner, put out false statements that he was not known to them. He was known personally to them. They had warnings about him.

This goes to make the bridge and the connection to Bill C-21. This goes to a number of the provisions of Bill C-21 that, if Bill C-21 had been law at that time, could have saved lives. The neighbours of the multiple shooter in Nova Scotia, and we can just call him the evil dentist for the time being, reported him to the RCMP on numerous occasions, but no action was taken. Neighbours were so frightened of him that they literally sold their dream home and moved away, yet nothing was done to even conduct a search of the property or even to inquire why he is buying a car that looks just like an RCMP vehicle. Why does he dress up like an RCMP officer? These details were known in the community, and a number of them were reported to law enforcement authorities.

Could this bill have made a difference? I think it could have, but only if the RCMP or local police are prepared to use the information that comes to them. That is why one of the provisions in this bill that I particularly like is the ability to seek an ex parte motion on the strength of concerns from people who are concerned that some person may be threatening others, not just with firearms, by the way, but with crossbows or with explosive substances. This is really important. This is found under “Application for emergency prohibition order” in clause 4 of this bill, which would amend section 110 of the Firearms Act.

It is really important that we recognize what an ex parte order is. That means that people can go to the court without notifying the person they are scared of that they are going to court, and there can be an emergency search and seizure without a warrant. This violates every instinct of my being, searches without warrants, because I am a civil liberties lawyer, but there is a history of violence by people in the community, people we know.

There is a lot about this law that I hope we will have time to study thoroughly, and I want to speak to that. There are the red flag and yellow flag provisions, the ability to go to a judge without fear of retribution from someone who is well armed or who has crossbows. It may be in cases, as we know all too frequently, of intimate partner violence. It may be in cases of the random and reckless killing of others, as in the case of Portapique or the desperately sad case of Lionel Desmond, who killed his wife and mother and kids. He was, of course, suffering from PTSD from his service in our armed forces and did not get the help he needed, even though he had gone to a hospital the day before. There are many and varied circumstances when the presence of firearms in a home makes the difference between life and death, and where the provisions in Bill C-21 would indeed, I hope, save lives.

I want to turn to a process question at this point: Why rush this bill? I am very concerned that we just invoked time allocation on a bill that we had only had before us for debate for three hours. This bill is complex. It has many moving parts. The government itself has changed its views on key aspects of this bill between its version last year, which was also Bill C-21, and its version this year, which is the current Bill C-21. The Liberals changed their minds, and wisely, on the question of voluntary versus mandatory buyback. They changed their minds, wisely, on the question of any jurisdiction other than the federal government regulating guns. Those were wise choices, and this bill has changed in that way.

Bills get better when they are studied. Any attempt to achieve consensus will improve a bill. A decision on the government side that the Conservatives are only going to obstruct and delay and filibuster is entirely a justified conclusion, given conduct so far in this Parliament, but that does not excuse shortening the time for debate, shortening the time for study and shortening the time to try to find consensus in this place, which is possible.

I want to put forward some of the things that would help achieve consensus. One is to observe the rules, which are our rules. It does not take changing the Standing Orders to ban the practice of reading a speech. How does that connect? When a whip or a House leader in a party knows that they can rally however many MPs they have, like cannon fodder, and give them a speech to deliver in 10 minutes, they can clog up the works of this place with people giving speeches.

If the rules prohibited members from reading a speech and required them to express their thoughts in their own words, there would be fewer members rising to speak during a debate on a bill.

We need to get control of this so that we can have real debate among fewer MPs, because fewer MPs would be able to stand up and speak without a written speech.

The next thing we need to do is consider how many days we sit in this place. We have this panic this time of year, every year, as though a disaster will strike if we do not adjourn on a day that is set. We could sit for more days. We sit for far fewer days than the U.S. Congress, and even fewer days than the British Parliament.

I voted against time allocation, because this is a complicated bill and we should take the time it needs, to respect each other and come up with the best bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, today, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Before I start my speech, I want to acknowledge that today is June 21, National Indigenous Peoples Day. It is a day that I recognize with a lot of love because of my beautiful granny. She went to residential school in Lejac between the ages of four and 16, and her strength and integrity keep our family strong. I also want to acknowledge my Auntie Dean from Stellat’en First Nation. Her traditional name is Hatix-Ka’wah, which means peace within the frame of a house. Because of the day, I wanted to acknowledge her as the lead of our family before I started.

I am here specifically to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments in regard to firearms. I want to start by thanking the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his hard work on this file. It is not an easy one, and these discussions are always rife with conflict as we try to navigate our way around this issue. I will say that I am ready to support this bill getting to committee. I also recognize that I still have a lot of questions, and I am hoping the committee will be able to work through some of those questions to get me answers.

I represent a rural riding. I grew up in a household where several of my family members were legal gun owners. They followed the rules, and I was taught gun safety at a very young age as a matter of respect. I grew up eating wild meat, and hunting was a significant part of my family's life.

I have met with many legal gun owners in my riding who have talked about the frustration they feel about the rules always focusing on them, rather than addressing some of their legitimate concerns about illegal guns and how they get into our communities. That is an important part of our conversation today, and it should continue to be. Those conversations do concern me greatly. My riding also has a high level of people retiring from the military who maintain their skills as a commitment to their years of service. It is important for us all to recognize those who use firearms to protect and serve our communities.

I have also heard from constituents who are very, very concerned about gun violence in their communities and in our region. There have been, sadly, several examples in my riding over the past few years, which has resulted in my office receiving more concerns about gun safety than we have ever seen before. This is especially concerning when it comes to cases of domestic violence where guns are used. In 2020, 160 women and girls were killed in Canada. One woman or girl is killed every two and a half days in this country. Therefore, as Canadians are seeing an increase in gun violence across our country, I believe that all Canadians do want to see this addressed.

About three years ago, a constituent in my riding invited me to come to the shooting range with him. He wanted to showcase this for me, so I would understand the rules and how he followed them. I agreed so that I could learn more about the realities of these folks living in my region. Of course, he was also a retired service member for the military, and I always take an opportunity to spend time with people who served us, and who served us so well.

The first thing he told me was that I would have to come to his house and ride with him because he could not stop on the way through town to pick me up. The rules in Canada meant that he had to go straight from his home, not stopping for anything else, and go to the range. At his home, he was able to show me the way he stored his guns separate from ammunition, with everything locked away and secured. He also showed me how he transported the guns and how that was done safely.

I learned a lot, and I really appreciated his effort to take that time to educate me. He also shared that he was concerned about the gun violence in Canada and what that did for him as a legal gun owner and as somebody who was really practising safely. He knew of things that had happened across the country, and he knew that people were more fearful.

These are important conversations to have, especially at that community level where we can have those open conversations and discussions about how we can come together. My constituent did feel that the majority of gun owners followed the rules very carefully, but he was also concerned that there are legal gun owners who do not always follow the rules, and he wanted to make sure that those issues were addressed. Of course, he was also very concerned about the fact that we do have illegal guns in this country, and those folks can really make a bad name for people who are doing their best to be safe.

The facts are that, in Canada between 2019 and 2020, there were notable increases in rates of firearm-related violent crimes being reported, especially in places like southern rural British Columbia, which had an increase of 34%; the northern rural part of Ontario, which increased by 32%; rural Alberta, which increased by 32% in the north and 31% in the south; the Northwest Territories, which saw a 23% increase; and Nova Scotia, which increased by 22%. Handguns were the most serious weapon present in most firearm-related violent crimes.

Over my seven years here, I have heard two things repeatedly from constituents: one is that we need to look at gun policy in Canada, focussing on illegal guns and how they get to our country; and two is that we need more education in Canada about the strong rules that we do have and how they work. I believe these are important areas to discuss.

I have also heard a lot on this bill specifically about concerns from the airsoft community that Bill C-21 would prohibit imports, exports, sales and transfers of all replica firearms, which would include airsoft guns that are designed or intended to look exactly like or resemble a real firearm.

This does concern me, because there is the safety issue on the one side that we should consider carefully. We have heard stories of people using these to emulate real guns, and that is a safety concern for all people who are involved in that situation. We also hear the other side, and that it will impact paintball retailers and facilities, as most rely on income from both airsoft and paintball use.

I understand that in this country there are very few regulations, and I think it is something we need to look at. We have heard from this sector that they have not been meaningfully consulted. We want to make sure that when we further the discussions, we could address that.

I have learned that people have successfully altered airsoft weapons to hold real ammunition, and this really surprised me. I had no idea that that was even possible. Unfortunately it is, and it is a growing concern. We need to work with this sector to make sure that we look at the realities they are facing, and make sure the solution is workable, so they can continue their practice and not have a huge impact on their income. However, we also need to make sure the safety of Canadians is addressed.

Illegal guns are a huge concern for my constituents, as I mentioned earlier. This bill does not offer what I would like to see on measures for gun smuggling. I represent 19 Wing Comox. Its crews do tremendous work on our coastline to keep our community safe. They have found people trying to ship things illegally across our borders, whether it be guns or drugs, and they have stopped that. I really appreciate their work, but I am concerned there is not going to be the amount of support needed to continue that work and to expand that work.

We know that this bill would increase the maximum penalty for trafficking, smuggling and other firearms offences from 10 years to 14 years. It would require the commissioner of firearms to give the minister an annual report. It would allow proactive information sharing between the RCMP and local law enforcement agencies for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting firearm trafficking offences, and it would also provide eligibility for wiretapping on additional Criminal Code firearms offences.

What it does not include in a meaningful way is more support for the Canadian Border Services Agency. We know that, under the previous Conservative government, over 1,000 positions were cut. Under the Liberal government, some of those folks are back, but definitely not the number that is required to actually address the guns that are being smuggled into our country illegally.

We also know, as our leader wrote to the Prime Minister in 2018, that we need to see more changes within our policies in this country to support the root causes of gun violence in some of the more vulnerable communities. We need to address things such as poverty. I was at an event just a few days ago in my community, and I was very surprised by how many people talked to me about the increasing homeless population. They spoke of how more and more people are really struggling to make ends meet and how often they are going towards violence because they cannot feed themselves. They are not safe in their own area.

We need to make sure there are supports provided to our communities to address these key issues because the more poverty grows, and the more people are disenfranchised, the more violence is the result. We need to look at these things as correlating numbers.

I am here to discuss this. I hope that all of us in the House can have a meaningful conversation, because these things are important to our communities, and if we do not address them in an open and transparent way, it will lead to more conflict.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Second Reading

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Brandon—Souris on his speech, and I have a message for him from the member for Jonquière, who wants to congratulate him on his hard work.

In Bill C‑21, the government opted to include a list of prohibited assault weapons, specifying models. Our colleague from Rivière-du-Nord suggested a completely different approach, which is to precisely define what constitutes an assault weapon so that weapons can be prohibited if they meet the criteria in the definition, not just if they are a certain model. What does my colleague from Brandon—Souris think of that?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, right off the bat, I want to point out that our Conservative team was willing to split this bill so that the House could swiftly pass the clauses on which we all agree. There are parts that we still need to debate, but we were prepared to make sure that the other elements could quickly proceed. We would have immediately sent on to the committee stage the elements of Bill C-21 that are focused on protecting potential victims of firearms crime and tightening up laws that address firearms smuggling. Those elements would have also included red flag provisions to allow law enforcement to remove firearms from dangerous domestic situations more quickly and to allow more severe penalties for criminals smuggling guns.

It was a reasonable proposal and it was disappointing that the government did not accept the offer. As with all firearms-related legislation, the government is far too comfortable with labelling those who disagree with it as firearms lobbyists. It is more than willing to disparage us and law-abiding firearms owners than to propose legislation that fixes the root issue of firearms violence. In the 2019 election, the Liberals tried to scare people into voting for them in our riding by sending out a brochure with firearms on it. It did not work, and they got 12% of the vote. The Liberals once again tried to scare people in the 2021 election, and the result was the same:12% of the vote.

The good people of Westman are not buying what the Liberals are trying to sell. A couple of years ago, I took my RPAL, my restricted possession and acquisition licence, and went for training in the basement of the late Don Teale. Like hundreds if not thousands before me, I sat in his makeshift classroom in his home in Brandon with a dozen or so Westman residents who had signed up to take their firearms training. As I walked into the room, I could tell that a few of the other students were slightly perplexed about why I was taking the safety training with them.

Not long afterward, Don, who was a plain-spoken and straight-shooting veteran, told them how happy he was that a sitting member of Parliament was educating himself for the firearms act. Don was right. I was not in his basement because I wanted to purchase a firearm; I took the training to get a better idea of the rigorous process that Canadians must go through before they can get a firearms licence.

As a lot of MPs might know, there was a movement a couple of years ago from law-abiding firearms owners urging legislators to get their PAL or their RPAL. They were tired of politicians getting up and speaking about the firearms act without ever reading or understanding it. They were upset that too many are quick to disparage firearms owners without understanding the law or the process.

There is no evidence to justify many changes found in the Liberals' firearms legislation. In fact, they are only further burdening law-abiding firearms owners, rather than actually going after the people who commit the crimes. I, for one, would prefer that our law enforcement agencies and our Government of Canada spend their time, energy and resources in cracking down on gangs and criminals.

Since the Liberals announced Bill C-21, I have received countless emails from law-abiding firearms owners who feel that once again the government is using them as a scapegoat instead of tackling the root of firearms violence in Canada. I have heard from retired law enforcement officers, veterans, competitive sport shooters and everyday Canadians who are tired of being blamed and shamed by the Liberal government. They are fed up with the Minister of Public Safety's gaslighting.

To give just one example, the minister said, “Bill C-21 doesn't target law-abiding gun owners, it targets handgun violence, it targets organized crime.” Of course this bill targets law-abiding firearms owners. Suggesting it does not is an insult to the intelligence of those who have been following this debate. I am looking forward to watching the deputy minister appear at the public safety committee to inform the MPs that we have all just misunderstood the minister once again.

The reason firearms businesses have run out of stock is that as soon as this bill was announced, everyone with an RPAL went out to purchase a handgun before the freeze takes effect. Anyone who tries to phone the RCMP firearms centre right now will sit on hold for hours, as everyone is trying to purchase or transfer a firearm right now. How could the Minister of Public Safety go on national television and say something so erroneous? Does he actually believe what he is saying? He knows perfectly well that Bill C-21 is going to prevent Canada's RPAL holders from ever purchasing a handgun once this legislation passes.

The truth of the matter is that the Liberal government decided to target law-abiding firearms owners from the moment it came into office. The Liberals repealed various elements of the common sense firearms act that my colleague just talked about, Bill C-71. They deleted the sensible change of introducing an automatic authorization to transport firearms and they then removed any oversight of the classification of firearms.

Let us fast-forward to 2020, when the Liberals reclassified hundreds of firearms as “prohibited”. With the stroke of a pen, they made millions of firearms illegal to use in Canada. Some of these firearms have been in people's possession for decades, and now the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase them so they can be destroyed.

If those hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on policing, social programs or literally anything, there would be a much better chance of reducing crime. Once again the government has failed to make a serious case for one of its bills, and in doing so, it is unnecessarily going after millions of law-abiding firearms owners who have done everything by the book.

According to Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, “it is the experience of law enforcement that most of these guns are illegally obtained,” and I would add, “from the United States”.

As our Conservative shadow minister of public safety said in her speech, the committee recently studied guns and gangs and had a very robust debate. It had police and crime experts appear, and not one recommendation in its report was to ban handguns. That is because none of the experts, none of the police experts and none of the community anti-gang experts said that banning handguns would be a solution. All of them said that such an approach would not work.

In relation to some questions we just had, the committee heard from the Toronto police that over 85% of handguns used in violent crimes are smuggled in from the United States. From Quebec, Chief Inspector Benoît Dubé said that most firearms linked to crime seized in his province come from the United States. He said, “We need to focus our efforts on the borders between the United States and Canada.” According to Chief Inspector David Bernard from the Montreal city police service, approximately 80% of illegal firearms seized in Quebec have been smuggled in from the United States.

To date, we have seen very little evidence from the government to suggest that law-abiding firearm owners are responsible for the rise in firearm homicides and shootings. What we do have is a gang and organized crime problem in Canada. On a weekly basis, we are hearing about deadly shootings happening across the country. All this violence has led to the tragic loss of too many, and it is having an impact on countless communities and neighbourhoods.

According to the latest Statistics Canada data, there were 8,344 victims of police-reported violent crime in which a handgun was present during the commission of an offence, which is a rate of 29 per 100,000 population. Since the Liberals were elected in 2015, gun crime has gone up steadily each year, and for residents in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and other cities, gun violence is an everyday occurrence.

I have always stood for common sense firearm safety and strong consequences for those who commit firearms offences. If the Liberals had proposed a bill that explicitly focused on guns, gangs and criminals, they would have found a much more receptive audience on this side of the House.

For years, we have been calling on the government to address gun smuggling and improve the ability of border agents to prevent the flow of illegal firearms into Canada. I cannot and will not support legislation that specifically targets law-abiding firearms owners and ignores the root problems of illegal firearms.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am always grateful to stand up and represent my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. However, in this case, I am representing all legal firearms owners, our law enforcement, our military, our security forces around the country and even our Parliamentary Protective Service. I challenge every MP to talk to them and ask their opinions about this bill, as well as to get the opinions of sport shooters, hunters and the vast majority of my constituents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I am disappointed that we are already curtailing debate on this important bill, especially considering that we have only had seven Conservative MPs speak to it, and that was only because we split our time.

On that note, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

I am going to focus on three key aspects in my speech. Number one is data and facts, number two is openness, transparency and honesty, and finally, number three is respect. The key to all of this, and the key to reducing gun violence in Canada, is education.

Let me speak first to the data and the facts. I asked the previous member speaking to define military-style assault rifles, which is a question I have been asking the government for almost three years now. The definition does not exist. I asked that question in a written submission to the government, and its response was to please check a commissioned report by Hill+Knowlton Strategies. If we read that report, do we know what it says? The government really needs to define what it means by assault rifles or military-style assault rifles. A definition still does not exist, and that adds to the confusion so many Canadians face when we are trying to deal with the important issue of reducing gun violence across Canada.

I am going to go back to the original, key piece of legislation in the past couple of years. It was from the last Parliament around the order in council that banned 1,500 so-called military-style assault rifles. In that document, there was actually no definition or criteria for what determines or establishes what is a military-style assault rifle. When I asked what criteria were used, I was told there were none.

The government used three principles. Number one is that the guns are semi-automatic in nature, with a high sustained rate of fire. That statement is a contradiction. If it is semi-automatic, the rate of fire is controlled by the shooter and not by the firearm, so whether someone has a slow finger or a fast finger determines whether a firearm should be prohibited or not. It does not even make logical sense.

The second principle the government used is that the firearms are of modern design. I asked what was meant by modern design. That means post-World War II. If the firearm was designed post the Second World War, we should be banning it.

Number three is that they exist in large quantities in Canada. Again, this does not pass the common sense test. Let us take firearm x as an example. There are 100,000 of them in Canada that have been used in zero gun crimes. Let us ban it. With firearm z, let us say there are only 10 of them in Canada and all 10 have been used in firearms crimes. It is good to go and will not be banned. Again, there is no logic behind the principles, and there are no criteria to determine that list.

I have been asking for evidence and data that support any of the firearms legislation the current Liberal government has brought forward. I submitted a written question to the government asking for any evidence or metrics behind how the government thinks any of this legislation is actually going to reduce gun violence. I received a response on January 29, 2020, that would only take me 30 seconds to read out. There is no evidence or metrics on how this is going to reduce gun violence in Canada.

The member for Winnipeg North stood and said that this has been broadly consulted on. It has not been consulted on in my riding. In the previous Parliament, the minister of public safety at the time came to my community and talked about Bill C-71 from the 42nd Parliament. I can guarantee he walked out of there and there was not a single person who talked to the minister during that consultation session who supported Bill C-71.

I will go back to my point around data. Where is the data that shows legal firearms owners are responsible for gun crime in Canada? I talked about education. I spent 25 years in uniform carrying all sorts of restricted and prohibited firearms, because I could as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. I was an infantry officer. I walked around with a fully automatic firearm. That is what assault weapons are: fully automatic. They have been banned in Canada since 1977. During my last two deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, I walked around everywhere with a handgun. Handguns do not kill people; people kill people.

To get to the point about education, despite all that, when I got out of uniform and became a civilian, I had to get a possession and acquisition licence and a restricted possession and acquisition licence, a PAL and an RPAL, in order to potentially buy a firearm or a restricted firearm. Those courses are extensive. Did I learn a lot about safety on those specific firearms? No. I was safe and had no problem passing the practical portions of both of those courses, but I did learn a lot about our laws. As I suggested in the last Parliament, it would benefit every member who wants to sit here and debate firearms legislation to do the PAL or the RPAL course because it would teach them a lot about our very restrictive firearms laws that currently exist in Canada.

To continue on education, when I was door knocking in 2019, I heard similar concerns that have been addressed by other members during the debate about why anybody would need that firearm. I was shown a picture from a Cabela's magazine or some other magazine that someone had received in the mail, and they asked me why anybody would need that. I looked at it and compared it with another firearm in the brochure. I pointed to the firearm that they thought was so scary and said I would walk 200 metres down the street and stand there. They could shoot at me all they wanted and I would not even move.

I asked if another firearm was okay, and they said yes. It was just a hunting rifle. I said that if I stood another few hundred metres away, as soon as someone started shooting at me with that firearm, I would take cover. Again, it is the lack of education in understanding firearms. Just because they look scary does not mean they are more dangerous. It is based on their capabilities and criteria.

I asked the minister, when he first introduced Bill C-21 in the House last week, about handguns in particular. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, handguns are restricted and they are registered. I asked a simple question about how easy it is for law enforcement to track how many gun crimes in Canada have been committed by legal firearms owners with legal handguns. He refused to answer that question. It was the same question I had asked his officials the week prior during the technical briefing. Again, I ask that they please get us the data. It would help so much.

I would point out that restricted firearms owners are the most law-abiding demographic in Canada. In fact, they are three times less likely to commit a crime than the average Canadian. I would argue, it is even less likely than that for the majority of the Liberal caucus.

Openness and transparency are key around all of this. Let us debate this. Everybody wants to reduce gun violence in Canada, but we need to do that based on data, based on evidence and based on statistics. Law enforcement demands this. One of the things that a lot of Canadians do not understand is that our law enforcement and security forces depend on these restricted firearms for their own safety and training. They do not get the time on the range to do this, so a lot of legal firearms owners are in law enforcement who own these firearms on their own. I get that Bill C-21, specifically on handguns, says that they would still be able to own them, but let us remove the politicization around this and talk about what is important to solve this.

My final point is on respect and trust. Let us respect parliamentarians in the House, let us respect legal firearms owners and, most of all, let us respect Canadians by talking about the real key facts.

In conclusion, there are data and facts, openness and transparency, and respect and trust. Let us educate Canadians on the root causes of gun violence in Canada, i.e., crime, drugs, the illegal trafficking of firearms and, most importantly, poverty instead of going after law-abiding Canadians.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about military-style assault rifles. Could she provide me with the definition of what a military-style assault rifle is? She mentioned the AR-15s, which were banned by the order in council of May 1, 2020. Could the member please let the House know how many crimes have been committed in the history of Canada with AR-15s?

The member talked about reducing gun violence. We have 100% agreement in the House that we all want to reduce gun violence. Could she tell me about the metrics within Bill C-21, specifically around handguns, that are going to do that, considering that all restricted firearms and handguns are registered so that the police are able to track exactly how many crimes have been committed? How many crimes have been committed with legal handguns?

Finally, the member talked about red flag laws. Would she admit that we currently have red flag laws in our legislation that help prevent this?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise in this House today, especially following my illustrious colleague, who never seems to run out of words and manages to fill the time slot all the time.

I represent a riding that, like many others in a large urban centre like Toronto, has a tendency to have a lot of violence, and the majority of that violence is gun violence, so I am very pleased that Bill C-21 is on the table.

The part that bothers me about Bill C-21 is the fact that we will not get it to committee and back before the House rises. I, and some of my colleagues, would have been more than happy to remain until the middle of July or the end of July to pass this bill, but it takes consent to do that, which was not available. We will get the bill as far as we can in this session, and as soon as we come back in the fall, I hope this will be the first item the committee deals with, understanding its importance. I wonder how many more lives could have been saved had we been able to get the bill through, but there are a lot of things that governments do, and there is a lot of legislation that is important. I am glad that we finally got as far as we have. Let us hit the ball home and get this through committee and back to the House.

We have a very close relationship with our neighbours to the south. Clearly, whenever we see what is going on there, we know it is going to happen here. It is just the way it is. We are a smaller country, and these things tend to be exposed later, but we follow the U.S. in so many ways.

I think I speak for all of us as parliamentarians when I say that we are sick and tired of turning on the news and feeling heartbroken at yet another act of gun violence. The common response from all of us as elected officials is to send our thoughts and prayers. However, as time goes on and these instances of violence continue to occur, the overwhelming response is that thoughts and prayers accomplish nothing and that we need action. I have been hearing this in my community for the 30 years that I have been elected to office, and several members of my own family have been victims of gun violence. We have been waiting and pushing and asking when we are going to get tougher on illegal handguns.

This is certainly not about hunters, God bless them, who can go right ahead and do their hunting. I have family who hunt deer, moose and all of that, as well. That is not what we are talking about with this bill. We are talking about gun violence, handguns. That is what is doing the killing in my riding and throughout the city of Toronto.

Last Sunday afternoon, there were four separate incidents of gun violence. Thank God, none of it was in my riding, which is always my first thought, selfish as it is. It was in other parts of our city, but there is a lot of it. This bill is just one more tool that we have in the tool box. It will not do everything we want it to do, but at least it tries to address the number of guns that are flowing. There was a shooting yesterday from a car window, which missed the person evidently, but again, this is becoming just like in the U.S. Whatever we can do as parliamentarians here, and whatever our government has the courage to move forward on to try to tackle this issue, is what we are elected to do. We are elected to deal with the tough issues, and this is one of them.

I am very proud of the government, and while some may have wanted this legislation later, I would have liked to see it sooner. I am tired of responding with thoughts and prayers, of saying “I feel sorry for you.” I am sorry for the families who have gone through this and yes, I will do what I can, but we do not do enough. Frankly, I do not know what is enough, but this is at least another step forward, which is why I wanted to make sure I had an opportunity to say some words today.

Since 2015, when our Liberal government came in, we have banned AR-15s and 1,500 models of assault-style firearms. These kinds of weapons do not belong in the homes or on the streets of this country, or any country, unless they are in a war, as in Russia or in Ukraine, but there is no reason for them to be needed on the streets of this country of ours.

Cracking down on illegal trafficking by investing in law enforcement and enhanced border security is another key part of it, because it seems that no matter how much more security we get at the borders, somehow the guns are getting smuggled in. They are coming from somewhere. We are not manufacturing all of these handguns here, so they are coming across borders and we are not doing enough to prevent that from happening. I know we have put millions more into CBSA, and here and there, but it never seems to be enough. This is, again, one more step to try to decrease the number of guns on our streets.

The other issue is, why do we have so much gang violence? In my riding, as in others, I deal with a lot of families that have had tremendous trouble, and we need to look at the root cause of why they would pick up a gun and decide to take somebody else's life. In a round-table session I had a few years ago with young men and women, I questioned them and said, “You know who these people are on the street. Why would you not discourage them from using a gun?” They said, “Why? You don't value my life, so I don't value your life.” I never forgot that statement, because I do value their life, but they do not seem to think that we as a society value their lives. That is important because people need to understand that every life is valuable. Every life matters to all of us, but to think “I don't care about you because you don't care about me” leaves a real challenge.

Since I had that conversation, I have gone out of my way, to the extent possible, as an elected official to make sure that the people in my riding and everywhere else know that we do care and we are trying to help them, but they have to help themselves. This is not a one-way street, where we are out doing everything for them and they are waiting to see what we are going to give them. It takes all of us working together. If people are having issues, they should talk to somebody, reach out and get the help they need, just not think that their life does not matter.

The ability to trace guns is another issue we have talked about for some time, looking at how to better identify where those guns have come from. The red flag laws are another important thing that should have been on the books a long time ago. It is really important.

I have to thank my staff for putting a speech together that somehow I never got to.

I am proud that the government is doing this. We all need to work harder at decreasing gun violence in a variety of ways. This is one more tool in the tool box, and we owe it to the people who have sent us here to reflect their views and thoughts and do what is necessary to decrease gun violence. I hope we get this to committee soon, make some changes and improvements to it and move forward together on this legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government, virtually from day one, has been taking budgetary and legislative actions to make our communities safer, and we will continue to do so. Bill C-21 is yet another legislative measure that would have a profoundly positive impact, and I can cite it specifically. From the selling and purchasing of handguns to the idea of the yellow flag and red flag laws, these are issues that will provide a higher sense of security in our communities. The Conservatives will have to justify to these communities why they oppose that.

In terms of their overall behaviour with regard to all legislation, even legislation they support, they will go out of their way to filibuster in order to fill time and force the government to—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

What we just saw was what I would call feigned magnanimity. Quite candidly, this is the most divisive government I have ever seen, and we have the hon. member here waxing eloquently and even pontificating. Seeing as the Pope is coming to Canada, let us call it that. He is pontificating about the need to co-operate in this place, saying everybody should co-operate. There is such a disconnect between his government's words and his government's actions.

He said there has been an 81% in increase in crimes involving guns and said, “It is an issue the government has been familiar with for a number of years.” The government has been in power since 2015, when the Nur decision, which struck down the mandatory minimums in section 95, was decided, yet we have all of this rhetoric.

When will the government start cracking down on illegal guns, and why is that not in Bill C-21?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, no, members cannot, because if they do that for every piece of legislation, including budgetary measures, the government will not be able to do anything. As we have recognized in the last mandate given to us, we have to work with opposition members to do the things we want to do, as we are doing.

Fortunately, there is at least one opposition party that has recognized the value of co-operation, contributing to the debate and trying to effect change. That is in fact what Bill C-21 would do. It would provide a safer community for all of us. We talk about the issue of yellow flag and red flag laws through this legislation. Once passed, this will have an immediate impact. It is an aspect of the legislation that many advocates and different stakeholders recognize the value of.

Having a freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns has been called for for a while now. It has taken the government, through consultations, a great deal of effort to make sure that we get the legislation right. It is not about killing the air gun industry. It is recognizing that air guns that replicate real guns do have an impact. A law enforcement officer in an awkward or difficult position has no way of telling what is real and what is not because of the resemblance.

This legislation has been well thought out. There has been a great deal of consultation, and I believe this is reflected by the type of support, minus the Conservative Party, that the legislation is seeing. I would like to think that passing it to committee would enable Canadians to contribute more directly and listen to what the experts say, because I am sure it will be back come fall time for an additional lengthy debate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, yes, let us assert blame where it is to be asserted in this situation. We are a government that has supported our border agents, recognizing how important that is.

There is a different mentality in the United States versus Canada. Consider the number of mass shootings with more than one victim. They take place virtually every day in the United States. In fact, some of the numbers shared with me indicate that there are well over 200 cases of mass shootings in the United States already where there have been two or more victims. It is a totally different mentality.

One thing that makes us feel good about being here in Canada is that we understand and appreciate the importance of having safe communities and the role, which we see day in and day out in the United States, that weapons have in our communities.

We are talking about issues such as gang activities, and literally tens of millions of dollars, going into over $200 million, have been invested through budgetary measures to deal with gangs. This is not to mention the other additional resources that the government, through infrastructure projects and through working with different levels of government, has been able to put into place, with programs aimed at reducing crime in our communities, especially with an emphasis on gun-related crimes.

Bill C-21, I believe, is legislation that has a wide level of support from the public from coast to coast to coast. We might hear a great deal about gun crimes in some of our major cities, but I do not believe it is just limited to our major cities.

That is one of the reasons that the approach the government is taking today in Bill C-21 is the right approach. We see that in the support the legislation is receiving. The New Democrats are supporting the legislation. I understand that the Green Party is supporting the legislation. The Bloc party is supporting the legislation too. However, it is no surprise that the Conservative Party is not supporting the legislation.

That is why I posed a question to my friends in the Bloc earlier today. Their first speaker talked about how important it is that we get this legislation passed. She has been waiting for it for a number of years already, yet as we have witnessed over the last number of months, the Conservative Party, the official opposition, has taken the approach that legislation is not to pass inside the House of Commons as much as possible, and it will put up barriers to prevent that from taking place.

At times, the Bloc members have already recognized this, because there have been times when they supported time allocation. However, today, the Bloc party did not support the need for it, knowing full well, as members will find in the next number of hours of debate, that Conservative after Conservative will stand up in opposition to Bill C-21. As they have demonstrated on other pieces of legislation, the Conservatives will continue not only to put up speakers but to also move amendments.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Humber River—Black Creek.

