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.

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—