If we go back to 2009 and compared it with today, what we will find is that there has been a substantial increase of 81% in violent offences involving guns in a relatively short period of time. We should all be concerned about that. This piece of legislation would continue to move us forward. It is an issue the government has been familiar with for a number of years. In fact, one only needs to take a look at the other pieces of legislation we have brought forward and our budgetary motions and measures to deal with the issue of gun violence.

Canadians as a whole are concerned. It has been estimated that getting close to 50% are concerned about gun violence and what impact it is having on our communities. As a government, not only have we taken a look at legislative measures, which we are talking about today in Bill C-21, but we have also taken other actions, actions that have led to restrictions on some types of assault weapons and actions such as supporting Canada's border control.

We often hear members of all political stripes talk about the smuggling of weapons into Canada from the United States. That is something we take very seriously, unlike Stephen Harper, who cut back on agents at our border.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, even the “Liberalist” can be circumvented, but that is another matter.

What we are saying is that we would resolve a big part of the problem that was mentioned regarding air gun users. We are proposing that the bill include a clear definition of what constitutes an assault weapon, rather that listing all the weapons that are banned. There are currently 1,800 weapons on that list. It is never-ending. Weapons would need to be added to the list annually or even monthly to cover everything that needs to be covered. We would not be able to keep up. Instead, we should establish a clear definition of what constitutes an assault weapon and then ban them all. A weapon that does not meet the established definition would be allowed. That would surely satisfy the many firearms users who are telling us that the gun they use is being banned when there is no reason for it because it is not a real assault weapon. If we clearly define what constitutes an assault weapon, we can avoid a lot of discussion and problems regarding air gun users.

What really takes the cake is hearing the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice tell us that the increase in maximum sentences set out in Bill C‑21 will solve a lot of problems with crime, shootings and so on. We have been opposing Bill C-5 for months because the bill is unexpectedly and inopportunely going to eliminate minimum sentences for gun-related crimes. We are saying that the minimum sentences for gun crimes must not be reduced. People want us to do something about the shootings. In the case of that bill, the minister told me not to worry about it because criminals do not care about the elimination of minimum sentences. That does not concern them. There is not one criminal who worries about what the minimum sentence is before they commit a crime.

Today, not even a week later, the Minister of Public Safety is boasting about how great the government is for taking action on shootings by increasing the maximum sentences. Something does not add up here. I do not get it.

About increasing the maximum sentences from 10 to 14 years, I think that someone committing a firearm offence cares more about not getting caught. Is the maximum 10 years or 12 years? I would be surprised if that person thought long and hard before committing the crime. Having said that, we obviously cannot be against this measure. I think it is a good measure, but it will have virtually no effect on the growing crime rate.

Then there are the yellow-flag and red-flag provisions. This is a good thing. For quite some time, many women's groups and victims' groups in the community have been saying that someone who becomes threatening or violent should have their licence and weapons taken away. The red-flag provisions would allow for the confiscation of a firearm from someone who is a danger to themselves or others. If someone is accused of domestic violence or stalking and a protective order is issued against them, their licence could be revoked or at least suspended.

The red-flag and yellow-flag provisions are a good thing, and the Bloc Québécois is happy to support them. We thank and commend the government for them.

As far as cartridge magazines are concerned, they are already limited to five bullets or a bit more depending on the type of gun. We were glad it was limited because no one who goes hunting needs a cartridge magazine with 20 bullets, unless they are a bad shot. If so, they would be better off staying at home. Limiting the capacity of cartridge magazines to five bullets was already a good thing. Bill C‑21 also seeks to prohibit the alteration, import or resale of these cartridge magazines and make it a Criminal Code offence. These are good provisions that the Bloc Québécois supports.

Again, I want to reiterate what my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and I have been saying for weeks in the House: There is a problem. Bill C‑21 is a good bill, but 95% of the shootings happening right now every day in the streets of Montreal and elsewhere are committed with illegal handguns that were acquired on the black market.

That is what people want us to tackle. People talk very little about legal guns, if at all. They do talk about them, that is true, but those guns are not used to commit most crimes, although it does happen. Once again, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑21, but what is the government doing about the illegal guns that are used to commit 95% of crimes?

The Bloc Québécois is very worried about that because our voters are worried about it. Perhaps Liberal voters are not worried about it, but I will let the Liberals discuss it with their voters. People are talking about it in our ridings. People call my riding office and ask me when will we solve the problem of people shooting at one another in the streets of Montreal like in a western. It is outrageous, and we must act. However, Bill C‑21 does nothing about that.

Last week, Quebec announced $6.2 million to tackle gun smuggling through Akwesasne. That is a good thing, and we were pleased. However, Quebec should not be paying for it, given that border control is a federal responsibility. It would seem that the Liberals are not interested in managing things that fall under their jurisdiction. It is disappointing and worrisome for the public, and for the Bloc Québécois.

As my colleague from Shefford stated, the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of Bill C‑21. However, once again, we are very disappointed with this government's complacency on the issue of guns illegally crossing our border.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to live up to the compliments my colleague from Shefford just gave me. I think she does outstanding work on the status of women, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank her.

As we have said, Bill C‑21 is a good bill. The Bloc Québécois plans to vote in favour. That said, it does need to be improved in committee.

Let us talk about the pros. It puts a freeze on the acquisition of legal handguns. That is a good thing. As we know, right now, over one million such weapons are in circulation across Canada. Every year, over 55,000 of them are acquired legally, increasing the total number of handguns in circulation in Canada. We do not need one million handguns in Canada. We hope it will be possible to cap and significantly reduce the number of weapons in circulation, which do nobody any good and can be very harmful under certain circumstances, as we have seen in recent years.

To deal with that issue, the Bloc Québécois is proposing that the government bring in a voluntary buyback program. That was not included in Bill C‑21, but we would have really liked to see that in the bill. The owners of these legally acquired weapons are not breaking any laws, but considering that these weapons are so harmful that we want to freeze their acquisition and restrict their circulation, let us go for it. This is a step in the right direction, as is often said, but let us go one step further and bring in a buyback program. It would be voluntary, not necessarily mandatory, at least not at this time. The government should be able to take these handguns off of people who want to hand them over, thereby reducing the number of such weapons in circulation.

Now let us talk about assault weapons. Gun manufacturers are finding ways around the regulations adopted over two years ago on May 1, 2020. Everyone knows this. Manufacturers just have to modify the models slightly so that they no longer match the prohibited models. The government has decided to draw up a list of banned assault weapons. Of course, like any list, it is not exhaustive, and there are ways to get around it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, since we are on the topic, I will follow up to the question.

I am glad we discussed airsoft guns, even if the discussion was far too brief. Airsoft fans themselves have proposed some solutions for clearly identifying the guns so they could not be used to commit crimes.

There were proposals on the table long before Bill C-21 was introduced. That is what my colleague wishes we could have discussed. I simply wanted to add my two cents.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.

I believe I mentioned this in my speech, but we do want to work on the bill. We do want to study it in committee. That is not the issue. The previous vote was to condemn an affront to democracy.

Right now, the Liberals are constantly imposing closure. They are ultimately the only ones responsible for their legislative agenda, and they have done nothing. They are also responsible for the Conservatives' current filibustering. These two parties have led us to a dead end.

That is what we were condemning in the previous vote, not Bill C-21. Frankly, this government offends against democracy. It is acting like a majority government when it is in fact a minority government. That is the mandate it was given by voters. That offends me.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying I will be sharing my time with the always incisive member for Rivière-du-Nord.

Some debates are complex, difficult and delicate. They elicit strong reactions, and even divide us and help create rifts in our society. The debate on Bill C-21 is a striking example.

I remember that this is the first file I commented on publicly after I was elected for the first time in fall 2019, and here we are at the end of the session in my second term, in June 2022, and we are still talking about it.

I would like to point out that the Bloc Québécois will still be voting in favour of Bill C-21 at second reading, but we believe that the bill should be improved in committee. My colleagues can rest assured that the Bloc will try to be as constructive as possible, but our now-famous dynamic duo, namely the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord and the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, could explain it better than I can, since they have asked the Minister of Public Safety many questions on the issue. I will begin my speech by addressing certain aspects of Bill C-21, then certain points more specifically related to femicide and, lastly, other points focusing on domestic violence.

First, given the numerous events in the news in Montreal lately, Bill C-21 is a step in the right direction, but it will have little effect in the short term and change practically nothing in the streets of Montreal. The most important new feature in this bill is a complete freeze on the acquisition, sale and transfer of handguns for private individuals. Legal handguns will therefore disappear on the death of the last owner, since it will be impossible to bequeath or transfer the guns to others.

However, the bill includes exceptions for people who need a handgun to perform their duties, such as bodyguards with a licence to carry, authorized companies, for filming purposes for example, and high-level sport shooters. The government will define by regulation what is a “sport shooter”.

Those who already own a handgun will still be able to use it legally, but they will have to make sure to always renew their licence before the deadline or lose this privilege. The bill freezes the acquisition of legal handguns, but we will have to wait many years before all of the guns are gone, through attrition. In contrast, the number of illegal guns will continue to grow.

The federal government estimates that there are more than one million legal handguns in Canada and that more than 55,000 are acquired legally every year. The federal freeze would therefore prevent 55,000 handguns from being added to the existing number, but it does nothing about the millions of guns already in circulation. The Bloc Québécois suggests adding handguns to the buyback program in order to allow owners to sell them to the government if they so wish. In short, we are proposing an optional buyback program.

However, one of the problems is that, according to Montreal's police force, the SPVM, 95% of the handguns used to commit violent crimes are purchased on the black market. Legal guns are sometimes used, as in the case of the Quebec City mosque shooting, and it is precisely to avoid such mass shootings that the Bloc Québécois supports survivor groups in their demands to ban these guns altogether.

Bill C‑21 does nothing about assault weapons either, even though manufacturers are custom designing many new models to get around the May 1, 2020, regulations. The Bloc suggests adding as clear a definition as possible of the term “prohibited assault weapon”, so that they can all be banned in one fell swoop, rather than on a model-by-model basis with taxpayers paying for them to be bought back. The government wants to add to the list of prohibited weapons, but manufacturers are quick to adapt.

Also, Bill C‑21 will have no real impact on organized crime groups, which will continue to import weapons illegally and shoot people down in our streets. The Bloc Québécois has tabled Bill C-279 to create a list of criminal organizations, similar to the list of terrorist entities, in order to crack down on criminal groups that are currently displaying their gang symbols with total impunity while innocent people are dying in our streets. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord will discuss this bill in more detail, since he is the sponsor.

The most important thing for getting to the heart of the problem is reducing the number of guns available. Bill C‑21 increases prison sentences for arms traffickers, from 10 years to 14, and makes it an offence to alter cartridge magazines. It was already illegal to possess cartridge magazines that exceed the lawful capacity, but the government is now making altering cartridge magazines a crime.

Second, as the Bloc Québécois critic for status of women, I am regularly asked about this type of bill. What is interesting in this case is that Bill C‑21 incorporates the red- and yellow-flag system from the former Bill C-21. With the red-flag provisions, the Criminal Code will allow any individual to ask a judge to issue an order to immediately confiscate firearms belonging to a person who could be a danger to themselves or others, and even to confiscate weapons belonging to a person who might make them available to a person who poses a risk. The order would be valid for 30 days, and judges could take measures to protect the identity of the complainant.

The yellow-flag provisions would allow chief firearms officers to temporarily suspend a person's firearms licence if they have information that casts doubt on the person's eligibility for the licence. This suspension would prevent the person from acquiring new firearms, but it would not allow for the firearms they currently own to be seized. However, the person would not be allowed to use those firearms, for example at a firing range.

A new measure in this version of Bill C-21 is the immediate revocation of the firearms licence of any individual who becomes subject to a protection order or who has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking. This measure has been lauded by many anti-femicide groups, like PolyRemembers. There are several such groups, far too many, in fact.

This includes restraining orders and peace bonds, but also, and this is interesting, orders concerning domestic violence and stalking, including physical, emotional, financial, sexual and any other form of violence or stalking. A person who was subject to a protection order in the past would automatically be ineligible for a firearms licence.

However, there is another problem in relation to gun smuggling. The bill contains only a few measures and, I will say it again, it does not mention a buyback program for assault weapons or even the addition of a prohibited assault weapons category to the Criminal Code, two things that are absolutely necessary.

It is important to point out that 10- and 12-gauge hunting rifles are not affected by the ban. The gun lobby tried to sow doubt with a creative definition of a rifle's bore, which is now limited to under 20 millimetres. The bill therefore does not affect hunters. I know that many hunting groups are concerned about the new measures, but we need to reassure them that assault weapons are not designed for the type of hunting they do.

Getting back to assault weapons, the government as already planning to establish a buyback program through a bill in order to compensate owners of newly prohibited weapons, but it did not do so in the last legislature. If the government persists in classifying guns on a case-by-case basis, the number of models of assault weapons on the market will continue to rise. That is why the Bloc Québécois suggests adding a definition of “prohibited assault weapon” to the Criminal Code so that we can ban them all at once.

The Liberals keep repeating that they have banned assault weapons when there is nothing preventing an individual from buying an assault weapon right now or going on a killing spree if they already have one, since a number of models remain legal. Having already come out against this in Bill C‑ 5, the Liberals are also sending mixed messages in removing mandatory minimum sentences for certain gun crimes.

Third, I know that this bill will not stop all cases of femicide, but it is significant as part of a continuum of measures to address violence. There is still much work to be done, for example in areas such as electronic bracelets and health transfers, to provide support to groups that work with victims and survivors.

On Friday, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women tabled its report on intimate partner and family violence in Canada, and that is essentially the message I wanted to convey in my supplementary report. I hope it will be taken seriously. We will also need to work on changing mindsets that trivialize violence and try to counter hate speech, particularly online.

To talk a little bit about the bill, it relates to cases of violence, and we mentioned electronic monitoring devices. The bill would provide for two criminal offences that would qualify for electronic monitoring, including the authorized possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm or ammunition. That is a good thing. Something worthwhile came out of the work that we did at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

In closing, we are not the only ones who are saying that this bill does not go far enough or that it needs more work. The mayor of Montreal herself said that this bill does not go far enough. She said, and I quote:

This is an important and decisive measure that sends the message that we need to get the gun situation under control. The SPVM is making every effort to prevent gun crime in Montreal, but it is going to be very difficult for police forces across the country to do that as long as guns can continue circulating and can easily be obtained and resold.

There is still work to be done, and we must do it. We owe it to the victims. Enough with the partisanship. Let us work together constructively to move forward on this important issue. We cannot stand idly by while gunshots are being fired in our cities, on our streets and in front of schools and day cares. Let us take action to put an end to gun culture.

The House resumed from June 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms) be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Bill C-21—Time Allocation Motion

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that we will continue to have at least five more hours of debate on Bill C-21. Then it will go to committee, where I know there will be a very extensive, thorough and comprehensive study of Bill C-21. This is a good bill. It has the broad support of Canadians across a wide array of constituencies.

We embrace the idea of debating, and passing, this bill so we can better protect communities from the scourge of gun violence.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, in short, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. colleague and the observation he makes that Bill C-21 is vitally important to Canadians, because it seeks to address the increase of gun violence, which has been statistically studied by StatsCan and other individuals over the past decade or so.

We have seen gun crime go up. We have seen handgun crime, specifically, go up. We have seen intimate-partner violence and gender-based violence go up in connection with the presence of guns. Rather than being able to advance the bill in this chamber, we have seen Conservatives partake in filibustering, which is why we have brought forward this time allocation motion. It does not stop debate. Of course, this bill will continue to be studied by the committee so we can better protect Canadians from the scourge of gun violence.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is saying, on the one hand, from his mouth to this chamber, that the Conservatives are prepared to work on certain elements of the bill and then, earlier this morning, we heard the House leader for the Conservative Party of Canada saying there is nothing in this bill that would protect Canadians. It is for that colleague to reconcile that logical inconsistency. Canadians expect better.

My hon. colleague, as a very accomplished, very intelligent individual member in this chamber, knows full well that the debate of Bill C-21 will continue at committee, where, of course, we embrace the exchange of ideas and potential improvements and amendments to the bill so we can better protect Canadians from the scourge of gun violence. I would urge the member to vote in support of this motion so that we can continue debate at committee.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know why. I wish Canadians could get into the heads of some of the tactics that we have seen here in this chamber. We embrace the idea of having a very vigorous debate about how to better protect our communities from gun violence, but, instead, we saw on the first day that was scheduled for Bill C-21 that Conservatives filibustered and we have seen similar tactics at committee.

As my hon. colleague the leader for the NDP in this chamber pointed out, it is not just on the matters related to public safety. It is on matters related to creating jobs, improving the economy, dealing with climate change and dealing with priorities related to Health Canada. I do want to take a moment to thank the New Democrats for their efforts at making this chamber work, which is what the vast majority of Canadians are entitled to expect from us, especially on matters related to public safety.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am all too happy to answer my hon. colleague's question. Among other branches, of course we are in the midst of consulting with law enforcement at the federal level with the RCMP. However, we saw the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents the most senior levels and executive levels of law enforcement, say that Bill C-21 would be a step in the right direction toward better protecting our communities. Of course, that in no way diminishes the fact that we need to debate the bill and study the bill.

The problem with my hon. colleague's position is that her party has stood in the way of debate. It is her party that is standing in the way of the free speech that should be exercised in studying the bill.

We want to pass the bill so we can deal with gun violence and better protect our communities. I would hope that my colleague would embrace that effort.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for putting his finger precisely on the problem in his chamber, which is that there is one party, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada, that continues to obstruct on public safety, the economy, health and the environment. Rather than embracing the debate, which is the hallmark of our democracy in this chamber, what we see instead is relentless tactics to filibuster and postpone debate.

What we have before us is a bill that would help us advance the fight against gun violence. I would certainly urge the Conservatives to embrace the opportunities that would manifest in the committee stage, where we could look at Bill C-21 and hopefully find some common ground on addressing handgun violence, addressing organized crime, and addressing the connections between domestic abuse and gun violence. That debate will continue there.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not a question of whether we are for or against Bill C-21. We know that the bill is not perfect, but it is important.

This is about how the Liberal government has managed its legislative agenda. To be frank, honest and sincere, it has been a complete disaster. I have never seen a legislative agenda managed like this. We are meeting again today and we will likely sit until late on Thursday because we do not have the right people on that side of the House to manage the legislative agenda effectively. It is not the opposition's fault. It is not the fault of the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois or the NDP. It is the government's fault. They keep imposing closure because they are unable to manage their legislative agenda properly.

The fact that we have gotten to this point, today, is serious. The government could have tabled its notice of motion on the weekend, but what we are seeing here is the government's inefficiency across all departments and in managing the legislative agenda.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I have personal respect for my colleague. He knows that, and I would like to think we reciprocate that. Unfortunately, I do not respect his position on this particular motion.

The reason why we are taking this step is betrayed by the way in which he has characterized the bill, which is that Bill C-21 would not be helpful in reducing gun violence. That is categorically untrue. In particular, I would point his attention to the fact that the bill, among other things, would raise maximum sentences against illegal gun smugglers. He seems not to take any particular note of that. He also does not address the fact that it was his party, sadly, that sought to filibuster this debate, consistent with the posture that the Conservative Party has taken on any number of important questions and matters of priority for Canadians, whether it is on the economy, on health or on the environment. Conservatives are always blocking debate. We want to advance debate.

This debate will now move to committee, where there will be more study of Bill C-21, which would help ensure that we protect Canadians.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are seeing the hammer drop. It is on Bill C-21 this time, which further strengthens our resolve. You and I are unfortunate to have a front row seat to the further decline in democracy in this place and another attack on the institution of Parliament.

There has been three hours and 24 minutes of debate on this bill, which is a very substantive bill. Just last week, the Conservatives made an offer to the government: split the bill so we can work on portions of it that we can support, such as domestic violence and other matters within the bill. That was rejected by the government.

This bill would do nothing to solve gun and gang criminal activity in this country. This past weekend there were seven shootings in Liberal-held ridings just in Toronto. Instead of dealing with the situation, what the Liberals are doing is further traumatizing, stigmatizing and dividing Canadians through a bill by not offering to work and do the right thing.

My question for the minister is this. Is it true that, for the purposes of further dividing, stigmatizing and wedging, and using this bill as a politicized weapon, the Liberals have earmarked almost $1 million for an ad campaign in the summer to target opposition parties that are looking to better this bill as opposed to oppose it?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had actually read Bill C-21, she would see that we are taking on organized crime head-on by raising maximum sentences for illegal gun smugglers. She would see that we are addressing the alarming concerns around handgun violence by introducing a national handgun freeze. She would see that we are also addressing the alarming trend around the connection between intimate partner violence and guns by the introduction of red flag protocols.

The only thing the Conservatives can offer is making AR-15 assault-style rifles legal again. They should come to this chamber with more ideas.

Criminal Code

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, very few recent mass shooters in this country had criminal records of any kind. Consider shootings in Fredericton, Danforth, Quebec City and Moncton. Could the member comment on how Bill C-21 would help reduce and even eliminate mass shootings across the country?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity today to join this important debate.

Let me begin by saying two words: Resolute and realistic. I think the Minister of Public Safety said it best. Resolute and realistic is what this government has strived to be since we began tackling gun violence as soon as we were elected to lead this country almost seven years ago, and these adjectives have been our true North Star. We know that no single bill or initiative has the power to single-handedly end gun violence. That is being realistic.

We also know that morally, ethically and humanely we are bound to do all we can, using all resources at our disposal, to stop senseless deaths and injuries from firearms. That is exactly what we are determined to do. In other words, we are resolute. We believe it is the only appropriate response to the tragedies we have seen in our communities, from the École Polytechnique in 1989 to Portapique in 2020 and all the deadly incidents in between that did not receive widespread media coverage precisely because they were all too common. Let us not have any doubt about it: These are preventable deaths. The grief of the victims' loved ones will never be fully soothed, and those who survived will always carry with them the trauma of what they experienced. We must resolve ourselves to do anything and everything that we can to ensure no one else has to live through these horrors. That is why we have introduced decisive actions such as implementing a national freeze on handguns so that no new handguns can be brought into Canada or bought, sold or transferred within the country, and implementing red flag laws to protect those who are most vulnerable from gun violence at the hands of intimate partners. These are the strongest gun control measures this country has seen in over 40 years. These measures will save lives.

I would like to share a few important statistics with my colleagues. We know that the more available guns are, the higher the risk of homicides and suicides. Handguns are the most commonly used firearms in homicides. Suicide by firearm accounted for 75% of all firearms deaths in Canada between 2008 and 2018. Victims of intimate partner violence are about five times more likely to be killed if a firearm is present in the home. Members should think about that. Of guns used in crimes, 58% are traced to domestic sources that are predominantly from straw purchasing and theft. This means that, contrary to what the Conservatives keep telling us, these guns are legally obtained initially. Making handguns unavailable to buy, transfer or sell and prohibiting new handguns from being brought into Canada just makes sense. Reducing the number of guns in our communities means reducing the number of victims of gun violence.

Let us be clear. We are realistic. We know that a national freeze on handguns, however strong and effective a measure it will be, cannot end all forms of gun violence, of course. That is why this bill contains numerous other measures to complement and strengthen Canada's gun laws. A priority for this government is protecting women who are disproportionately victimized by intimate partner violence that often involves guns. Bill C-21 contains legislation to revoke or deny firearms licences for people who have a protection order against them or have been involved in domestic violence, criminal harassment or stalking.

The red flag provisions of this bill are also designed to protect women and other vulnerable persons. Under these provisions, anyone could apply to a court to remove firearms from someone who may be a danger to themselves or others. We can imagine the utility of a law like this. We can imagine the lives saved in situations where people were experiencing abuse and feared for their lives at the hands of their partners who owned a firearm, or for firearms owners who tell their friends they have suicidal thoughts or ideation. Bill C-21 also contains yellow flag provisions, where anyone can ask a chief firearms officer to suspend and examine a licence if there are grounds to suspect that person is no longer eligible to hold a firearms licence.

These are all strong measures, and we know there are those who, as responsible firearms owners, may worry that these new laws would affect them. Canadian gun regulations and requirements are already robust, and we know that the majority of firearms owners take great care to own and operate their firearms safely in accordance with these rules. We have taken care to ensure that the privileges of lawful gun owners would not change. Current handgun owners would continue to be able to possess and use firearms for as long as they own them.

Bill C-21 is targeting handguns, not firearms used for hunting or sport shooting. However, as the Prime Minister has said, there is no reason other than these activities that the general public should need guns in their everyday lives. Let us think about it. All it takes to take a life is the pulling of a trigger. Do Canadians really need to own lethal force to be used at any moment? I do not think so.

Firearms owners can rest assured that, as always, we will consult with Canadians before finalizing and implementing regulations. The bottom line is that Canadians know that this government is serious about gun control and has been since we were elected. Since 2016, we have invested more than $920 million to address gun violence and keep guns out of the hands of gangs and criminals.

Budget 2021 committed $312 million over five years for the CBSA and RCMP to increase intelligence and investigative capacity at the border and increase the RCMP's ability to trace gun crimes and detect straw purchasing. We have made significant strides in combatting gang violence as well, with $250 million committed to support municipalities and indigenous communities with anti-gang programs through the building safer communities fund. This builds on the $358.8 million under the 2018 initiative to take action against gun and gang violence for provinces and territories. This is not to mention that under the leadership of the previous minister of public safety two years ago, we took the bold step of banning assault-style weapons, prohibiting over 1,500 models of such firearms.

This is how we are combatting gun violence and how we will end it. We have a suite of comprehensive measures that prevent it from taking root in the first place, that protect vulnerable individuals when there is reason to believe violence is imminent and that remove guns from the hands of those who have malicious intentions. We cannot wait to take action.

I speak for all my colleagues when I say that we have already seen too much violence in each of our home constituencies. I know I have. There have been too many tears with too much grief, because even one person lost to gun violence is too many. I implore my colleagues to pass Bill C-21 as quickly as possible. Let us end gun violence in Canada now.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about what is in Bill C-21. I would like hear his thoughts on what is missing from Bill C‑21, starting with a ban on assault weapons.

The government has decided to proceed through regulatory changes. Some 1,800 models of assault weapons are currently banned. The government has proposed a mandatory buyback program, but it is still not in place. Public consultations have yet to begin.

If the government takes a model-by-model approach, there is a risk that some will be forgotten or that new ones will appear on the market. We proposed amending the Criminal Code instead, in order to clearly define what a prohibited weapon is. That way, they can all be dealt with at once.

The Liberal Party seemed happy with that proposal, and I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on it.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Whitby.

I want to recognize that I am speaking to the House of Commons from traditionally unceded Algonquin territory.

I am speaking today on a very important bill, Bill C-21, an incredibly important bill that addresses the proliferation of handguns in Canada and the need for greater measures to protect community safety.

Just by way of a refresh, our work on gun control, as a government, started much earlier. Since 2015, we have banned AR-15s and listed 1,500 models of assault-style firearms as prohibited. We have cracked down on illegal trafficking by investing in law enforcement and enhancing border security. We have invested $250 million to address the root causes of gang violence.

Bill C-21 is part of the evolution of this approach and it is targeting specifically handguns. The question is why. We know that gun violence in Canada is on the rise. Since 2009, violent offences involving guns have increased by 81%, and handguns are the number one type of gun used in shooting homicides in this country.

Around 47% of Canadians have reported feeling that gun violence poses a serious threat to their communities. My community of Parkdale—High Park is no exception. My city of Toronto is no exception. We know that handguns are the preferred weapon of criminals in Canada, and that criminals obtain their guns through different means: smuggling, theft or what is known as straw purchases.

For example, the horrific Danforth shooting a few years back in Toronto involved a gun that was originally a legal firearm that was stolen in the province of Saskatchewan. We are trying to address part of the problem, which is the supply of handguns that are circulating in Canadian society.

How will we do that? This bill would freeze the market. Individuals will no longer be able to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns, subject to some very narrow exceptions. This means that there will never be more handguns in Canada than there are at the moment this bill passes. I just want that to sink in for members of Parliament, because that underscores the need to ensure community safety by passing this legislation as quickly as possible.

That begs the question, what about other sources, such as the borders? We are addressing borders and smuggling as well. While Bill C-21 limits the domestic supply of handguns, what we have done at the borders, and we have heard this injected into the debate by people like the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, is that we have made a $350-million investment into the RCMP and the CBSA, in their capacity to intercept weapons coming across the U.S. border. While we venerate our relationship with our strongest ally and our largest trading partner, that trading partner also happens to be the world's single largest manufacturer of firearms on the planet.

When we made that investment, and I will note this for the people watching on CPAC, the Conservative Party of Canada voted against that investment, betraying its perspective when the rubber hit the road, in terms of voting patterns.

What happened after that historic investment? Let us look at the evidence. In 2021, the RCMP and the CBSA intercepted nearly double the number of firearms at the border than they had in 2020. The investments in border safety are working to keep our communities safe.

Both in this debate and in the context of other debates about firearms and gun control in this legislature, at least in the time I have been here, since 2015, we have heard a lot about the narrative about victims, that the focus needs to be on the victims. Let me talk about three victim groups that I feel are strongly served by a bill like Bill C-21.

The first is women. The member for Vancouver East just asked a very poignant question of the member who just spoke from the official opposition, about victims of intimate partner violent and things like gender-based violence. We have heard, and it is fairly common-sense, that if there is violence in the home, the presence of weapons in the home would accentuate the propensity of that violence to end up being lethal. That is exactly what has happened. A stat was just provided that 500 instances of intimate partner violence involved firearms. That is almost two per day in terms of how frequent that is. That is an alarming statistic for all of us who are concerned about violence, and I am sure there is no debate that all of us in this chamber are concerned about intimate partner violence.

What does this bill do? This bill would provide, among other things, regulatory authority that will allow for an individual who is the subject of a restraining order to be prevented from having either a firearm or a firearms licence. We know that the number of women who are killed at home because of intimate partner violence and gender-based violence is far too large. That is why we are working to address this.

The next area I would like to address, in terms of whom we are supporting, is those who are dealing with mental illness. We know that we have a concern about mental illness, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic.

We know that rates of suicidality are going up. We know that when people are contemplating suicide, or having what is called suicidal ideation, the presence of a weapon can, again, be lethal. We know that guns in homes lead to greater numbers of suicides in this country. There are members of the official opposition who have called for various measures, and they are right to call for them, to address suicidality and to address getting people support.

One way of ensuring that suicidal ideation does not result in death is by restricting the numbers of firearms in homes. This bill would do that. I found it a bit perplexing, to be candid, to hear, in the debate just prior to my intervention, about the notion of background checks. It was raised by the Conservative member who just spoke. When the issue of background checks was moved in the House of Commons in the previous Parliament, the Conservative Party again voted against that aspect of the legislation. That is really troubling for a party, when all parliamentarians need to be addressing the need to ensure that lawful firearms are only put into the hands of people who should have firearms, not people who may perhaps be suffering from mental illness.

Let me address a third group, and this one is really important to me in the work that I have been doing for the past seven years. What this legislation would do through the red flag provisions is address people who could be targeted by hatred. I am talking about people who might be racial minorities and religious minorities. I am talking about people who could be targeted online, and the women I spoke of earlier. If such people have a legitimate basis or reasonable grounds to believe that a firearm should be removed from the home of a potential assailant, or someone who was stalking or threatening them, etc., they could apply for a court order to do just that. The court order raising a red flag could be for a limited period as short as up to 30 days. A long-term prohibition order could be all the way up to five years, if there continued to be a reasonable basis to believe the individual posed a public health risk.

The removal of the weapons could be done immediately, via a court order that they be surrendered immediately to law enforcement. This is important because we heard from, and listened to, women and minority groups who are targeted by violence. They are targeted by hatred and are threatened. They told us that their fears are real and that there are fears of reprisal.

I am going to get to an aspect that we have improved in this legislation. What they have said is that they were not going to come forward because if they did so, it would put them in even greater vulnerability. They would have a greater sense of jeopardy, with a higher likelihood of potentially fatal consequences. What we have done with this iteration of Bill C-21 is we have improved it. We have listened to those stakeholders, and we have cured what we feel is an aspect of the old Bill C-21 that needed curing. This is in terms of protecting the identity of those persons who would apply for such a court order.

Under the current version of the legislation that we are now debating, a court could close the court hearing to the public and the media. A court could seal the documents in the record for up to 30 days and remove identifying information for any period of time, even permanently, if the judge felt that was necessary. That is important because it gets to the heart of this issue: that people who are facing threats and have very legitimate fears need to be emboldened to come forward and not be afraid to come forward. This is what this legislation would do. It would allow for such people to be protected.

I want to point out the types of people who have been calling for the red flags. One amazing group is a group of physicians called Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, and I salute their incredible work. I had the occasion to meet with some of them, including Dr. Najma Ahmed and Dr. Julie Maggi. Many of their colleagues were doing incredible work from a medical perspective about this being a public health crisis that we are dealing with, in terms of firearms violence.

I also want to salute the lifetime work of my constituent, Ms. Wendy Cukier, a professor at TMU in Toronto and also the president of the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control. I first met Wendy when I was a parliamentary intern in this chamber in 1995. She was doing work back then, 27 years ago, to promote better gun control. She has never wavered in those 27 years. I salute her for the success that this legislation has achieved.

The last piece I want to address in closing is the idea of having municipalities deal with this on a one-off basis. Having bylaws in individual municipalities would create a checkerboard. It would not serve the constituents of Toronto if guns were banned in Toronto but available in Markham or Mississauga. The same would apply across the country.

We are taking a national approach because this is a national issue and a national crisis. It is important for victims. It is important for women. It is important for people who are suffering with mental illness. It is important for racial and religious minorities. I firmly support this bill, and I hope my colleagues will, as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I recently met with the Canadian Airsoft Association, which wanted to make sure we understood that Bill C‑21 targets air guns, toys and paintball guns because of how they look, not what they do. The association thinks that is wrong. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

How will the Conservative Party be working with the government and the other opposition parties during the committee's study?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to add my voice as well to the debate around Bill C-21, which is a very sinister bill that comes out of the evil intentions of the Liberal government.

Why do I say that? It is because the bill before us will do nothing to end the crime sprees that we are seeing happen across the country. The bill will do nothing to end the violence that is happening in our streets. The bill will do nothing to support law enforcement in bringing these people to justice and holding them to account.

I hear over and over from community members that criminals are operating with impunity in broad daylight. They do not seem to fear the police whatsoever, or authorities of any sort, and that is the hard work that needs to be done. However, the Liberals are not interested in doing that hard work, because they know that this hard work will not score them political points. Therefore, I lay at their feet that the bill before us is a feeble attempt and that the Liberals should reconsider what they are doing.

Bill C-21 will not reduce gun crime and it will not reduce crime that is happening in our streets across the country. Why? It is because it would not give the authorities new tools; it would not provide new funding for law enforcement; and it would not allow for law enforcement to make quick interventions in these kinds of situations.

In Calgary, not a month ago, people in two cars racing down the street were shooting at one another. One car collided with a minivan and killed a mother of six children. Community members were asking, “How does this happen in broad daylight? Why did these criminals think that they could operate with impunity?” Well, that is because they did not see that there would be any consequence to what they were doing, and that is the challenge. That is the challenge of governing and it is what is required of government, which is to ensure a reward to those who do good and punish those who do evil.

This government is not doing that. For that, it gets a failing mark on Bill C-21.

This particular bill, although it takes the easy way out, would go after law-abiding firearms owners. The people who are already obeying the law and jumping through all of the hoops to own a firearm would only have another hoop placed in front of them. They would not be able to purchase new handguns or be able to transfer those handguns to their offspring and those kinds of things. Under this particular bill, they would be the last generation of handgun owners.

Many of these firearms are heirlooms handed down from generation to generation. Many of my constituents speak with pride about the firearm that their great-grandfather used to own, and they have it in their collection. It is something they will no longer be able to pass down if Bill C-21 comes into force. How will that prevent criminals from operating with impunity in broad daylight? It will not.

That is a punitive, lazy and evil outcome of this particular bill. It would take away a freedom that Canadians have to pass on their heritage to their children, but it would not equip law enforcement or communities in order to prevent criminals from acting in broad daylight, making our communities less safe and a place where the gangsters rule, rather than law and order.

The Liberals claim law and order is their goal, but in reality we know that it is not. If they were actually focused on tackling some of these tough issues around restoring law and order, making criminals fear authorities, putting power behind the authorities and providing political support for law enforcement to do their job, we would see a restoration of peace and security in these communities. However, we have seen the Liberals tacitly support the “Defund the Police" movement; we have seen them radically reduce the length of sentencing that comes from participating in gun crime with Bill C-5; and we have seen their failure to adequately call out the firebombing of churches across the country.

All of these things have allowed gangsters and communities to feel like there is no law and order being upheld in particular communities. Where I come from, rural crime is a large and growing issue. People do not even phone the police anymore, because they are quite convinced that nothing will be done. The police will do the investigation and make the arrests, and the perpetrator will be out again the next evening. Then, when it does eventually go to trial, the whole case will be thrown out on some technicality. This does not bring justice for the victims, but it also does not put the perpetrators on a path to restoration to the community or a path of rehabilitation so that they can operate in the community.

These are some of the things that Conservatives have been calling for. We have been calling for the government to work to back up the police. My dad is a World War II history buff and he has a poster on his wall of a soldier going off to war. It says, “Buy Victory Bonds. Back him up!” That is essentially what we are calling on the government to do, to back up the law and order of this country and to provide the political support to ensure that law and order can be enforced in our communities. That is one of the major things we are seeing, whether it is in downtown Toronto, whether it is in Surrey, British Columbia, whether it is in Calgary, whether it is in northern Alberta or whether it is in Fairview, Alberta. That is something we are calling for.

Another thing I want to bring up as well is about some of the sports that involve firearms, particularly the handgun-shooting sports. I have a good friend up in Slave Lake who participates in a particular type of competition around this. He is of elite skill. I do not have any concern that he will not be able to get the elite skill exemption that is placed in this bill, but his question is, how does one become elite? One becomes elite by starting out as an amateur. One becomes elite by beginning at the bottom of the totem pole: buying one's first handgun when one is 18 years old, going to the range, learning how to shoot, getting a mentor, all those kinds of things.

In hockey, we have thousands of people who play hockey who want to make it to the NHL. The same thing happens with elite handgun-shooting competitions at the Olympics. Typically, there are thousands of people who are participating at the amateur level so that we can have one or two make it to the Olympics to represent Canada on the world stage. How are we going to ensure that we have a strong and growing base of people to draw from for those things?

The other area of competition I want to talk about is paintball and airsoft. These two particular sports are going to be extremely penalized by this particular bill, because many of the paintball markers or airsoft tools look like a replica of a firearm. How does that help anybody in Canada? Many times these are replicas that are used for training purposes. They are used for simulation purposes. Again, the point is that if we want to have Canadians competing at the Olympic level, we need to ensure that we can use these particular tools.

I find that Bill C-21 is a sinister bill. Bill C-21 does not do the things that it is purported to do. I look forward to the defeat of this bill and the government providing support to law enforcement to restore law and order in our communities.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member was listening carefully, she knows that I was actually trying to talk about Bill C-21. That is the gun control issue, the control that the government is seeking to have over law-abiding Canadians who enjoy the sport of sport shooting, who are hunters or farmers who need firearms to conduct their business.

This bill directly attacks individuals like that and makes their lives miserable. Why does the government do it? The government does it because they are easy targets. They are not really criminals.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

It is always a pleasure to rise in this House to speak to legislation, even bad legislation.

I will be frank. I think Bill C-21 has about as much chance of stopping gun violence as there is of me crossing the floor to join the Liberals. It is just not going to happen. The bill will not work because it is the wrong approach, and the sad thing is that the government knows it is the wrong approach. It knows it will not work, but it is doing it anyway.

I will talk about why it is doing that in just a minute, but let us be clear. Gun control is an important issue. Everyone in the House has agreed that we need sensible gun control, but in this legislation there is the same problem we have come up against every time with the government, and that is that, when it decides it wants to tackle gun crime, it completely ignores the problem. It goes after law-abiding citizens rather than doing the hard work of going after the bad guys. This is because it is easier to control the behaviour of those who already obey the law than it is to deal with those who do not.

Conservatives are eager to tackle this issue. We want to have common sense laws. There are even things in this bill we can get behind, but instead of a serious and honest conversation, we get virtue signalling. We get a Prime Minister who is so eager to import U.S. culture wars into Canada that he politicizes tragedy for his own political benefit rather than taking concrete steps to protect the lives of Canadians. Why is that?

I need to remind the Prime Minister that we do not live in the United States. He is the Prime Minister of Canada, not a pundit for MSNBC. I am not so naive as to think that what happens in the U.S. does not affect us, particularly with the saturation effect of U.S. media, but every time some controversial issue or potential wedge issue pops up south of the border, it would seem that the Prime Minister rubs his hands with glee and wonders how he can weaponize it and use it to divide and control Canadians, whether it is abortion, race, gender, immigration or, what we are talking about now, guns. He seeks to take U.S. issues, import them to Canada and weaponize them to stigmatize and divide Canadians. These are serious issues, and we need to address them, but we need to address them as Canada's Parliament. They are uniquely Canadian issues, but the Prime Minister does not want to do that because it is easier to control people through fear, anger and division than it is to convince Canadians based on the merits of a particular argument.

I spoke in the House last week on the subject of control and how the government wants to pick winners and losers. We see it in the economy. We see it in the media. We see it in society. One group gets federal funding because it agrees with the ideologically of the government and another group does not. One media outlet gets federal funding and the next one does not. Certain people can have their charter rights to travel because they have agreed with the ideology of getting the shot or the second, the third or the fourth. Those who question the government based largely on consistently inconsistent and conflicting information from government sources, not to mention the principle that personal medical choices are private, lost their jobs. They were stigmatized and demonized again and again, and it is still happening.

When certain folks had enough and drove to Ottawa to express their opposition to his overreach, the Prime Minister would not meet with them. He ran away and hid. He and his ministers spun a narrative about these individuals. They said things in the media that have been proven to be false again and again. Where is the accountability for that misinformation? He enacted the Emergencies Act, not, as we now know, on the advice of law enforcement, which is another untruth, but because he had to control. He crushed those people with the full weight of his powers. Why did he do that? It was not because of science or any credible threat, but because of control. He wants to control what we do, what we think, what we can see online.

It was the Prime Minister's father who stated that the government has no business in the bedrooms of Canadians. The government not only wants to be in the bedroom, but also in every other room. It wants to be on every device, and every speech and every thought, and I am not so sure if the government is doing this out of a sense of insecurity. A relationship where one side refuses to listen to the other and always needs to be in control is not a healthy relationship. A relationship where one side belittles and demeans the other is not a healthy relationship. A relationship where one side uses a power differential to force submission is not a healthy relationship. It is an abusive relationship, and right now the relationship between the government and Canadians is not a healthy relationship.

The government has abused power and continues to abuse power, aided and abetted by the New Democrats, who, for a lack of fortitude and courage, are willing to compromise their convictions and sell out to Canadians for just a whiff of power. This is not about public safety. It is about the government controlling the little people, the law-abiding people. Every time government adds to its power to exercise control, individual Canadians lose some of theirs. It only exacerbates and perpetuates the problem.

I look at this bill. I look at how the government went about that process and how it has conducted itself in the past two years, and all I see is another attempt to control law-abiding Canadians. Now, with my remaining minutes, I would like to shift gears a bit because I do want to talk about violence.

There is no greater evil than to perpetuate violence. It is why our criminal justice system reserves the most serious sentences for those who inflict harm on others. However, violence is not a political issue. It is not an issue of hate, but it is an issue of the heart. In my faith we call it sin, which is the corruption of the image of God in humanity. It is a moral defect, the natural expression of which is to inflict harm on ourselves and others. It is a condition and a state of being from which we must be healed if we are ever to find wholeness and peace.

It is a heart issue, and the interesting thing about a heart is issue is that we cannot legislate it. We cannot legislate against what is in a person's heart. We can try, and the government has and will continue to try, and fail, because laws do not fix hearts. Laws cannot eliminate the anger, loneliness or hopelessness that individuals who commit heinous crimes feel, but what laws can do is attempt to control the external factors that contribute to the anger, loneliness and hopelessness that lead to an individual committing such heinous acts. To that end, I would like to offer a few brief suggestions.

We are never going to be able to fully eradicate violent crime, but if we want to get serious about curtailing it, we need to start with our kids. As parents and grandparents, we need to know what they are watching in the media and on social media. We need to know what they are consuming in their minds, which eventually finds its way into their hearts, and the video games and entertainment many of our children and grandchildren are accessing.

We know kids are impressionable and that, even as young adults, people are still developing until their mid-twenties. We know what habitual consumption can do and about neural pathways that habits and patterns create in the brain.

“Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks”, and we can naturally extrapolate that the body acts. To put it in simple terms, what we put in is likely what will come out. There is an expression that was quite familiar when computers first became very prevalent: “Garbage in; garbage out.” Studies have shown, consistently, the direct correlation between violent video games and being not only desensitized, but predisposed, to violence. As early as the year 2000, which was 22 years ago, a study by the American Psychological Association revealed “that even brief exposure to violent video games can temporarily increase aggressive behavior in all types of participants.”

We see similar patterns when it comes to sexual violence. There is no limit to the depths of depravity and dehumanizing behaviour individuals, including children, can view with just the click of a mouse. That is why in the House we have continually called on the government to take action against Quebec-based MindGeek, which owns Pornhub, one of the largest producers of pornography in the world, including illegal content that is racist, misogynistic and violent, as we have shown in the House in the past.

We recognize that pornography not only isolates individuals, but also creates unhealthy and unrealistic depictions and expectations of sexual behaviour, which leads to violence against women. We know this, but when a young person, or for that matter an older person, is routinely exposed to violence and pornography, they will develop radical and racist views, and that is what many people are consuming for hours a day, day in and day out. We should not be surprised when violence follows.

There is the story in the Bible of the very first murder. It is recorded in the Bible, and it is the story of Cain killing his brother Abel with a rock. The problem was not the rock. We do not read the story and say, “If only God had tougher rock control policies.” The rock was a tool. Jealousy, anger, feeling sorry for himself and feeling hard done by were what motivated the irrational rage that brought on the inability to get past himself and his own desires.

Cain lost control and acted out of his emotions. The problem was not the rock; the problem was the heart.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on this step forward. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill. That said, as we have made clear for the past few weeks, we would really like to see improvements to Bill C-21 in committee.

As I said earlier, finding a solution to curb organized crime is nearly impossible. That has been documented. According to the Montreal police service, 95% of handguns used in violent crimes come from the black market.

How is it possible that with all this information we cannot improve a bill to address the whole problem instead of just part of it?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, that could not be further from the truth. As the hon. member knows, gun control was a big issue during the last election campaign. In fact, the gun lobby chose to come to my riding twice to distribute pamphlets to try to make sure that I was not re-elected to be able to take action like that contained in Bill C-21.

To say that we are following events in the United States is simply not true. Having said that, I think it is irresponsible for any of us to think that we are immune from that kind of gun violence here in Canada.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to note that it seems that Bill C-21 was brought in on the back of American politics. I am wondering what the member has to say about importing American politics into Canada.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Working in this place as an MP is a privilege that I do not take lightly. I have had the opportunity to work on many issues since I was elected, and one that I am most proud of is the actions we have taken to prevent gun violence.

Today, we are debating Bill C-21, a milestone achievement, built in large part on the voices and advocacy of so many survivors of gun violence, their families and loved ones, and doctors who see the burden of injury of gun violence.

I would like to express my deepest thanks to PolySeSouvient, the Centre culturel islamique de Québec, the Danforth families and the Dawson families, Doctors for Protection from Guns, the Coalition for Gun Control, Dr. Alan Drummond and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Alison Irons, and every single individual and organization advocating for better gun laws in our country. They have shaped the bill that is before the House of Commons today. Their unrelenting advocacy has led to a piece of generational legislation, which, as part of a broader strategy to tackle gun violence in this country, will make Canada a safer place for all of us to call home. A sad truth about those who are called to this kind of advocacy work is that it is often inspired by indescribable pain, which comes from surviving gun violence or losing a loved one to it.

Combined with the measures the government has already put in place, as well as our investments in communities and at the border, Bill C-21 marks the next significant step in our fight to eliminate gun violence. Bill C-21 is good news for the public safety of our communities, our institutions and our most vulnerable citizens. It would add new tools that will be used to reduce needless deaths from domestic violence and suicide.

We know that gun control is a women's issue. The Canadian Women's Foundation notes that the presence of firearms in Canadian households is the single greatest risk factor for the lethality of intimate partner violence. Access to a firearm increases the likelihood of femicide by 500%. I have heard from groups like the Lethbridge YWCA, which told me that every single woman who came to its shelter had been threatened by a partner with a firearm. They are among the nearly 2,500 women victimized in this way over the past five years. Intimate partner violence accounts for nearly 30% of all police-reported violent crime in Canada. That number has risen during the pandemic. In my riding, and across the country, local organizations like Halton Women's Place are helping to shine a brighter light on the dangers of gun violence.

Lindsay Wilson was a bright 26-year-old about to graduate from university, with the world in front of her, when her ex-boyfriend stalked her and, using his legally obtained firearm, shot and killed her. I met her mom, Alison Irons, during the study on Bill C-71. I was proud to be involved in passing that bill, which requires enhanced background checks to prevent those who have a history of violence from owning a firearm. Regulations found in that bill, which have now come into force, will help police trace illegal guns and ensure that firearms licences are verified. It makes sure that those who should not own a firearm cannot own a firearm.

Just last month, the minister asked the RCMP to do more. In the recently updated mandate letter for the commissioner of the RCMP, the RCMP has been asked to work with chief firearms officers across Canada to ensure that they can respond to calls without delay from Canadians who have safety concerns about an individual who has access to firearms, and to work with police of jurisdiction to remove firearms quickly. This change responds to concerns from physicians, survivors of intimate partner violence and victims' families.

I recently talked to Alison Irons, Lindsay's mom. She told me that the actions we have already taken, as well as those included in this bill and the RCMP commissioner's mandate letter, might very well have saved her daughter's life.

Let us talk about what those potentially life-saving changes included in Bill C-21 would do. The bill aims to prevent individuals with a prior or current restraining order from obtaining a firearms licence and would empower authorities to automatically revoke the licences of those with a new restraining order. The bill also introduces new red flag laws allowing courts to remove guns from and suspend the licences of people who pose a danger to themselves or anyone else.

Over 75% of those who die by firearms in this country die by suicide. The proposed red flag laws are one tool to stop deaths by suicide and domestic violence, adding another layer of protection that those supporting them, such as doctors, shelters and family, can use to prevent violence. Bill C-21 marks an important next step in removing guns from the hands of abusive partners.

We cannot forget that Bill C-21 is following the ban on AR-15s and other military-style assault weapons. This important decision prohibited over 1,500 models of these weapons. Since then, over 300 more have been prevented from entering the market. Our government is also committed to a mandatory buyback program to get these weapons out of our communities once and for all.

There is no one fix to ending gun violence. That is why we are undertaking the significant work to stop gun violence in all its forms.

Earlier this spring, the Minister of Public Safety officially launched the $250-million building safer communities fund, which will see an accelerated rollout over the summer. In partnership with community leaders, we are helping youth make good choices to set themselves up for lifelong success.

Investments in gang diversion and gang exiting strategies are so important because the underlying causes of gun violence are varied, complex and interrelated. We will not be able to solve gun crime through this one piece of legislation or one action. We need to take an intersectional approach that addresses poverty, inequality, systemic racism, mental illness, social isolation, substance abuse, extremist ideologies and access to affordable housing, education and health care. To confront gun violence, we must confront systemic challenges within our institutions, including within the criminal justice system. That is why I am so proud to be part of a government that is willing and eager to take on these challenges.

Taking action on gun violence means taking a number of important steps: banning military-style assault weapons, taking action at our borders, building safer communities and passing this new bill. Bill C-21 represents a milestone. It introduces a national freeze on the sale, purchase or import of handguns by individuals into Canada. We have made clear that action on handguns cannot wait.

Regulatory amendments to advance the national freeze on handguns have been tabled in both the House of Commons and in the other place. In fact, recently, at the public safety committee, with the support of the NDP and the Bloc, we attempted to fast-track those regulations, but the Conservatives said no to urgently getting handguns off our streets.

The bill recognizes the role organized crime plays in gun violence. If people are in the business of trafficking guns, they will face stiffer sentences under the Criminal Code. If people alter the magazine or the cartridge of a gun to exceed its lawful capacity, they will face new criminal charges. If people are involved in organized crime, they will face new police authorities, such as wiretapping, to stop gun crime before it happens. Furthermore, this spring's budget dedicated additional funds to the RCMP and CBSA so they can build on the record number of illegal guns seized at the border just last year. These are responsible, common-sense measures that all Canadians can get behind and in fact have gotten behind since the bill was introduced.

Cumulatively, these efforts mark the most significant efforts in a generation to end the burden of injury from gun violence. We are committed to moving forward on a strategy to prevent gun violence across our country. Bill C-21 is an important part of that strategy, and I am calling on all colleagues in the House to pass the bill quickly.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his detailed speech.

I have a simple question. They say that they want to take action on illegal arms trafficking, yet it has been documented that Bill C-21 will do nothing to prevent illegal arms trafficking. Is my colleague aware of that?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Oakville North—Burlington, the parliamentary secretary. I am looking forward to her comments.

Bill C-21 really represents a momentous step for Canada. We are looking at using this piece of legislation, among others, to eliminate gun violence in Canada. If it is passed, it will be the most significant reform to Canada's gun laws in a generation.

I would like to start by first of all thanking the stakeholders who have contributed to this bill, but more specifically the stakeholders in my constituency of Guelph who have provided feedback that has informed the measures in this bill. Our conversations with them continue.

While much of these consultations were conducted in relation to previous pieces of legislation, I am very pleased to see that this feedback has been incorporated since March 2021, when the former minister of public safety heard from the Guelph area police services, local municipal politicians and the Guelph organizations dedicated to the fight against gun violence. They were concerned that previous proposals allowing municipalities to opt in or opt out of gun control measures would have created a patchwork of regulations across the country that would not have been as effective as what we have in front of us this morning. This bill solves that, and indeed if it is passed, the bill would make it illegal to purchase or sell handguns anywhere in Canada.

This is incredibly important to my constituents and to me in the current context, because for years Guelph was considered the safest place in Canada. While it is still among the safest, Guelph has had an increase in gun violence that is concerning for all people living in Guelph. The gun-related crimes we are seeing in our community, according to public data from the Guelph Police Service, have more than doubled since 2020. There were eight charges of using a firearm in the commission of a crime, which is up from three the prior year.

This is not the direction we want to be heading in, and while the Canada Border Services Agency and other bodies have been provided with more resources by our government to help prevent gun crimes, the reality is that we need to stop handguns from being sold in the first place. Even one crime involving a firearm that could have been prevented is one crime too many. I have heard members across the way say that the illegal trafficking of guns is a concern. It is a concern, but the legal transmission of guns is something we can do today to address the movement of guns in our community.

This is important, especially when we consider the data we are getting from researchers at the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, at the University of Guelph. It shows that nearly six out of 10 women killed are murdered by their current or former partner, while only 6% of these women are killed by a stranger. Just over one-third of the total number of femicides are committed by a perpetrator armed with a gun, more than any other method of killing, while the likelihood of a woman being killed by a gun goes up to 42% for women living in rural areas.

This bill looks to address this alarming reality. It would permit authorities to revoke a firearms licence in cases of domestic violence or criminal harassment when a protection order has been issued against a current licence-holder or when a red flag order is issued. I am encouraged to see that the advice of organizations representing women and survivors has been included in the amendments to protect the identity of the person who is asking the court to apply for this mechanism of using red flag or yellow flag laws. This is just one example of how feedback from communities affected by gun violence has been integrated into this bill.

Similarly, this bill also seeks to better protect Canadians experiencing mental health crises. Over 80% of gun-related deaths are suicides, which is a heartbreaking reality. The impact of this is felt not only by the individuals, but by their families and entire communities. In fact, last week I spoke to a veteran of the Afghanistan war, and one of his comments was about how many of his comrades have died since the war to suicide. Guns are being used in those cases.

One of the most heartbreaking elements of this is speaking to families of individuals who have dealt with this loss. They tell me that it is possible it could have been prevented if guns had been removed from the situation in the first place. These are legally purchased firearms.

Through this bill, a yellow flag or red flag would make it more likely that such a tragedy could be prevented. As in other appropriate cases, a chief firearms officer could suspend an individual's licence for up to 30 days if a member of the public, such as a family member or neighbour, contacts the chief firearms officer with information about a licence-holder being at risk. This would allow someone to recover or seek treatment without having the ability to purchase guns or acquire them.

The urgency of this bill is clear, but unfortunately since the government has stated its intention to pass Bill C-21 into law, we have seen a spike in the number of handgun sales across the country. By introducing additional regulations, the government is preventing a surge in handgun purchases in the period between now and when it is passed, which is the right approach to ensure that the bill is not aiming at a moving target.

The premise and rationale of this bill are sound. It recognizes the reality that handguns are the preferred weapon of criminals and that banning their sale inherently makes other people safer. Not only is the prevalence of gun crimes increasing in Guelph, as I mentioned, but since 2009, violent offences involving guns have increased by 81%, and 47% of Canadians say that gun violence poses a serious threat in their communities.

We only need to look across the border to see that if we continue down the path we are on now, it is only going to get worse until it is many times harder to correct the situation. We need to learn from what we see in Canada and the scale of gun crimes in other countries, and not dismiss mass shootings as something that cannot happen or does not usually happen in Canada. We need to act now, and this bill takes a common-sense approach to achieve the ambitious action of reducing gun violence while respecting law-abiding owners of guns, such as farmers.

It is truly unfortunate there have been several unsuccessful attempts by some of the people here to mischaracterize this bill as something that could target law-abiding gun owners. That is simply not the case. The legislation is in no way about targeting legal gun owners. In fact, its sole purpose is to create safer communities for every single Canadian. Gun owners who adhere to the law will not face any undue hardship as a result of this bill. Clearly, handguns are not used for pest control or to shoot deer.

I would like to take a moment to address the concern that some have raised regarding the source of handguns used in gun crimes in Canada. While some have said that handguns are not legally obtained anyway, the reality is that the majority of gun crimes in 2020 involved originally legally obtained and domestically sourced guns. Over 50% of these guns can be traced.

To combat crimes committed with handguns that are obtained outside Canada, our government has invested $350 million to strengthen the RCMP and CBSA's capacity to intercept guns coming across our borders. We know that this has been effective. In fact, last year the RCMP and border services intercepted nearly double the number of firearms than the year before.

We are heading in the right direction. We are making it tougher on people who smuggle guns by going from a 10-year to a 14-year penalty. We are looking at introducing further money to help with guns and gangs through the building safer communities fund for our communities. The provisions that we have in Bill C-21 are complementary to the other work we are doing in mental health and in controlling access to things that can hurt Canadians.

I look forward to questions.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I notice that Conservatives, when they speak about gun control, always neglect to mention suicides, which account for 75% of people who die by firearms, and gender-based violence, because we know that access to a firearm increases the risk of femicide by 500 times.

I am wondering this. Could the hon. member speak to the provisions of Bill C-21 that would deal with gender-based violence when it comes to restraining orders?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with a particular focus on Canadian firearms legislation. It is yet another bill that proves this NDP-Liberal government's incompetence and vendetta against Canadians by being too soft on crime, particularly gun crime, while being punitive towards law-abiding Canadians.

The main premise of the bill is generally to ban the future legal sale of handguns in Canada and increase the allowable penalties for gun smuggling and trafficking. Bill C-21 also outlines an untested buyback program based on a similar approach attempted by New Zealand. The program proved to have numerous substantial issues that the NDP-Liberals conveniently omitted from the contents of the bill. Ultimately, the government claims to advance laws to protect Canadians. However, upon closer inspection, Bill C-21 is riddled with contradictions and faulty premises that are simply an attack on Canadians' safety and security. How can the government claim that it is keeping guns off our streets when the bill itself is grounded in unfounded statistics and a faulty premise from a country that implemented a similar approach, and claim that the increase of maximum penalties will deter crime?

It is incredibly contradictory that the government is introducing Bill C-21 to pair with the equally problematic Bill C-5, further proving that the government prioritizes political gain over the protection and security of innocent, hard-working Canadians already being subjected to the government's ineffective draconian rule.

For the sake of brevity, I will focus my speech on the following: one, the flawed statistics that the government based its argument on in the first place; two, the equally faulty premise riddled with issues from New Zealand's Arms Amendment Bill; three, the government's focus on protecting offenders while punishing law-abiding, licensed Canadians; and four, the NDP-Liberal government's critically misdirected approach to address gun crime and firearms legislation through Bill C-21.

Going back to numerous statistics, gun crime has climbed steadily since the government has been in power and, unsurprisingly, even more so with its “spend-DP” allies. Together, they managed to spend more to achieve less, and Bill C-21 is no different. The foundation of the bill is in reference to a series of records from Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada highlighted that firearm-related violent crime only represents a small proportion of police-reported crimes in Canada, accounting for 2.8% of all victims of violent crime reported by police in 2020.

Furthermore, Statistics Canada states that the numbers upon which the bill is founded are lacking in numerous areas. It quotes gaps in its records such as, but not limited to: one, the types of firearms used in these crimes; two, whether or not the owner of the firearm was licensed to bear arms in the first place; three, where the firearm was procured from to commit the offence; and four, whether or not the firearm was properly or improperly stored. With these piecemeal statistics, I want to know how the government has the gall to insist that it is getting tougher on crime by relying on punitive approaches to licensed gun owners over addressing the real issues of gun-related violence from gangs and their members in our communities.

Bill C-21 did introduce increasing maximum sentencing for certain offences, but increasing maximum penalties will give no reprieve when the minimum penalty would be Bill C-5's option for house arrest under conditional sentencing. Furthering the theme of faulty premises, the government introduced a buyback program that was loosely based on a similar approach adopted by New Zealand in 2019. It was called the Arms Amendment Bill. The recommendation highlighted that handguns would be sold off to authorized parties so long as they were accepted, and then the previous owner would be adequately compensated. This approach should have also highlighted the issues found by New Zealand in adopting such a program: issues the government conveniently omitted from discussions.

Considering that the government is introducing a similar approach, it could be reasonably inferred that Canada would be plagued by similar obstacles. Under New Zealand's Arms Amendment Bill, the program lacked fair and reasonable compensation for gun owners who had legally obtained their firearms from a reputable source, thus leaving some licensed owners scrambling to sell their firearms to select establishments that would accept them.

Inevitably, the limited market of firearms purchasing would leave it oversaturated, with firearms circulating through the buyback program, leaving gun owners undercompensated and frustrated. Ultimately, this would result in significantly more egregious gaps in the already spotty records outlined from Statistics Canada. Without an accurate track of handguns in circulation and sold or procured through the program, how can we accurately account for firearms in Canada?

This program would not account for illegally obtained or smuggled firearms. It would not contribute to the accuracy of statistics we have on firearms-related offences in Canada, and it certainly would not protect and preserve the safety and security of vulnerable and innocent Canadians comprising our communities. Instead of investing in an untested firearms program in Canada, the government should invest in improving support systems and resources for anti-gun violence.

Why is the government pampering actual offenders who are wreaking havoc in our streets with illegally obtained firearms? It should scrap the program, as outlined in Bill C-21, and reinvest the funds into anti-gun-violence resources, provide rehabilitation for demographics prone to gang involvement, and strengthen our border security to avoid the infiltration of firearms in our neighbourhoods. The lack of these common-sense solutions in Bill C-21 only proves that the government is not serious about keeping firearms off our streets. It only knows how to mismanage taxpayers' money to advance its ineffective NDP-Liberal agenda.

The lack of a grandfathering clause in Bill C-21 would force firearms owners to either surrender their firearms to the limited dealers allowed to store firearms, as noted through Bill C-21, or retain their ownership. Either way, this would do nothing to solve the issue of firearms-related crimes in Canada.

If anything, the lack of a grandfathering clause would only contribute to more backlogs and waiting times that plague the country. Canadians do not need another NDP-Liberal manufactured disservice. Regardless of all the other questionable aspects outlined in Bill C-21, the lack of a grandfathering clause would be punitive toward law-abiding folks who have done their due diligence in their licence acquisition to bear arms.

This would only punish the wrong people and enable the criminals who illegally procure firearms in the first place. Where is the government's dedication to offenders' rehabilitation, support for victims and survivors, and conviction to take corrective actions to guarantee the integrity of our judicial system?

Conservatives believe that minimum sentencing should be sustained for heinous crimes, including crimes involving firearms, not only through the enactment of maximum penalties of 10 to 14 years in a correctional facility, but also by shunning the proposal of conditional sentencing, such as house arrest, for offenders. Moreover, Bill C-21 would establish no systems to deliver support or resources to survivors or potential victims of gun violence.

This is not a right-to-bear-arms speech. We Conservatives simply advocate for putting Canadians first and enforcing pragmatic, common-sense solutions to get guns off our streets and limit gun violence in Canada, while protecting the safety and security of our communities.

I now welcome questions or comments from my colleagues.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will answer the question by answering the previous member's question on red flag laws. We already have a very robust system for checks and balances in our firearms owners community. Again, I am a firearms owner. Every day, my name gets sifted through a database to see that I am still capable and safe to own firearms. That already happens. To have more applied to that just to make it more robust is not necessary. We already have that.

What I am saying, and this is maybe what the member is alluding to, is she might believe it is necessary to have Bill C-21, but I do not. I do not see anything that is really of value in Bill C-21 to make Canada more safe. Again, it is misleading the country to say the Prime Minister is doing something positive about firearms. He is not. He could, and I wish he would.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, because I know the member is very knowledgeable as a gun owner, is there any part of Bill C-21 he finds useful as a reform and that would be beneficial? If the bill would go to committee, where would we want to look for making amendments?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for mentioning the excellent study that the public safety committee did on guns and gangs. I wonder if the hon. member is aware that the government is actually investing $250 million into community groups exactly like the One By One Movement that the hon. member mentioned. By no means is the bill intended to be the one solution for gun violence; it is meant to be comprehensive.

In Saskatchewan, the people who are dying by firearms are actually white, rural, older men who are dying by suicide. I am wondering if the hon. member supports the red flag provisions that are in Bill C-21.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Yellowhead.

This is a real opportunity to speak against Bill C-21. The premise of my whole talk today will be that Bill C-21 would actually make Canadians less safe, as it spends sparse resources in ways that are ineffective and targets law-abiding firearms owners instead of the real problem, which is gangs and guns in our inner cities.

In 2018, Public Safety Canada put forward a paper, “Reducing Violent Crime: A Dialogue on Handguns and Assault Weapons - Engagement Paper”. It starts off by explaining what I am trying to explain today:

The vast majority of owners of handguns and of other firearms in Canada lawfully abide by requirements, and most gun crimes are not committed with legally-owned firearms.

It goes on:

Recent estimates indicate that there are about 900,000 handguns registered to individuals in Canada. In most cases, individuals own handguns either in the context of sport shooting activities or because those handguns form a part of a collection.

Later it states:

Any ban of handguns or assault weapons would primarily affect legal firearms owners....

It is not just Conservatives who are saying this; the former public safety minister himself actually said that he knows that handgun bans would not work. In a 2019 interview with The Globe and Mail, he said that months of consultation have led him to the conclusion that banning handguns would be costly and ineffective. Again, that is from the Liberal former public safety minister across the way:

I believe that would be potentially a very expensive proposition but just as importantly, it would not in my opinion be perhaps the most effective measure in restricting the access that criminals would have to such weapons, because we'd still have a problem with them being smuggled across the border.

I could not agree more. That is why I find it strange that the government has not imposed a handgun ban previously and has admitted that it is going to be ineffective and very expensive. Again, the premise is very expensive, and I do not even necessarily want to speak to that, because how can we quantify the life of one of our children? We cannot. They are priceless. Instead, let us actually deal with the problem in a way that would actually save lives on our streets instead of prolonging the problem.

This is a quote from a police officer. Staff Superintendent Sean McKenna of Peel Regional Police recently tweeted:

Another illegally owned firearm seized by Peel Police. This is becoming a far too common occurrence in our community. A municipal, provincial or federal ban on firearms will not stop criminals from carrying them. Root cause issues need to be addressed.

Exactly. Here is somebody who sees the problems on the streets daily and knows where the real problem lies.

Another police officer, Ron Chhinzer, tweeted, “In my time in the integrated gun and gang task force, I don't recall ever seizing a legally owned firearm from any of the investigations that I was involved in.

“The law-abiding population should never suffer or pay because of the unlawful criminal.”

Again, here is someone who is actually on the streets, seeing this first-hand. What I am going to talk about later is how we should give those police officers better resources to deal with the root problems, like recidivism. Criminals get to walk free and commit crimes all over again. We are also not dealing with some of the root causes that cause violence in the first place.

Here is another quote from another police officer, Steve Ryan, who tweeted, “I investigated 150 homicides—never seized one legally owned gun as a murder weapon. In my opinion, it makes more sense to ban legally owned kitchen knives and scissors! Those I have seized as murder weapons. Banning legally owned guns won't decrease violence. Root cause will!”

There is a consistent message coming from our police officers today: The focus should be on the problem instead of on the diversion, the law-abiding firearms community.

Chris Lewis, a former OPP commissioner who works for CTV, is a crime specialist who has been a very vocal opponent of wasting resources on gun bans. Here is a quote from Mr. Lewis: “They aren’t legally owned handguns, nor are they shotguns and hunting rifles. Taking more guns from lawful owners and putting a toothless municipal handgun ban in place will do the square root of sweet”...nothing, I will say, because he uses another word, “to impact violent crime.”

There it is. Even the former commissioner is saying the same thing.

I will go on. I have a few more quotes, and then we will get into more discussion. I am sure there will be questions.

The deputy chief of the Toronto Police Service, Myron Demkiw, stated, “The City of Toronto's experience is that guns are not from law-abiding citizens that are being used in crime. They're guns being smuggled from the United States. Those engaged in handling those firearms are not law-abiding, licensed gun owners; they are criminals with no firearms licence.”

I am a firearms owner. I have my RPAL. I know that it is a very rigorous process to purchase a firearm in Canada, whether it is a non-restricted firearm or restricted. It is very difficult. There is training that is involved and there is a vetting process that is involved, and every day they look at our records to make sure that we can still legally and safely own our firearms.

I will go on to a quote from somebody who is very important. This was part of the recent public safety study. It is from Marcell Wilson. He is the founder and president of the One By One Movement, an organization founded by former gang members, extremists and organized crime members to help identify, address and research strategies on effective social programming for youth outreach.

He explained:

...when speaking on gun control, when we hear the phrase, it should always be synonymous with illegal gun crime and illegal gun trafficking as over 80% of the gun violence we [witness is] committed with illegal firearms smuggled in from the USA.

It has not just been me. I always like to quote other individuals with expertise a lot of better than my own, such as actual police officers on the streets. This is from Marcell Wilson, former gang member, who is really trying to fix the root problem of the issue of kids dying on our streets as the result of illegal firearms.

I think that as Conservatives, this is where we take quite a different position from the Liberals across the way. We Conservatives actually support dealing with the real problem. We saw a Liberal long-gun registry that cost $2 billion the last time. We have another bill, Bill C-21, that is part of resurrecting another long-gun registry and a confiscation regime too. It is going to be in the billions.

My argument is always to just take even a fraction of that money and put it into places where it is going to be effective, such as giving border agents better resources to inspect containers as they cross the border. I do not even want to say the percentage of the containers that are actually inspected, but how about we triple that, or even increase it times 10 to an exponential number of inspections to actually deal with these firearms and stop them right at the border? How about we give inner city police the tools to crack down on illegal firearms and gang activity? How about we give resources to help these police officers deal with these young gang members and try to get them out of those gangs and into productive lives?

We support stopping the revolving door. We even saw recently, with Bill C-5, that the Liberals want to let people who are convicted of firearm crimes out the door sooner than they should be, just to recommit those crimes. Why do we not deal with all of those situations? That will actually cause a real effect, a real, positive change in safety in our inner cities and on our streets.

At the end of the day, I started off by saying that the bill actually makes our country less safe. What the Prime Minister is touting is a bait and switch. Just because he is talking about guns and getting rid of them does not mean he is talking about the right guns to get rid of. He needs to get rid of the illegal firearms on our streets. Once he starts tackling that and stops misleading Canadians about what really will make a change, my hope is that he will finally realize what that is, but I think he uses this issue to divide Canadians. I would rather see us tackle the real problem with illegal firearms on our streets.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Great, thank you very much.

My question is for you, Ms. Illingworth.

I want to begin by thanking you for your testimony and for your commitment to supporting victims of violence.

I know that you have advocated for stricter gun laws in the past. Of course, this is a very important issue for our government. As you know, we recently introduced Bill C-21 on firearms. I hope that it will be passed quickly, so that we can continue to protect the constituents of my community of Sherbrooke and of communities across Canada.

I would like to hear your views on the red flag law provisions, which the government is specifically proposing in Bill C-21.

Can you tell us a bit more about that?

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by echoing the comments of thanks by the opposition House leader. To all those who serve the House and for everything they have done, particularly over the last year, I offer our deep and sincere thanks. The opposition House leader rightfully named all those we rely on to do the jobs on a day-to-day basis that we do in serving Canadians.

We will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act this afternoon. Tomorrow, it is our intention to call Bill C-11 on online streaming at report stage.

On Monday, we will be returning to the second reading debate of Bill C-21 respecting firearms. In the afternoon, we will go back to Bill C-11 for debate at third reading. We will also focus on finding a way to expedite the bill currently on notice concerning the self-induced extreme intoxication defence standing in the name of the Minister of Justice.

Finally, we have had discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding the order adopted by the House on Thursday, November 25, 2021, with regard to the participation in the proceedings of the House and its committees, the provisions related to the COVID-19 vaccination be suspended beginning on Monday, June 20, 2022.

Firearms

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, gun violence is a reality in every community. My riding of Parkdale—High Park is no exception. As my staff have heard repeatedly from my constituents, we must do everything in our power to combat gun violence.

To date, we have banned assault-style weapons. We have cracked down on illegal trafficking. We have committed $250 million to address gang violence.

With Bill C-21 we are going further. We are implementing a national freeze on the sale, purchase, transfer and importation of handguns. We are responding to the pleas of women who are victims of intimate partner violence, which often turns lethal simply because of the presence of handguns in the home. We are responding to pleas of racialized and religious minorities, who have asked that red flag laws, which enable firearms to be removed by court order, protect the anonymity of those targeted by hate. We are responding to the pleas of mental health advocates, who contend, rightly, that handguns in Canadian homes result in increased deaths by suicide.

The only pleas we are ignoring are those of the gun lobby, who would criticize us for working to keep Canadians safe.

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, I would much prefer to be in Ottawa making these comments, but it is nice that we have the hybrid. It enables me to speak on the floor of the House while I am here in Winnipeg.

We are in an interesting debate in regard to Bill C-14. I am not necessarily surprised that we would see an amendment at this stage. One of the things that I have found over the past number of months is that, at times, we get legislation that one would naturally think would flow through the House of Commons: There would be relatively minimal debate, and we would get it through second reading and into committee.

I do not see this as controversial legislation. I am not exactly sure where the Bloc actually falls on the legislation. I would hope that it would support the province of Quebec getting a guaranteed number of seats, but at the end of the day, I like to think that this is the type of legislation that should ultimately pass through.

Was it necessary, for example, for us to have an amendment? I do not think it was for a report stage amendment. I think that when we get relatively uncontroversial legislation, where it appears that everyone is going to be voting in favour, I would have rather seen a debate on something like, let us say, Bill C-21 and the issue of guns and the safety of Canadians, which is top of mind for a lot of people.

True to form, what I have found is that, whether it is good, rather uncontroversial legislation such as Bill C-14 or if it is controversial or potentially controversial legislation, the Conservatives have one approach in dealing with the government's agenda and that is to prevent it from ultimately passing.

Having said that, I want to recognize a number of points in regard to Bill C-14. Having had the opportunity to speak on the legislation in the past, I want to be very specific on a few things.

One is the need for the legislation. I think it important that we recognize, as has been pointed out, that shifts take place in Canada's population for a wide variety of reasons. One could talk about things such as job opportunities, transfers, the allure of another area, or just people wanting to move to a warmer climate. In my case, they want to come to a nice, cool climate. People change their ridings.

Immigration is such a huge factor. Over the years, Canada continues to grow in good part because of immigration to our country. We are very dependent on immigration. Our birth rate is going down. As we grow as a nation overall, there is natural population shifting that occurs. It comes also in the form of immigration.

As a result, every 10 years, there is an obligation through an independent mechanism, and I want to emphasize that it really is an independent mechanism, that ensures that the ridings reflect the changes we have seen based on census material.

No one was surprised at all that we got a report this year. It was anticipated that we would get a report 10 years after we received the last report.

Going forward, every decade we will continue to receive recommendations from Elections Canada, through the commission, as to the need to change boundaries and possibly add constituencies or do some shifting.

That is, in essence, why we have the legislation today. It is because of the change in populations. In particular, for Quebec, there is a need for us to establish a floor, a minimum number of seats, for the province.

Doing it this way prevents us from having to do a constitutional change, where there is a 7/50 formula in order to enact a change. It addresses, for the most part, the biggest concerns that members of Parliament, on all sides of the issue, have as we recognize how important it is that the province of Quebec not lose any seats. I suspect that is the reason why the legislation would ultimately pass, hopefully unanimously, in the House.

Back in November, there was the establishment of these three-member commissions. We have a national commission. The commission establishes individual commissions of three people in a province, and through those commissions they all have a responsibility. That was done in November of last year, I believe. Those commissions then all have a responsibility to develop the new boundaries, whatever they might look like. They sit around, look at the numbers and the maps and try to provide new boundaries that we could be running the next federal election on.

Each commission operates independently. Manitoba, for example, has a three-member commission, and it operates independently of other aspects of Elections Canada, of political entities and of different stakeholders, such as community members and so forth. It is important to emphasize that it is, in fact, independent.

In developing those boundaries, the commission is tasked with a timeline. That timeline is quickly approaching, and the commissions need to provide a draft of the boundaries. One could be very concerned in regard to the dragging out of Bill C-14. The people who are paying the price for the House of Commons dragging its feet on the passage of this legislation are the people of Quebec. We know we want to see that minimum number of seats for the province of Quebec, and we have consistently said that from day one, as members will recall, when the national commission initially made the recommendation. It was an immediate response that came from not only my Quebec colleagues but from the caucus as a whole: Under no circumstances could we allow the province of Quebec not to have the 78 seats.

Until this legislation passes, that three-member commission in the province of Quebec has its hands tied, at least in good part, as other commissions continue to move forward with drafting boundaries, because the boundaries will change within different provinces. There will be tweaks in the city of Winnipeg, whether Winnipeg North grows more to the north or more in the inner city. This is something I wait for with bated breath, in hopes that we see some changes that the community will in fact support.

Once that draft is finished, the commission has to make it public. Once it is made public, it has to have public hearings that must take place before the end of October, because by mid-December the report has to be finalized.

That is why it is critically important that we pass this legislation. It is so the commission in the province of Quebec can finalize a draft so that it can go to the public, and in turn the public can provide its input so the commission can then provide that final draft by the end of the year.

It is an independent process, and that is why I am supporting Bill C-14. I hope all members would support its quick passage. I see my time has—

Criminal Code

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that Bill C-21 has been introduced and very soon we could be dealing with the issues of firearms.

As I indicated earlier, anyone who uses firearms in any kind of circumstances should receive much more of a penalty, not less.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I think that is a question we ask ourselves over and over again: Why do they always mix the good in with the bad? It was something that I talked about in my speech earlier.

It is just like with Bill C-21. There are aspects of that bill that we as Conservatives strongly believe are good and we would like to have further discussion on. I think we can see ourselves supporting those ideas. Then again, the Liberals put aspects in there that are absolutely not palatable which we will need to debate further and come to a better resolution. It is disappointing that two separate ideas and concepts are put into the same bill, because it makes it unsupportable.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House and to speak to legislation.

I will start by making the point that I find the intent behind this bill, at least expressed by the Prime Minister, to be troubling. I will admit it is rare that I find merit in any legislation put forward by the Liberal government. However, in this case, as we get into the conversation about drugs, rather than exclusively treating simple drug possession as a criminal issue, we need to also recognize it as a health issue. There is some merit in that. That is where we are as a party, and I think that is where we are as a country, so that is the conversation we should be having. The problem is that, as usual, the Liberal government has taken a nugget of common sense and buried it so deeply into a larger piece of legislation that is so rife with contradictions and virtue signalling that, unfortunately, that semblance of a good idea gets lost.

We saw this just last week when Conservatives asked the government to break Bill C-21, which I also look forward to speaking to, into two bills. We asked that the government do this because we agreed with parts of the bill as they appeared to have merit and we thought they were a good idea. It is always a good idea to protect women and children and that is something everyone in this House can get behind. We asked, in good faith, if the government would be willing to split the bill so we could vote in favour of the good part that we agreed on and expedite the passage of that bill, while continuing to debate the ideas that we did not agree with. The government refused. It is the all-or-nothing approach that the Liberals keep taking that is behind their inability to present coherent legislation that we can all agree on.

We have a Prime Minister who is so convinced that he knows better than anyone else, better than this House and better than Canadians, that he takes these big legislative swings and misses. Because he did not bring this House along with him, he did not bring the country along with him. From what I have been reading in the news of late, it sounds like he has lost any interest in bringing his own party along with him. It is just the Prime Minister out there on his own, doing his own thing and not particularly concerned about the consequences because he knows best. He is not concerned about the consequences because, if we are honest, when has the Prime Minister ever been accountable for his actions? He would not know a consequence if it jumped up and bit him somewhere unparliamentary.

In fact, the only time the Prime Minister expresses any concern for outcomes is when his own political fate may be jeopardized. Then he cares. High inflation does not affect him. When was the last time the PM set foot in a grocery store, other than, of course, for a quick photo op? Regarding house prices, let us just say he has options. He is in Rideau Cottage while the family is at the lake. There are a mere 38 rooms between them all, but I hear they are getting by, unlike many Canadians. Regarding gas prices, he is still jetting around the globe to take pictures and lecture people about emissions, so obviously, the price of gas does not affect him. With respect to rising crime rates and gang violence, he has never had to live in downtown Winnipeg or Thompson or Thunder Bay. Let him live in a rooming house on Magnus Avenue or Regent Park and see what he says then, but he does not and he will not. He would not even visit those neighbourhoods.

It should not come as any surprise to anyone that we keep getting this out-of-touch legislation. It was the Prime Minister's father who stated that the government has no business in the bedrooms of Canadians. I find it quite ironic that the government wants to be not just in the bedroom, but in every room, every device and every thought. There is no aspect of Canadian life that the Liberals do not feel they need to control. Despite that, they are still so out of touch with the reality of everyday Canadians. It is actually very sad.

I wonder if the government spent a little less time pushing narratives and virtue signalling and a little more time actually listening to Canadians, it would not be better off. Perhaps then we could get legislation that deals with the root causes of these problems, rather than just the symptoms.

Let us take a look at this bill, because this bill is a great example of what I am talking about. It gives great insight into the Liberal mentality, at least that of the PM and his cabinet and the inconsistency of their government's reasoning. Why put this bill forward? The Prime Minister was clear when he spoke in the House last week. He said our previous Conservative government's tough-on-crime agenda was racist. The PM claims our attempts to crack down on serious crime and put victims first was really just a cover to discriminate and put Black and indigenous Canadians in jail. That assertion is as false as it is insulting as it is ridiculous.

Here is our position. If someone commits a crime in Canada and is convicted of that crime, that person should be held accountable for that crime, period. Race does not come into play. The law is colour blind. I wish the government would be intellectually honest enough to try to stop bringing race into every equation, and that it would stop with the identity politics and stop dividing Canadians.

People who are convicted by a court of law and sent to jail are not in that position because they are victims. They are in that position because they are criminals. They have victimized another person. That is not to say that they themselves were not victimized somewhere along the road. They probably were, and that needs to be part of this discussion. However, being the victim of a crime does not entitle someone to commit crimes. However, we know that hurt people hurt people, and that is the bigger conversation.

Do we need to have discussions surrounding the extenuating circumstances that might have contributed to that choice? Absolutely, we do. We need to address poverty. We need to address housing, the cost of living, education and opportunities. We need to discuss the role of the entertainment industry and media. We need to discuss the role of parents, or in too many cases, the lack of parental involvement that leads to young people being out on the streets.

There is a lot we need to talk about, but at the end of the day, those external circumstances aside, that person standing before the judge made a choice. They did not make that choice because of the colour of their skin, and to insinuate they did is the very definition of racism. The ability to make choices between right and wrong has nothing to do with skin colour.

The government can throw around all the talking points about intersectionality it wants, but it does not change the fact that somewhere in that situation somebody made a choice, and choices have consequences. I know Black Canadians, white Canadians, Asian Canadians and indigenous Canadians, many of whom have been through difficult times and circumstances, had terrible things happen to them and had their backs up against the wall, and they did not resort to crime. In fact, too often, what we are seeing happen is that in those same racialized communities that a disproportionate number of offenders come from, we also see a disproportionate number of victims.

I look at this legislation, and on the face of it I can only see one message the government is trying to send: that it has actually come to believe that racialized Canadians somehow lack the ability to choose between right and wrong. It is ridiculous and it is insulting. I am not about to speak for those racialized communities, but if it were me, I would find this legislation incredibly insulting, because rather than empower racialized Canadians and fight racism, this bill enshrines a racism of lowered expectations, one that will harm the very communities the Liberals actually genuinely want to help.

That is the first big inconsistency, and here is the second: At the same time the government is lowering penalties for serious offenders, as it has done before, it is once again targeting law-abiding Canadians. The government will not address illegal guns flooding across our border, but it will go after farmers. It will not deal with illegal border crossers flooding into Canada, but try to cross the border without completing the ArriveCAN app. People can burn down churches, and the Prime Minister says that he understands their anger, but try parking a truck in downtown Ottawa.

That is how backwards the Liberal mentality is. If someone commits a serious crime, they are a victim, but if they obey the law, they are clearly a danger to society. It is backwards. It is not progressive. It is regressive.

There is one more thing. We started by talking about drugs. I would like to end there as well.

The government touts the fact that 75% of mandatory minimum prosecutions were for drug offences. What it does not and will not tell us is that 89% of those cases were for drug trafficking. It was not for personal use or simple possession. It was for dealing. I am fine if we want to shift to diversion programs and treatment for simple possession for those who are addicted, as addiction is a medical issue, but I am not okay with diversion programs for those who peddle this poison to our kids.

All we need to do is look at downtown Winnipeg or Vancouver to see the deadly consequences of drug use. I believe that those who are instrumental in causing the chemical carnage should not have the option of house arrest, that they should go to jail, yet still there are those in the government and in this House who would say to take away penalties, legalize drugs and remove the stigma. For those who do that here, we have another inconsistency and another illogical gap, because saying that eliminating penalties and legalizing drugs will help fix drug addiction is like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline. It would not be laughable if it were not so true.

Once again, we have an example of legislation that addresses the symptoms, but fails to address the root causes of the problem. It is a backward approach that would harm the very people it claims to want to help.

This is typical of the government's failed approach. That is why I will be voting against Bill C-5.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. I certainly have a lot of respect for his experience.

From his experience as a prosecutor, what kind of message does he think it sends to criminals, as well as to the victims and their families, when we have bills like Bill C-21, which attacks law-abiding firearms owners, and Bill C-5, which would lessen mandatory sentencing? What kind of message is this sending to Canadians, to victims and their families, and also to criminals?

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for all of his hard work and leadership on keeping our communities safe. As he knows, and all members know, we have introduced Bill C-21, which, among other things, would introduce a national handgun freeze and would take on, yes, organized crime by raising maximum sentences for illegal traffickers and would reverse the alarming trend around the connection between domestic violence and guns. It is my sincere hope that we will be able to work with all members and yes, maybe, who knows, the Conservatives too. We live in hope, so that we can better protect all Canadians from the scourge of gun violence.

Government Policies

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, airports are in chaos. The passport office is snowed under. Inflation is out of control. Ministers are misleading Parliament. The government's current priorities are an incoherent mess.

Bill C-5 would drop sentencing requirements on violent offenders and drug traffickers and open the door for sex offenders to serve community sentences near their victims. Bill C-21 pretends to address gun violence, but literally only affects people who obey Canada's existing strict firearms laws. Bill C-19 would remove any pretense of fiscal control from the undisciplined and unserious government. Bill C-11 is a bill that would give the CRTC the power to control what Canadians find and post on the Internet. None of these bills would do anything to fix any of Canada's serious problems.

If these are the government's priorities for the next two weeks, I suggest it quit now and spend the summer coming up with a real agenda to help Canadians.

Criminal Code

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. At the outset, I will note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Provencher.

Believe it or not, this is an area that is close to my heart as somebody who previously taught a sentencing class and somebody who worked in the criminal justice system, both in federal corrections as a defence lawyer and then as a Crown prosecutor. This is an area that I find a great deal of interest in. I have heard different perspectives, some more compelling than others today. What I find noteworthy is that most parliamentarians want to get to the same place when it comes to this debate. The question is: how do we get there?

I was quite struck by some of the commentary that we have heard today because it was talking about where we want to be. The question, in my view, is whether this bill actually gets us there. If we look at the issue, I believe everybody in the House would resoundingly and unanimously say that they want gun crime to go down. There is no doubt about it. Nobody wants to see any more people shot, especially innocent civilians caught in the proverbial crossfire. The question then is whether this is the right mechanism to do so. I note that not once does the word “victim” appear in Bill C-5 or Bill C-21.

Gun crime, in my view, and I think in the view of a lot of people in the House, is out of control. No one here wants to see more gun crime. We have two different approaches in Bill C-5 and Bill C-21. Bill C-5, with the elimination of mandatory minimums, has been a failed approach. I will note here something that is not brought up very often. The reality is that most mandatory minimums, when it comes to gun crimes, were actually struck down.

When we talk about a failed approach, if the approach failed, it has most recently been since the time that the mandatory minimums were struck down. We have essentially been operating in a time where mandatory minimums have been struck down for most gun crimes, but not for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm or reckless discharge. Those minimums remain, but under section 95, for instance, that was struck down in the R. v. Nur decision many years ago. It is not as though we are talking about statistics as of last week, last month or last year when mandatory minimums were in effect. Most mandatory minimums have been struck down.

I want to now turn to what the parliamentary secretary said. When we look at the issue of overrepresentation, there will be no issue from me. I remember being a 22-year-old and a 23-year-old going to work in federal corrections for the first time and noting the overrepresentation of indigenous people, for instance, in the justice system. At that time, it was about six to one in terms of overrepresentation, so it was very substantial. As a young man, it was something that I had to learn about and, frankly, the decisions I made had to address. That is something I am quite proud of.

It is also something I had to address as a prosecutor. We have the R. v. Gladue decision, the Ippolito decision, and we also have subsection 718.2(e), I believe, that address this specific issue of overrepresentation. I was bound by those ethical precepts to address Gladue considerations in sentencing, and I always took great pride in putting those considerations at the forefront of my decision-making.

Where the parliamentary secretary and I part company is where he notes, on behalf of the government, that we are looking at alternatives to incarceration while keeping the public safe. This argument might hold water, but for the fact that there are serious offences that are included in this bill. I am going to fast-forward to them. For reckless discharge with a firearm, section 244(1) reads that, “Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, or endanger life”.

We are talking about public protection. We are talking about gun violence. We want to reduce gun violence overall, yet this provision was included in Bill C-5. This allows what I would characterize commonly as a drive-by shooting. Rather than signal we are not going to allow a community-based sentence for such a serious offence, the question should be the length of incarceration. It is paradoxical.

I asked the parliamentary secretary about this, and I cannot remember his exact response, but essentially it was that I was using rhetoric. I am not using rhetoric. I am simply pointing out that a sentencing option now exists for drive-by shooters to serve their sentence in the community. I am not sure how we get here. I just do not know how the principles of sentencing in section 718 are enhanced and put forward by conditional sentence orders for drive-by shootings.

The hon. parliamentary secretary spoke about systemic racism, and he then spoke about corrections. My point is that I have no issue with targeting racism anywhere in Canada, none whatsoever. He talked about the custody ratings scale. As someone who has completed the custody ratings scale and who previously worked in corrections, I know that, if he wants to address the custody ratings scale and the overrepresentation of people in maximum security in federal custody itself, then he should do that. We would do that by amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, not by allowing conditional sentence orders for people who commit offences such as extortion with a firearm, robbery with a firearm, or most seriously, reckless discharge or discharge with intent.

The hon. parliamentary secretary talked about Conservatives wanting to lock people up and throw away the key. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we want is a safe society with just sentencing—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois for his question and for the Bloc's support for Bill C-5.

Obviously, we are all concerned about gun violence, which is on the rise. That is precisely why we introduced Bill C-21, which seeks to ban the sale and importation of assault-style weapons. We will also continue with our plan for a mandatory buyback of assault-style weapons. We are tackling the proliferation of weapons across the country. We hope to have the support of the Bloc Québécois for Bill C‑21 as well.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague is conflating Bill C-21 and Bill C-5. I think we need to come back to Bill C‑5, the bill we are discussing today.

As I said, we have stated our position. We agree with the introduction of diversion measures, but since this is an omnibus bill, it contains two confusing and intertwined items. We certainly have the right to ask questions about minimum sentences.

However, one thing is certain: For these reasons, especially since diversion is so important and has such positive effects, as we have seen in various countries around the world, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill. That said, as my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord so aptly put it, we will do it while holding our noses.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-5, my mind is once again filled with questions and confusion.

As critic for status of women and gender equality, I have observed an uptick in the number of femicides and incidents involving gender-based violence. Like my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, whom I commend for his speech and for sharing his time with me, I wonder about the odd message the government is sending with this bill.

I will therefore address the delicate question of mandatory minimum penalties by starting with my experience in the community sector. Next, I will address the bill's shortcomings. I will end with a few suggestions for countering violence and sending a strong message to end the acrimony currently surrounding the bill and, in particular, the disinformation we have been hearing, as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mentioned.

I have a background in community work, more specifically with an alternative justice and mediation organization. I sincerely believe in restorative justice. I am entirely in agreement with the Bloc's traditional position, which mirrors Quebec's position on mandatory minimum penalties.

When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois advocates for an approach that promotes rehabilitation and crime reduction. We believe that mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, have few benefits, that they do not deter crime and that they introduce many problems, including the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black communities in prisons, as well as additional costs to the system. The Bloc Québécois is therefore more favourable to the principle of repealing certain MMPs.

However, the Bloc also believes in timing, since life is all about timing. Now is not the right time to repeal MMPs for firearms offences, seeing as a number of cities in Quebec and Canada are plagued by a rash of gun violence, mainly because of the Liberal government's inaction when it comes to border controls.

Many women's groups are particularly concerned about this and would like to see better gun control measures to help reduce the number of femicides. Repealing MMPs without doing anything to stop the illegal flow of firearms across the border sends a mixed message.

Conversely, Bill C-21 would strengthen certain maximum penalties, but we must be careful not to mix up these two bills. Although we believe that repealing MMPs for firearms possession is defensible, the proposed repeal of MMPs for certain gun crimes, including discharging a firearm with intent and armed robbery or extortion, appears to contradict the government's claim that it will maintain MMPs for certain categories of serious crime.

We need to monitor this aspect of the bill closely, as well as the possibility of maintaining MMPs for second or third offences. As the Bloc Québécois suggested, the courts could be given the power to depart from the MMPs in cases of serious crime where justified by exceptional circumstances.

I would like to clarify that the Bloc Québécois expressed support for the introduction of the principle of diversion for simple drug possession during the last election campaign and the debates on Bill C-236. Let me remind my colleagues that some of the MMPs that are to be repealed involve drug production, at a time when the opioid crisis is claiming more and more lives in Quebec and Canada.

During the last election campaign, I was approached about this topic by community groups that work with the homeless and whose street outreach workers are doing an excellent job, like those in Granby. However, the Bloc Québécois would like to point out that such a measure will be effective only if investments are made in health care, to support health care systems and community organizations. These institutions need resources so they can help people struggling with addiction and mental health issues, another subject that voters broached with me during the last election campaign.

The Bloc Québécois would like to note that we have still not gotten a response from the Liberal government on the issue of increasing health care funding to cover 35% of system costs, despite unanimous calls from Quebec and the provinces. Obviously, without that level of investment, it is hard for community organizations to meet the growing needs created by increased homelessness in municipalities like Granby. The pandemic only exacerbated the problem. Also, as critic for status of women, I see that homeless women are especially vulnerable.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois speaks for Quebec, where diversion is a well-recognized principle that has been integrated into several areas of the justice system. For example, in children's law, extrajudicial alternatives have been offered to young offenders since the 1970s thanks to Claude Castonguay's reform of the Youth Protection Act. There is also the alternative measures program for adults in indigenous communities, which allows individuals to opt for measures other than judicial proceedings.

There is the justice and mental health support program, which allows individuals who have committed a crime and are fit to stand trial to obtain a reduced sentence or, in some cases, benefit from diversion. There is also the general alternative measures program for adults, which is currently being implemented and which gives adults accused of certain crimes the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and resolve their conflict with the law in ways other than the usual judicial proceedings provided for in the Criminal Code.

For all of these reasons, I would like to salute the organization Justice alternative et médiation, for which I used to work. I would like to apologize for missing the general meeting, but I know that the organization's work on all the issues I mentioned is crucial.

Lastly, with regard to drugs, there is the Court of Quebec's addiction treatment program, which makes it possible to postpone sentencing to allow the offender to undergo court-supervised treatment for addiction. It also provides for close collaboration between the court and drug addiction resources to establish treatment methods, including therapy, rehabilitation and social integration. Unfortunately, this program is offered only in Montreal and Puvirnituq. It would be good if it could be expanded.

In short, as the previous examples show, the principle of diversion is not new in Quebec's judicial ecosystem. Quebec's Bill 32 was studied and also involved diversion. The CAQ government concentrated on securing the passage of this bill, which aims to promote the efficiency of penal justice. The bill introduced the concept of an adaptation program, which will give municipalities another option for administering statements of offence to vulnerable individuals, such as those experiencing homelessness or mental health or addiction issues.

As critic for status of women, I am always rather appalled to observe the overrepresentation of indigenous individuals in prisons and to note that the problem is more pronounced among women than men. Some 38% of women incarcerated in provincial and territorial prisons after sentencing are indigenous, while the corresponding rate of incarceration among men identifying as indigenous is 26%, so this affects far more women than men. In federal prisons, indigenous women account for 31% of offenders sentenced to prison, while indigenous men account for only 2%. These are huge numbers. Given these figures, could MMPs be contributing to increasing the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the prison system? Certain signs point to yes.

Diversion is also beneficial for individuals. It reduces the stigma associated with drug use, as well as the negative consequences of a criminal record, which are disproportionate to the crime of simple possession. One last thing I should mention is that MMPs are expensive, because they generate long-term correctional service costs and court costs. MMPs have a major social cost because the money invested in putting people in prison is not devoted to social reintegration.

In conclusion, because of my background in community work, I am sensitive to many considerations associated with this bill. One thing is certain: It should not relieve us of our responsibility as members of Parliament, especially since gun crime is an important issue, given recent events where many innocent victims were killed by guns. Although we agree with the repeal of MMPs, we should not minimize gun crime or the importance of making the public feel safe and considering better gun control measures. That will be debated in another bill. Let us focus on the bill at hand.

I can say one thing. On the one side, we have the NDP saying that this bill does not go far enough. On the other, we have the Conservatives clinging to their “tough on crime” approach. Is that the way to go? I do not know.

Then there are the Liberals, who, as I mentioned, are playing both sides of the fence, especially in the case of crimes against women. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action 32 sought to allow judges to depart from MMPs under certain circumstances, by which I mean serious crimes against women. The idea is to allow judges to decide whether getting rid of the MMP is a good idea. This is meant to send a strong message, especially in the case of serious crimes against women. The Liberals managed to do this in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation.

Once again, this bill reflects the Liberals' penchant for catch-all bills. Minimum penalties, maximum penalties, diversion: Everything is lumped together. In short, once again, the Bloc Québécois is acting like the adult in the room, trying to adopt the most well-reasoned and reasonable approach.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his stated support of Bill C-5.

I realize and acknowledge the issues around gun violence. I want to point the member to Bill C-21, which is now before the House. It does, in fact, increase the penalties for firearm-related offences. This is the type of smart criminal justice policy that we are talking about.

We are, in fact, increasing the level of penalties available to judges for those who commit a crime with firearms. At the same time, we are ensuring that increased judicial discretion happens at the lower end of the spectrum where there are other alternatives for those who may be first-time offenders and those who may not pose a risk.

I want to thank my friend for the support, but I also want to reassure him that Bill C-21 will address many of the issues he has mentioned in his speech today.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, Bill C-21 addresses the issues that my friend opposite has brought forward. Gun violence is a problem in our society. Bill C-21 addresses it in a holistic way. It imposes higher sentences when appropriate and allows judges the discretion to ensure that those who commit serious offences get serious sentences.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken extensively on systemic racism within the criminal justice system and why it is important to ensure that those who do not pose a risk do not end up in jail.

With respect to gun violence, it is a very important and real issue. My community of Scarborough—Rouge Park has dealt with this. I dealt with this when I ran a youth organization. I have buried my share of young people disproportionately in my community and it is an awfully painful process. It is one that I am still traumatized by.

What is important is that Bill C-21 addresses the issues that my friend opposite is talking about. It increases penalties for those firearm offences. It gives discretion to the judge to impose a sentence of up to 14 years, which is higher than we have right now.

What we are impressing in Bill C-5 is to make sure that those who do not pose a risk and maybe are first-time offenders are given an opportunity to get out of the criminal justice process and continue their lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you back in your seat.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-5, An act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which proposes to consider alternatives to incarceration in appropriate cases while reducing recidivism and keeping society safe.

I want to acknowledge that I am speaking on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

Bill C-5 is an important step forward in addressing systemic racism and discrimination. It puts forth an approach that promotes fairer sentencing outcomes for everyone, notably indigenous peoples, Black persons and members of marginalized communities who are disproportionately and negatively impacted by inflexible sentencing laws. These changes would continue to denounce and hold offenders accountable.

The bill advances three broad categories of reforms. I will speak on the specifics later on. I want to speak today about what it means to be incarcerated. I know that the Conservative approach to crime is about locking people up and throwing away the key. The reality is that many jurisdictions where this was tried have realized its innate failures. I want to note that Newt Gingrich, one of the early proponents of mandatory minimum penalties, has now recanted and suggested that mandatory minimum penalties do not work. All across the United States, this realization is coming into the public discourse.

Incarceration is not the answer to all people. There is a need for us to use incarceration only for crimes that are of a serious nature and that pose risks to individuals. We need to provide off-ramps. Systemic racism in the criminal justice system is real. While we may think that our justice system is blind, the outcomes tells us a different story. Indigenous and Black Canadians who go to prison are treated differently; that is, they are mistreated. Their lives are devalued. I would invite anyone who still doubts that to look at the latest Auditor General's report on our correctional system.

I want to give members some snippets of her findings. For example, indigenous and Black offenders faced greater barriers to safe and gradual reintegration into society than other incarcerated groups.

The process of assigning security classifications, including the use of the Custody Rating Scale, and frequent overrides of the scale by corrections staff, result in disproportionately higher numbers of indigenous and Black offenders being placed in maximum security institutions. I quote:

We noted Indigenous representation gaps among correctional officers across institutions, Black representation gaps among program and parole officers at institutions with a high number of Black offenders, and gender representation gaps among correctional officers at women’s institutions.

Indigenous and Black offenders, for example, were placed at a higher security level on admission into custody at twice the average rate of other offenders. Indigenous and Black men were placed at maximum security institutions at twice the rate of other offenders and made up 51% of maximum security placements.

The report added:

We also found that Indigenous women were placed at maximum security at more than 3 times the rate of non‑Indigenous women and made up almost 70% of maximum-security placements.

Corrections staff can override classifications, which means that once a classification is completed, corrections staff have the discretion, at times, to override them. In this case, corrections staff overrode up to 53% of minimum security placements, compared with 27% for non-indigenous women. Indigenous women were classified upwards by 53%, while the average was 27% for non-indigenous women.

For indigenous men, correctional staff overrode up to 46% of minimum security placements to higher levels compared with 33% for non-indigenous offenders. The report said:

...more Indigenous offenders remained in custody until their statutory release and were released directly into the community from higher levels of security.

This essentially means that once somebody is classified, the higher the security classification, the harder it is for them to get the programs of support necessary for them to reintegrate into society.

It also means that they serve a longer period of their sentence in custody, while those who were maybe classified at the lower levels are able to spend less time in custody and more time in bridging programs that will allow them to integrate within the community. This essentially leads to higher levels of recidivism.

For me the most profound thing about the Auditor General's report is that, for the first time, it has quantified systemic racism within our criminal justice system. As we look at reducing mandatory minimum penalties, a very important takeaway is for us to reflect on what that means. We know the offences that are the subject of Bill C-5, for which we are repealing many of the mandatory minimum penalties, directly have an impact on indigenous and Black offenders. It is so critical that we keep that in mind as we look at this bill.

I do want to talk about my personal experience working with young people in the criminal justice system. I used to run an organization called the Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre back in the late 1990s, early 2000s, before going to law school. I dealt with a number of young people who were involved in the criminal justice system as young offenders and even young adult offenders. I was able to work with them for many years. I still continue to call many of those people my friends because of the relationships we built during that time.

Some of these young people were involved in violence. Some of them were involved in petty theft or other mishaps within the community. What I realized during that time was that they needed support. It is very easy for us, as a society, to incarcerate someone. It is the easiest thing we can do. The harder thing for us to do is to support young people as they redeem themselves as they come out and reintegrate into society.

One of the things I realized is that the more support that we were able to give young people, the more off-ramps we provide to those who may engage, for the first time or second time, in the criminal justice system, the better off society is in the long term. I have consistently seen, in a number of cases, these young people who have come out of the system, and they are now very active and contributing members of our society. That is not always the case, but based on the vast majority of the people I have worked with, that continues to be what I have seen.

During the deliberations at committee, we heard from a number of important stakeholders. I want to highlight the testimony of Raphael Tachie, who is the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and who obviously supports the repeal of many of the mandatory minimum penalties that are here.

He spoke about what his lived experience was as a young Black man growing up in British Columbia. He talked about the first time he was at a theatre and there was some commotion going on outside of the movie theatre. He was there on a date. He found himself, with many other young Black men, surrounded by police and essentially questioned. Luckily for him, he had a great support system that allowed him to really defend himself because he did nothing wrong.

However, the reality for many is that over-policing oftentimes leads to over-arresting and subsequent convictions because, once one is within the cycle of the criminal justice system, it often just perpetuates. The safeguards are limited.

When Mr. Tachie spoke, his words resonated with me and my personal life, considering the number of times, as someone who is racialized and who grew up in Scarborough, I have been stopped by the police. I continue to be stopped, and this is not something that unique to me. It is the same for many people who may have grown up in my community. They get randomly stopped and questioned. This happens to me even as an MP. It did not stop when I became an MP, a parliamentary secretary or the candidate for the Liberal Party. It continued.

Especially for young people, this means that oftentimes they are without the right supports, without the right legal advocacy and without parents who are able to support them, perhaps because they have multiple jobs or have jobs where they cannot take time off. It really does put young people at an enormous disadvantage.

I often reflect on what Mr. Tachie spoke about and on what my life might be like today if, during one of those half a dozen or dozen times when I had been pulled over or subjected to this type of inquiry, I had given the wrong answer or had been with the wrong people. This is the story for so many people, not only within my community of Scarborough—Rouge Park, but also in many other parts across Canada. It is so profound.

The incident that occurred with George Floyd two years ago really tells a story of the disparity we see in the U.S., but it is not unique. We know there have been a number of times in Canada where indigenous men and women have oftentimes been arbitrarily arrested or arbitrarily beaten up. We have seen where discrimination does not really stop, even with chiefs and people who have a national or local profile, because of who they are, and we see that particularly with young Black men.

In 2019, just before or around the election, I remember the current Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada came to my riding on his way to the GTA, and we were able to meet with a whole bunch of stakeholders, most of whom work with youth in our communities. The overwhelming message was that we need to ensure that mandatory minimum penalties are addressed. They have disadvantaged many indigenous and Black Canadians. It is a system that does not work. They are failed policies of the past and something we need to address. Louis March, who many members may know is the leader of the Zero Gun Violence Movement, was one of the people there. His entire life has been devoted to fighting gun violence. He profoundly stated that the system of mandatory minimum penalties does not work and asked that our government address it, so here we are.

First, we are here to repeal all MMPs for drug offences, tobacco-related offences and 13 firearm-related offences. I know that when we say we want to reduce the mandatory minimum penalties for firearms there are many in the House who may legitimately ask why we are reducing the penalties when the use of firearms is on the rise. It is a question that is very pertinent here because Bill C-21, which was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety, addresses that issue as it would increase the maximum penalty for gun-related offences from 10 to 14 years. We are saying there is a need for judicial discretion. That is what that bill would do, it would ensure judicial discretion. It would give discretion to the judge to look at the individual and the circumstances of the case and increase the penalty up to 14 years. I think that is a very important point that is sometimes missed in this debate.

Second, it would remove certain restrictions that would prevent a sentencing court from considering the imposition of conditional sentencing orders. That is a very important issue. It is important to note that our criminal justice system is an unfair system, and I have outlined the issues of systemic racism, particularly as they relate to indigenous and Black Canadians, which not only results in over-incarceration, but also unfairly misclassifies people.

What conditional sentencing orders do is allow the judge to impose conditional sentences, which may be out of custody, on individuals who do not pose a risk to society. This is a very important point again. Oftentimes it is not about giving every offender a conditional sentence. It is about smart policy that says, when we put someone in institutions, we criminalize them even further. We do not give them the right supports. We take them away from their families, and we take them away from the addiction treatment they may need. We also take them away from their responsibilities of going to work, doing work in the community, being a member of their church or being part of the local community, which would give them the support they need to get out of the criminal justice system.

It is a very smart policy. Oftentimes it is mischaracterized, but this would not be available to everyone. It would be available to those who are deemed to not pose a risk to society.

If we look at the numbers over the years, prior to many of these mandatory minimum penalties coming in, there were over 11,000 conditional sentencing orders in Canada. That number is now down to about 6,000.

I know many colleagues who are very progressive would also say that this bill does not go far enough. I would tell them that this is an important bill because it would allow conditional sentencing orders to be expanded in a very smart way, which would allow judges the judicial discretion to place individuals who do not pose a risk and allow them to pay their debt to society while allowing them to continue their lives at the same time. This is about 5,000 Canadians, as per the statistics we have seen.

The final part of this is that we are looking to encourage alternate approaches at an early stage for responding to persons in possession of illicit drugs. I know the Minister of Mental Health recently supported the call from British Columbia and allowed British Columbia to take more control over issues around drugs. We know that the right supports are essential to ensuring that addictions and mental health are supported. This bill allows that.

Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time to complete my speech. I do want to emphasize that this is smart public policy. This is smart criminal justice policy. I look forward to the support of all members here.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that the situation at the border is worrisome. That is why we will continue to give the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP more resources at the border.

We are making progress. Last year, we seized a record number of guns. However, I agree that more needs to be done. That is why I hope that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-21.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the member saying that the government is going to do everything it can, but that means that it has not done anything yet.

Nothing has been done to combat gun trafficking at the border. It has gotten to the point where Quebec and the indigenous police have had to step up their own patrols, without any help from the federal government. Nothing has been done in the House either. Bill C-21 does not propose anything at all to crack down on gun trafficking and organized crime.

The federal government is offering half measures at the border and half measures in the House, but Montreal has an actual problem with illegal gun trafficking and organized crime, not half a problem. When will the federal government crack down on illegal gun trafficking and organized crime?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we will work 24/7 to protect our communities, and that includes controlling the border to stop the illegal gun trade.

That is precisely why we have already transferred $46 million to the Quebec government. That is precisely why we are in a renewal process with our indigenous communities to protect our communities.

Bill C-21 is currently before the House. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will support this very important bill to protect our communities.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth on what the hon. member is saying. Bill C-21 attacks violent crime, attacks gang crime, attacks trafficking in arms and raises the maximum penalties available for certain sentences. If he is talking about repeat offenders, those offenders do not have access to minimum mandatory penalties. In fact, they go the other way. Public safety is not going to be negatively affected. In fact, it is going to be enhanced by allowing for serious offences to be treated seriously and for more flexibility at—

Criminal Code

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to provide my colleague with an answer. The answer is that Bill C-21 deals with criminal activity. For his purposes, though, to reassure him, authorized high-performance sport shooting and athletes and coaches are exempt in the bill. It is under the exemptions.

I am not sure where the Conservatives are coming from. Perhaps they are borrowing from the Bill C-71 playbook from a few years ago where they made a concerted effort to mislead Canadians on this issue of what the government is doing to counter gun violence and criminality. We saw that then and I hope we do not see it this time.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was just going to offer that to my hon. colleague. If he wishes, we can discuss it, but it is clear, in my view, that sport shooting is not impacted.

Another key aspect of Bill C-21 is the maximum penalty offences such as smuggling and trafficking would go up from 10 years to 14 years of imprisonment. That is an advance of great importance. It is something we have not seen before and is something I know many in the law enforcement community, as well as advocates, have been calling for. From a deterrence perspective, this matters. Taken together with what I just mentioned regarding the freeze on handguns, it complements very much what the government has already done.

I remind the House of those measures, fundamental measures, including the ban placed on no less than 1,500 models of assault-style weapons, including the AR-15. These are weapons designed to kill. One does not need an AR-15, for example, to go deer hunting.

Hunting, as I said before, is a fundamental Canadian tradition. I do not dispute that at all. I have hunted. The reality is that when we have assault weapons in our society, our society, by definition, is less safe. The only real voices championing the view that assault weapons have a place in Canadian society are the gun lobby, who found their way to make a real point to certain Conservative MPs. We saw what happened in the last election, where there was great confusion about the particular point of view on that issue in the Conservative platform, but I digress.

Providing more funding to law enforcement to tackle crime and gun trafficking in particular is something this government has carried out, as well as restoring funding that was cut under the previous government to the RCMP and to the CBSA so they can carry out that fundamental work at our borders. I do not dispute for a moment the important point colleagues have raised here tonight that what happens at the border is of great importance with respect to the issue of gun violence. There is no doubt about that at all.

We need law enforcement to continue its work. We need it to do more and we need to equip its members with the resources so they can carry out all of those responsibilities. This government has allowed them to do that by providing more resources. Of course, there is always more we can do.

I also see in this bill the enacting of wire taps that would be used in investigations relating to gun trafficking would be made easier. That is something that deserves emphasis as well.

Finally, with my remaining time, let me look at another aspect of great importance, which is the $250-million fund announced by the government to deal with gang violence and its root causes. I understand under the bill that access to that funding by local non-profit organizations would be expedited such that in my own community of London, Ontario, for example, local organizations focusing on the root causes of violence and specifically violence that leads to crime, including gang violence, would be able to apply through their municipality, and ultimately to the federal government, for funding to deal with youth intervention programs.

As we know, early intervention is so vital to ensuring young people have the equality of opportunity such that they have a stream toward a more promising future. Other examples could be dealing with the causes of intergenerational poverty. We know there is a connection between gun violence, gang participation and intergenerational poverty.

Fortunately, London has not been struck by a great deal of gang activity, but I know there are other communities throughout the country where gang activity is a real challenge. This fund, and ensuring that organizations have access to it in a very timely way, is important. I understand there will be an effort to move forward with funding in the coming months so organizations can apply and get access. This speaks to the importance of youth.

The perspectives of this bill make youth front and centre and ensure they are a major focus. I commend the government for putting forward a bill that does not ignore youth, because I do not think we could have meaningful legislation dealing with guns and ignore youth. From a preventive perspective, it is quite critical.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was a compliment to the House. I am not sure where that came from. I always get along with my colleague on committee.

In any case, the point is that it is nearly midnight, and we are here debating an issue of such fundamental importance. The starting point for me begins with that fundamental truth, that the role and responsibility of any democratically elected government is to ensure the security and the safety of citizens.

Bill C-21 takes its cue from that. It is about confronting gun violence in Canada through enacting preventative measures that limit future violence. In the limited time that I have to speak on the bill tonight, I want to focus on two key aspects of the bill and then relate those to measures already enacted by the government, which I think highly complement what Bill C-21 offers.

Let us begin with a fact, a very clear fact about violent crime. We know that handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals. For example, in 2020, handguns were used in 75% of armed robberies and in 54% of sexual offences. Those are only two examples, and if I had more time, I could elaborate on those.

Recognizing this, under Bill C-21, if the proposed law goes ahead, the buying, the selling, the transferring or the importing of handguns would no longer be legal. That is an advancement in our society that is generational in terms of its importance.

We saw, a few days ago, a press conference where the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety spoke, but behind them were advocates, many of whom have experienced this in a deeply personal way. Their families have been torn apart by gun violence, completely torn apart, so their perspective informs this bill because the government took the opportunity to engage with them throughout to ensure that their point of view was represented. What I just read, with regard to this freeze of handguns, the freeze on selling, transferring, buying and importing, is reflective of their advice to the government through the consultations that took place. It ultimately means that the market for handguns will be capped.

The measure would see the number of handguns in Canada go down. As we just heard from our colleague from Brampton North, the reality is that, when there are fewer handguns in circulation, it means that society is safer. We will see fewer suicides, fewer homicides and fewer injuries caused by firearms, specifically handguns.

What about lawful gun owners? I think it is a very relevant issue. I know my Conservative colleagues have brought that up. What are the consequences for lawful gun owners under the bill?

Canadians who have a registered handgun, for target shooting, for example, could still use it. I emphasize that. I also emphasize that hunters are not the focus. Hunting is a Canadian tradition. People practice it, particularly in rural communities, but I have a number of constituents in my community of London, an urban area, who hunt. This bill would not apply to them, nor does it apply to sport shooters.

In case there is any confusion, and I know that if there is confusion, it is on the Conservative side, let me just reassure Conservative colleagues that Bill C-21 is not about hunters. It is not about sport shooters. It is not about those who currently own a handgun and target shoot, for example.

Instead, criminals are the focus—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as this evening's debate draws to a close, our interventions in the House demonstrate that we need to set partisanship aside and work together to move forward on the issue of gun control.

In that regard, I know that the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, will work very hard to improve Bill C-21, including by bringing forward our proposal on handguns.

How does my colleague from Brampton North feel about the other suggestions my party has made? Earlier I mentioned the idea of creating joint task forces to crack down on illegal weapons, and my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has introduced a bill to create an organized crime registry and expand the definition of organized crime.

It is important to remain open to other ideas and to work together to move this issue forward, setting aside criticism and partisanship.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, in comments earlier, the hon. member across the way made it clear in her comments that the desire is to remove guns from our streets and have fewer guns in circulation. There are parts of Bill C-21 I agree with and my caucus agrees with, and we made the good-faith offer to split this bill, address those areas, get them through committee and get them enacted into law.

Why did the government reject that offer?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for London North Centre.

It is my pleasure to speak on the laudable justice of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments to firearms. The government has taken a multi-faceted approach to address firearms violence in Canada. Our ban on assault-style firearms on May 1, 2020 was a significant step forward in implementing a number of firearm policy commitments that were made in the Speech from the Throne in both 2019 and 2020. Bill C-21 builds on these commitments and other initiatives by addressing a multitude of factors that contribute to gun violence.

I want to start by addressing an issue that has been brought up so many times here today, the issue of illegal versus legal guns. I want to make it clear that the government is not targeting legal gun ownership; it is about creating safer communities for all Canadians.

As many of us have acknowledged here, and we have heard that the public safety committee has studied the issue as well, legal guns can turn into illegal guns. Since 2009, we have seen an increase, by three times, in the number of thefts of guns from legal gun owners. Those stolen guns then end up in the hands of criminals.

Also, statistics show that the more gun ownership we have, the more accidental shootings and deaths there are, accidents that are lethal or non-lethal. The stats show that Saskatchewan has the highest rates in the country of accidental shootings, next to Manitoba and then Alberta, followed by B.C. and then Ontario. I believe Quebec is one of the lower ones compared to the national average. That is something that could be decreased through this legislation.

As I mentioned a few minutes ago, there have been other countries that have addressed their gun violence with similar pieces of legislation, with similar reforms. We have seen, for example, that in Australia the rate of gun-related deaths fell by about 50%, and that number stayed there. That is remarkable. We have seen similar outcomes in the U.K. and New Zealand as well. That is really important to acknowledge.

Today, we have discussed where these guns are sourced from, and I appreciated the hon. opposition member's research into this, but I have also talked to many chiefs of police about the issue and I also used to sit on the public safety committee. There is a common understanding that over half of crime guns traced in 2020 were sourced domestically. They were either obtained legally or through theft and straw purchases, including 50% of handguns that were traced. For example, the shooting on the Danforth was with a legal firearm that was stolen from Saskatchewan and ended up being used in that mass killing, which was such an unfortunate incident.

Reducing the number of domestically sourced handguns that are diverted to the illegal market is part of our government's comprehensive plan to mitigate the deadly threat of firearm violence. This is a very important step.

The next thing I would like to address, which I know is a big concern for many members in the House, is the issue of gun smuggling. Reducing it is a key part of the government's fight to reduce access to illegal firearms. Firearms smuggling and trafficking are very often associated with organized crime activity and jeopardize public safety. Access to illegal guns enables the commission of other crimes, including drug trafficking. We must and will continue to take steps to address this, including by increasing the maximum penalties from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment for gun smuggling and trafficking.

According to a 2018 report from Toronto police's firearms enforcement unit, 70% of Toronto's crime guns for which sourcing could be determined came from across the border, compared with the 50% average between 2014 and 2017. That is why this step is so essential. Toronto police attributed the increase in foreign sourcing in 2018 to two large seizures by the guns and gangs unit. This has had a major impact on communities and provinces, which have called on the federal government to combat trafficking and smuggling.

Signalling the seriousness of these offences to criminals is of paramount importance in deterring these crimes. The proposal to increase the maximum penalty will also send a clear message to the courts that Parliament denounces these crimes.

Next I want to address Bill C-21's proposed red-flag regime in the Criminal Code, which seeks to prevent serious violence from occurring in the first place.

We want to prevent these incidents from happening by creating a new tool to temporarily remove guns from situations where violence may be possible. The new regime would allow any member of the public to apply to a court for an emergency weapons protection order that would prohibit or limit access by an individual to a weapon for a maximum of 30 days. It could go beyond that, if necessary, up to five years. The regime would also allow judges to hold emergency proceedings in camera or to redact or seal part of the record to protect the identity of the applicant or potential victims, another issue that was raised here today. We want to ensure that people feel safe to come forward.

The person making the application must have reasonable grounds to believe that another individual should not have access to a weapon because they pose a safety risk to themselves or to others. If a judge is satisfied that the grounds are met, they can make a temporary weapons prohibition order for up to 30 days. The removal of a firearm from an individual who poses a risk to themselves or others would provide the necessary time for authorities to undertake a full investigation and hearing. Following this, a determination could be made as to whether a longer-term prohibition is warranted.

This bill would also allow a member of the public to apply to a judge on similar grounds to seek a temporary limitation on access order of up to 30 days to prevent a person who is subject to a weapons prohibition from accessing firearms in the possession of another person. The order would be against the third person, who could be an acquaintance or a roommate.

Bill C-21 also proposes to address a gap in the law concerning replica firearms. These changes have been the subject of much attention since the introduction of the bill, so I would like to spend some time describing exactly what the bill proposes on this point.

The current definition of replica firearms, which has been in the Criminal Code since 1998, has two requirements: a device that exactly resembles, or resembles with near precision, a firearm, and that is not a firearm itself. Replica firearms are prohibited devices in Canada. Replica firearms are also considered imitation firearms, and the Criminal Code makes it an offence to use an imitation firearm in the commission of another offence.

Replica firearms are treated the way they are in our Criminal Code because the public and police are not able to distinguish them from conventional firearms, particularly in time-sensitive emergency situations. Sadly, we saw this recently in Scarborough. This is a very important part of what the bill is trying to address.

Many Canadians understand exactly the gap that is being targeted. It is quite simply this: a device that fires at a velocity of approximately 500 feet per second. That is addressed in this bill.

Finally, I will conclude by saying that through all the provisions in this bill, there would be a huge reduction in the number of firearms in Canada. I agree that we need to address this from several different angles, but the mere reduction that we will see once this bill is passed will have a significant impact, as we have seen in many other countries.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame mentioned the Portapique shootings, which were devastating. I am from Nova Scotia, and the daughter of a friend of mine was one of the people killed.

The killer had so menaced the community that a number of people had gone to the RCMP. One of his neighbours actually picked up and moved away, because the RCMP was not protecting the neighbours who reported that this man had guns and appeared to be dangerous.

One of the briefs that I have seen so far on Bill C-21 suggests that we should reverse the onus of burden to show that one should be a legal gun owner, and that the onus should be on the person who wants to own the gun as opposed to on neighbours to report on that person.

I know there is a red flag in this legislation, and I will wrap up here, but what are the member's thoughts on what we should do to change the onus?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I will continue along the same lines.

A few days after Bill C‑21 was introduced, Le Devoir conducted a little investigation to see if the handgun freeze would actually be effective or a good idea.

The journalists interviewed André Gélinas, a retired detective sergeant with the Montreal police service. Without hesitation, he said that this freeze will in no way solve the problem or reduce crime in this country. In fact, he believes the freeze is aimed at the wrong target, because handguns are smaller and lighter, making them the gun of choice for criminals. They are bought illegally and arrive from the United States, as has been mentioned several times this evening. According to Mr. Gélinas, in order to reduce the number of shootings and incidents involving stray bullets, we need to deal with illegal guns.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand here this evening to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Certain elements of this bill are good and Conservatives, as always, will support common-sense gun laws that target criminals and gangs. We are the party that is focused on protecting victims of crime.

Earlier today, this side of the House presented a motion that would have sent certain elements of the bill to committee immediately, elements of the bill that focused on protecting potential victims of gun crime, elements of the bill that would tighten up gun laws that address gun smuggling.

One amendment to this bill included a red flag provision that would allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a dangerous domestic situation more quickly. I am in support of that. It is a common-sense amendment that this side of the House is in support of and was ready to send it directly to committee so it could be passed more quickly.

Domestic violence is something that we should not take lightly. This side of the House feels that if we can get this to committee, we are much closer to getting this passed and much closer to saving innocent lives. However, that side of the House blocked this from happening. I am not sure why that side wants to politicize the lives of innocent men, women and children who are caught in domestic violence situations. Why?

Our motion also supported more severe penalties for criminals smuggling guns. Watching deliberations regarding the massacre in Nova Scotia, we heard some testimony that the man responsible for the shootings had guns brought over the border. We also heard that it was well known that the man had a vast selection of weapons.

Had there been tougher penalties for those illegal weapons, would there have been a different outcome? We will never know. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the government would block such important measures. Why would it not want to take every opportunity possible to stop any occurrence of violent crime as quickly as possible?

Conservatives support the elements of Bill C-21 that are focused on protecting victims of gun crime and tightening up laws that address gun smuggling.

We know that gun crimes are not committed with legal guns or by law-abiding gun owners for the most part and represent a much lower proportion of violent crimes than those committed with knives or other weapons. We also know that the government has the means and ways to stop illegal guns from entering this country.

The question is why it is not stopping the illegal trade of firearms. If the government were as hell-bent on stopping illegal guns from getting into the hands of criminals as it is on keeping the useless travel restrictions in place, the streets of our cities would be much safer.

It is shameful that the Liberal government chooses politics over protecting victims and rejected our motion to immediately send those elements of the bill to the committee today.

Today's actions from that side of the House send a strong message that the Liberals are not serious about stopping dangerous criminals from getting their hands on illegal guns. Their actions tell me that they are not serious about making our streets safer. That is a shame, because the lives of so many are counting on the members of this House collectively to do the right thing.

The members opposite are simply not willing to back down on their political agenda and separate the ineffective and divisive parts of their bill that do nothing to stop gun violence and provide no benefit to vulnerable Canadians. I am confused.

When it comes to Liberal priorities, of course, they talk a good talk about gun crime, but the fact is the Liberals are going soft on real gun criminals and weakening the laws where it counts. For example, Liberals want a ban on pellet guns. I do not understand the mindset of the government. Do Liberals really believe a young person who owns a pellet gun is a criminal?

However, under Bill C-5, a gang member who is convicted of a violent crime would be allowed to serve his or her sentence in the very community that he or she terrorized. There is no mandatory jail time for those criminals. Let us stop and think about that for a minute. A violent offender has terrorized a person or a community and, rather than going to jail, that criminal can serve his or her time in the very community where he or she has committed the crime. This Liberal mindset is making our communities less safe and at greater risk for gun crime.

Since the Liberals were elected in 2015, gun crime has gone up steadily each year. For residents in cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg, gun violence is an everyday occurrence. The Liberals have ignored gun safety and put politics first at every step. This has come at an expense to everyday Canadians who are being victimized in their own communities by rising gun violence committed by gangs and dangerous criminals. Lives of innocent human beings are lost every day to legal guns used by criminals.

Canadians are tired of false promises. The Liberal government is more concerned about and focused on headlines and creating divisive legislation than the safety of Canadians. While the Liberal plan continues to fail and gun violence continues to grow, Conservatives will stay focused on common-sense firearms safety, tackling gun crime and making communities safer.

I grew up in a small community. Pellet guns were not considered a dangerous weapon, and I do not think any of the members across the aisle consider pellet guns or an airsoft rifle to be a dangerous weapon.

There are so many things in this bill that I cannot go along with. I have so many law-abiding gun owners in my riding who are feeling threatened by this legislation. Therefore, I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “and that the committee report back no later than 10 sitting days following the adoption of this motion”.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is honour for me to be here this evening to join the debate on Bill C-21, a bill recently introduced by the government in an attempt to keep our citizens safe.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

In his opening comments, the Minister for Public Safety stated his wish that we would find common cause on this very important topic, and I was happy to hear the member for Davenport, the previous speaker, say the same. We are all in agreement that our streets need to be safer and our citizens need to be safe, and it is our job as parliamentarians to find ways for that to become a reality, because gun crime is a problem in Canada, despite fairly strict gun control laws over many decades.

Unfortunately, gun crime is up quite substantially since about 2014, and then there was another uptick with the start of the pandemic. Illicit drug crime and smuggling are also up. Toxic drug overdose deaths are also up. These are all real threats. Fortunately, the public safety committee has conducted a study into guns, gangs and illicit drug smuggling. I think that there is some very interesting information coming out of the study that is going to be useful for us as we develop laws and policies.

Illicit drugs are a real problem in Canada. Certainly they are a real problem in my hometown of Langley and in metro Vancouver. I grieve with a family friend, who is grieving the passing away of their adult son about a year ago in a toxic drug overdose death. They did not know he was addicted. They do not know where he got the drugs. He was a responsible citizen. He had a good job. He had a family. He had people who loved him. These seem to be the types of people who are caught up in this.

Guns are a real problem too. Just about a year ago, there were a series of gangland-style shootings in metro Vancouver, including in my riding of Langley, as I mentioned in an earlier speech. There was a shooting in broad daylight in which somebody was murdered right in front of the sportsplex where my grandsons play hockey. It all hits very close to home.

In response to that shooting incident, and there were a series of them in metro Vancouver about a year ago, I asked a question in question period of the former minister of public safety, which he then was. This was in the previous Parliament. I asked him what the government was doing about keeping our streets safe from gun crime. His response was that he was looking into the source of guns used in crimes.

The previous speaker mentioned exactly the same formula: Guns used in crimes are either stolen from lawful gun owners or are straw purchased, which means they are bought legally by a person who has a licence to purchase a gun, but it was bought for somebody else, probably for gang-related activities. Number three is that they are smuggled in from the United States of America.

I did not have a follow-up question with the minister at the time, but there is only so much information that can be exchanged in the 60-second question-and-answer period.

I thought I would do the research myself. I thought that would be a relatively easy answer to find. I wanted to know how many guns used in crime were stolen from lawful gun owners, how many were straw purchased, by percentage, and how many were smuggled into the country illegally?

I went to Statistics Canada and I found out that the answer does not exist. The data is missing. I went to the Library of Parliament and asked those folks if they could conduct some research for me. They did their best, but they came back and said that they do not really know, because there are a lot of a gaps in the data.

I went to my local police force, and the police confirmed exactly that. They said that police services across the country are not required to trace guns used in crime, and that is if they can actually find the gun that was used in the crime.

There is another thing that I discovered: There is no standard definition for what a crime gun is. Is it the gun that was actually used in a crime in which somebody pulled the trigger, intending to harm somebody, or is the definition much broader than that? Does it even include guns in the possession of people who accidentally or inadvertently allowed their gun licence to lapse?

At the public safety committee, we studied this and the answers were all over the place. One person said that 80% of guns used in crimes were smuggled in from the United States. Someone else, also a very credible witness, said that 80% were sourced from home. When we dug into it deeper, we realized they were working from completely different definitions.

Statistics Canada came to our committee and we put the question to them. This is what they said, “At this point in time, we do not have national data” and “I cannot provide you with specific information”. Statistics Canada is acknowledging that there is a big gap.

It is such an important question, because if as parliamentarians we are going to develop laws that are designed to be effective in keeping people safe and accomplishing what we set out to do, we need to have good data. I asked myself if we have passed any other laws where we did not have the data. We have passed laws to try to manage inflation, housing affordability and the cost-of-living crisis, but we have a lot of data. Statistics Canada keeps data on those things. When managing a pandemic, of course we have data on that. We want to know how the virus spreads from one person to another. We base all of that on data.

Here we have Bill C-21 purporting to stop gun violence and we do not have the data. We do not know where the guns are coming from. I am very puzzled by that. This to me is the biggest problem. The government is presenting this legislation to people as being a means of keeping us safer and we know that is not the case.

In our study, we discovered that probably 80% of guns used in crimes have actually been smuggled in from the United States. We had a number of witnesses explain to us, to state the obvious, that Canada has the longest undefended border between two countries anywhere in the world. The United States is the largest manufacturer of guns. There are more guns in the United States of America than there are citizens. We know this is the primary source of guns that are used in crimes. They are smuggled across the river. They are smuggled across the Great Lakes. They are smuggled across border crossings in my riding at the Aldergrove and the Peace Arch border crossings.

This is what we need to do. We need to get better data. We need to work with the United States of America. This is not a problem we can solve by ourselves. We need to work with Homeland Security, get it to co-operate with us to try to stop the flow of illegal guns getting into the hands of criminals and gangsters. Very importantly, we need to tackle the root causes of crimes. We need to understand why young people are getting involved in gangs. We need to divert them away from that. We need to understand how toxic drugs are getting onto our streets. We need to be able to stop that. We need to be able to encourage people to get the mental health and addiction help they need.

Guns and drugs are so tied together that we cannot solve one problem without solving the other.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say that, while the hon. member used to live in Leaside, I lived on the other side of the railway track, so we lived in a more working class neighbourhood where a lot more violence and, I think, a lot more crime took place. A key intent of Bill C-21 is to absolutely cap the market for hot handguns. Individuals will no longer be able to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns.

I also have another message here, which is that there will never be more handguns in Canada than there are when this bill passes. Our goal is to absolutely eliminate handguns from our cities. There is no need for us to be able to have handguns in our cities. The fewer guns there are, the less gun violence there will be and the safer our streets will be.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a true honour for me to speak this evening on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport. It is a riding I am very honoured to represent.

The objective of Bill C-21, which is what we are debating this evening, is to amend the Criminal Code and Firearms Act in order to do four key things: establish a national freeze on handguns; establish red-flag and yellow-flag laws and expand gun licence revocation; combat firearms smuggling and trafficking, notably by increasing the maximum penalty of imprisonment for indictable weapons offences; and prohibit mid-velocity replica air guns.

In short, it is clear action from our federal government to address gun violence, which has been on the rise in Canada and presents a serious and significant threat to the well-being of Canadian communities. Since 2009, violent offences involving guns have increased by 81%, and 47% of Canadians have reported feeling that gun violence poses a serious threat to their communities.

I am a born and bred downtown Torontonian, and while most of my life Canada's largest city has been relatively safe, gun violence has been noticed and, as I mentioned, is on the rise. It is something we worry about because we hear about it in our communities and it makes us feel unsafe.

I was on a call with my staff this morning, who monitor all the social media and media in my riding. Yesterday, there was gun violence on the corner of Gladstone and Bloor in my riding. I do not know all of the details, but this is what I was able to garner from the news media:

One man was transported to hospital with serious injuries after being shot Friday evening.

It happened in the Bloor Street and Gladstone Avenue area just after 7:30 p.m.

The circumstances surrounding the shooting were not immediately known. Preliminary reports indicated that two shots had been fired, police said.

The victim...sustained serious, but non-life-threatening injuries....

Every incident like this makes our community members feel unsafe. It impacts our quality of life and it impacts our well-being.

I have been listening to the debate this evening, and I agree that tackling gun violence is not a simple issue. It is super complex. There is no one measure that will get guns off our streets, and this bill is definitely not a panacea.

It is also not our first action. I am very proud of all the actions we have taken over the last six to seven years to tackle gun violence.

I am really proud of Bill C-71, introduced during the 42nd Parliament. It was for registering firearms, providing additional due diligence practices, providing better supports for enforcement officers in tracing efforts and providing a number of additional measures that would keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. We also put a significant amount of money into our border officers in order to stop guns from crossing our borders, and heavily invested in tackling the root causes of violence.

There are other measures we have taken. Last May, we took the step of prohibiting more than 1,500 models of assault-style firearms and their variants. While the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible, these kinds of powerful and dangerous firearms are not designed for legitimate activities such as hunting and sport shooting. They were made for the battlefield and have no place in our cities at all. Taking that step put us in lockstep with other global leaders in gun control policy.

However, gun violence of all kinds continues to be a major problem in our communities and cities, as I mentioned. All firearm tragedies, from the public ones we commemorate to the private ones that occur in the home, create untold sadness and are often preventable. We acknowledge all those who have felt the tragic loss of a loved one and the loss of a sense of safety and security in their own community.

Gun violence remains a tragic reality that impacts our cities and regions. We only need to look at the Polytechnique tragedy, or what happened at the Quebec City mosque in recent memory, when a killer entered and murdered six people and injured many others. We also remember the massacre that happened in Nova Scotia.

No one should have their life cut short in this way. No one should have to live with the pain of losing a loved one to firearms violence. It is why we have made gun control a top priority, including by regulation and by legislation. It is why we stand with those who advocate relentlessly to increase safety in their communities. Their voices have deepened our resolve, and have helped to form our response in the form of this new legislation.

As I noted, since 2015 we have made some real and concrete progress to keep Canadians safe. We have introduced common-sense gun laws. We have invested in our law enforcement. As the Minister of Public Safety has said, we have also invested in kids and communities, because we know that makes a difference and addresses the determinants of crime and violence. However, there is always more we can do, and we must continue to address the root causes of gun violence to address the conditions in communities that lead to violence, and target the ways that guns get into the hands of people seeking to do harm.

For example, criminals can gain access to firearms in a number of ways. Some are smuggled across the border from the United States. Some are stolen from legal gun owners. Some are purchased legally by individuals who have the licence to make the purchase, but are then sold illegally through straw purchasing. Bill C-21 addresses all of these issues.

We also know that there are circumstances when a gun may be owned legally, but the circumstances of its ownership may change. It may be in a home where there are now incidents of gender-based violence and domestic violence. There may be a situation where a person suffering from suicidal ideation has access to a firearm, or it may be accessible to someone who has been radicalized to violent extremism. In those circumstances, we have to have the tools to enable firearms to be removed from a situation that is dangerous and made deadly by the presence of a firearm. That is another important element of Bill C-21. It is empowering Canadians to take action.

Situations involving domestic and intimate partner violence have been compounded by the pandemic. Beyond domestic violence, there are also other situations where a person may be suicidal or has openly advocated hatred or violence against someone.

In response, Bill C-21 proposes the creation of red-flag and yellow-flag provisions. These provisions would make it easier for anyone who feels threatened by the presence of a firearm in their home, or by an individual who owns a firearm, to take action to protect themselves and others. More specifically, the red-flag regime would allow anyone, not just police, to apply to the courts for the immediate removal of an individual firearm if it poses a danger. Similarly, the yellow-flag regime would allow anyone to ask a chief firearms officer to suspend and examine an individual's licence if there are reasonable suspicions that the person is no longer eligible to hold a licence.

As colleagues know, gun ownership in Canada is a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege earned by Canadians who adhere to our strict laws, our regulations and our requirements regarding licensing, training, storage and use of a firearm. In Canada, guns are only intended to be used for hunting and sport purposes.

Let me also acknowledge, as the Prime Minister has done, that the overwhelming majority of firearm owners in this country are law-abiding. They are responsible firearm owners. They acquire their firearms legally. They store them securely. They use them responsibly. They earn the privilege of firearm ownership, and we respect them for their adherence to these laws.

I know a lot of those individuals, not only in my own community but in the firearm-owning community in this country, and I can say that they are concerned with the safe use of firearms and restricting the access that criminals and people intent on violent crime can have to firearms. I believe they will understand the importance of the work we are introducing today to keep our communities safe.

All Canadians deserve to live in a place where they can be safe and secure. That is the objective of Bill C-21. As the Prime Minister has said, “we need more than thoughts and prayers. We need concrete action.” That is exactly what Bill C-21 proposes: concrete action to stem the tide of gun violence in Canada.

I am very proud to support the bill at second reading and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to build off the question from my Conservative colleague and ask the minister to explain how businesses are supposed to take over this role of owning handguns for new enthusiasts. In my riding, I belong to the Owen Sound Revolver Club. It is out in the boonies. It does not have any ability to store a large number of handguns. It would have to leave a building unsecured or spend millions. I just do not know how the sport shooting community is going to adapt to that, especially in rural Canada, like where the minister lives.

I would like the minister to expand in greater detail as to how these active sport shooting communities with handguns are going to actually implement what she is suggesting would happen with Bill C-21.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, the minister spoke about victims and victim organizations raising their voices over the years and offering input that has been expressed in Bill C-21.

Could the member elaborate on that point, particularly for urban communities? We have seen that impact not only there but also in rural communities. I would like to hear her perspective on that.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Davenport.

It is a true honour to be able to take part in this debate tonight on Bill C-21. This historic legislation builds on the government's previous work to end gun violence and keep Canadian communities safe.

My friends across the aisle often speak about the need to address gun smuggling and trafficking that contribute to gun violence. This bill would do that by strengthening border control measures, increasing penalties for trafficking offences and providing law enforcement with better tools to investigate gun crimes. This bill would also implement a national freeze on handguns, and it addresses many concerns that survivors of gun violence, experts, advocates and chiefs of police have raised.

Tonight, though, I want to focus my comments on the survivors of intimate partner violence, who have been asking for laws like this for decades. Before becoming elected to represent Thunder Bay—Superior North, I ran a large homeless shelter where I heard countless stories from women who were fleeing the violence they faced from their intimate partners. I also worked with many young people who were trying to escape violent homes and violent realities.

Then, as minister of status of women, my first cabinet position, which I was so honoured to hold upon my election in 2015, I was told by many women and 2SLGBTQ+ people terrifying and emotional stories about how their partners used violence as a way to control and intimidate them. These stories are ones that I carry with me and that propel me to do more. I bring with me their determination and their requests for change.

Intimate partner violence does not only refer to physical harm. Abusers use control to dominate their partners and often a legally acquired registered and licensed firearm is the underlying threat that accompanies those control efforts. Victims of gun violence, women's groups and advocates who work so hard to protect the lives and safety of women and two-spirited people have spoken out for years, asking for stronger controls on access to deadly weapons that can be used to control women, sometimes with fatal finality.

Following the massacre of 14 female students at École Polytechnique, PolySeSouvient has advocated for stronger gun control so that families and communities would never again have to experience such excruciating loss. I have met with some of these families. I am in awe of their determination to change our laws and to better protect women. Their commitment means that they relive the loss of their loved daughter, sister or friend over and over in their work. In 1989, I was 23 years old, and I remember vividly the polytechnique shooting and imagining being targeted solely because of my gender.

I will never forget, yet it was not until two years ago, under our Liberal government, that 1,500 assault-style weapons such as AR-15s were banned, which is something that women advocates had been urging for 31 years. Since then, over 300 more types of assault rifles have been prevented from entering the market, and the Conservatives have fought us on this action. Despite their tough-on-crime stance, they staunchly stood with gun lobbyists instead of survivors and families, but we knew that we could do more.

Women's advocates have worked for years to implore for changes that would legally allow for the removal of weapons after warning signs of violence, including for charges that are recorded in police databases. For too long, their voices were ignored. Despite the many, many calls for action and the many reports and the many studies, survivors of intimate partner violence were left unheard and women in abusive relationships were not protected.

Studies have shown that having a firearm in a home, even legally obtained, increases the likelihood of suicide and that victims of intimate partner violence are five times as likely to be killed if a firearm is present in the home. That is why these measures, such as a freeze on handguns and red flag laws, are so important.

Bill C-21 proposes the creation of red flag and yellow flag provisions. These provisions would make it easier for anyone who is threatened by the presence of a firearm in their home or by an individual who owns a firearm, to protect themselves and others.

The red flag regime would allow anyone, not just police, to apply to the courts for an immediate removal of an individual's firearm if they pose a danger. The yellow flag regime would allow anyone to ask a chief firearms officer to suspend and examine an individual's licence if there are reasonable suspicions that the person is no longer eligible to hold a licence.

There are also other situations where a person may be suicidal or who has openly advocated hatred or violence against someone, and these laws will save lives. In Canada, gun ownership is a privilege. It is not a right. Canadians earn the privilege of owning a firearm when they adhere to strict laws, regulations and requirements regarding licensing, training, storage and use of a firearm.

This is a principle that differentiates Canada from many other countries in the world and leads to less gun violence than other countries, including the United States. My heart is with so many families that have lost children, loved ones and partners through the rampant gun violence that is ripping apart communities across the country to the south of us.

However, we must not be complacent here in our country. We must listen to the voices of families and survivors. We must do better to protect each other and our communities from coercive control using firearms and the violence that could ensue.

In my riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North many people own firearms for hunting and sport shooting. The proposed legislation that was introduced last week would not restrict guns used for these purposes.

Canadian women have asked for action, and the Minister of Public Safety has stepped forward as an ally. We must all put our best efforts forward to pass this legislation and save lives.

As the Prime Minister said, we need more than thoughts and prayers. We need concrete action. That is exactly what Bill C-21 does, it provides concrete action to protect women and others from devastating violence.

I am very proud to support this bill at second reading, and I do hope that my colleagues will also support the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I remember in May 2020, when that Order in Council was issued, I got a lot of feedback from my constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Overwhelmingly, their frustration was with the suddenness of it: the fact that Parliament never had the opportunity for its elected representatives to debate it. Their preference, overwhelmingly, would have been to have Parliament debate that issue.

I acknowledge my colleague's concern on the lack of a proper definition. I think that both she and I will have questions for the government members on the committee about what they intend to do and whether that loophole is something that needs to be fixed in Bill C-21, and I will be looking forward to the Liberals' response in that regard.

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

Madam Speaker, he mentioned the model AR-15. It is a firearm that has become synonymous with some of the most brutal mass shootings imaginable in the United States. We have to be careful. Canada and the United States are two very different countries when it comes to our firearms laws, but I would agree that certain models of firearms have no place in our society.

I am not talking about non-restricted firearms, or the people who are out there hunting and shooting with their bolt-action rifles or shotguns. I am talking about those ones that can cause death as quickly as one can pull a trigger.

With Bill C-21, though, the debate is not on the way a firearm looks but its functionality. We have had this debate at the public safety committee. It is something that is still unresolved because there are models of firearms out there, semi-automatic rifles, that have the same capacity and same function as firearms that were banned by the OIC, but they are still legal.

We need to have a conversation about where we are drawing the line and how we are actually going to define what a prohibited firearm is. That is a conversation that we still owe to Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining colleagues from all parties in this debate tonight on Bill C-21.

I want to acknowledge the time I have enjoyed as the NDP's public safety critic. It is a big responsibility. There are many different departments to keep track of. I also want to say in deference to previous speakers that I have enjoyed working with the minister on a number of issues and with my Conservative and Bloc colleagues. I will echo previous comments tonight that we do enjoy a good working relationship. If we look at previous Parliaments, that might seem a bit odd for the public safety committee because we do deal with some fairly explosive issues where there is not always a lot of agreement to be found.

I come at this debate tonight as a representative of a rural riding. My riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is about 4,700 square kilometres in size. A lot of the constituents whom I represent are responsible firearms owners. They enjoy going to the range. They enjoy using firearms for hunting and other recreational activities.

However, it has to be stated, and this is a key difference between Canada and our southern neighbours, that owning a firearm in Canada is a privilege. By far the vast majority of firearms owners in Canada respect that privilege. They use their firearms in a very safe and respectful manner. Gun safety and the careful operation and storage of guns have always been paramount to the constituents that I have spoken to.

Indeed, I do have a lot of friends who are firearms owners. I grew up with firearms. My father has several that he inherited from his childhood. I have enjoyed spending time at various ranges throughout my riding. A few years ago, I was a guest at the Victoria fish and game club. Under the careful supervision of someone with a restricted possession and authorization licence, I was shown how to safely use a handgun at the range. There a lot of people who do enjoy the target shooting aspect of it.

I have seen a lot of debate on firearms before and during my time in Parliament and it is a pretty explosive issue. It can be very often used as a wedge in our political system. I want to find a way to talk about the legislation before us in a respectful way, one that lowers the temperature and where we can depolarize the debate while maybe seeking to make some parts of the bill better at committee.

I am trying to walk the line between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals sometimes have a tendency to put forward a bill, hold it up as a shiny trophy, and say it is going to fix the problem. The Conservatives on the other side tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to firearms legislation and their default position is to oppose. This is an issue where we have to walk the line between those two, where we recognize that legislation is important. We cannot simply say no for the sake of saying no, but we also have to realize that legislation by itself is not going to solve a problem as complex as gun violence. It has to be part and parcel of a whole range of things.

Bill C-21 in this Parliament does share the same number as the previous firearms legislation in the 43rd Parliament, which was also Bill C-21. That bill, however, never advanced past second reading. Unfortunately, it was allowed to die on the Order Paper when we had, in my view, the unnecessary election of 2021. There was a lot of hullabaloo about the introduction of that bill, but not a lot of effort was put forward by the government to advance it in any meaningful way.

Here we are again. We are in the 44th Parliament. We are in June. We have been at this for quite some time and we are only now just getting to the first round of second reading debate on the bill.

There is an important human element to this debate. Many lives have been lost in Canada to rising gun crime and we have to acknowledge that many communities are feeling unsafe.

Canadians want their government to act to prevent tragedies, not just respond to them. That is the proactive piece of the puzzle here, not just reacting to the bad news we often see. We need to demonstrate that follow-through and commitment to addressing firearms violence. That is where I think Bill C-21 comes into play. Not only is the smuggling of illegal firearms a big problem in Canada, but there is also a very real issue with the domestic diversion of legal firearms and the way they can find their way into the hands of criminals.

I am proud to be a member of a party that has supported the goal of getting military-style assault weapons off the streets. I support the plans for a mandatory buyback. That is a significant improvement over the voluntary buyback that was proposed in the previous Parliament, because we want to find a way of making sure that these weapons are forever off of our streets and do not pose a danger. Back in 2008, Jack Layton, our leader at the time, was the first political leader in Canada to propose giving municipalities the power to ban handguns within their jurisdictions.

I think whatever side of the spectrum we fall on with respect to this debate, we can all agree it is time for the government to get serious about tackling gun crime. We have different ideas on how that is to be achieved, but I think we agree on the same basic premise.

I want to give a nod to the public safety committee. The great report that we tabled earlier this year has been referenced in a few speeches tonight. That report was the result of 50 witnesses over seven meetings. We had numerous representatives from different police services across Canada, criminal defence lawyers, community organizations and also important government bodies like Statistics Canada. I want to acknowledge the Bloc Québécois for bringing forward that motion for a study. It resulted in 34 recommendations. We are awaiting a government response. I know that takes time, but I am looking forward to reading the government's response to those solid recommendations.

We had a number of recommendations. We realized that Statistics Canada needs additional resources. It has reported that there are gaps in its reporting. There are limitations in its knowledge about the firearms that are used in crimes. We need more information and details about particular firearms, their exact type, who owns them, how they are stored, whether the owners are licensed, and so on.

There was also a recommendation about increasing funding to the Canadian criminal intelligence service to enable comprehensive intelligence sharing across all police services so we can improve their effectiveness in tracing firearms. There was a recognition that smuggling is a significant contributor to gun and gang violence in Canada and that more resources must be allocated to combatting it. Also, the Government of Canada, as part of its prohibition on firearms, should implement a mandatory buyback program. That was a recommendation in the report that was supported by committee members.

In addition, I also think that because the report also illustrated the context in which we operate, this problem is not going to be solved by legislation, funding or a shift in policies alone. It is a multi-faceted issue that is going to require reflection, a comprehensive set of solutions, including data collection and research, prevention and intervention, coordination and collaboration between all levels of government, law enforcement and civil society actors.

We know the statistics have not been favourable. That has been mentioned by a few of my colleagues. We know that the rates of firearms-related violent crimes started an upward climb in 2014, with the largest documented increase between 2014 and 2015. Between 2019 and 2020 there were notable increases, including in southern rural British Columbia, the northern part of Ontario, rural Alberta, the Northwest Territories and Nova Scotia. This is the important part: Handguns were the most serious weapon present in most firearm-related violent crimes between 2009 and 2014, and also between 2015 and 2020.

I now want to focus on the smuggling, which we know is a major problem. It is a consequence of our sharing a border with the United States. The problem, and this goes to the data collection, is that we do not have an accurate figure. It might even be impossible to ever get an accurate figure, because for every successful interdiction, there are so many that will get through. It is simply impossible to extrapolate what the full problem is in that regard.

In this conversation about firearms and the root causes of gun and gang violence, we have to know that there are so many different factors at play here. This is far from a black and white issue. During our committee study, we learned from great testimony from witnesses that things like poverty, inequality, racism, mental illness, social isolation, substance abuse, extremist ideologies, education and health, are all factors which in some way contribute to the phenomenon of gun violence and how bad it can be in some communities.

There is also a very strong correlation between the drug trade in Canada and firearms violence. I think this is important. This House has recently been seized with the issue of Canada's drug laws. We have seen reference to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in another government bill, Bill C-5, which sets out a declaration of principles.

The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke was able to successfully amend that to make sure that criminal records for simple possession will be sequestered after two years. That is an important amendment. The member for Courtenay—Alberni, my friend and neighbour to the north, has his very important private member's bill, Bill C-216.

Almost every single police agency that was before our committee spoke of the interwoven nature of the drug trade and the gun trade. The simple fact is that there are obscene amounts of money that can be made in the drug trade. The introduction of fentanyl and carfentanil has completely changed the profitability game. Every single witness who was talking on this subject said that gang members involved in the drug trade feel the need to have guns on their person to protect their turf and their trade because of the competitive nature of it.

One of the most successful ways we can tackle gun problems in Canada is to enact bold, progressive policies to deal with the demand side, to deal with people's addictions and to make sure we are not harming the people who are out there being nabbed by police for simple possession. Instead, we should be trying to make sure that we are relieving them of the criminal stigma of substance use. We should be drying up that demand so that gangs are not competing for that turf. That is a big scourge for many of our big cities in Canada, and until we see bold policy to deal with this, I fear that years from now we are still going to be having the same conversation about gun violence in Canada.

Let us now turn to some of the main features of Bill C-21. By far, the one that has garnered the most attention is the handgun freeze. It is essentially going to prevent the chief firearms officer from approving the transfer of handguns to individuals. It will effectively ban the buying, selling, transferring and importing of handguns to anyone other than certain businesses and exempted individuals.

To be clear, my technical reading of the bill is that if Bill C-21 were to receive royal assent tomorrow, anyone who is a current RPAL holder and owns a handgun will still be able to lawfully use that handgun just as they did today and yesterday. That will have no change.

It will impact people who are seeking to buy new handguns, but again, exemptions are carved out, for example, if someone can demonstrate that they need a handgun for their line of work. I know foresters who will not travel out into the bush in grizzly country unless they are carrying a handgun. That will be considered an exempted individual.

If someone is a professional target shooter and belongs to an Olympic-qualified organization, we might look at amending that and broadening the scope. The person would still be allowed to use a handgun, and so on.

I acknowledge that smuggling is a huge problem, but we have also had witnesses talk about the problem of the domestic diversion of legal weapons and people using their licences for straw purchases. I think, if we were to completely ignore that side of the equation, we would be doing a disservice to Canadians and to the whole question of public safety on this issue.

The other big aspect of Bill C-21 is the red flag and yellow flag regime, which would basically allow anyone to bypass the police and go directly to a provincial court judge to request the immediate removal of weapons from an individual who they believe is going to pose a danger to themselves or to others. I will note that, in the way Bill C-21 is written, there is an improvement to this aspect of the previous bill, because it would allow a judge to protect the privacy of an individual applying for that emergency prohibition. The judge could also have the option of holding hearings in private and sealing court documents. That is an important improvement to the previous version of the bill.

However, we know organizations such as PolySeSouvient still have problems with how this section is written. I believe that at committee we are going to have to take a deeper dive into whether this can be improved upon.

We also know that members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians were not fans of the previous red flag law. They said:

...placing the onus on a family member of a depressed person, a demented parent, or the perpetrator of domestic violence to go through the court system is a largely unworkable and unwelcome hindrance to getting guns temporarily out of the home of those in crisis.

Others said that the current version of Bill C-21 was “a big, evidence-based step towards reducing gun injury and death in Canada,” so kudos to the government for getting that from physicians who deal with gunshot wounds on a regular basis. They still want to see the particular details of the new red flag law and how it is actually going to work. Of course, the yellow flag law would allow the chief firearms officer to temporarily suspend and review an individual firearms licence while that eligibility is determined.

I want to end on airsoft. In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, there is a massive airsoft community and people love this sport. I had previously only participated in paintball, so I know the fun and the thrill of it, and people who engage in airsoft as a sport love what they do. It is a great outdoor recreational activity, and these people are concerned by the provisions in this bill that are targeting replica models.

We have to find a way to have members of the airsoft community come before our committee. I think we have to have a conversation with the government on how we can find a workable solution so that people are not unfairly targeted for participating in a sport they enjoy. I think there is a middle ground in there somewhere. I acknowledge the concern that law enforcement has with replica airsoft rifles. At a distance, it is not easy to tell whether it is a replica or the real thing, and we certainly did hear at committee that some people had been successful at converting airsoft guns into fully functioning firearms, so that is a very real concern out there.

I know I am in my final minute, so I will just conclude with this: The firearms debate is never a black and white issue, and I know there are a variety of opinions on this topic, but I am going to try to thread the needle. At this point in the debate, I am going to signal my support for getting this bill to committee, because I do not want to just throw it out at this stage. I believe it deserves a closer look, and I believe all members, including my Conservative colleagues, deserve to have the opportunity to focus on the particular sections of the bill, bring forward their witnesses and have an adult conversation about the direction we want to take our country in and what we ultimately want to see out of this.

With that, I will conclude. I appreciate this opportunity, and I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for her speech.

According to Statistics Canada, 75% of gun deaths, the vast majority, are unrelated to gangs or crimes. They are suicides. Harvard research refutes the misconception that people who are determined to kill themselves will find a way, but the lethality of the chosen method is important.

Does my colleague think Bill C‑21 will reduce the number of suicides?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her French, which I must say is excellent. I thank her for making the effort to ask this question.

Indeed, this subject concerned me in committee. The opposition parties cannot invite as many witnesses as the government, but I still made an effort to invite the band council for the indigenous communities of the Akwesasne territory and the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service to appear.

They came to explain their reality to us. They are often demonized in the media and accused of being complicit in this arms trafficking, which is definitely not the case. They asked to be partnered with other police forces in this fight, and that is exactly what the Quebec government did today by giving them the means to act. Unfortunately, that is not what Bill C-21 does for them.

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

Madam Speaker, I can see that my colleague is very familiar with the file, and I thank her for that. Of course I talked about the negative first and left the positive to the end, but I did not have time to get to the positive. I must admit that Bill C-21 does actually contain some good measures, such as the the red flag and yellow flag measures. As I pointed out earlier, the minister has been very attentive to various groups and what they were calling for.

I said that I would work constructively with the government to improve any aspects that are perhaps less positive. When it comes time to vote, we will see whether the Bloc Québécois will support this bill.

I would also have liked to see something on assault weapons in this bill. What we heard from the Prime Minister at his press conference was that the buyback program would be postponed and that public consultation would begin later. A lot of work remains to be done on this, unfortunately, and we can talk about that at another time.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Bill C-21 is being considered without quorum, and for Hansard it should be noted that a debate is happening contrary to the constitutional requirement that the House cannot depart from its own code of procedure when the procedure is entrenched in the Constitution of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to finally speak to Bill C-21.

We had almost given up hope of hearing about a gun control bill before the end of the parliamentary session. The government finally introduced a bill last week, perhaps somewhat reactively. That is typical of the Liberal government, always reacting to events. Unfortunately, a few days ago, there was the massacre in Texas. Also a few days ago, shots were fired near a child care centre in Rivière-des-Prairies, in the greater Montreal area. I get the impression that these kinds of events are what finally pushed the government to act. That is fine, but it is unfortunate that violent events like these have to happen before the government introduces legislation that we have long been calling for.

My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord and I make it our mission during virtually every question period to remind the minister that taking action on gun control is important. That is our topic this evening, but legal weapons are not the only problem. Illegal weapons and arms trafficking, especially in Quebec, but also across Canada, are problems too. I think legislation is long overdue. The Bloc Québécois made it clear elsewhere, in the media for example, that it thinks Bill C‑21 is a step in the right direction.

Quite honestly, the previous version of the bill, which was introduced in the last Parliament, pleased nobody. Neither groups for gun control nor those against it liked the bill. It was flawed. I will say that the government really listened to groups advocating for women and victims of shootings. They came to talk to the government and tell it which important elements they thought should be included in the bill. Clearly a lot has changed since the first version, and that is great.

However, we need to point out some elements that are perhaps more negative. As I was saying, unfortunately, Bill C‑21 does not solve all the problems. Currently, one of the biggest problems in the greater Montreal area is the shootings being carried out by criminal groups. They are obtaining weapons illegally. There have been shootings in the past with firearms that were 100% legal and that belonged to licensed gun owners who had no mental health issues or criminal records. It does happen, but not very often. I have the impression that most of the shootings happening these days involve illegal firearms. We must find a way to address this problem.

There was talk earlier about how Quebec has been proactive and has almost done everything that we have been calling on the federal government to do for months. We were with the minister this morning at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security when the news dropped that Quebec will invest $6.2 million in the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service. Representatives from this police department came to tell the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security about their particular situation. Akwesasne is an indigenous community that straddles the borders of Quebec, Ontario and even the United States. This requires collaboration among the different police departments. Smugglers are very familiar with this area, where trafficking is done by boat in the summer and by snowmobile in the winter. Weapons come through the area by the hundreds every week. The federal government needs to get involved because it is responsible for the borders.

This morning, Quebec announced $6.2 million for police services. This money will be used to hire five additional police officers and to purchase a new patrol boat, an all-terrain vehicle and snowmobiles to bolster the fight against gun smuggling in Quebec. This is great news. While making this announcement, Geneviève Guilbault, Quebec's public safety minister, said she was still waiting on the money from an agreement with the federal government. The federal government promised funding to help Quebec and the provinces crack down on firearms, but it seems they are still waiting for this money. They are anxious to receive it and continue this important fight.

Let us come back to Bill C‑21. This version is better than earlier ones, but there are still some flaws. Some elements seem poorly drafted. I think it is shameful that the government is rushing things and not letting us have the time to do our job as parliamentarians. I am guessing that is what it intends to do, since that is what has been happening in the House of Commons over the past few days. By constantly invoking closure, the government is trying to shorten debate by a few hours in order to move forward more quickly. However, it is actually our job as parliamentarians to take the time to study bills, debate them in the House, make amendments and improve them. That is what I intend to do with Bill C‑21.

I want to try to work constructively with the government to improve the bill. I want to come back to the motion my Conservative colleague wanted to move today at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I must say that she stated in good faith that there are some elements of the bill that we can all agree on. Let us move forward quickly with those measures, while taking the time to study the rest more closely.

The Liberals did not agree, obviously, for partisan political reasons. On the other hand, when the Liberals try to speed things along, the Conservatives oppose them. Let us try to be more constructive and work together like we do at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. As my colleague mentioned earlier, we very much agree on the firearms issue, to the point where it feels almost unprecedented. We have managed to work together quite well, which is important to highlight.

I want to discuss all aspects of the bill, beginning with the measure about handguns. This is really the government's key measure, which proposes a freeze on the acquisition, sale and transfer of handguns by individuals. This was quite unexpected. I myself was surprised to hear this. I never thought the government would go so far.

It was the way it proceeded that surprised me a bit. The way this was announced at the press conference made it sound like the freeze was part of Bill C‑21. A little later, the government realized that it could proceed through regulations, which is a whole other procedure. It would be 30 business days before this came into effect. Those 30 business days left enough time for those who already had a licence to go out and buy more guns. Gun sales exploded across the country. I saw a B.C. gun seller on CTV News who said that the Prime Minister had become “salesman of the month”. That really is the message he sent to people.

The government's intention was to reduce the number of handguns in circulation, but it had the opposite effect. That is a shame, because I think there was another way to go about this. Take for example the assault weapons ban on May 1, 2020. The government compiled a list of 1,500 banned guns, and the ban came into effect immediately. People did not have time to go out and buy a gun before the ban took effect.

I wonder why the government chose a freeze instead of a ban and why it did that through regulations, when we were led to believe it would be in the bill from the start. Questions like that remain unanswered.

I think it is especially unfortunate that the government did not anticipate that people would rush to the store to buy more guns. Perhaps they should have taken more time to iron out all the details before presenting them.

Our understanding is that once the freeze is in place, handguns will eventually disappear because they can no longer be transferred to someone else. People who currently have a permit will be able to continue to use their guns. Of course, there are some exceptions for police officers and bodyguards who have a firearms licence. It is still unclear what will happen with sport shooters. We are being told that the government will establish by regulation what it all means, but questions are already popping up.

The procedures in Quebec are quite strict already. I get the sense that these regulations will not necessarily change much in Quebec, but I will come back to that.

I would like to say that I am not a firearms expert. It is easy enough to go on social media, demonize me and say that I have no clue what I am talking about.

Recently, I was asked if I knew the procedure for buying a weapon. It is actually fairly complex. I will give the people who asked me this: It may happen overnight in the United States, for example, but not here.

Gun culture is a thing in the United States, and it is pretty intense. We are worried it might spread to Canada. Acquiring a firearm, however, is very different. After the Texas shooting a few days ago, people from Le Journal de Montréal went down there to run a test and find out how individuals get firearms. What they found out is that all one needs is a driver's licence and 15 minutes to walk out of the store with a gun and ammo. In Texas, it takes longer to buy a car than a weapon. That is pretty unbelievable.

In Canada, the rules are stricter, and I think that is a good thing. People who choose to pursue their passion for firearms and make it their hobby need to understand that weapons are dangerous. That is why they need to be regulated. It all needs to be governed by regulations. I think we have to be cognizant of that.

If someone in Quebec wants to obtain a handgun right now, they have to complete several training courses. There is the Canadian firearms safety course, the Canadian restricted firearms safety course and the Bill 9 aptitude test. Next, they have to apply for a possession and acquisition licence. That can take around six months. Lastly, the individual has to join a shooting club. That is a requirement in Quebec.

I will admit that this is not a simple process and cannot be done overnight. I sometimes hear the rhetoric that guns are not dangerous, that the person pulling the trigger is dangerous. I have to disagree. Guns are dangerous.

As I was saying, anyone using this device or tool, I am not sure what to call it, needs to be aware that it is dangerous. Anyone choosing to use a firearm must be aware that it could be used by a person with bad intentions and that firearm regulations make sense.

What we understand is that with the freeze handguns will eventually disappear. We also understand that for people who train to use guns competitively, there may be a way to get around the rules. Reading legislation or regulations is rather complicated. However, when we take the time to read between the lines, we sometimes see certain details that may be questionable. That is true here, there are questionable details, and we certainly need to take this to committee to determine what it means.

The other thing is that the freeze may not do anything beyond what Quebec is already doing, in other words require that a person be a member of a gun club before being able to acquire a handgun. If a person is already a member of a gun club then there will be no real change. They will be grandfathered and allowed to continue using the handgun. These are questions I will have to ask during study of the bill.

I want to come back again to the fact that people have been rushing out to purchase handguns, because they know the regulations are not yet in effect. This shows that Bill C-21 will not solve the problem in the short term, so it does not meet its own objective. Guns continue to be a problem on our streets and in our municipalities, which is why people are increasingly concerned. We are reminded of this every day, given current events.

There was another car chase in broad daylight in a residential area in greater Montreal yesterday. Dozens of shots were fired. People were eating on their balconies and walking down the street, and they witnessed this first-hand. Fortunately there were no casualties, but there could have been injuries and even fatalities. It has practically become the norm in Montreal, in Quebec. It is scary when you think about it. It is also scary for parents to send their children to school, to go to work, or to go anywhere for that matter, because in the last few months, there have been shots fired near a day care centre, near schools and even in a library. The library's windows shattered because of the gunfire. It is unbelievable.

This notorious gun culture, which I mentioned earlier and is entrenched in the United States, seems to be gradually taking hold in Canada, and no one wants that. Unfortunately, Bill C-21 gives us no reassurance that it will solve this problem. It might solve certain things and it might be a step in the right direction, but the terrible problem of gun trafficking remains prevalent. Bill C-21 does not address this.

I want to share some statistics. According to the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, 95% of handguns used in violent crimes come from the black market. During question period we often hear that organized crime uses illegal weapons and that members of these organizations are the ones committing crimes most of the time.

I often hear people say that we are going after good, law-abiding gun owners. This is true in some cases, but not always. As I said earlier, mass shootings with legal firearms are rare, but they do happen.

We made a lot of proposals that were not included in Bill C‑21 in an attempt to find a number of measures that would work best together. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord introduced Bill C‑279 to create an organized crime registry.

The way we see it, giving police officers more tools and means to act is another way we can control firearms. Why is being a member of a terrorist group illegal but being a member of organized crime is not? This is a fair question because organized crime groups are behind the violence we are seeing in the big cities right now. I think that this bill could be a worthwhile, easy-to-implement tool, and I urge the minister and his colleagues to read it.

We have heard a great deal about investments at the border, and I just mentioned the investments made by Quebec. We must not forget that the border is under federal jurisdiction and that there is work to be done there. Witnesses told us about what is actually happening at the border. Even border services officers told us that they were ready for their mandate to be expanded and that they would like to patrol the areas between border crossings, which they currently cannot do. It is true that the Canada-U.S. border is so long that it is almost impossible to have officers covering every kilometre of it. However, the mandate of these officers could be expanded so they could go on patrol.

My colleague also reminded us earlier that smuggled guns and drugs arrive in Canada by boat and by train. We do not have the tools we need to search these conveyances. These types of measures could certainly help the fight against firearms, especially those that are illegal.

Thanks to a motion that I moved a few months ago in the House, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security was able to study this problem. It was the topic of its first report, which was tabled recently in the House. The report contains several recommendations for more resources and more collaboration. On that subject, the RCMP commissioner admitted to the committee that police forces could talk to each other more and share more information.

Experts from public safety agencies agreed with every point and argument we made and told us that we do indeed need to provide more financial and human resources. It is a problem that we will not be able to fix in the short term, but we should start working on it immediately.

The National Police Federation told me that the police forces are short on officers and will not be able to get more overnight. I learned that dozens of officers are deployed every week to Roxham Road to receive irregular migrants. The Government of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois have been calling for that road to be closed so that the migrants can be received the regular way through a safe, normal process. This would allow these officers to be reassigned to the fight against guns.

Madam Speaker, since you are signalling that my time is up, I will end there and I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, we hear a lot from the government about its input measures. The Liberals spend more than anybody else. That is their common response. Since the bill has been introduced and since the Prime Minister contradicted the earlier quotes he himself made in 2012, which the member mentioned, I am curious about something.

We have heard claims that Bill C-21 will reduce gun crime in our cities, but we have been unable to nail the government down on the actual targets that this measure will hit in terms of crime reduction in the cities. There is not much use in introducing this kind of legislation unless there are actually specific targets that we think it will hit. Could the member comment on whether, either in committee or in the discussions she had with the department and other officials, the government has set any actual goals for what this will do in having a positive effect in reducing gun crime?

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. She is quite right that we have a good working relationship.

I have two questions. The first one is that through a technical reading of the bill—because she did talk about lawful gun owners—my understanding of Bill C-21 is that if it becomes law, current owners of handguns could still legally use them. People could still go to a range to fire handguns under the supervision of an RPAL holder, especially if the range owns a collection of handguns. I am just wondering if she can clarify whether that is her understanding of the bill as well.

My second question is about this being a very complex problem. She quoted a lot of police officers. Let me also quote from Staff Sergeant Michael Rowe of the Vancouver Police Department, who also appeared before the public safety committee. He identified straw purchases and the diversion of legally owned handguns as also being big problems.

Therefore, two things can be true here: We can have a problem from gun smuggling, but there is also a problem from the illegal diversion of legally owned handguns. If we ignore that and focus only on the smuggling problem, we are doing a disservice to public safety. Would she not admit that domestic diversion is also a problem, as was clearly identified by Staff Sergeant Michael Rowe of the Vancouver Police Department?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I could not have said it better myself. I agree completely that this bill, as he said, does surely target lawful firearms owners and does not go after the criminals shooting up our cities, including Montreal, where there have been deaths and where young people are at risk of dying from drive-by shootings. We are now seeing this almost every single day in Montreal.

The minister, respectfully, has kind of been parading around as though Bill C-21 is the big solution and is going to end handguns. He knows it will not. He has to know that. He knows. He is smart. He knows the issue is with illegally smuggled guns and the gangs who illegally possess them and use them to shoot up our cities. This bill would do nothing to address that, and I agree completely with my Bloc colleague.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague's comment about it not being true that the opposition parties never propose anything. The Bloc Québécois has been proposing a joint peacekeeping unit with the United States for months. Today we learned that Quebec invested $6.2‑million to address this issue, even though borders are a federal responsibility. It is a little strange, but things are not moving quickly on the federal government side.

The Minister of Public Safety tells us that Bill C‑21 will address the dramatic increase in daily shootings in Montreal and elsewhere in Canada. However, I read Bill C‑21, and it deals with weapons that are legally purchased in Canada.

I may be mistaken, but from what I understand, criminal gangs are behind these shootings, and they get their illegal firearms from traffickers. I could be wrong, though, because the Minister of Public Safety seems to think that criminals buy their guns at Canadian Tire or some other gun shop before going out to shoot up schools or other places.

Does my colleague think I am mistaken or does she also think that criminal gangs, and not local businesses, are supplying these guns?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to put words on the record concerning Bill C-21.

We have a very serious gun violence problem in the country, one that Conservatives across the country are deeply concerned about. I have to say that when there were rumours that this announcement from the Liberals was coming forward and it was going to be a big splashy event at the Château Laurier here in downtown Ottawa, I was looking forward to hearing something that could really make a meaningful impact on this devastating issue that has ripped families apart and taken innocent lives. However, I was left feeling deeply, deeply disappointed. It was a missed opportunity to provide real hope for Canadians that gun violence would go down.

What is interesting is that since the Prime Minister formed government seven years ago, gun violence and violent crime in Canada has consistently gone up. It has never been so bad since I have been alive when it comes to the gun statistics in this country and those killing each other with guns in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Vancouver. It is a serious, serious issue. That is why I felt so let down by the government's announcement, because it will not make any meaningful impact on gun violence and we so desperately needed a meaningful announcement.

I am going to mention a couple of crime statistics, because they are very alarming. Homicide rates went up 7% from last year. That is a consistent increase, year over year over year, 7% more from last year, so now two out of 100,000 Canadians are victims of a homicide. Violent crime, again, is up 5% in the last six years. Firearm-related offences increased for the sixth year in a row. These are stats from last year, so we will see what they are this year, but from the police reports, it sounds like it is going to be one of the worst years on record. Homicides are at a 30-year high and at least a third of them are committed with firearms.

I represent a riding in Winnipeg. It is ranked the violent crime capital of Canada, frankly, year over year, so I know first-hand the devastation that gun crime and violent crime cause in communities, especially our vulnerable communities.

In fact, in Toronto, in 2014, before the Prime Minister came to office, there were 177 instances where firearms were shot illegally. Now that number is up to 462. Is has gone from 177 to 462 in Toronto. Clearly, the Liberal approach is a resounding failure when it comes to keeping our communities safe. It is a fact that our communities are less safe. Canadians are less safe since the Prime Minister took office. Again, the Liberals had the opportunity to address that at their announcement, but they failed to do so.

In Winnipeg we have serious concerns. Winnipeg's North End is a predominantly indigenous community that suffers significantly with addictions, homicides, violent crimes, domestic abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse. In fact, in Manitoba, child and family services remove the most children per capita than anywhere else in the world, and at least 90% to 97% of them are indigenous. Our prisons at all levels are filled with indigenous youth. It is a serious problem that we are facing in this country.

We have also the missing and murdered indigenous women. Indigenous women in Manitoba are most impacted by those horrendous statistics, and yet we have Bill C-5 from the government. On one hand, the minister said in his speech that he is increasing maximum penalties for firearm offences, some of them, to send a message to criminals, while on the other hand, his colleague is eliminating mandatory prison time for serious firearm offences.

We are talking about robbery with a firearm. If a person robs someone at gunpoint, there is no guarantee that person is going to prison now. The individual may actually get to serve house arrest in the community where the person caused the violent crime. Extortion with a firearm and firing a firearm with the intent to injure someone, that is, shooting at someone and planning to hit them with the bullet, no longer results in mandatory prison time under the Liberal government. There is using a firearm in committing a crime, and I could go on. In fact, someone who is a drug trafficker will no longer face mandatory prison time under Bill C-5.

On one hand, the Liberals say they are getting tough on criminals. On the other hand, they are letting them completely off the hook, allowing them to serve, perhaps, house arrest in the communities they have terrorized.

There is the removal of the mandatory prison time for drug trafficking, which is deeply related, as my NDP colleague referred to in his question, to gun violence in the country. Just last year, over 7,000 Canadians died from drug overdoses, mostly opioids, that is, fentanyl, carfentanil. It was more deadly for young people to die from a drug overdose than COVID. That is how serious the drug epidemic in this country is.

We all have different approaches on how to solve that, but I would say that removing mandatory prison time for the individuals who push drugs on vulnerable Canadians, who traffic drugs into this country, is the wrong approach.

They are responsible for murdering thousands of Canadians, especially in B.C. It is especially an issue with young people, so the government's approach to firearms and violent crime, despite the rise in statistics, does not make sense.

Then we have the government bringing forward this handgun freeze. The minister has consistently said that we are stopping this trend with the handgun freeze, but we know that the handguns used in Toronto gang crimes are not from legal gun owners. They are smuggled in from the United States, and I will get to that.

What I think is particularly interesting is all the individuals, particularly police, who have come out to say that handgun bans and buybacks will not work. They will not work to address the rising gun violence in this country.

In fact, I will start with an interesting quote here by an individual who said, “The long-gun registry, as it was, was a failure.... There are better ways of keeping us safe than that registry which...has been removed.” We are not talking about the registry today, but it was a gun control mechanism that was brought in formerly by a Liberal government, so I think it is relevant.

This individual said, “I grew up with long guns, rifles and shotguns.... The RCMP guarding me had handguns and I got to play with them every now and then”, although the RCMP was “very responsible” around him. He said, “I was raised with an appreciation and an understanding of how important in rural areas and right across the country gun ownership is as a part of the culture of Canada.” It was a very important person who said this. He continued, “I do not feel that there's any huge contradiction between keeping our cities safe from gun violence and gangs, and allowing this important facet of Canadian identity which is having a gun.”

That was the Prime Minister of Canada, back in 2012 or 2013. Wow, how times have changed.

In reference to a handgun ban, another important individual of the Liberal government said, “I believe that would be potentially a very expensive proposition but just as importantly, it would not in my opinion be perhaps the most effective measure in restricting the access that criminals would have to such weapons, because we’d still have a problem with them being smuggled across the border”. That was the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the former minister of public safety. Those were his words.

There is also the deputy chief of the Toronto Police Service, Myron Demkiw, who deals with this on the front line and puts his life on the line dealing with criminals shooting guns in downtown Toronto. He and his officers put their lives on the line to keep communities safe from gun violence. In reference to guns, he said, “They're not domestically sourced. They are internationally sourced. Our problem in Toronto is handguns from the United States.” I asked him about the handgun ban and the buyback proposed by the government, which is going forward, and he said, “Investing in what you described is certainly not going to deal with the crime problem we're facing in Toronto as it relates to criminal handguns and the use of criminal handguns. We believe an investment upstream is a very valuable focus of resources.” When I asked him if we should invest more in police or if we should ban guns, that was his response. Clearly, he does not believe it will be effective, and he is someone at the epicentre of gun violence in this country.

In fact, I have pages and pages of quotes from frontline officers, who deal with this more than anybody else, who have said that bans will not work because they do not tackle the problem.

We recently studied this issue, guns and gangs, at the national security and public safety committee, for which I am the vice-chair. We had a very robust debate. We had police experts. We had crime experts. We had community advocates. Not one recommendation in that report was to ban handguns, because none of the experts, none of the police experts and none of the community anti-gang experts said that that would be a solution. All of them said that that would not work, because we know from the Toronto police that over 85% of the handguns used in violent crimes in Toronto are smuggled in from the United States. This is a serious and growing problem that the government has failed to address.

I am an MP from Winnipeg. Recently, I took a tour of the Winnipeg police headquarters, where they showed me a half-a-million-dollar drug bust: all these deadly opioids, piles of cash and a very long table with all the firearms they had seized from the gangsters who were responsible. They are making these busts monthly. I took a look at all the guns. They said that, number one, every single gun on that table was already prohibited, not just restricted but prohibited. No one would have been able to legally get those guns in the country, no matter what kind of licence a person had. The second thing they said was that all of them were smuggled in from the United States. Then they showed me a map of the train tracks across North America, major rail lines that went all the way from Mexico, all the way through the central United States, all the way to Winnipeg.

They suspect that a significant number of the drugs and the guns from the United States that are killing Canadians are coming in on rail, so at committee I asked the border agents why they cannot stop it. They said they do not have the capacity, beyond checking one one-millionth, which is effectively none, of the railcars coming into Canada. We also have very little capacity to check marine ports of entry. We are struggling on retention issues at the border. We need many more border officers and much increased and improved technology to stop gun smuggling. All experts agree that this is where the problem is coming from.

The current government has spent more money than any government in history, actually all combined, if we look at deficits. If it really wanted to solve gun violence, it would be dumping billions of dollars into the border to shore up our security, because of course we share the longest undefended border in the world with a country that has more guns than people. Therefore, we have to get real about the Herculean effort it is going to take to stop this problem, which I think every single person in this House agrees we must do.

I am going to talk about police. I mentioned the police. We know that, particularly in rural Canada but in cities as well, the police are struggling to respond to calls. If there is a break and enter in Winnipeg, it may take them a month to come and investigate it because they are so overwhelmed with gun violence and violent crimes. That is how bad it is getting. Do not even get me started on the calls for service in rural Canada. It is unbearable for people in rural Canada.

The answer is that we need far more police and far more investments in guns and gangs units in this country. If we talk to police officers on the front lines, they will say that they are strapped and cannot keep up with demand. Drug and gun deaths are going up and they need more help. Therefore, it is about border security investments and police guns and gangs unit investments. That is what would make a real difference in reducing gun violence, significant investment.

As well, at committee we had a number of remarkable people from the grassroots community in Toronto. One of them, Marcell Wilson, was a hardened criminal who was rehabilitated. He turned his life around and started the One by One Movement. The One by One Movement saves at-risk youth in vulnerable communities from joining a life of gangs and following a life of crime. This man and his organization are saving young people from this life of crime. There is a similar organization in my community, called the Bear Clan Patrol. It really focuses on Winnipeg's north end, which is dealing with a lot of trauma. There are community organizations like this all across the country. They need significant investment and support from all levels of government. That is a long-term solution for the gun violence we are seeing.

I think there is a lot we can agree on with respect to this. The minister talked about red flag laws, increasing the penalties for those who try to smuggle guns into this country, and a few other minor things that I think all members of this House can agree on, so today, in very good faith, we talked to the other parties and we brought forward the following motion. I was not allowed to read it because I was cut off, but I will read it now into the record. This motion was to be brought forward so we can depoliticize this issue. Conservatives firmly believe, as do nearly all firearms owners in this country, that the current government does not have an interest in solving gun violence but wants to stigmatize and divide Canadians on this issue. Therefore, we wanted to take the politics out of it and say that there are parts of this bill we are really keen on, so we can work together, get them to committee, study them and get them passed. Let us quicken the process and save lives, hopefully, if they are effective, which we will find out at committee. Let us put the really difficult political issues through the debate in the House. This is not something that is foreign. We split bills. That is a possibility. It is a democratic tool that we have.

I wanted to say, before I was cut off by Liberal members, that given that the debate on combatting gun violence needs to be depoliticized and centred on the rights of victims and the safety of communities, the House should call on the government to divide Bill C-21 into two parts to allow for those measures where there is broad support across all parties to proceed separately, namely curbing domestic violence and tackling the flow of guns over the Canada-U.S. border, from those aspects of the bill that divide the House. That is fairly collaborative, I would say.

I have to say that Liberal, Conservative, Bloc and NDP members on the public safety committee have worked very well together. We really tried to put our politics aside and we came up with a really great guns and gangs study that we all signed on to. Can members imagine all parties signing on to a guns and gangs study? It is unheard of.

That is how we can work together and how I have shown that I can work together with others on this issue to create real solutions. When I attempted to do that in the House today, the Liberals shot it down, so I will take no lessons from them about playing politics with this. We made a good-faith effort today and they shot it down.

I also want to talk about some of the people who are impacted by this ban. The minister said something very odd recently on the news. He said that this bill does not impact law-abiding citizens and it does not impact law-abiding gun owners. I am not sure if he has read his own bill, because this bill, the handgun freeze, impacts only legal owners. It impacts only people who follow the law.

I will remind the House that those who possess RPAL, the restricted licence, need to be trained, vetted and background-checked. They are some of the most background-checked individuals in the country, and with good reason. Conservatives support very strict gun laws in this country. Only the most responsible, law-abiding citizens should ever come near a gun.

We have a situation where those individuals are the only ones being targeted by this. It is not the criminals in Toronto. They do not care. They are laughing about this handgun freeze. They already own them illegally. They are carrying them around and shooting up their communities illegally now. Do members think they care about a handgun freeze? They are laughing; it is ridiculous.

I would like to talk about some of the individuals who are impacted by this, because I think it is pretty important. Some of them are in the sport shooting community. There is a large sport shooting community. For folks who are watching at home, if they do not own a firearm or have never been around one, I understand this is very foreign to them. I understand. I am not a sport shooter myself, so it is not something that necessarily impacts me.

However, it certainly impacts our Olympic sport shooting community, which has thousands and thousands of sport shooters below it: associations, provincial competitions, national competitions, international competitions. This bill would end that sport in Canada, a sport in which we have competed at the Olympic level for well over a hundred years. The Liberals say they have consulted, but I am hearing from the very large, law-abiding sport shooting community that it has not had a call from the minister. The Liberals are not giving any dignity to these individuals, while ripping apart a major part of their cultural heritage in this country without even a conversation.

The Liberals are trying to push this through at committee with no debate, with a sneaky UC motion at committee. They do not even want to debate it. They want to do it today and completely eliminate any dignity from a large part of this country that values sport shooting and is proud of it. These people pass down their firearms to their daughters and sons. That is all eliminated. I just do not understand how the Liberals can bring forward something like this with no consultation with the community it impacts the most, because it is not impacting the illegal community. It is not impacting the individuals who are killing people in our cities.

If one looks at the crime stats and the trends since the Prime Minister took office, one would think the Liberals would bring forward a bill that would go after the problem, but no, they have chosen politics. They have chosen to go after the individuals who are least likely to commit crimes. Lawful gun owners are actually three times less likely to commit crimes, because they are so vetted and so background-checked, as it should be.

It is infuriating. I cannot tell members how many calls I have received from across the country, from women, educated people, professionals, doctors, pilots and academics who engage in sport shooting. They are asking why they are being attacked again by the government and why the government is not going after the problem. It is spending billions of dollars. The sky is the limit. Why is it not spending it in the cities so we can save people?

It is unbelievable. I can go on and on about this. I am very passionate about it, as I am sure we all are from our own perspectives, but I am willing to work and collaborate on the elements of this bill that we do agree on. That was shot down today, but maybe the Liberals will agree another day.

I would like to move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.”

The purpose of my motion is to say we have to go back to the drawing board. This is not going to work. It is not going to solve gun violence. Conservatives will work together on the committee to solve gun violence in this country. We will collaborate and bring forward real solutions to tackle the problem, which is criminals and gangs smuggling guns in from the United States and hurting our communities.

Rest assured.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question does allow me to highlight the fact that even though some guns, many guns in fact, are legally purchased and possessed by law-abiding owners for whom we have the utmost respect, those guns can be stolen. Handguns have been stolen and assault-style rifles have been stolen and subsequently used in the commission of offences.

I would also point out that one of the challenges around the issue of introducing evidence is traceability. That is why what Bill C-21 would do, in conjunction with additional investments in budget 2022, is give more tools and resources to law enforcement and to the CBSA so that we can better trace the source of guns. That is something I would hope my hon. colleague would support. It is a common-sense measure and it is a way in which we can ensure justice.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my hon. colleague for really highlighting one of the complexities that confronts us in our effort to make our communities safer, whether they are dealing with gun violence or they are dealing with the violence that is driven by organized crime in the illegal drug trade. I believe my hon. colleague would agree it is important that we disentangle those who find themselves in front of the criminal law by virtue of substance abuse and mental health issues through substance use from those other individuals who, with no care or regard whatsoever for public safety or for our communities, go out and, again, for pure commercial purposes and for greed, visit incredible public harm on them. That is why we are taking an approach, first and foremost, of working with his home province of British Columbia to address the substance abuse challenge with the pilot project with the B.C. government.

However, when it comes to interdicting drug trafficking crime by organized crime that is commingled with gun crime, Bill C-21 would raise maximum sentences and also provide police with additional powers.

I will just say one thing very quickly in closing. My colleague is absolutely right. Bill C-21 by itself is not a foolproof guarantee. We have to take a look at this in the broader context of a comprehensive strategy, as I explained in my remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the minister is approaching this issue from a very personal position, and I appreciate that, but I think we have to be very clear. I think the minister would agree with me that Bill C-21 by itself is not going to solve the very complex problem of gun crime. It is going to require a whole host of measures working together.

At the public safety committee, our first study in this Parliament was on gun and gang violence, and witness after witness was correlating the rise in gun crime with the drug trade. The government, just a few short weeks ago, did vote against Bill C-216, which would have decriminalized personal possession, set up a national strategy and set up expungement. I do not want to get into a debate about that, but I think the onus is now on the Government of Canada to explain what its next steps will be to address the incredibly high profit margins that exist in the drug trade that are driving the violence in big cities like Toronto and Vancouver.

It is the highly addictive nature of fentanyl and carfentanil and the massive profit margins that are leading to gangs competing with one another for that turf. That is driving a lot of the gun violence. In the absence of supporting Bill C-216, can the minister tell us what the next steps are to address that very specific problem?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. I am very pleased that we are finally starting this debate on Bill C‑21. I have a question about how to proceed and I would like to hear the minister's answer.

At the press conference announcing Bill C‑21, it seemed pretty clear that a freeze on handguns was part of it. We later realized that this could be done by regulation.

It seems to me that the government did not anticipate the fact that these regulations, which would not come into force immediately, would lead to a spike or an explosion in handgun sales in the country. Now that the government has realized this, it is trying to put out the fire and get the regulations through more quickly, for example by moving a motion in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security today and perhaps adopting a motion in the House later to speed up the process, which I think is good. The intent of the bill was to reduce the number of firearms in circulation, but now that number is increasing because people are allowed to go out and buy more.

I am wondering what other ways could have been used. I also wonder why the Liberals decided to proceed with a freeze and regulation instead of a ban, as they did with the May 1, 2020, regulations on assault-style firearms.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague will know I carry no truck for criminals and I carry no truck for individuals who would use guns to do harm to the community or to individuals whatsoever. However, the fact of the matter is that, before she became a member of Parliament, the last time the Conservative Party had the reins of government, there was a failed and prosecuted agenda around sentence reforms that simply did not work. The Supreme Court of Canada repeatedly struck down those failed policies that were introduced under the Conservative government, which is why my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice, has put forward Bill C-5.

Members can reconcile that with what we are doing in Bill C-21, which will ensure that the judiciary, in whom we have respect, trust and confidence, can dispense justice. By raising maximum sentences from 10 to 14 years, we would be sending the very clear and unambiguous signal that if someone is going to illegally traffic across a border or in our communities illegal firearms, they will face stiffer sentences.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, Bill C-21 would also grant new investigatory powers by expanding the list of eligible firearms offences so that police can obtain wiretaps. Having worked in the criminal justice system and having worked as a federal prosecutor, I can attest to the fact that wiretap surveillance does allow law enforcement to interdict and to prevent crime before it occurs. By adding these powers, we are sending not only a clear message that if people are going to traffic guns illegally, they are going to face stiffer sentences and we are going to equip police with additional powers to stop them.

That is the second thing I wanted to highlight. The third thing I want to highlight is that we need to stop, once and for all, a simultaneous trend. We are seeing gender-based violence in our workplaces, communities, homes or wherever online. There is a trend between gender-based violence and guns. Between 2013 and 2019, the incidents involving gender-based violence and guns went up more than 30%, and that trend has continued.

What Bill C-21 would do, among other things, is introduce red flag laws. Red flag laws allow anybody to go to court to ask a judge to seize the gun or suspend the licence of a person who owns a gun if they pose a threat to anyone else or themselves.

This is a practical and effective tool that can reverse a negative trend by providing another protective mechanism. On the advice of organizations representing women and survivors, we added an amendment to the red flag laws to protect the identity of the person asking the court to apply this mechanism. This is one example of the work we are doing with communities affected by gun violence.

In Bill C-21, we also introduce yellow flag laws that would limit the discretion of authorities by requiring the automatic revocation of the gun licence of anybody who was subject to a restraining order or would be subject to a restraining order in the future. There, too, we listened very carefully to the groups that we engaged with in the formulation of Bill C-21.

There are a lot of other things that this bill does. There are some very specific provisions that would deal with the use of replica guns. These pose a significant threat, particularly for law enforcement who, when they are responding to gun calls, find it exceedingly difficult to distinguish between a real gun and a replica gun.

There are provisions that deal with the glorification of gun violence. I am sure that all members are concerned about the very targeted and concerted effort to make guns seem unserious, and to make guns seem like they could be abused recklessly by children and young people. No one should glorify violence. There are provisions within Bill C-21 that deal with that, as well.

As we looked at the various provisions we could introduce into Bill C-21, we consulted extensively. As I have said, we spoke with survivors' groups, women's groups and advocates: those who stand up for the rights of victims. We took their advice into very careful consideration. It is my sincere belief that as a result of those conversations, they would now see that advice reflected in the text of this bill.

We listened very carefully to law enforcement, particularly on the provisions that relate to illegal gun smuggling and deterring gun crime, and to providing additional authorities to them so that they could do their jobs by providing them with the tools they need. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has indicated that Bill C-21 would be a step in the right direction towards protecting our communities.

It is for that reason that I believe Bill C-21 enjoys the broad support of so many Canadians. It is not only those constituencies, but also big city mayors and rural mayors, with whom I met last week in Saskatchewan, who have come out in favour and said they supported Bill C-21.

It is my hope that we will study this bill with the urgency and the seriousness that it requires. It also has to be said that Bill C-21 has to be seen in the broader context of everything else that the government is doing, including introducing a national ban on AR-15s, which are assault-style rifles that have no place in our communities; taking the next steps that are necessary to introduce a mandatory buyback program, to get those guns out of our communities for good; following through with Bill C-71 to ensure that there are appropriate background checks, so that guns do not fall into the hands of the wrong people; and rolling out more quickly the $250-million building safer communities fund, so that we can address the root causes and social determinants of gun crime.

We need to do this as quickly as possible because of those survivors I referred to at the beginning of my remarks tonight. They are still climbing that mountain. They are still fighting their way to the top. It is a long journey, but the government is going to be there with them every step of the way. Bill C-21 is a very significant step in that direction. I hope that all members, after careful consideration, will support this bill. It is the right thing to do. It is how we will eradicate gun violence and protect all Canadians.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to commence debate on Bill C-21, which is a bill that represents a culmination of the advocacy, effort and leadership of so many people, most especially the Canadians who have been profoundly impacted by gun violence.

I cannot bring enough humility to this chamber and to this speech to convey my gratitude to them and indeed to everyone who has contributed to a law that we believe, on the government side, represents a significant stride and an important step. It is probably the most important step we have taken with regard to gun law policy reform in a generation.

I want to bring the chamber's attention to a number of individuals whom I had the privilege of getting to know in the journey leading to this debate.

These are good people like Ken Price and Claire Smith, whose daughter Samantha was injured in the Danforth shooting tragedy in my hometown, and people like Nick Beaton, who lost his pregnant wife in the Portapique and Truro shooting in Nova Scotia.

I met people from Quebec, such as Imam Boufeldja Benabdallah of the Quebec mosque and Nathalie Provost, an incredibly inspiring survivor of the Polytechnique shooting in Montreal.

Most recently, I met Eileen Mohan, who lost her son about 15 years ago. He was only a young boy. It is an innocent life gone, snuffed out in the crossfire in British Columbia. He is one of the Surrey Six.

When I met Eileen about a week ago, she said to me, and I will never forget the look in her eye, that she was proud. She had waited 15 years for the government to put forward legislation that would do the things we are proposing to do so that no other mom, no other parent and no other person would have to lose a loved one like she did.

There is really no way to articulate that sense of loss, that anguish, in the conversations I have. It is indescribable, and perhaps the single most important motivation for me, and I genuinely hope for all members in the chamber, is ensuring that we do better by them by passing this law.

This has been exceedingly difficult, I have to say. I see the patience that these survivors have exhibited. It is as though, since the moment they lost the person who mattered to them or the moment they were directly impacted by gun violence, they have been climbing a mountain that is as high as one can imagine, and the elements are throwing everything at them: snow, rain, wind, boulders and avalanches. These are obstacles, and despite all of it, they have persevered and fought hard.

I just want to impress upon everyone here and all Canadians that this is why we are here. We are here for them. We can never forget that.

The imperative has only increased over the past number of years for us to take additional steps to revisit not only our gun laws, but also our entire strategy when it comes to fighting gun violence. A Statistics Canada report issued a little less than two weeks ago really shone a light on the extent of the problem. Gun violence is up 81% since 2009. Gun homicides are up. Handgun violence, specifically, is up, and this is the number one type of gun used in homicides. Alarmingly, domestic violence, intimate-partner violence and gender-based violence are all up in connection with the presence of guns and gun violence. This just goes to show that wherever one comes from in this debate, no matter what one's perspective is, there must be one thing that unites all of us, and that is the need to do more.

Bill C-21 represents the culmination of the advice we have received from so many constituencies, including from survivors and many others, which I will come to momentarily, to take that additional step to do better. We have had the occasion to start to explain the provisions in Bill C-21, and I will take the next few moments to give additional details on how those provisions would attack, very specifically, the issues that are so pernicious and so prevalent across communities in our country.

First and foremost, Bill C-21 would introduce a national freeze on handguns for the first time. In very clear language, this means that on a go-forward basis no one would be able to buy, sell, transfer or import a handgun. There would be limited exceptions for law enforcement and for those who work within the security industry, and there would be limited exceptions for those who compete in international competitions on behalf of Canada and the like. Beyond that, we would cap the market and stop the trend of a universe of classification of guns and handguns that has grown, on average, by about 45,000 to 55,000 new registrations every year. Members can imagine how quickly and how significantly the domain of handguns is growing within Canada.

It is no coincidence, in my opinion, that as the universe of those handguns has grown, so has the prevalence of handguns in the commission of serious violent offences, leading all the way to murder: to homicide. As a result of that, we are stopping that trend. That is one of the main centrepieces of the bill.

The last thing I will say about the priority and urgency that underlines this particular moment in time is that, since the government has stated its intention to pass Bill C-21 into law, we have seen a spike in the number of handgun sales across the country. This is something that the government was prepared for and was alive to, which is why, in addition to tabling Bill C-21, we also simultaneously put on the floor of the House of Commons regulations that would be modified under the Firearms Act so that we could more quickly bring in the effect of the national handgun freeze to stop the growth of that particular universe of guns. Again, these are increasingly being used in the commission of criminal offences leading up to homicide.

Earlier today, a number of MPs who caucus with the government at the Standing Committee on Public Security and National Security brought a motion with the hopes of achieving unanimity that we could more quickly bring in changes to the regulations under the Firearms Act, so that we could more quickly bring in the national handgun freeze and the effect of it. We did not get consensus at committee, unfortunately, and this is part of a sustained pattern that we have seen from the Conservative Party of Canada of an effort to obstruct debate.

In fact, this debate was supposed to start last Friday. I was right here in my chair after question period hoping to kick-start second reading, but instead we saw a flood of concurrence motions in a very deliberate effort to postpone the debate of Bill C-21. I am grateful that we are now finally commencing this debate, but let there be no more of it. Let us get on with it. We need to read and debate the bill.

The introduction of a national handgun freeze is the first thing. The second thing is that Bill C-21 will take on, in a very intentional and direct way, organized crime. It does this by first and foremost raising maximum sentences for illegal gun smugglers and traffickers at the border, from 10 years to 15 years. What is the effect of that statement of intent? It is to send a very powerful and clear message to anyone who is in the business of illegal gun smuggling that they are at greater risk of facing stiffer sentences. It is entirely appropriate, given the alarming trends that I have already alluded to and given the concerning report of Statistics Canada that shows that gun violence in various categories is on the rise and has been on the rise for some time.

In addition to that, and in consultation with law enforcement and provincial and territorial partners, we are also granting new investigatory powers to police by adding to the eligible offences under the Criminal Code under the specific category of firearms offences—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate this evening, and I think I will be bringing it home before we move on to the other piece of government legislation we are going to discuss.

Bill C-5 is problematic for a number of reasons, and I am going to articulate why I will not be able to support this bill. We have heard a lot of rationales presented by members on the government benches as to why this bill is compassionate, why they believe it is important that this needs to be done and why it is urgent that it be done now.

I would note that this bill was progressing through the House in its previous form in the last Parliament, and during that Parliament the Prime Minister and members of this place undertook not to call an election during the pandemic. However, politics being politics, the Prime Minister saw that the polls seemed favourable for his party's electoral fortunes, called an election and killed the bill.

Now we are back, and I guess it is urgent once more. The Liberals believe that, but it was not in the intervening period.

Let us talk about what the bill really would do. I want to address some of the arguments made in favour of it by the bill's proponents. One of those arguments is that eliminating mandatory prison time for some of these offences would help racialized Canadians and minorities who are disproportionately affected and over-represented in the justice system, so the Liberals are going to eliminate the MMPs for those individuals.

That is what they say Bill C-5 would do. In about 12 minutes we are going to debating Bill C-21, so let us talk about what Bill C-5 would do and what Bill C-21 would do.

Bill C-5 would remove the mandatory prison time for possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, so there would be no minimum. Bill C-21 would increase the maximum. Bill C-5 would remove the minimum penalty for weapons trafficking, while Bill C-21 would increase the maximum amount of time. For possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, Bill C-5 would eliminate the minimum penalty, and Bill C-21, as members guessed it, would increase the maximum penalty. The same is true for importing or exporting a weapon, knowing it is unauthorized. The bills would remove the MMP and increase the maximum.

If the contention by the government is that it would be removing the minimum penalty because the folks who are being convicted of these offences are racialized Canadians and they are disproportionately represented in the justice system, why is it that the government wants to increase the maximum penalty?

There seems to be a bit of mental gymnastics happening for the Liberals to put forward these two pieces of legislation, which we are going to be debating in the House literally minutes apart.

We have talked about the opioid crisis in recent days in this place, and we talked about it today. It is a scourge in our country. People are dying every day, and the perpetrators, the dealers of this poison, who are preying on people in all of our communities, should know that what they are doing will carry the harshest penalties in our justice system. They are not the victims.

Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, and production of a schedule 1 or 2 substance. Schedule 1 and 2 include heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth.

I have heard conflation regarding this bill and the government's work with the Province of British Columbia to decriminalize what they call “simple possession” of those same substances. When we talk about fentanyl and carfentanil, two and a half grams is considered personal possession. That is enough to kill 1,000 people. That is 1,000 lethal doses.

Yesterday at the health committee, we heard Canada's chief public health officer say that if there is an overdose at a party or someone is carrying two and a half grams of carfentanil or fentanyl, the first step would be to administer naloxone, or Narcan. I do not know what the situation is like in British Columbia with respect to its emergency service preparedness for overdoses, but I do not know of a lot of fire or police departments or public health agencies that have 1,000 Narcan kits on hand. That is incredibly troubling.

This bill also talks about the expansion of conditional sentencing. This is where someone who is found guilty of an offence is able to serve their sentence in the community. The first thing I would draw to the attention of members in this place is bizarre, to put it gently. Someone would be eligible for conditional sentences, which means not serving their sentence in jail, if they are found guilty of prison breach. Therefore, when they break out of jail, the judge will say that it would be more appropriate for them to serve their sentence in the community. It is absurd.

To move from the absurd to the serious, I note offences such as sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons for a material benefit and abduction of a person under the age of 14. Someone found guilty of these offences would be eligible to serve their sentence in the community where they perpetrated the offence on their victims. They could be in the house right next door. That is not justice. We need to concern ourselves very much with the effects this legislation would have on the victims. This country needs to take an approach where the lens we put on everything we do has victims in mind. These perpetrators are not the victims.

Consider offences such as assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon. Of course, we can go back to trafficking in or exporting and importing schedule III drugs. After putting poison in our communities, someone can serve their sentence in the community they were poisoning.

We have also heard about diversion for people who have simple possession for personal use of drugs and are struggling with addiction issues. We should have legislation in the House with a comprehension approach for treatment in every single one of the provinces. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice should be working with the provinces every single day to come up with a framework for a national strategy on treatment. Right now, there are no Crown prosecutors bringing people before the courts for simple possession. There has already been a directive given by the prosecution service for that not to happen.

This bill is deeply flawed, and there are a number of ways we could work together in the House to make sure we are standing up for victims and make sure we are addressing those who are struggling with addiction. That is what I would like to turn my attention to and I will not be supporting this legislation.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As my colleague already said, the issue is with when this bill was introduced. There is an increase in gun crimes. Yesterday we learned that 173 women and girls were killed in Canada in 2021 alone. That is a lot.

People are conflating Bill C‑21, which has to do with firearms, with this one. They are conflating serious gun crimes with simple drug possession. They are conflating everything and making questionable associations. There is an important distinction between these two bills and between gun crimes and the simple possession of drugs. This needs to be simplified. The timing of this bill is strange, however.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I work together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, notably on the gun control file.

Every time I hear my Conservative colleagues ask questions about Bill C-5 in question period, I hear the Minister of Public Safety respond with something about Bill C-21. I find that somewhat unfortunate because they are not the same thing.

Although I quite like my colleague, we both know that our opinions differ on this subject. For example, the Bloc members are big believers in rehabilitation and social reintegration. I think that Bill C-5 will help with that.

However, I think my colleague will agree with me that this is not the time to be introducing this bill, given the rise in gun crime across the country. We are trying to find ways to combat that situation.

What message does my colleague think is being sent to the public by introducing this bill at this time?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention this evening was an important intervention. Obviously, the concern on our side is that, on the one hand, we see with Bill C-21 an appearance, real or otherwise, that the Liberals are increasing firearms laws, but on the other hand, with Bill C-5, there is actually an option for those offences to be minimized and not have mandatory sentences. An example the member mentioned was the illegal use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, and there is a whole series of things.

I am wondering if he could comment on this: on the one hand, giving the appearance, as the Liberal government is doing, of strengthening gun laws, which will have no effect, and, on the other hand, diminishing that and allowing criminals to be even more emboldened, more brazen in their activities.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to rise today to speak on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Throughout the years, Canadians have witnessed the disproportionate representation of indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in prisons across the country, including in my home province of Nova Scotia. Following the last federal election, our government promised to reintroduce the former bill, Bill C-22, during the first 100 days of our mandate, and that is exactly what the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada did in December 2021. Bill C-5, as it is now known, supports our government's efforts to eliminate the systemic racism in Canada's criminal justice system that has been reported on for years by commissions of inquiry.

The main objective of Bill C-5 is to ensure public safety while at the same time ensuring that the responses to criminal conduct are fairer and more effective. Importantly, the bill would help reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and marginalized communities in prisons from coast to coast to coast, which we heard the member for Vancouver Kingsway describe.

Bill C-5 would also ensure that courts across the country can continue to impose severe sentences for serious and violent crimes. Canadians all around the country desire a fair and competent criminal justice system. They want their provinces and their cities and their neighbourhoods to be and to feel safe at all times. They want to have faith in their justice system. They want to believe that offenders will be held responsible for their crimes in a transparent, fair and consistent way that upholds our country's ideals. As members of Parliament, we must listen to these concerns and then work hard to act on them, and act on them we have.

Bill C-5 includes three categories of reforms. The first would repeal mandatory minimum penalties for all drug offences, some firearm offences and one tobacco-related offence. Second, it would allow for a greater use of conditional sentence orders, or CSOs, and I will come back to those shortly. The third reform would require police and prosecutors to consider other measures for simple possession of drugs, such as diversion to addiction treatment programs.

Bill C-5 would repeal mandatory minimum penalties for certain offences that are associated with the overrepresentation of the groups I have mentioned.

The numbers do not lie. In 1999-2000, indigenous people represented 2% of the Canadian adult population but accounted for approximately 17% of admissions to federal custody. Since then, those numbers have moved in the wrong direction, and significantly so: Recent data suggests that indigenous Canadians now account for 5% of the Canadian adult population but 30% of federally incarcerated individuals. It is just not right.

Black Canadians represent 3% of the Canadian adult population but 7% of federally incarcerated individuals. They too are overrepresented in terms of federally incarcerated individuals.

Data from the Correctional Service of Canada for 2007 to 2017 revealed that 39% of Black people and 20% of indigenous people incarcerated in a federal institution during those years were there for offences carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. Again, 39% of Black people and 20% of indigenous people were there because of mandatory minimums.

Further, during the same years, the proportion of indigenous offenders admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by mandatory minimum penalties almost doubled, rising from 14% to 26%. Bill C-5 would reverse that trend and, in so doing, seek to make the criminal justice system fairer and more equitable for all.

When the Minister of Justice visited my riding of Halifax, he met with members of the African Nova Scotian community, including members of the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute, who, among many things, are committed to fighting racism in the criminal justice system. This group has been advocating impact of race and cultural assessments, something that originated in Nova Scotia, and I want to thank people like Robert Wright for their hard work and Brandon Rolle, who appeared at the justice committee on this legislation, for helping move this idea forward.

Our government is funding impact of race and cultural assessments across Canada by investing $6.64 million over five years, followed by $1.6 million of annual ongoing funding.

Alongside the changes contained in the bill, these are the kinds of important investments needed to make our justice system fairer for all.

If mandatory minimum sentences are repealed, as provided for in Bill C-5, individuals may still be sentenced to harsh penalties. However, the courts will be able to consider the unique circumstances of each offence and determine the most appropriate sentence, rather than having their hands tied by mandatory minimum sentences, which, as we just heard, are filling up the jails with people who do not need to be there. This will help ensure that a person found guilty of an offence receives a sentence that is proportionate to their degree of responsibility and to the seriousness of the offence, while taking into account individualized factors.

Canada is not alone in recognizing that the increased and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimum penalties has proven to be a costly, ineffective and unfair approach to reducing crime, as others have also moved to reform. For instance, while the United States has historically made great use of MMPs, or mandatory minimum penalties, in the last decade many states, including Republican states, have moved toward reducing or eliminating mandatory sentences, with a particular focus on non-violent and drug-related charges.

The lead that the opposition followed in the Harper years from the Republicans in the United States has been proven not to work, and those Republicans are now changing their approach. Also, evidence shows that approaches other than imprisonment, such as community-based sanctions, reduce reoffending because they enable more effective reintegration into the community and reduce the stigma associated with criminal justice system involvement.

I do want to emphasize that those who commit serious crimes should face serious consequences. This is why, alongside Bill C-5, our government has brought forward Bill C-21, which will increase maximum penalties for firearms crimes. This would create the flexibility needed for our judges to impose appropriate sentences based on individual situations, and it is baffling to me that the Conservatives do not support it.

Bill C-5 would also increase the availability of conditional sentence orders, known as CSOs, without compromising public safety, so that sentencing courts could impose community-based sentences of less than two years when the offender does not pose a risk to public safety. A CSO is a sentence of incarceration of less than two years that is served in the community under strict conditions, such as curfew, house arrest, treatment and/or restrictions on possessing, owning or carrying a weapon.

The evidence is clear: Allowing offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety to serve their sentences under strict conditions in their community can be more effective at reducing future criminality. Offenders can keep a job, maintain ties with their families and maintain ties with their community. These are the measures that bring back flexibility of sentencing by allowing judges to help people, not just jail them.

For example, a judge can impose a CSO for an offender to serve their sentence at home and receive appropriate mental health and rehabilitation supports that we have heard again and again are so important to rehabilitation. This will increase access to alternatives to incarceration for low-risk offenders while also furthering the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence.

We have heard some claims from the other side that dangerous offenders will be able to get CSOs. That is simply not the case. CSOs will not be available for some offences prosecuted by way of indictment, including advocating genocide, torture, attempted murder, terrorism and criminal organization offences, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more. CSOs will only be available for sentences of under two years for offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety.

This is an important step in reorienting our criminal justice system so that it is both fairer and more effective, while ensuring public safety at the same time. All in all, Bill C-5 represents an important step in our government's efforts to eliminate systemic racism in Canadian society. This bill would also ensure that all Canadians have a safer and more equitable future.

The measures outlined in this bill go hand in hand with a slew of additional investments announced in the 2020 fall economic statement and the 2021 budget, which provide funding to promote co-operation on an indigenous justice strategy and engagement with indigenous communities and groups on creating legislation and activities that address systemic barriers in the criminal justice system.

Further, the government provides funding to community groups and programs that aid at-risk adolescents, give alternatives to criminal charges when possible, and help fight injustices in the judicial system that affect Black Canadians, indigenous peoples and other racialized communities.

I urge all of my colleagues in this chamber to support Bill C-5 to ensure a more equitable and fairer future for all Canadians. Regardless of their race, ethnicity or socio-economic backgrounds, Canadians from coast to coast deserve to feel safe and accepted in our society.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone of democracy is voting and showing up to this place and participating, and that is of course what we do. Whether it is Bill C-11 or Bill C-21, there will be an opportunity, obviously, to continue debating legislation.

On Bill C-11 specifically, there were nine days at committee and many days at second reading. We have opportunities at third reading, and it will be going to the Senate. It is taking essential action to protect Canadian creators and Canadian heritage. We are proud to support this bill, and part of the thrust and parry of this place is that sometimes we disagree. That is not a representation of a decline in democracy; it is proof of it working.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage of Bill C-5 in respect of mandatory minimums. We will then call second reading of Bill C-21, the firearms legislation.

Tomorrow, we will debate government Motion No. 16 regarding proceedings for Bill C-11, as I was mentioning, on the Broadcasting Act.

When we return next week, we will focus on this government motion debate and continue our work on Bill C-5 and Bill C-11, as well as on Bill C-14 concerning electoral representation.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see you in the chair. I hope you are getting your strength back. You sound like it. You are doing a good job of keeping everybody in good spirits.

Before my question, there are a couple of issues that I want to bring to the attention of the government House leader.

Number one is that we are requesting a take-note debate on the issue of food security, which is having a significant effect around the world, as members know, as a result of many geopolitical issues.

The second thing is a request to split Bill C-21 so that we can work on victims and the protection of victims in domestic violence.

The third thing is that there have been significant concerns among stakeholders and advocates right across the country regarding Bill C-11. We are seeing some draconian measures being proposed by the government to deal with this piece of legislation. I am concerned about that.

Before I ask for the schedule, I am wondering what the government House leader's plan is to effectively silence the voices of millions of people who voted for opposition MPs in this place and, furthermore, what his plans are to contribute to a further decline in democracy in this place over the course of the next week.

Public Safety

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday there were another three shootings in less than six hours in Montreal, and the Government of Quebec has said that it has not yet received the money it was promised to combat gun violence.

Quebec is putting in the work. For example, it has announced a special patrol to combat gun trafficking in Akwesasne. Ottawa, however, has not even sent Quebec the money it was promised. How shameful.

When will the government finally transfer the money it promised Quebec? Montreal has a gun problem right now, not “one day”, “maybe”, “if we have the time”, “if it is not too hot” or “if it is not raining”. The problem is now. I also want to inform the minister that this has nothing to do with Bill C‑21.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, we need a justice system that makes sure serious crimes come with serious penalties, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are increasing the maximum penalties for certain gun offences from 10 to 14 years. That means we are allowing judges to impose longer sentences on serious criminals who endanger our communities.

Based on what we are hearing from Conservatives, they will vote against Bill C-21 and against longer sentences for those criminals. We are taking a responsible approach to keeping our communities safe. The same cannot be said of the Conservative Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is talking about Bill C-21, but I am asking him about Bill C-5.

Gang crime in the streets of Montreal is currently on the rise. Gang members are walking around with their guns and showing them off to everyone. They are not afraid, because the message the Liberal government is sending is that there is no problem and that people can commit gun crimes and will not receive a minimum sentence.

Why is the government going forward with Bill C-5 when it will increase crime on the streets of Montreal?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the level of violence caused by firearms is entirely unacceptable.

That is precisely why we introduced Bill C‑21. The Conservatives need to stop with their delay tactics and obstruction. We need to start the debate to better protect Quebeckers and all Canadians.

There are many good things, common sense measures, in this bill. We need to pass this bill to better protect all Canadians.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, divisive policies do not protect people. Fear does not protect people. Virtue-signalling does not protect people. The Liberals are using U.S.-style wedge politics for their own political gain. It will not keep Canadians safe, and it will not stop violence.

Conservatives will be putting forward a sincere offer to split Bill C-21 so that victims of domestic violence can be protected as soon as possible. We can work together to get this done, but it is up to the Liberals. They have two options: They can either accept the offer to protect victims immediately, or they can reject it and continue with their divisive rhetoric, which would leave victims vulnerable.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe that meaningful and effective steps must be taken to end gun violence and gun crime in Canada. Canadians need to be safe, and victims of domestic violence need to be protected. While there are aspects of Bill C-21 that we can agree on, specifically on domestic violence issues, the rest of the bill falls short and would do nothing to end gun violence.

Will the Liberals agree to split Bill C-21 into two bills? One would be to protect the victims of domestic violence, while the other aspects of the bill would be reworked to offer real and effective solutions to gun crime and gun trafficking.

Firearms Legislation

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest risk factors in a violent intimate relationship is gun ownership. Just by virtue of having a gun in the home, the lethality of intimate partner violence increases by 500%.

A femicide occurs every two and a half days in our country. It routinely follows documented incidents of intimate partner violence, and it disproportionately affects indigenous women and women living in rural areas.

Intimate partner violence and gun violence intersect, and they intersect in deadly ways. That is why Bill C-21's new red flag law is crucial: It would ensure that anyone who is proved to be at risk of harming themselves or those around them would not be able to possess a firearm licence.

There are still too many women in this country who live in fear. These new provisions would save lives, and I hope everyone in the House will support the bill's speedy passage.

Report Stage

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-5 at report stage. I am profoundly disappointed as a parliamentarian and deeply ashamed as a former Crown attorney that this seriously flawed, reckless and dangerous bill has made it this far in the process.

I left behind a proud and rewarding legal career as a public servant for the Province of Ontario, a career defined by holding criminals accountable for their actions, which ranged from mischief all the way through to and including first degree murder. It was a career further defined by advocating for victims' rights, which is a concept that is completely alien to this virtue-signalling government. Neither this bill nor Bill C-21 makes any reference to the rights and protection of victims.

I was frustrated as a Crown attorney that the judicial system was out of balance. The proverbial pendulum over my career was significantly shifting in favour of the accused at the expense of protecting victims of crime. There must be a balance.

The government will repeatedly make statements in the House that it cares deeply for victims and that their rights matter, but it is simply talk with no action. An example of this lip service is the fact the government has not replaced the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, a position left vacant since last October 1. It is shameful.

It is time to dispel the myths and misinformation coming from the government whenever its members speak about this bill.

Number one, this is not legislation targeted at low-risk offenders. Use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a firearm with ammunition, weapons trafficking, importing and exporting of firearms, discharging a firearm with intent, reckless discharge of a firearm and robbery with a firearm are indeed extremely serious violent offences for which judges across this country routinely impose significant jail sentences and often prison on the offenders.

These are not the types of people described by our Attorney General when the bill was introduced. We all remember that story: We are to imagine a young man who has too many pops on a Saturday night and decides to pick up a loaded gun and shoot into a barn. According to our Attorney General, we should feel sorry for this individual, as it would be a cruel and unusual punishment to impose a mandatory minimum penalty.

Number two, this is not legislation that would reverse former PM Harper's Safe Streets and Communities Act. Several of the charges outlined in Bill C-5 include mandatory minimum penalties that were introduced by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1977 and Jean Chrétien in 1995, two Liberal majority governments.

Third, according to the government and supported by its NDP partners and Green Party members, mandatory minimums are ineffective in reducing crime or keeping our communities safe. The simple fact is that if they actually believed this, instead of virtue signalling to Canadians, they would table legislation to remove all mandatory minimums. There are 53 offences that would remain in the Criminal Code if this bill passes. This includes impaired operation of a vehicle. Apparently it is important to hold drunk drivers accountable while allowing criminals and thugs to terrorize our communities by shooting up our streets.

The fourth point is that according to the government, courts from across this country, including appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Canada, are striking down mandatory minimum penalties as being contrary to the charter. For reasons previously described, mandatory minimums introduced by previous Liberal governments have been upheld by various courts for over 40 years.

Five, this is not legislation targeting people charged with simple possession. Bill C-5 would eliminate six mandatory minimums under the CDSA, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These include the very serious offences of trafficking, importing, exporting and production of controlled substances. Drugs such as fentanyl and carfentanil are the most deadly and lethal form of street drugs, and an amount the size of a grain of salt is capable of killing an elephant. These drugs are not serious enough for the government. These are the same drugs that are causing an opioid crisis that results in daily overdoses and deaths. Do these killer criminals deserve mercy from the Liberal government? What has this country become?

Finally, this legislation is supposed to address racism and reduce the over-incarceration of Black Canadians and indigenous offenders.

The Alberta minister of justice, Kaycee Madu, a Black Canadian, noted:

While Ottawa’s new justice bill...contains some reasonable measures, I am deeply concerned about the decision to gut tough sentencing provisions for gun crimes...

Removing tough, mandatory penalties for actual gun crimes undermines the very minority communities that are so often victimized by brazen gun violence. I also find it disingenuous for Ottawa to exploit a genuine issue like systemic racism to push through their soft-on-crime bills.

I have prosecuted in the trenches for close two decades, unlike the Attorney General and members of the Liberal government. I can state on authority that the overriding sentencing consideration associated with the crimes relating to Bill C-5 are denunciation, deterrence and separation from society. In other words, it does not matter one's gender, ethnicity or race. Upon conviction, criminals are going to jail, period. It is time for the government to be honest with Canadians and accept that Bill C-5 will not substantially address the over-incarceration issue.

Throughout the entire time this bill has been debated, I and other colleagues, most notably the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, have argued that there is a compromise for the government to consider. A constitutional exemption to all the charges outlined in the bill would give trial judges the legal authority to exempt criminals from a mandatory minimum penalty if they belong to a vulnerable population that is overrepresented in the criminal justice system and who are disadvantaged with regard to sentencing. This exemption would preserve the mandatory minimum penalties, but give judges the flexibility to craft an appropriate sentence. My amendment to this bill at committee was summarily dismissed by the Liberal chair as outside the scope of the study, which is shameful.

Brantford police chief Rob Davis, the only indigenous leader of a municipal police service in Ontario, testified at committee: “With Bill C-5 and the proposed changes now, we are going to see sentencing become a joke”. He continued, “With...turning sentences into conditional sentences...the justice system is being brought into disrepute. People will operate with impunity and the victims' rights are going to be given away [for] the rights of the criminal.”

Chief Davis also said, “Victims of communities will live in fear of gun violence and fearful of retaliation by armed criminals, and people will continue to overdose”.

The committee also heard from Chief Darren Montour from the Six Nations Police Service, whose testimony was clear. He stated:

...proposed conditional sentences for violent offences will not deter offenders from committing further crimes. We are not in a position to continuously monitor sentenced offenders to ensure their compliance with...restrictions handed down by the courts. Police services across the country, and especially those within indigenous communities, are significantly understaffed. We are continuously asked to do more with less, and we cannot sustain this workload.

He also stated that he can appreciate the statistics regarding the over-incarceration issue, “but along with the rights of offenders, victims and victims' families deserve rights as well.”

Hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast signed the petition on my website, which I recently presented in the House. They called on the government to immediately withdraw Bill C-5. Here is a news release for the Liberal government: Canadians are terrified at the prospect that criminals convicted of sex assault and kidnapping will also enjoy serving that sentence in the comfort of their homes, the very same homes in which they committed their crimes. It is deeply shameful.

The number one priority for the federal government is to keep Canadians safe. The government has been derelict in its responsibility.

I, together with my Conservative caucus members, will always stand on the side of victims and keeping our communities safe by holding criminals accountable for their actions. I will be very strongly voting against this bill, and I encourage all members in the House to do the same.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chiang; thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses and to the minister for being with us today.

I would like to introduce a motion, if I might, at this time, and I want to preface this by saying the following.

This committee has worked extremely well in finding ways to collaborate. When I bring this motion forward, I'm seeking unanimous consent to move the motion. It is in relation to the fact that we have seen a substantial run on the purchase of firearms. This motion is not intended to usurp or replace any of the important debate we need to have on Bill C-21, but I wish to introduce the following motion and will seek unanimous consent from the committee to move it.

The motion reads as follows:

That the committee report the following to the House: That pursuant to section 118(4)(b)(ii) of the Firearms Act (1998), the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has decided not to conduct inquiries or public hearings into the proposed regulations tabled and referred to the committee on May 30, 2022.

The translation and the original motion itself have been circulated to the clerk.

I put this before the committee simply because I believe it's important for us to give unanimous consent to move forward, recognizing how well this committee is working. It really is in response to the alarming run on the purchase of firearms.

I know that a number of members of all parties have raised this issue. I've had discussions with members of the opposition, as well as others, who have expressed their deep and grave concern about this. I put this forward to the committee and seek everyone's collaboration in getting unanimous consent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, according to experts, the increase in cases of gun violence in Montreal in recent years is a new phenomenon. Gang members now appear to be firing multiple shots at buildings and cars to send a message and mark what they claim is their territory.

However, the guns they are using are not covered by Bill C-21. Will the minister admit that the solution to this scourge is about more than just making these guns illegal, as Bill C-21 proposes to do? More importantly, we need to prevent illegal guns from getting into our neighbourhoods.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, serious crime in this country will always carry with it serious consequences. The kinds of situations that we are targeting with this legislation on minimum mandatory penalties are situations where public security and public safety are not at risk. It is being done to attack the systemic overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the criminal justice system.

The kinds of situations that he is describing are being attacked in Bill C-21, and we are raising the maximum penalties.

Public Safety

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share what I heard from the representative of a community that this government claims it wants to help. She says that eliminating these minimum sentences is not only a bad idea masquerading as a good one, but an idea that will further jeopardize the communities this initiative is supposed to protect. That is what we heard from Murielle Chatellier in a parliamentary committee.

On the one hand, the Prime Minister is abolishing mandatory minimum sentences with Bill C‑5; on the other, he does not mention victims of gun violence even once in Bill C‑21.

Why is the Prime Minister so intent on helping criminals rather than victims?

Justice

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken several times with my Quebec counterpart, Minister Guilbault, and we will continue to exchange views on Bill C‑21. Minister Guilbault announced her support for this bill. She said that it was a step in the right direction for the protection of Quebeckers and even all Canadians.

We must start debating this bill so we can implement measures to protect Canadians, and I hope that the Conservatives will now change course.